BigGameHoundsmen.com

Hyde, that is exactly what we need, people to take action, thank you. Letters and phone calls to commissioners and F&G biologists, petitions, what ever it takes to let them know we need some help.
Several hundred people have read this thread now. How many from ID have made a call, sent a letter, or attended a meeting?

It is a bit amusing to me to compare Idaho to other states and provinces that limit predator harvest. Take British Columbia for example, and you BC guys correct me if I'm wrong, but I think you can only take a bear if it is 3 or older. I'm not sure about you guys, but I can only be sure a bear is 3 if it has some size to it which probably limits the harvest of young bears and females significantly. Idaho=any bear will do.

The problem is there are too many people with dogs which perpetuates when everyone has to fill every tag in their pocket. If you only find a track every couple weeks and you have to fill your tag, the first lion to climb dies. I also hate male quotas, I will only harvest a lion (which I never have done) if it is over 140-150. But I'll be pissed if we put a male quota in and it gets filled in a week by 80-120 pounders only for me to catch a nice one the next week.

So what do we in Idaho need to do? No female harvest? Male and female quotas? No cutting tracks before daylight? Push to do a population study so we can baseline it? It doesn't look good when none of the quotas have been met...

I'm fine with writing a letter or raising hell, but we should all be working towards a common goal.

Tracey, us "old farts" still have many, many contacts left from the many battles we have fought in this State over the years. Has I said earlier, we were once the smallest, yet one of the most influential and powerful user groups in the State. But unfortunately, times change. The battle to save our hunting during the bear initiative was so intense and demanding it caused many of us to just "kick back" and hope you younger guys picked up the fight. But many of us are still here and I have little doubt, very much willing to help.

May I make one more suggestion. It's great to use the legislative process with Senators, Congressman, and even good ol' Butch. He's fought side by side with us on several occasions too. It's great to use the F&G Commissioners. One positions is open for nominations now. I believe 5 F&G officials and 2 out of Stater's are nominated. Working with those guys/gals create allies and you never know when a good Allie will be needed.

But you have one of the best tools already and I haven't heard it mentioned being used. That's the State Club's already in place. I know now it seems they are only for providing Field and Water Trials for a few to enjoy. But they were created to fight for the Houndsmans Rights and the Sports that we have betterment. Isn't it about time those are once again used to promote a unified response for this issue. In the "ol" days, each club would bring forth their suggestions on the issues they felt need to be addressed. Then the ISDA would take each of the Clubs suggestions to the other Clubs. Quite often the Presidents and Officers of each Club would working together on a issue, and would be doing this for the ISDA. Then a consensus would be reached and a "battle plan" could then be formed and put in action has a unified group. The voice of a Unified Organization representing 100's of members demanding action will always overwhelm 100's of single voices asking for help.

These Internet Site are great tools we've never had in the past. Has we are using them now is a great example. But consensus on what should and can be done to address a issue is impossible to obtain on them. The reason is simple, this is far to big of a State, with multiple ways of hunting styles, terrain and techniques used, to ever come to a agreement on them. Only each area coming up with their own individual solutions, then combining them together for a unified solution will bring this State together to protect and enhance our sports and hunting. It's always worked and succeeded in the past. If used now, for this, I have little doubt a proven asset will let us down. JMO!!!

imchestnut, I missed your great post. Has you pointed out many place have size restriction in place now. Many of the Eastern States are good examples too. Many other big game, hunting and fishing species have them here in Idaho now. Sooner of later it will come down to three choices. A draw, a lowered season or a size limitation. It is a issue that is about every where. Obviously the quotes have limitations. Too many people enjoying a limited resource. The question then comes down to which solution offers us the greatest opportunity to keep hunting our dogs. That only leaves size restrictions.

Has when the pursuit season were first put in place, I know many will oppose any acts of "self policing". The pursuit seasons were first started when they wished to close the bear hunting season in July and part of June. Many thought it was wrong to "fold" into loosing the right to fill a legal tag purchased with hard earned money. I have little doubt this will get the same reply from many. But look at what you ultimately will face before you personally "pull the trigger" with any type of action, in the field or legislatively.

I'm tried of 5 or 6 resident that don't even own hounds. Checking every canyon before day light then sneeking nonresidents in to run lions for them to kill. There getting bolder every year. We are pushing for this change in the regulations.

Dear Idaho Fish & Game,
We the undersigned are writing you this day concerning the difficulty of “handcuffed” officers being able to enforce vague & unenforceable laws. Due to this issue there has been a great increase of illegal activity of non-resident and resident hunters. We feel this blatant disregard of these individuals are not only an embarrassment to the Idaho Department of Fish & Game whose hands are tied regarding such enforcement but an injustice to those who love and respect this great state and the wildlife which resides here. Therefore we propose you consider some changes regarding the wording of the Big Game Proclamation. We believe if the changes listed below were to be implemented it would not only make the laws more enforceable but would be a huge step in cleaning up a lot of the illegal activity which has been taking place.
1-ALL members of the hunting party must have a valid hound hunter permit (including residents).
2-Residents &Nonresidents must have a valid hound hunter permit to bring hounds into Idaho for anyone to use in their hunt and must have permit to be present in any process of the hunt and also when accompanying any person or persons that are in the act of
a: transporting hounds
b: searching for tracks
c: in active pursuit of game with hounds
d: present at treed game
e: in search of lost hounds
Therefore hounds should not be leased or borrowed legally.
3-Also in order to encourage a strong family hunting heritage, vital to our sport we would like to see a nonresident “Second Degree of Kindred” available for purchase as a two day permit once a year.
a: this must be purchased at Regional Office
b: with a list of all persons which are going to be present
c: must inform of general area to be hunted
d: no game may be harvested by ANY persons in party
while permit is valid.
e: nonresident “Second Degree of Kindred” may not OWN or TRANSPORT hounds used.
Nonresident “Second Degree of Kindred” would include: father, mother, brother, sister, son, daughter, grandparent, grandchild, spouse, and respecting in-laws of immediate family.
Again we wish to impress upon you that we are not alone in this effort. There are a lot of honest houndsman that have had enough of these dishonest activities taking place. Therefore please do something to make these laws enforceable.
Thank You,
Mark Stone & Jeff Bingham
We would also like to encourage the support & involvement of all hunters towards their local IDFG Dept. in protecting & promoting our hunting rights.

Great post Dennis! One thing that I haven't heard mentioned, and some of you might not know, is that the F&G director is retiring next month. Thank God. Anyhow, I'm crossing my fingers of an opportunity for some better leadership. I have heard of some of the applicants, and I know of one that I don't want for sure! Anyhow, maybe we'll land someone who is willing to listen.

Dennis, who is on the Board of Directors of the ISDA at this time?

thanks/

Hounddude,
Basically what I'm getting out of that is I would not be able to bring my wife hunting with me with out that little special permit or anyone else I wanna show our great sport to. I think your going about it all wrong. If you get the female quotas lowered that's what will save cat populations. Don't forget that boot hunters actually take quite a few cats which are generally female cats. I will not support anything that makes it more difficult to take my family hunting.

Hounddude I for one would not support that . And do not know many others that would support it either .. But there is a problem and atleast you are trying to come up with something.

This is a sport that we should be able to share with Family friends and general public and that letter and it's contents would In my opinion be just another thread in shutting down our sport. When at this time we need to bring others in to see what we do it would shut many out . It sounds good at first but again to restrictive.

Here's the newsletter Plotts. And keep the suggestion coming. All of them get us to thinking what is best, good,bad or indifferent.

One thing you should remember of the F&G is that many of that Department are still very much tied to the Idaho Conservation League, a major supporter of the wolves reintroduction. Look at asking them for help independently from that aspect. Then maybe your understand my harping on using the Clubs to unify and their numbers for "power". A strong defense is often described has first having a good offense. Solving this problem ourselves before going to the F&G, or even "Uncle Butch" would be taking the offensive position in this. Asking for help without a solution is the last defense you can use, your basically begging them to impose their will on us to address OUR problem. Once Again, JMO!!!


IDAHO FISH AND GAME
HEADQUARTERS NEWS RELEASE
Boise, ID

Date: March 4, 2011
Contact: Ed Mitchell
(208) 334-3700


fish and game commission announces director candidates

The Idaho Fish and Game Commission is pleased to announce six candidates for the position of director of the Idaho Department of Fish and Game.

Commissioners will interview each candidate during March and make an appointment by the end of the month to replace Director Cal Groen, who is retiring.

The six individuals have executive level experience in conservation and wildlife management and have demonstrated competencies that are relevant to the wildlife management needs of the State of Idaho.

Steve Ferrell: Recently held the position of director for Wyoming Game and Fish Department and currently works as a policy advisor in the Wyoming Governor's Office. Ferrell has worked in wildlife management for 36 years, holding the position of director in Wyoming from 2008 to 2011. Before moving to Wyoming, Ferrell had a long and varied career with Arizona Fish and Game, reaching the position of deputy director before departing for Wyoming. Ferrell holds a Bachelor of Science degree in wildlife ecology from the University of Arizona.

Sharon Kiefer: Assistant director of policy for the Idaho Department of Fish and Game. Kiefer has worked in wildlife management for 26 years and has worked within Idaho Fish and Game for 24 of those years, holding various management positions including inter-governmental policy coordinator and anadromous fishery manager. Kiefer holds a Bachelor of Science degree from Stephen F. Austin University and a Master of Science degree from Texas State University.

Virgil Moore: Deputy director for the Idaho Department of Fish and Game over field operations. Moore has 34 years of experience in wildlife management and before taking his current position in 2007, worked as the director for the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. Moore has held numerous executive management positions within Idaho Fish and Game including fisheries bureau chief, information and education bureau chief and various management positions within the fisheries bureau. Moore holds a Bachelor of Science degree in biology and education from Northwest Missouri State University and a Master of Science degree in zoology from Idaho State University.

Michael Senn: Assistant director of wildlife management for Arizona Game and Fish Department. Senn has been employed with the Arizona Game and Fish Department for nearly 23 years, with 11 of those years in executive level management positions including nine years as the assistant director over field operations. Senn holds a Bachelor of Science degree in wildlife management from Arizona State University and has been an Arizona certified peace officer for 21 years.

Edward Schriever: Fisheries bureau chief for the Idaho Department of Fish and Game. Schriever has 27 years of experience with the Idaho Department of Fish and Game holding various management positions including regional fisheries manager and regional fisheries biologist. Schriever holds a Bachelor of Science degree in fisheries science from Oregon State University.

James Unsworth: Deputy director for the Idaho Department of Fish and Game over Programs. Unsworth has 32 years in wildlife management and before his current appointment which he has held since 2008. Unsworth held several management level positions for the Idaho Department of Fish and Game including wildlife bureau chief and state big game manager. Unsworth holds a Bachelor of Science degree in wildlife management from University of Idaho, a Master of Science degree in fish and wildlife management from Montana State University and a doctor of philosophy degree in forestry, wildlife and range sciences from University of Idaho.

I have read all of these posts and everyone is right, here in SE Idaho the lion population has suffered tremendesly, and needs the quota cut in half at least. I was just out in my area yesterday and one thing that is giving these lions a horrible name are cyotes. I found two fresh cyote kills in the same canyon (guts still in them) and at least 3 more that still had meat on them. When spring comes everyone is gonna go for a ride in the mountains or go horn hunting and see these deer kills and assume that lions done it. This problem has gotten out of control in my opinion and there is no easy way of stoping it, you mix wolves in the bunch and there isnt going to be any hunting in 15 years.

I agree that we have fewer lions today than we did. Do we blame other houndsmen or do we get to the truth?

1997 – Total number of lions harvested 797 (56% male / 44% female)

1997 – 2008 – Steady decrease in the number of lions harvested

2008 – Total number of lions harvested 416 (55% male / 45% female)

This information is directly from the IDFG website.

That is a 48% decrease in harvest, with quotas being increased in all areas.

Do you remember what was introduced in Idaho in 1996? Wolves and Mountain Lions are both predators, after the same prey species in most respects. One of them has protection, one of them doesn’t. It doesn’t get much simpler than that.

Before we all condemn each other and try to place restrictions on ourselves, why don’t we determine what the real cause is behind the decrease in the lion population.

Like I mentioned above, I completely agree that we have fewer lions than we did 10-15 years ago. And I too, would love to see it like the ‘good old days.’ Just be careful blaming the same guys that you will want on your side when the time to fight comes. If we blame the lion population decrease on “we the houndsmen” we are defeating our own agenda.

IDAHO – you are absolutely correct when you wrote that the IDFG should focus on populations (biology) and not the $$. Good luck with that agenda however, money is all they have managed for since I was old enough to buy a hunting license. Why do you think they are still boasting at how our elk herd is doing and trying to attract out of state license dollars? Like all government agencies they are only concerned with job preservation, and that takes $$.

HYDE – You are also correct. Outfitters, (some not all) are pretty good at the whack and stack method when it comes to lions. But here again, $$ is involved. With the decrease in non-resident clients, which is related to both the economy and the wolf situation, they are trying to make a living with what they have left. I don’t agree with it, but how do you change it? Lowering quotas is the only way.

However, don’t forget, “we the houndsmen” didn’t ask for our state to have 1500+ wolves dumped on us.

Mikes Hero, I think you make a pretty good point in that wolves have made a dent. I think maybe possibly the best option would be a draw. I would like a study done to show cat densities, and also harvest data on ages of the cats.
Hounddude congrats for trying to plan but i wont support most of those. Many people just want to see a mountain lion in the wild, how can you tell them they have to buy a permit to see a cat, pretty selfish in my opinion. Also looking for tracks, so anyone who is riding their snowmobile and sees a cat track can be written up? Also in search of lost hounds... i dont know about you but anyone that helps me find a dog is appreciated. Also would people be afraid to tell you about a lost dog because of fear of being written up. Also second degree of kindred, so i can't take my cousin, or best friend who wants to see a lion. I think not. I strongly disagree with you. Seems you have a personal issue.

Mikes Hero, I agree that lowering the female quota is the only way, and your statistics are accurate. I was just getting ready to post them myself.

Today, I talked with my local F&G biologist. Of the many questions I asked, some of them were ," who are the Biologists, and or, the people that are conducting Lion studies? Who is tracking the population of Cats? And how is the dept. deciding what to set our Female quota's at?"

With no disrespect to the man on the other end of the line, he had to look up the same answers that Mikes Hero just posted. As our conversation procceded, I came to the conclusion that no one is monitering the Lions. He suggested I go to the commisioner meeting on Mar 28th, but informed me that I would just be ridiculed by the Elk and deer hunters. Wich he is correct, but we'll get to that in a minute.

He also agreed that the Lion population has decreased at a steady rate since 1998. However, he stated that there are areas that they are purposely trying to wipe the population out. For example, unit 42. The reason for this is because of the sheep heards suffering in numbers. Next he asked if our lack of finding cat's were because of our lack of effort. I have 1 truck, several pairs of boots, two snowmobiles, and a fine horse. I hunt!

Moving on, we discussed several areas that have been hit hard over the last few years, and as I explained to him right out my back door are units 32, and 32a. The combined quota's in these units are 11. There is no where near that many cats in those units, male and females combined.

Now getting back to going to the commissioner meeting. I'm not sure, but after talking with my Dad, he suggested I just write a letter to all the commisioners, and ask it to be read. That avoids all the tension, and doesn't provide anyone with the ammunition to scold the hot headed houndman. I'm still on the fence on that one.


I do know of a commisioner that used to be a houndman, and knows a great deal about our sport. I will be contacting him with-in the next couple of days to ask for support, and advice. He is out of my area, but I firmly believe that he will have an open ear as to our situation. Until next time , God bless you all, and hunt hard!

Mikes Hero, Excellent use of data and research to put forth your opinion. Excellent!!! I was kinda hoping someone would bring some of this data forward. But shouldn't we each look at these reports in their ENTIRETY to make up each of our minds up about what the "truth" is. One thing about this topic though. No matter what promoted this or what each of us think is the solution, all of us obviously are agreeing there's a definite problem.

Here's the link so nobody has to search for the darn thing. Just scroll down to the Lion report and it'll open in PDF. It covers just about everything. Both statewide and by region. Take a look at the bear too. You'll see about the same thing happening, not Statewide yet like the Lion. But definitely in some Regions. But note this report only goes to 2007. A lot can happen in the last three years that aren't shown.

https://research.idfg.idaho.gov/wildlif ... ports.aspx

Now I personally get a total different prospective on this data than you are putting forth. I'd like to put forth why after I address another part of your post.

Your trying to blame this on wolves. That I totally disagree with. But then again, every houndsman in the State is gonna have a different opinion to a point. But you want to know the truth of what happened in 96, here it is.

In 1994 we found out HSUS was attacking us and 16 other states, Oregon and Washington included. Several of us Houndsman from across the State got together and started on a battle plan to save our hunting. The first action we addressed was to get this fight put forth has a Statewide threat to all user groups, not just the Houndsman. That's when we choose to join with the Idaho Wildlife Council. It was led by Don Clower who later became a F&G Commissioner.

In 1993 there was 495 Houndsman Permit issued in the entire State. We needed the "power of the vote", so we got others to also purchase one, family members and such. And in 1996 our numbers were around 575. Look at the data your using from the F&G. That number in 2007 has grown to 2943 resident and 119 non-resident hound permits. You'll obviously have to use your imagination to envision what that number is now. You all ever wondered how our sport went from 500 to over 3000 in just 13 short years.

On went the battle to save our right to use dogs in this State. It was a grass roots effort that had every user group of any resource of this Great State involved. The support we also received from fellow Houndsman across this Nation and all major Organization was incredible.

But the anti's are a incredibly well organized group their selves. While we were busy fighting them up front with this attack, they used the "divide an concur" on us. They knew they were going to have a hard time beating us on this, so they attacked on two more fronts. They got the Fed's to start making nuclear waste shipment to the INEL. This got Governor Bate busy fighting that. He even had the ISP stationed on the Borders to stop those shipment. He tried to stop the wolves but could not put forth a decisive battle on two fronts, so he choose the most important to the State. Then around June or July they announced they were releasing wolves in Yellowstone, 153 I believe. Then they announced and released 143, I believe, more in the Frank Church Wilderness. We used what we had left to try and stop them, but we were stretched far to thin by then.

About now you all are probably wondering what the hell all this has to do with the cougar population in the State now. We lost the battle to the Defenders Of Wildlife and the Idaho Conservation League and we now have those damn wolves. But we won the fight to run dogs in this State. Oregon and Washington weren't so "lucky". They lost their rights.

So look at the data. Look what truly happened in 1996. It wasn't a 143 wolves shoved way up in a Wilderness that over doubled the Loin take in 1996. It wasn't the wolves that pulled those triggers and made that Loin take showily decline until it reached the level of what it is now. It wasn't the 575 Houndman of the State that "suddenly" decided to kill over twice has many Loins has they had ever taken before. It was the anti's defeating those of Oregon and Washington and forcing them to move to where they could hunt, if they could. If I would of been one of them, I'd of done the exact same thing.

Now don't get me wrong about my intense hatred toward the wolves. I have little doubt that wolves can and are killing cats and bears both. But look at the data for yourselves. It ain't the wolves that are killing younger and smaller cats and turning them in. Look at the age criteria of what was taken before and continuing to what was taken in 2007. The farther you come in time, the higher the percentage of younger cat gets. I hate to point this out, but a cat under 3 years old can easily be identified, both by size and color.

This is why I push the size limitations. It's just like the two point deer areas. Let them grow up and in a couple of years you'll have just has many nice cats to kill has you have "kittens" to kill now. Not to mention the kittens they are able to reproduce means more cats to hunt.

Look at the data on what the Outfitters are taking, just over 1/4 of the cats. Can you blame them??? Without restriction, that's what their in business and purchased their area to do. Has for them maybe being the ones that might take small cats. What the hell, their obviously gonna die anyways.

Nope Mikes Hero, after reading your data, i ain't buying the "crying wolf" part. But has for the rest of the data, thanks for bringing it up!!! Now all can make their own minds up about what the "truth" really is.

Hyde, I'd definitely listen to your dad. But may I suggest going to the meetings when they set the next seasons dates and limits. Then your only with those user groups that are on the agenda for that particular species scheduled for that day. It's a much more productive meeting than those "open forums" where the strongest user groups have the power and voice to back it up. Especially if you got a Commissioner or two on your side.

And if you'll look at the first of that report you'll see the names of the biologist involved. I believe the last study done was conducted by the U of I down in the Twin Falls area. It lasted all of 15 years and we had a houndsman involved with it. There was also one conducted for about 5 years in the Pocetello area, same involvement. These ended probally 10 years ago and I personally have never seen any of the data collected published anywhere. But if you ever want to talk to those houndsman involved, give me a hollar and I can give you their names and numbers.