You can participate on-line at this important event or at one of eight locations-
Boise, Idaho. The first Idaho Wildlife Summit is being held August 24, 25 and 26. The Idaho Department of Fish and Game says the summit will be to discuss the future of Idaho wildlife by helping “Idaho’s hunters, anglers, trappers, bird watchers, wildlife photographers and other wildlife enthusiasts explore their common thread – wildlife. Participants will learn more about Fish and Game and the challenges it faces in managing wildlife for the future, will hear from nationally-recognized speakers on wildlife conservation, and will be asked to voice their opinions on what is important to them.”
People can participate at one of 8 geographic locations in Idaho or on-line. The event is free, but seats are limited at the physical location and a reservation needs to be made.
The Idaho Conservation League is encouraging conservation minded folks to participate and to “speak out for the following goals:”
- Finding common ground on issues such as habitat protection and restoration, especially watershed improvements and noxious weed prevention
- Discussing ways to ensure that ecologically-based interests and non-consumptive uses are included in IDFG’s planning efforts
- Exploring ways to increase funding for non-game species management and habitat restoration efforts
- Advocate for science as the driving force for wildlife management decisions
Idaho Fish and Game provides this web site to give more detailed information on events and information how to participate.
For those are critical of Idaho Fish and Game, such as too little emphasis on watchable wildlife (or too much), the department would say that participation in the Summit is a major way to express an opinion in a focused way.
Comments
“Advocate for science as the driving force for wildlife management decisions \”
Yea right like that will ever happen in hillbilly heaven, oops I mean Idaho
http://www.tetonvalleynews.net/news/wildlife-summit-this-weekend/article_b9579412-ebab-11e1-bac8-0019bb2963f4.html
“According to IDFG, the state’s population has tripled since the agency was established in 1938. Interest in wildlife has also shifted with many more Idahoans now involved in wildlife viewing than hunting and fishing. However, concern for wildlife has not changed.”
Timz:
Have you ever meet anyone who works for IDFG? I highly doubt it otherwise you would know that those folks are doing all they can to protect our resource of common interest…wildlife. They are highly educated and motivated individuals who sincerely want to do what is best for our animals. It is a very science based agency that cannot, unfortunately, use the science alone to make management decisions. Why? because they must answer to the hunters and fishers of Idaho. These are the people we need to be reaching out to to promote more science-based management and that is the purpose of the Wildlife Summit.
“They are highly educated and motivated individuals who sincerely want to do what is best for our animals”
“Our” animals? Is that really what you think when it comes to the other species we share this planet with?
Nancy, I think you are reading into this just a little too much but they kind of are “our” animals. Why? because we need to manage everything – air, water, land, animals, etc. to prevent the demise of these resources. This is an unfortunate truth but that’s just the way it is. What kind of world would we live in if we didn’t manage these resources? I have come to terms with the fact that this is a necessary evil.
Pam you are the first one to talk about all animals and habitat. wolves alone will not balance the whole echo system including ungulates with today’s human population and land being sold and or subdivided in wildlife habitat.
Deer and elk need to be managed in the urban environment and private land where any predator will not be of any benefit. You cannot manage one group of animals without managing predators because you cannot have both wild and human predators killing the same prey.
“You cannot manage one group of animals without managing predators because you cannot have both wild and human predators killing the same prey”
WTF?? Without a doubt the dumbest thing I’ve ever read on this blog and there has been some doozies.
timz, if this so what is your solution, no management for any wildlife.
“Why? because we need to manage everything – air, water, land, animals, etc. to prevent the demise of these resources”
Really Pam?
The ONLY species in serious need of management is our OWN species – Homo sapiens.
The air, water, land and yes animals too, were doing just fine til we got to full of ourselves.
A good quote (if you had not noticed it at the bottom of the page)
“At some point we must draw a line across the ground of our home and our being, drive a spear into the land and say to the bulldozers, earthmovers, government and corporations, “thus far and no further.” If we do not, we shall later feel, instead of pride, the regret of Thoreau, that good but overly-bookish man, who wrote, near the end of his life, “If I repent of anything it is likely to be my good behaviour.”
-Edward Abbey
Oh my, Gamblin is that you with a new handle?
Yes Pam I have and the last time there were 3 of them together and all the could talk about was killing wolves. Sounds like your the one who doesn’t know anything about IDF&G. Listen to some of the commisioners meetings. Science hasn’t had any role whatsoever in wolf management. Here is their idea of science.
“God gave man the ability to manage wildlife.” — Wayne Wright, an Idaho Fish and Game commissioner.
The Idaho fish and game commissioners have said they represent the hunters and the hunters only. Here I thought that Idaho’s wildlife belongs to ALL of the people that live in Idaho. The Idaho fish and game commissioners do not care and do not want to listen to all of the other people in Idaho that don’t hunt and that care about wildlife.
Timz,
The IDFG commission must consider research and opinions from IDFG biologists (“science”), the general public (hunters and fishers), and other agencies and NGOs (USFS, TNC, etc.) thus all of the final management decisions are not solely based on science. So, we can agree on that. In a perfect world we would leave wildlife management up to the biologists but the commission must also answer to the folks paying their salaries. So hopefully the Summit will provide a platform for persuading the general public to put a little more faith in the management recommendations of IDFG biologists (aka scientists).
P.S. I prefer to leave God out of politics but just wanted to say that the quote from Wayne Wright (FORMER IDFG commissioner) is irrelevant and meaningless. You could replace “manage wildlife” with whatever you want “breath”, “try his shoes”, “make lunch”….
Irrelevant??
Why didn’t he say “science gave us the ability to manage wildlife”? Let me guess, he doesn’t know what that is or could care less about it. Anyone who thinks Idaho’s wolf management is science based in any way is either stupid or just ill-informed. I don’t know you Pam so can’t say which category you fall under. It seems the commission wasn’t worried about any “God” the whole time they were lying about manageing wolves like any other big game animal.
timz: I can understand why you and anyone who has such strong feelings for wolves but we cannot have tunnel vision for just one animal. We must focus on all wildlife and there habitat. Any type of management far out ways no management for all animals.
Well said Robert so lets end this tunnel vision on wolves which has solely focused on how do we kill them all.
++…so lets end this tunnel vision on wolves which has solely focused on how do we kill them all.++
Gonna have to be a tri-regional (NRM, WGL, AZ-NM) conference for that to happen.
I not a dreamer, I know it ain’t gonna happen. A F&G wildlife summit where wolves will gain any benefit is impossible as they don’t even consider wolves to be legit wildlife.
And while were at it lets focus on how we can end welfare ranching, probably of more benefit to wildlife than anything. I’m sure IF&G will call that out at their summit as well.
I remember a thread on this blog earlier this year, when the idea of this summit came up. Wasn´t there a proposal for a kind of “cost sharing model” involving non-consumptive “users” of wildlife to share the financial burden of conservation? Is this model still pursued or is it dead?
Well I was shocked at the overall responses to their questions. I fully expected a typical cowboy/miner/logger/elk hunter response but overall the attitudes were significantly toward science as a management tool, concern for nongame species, and particularly new funding for nongame and better management. Even the trapping question answers were not over blown toward taking by trapping. I stop short to think there may be a chance for a change in IDFG because of the political control over the agency. I think the polls could reflect 100% pro science management and conservation of nongame species and the commission and Otter would be in denial. The poll questions and remarks are worth looking through and dissecting.
Larry Keenney,
I was surprised too. I think that this might illustrate the power that interest groups have to command the attention of the media and politicians into making them believe that some immoderate opinion is the prevalent opinion out there.
I do think the introduction with the history of conservation was very important because so many people did not know how it all came about. As a result, there were and are those trying fashion incorrect revisionist stories of the origins of American wildlife conservation because they know there is a lack of historic knowledge.
I deliberately did not publicize this event at all until the last minute when I put up information how to access it and go to meetings because I did not want to become part of something that appeared to stack the results.
The question, “Was IFG personnel actually trying to promote science and nongame management theories”, by bringing up such a good foundation of conservation history and ethics. And by doing so in this forum and this manner would not be laying their neck on the chopping block. I go back to the sage grouse biologist or regional biologist?) that spoke out against the windfarm south of Twin Falls, and other biologists as Morgan who spoke out directly against cattle on public lands, and even me that used the Twin Falls TV station for the IFG weekly show to show cattle overgrazing. Such direct assaults bring the chopping block into play but who can find fault with lessons in history. Especially when TR was a republican! I spoke out quite a bit on Saturday a.m. on their chatroom and found quite a bit of support. Maybe all the elk hunters were out scouting and cowboys out herding or maybe those that are in that philosophy can’t follow the level of some of the speakers (especially the Canadian). I think Idahoans are building up to a serious grassroots movement toward using science as management. They very much need a good leader right now that has credibility with repubs. A new Andrus or Frank Church is what is needed.