Montana 1 upped by Idaho in Wolf take shenanigans.

[EYJONAS!]

You have a difficult time picking up on satire and sarcasm. I’ll withhold any further comment other than I’m not an outfitter, never have been, and never will be. @EYJONAS! did I avoid more time in the penalty box?

Nope because you engaged me in this dumbass wolf thread. Permanent box for you.

I got your back though buddy.

 

[Wildabeest]

 

[JLS]

Nope because you engaged me in this dumbass wolf thread. Permanent box for you.

I got your back though buddy.

Can’t argue the logic. Back to the corner…

 

[BigHornRam]

@Walkalot it's probably best not to drinkalot if you want to postalot.

 

[Trap]

Not bashing them. Bashing the system. Iam sure there good people. Nothing against them. But idk some things dont make sense to me. No worries.

I edited as u did. Go figure u an outfitter.

Can u explain how a conservation easement works

Conservation easement is where you receive a tax deduction for placing your property in the easement where it can never be developed or subdivided.
Conservation easement allows you to deduct the value of your land as is where it can potentially be subdivided or otherwise developed and the reduced value of a large parcel that can never be developed. Owner can still do anything they want with the property except split it up. It has zero to do with hunting but protects a bunch of habitat which still benefits the average hunter. There are a few conservation easements where the land owner actually gets paid to protect some critical habitat but the majority just get a tax deduction.

 

[JLS]

Conservation easement is where you receive a tax deduction for placing your property in the easement where it can never be developed or subdivided.
Conservation easement allows you to deduct the value of your land as is where it can potentially be subdivided or otherwise developed and the reduced value of a large parcel that can never be developed. Owner can still do anything they want with the property except split it up. It has zero to do with hunting but protects a bunch of habitat which still benefits the average hunter. There are a few conservation easements where the land owner actually gets paid to protect some critical habitat but the majority just get a tax deduction.

Yes and no. CE can have a lot of variables, depending on who is funding the easement.

They may come in the form of tax deductions/waivers, or they may be purchased outright to provide capital.

They may require public hunting or they may not.

They may require grazing and/or timber management plans, or they may not.

There may be land use stipulations in addition to prohibiting subdivision.

Kind of hard to try and lump them all together.

 

[Trap]

Yes and no. CE can have a lot of variables, depending on who is funding the easement.

I agree I have been loosely involved in a few through my work. A couple of them got tax breaks and one got a fat check. I don’t pretend to understand all the variables, mostly I have seen landowner get tax breaks.

 

[JLS]

I agree I have been loosely involved in a few through my work. A couple of them got tax breaks and one got a fat check. I don’t pretend to understand all the variables, mostly I have seen landowner get tax breaks.

Sure, and I’m not trying to be pedantic. I’ve seen some that required enrollment in a public hunting program, and I’ve seen others where it’s not even mentioned. Tons of variables.

 

[Schaaf]

 

[marshman]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/u...ctions-after-states-expand-hunting/ar-AAOu93F

Well, here it is...one year review of state wolf management practices.

 

[marshman]

Private contractors, hired to kill for the money or bounty?I can never support this kind of killing.
Some seriously bad government issues going on there

Idaho went way too far, again. Is Montana going to do the same? This makes hunters look really bad in the eyes of the general public.

 

[lastlight]

And will they be honest about the year long study and how there won’t be a dent in the wolf populations anytime soon without bringing back poisons? Nope sure they won’t. They don’t want one wolf to die at the hands of management or hunter so facts won’t matter. This is just the Biden admin playing politics after the trump admin and Montana/Idaho Republicans played politics. So tired of this game with wildlife management.

 

[JLS]

And will they be honest about the year long study and how there won’t be a dent in the wolf populations anytime soon without bringing back poisons? Nope sure they won’t. They don’t want one wolf to die at the hands of management or hunter so facts won’t matter. This is just the Biden admin playing politics after the trump admin and Montana/Idaho Republicans played politics. So tired of this game with wildlife management.

Personally, I think the one year review is warranted, given the legalization of non traditional hunting practices.

 

[Oak]

Service to Initiate Status Review of Gray Wolf in the Western U.S.
“The Service finds the petitioners present substantial information that potential increases in human-caused mortality may pose a threat to the gray wolf in the western U.S. The Service also finds that new regulatory mechanisms in Idaho and Montana may be inadequate to address this threat. Therefore, the Service finds that gray wolves in the western U.S. may warrant listing.”

 

[Schaaf]

 

[Ben Lamb]

Wyoming looking at MT & ID like

 

[shoots-straight]

Wolf protections may be needed.

The next step, that many say won't happen.

 

[Sytes]

 

[marshman]

Wyoming looking at MT & ID like

View attachment 194605

Hmmm, I git this look quite often, call it the side eye.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Hmmm, I git this look quite often, call it the side eye.

Considering MT & ID got special legislation to delist years before Wyoming, because WY went too far overboard on their plan, it's a very angry side-eye that MT & ID are now the remedial kids on the bus.

Gristly bears are in for a rougher delisting too, because of the MT Legislative brain trust.