idelkhntr
New member
I'd definitely watch which Senator you talk to. I know that Senator Siddoway owns a high-fence, high-priced, Elk operation. Just sayin'
Heads up Idaho hunters
- Thread starter 6speed
- Start date
Siddoway is only listed on 1283. Senator Bert Brackett a rancher from district 23 and also a member of the Senate Resources and Environment Committee has his name on 1282 the only difference in the two being 1282 would allow landowners to sell their tags in exchange for allowing hunting access on some of their land.
Then you add in the constitutional amendments proposed by Senator Lee Header from district 24 and is also a member of... you guessed it the Senate Resources and Environment Committee and we have what could turn in to a real mess at the statehouse.
Then you add in the constitutional amendments proposed by Senator Lee Header from district 24 and is also a member of... you guessed it the Senate Resources and Environment Committee and we have what could turn in to a real mess at the statehouse.
idnative1948
Well-known member
Still waiting on a response from Senator Siddoway. My guess will be a cold day before I do.
Hearing is today on Siddoway's 1283.
http://www.idahostatesman.com/2012/02/10/1988576/3-bills-propose-hunting-changes.html
Hearing is today on Siddoway's 1283.
http://www.idahostatesman.com/2012/02/10/1988576/3-bills-propose-hunting-changes.html
IdahoHombre
New member
I can't get Siddoway to get back to me either. He wants 1283 pushed through. 1282 is definitely the lesser of two evils, and some find it a way around hefty trespass fees. IF&G is for 1282, as it fits in with one of their objectives to make more land available to the public.
The additional Governor's tags are a desperate move to fund a government "business" that can't sustain itself.
The additional Governor's tags are a desperate move to fund a government "business" that can't sustain itself.
Wally Dog
Well-known member
I understand 1282 made it thru the Senate today.
WD
WD
1282 is still listed on the Idaho Legislature site as in committee. They may or may not be up to date however.
The Senate Resources and Environment Committee will be hearing from the experts about sage grouse today. You can listen in by following this link http://www.idahoptv.org/leglive/ and clicking on Resources and Environment under the Senate heading.
The Senate Resources and Environment Committee will be hearing from the experts about sage grouse today. You can listen in by following this link http://www.idahoptv.org/leglive/ and clicking on Resources and Environment under the Senate heading.
And the hits keep rolling in. Here are two new bills headed our way.
S1305
36-1107
(c) 1. Control of Depredation of Wolves. Wolves may be disposed of by livestock or domestic animal owners, their employees, agents and animal damage control personnel when the same are molesting or attacking livestock or domestic animals and it shall not be necessary to obtain any permit from the department.
New additional text
Notwithstanding any other provisions of Idaho law, within thirty-six (36) hours of the livestock or domestic animal being molested or attacked, the owner, their employees and agents, may control the wolf or wolves from a motorized vehicle, including from a powered parachute, helicopter or fixed wing airplane, at any time of day or night, shall be authorized to use any center fire rifle, pistol or shotgun or archery, including crossbow, shall be authorized to use night scopes capable of being mounted on a weapon and artificial lights as well as calls, including electronic calls, and shall be authorized to use traps with any bait, including live bait. In the event a powered parachute, helicopter or fixed wing airplane is used for controlling the wolf or wolves, the owner shall also hold a permit from the Idaho department of agriculture pursuant to the provisions of section 22-102A, Idaho Code.
Notwithstanding any other provisions of Idaho law, in the event USDA-APHIS wildlife services or the Idaho department of fish and game verify a loss, confirmed or probable, of livestock or domestic animals due to wolf depredation, the owner of the livestock or domestic animal that has been killed by a wolf or wolves may obtain a permit from the director authorizing the owner, their employees and agents, to control the wolf or wolves from a motorized vehicle, including from a powered parachute, helicopter or fixed wing airplane, at any time of day or night, shall be authorized to use any center fire rifle, pistol or shotgun or archery, including crossbow, and shall be authorized to use night scopes capable of being mounted on a weapon and artificial lights as well as calls, including electronic calls. Such permit shall be valid for a period of time not to exceed sixty (60) days. The permit shall also authorize the use of traps with any bait, including live bait. In the event a powered parachute, helicopter or fixed wing airplane is used for controlling the wolf or wolves, the owner shall also hold a permit from the Idaho department of agriculture pursuant to the provisions of section 22-102A, Idaho Code. Wolves so taken shall be reported to the director of the department of fish and game within seventy-two (72) hours, with additional reasonable time allowed if access to the site where taken is limited. Wolves so taken shall remain the property of the state.
I'm not a wolf lover by any means but I think live baiting may be a bit overboard.
S1321
"This legislation would direct that funds in the Winter Feeding account be used only for purchasing
blocks, pellets, or hay and requires the Idaho Fish and Game Department to submit a yearly
report to the Idaho Senate Resources and Environment Committee and the House Resources and
Conservation Committee detailing how funds in the feeding account have been expended."
It also adds this little line
New text
The balance of moneys realized from this source, which were not deposited in the feeding account, up to a maximum of two hundred thousand dollars ($200,000), shall
Existing law
be used for the control of depredation of private property by antelope, elk and deer and control of predators affecting antelope, elk and deer.
Looks like some property owners are a bit greedy this legislative session. You never guess who's names are on this bill.
S1305
36-1107
(c) 1. Control of Depredation of Wolves. Wolves may be disposed of by livestock or domestic animal owners, their employees, agents and animal damage control personnel when the same are molesting or attacking livestock or domestic animals and it shall not be necessary to obtain any permit from the department.
New additional text
Notwithstanding any other provisions of Idaho law, within thirty-six (36) hours of the livestock or domestic animal being molested or attacked, the owner, their employees and agents, may control the wolf or wolves from a motorized vehicle, including from a powered parachute, helicopter or fixed wing airplane, at any time of day or night, shall be authorized to use any center fire rifle, pistol or shotgun or archery, including crossbow, shall be authorized to use night scopes capable of being mounted on a weapon and artificial lights as well as calls, including electronic calls, and shall be authorized to use traps with any bait, including live bait. In the event a powered parachute, helicopter or fixed wing airplane is used for controlling the wolf or wolves, the owner shall also hold a permit from the Idaho department of agriculture pursuant to the provisions of section 22-102A, Idaho Code.
Notwithstanding any other provisions of Idaho law, in the event USDA-APHIS wildlife services or the Idaho department of fish and game verify a loss, confirmed or probable, of livestock or domestic animals due to wolf depredation, the owner of the livestock or domestic animal that has been killed by a wolf or wolves may obtain a permit from the director authorizing the owner, their employees and agents, to control the wolf or wolves from a motorized vehicle, including from a powered parachute, helicopter or fixed wing airplane, at any time of day or night, shall be authorized to use any center fire rifle, pistol or shotgun or archery, including crossbow, and shall be authorized to use night scopes capable of being mounted on a weapon and artificial lights as well as calls, including electronic calls. Such permit shall be valid for a period of time not to exceed sixty (60) days. The permit shall also authorize the use of traps with any bait, including live bait. In the event a powered parachute, helicopter or fixed wing airplane is used for controlling the wolf or wolves, the owner shall also hold a permit from the Idaho department of agriculture pursuant to the provisions of section 22-102A, Idaho Code. Wolves so taken shall be reported to the director of the department of fish and game within seventy-two (72) hours, with additional reasonable time allowed if access to the site where taken is limited. Wolves so taken shall remain the property of the state.
I'm not a wolf lover by any means but I think live baiting may be a bit overboard.
S1321
"This legislation would direct that funds in the Winter Feeding account be used only for purchasing
blocks, pellets, or hay and requires the Idaho Fish and Game Department to submit a yearly
report to the Idaho Senate Resources and Environment Committee and the House Resources and
Conservation Committee detailing how funds in the feeding account have been expended."
It also adds this little line
New text
The balance of moneys realized from this source, which were not deposited in the feeding account, up to a maximum of two hundred thousand dollars ($200,000), shall
Existing law
be used for the control of depredation of private property by antelope, elk and deer and control of predators affecting antelope, elk and deer.
Looks like some property owners are a bit greedy this legislative session. You never guess who's names are on this bill.
Last edited:
Just ran across this
http://www.thewildlifenews.com/2012/02/13/idaho-bill-targets-wolves-by-any-means-available/
Looks like they may be getting hit from both sides on this one. I hate to think I'm on the same side of the fence as Eartz and Maughan in fact the idea turns my stomach but it sheds light on how bad this deal really is.
http://www.thewildlifenews.com/2012/02/13/idaho-bill-targets-wolves-by-any-means-available/
Looks like they may be getting hit from both sides on this one. I hate to think I'm on the same side of the fence as Eartz and Maughan in fact the idea turns my stomach but it sheds light on how bad this deal really is.
Word is getting out. Hopefully it will be enough.
http://www.mtexpress.com/index2.php?ID=2005140711
http://www.mtexpress.com/index2.php?ID=2005140711
IdahoHombre
New member
6speed, thanks for the links and updates. I'm with you on the marketing of landowner tags - bad, bad idea. I hope both those bills go down. I wish our legislators would leave well enough alone, but I know there's money involved.
As for the wolf bill, I know I'm in the minority here. I guess I'm just cold-hearted, but I don't see any reason to keep those federally introduced cockroaches around. They are pretty, I know. But I say do away with them. And then in the future, if Idaho's citizens, for whatever wacky reason, really want wolves in our wild, we can borrow a few from Montana.
As for the wolf bill, I know I'm in the minority here. I guess I'm just cold-hearted, but I don't see any reason to keep those federally introduced cockroaches around. They are pretty, I know. But I say do away with them. And then in the future, if Idaho's citizens, for whatever wacky reason, really want wolves in our wild, we can borrow a few from Montana.
6speed, thanks for the links and updates. I'm with you on the marketing of landowner tags - bad, bad idea. I hope both those bills go down. I wish our legislators would leave well enough alone, but I know there's money involved.
As for the wolf bill, I know I'm in the minority here. I guess I'm just cold-hearted, but I don't see any reason to keep those federally introduced cockroaches around. They are pretty, I know. But I say do away with them. And then in the future, if Idaho's citizens, for whatever wacky reason, really want wolves in our wild, we can borrow a few from Montana.
I've got numerous issues with the wolf bill, but my biggest is probably the impression it would give the federal government and the animal rights people. My understanding is that the delisting in Idaho (and Montana) is under some federal review for a few years. Allowing ranchers to try and track down depredating wolves with aircraft isn't gonna be looked at too friendly I would guess.
IdahoHombre
New member
I know, I know. I just think the climate is right for bucking the Federal Government right now. If this new bill eventually caused the F&WS to take action to take control away from Idaho's management of wolves right now, I very well think that the State of Idaho would tell them to get lost. They've already done it with Obamacare. If one state told the feds to stick a stick in their ESA, and didn't back down, you may well see other states following suit.
I appreciate the "reasonable" approach. I could be dead wrong. I'm just willing to support seeing how a more "wild west" hand might play out.
I appreciate the "reasonable" approach. I could be dead wrong. I'm just willing to support seeing how a more "wild west" hand might play out.
There is way to much federal funding at stake to "buck" the federal government. It won't happen. If this bill passes a federal review of our wolf management plan may happen. That was acknowledged by one of the very senators who then voted to pass it to the floor. I'm all for killing the critters but I'm not willing to gamble my ability to buy a wolf tag, two actually, so a livestock owner can hunt them using aircraft and live bait. The fact that the new texts begins by saying "Notwithstanding any other provisions of Idaho law" also gives me great concern.
It will play out like Wyoming: 10 years of pissing in the wind, only to be dragged across the finish line by States who did the right thing.
Idaho can't tell the Fed to get lost legally, even on ESA issues. There's a ton of case law out there that backs up the constitutionality of the Federal-State interaction, specifically to the ESA.
IdahoHombre
New member
1. Yes, there is too much federal money coming in, and it would be hypocritical to take money with one hand, and tell the feds to back off with the other. It wouldn't be the first time it has happened though. And there are legal ways (at least sort of legal) to tell the feds to back off. It's called nullification. But Ben, you might be right - no chance of the courts upholding a state's challenge to the ESA. Thanks for the case you posted above.
2. It might play out like Wyoming, but I doubt it. We're further along in the story now. If FWS attempted to take over wolf management in Idaho again, I think it would be fought by the state at some level. AND, I do think the FWS would be very, very reluctant to do so anyways in the current political climate.
3. By "current political climate" I mean more than a growing sentiment of us backwoods hicks here in Idaho who will have no shuck with a federal agent of any stripe. I mean the Dept. of Interior's own walking on thin ice. If money is taken away from a department, either intentionally or because they just flat ran out, it is entirely possible that laws could sit on the books with no resources to enforce them. That happens from time to time, at least at the state level.
4. This bill has passed committee BTW
2. It might play out like Wyoming, but I doubt it. We're further along in the story now. If FWS attempted to take over wolf management in Idaho again, I think it would be fought by the state at some level. AND, I do think the FWS would be very, very reluctant to do so anyways in the current political climate.
3. By "current political climate" I mean more than a growing sentiment of us backwoods hicks here in Idaho who will have no shuck with a federal agent of any stripe. I mean the Dept. of Interior's own walking on thin ice. If money is taken away from a department, either intentionally or because they just flat ran out, it is entirely possible that laws could sit on the books with no resources to enforce them. That happens from time to time, at least at the state level.
4. This bill has passed committee BTW
Nullification is unconstitutional, according to the Attorney General of Idaho: http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2011/01/27/141102/idaho-ag-nullification/
We faced a number of nullification bills - all were defeated. All were unconstitutional.
What will happen is this: Bad wolf bills get passed, Western Watersheds filed a petition to review the state plan, which now has no legal justification or peer review, and wolves, legally, based on the law, wolves could reasonably be expected to be relisted in Idaho and Montana, nullifying the Simpson/Tester delisting rule.
We faced a number of nullification bills - all were defeated. All were unconstitutional.
What will happen is this: Bad wolf bills get passed, Western Watersheds filed a petition to review the state plan, which now has no legal justification or peer review, and wolves, legally, based on the law, wolves could reasonably be expected to be relisted in Idaho and Montana, nullifying the Simpson/Tester delisting rule.
IdahoHombre
New member
I did qualify "nullifications" as being "sort of legal!"
You are right about the courts. But I can foresee a circumstance where the federal government mandate to the states gets nullified practically with a state simply refusing to implement/enforce/fund etc. Time will tell.
I am saying that even if WW and the courts do their dance, and FWS get their way with taking over wolf management, FWS might not be able or willing to do it. In other words, if wolves get re-listed, and FWS doesn't enforce it, you can sure bet Idaho won't either (we've been down that road). Then what do you think will happen to the wolves?
I think the possibility of FWS not enforcing the ESA in regard to wolves in Idaho, even if the wolves are re-listed, is a real possibility. (more so than the possibility of any nullification, my Jeffersonian dream) And I'm talking about on-the-ground oversight and enforcement.
Interior's budget is being scrutinized anyway... BUT it is within the realm of possibility (low odds, I'll admit) that with just the right new President next November, he could leave the laws sit idle on the books, and tell every employee of the Dept. of Interior not to show up to work on Monday.
If that happens, then I'll really have fun reading ThinkProgress!
You are right about the courts. But I can foresee a circumstance where the federal government mandate to the states gets nullified practically with a state simply refusing to implement/enforce/fund etc. Time will tell.
I am saying that even if WW and the courts do their dance, and FWS get their way with taking over wolf management, FWS might not be able or willing to do it. In other words, if wolves get re-listed, and FWS doesn't enforce it, you can sure bet Idaho won't either (we've been down that road). Then what do you think will happen to the wolves?
I think the possibility of FWS not enforcing the ESA in regard to wolves in Idaho, even if the wolves are re-listed, is a real possibility. (more so than the possibility of any nullification, my Jeffersonian dream) And I'm talking about on-the-ground oversight and enforcement.
Interior's budget is being scrutinized anyway... BUT it is within the realm of possibility (low odds, I'll admit) that with just the right new President next November, he could leave the laws sit idle on the books, and tell every employee of the Dept. of Interior not to show up to work on Monday.
If that happens, then I'll really have fun reading ThinkProgress!
Similar threads
