Recovery for Wolf predation on hound dogs in Idaho

[T.Hunt]

The I.H.A. held a board meeting last night. One of the topics that came up, was seeking reimbursment for our dogs that have been killed by wolves. The Ranchers are already getting reimbursed for thier dogs, if that dog was working cattle or sheep at the time of the incident. As with anything else that an organization attempts to put in place with the state, we will have to start small. We have come to the conclusion that we need to start with fighting for the outfitters. Guiding hunters into bear and lion is thier livelyhood just the same as a ranchers livelyhood of raising cattle. Niether should have to worry about losing livestock to a predator our ancestors eliminated. The Wolves are here to stay, we are all going to have to accept that, but we should be able to recover some expenses from the people who forced them into our homes without our permission. Hopefully if we can get the ball rolling with this, it will eventually trickle down to the pleasure hunters as well.
So here is what I am asking from all of you. I need imput on what your thoughts, and Ideas are. If you support the idea, or not. We also need as many members as possible, as you all know its numbers that talk, when confronting the government. You do not have to be from Idaho to be a member. If you are interested, send me a p.m. Member ship is $ 15.00 for one person, or $20.00 for family. We also voted to have a senior membership, which as of march 7th anyone over the age of sixty gets a free lifetime membership. Thanks for your time. Tim Hunt. (208) 850-7192

[Bearkiller]

I guess I'll go first.........

You want me to sympathize with people who make a living off of natural resources for having dogs killed by one of those "natural" resources? So the guy who has a monopoly on guiding in an area should get support from the rest of us who will just lose our asses when our dogs get killed? The guy who is making money gets reimbursed but the guy who is just paying to hunt, doesn't? I'll bet the outfitters loved this idea. The outfitters have a way of recouping their "loses". This seems more like a proposal from the Idaho Outfitters and Guides association than one from the Idaho houndsmens association. BTW, I have spent thousands of dollars hunting in Idaho as a resident and non resident. If I WAS a member of the IHA, I wouldn't be after this. When did we become a country that took care of the priviledged few and let the majority suffer? Typical elitist mentality, you scratch my back and eventually if everyone does there part, you might get yours scratched.

[T.Hunt]

I guess I'll go first.........

You want me to sympathize with people who make a living off of natural resources for having dogs killed by one of those "natural" resources? So the guy who has a monopoly on guiding in an area should get support from the rest of us who will just lose our asses when our dogs get killed? The guy who is making money gets reimbursed but the guy who is just paying to hunt, doesn't? I'll bet the outfitters loved this idea. The outfitters have a way of recouping their "loses". This seems more like a proposal from the Idaho Outfitters and Guides association than one from the Idaho houndsmens association. BTW, I have spent thousands of dollars hunting in Idaho as a resident and non resident. If I WAS a member of the IHA, I wouldn't be after this. When did we become a country that took care of the priviledged few and let the majority suffer? Typical elitist mentality, you scratch my back and eventually if everyone does there part, you might get yours scratched.

Thank you very much for your imput bearkiller. No I do not expect you to sypothize with someone who uses a natural resource to earn a living. I do ask that you sypothize with the guy who takes his family, and his dogs out for quality time. The guy that spends his hard earned money to do what he loves( you, me, and everyone else on this forum) and has his whole pack slaughtered by an invasive species forced on all of us by a select few bleeding heart liberals. The outfitters are houndsmen also. We may or may not like what they do, but when it comes to hound related issues, we need to be on the same team. The Idea of this is to use the outfitters as a stepping stone for the casual hunter to recupe his losses. Again, thank you very much for your imput, the reason for this post is to get opinions from people, to see if it is worth pursuing. Happy hunting. Tim Hunt.

[fox hunter]

just as soon as a sport hunter is placed as high in the line of compensation as an outfitter sign me up. hell i cant even have out of state freind come hunt with me with out drawing a permit but an outfitter can

[deerhuntertoday]

guys im from ohio and will never come out there to hunt because i cant afford it.But you got to start somwhere.The guides and outfitters are in those woods alot more than anyone else they are taking the most risk to there hounds.Sure you may hunt every weekend but they are there every day trying to make a living.If I lived out there I would be one of those guides.
If we as houndsmen do not stick together we will all fall one at a time.What pass's in you state will eventually come to mine.WE have bleeding heart liberals here to.Sure I may not have lions bears and other stuff to run.But they are already putting the pressure on us for dogging coyotes.It is getting so we have a police escort everywhere we go hell I even went so far as to ask the deputy to stop traffic for me while I caught dogs.He didnt think that was too funny.
All Im saying is you got to start somewhere and anyone getting a little protection from those walking stomachs is ok with me.good luck and remembere the 3 S

[Bearkiller]

Deerhunter, I think there is an opinion out there that outfitters do more damage to our sport then they do to help it. I'm not sure if it's a majority but it's not a small minority of people who think that way. At least in the people I talk to. I am not anti outfitting but I think alot of them are a burden to our sport more than they are a help. There are, without a doubt, some good/ethical outfitters. But the idea that they should have priority over other houndsmen, is a bad one. Typical elitist attitude. This is the kind of proposal one would expect to see out of an outfitting organization, not an organization that represents all houndsmen.

[T.Hunt]

Keep em coming guys, I am looking for all opinions. Keep in mind at this point this is just a discussion. We will not move forward with it until we are absolutely certain this is what our members want us to do. Thanks again. Tim.

[krk hunting]

Bearkiller,

I think you are missing the big picture and this is why the goverment gets away with the BS they get away with and that is they stick it to us slowly, T. Hunt is trying to say the same thing if we want to have our hounds covered we need to start with the people that the goverment see's as the ones loosing their lively hood and then move on to the reguar people like us. There has to be something that will secure our position that already has been established for a different group (that being the cattlemen). Dont cut-off your nose to spite your face.

Kevin

[Unreal_tk]

You may want to get your bird dog community involed as well because alot of them have liberal views and seen differently than a houndsmen. Just an idea.

[Rick Anderson]

Don't want to stir the pot, but just how many full time outfitters are there? Folks that do not have another source of part time income, such as ranching, construction, etc, or the big one that I am in favor of, a wife with a good job! My point is, what is good for the goose is good for the gander. If your idea is to approach the government with numbers, it would seem you would include everyone involved. I do some guiding here in WI, I do know some outfitters in various western states, none that I know of, spend any more time hunting than a dedicated hunter who hunts weekends, takes his vacation to hunt, or gets laid off and hunts during the off season. We have a lot of construction guys who hunt almost every day from november till march here in WI, plus any other time off.
I don't have a dog in this fight, but just thought I would weigh in with a different perspective. Good Luck to all you folks. We have been fighting the wolves here in WI for a long time. We have been compensated here through the USDA but now that they are delisted, I don't know what our status will be.
Rick

[mixed bunch]

i agree with bearkiller and Rick. save up my time off to hunt during the season and i am out just as mach as some of these outfitters and with some of the run ins i have had with the outfitters they act like they are above the normal guy hunting and having fun with his dogs. Tim do you sit on the outfitters board? I know there is a houndsman that does and has tried to get controlled bear units open to outfitting in so he can have tags. i think if you want to unite houndsmen then we all should have the same benifits. just my thoughts

[mondomuttruner]

I really hate to say this but this is typical houndsmen talk, if it don't benefit me, I ain't for it. This is why were at where we are. Gotta be able to give in order to do a little taking. JMO....

[T.Hunt]

i agree with bearkiller and Rick. save up my time off to hunt during the season and i am out just as mach as some of these outfitters and with some of the run ins i have had with the outfitters they act like they are above the normal guy hunting and having fun with his dogs. Tim do you sit on the outfitters board? I know there is a houndsman that does and has tried to get controlled bear units open to outfitting in so he can have tags. i think if you want to unite houndsmen then we all should have the same benifits. just my thoughts

First. No I do not sit on the outfitters board. Second. I am not saying the outfitters are above us pleasure hunters. What I am saying is, We pleasure hunt, we do not have to be in the mountains with our dogs. If you do not want your dogs in danger, stay out of the mountains with them. This is how the majority of the government will view it. The outfitters however are loosing an expensive tool used to make a living. Almost all goverment representitives are buisnessmen, and will be more than likely have sympothy for another buinessmen, over someone who is just doing it for fun. Once again the idea is to get the ball rolling, to eventually benifit all of us.

[Rick Anderson]

You are doomed to failure with that attitude. we all have the same RIGHTS to hunt in the national forest or other public land. I can see where this started, and I know after hunting for over 50 years wher it will end up.
Rick

[Yard Dog]

I am not saying the outfitters are above us pleasure hunters. What I am saying is, We pleasure hunt, we do not have to be in the mountains with our dogs. If you do not want your dogs in danger, stay out of the mountains with them. This is how the majority of the government will view it. The outfitters however are loosing an expensive tool used to make a living. Almost all goverment representitives are buisnessmen, and will be more than likely have sympothy for another buinessmen, over someone who is just doing it for fun.

"Not saying outfitters are above pleasure hunters"........"If you do not wnat your dogs in danger, stay out of the mountains with them"......(government) "will be more likely to have sympothy for another bussinessmen, over someone who is just doing it for fun"..............You got to be shitting me.....

I bet all you Idaho boys just cant get that $20 check written out fast enough....