Idaho's first wolf tag fetches $8,000 at auction

[ccharles000]

BOISE, Idaho — State wildlife officials say the first wolf hunting tag ever printed in the state has sold for $8,000 to the highest bidder.

The high bid came from North Carolina resident Jonny Morris, the founder of Bass Pro Shops. Morris bought Wolf Tag No. 1 last week in an auction sponsored by the Congressional Sportsmen Foundation. Morris says he will give it to his son, who is planning to hunt in Idaho later this year.

The auction is one of six held by nonprofit groups around the nation to help raise money for wolf conservation. The special tags are good for bagging one wolf, but also commemorate the first public wolf hunt in Idaho history.

Tag No. 3 went for $1,700 at an event hosted by the Mule Deer Foundation, while tag No. 5 sold for just $350 at the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation auction.

http://www.idahostatesman.com/newsupdates/story/942042.html

[slackmaster]

1. Jeez, someone who really wants to shoot a dog could save a lot of money by going after a stray

:argh:

[cliffordu]

37. Beat me to it.

Those men are cowards.

[thenooch]

43. this isn't the 1st wolf tag....

I met the moran that killed the 1st Idaho wolf at the Lochsa Lodge back in September...I asked him how he was going to cook it? What part tastes best? he said "just gonna make a rug". I didn't press the issue as he had guns and I'm a hippie with a VW Bus...

http://www.missoulian.com/news/state-and-regional/article_14e17656-9748-11de-80d8-001cc4c03286.html

ETA: warning...link has picture of the dead wolf

[rucky]

2. Bass Pro Shops is a guilty pleasure of mine.

If I'm ever near one, I have to stop in.

[truebrit71]

18. Up until I read this story it was mine too...No longer though...

:grr:

[rucky]

22. It was for a Wolf conservation charity.

though I admit I'm not sure what they mean by "conservation".

[truebrit71]

24. I know of no recognized conservation society that advocates killing that which it seeks..

...to "conserve"?

I call bullshit.

[T Wolf]

3. "...raise money for wolf conservation" by slaughtering wolves. That makes a lot of sense.

If they do a good enough job, they won't have to bother next time because there won't be any wolves left "to conserve."

Only surprise is why Sarah Palin didn't get the first one as a rtestament to her "conservation" efforts.

Just disgusting!

[SteelPenguin]

5. It makes a ton of sense actually

Read up on wildlife conservation. If the population is too small or endangered they don't sell any tags, the tags themselves have strict limits, and it's used in a variety of populations from wolves, to elk, to bear, all across this country in order to keep populations managed. And selling these tags, like selling small game licenses, or fishing licenses, supports the Department of Natural Resources, or whatever the local equivalent is in that state, which is used to purchase and manage forests and wild land, as well as the populations within, not only with hunting, but many other methods to keep the local wildlife strong and healthy, and protect and keep the land clean.

[vadawg]

7. i think a lot of the antis dont get the fact that if it wasnt for hunting/fishing permits

the DNR's would have no funding, people forget its the fisherman and the hunter who want to keep populations healthy and wilderness areas and rivers clean. An organisation like ducks unlimited has a lot of political clout when it comes to protecting wetlands etc etc

[SteelPenguin]

9. Hunters and Fisherman tend to be strong Environmentalists

At least all the ones I've known, even the politically conservative ones. Nobody cares about clean streams and rivers more than the Fishermen I know. Nobody cares about maintaining the forests, and the animal populations in a healthy balance like the Hunters I know.

DNR's and Game Commissions were started for this purpose. Heck the PA Game Commission is the reason we have Deer in this state. People complain about the deer population now, but they were hunted completely out. The state had NO deer. The Game Commission was partially formed to reintroduce the white tail deer, and keep it at healthy levels. To purchase land, to keep it pristine. yes they use hunting as a method of maintaining animal populations, and they ENJOY hunting, but an equal concern for most hunters is to keep the forests and animal herds strong and healthy. Otherwise there'd be no more hunting, because the animals would all be gone.

[Xithras]

17. Yep. Most wildlife conservation in this country is funded by hunters.

An environmentalist hunter is NOT an oxymoron, despite the stupid stereotypes. Hunting and fishing tags fund most government run wildlife conservation projects in this country, and it's the rare hunter who complains about it. Hunters understand that the sport can only survive if there is an intact, healthy ecosystem for the animals to live in.

You mentioned Ducks Unlimited. I'm actually a member of Trout Unlimited, which started out as a fishing advocacy group but has today morphed into one of the largest watershed protection groups in the nation, not only arguing loudly in Washington and the state capitols for the protections of streams, rivers, and wetlands, but also organizing cleanup trips to haul trash out of the water and educational outings to connect the next generation of budding environmentalists to our waterways and rivers. We're IN THE WATER. We eat the fish out of the water. We hike along the water to get to our favorite fishing spots. To us, protecting the environment is personal.

Same story with hunters, I'd guess (I hunted long ago, but gave it up when my kids came along and development overran my favorite bird hunting spots).

[joeybee12]

25. You're assuming the wolf population is too big...it isn't...

...they're going to be depleting a population that hasn't yet recovered.

Idaho and conservation can't go in the same sentence.

[SteelPenguin]

29. They're maintaining the 2007 numbers

http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/cms/wildlife/wolves/

They've found the wolf to have recovered enough to have limited tags issued to help support the process. If the population were to dip, not tags would be issued.

[joeybee12]

32. No, they haven't recovered....

...that's just bad science and political gamemaship from a agency that basically caters to hunters...maybe in 5-10 more years, but now it's just bloodlust, nothing more. It's ridiculous to think that a species that was re--introduced only a dozen years ago is thriving...stupid, stupid, stupid.

[SteelPenguin]

35. Do you have a source on that?

U.S. Fish and Wildlife as well as the Idaho Fish and Game who actually study the wolf numbers and up to this point have been explicitly protecting the wolves to help grow their population, say that they want to stabilize the numbers so they don't grow anymore.

Do you have a source that says otherwise?

[truebrit71]

44. US Fish and Wildlfie removed the protections at the request of the Bush admin. NOT on any science..

..or are you saying that we should just trust the former administration when it comes to being guardians of the environment?

[SteelPenguin]

48. A decision supported by the current administration

They reviewed it like they reviewed everything Bush did in the last hours, and Interior Secretary Ken Salazar upheld the decision in March.

Are you saying we shouldn't trust the current administration, or any of it's scientists, either?

[truebrit71]

50. This administration also wants to re-authorize the patriot act, will not investigate war crimes,

is allowing drilling in the arctic and in many other instances is carrying on the same policies as their predecessors..You are goddamned right i don't trust them...

Salazar is a rancher and is quite possibly the WORST pick for interior secretary since James Watt..

[winyanstaz]

54. I have to agree with you on this...

[The Straight Story]

6. Some folks feel the same about having too many humans on the planet

Let a bunch die out from disease, forced abortions, general population control - so the rest of us can live better.

[vadawg]

13. start selling tags to kill off humans at $8000 a pop and it will be a money maker

think of all the cash that would raise, and im sure the people who want to reduce the population drastically would be the first to volunteer and mayby even pick up the tag price so someone could hunt them as they wander the woods in their jammies...

[The Straight Story]

20. Problem is, the same people probably don't own guns or other weapons

So they would have a hard time hunting others who did ;)

[vadawg]

23. that my friend would be called natural selection, :)

kinda like the squirrel who hid his nuts for winter, time to dig up those rifles and start the great hunt....

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

8. Hunters are a prime benefactor to wildlife conservation funds everywhere.

Overlooking the benefits of population control, hunters provide state Departments of Wildlife with funds to do thier job.

If wolf overpopulation is beginning to become a problem somewhere, issuing hunting tags could be a HUGE source of revenue versus general culling techniques employed (at no gain to wildlife funds). Ecologists and other wildlife officials will determine what the populations of game animals should be to maintain a healthy natural balance of wildlife & habitat resources and issue correct amount of game tags to achieve balance. Hunters are literally paying wildlife groups to do the grunt work for them. Issuing hunting tags is a win situation for everyone: Hunters can take game legally, the animal population is kept in check raising habitat quality of life, and the wildlife foundations receive more funding.

Think of it as regulation to preserve the natural habitat - no different philosophically than governments regulating economies.

[joeycola]

11. Good conservation plans for managing wolf populations benefit

wolf populations as well as us folks.

[truebrit71]

19. ..and hunting them ain't one of them...

..

[vadawg]

21. no its better to let their numbers grow and hope that vehicles hitting them on highways thins the

numbers. dont people realise that without management the numbers of all the game and predator animals could go crazy either way, too many deer, too many predators, then sickness and starvation for both, culling the numbers is what maintains a balance...

[truebrit71]

26. Yeah, that's been a real big problem...

..:eyes:

Come back to me when you know what you are talking about...The wolf numbers in the wild are NOWHERE near the levels that would require even the hint of culling them...

[vadawg]

31. not according to the state DNR, i also seem to recall the same argument being made about

white tailed deer in some counties until they started getting spattered all over the fronts of lexus and mercedes. I think i will go with what the local DNR think rather than some activists on the internet...

[joeybee12]

33. +1,000,000,000

But why bother...the bloodlust from the gun nuts here makes them blind to reason and science.

[vadawg]

36. and the hug a dug people are ignoring what the people on the ground think

and ignoring the experts in the DNR who want to have 50 pairs of wolves, but i guess people on the internet always know best...

[SteelPenguin]

39. I've read the actual report

It seems pretty balanced to me. They seem very concerned about maintaining a healthy wolf population, just one that doesn't spiral out of control feeding on cattle and destroying the local economy, losing all support for actual wildlife conservation.

Basically either they maintain a healthy, but small, wolf population, or the cattle ranchers will go hog wild killing them legal or not to protect their own jobs and families. Seems to me like the Idaho Fish and Game is doing the right thing.

I've yet to hear an actual argument against this, other than "all you hunters are bloodthirsty monsters."

[truebrit71]

40. No actual scientists do, not state employees that want the hunting of wolves to continue...

...read up on it a little..you are sounding foolish..

[vadawg]

41. lol sources or is this the infamous internet scientists that know all but never answer any

[truebrit71]

42. LOL read up on it or continue to sound foolish..

..

[vadawg]

46. i have, i read the dnr report, whats your source...

[truebrit71]

49. You realize that they WANT to kill the wolves right?

Not exactly a balanced source. The entire de-listing of the Gray Wolf by Ken Salazar and his band of ranchers is currently being challenged in court due to the almost total lack of scientifc evidence that they know what the hell they are talking about. For further information please visit the NRDC and EarthJustice.

[vadawg]

51. lol so i shouldnt believe them because they want to kill the wolves but i should believe

the people who dont want to kill the wolves, i dont think your sources are exactly balanced either do you, tell you what let the ranchers etc kill wolves as and when they come apon them disturning their cattle or do you want it to be no wolves die ever, and why just wolves why not rabbits, or voles or any other animal...

[truebrit71]

52. LOL...one is group is backed up by science, the other by politics and greed..

...Yeah, MY source is unbalanced...:eyes:

[vadawg]

53. yeah right i think your source is unbalanced, i think they would skew the figures in a heartbeat

in order to stop any wolf from being shot, not that i begrudge them that or that i dont understand them, but i will go with the DNR peopleon this one regardless, as i said i dont like wolves but as they are many miles from me i dont have a dog in the fight so to speak, so good luck....

[LanternWaste]

55. Says a person on the internet...

Says a person on the internet...

[SteelPenguin]

38. So they should be left to breed as large as they can?

What should the population be for wolves in Idaho be, how many breeding pairs, and where are you getting your information from?

Should the wolves be allowed to breed so large that all they do is prey on the local cattle? Already most of their killings, legal and illegal, come from ranchers protecting their cattle, many directly while the wolves are actually attacking their cattle.

Why should the government do nothing to keep the wolf population stable, and tell the ranchers to fend for themselves, or even punish them for killing wolves attacking their cattle?

Idaho Fish and Game is trying to maintain a healthy population of wolves as part of the local ecosystem without it hurting human activities and the local economy too much. Why is that wrong?

[SteelPenguin]

27. And maybe some years there will be no tags

They have a specific plan to maintain the 50+ breeding pairs and overall population numbers that they had in 2007. They don't want it to grow too much larger as it'll really start to threaten local people and ranchers, but it's at a viable number now, so they'll have restrictive tags to help manage the population to make sure that it stabilizes and doesn't threaten the local ecosystem or economy. If the number drops down again, legal tags won't be issued. It's all about maintaining a healthy stable population.

Of course I've actually taken the time to read the plan at http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/cms/wildlife/wolves/ but I'm sure that doesn't matter to people who just want to knee jerk think that hunting is all just about mindless bloodthirsty hunters.

[truebrit71]

30. Bullshit.

But thanks for playing. The wolves are nowhere close to a viable number.

[SteelPenguin]

34. Source?

According to both U.S. Fish and Wildlife as well as Idaho Fish and Game they are at viable numbers. Could they be larger? Sure but then they'd interfere more with Human activities (read they'd attack more cattle).

The numbers are plenty viable now according to the experts as far as a healthy population, but not so large as to overly impact human activities, which is why they're attempting to maintain the 2007 population level.

http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/cms/wildlife/wolves/

http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/cms/wildlife/wolves/manage/PopManagePlan.pdf

[Warpy]

4. Trophy hunting SUCKS

and there is no other reason to kill a wolf.

Wolves are the only proven way to keep the coyote population in check and trust me, coyotes are much worse.

[T Wolf]

10. Those defending the slaughter of animals simply repeat the same lies over and over again.

The truth is that...

1) "outdoorsmen" are only interested in preserving the environment so they can go out and kill animals. they care nothing for nature except that it provides them targets for their bloodlust.

2) nature got along just fine before we humans started to interfere. It is we who fuck things up by our mere presence. Left alone, Mother Nature will take care of things in her own way. A much better way than we come up with.

[SteelPenguin]

14. Sorry, you're wrong

1) I'm an "outdoorsman" if by that you mean I hunt and fish. My interest in preserving the environment is personal, but it starts with desiring a healthy and clean unpolluted environment for not only myself by my children, and someday my grandchildren. It sickens me to go to a stream somewhere where the water itself will stain your skin it's so polluted. I also want healthy forests and animal populations for their own sakes. My license fees help protect both the animals of the state, to keep them healthy, and the populations balanced. Without it they overpopulate, get sick, wander too far afield looking for food and end up in highways, backyards, etc. Plus keeping the forests healthy and vibrant and plentiful gives more places to go with my kids to actually experience nature. AFTER all that stuff, I enjoy the sport of certain hunts, and taking part in the process. To say that "we" are only interested in our bloodlust, shows incredible ignorance on your part.

2) Nature sure did get along fine, and we do fuck things up with our presence, and guess what...people are here. The Game Comissions and DNR are there to regulate that so that what happened a hundred years ago doesn't happen again. How do you propose to leave it alone? Let the deer overpopulate, starve, get diseases, spread diseases, spread out past their normal grounds into dangerous areas for them, and for you? Same thing with other populations. We fucked things up long ago, and we're a necessary part of the process now to keep it in balance. to think that #1 we could just step back and everything would be fine is highly ignorant again, and #2 that without licenseing and tags or any kind of regulation of the matter, to think that a few truly bloodthirsty people wouldn't overhunt and destroy the environment is again ignorant.

[vadawg]

15. okay i take it then that you never interact with nature, if you so much as even walk on the grass

then you are a hypocrite unless you believe that you know better than everyone else...

[NNN0LHI]

12. Some folks have more money than brains

[vadawg]

16. maybe but it will soon be they have less money, same brains and a trophy that they can keep

not sure if they will eat the meat though im sure someone will....

[EFerrari]

28. No kidding.

[KamaAina]

45. Isn't Sarah Palin from Idaho originally?

BLAM! BLAM! BLAM!

:sarcasm:

[Sinti]

47. I apologize on behalf of Idaho

The stupid is strong here.
:cry:
I actually think this may have come about in large measure in response to the number of Idahoans living up on the mountain that would hunt and "gut shoot" the wolves (and let them run off to die slowly) so they weren't likely to be found guilty of killing an endangered species. This way it gets done under the auspices of being "legal" and most probably somewhat early in the regrowth of the wolf populations. As you can see everywhere around here "Protect Wildlife, Kill Wolves," seems to be the current mantra.

updated to add second paragraph :p