State of Idaho shoots elk

IDAHO FISH & GAME KILLED MORE THAN 200 ELK NEAR SHOSHONE
BILL COLLEYJanuary 16, 2020
Share
Tweet

Listen anytime, anywhere. Get the best local news, weather coverage and more with our free mobile app.
GET APP NOW
More than 200 elk were killed by sharpshooters from Idaho Fish and Game. It happened over a period of several months. A big night might result in half a dozen elk being taken down. This wasn’t a daytime hunt. The elk had started foraging on private land north of Shoshone. The animals had been chased away during daylight hours. The herd then adjusted and started feeding at night.

Because hunting in darkness is prohibited in Idaho, Fish and Game began the removal with its own staff. The removal of the elk stopped some serious depredation. The meat was donated and fed the poor.



All of this angered some hunters who believed they should’ve had an opportunity to bag the game. Some are calling state legislators and protesting and, yet. A nighttime hunting ban, established for safety reasons by the legislature, would’ve blocked allowing the public to take the animals.

Idaho Fish and Game spokesman Terry Thompson reminds us his agency has a mandate to manage game. The more than 200 animals are a fraction of the elk roaming the state. The kill also allowed Fish and Game to apply some scientific studies, which could improve future management. Including the enhancement of the hunting experience for the public.

Thompson was a guest on Newsradio 1310, KLIX. He explained how the operation worked and fielded questions from the audience. It may have set aside some of the anger directed at Fish and Game. If you would like to listen to his explanation you can click on the YouTube video below:

Filed Under: bill colley, depredation, elk, Hunting, Idaho Fish and Game
Categories: Colley's Commentary, Lifestyle, Magic Valley News, News, Science
Comments
LEAVE A COMMENT

FOLLOW US
EEO Public File Marketing and Advertising Solutions Public File Need Assistance Report an Inaccuracy Terms VIP Terms FAQ Contest Rules Privacy Policy (Updated: 12/26/19) Exercise My Data Rights Contact
2020 News Radio 1310 KLIX, Townsquare Media, Inc. All rights reserved.

Ads help us run this site
When you visit our site, pre-selected companies may access and use certain information on your device to serve relevant ads or personalized content.
Information that may be used.
Purposes for storing information.
Learn More
Continue to site


Read More: Idaho Fish & Game Killed More Than 200 Elk Near Shoshone | https://newsradio1310.com/idaho-fis...m_source=tsmclip&utm_medium=referral

What a Public Waste of License Sales!!!

I don't know. I sure wouldn't want a bunch of yahoos shooting around my place..........especially in the middle of the night. Can you imagine the problems if you had cattle in a pasture or how many wounded elk would be lost ?

License & tag fees for residents would be less that 80$ apiece as near as I can tell.

At first glance, at least they donated the meat, kudos for that! I will add that being on "staff", doesn't guarantee that you are a better shot or a safer hunter than John Q Public.

Maybe more tags in previous years so the herd wouldn't be that large??
Maybe better management to prevent damage? Just a thought.

It sounds as if they faced a "D***** if you do, d***** if you don't" type of deal. Were the elk there because the wolves were not, or at least not there in the numbers found where the elk usually wintered?

Maybe a contributing factor.

My guess is that access during open season is a bigger issue

all depends on your prospective if its good or bad if you farm there good, If all you care about is hunting bad IMHO the problem with letting the public hunt private property is MOST only want to shoot the largest buck out there want SOLE permission tie up as many tracts as possible and are perfectly happy to watch 20 does or cows munch away while waiting for a Trophy This has occurred here in Mi. even under crop depradation permits I have allowed hunting on my property only to see it turn into a pita

After listening to the radio broadcast I do not agree with what they did. They are doing this, spending a bunch of money btw, under the guise of research. I wonder how big the tracts of private property are and if the landowner allows hunters to hunt it. They never said that it would be dangerous to hunt there. They themselves changed the pattern of the elk to come in at night to feed, then said because it's against the law to hunt elk at night, we had to go in and shoot them. I ain't buying it.

Maybe Idaho farmers could lease their property for a lot of money Like Ohio

Yeah, and then rake in the subsidies and still have the DNR come out and spend a bunch of money to boot. Sounds about right and par for the course. Did ya listen to the broadcast Jeff, it does sound bad to me. The tags around the two WMA's were for controlled hunts and they did up the tag amounts to 2500 and made them over the counter, they sold out. This was a good thing, but in today's age, they still don't know how many hunters were successful. IMO, what happened is poor wildlife management and left leaning agendas being played out.

I had to quit listening after three minutes - way too many ummms for me.

Poor ole elk. What are they gonna do when our population hits 400 million?

First off, shoot cows only. Have a drawing for how many cows you want harvested. There is a fee for a harvest tag, 50% of the fee will got to the private land own that the cow is harvest of off. The land own are sign a agreement to allow hunting on there property and the State has a list of those owners. JMO

**Stop putting off getting registered to Vote.**

We are in the middle of a late cow only private land only season here,(Dec1-Jan31) to cull the wintering elk. Problem is most of the hay ground owners won't let anyone hunt. They will ask for panels to protect the hay stacks and the CPW gives them to them. Hay guys wanted the season CPW obliged, only way elk get killed is catching them coming or going across the small bordering parcels. Screwed up situation.

So, you are suggesting that Idaho should have mandated that a private landowner follow a State Order to allow every swinging wiener with a hunting license to come in on his private land and shoot high powered rifles? That smells like tyranny to me.

I believe that the increased number of permits were for antlerless elk on public land.

Seems to me that those whining are just antler hunters.

What difference does it make how much land a rancher owns ? He owns it. He should control it.

Are we going to use envy to manage wildlife herds ?

I don't have a problem with what Idaho did. It seems both equitable, economical, and efficient.

This is what is American wildlife mismanagement. If the rich farmers had a stake in those elk, they would be letting people hunt. Instead they want the money for hay sales, plus I would expect they get paid for hay lost. South Dakota has the same thing with Canada geese, in the rich farmers get paid by the state for damage geese do, and then they will not let people hunt. The state then slaughters nesting hens on their nests in the spring.

The solution is of course the state getting out of the way and the people being able to hunt THEIR wildlife. Wolves play a part in Idaho as they are becoming a major problem from Colorado, Montana, Wyoming, the Dakotas and Minnesota. We have wolves around here from the Minnesota refuges. They move coyotes in, and they run cattle to madness, and they concentrate game animals.
Once again it comes down to federal and state wildlife mismanagement, as predators do not call up politicians and complain about fish and game wardens. The wolves, mountain lions, and coyotes need to be reduced to 1940 levels, and then these elk will be out chewing on pine trees. If landowners want the fees the state pays, they need to allow hunting.

Let me see if I understand you wildlife management logic.

Reducing predation will cause elk to eat pine trees ? Right ???

Wouldn't reduced predation likely increase the elk population causing even more problem interactions with people ?

and gas and food and motel and sporting goods sales that could have been realized by visiting hunters.

LOL Ken, imagine our USDA shooters with silencers and night scopes shooting the deer around our airport in Raleigh and Charlotte and all the cities airports in NC. Yep, what a show it was!.
Probably happens in many states.

Yes to your first point, the herd is coming off of public land to private land which makes sense twofold. Crops are there and no hunting pressure if the landowner doesn't allow hunting. I didn't see anyone whining, they up'd the tags to 2500 and OTC, and sold out. This was very good and the way it should be done.

Your second point I think was in not understanding what my point was about how many acres the landowner owns. My point was about a safety issue. If the tract was tight with roads and buildings or heavily populated I could see where it would be a issue to allow hunting.

To your third point, I don't envy wildlife management, I loath the mismanagement.

Also, I strongly agree with star flakes last sentence (and reducing predators). It is not right imo to pay subsidy monies to farmers for crop damage if they don't allow hunting, they are the creators of the problem, but yet want their cake and eat it to. It is double dipping especially if they lease to just a few and tantamount to having a builder build you a home but you don't let him paint it. Twenty years pass and the wood rots and you expect him to replace it. I am all for landowners rights, what I'm not for is paying them basically a welfare check for something they could control themselves for free.

I could maybe get behind not paying for damages. Of course that just increases the costs for the farmer/rancher and ultimately the consumer.

I don't know about there in the east but in the west, Idaho in particular and Wyoming as well..........landowners work in conjunction with game managers to allow public hunting on their lands. They are called 'walk in areas'. Access is sort of restricted just so damage to habitat is reduced.

Managers also work with the land owners to improve habitat for game by improving water & soils management. It benefits everyone. We have folks on this forum who are engaged in that very practice. I'm sure they could address it a lot better than I can

This

Those elk are a state resource and belong to the citizens of Idaho.

The elk are not owned by the game commission

They are hired by the citizens of Idaho to manage not destroy the resources


The notion that elk can only be killed at night is right out of the poachers hand book

Ludicrous.........they failed

Those elk were somewhere during daylight hours and so should have been able to be hunted. Sounds like IF&G got behind in their management strategy and had to play catch-up. If the farmers were faced with loss of forage vs allowing hunter access, it seems likely they would choose the latter. If that drove the elk back to public land then allowing hunting on the public land would help decrease numbers to a sustainable level.

White nailed it. And some of the rest of you sound just like the tourist that were “surveyed” about the reintroduction of wolves into Yellowstone . If you don’t live out here and never have you probably think you know more than you do.

Funny thing is I vary rarely hear someone from the Rocky Mountain States say boy I sure would like to go back east and go hunting.

"boy I sure would like to go back east and go hunting." - Quote from cmcf

Okay cmcf, I'll go ahead and say it. Boy, I sure wish I could go back to Eastern Russia and go hunting. Eastern United States? Not on a bet....... Maybe eastern Wyoming

Jack

I think I would too! Russia that is.
By the way really enjoyed your reminiscing on “BIG game”

This land owner prolly shot himself in the foot.........oh crap!


Most ranchers will take advantage of this highly sought after public resource during normal hunting seasons.

It's a big money game and only those with a stack of frog eyes are allowed to play.

Joe public land Hunter is prohibited from playing .

The rancher can and will use multiple known tactics ( both legal and illegal ) to ensure public elk are on his land during bull elk seasons. ( Bulls = big money , cows not so much )

When the elk seasons are over and nuisance elk with no value won't return to the public land the rancher starts calling fish and game .

They may issue him a few agriculture damage cow tags , but his freezer is already full of beef , tagged elk , or untagged elk .

At this point he may or may not let Joe public have a chance at a cow elk , per fish and games request. Usually not



I don't know for sure about this particular rancher in Idaho but this is common here in Oregon

Those 200 elk won't be back for fall hunting season and neither will the hunters with stacks of frog eyes

Did he cry wolf ? Did it backfire ? Or is his ranch in a true winter ground only region so he couldn't care less ?

Exactly Right
Hunting Dollars boosting the local economy

And people think wolves are the main problem on elk numbers... Geez

It amazes me how so many people with no first hand knowledge about a situation can have such conclusive answers to a many faceted problem. I suppose the Idaho Fish and Game Department could continue to pay over a million dollars in damages every year instead of conducting controlled research looking for options that might help prevent damage. There are no magic wands in wildlife management.

Controlled research should not include destroying 200 elk. What was the conclusion of this so called research ?

Amen - antigov just look at our nature conservancy grounds on the zumwalt prairie a prime example of landowner abuse of the system at our expense.

Roger that , i will check it out !


You are right , the exploitation of elk by ODFW and private land owners gives the public land hunter a raw deal

OOOH MY!!! What’s next? Airial gunning of Mountain Goats to protect Rocky Mountain Big Horns from disease??? Oh yeah, never mind, already under consideration. But why not just sell more tags??? Yeah!!!!
Bet they never thought of that! Oh right, that didn’t work. Well, well the land owners just need to let more people hunt instead of double dipping, yeah that’d work! Oh darn you say they’re not on private land well snizzelfritzz!!! Darned mean old wildlife biologists what do they know anyway???

Well, either not enough or pushing a agenda. They're plan was, We all are a gonna go up there (insert pause to retweet a Eagles Rock tweet) and bug the crap out of them there elk during the daytime. Oops, dem elk went nocturnal, doop de do, we didn't see that coming. Well now we'll have to go shoot up a bunch cause it's illegal to hunt at night for da public. We'll have to spend a crap load of money doing it, and make sure the farmer get's paid too( insert excitement cause his tweet got retweeted 3 times, call to Mama to tell her), but what do we'uns care, it's not our money haha. Yeah, great plan!

cmcf, I appreciate your input and the westerner's view that it provides. I'd like to hear what you think caused this particular situation.

For my part I know that in Wy the state is required to compensate landowners for wildlife depredation losses and it appears from other's posts that Idaho does the same. Wy establishes the winter feeding grounds to provide for the elk herds that otherwise would infiltrate private agricultural land because it is their traditional winter feeding grounds. To me this strategy appears to allow the elk population to be based on summer forage rather than otherwise limited available winter forage and provides higher numbers of elk for hunters to take advantage of rather than having to kill them. Hunters help the Wy economy in a multitude of ways so more hunters means more income for the state. However, it looks to me like Idaho found themselves in the opposite situation. That being an elk population that it was cheaper to kill than to feed. This doesn't sound like successful management of a wildlife resource to me. Perhaps there are particulars regarding the specific location that brought about the killing, but I hope Idaho can find a better solution in future years.

Edp; the truth is I don’t know. The situation from area to area varies lot and the folks in that particular area are more likely to know what best course of action is than someone a thousand miles away. Like Ole said wildlife management is a many faceted thing. I see a lot of posts from other parts of the country bashing their game commission as being stupid idiot jerks, not so much around here. I do know that a few land owners take advantage of the depredation pmts while not allowing the public to access their land. I know ranches that have lease agreements with outfitters that alow late season hunts for cows. I know that the number one reason land owners give for not allowing access is property damage, cut fences, trash, livestock shot, buildings shot, hay meadows rutted up and the list goes on. The ranchers land is usually the same land that the wildlife use for winter range. There will be conflict. We have a lot of land enrolled in the access yes program where land owners open the land and let G & F manage it for hunting and fishing. The program is funded by voluntary donations by hunters and fishermen. I don’t know what Idaho does I haven’t spent a lot of time there and have never hunted there. I do know that Idaho is a destination state for big game hunting. I believe they have been doing a pretty fair job of managing the resources or they wouldn’t be a destination state.

There are many laws and regulations in play here. The fish and game dept. is required by the state constitution to prevent or reimburse agricultural damage caused by our wildlife. The dept. is continually strapped for cash as their only source of revenue is license and tag sales and taxes from grants from programs such as the federal tax on sporting goods(no money from the states general fund). A lot of times they have to take the cheapest solution not the best. In your states you may be able to force landowners to allow hunting or trespassing to access the damage reimbursements but that won't fly here. The state legislature consists mainly of farmers and ranchers who get this money and they have final say over the fish and game dept. Instead of jumping on the fish and game and the individuals who work there perhaps you should blame the system. We have some of the best fishing and hunting in the U.S. so they must be doing something right even though they are short on cash and the Feds are throwing problems like wolves at us.
I think we all should research a problem rather then believing the worst because of some media sound bite. I am a life long resident and do not and never have worked for fish and game but support the job they do.

Well said

this isn't a winter range issue. It is a standing crop problem.