IDFG comes out swinging. - The Cougar Fund

The following press release from the Director of Idaho Fish and Game illustrates perfectly how easy it has become for public servants to insult non-governmental organizations that disagree with them. Yes, they should be able to correct misinformation in a positive and cordial manner, but the fact that it is ONLY advocates that receive this vitriol is unacceptable. The marginalization of non-consumptive users is as prevalent in the west as sagebrush. Contempt for opinions other than the status quo is rampant from state agencies. They are tasked with caring for wildlife for ALL constituents. Every where to buy valtrex generic aspect of society has its extremes. This may come in the form of exaggerated or even fantasy depredation numbers or unethical hunting practices. Such incidents do not receive anything less than respectful mentions by agency members in the media. Perhaps it is time for the agencies to actually communicate with everyone, whatever their interest. Humans are the only animal that can make the decisions that will conserve our wildlife and wild lands. Let us try and do that TOGETHER.

OP_ED_ Idaho’s Wildlife Professionals To Advocacy Groups_ Stop Crying Wolf (2)

Comment on Facebook

Again, I only see the use of dogs in going after a Rouge animal that has done serious wrong. Being hunted by a pack of dogs is so unfair and disrespectful to such an incredible animal. I think Ranchers should get double or even triple compensation if a Lion or Wolf takes down their livestock. One of one isn't enough. At least they will be happy and not be so hateful towards an Apex animal. I am from New England - we had the Eastern Mountain Lion subspecies. We killed them all off and they have been deemed extinct by Smithsonian. The last one was killed in Maine in 1938. This is why I have such an interest in them and am involved in their conservation. This will always be a hot topic - we shall see how it unfolds.

Just curious... I live in Colorado, and a common refrain you hear from opponents of this measure is that we should not be doing "ballot box biology", and that biology should be left to the biologists. I guess the problem I have with this argument is that all you have to do is read The Ninemile Wolves by Rick Bass or the chapter on "The Predatory Bear" in Dominion of Bears to see that wildlife agencies are frequently politicized, and they themselves have agendas that are not rooted in sound biology (CPW does actually have a decent reputation though). Utah's recent changes to their Mountain Lion hunting rules certainly weren't rooted in biology. When you dig deeper, it seems like a lot of the opposition to these measures has to do with protecting hunting and ranching interests. Ranchers don't want any depredations, and hunters want to be able to kill predators so there are more ungulates for hunters to kill (outfitters obviously have an economic stake in these decisions). I don't mean to demean either group of people... I have eaten plenty of beef in my life, and, while I don't hunt, I understand that it is a part of some people's way of life. But if I were sitting with a fellow Colorado resident who was telling me that the State should not be engaging in "ballot-box biology", what counterargument would you recommend that I make?