Montana 1 upped by Idaho in Wolf take shenanigans.

[TheJason]

Understand that....whats the maximum?

I read in the Skinny Moose they’d kill all the elk and then die off.

 

[HighWildFree]

Didn't biologists come up with the 150 number?

Yup because people need easy numbers. The point is managing for the minimum is never the way to success.


This would be like scientist going to the legislature saying we have too many cattle on the landscape, we're not going to wipe them out, but we need to get them under control so we're going to shoot every single one more than the ranchers need to break even that year.
Trust me no one wants to wipe out ranchers.

All it takes is one bad year and ranchers would be broke

All it takes is one bad year and wolves are being put back on the ESA

 

[mtmuley]

Understand that....whats the maximum?

There isn't one. I think killing lots of wolves is a good thing. mtmuley

 

[Elkmagnet]

This passing is likely the only way wolves end up back on the ESA.
It will also be a dam good precedent for the argument against delisting grizzlies in Idaho.
Idaho f&g is playing the politics on wolves. They are strategically opening more each year in a controlled manner that would hold up against legal challenges.
This is chess not checkers!

 

[TheJason]

@Mansize, I’ll bet you a case of beer if Idaho succeeds in getting wolf numbers down to 150, they will be relisted under the ESA.

 

[FI460]

This passing is likely the only way wolves end up back on the ESA.
It will also be a dam good precedent for the argument against delisting grizzlies in Idaho.
Idaho f&g is playing the politics on wolves. They are strategically opening more each year in a controlled manner that would hold up against legal challenges.
This is chess not checkers!

I don't think they'll get wolves down to 150 even with this. They'll need to step it up to poisoning to achieve that imo.

I'm all for idahoans doing some predator control, but legislation like this is shooting a hole in the boat. The non-hunting public will be opposed to it, and it's misguided at best to most biologists.

 

[TheJason]

Yes IF they do . I won't buy the beer if they use Helicopters cause that is the only way to get it done .

. Bet’s off then Nostradamus.

The wolves are not going to be relisted on any ESA

No mention was made about helicopters in this statement.

 

[TheTone]

Helicopters have been used for years in a couple areas with moderate to low success. I know of a couple wolf hunters/trappers that were pissed last year that helicopters were used in an area they were trapping in.

 

[TheJason]

The wolves are not going to be relisted on any ESA

This looks like a prediction to me. Do we need to hold hands for comfort?

I don’t care if Idaho gets to 150 via .270, connibears, RPGs, a Blackhawk, or a combination of any the above. 150 will guaranteed trigger ESA action.

 

[Sytes]

Guys... get a room.

 

[Hilljackoutlaw]

And if the minimum was 500? You get my point i hope.

 

[BuzzH]

Why do we even have wildlife biologist when the Ag industry has all the answers.

GREAT question, and even more appropriate when said biologists aren't allowed to even practice biology and thwarted by their own department.

Further, why have a commission when the legislature controls everything wildlife related.

 

[TheJason]

It appears that I was running my mouth faster than my brain again .

I’ve done the same.

 

[BuzzH]

Yup because people need easy numbers. The point is managing for the minimum is never the way to success.


This would be like scientist going to the legislature saying we have too many cattle on the landscape, we're not going to wipe them out, but we need to get them under control so we're going to shoot every single one more than the ranchers need to break even that year.
Trust me no one wants to wipe out ranchers.

All it takes is one bad year and ranchers would be broke

All it takes is one bad year and wolves are being put back on the ESA

Question for you.

If managing for the minimum is never the way to success, why does Montana manage elk, deer, pronghorn, goats, sheep, and moose that way then?

Seems ridiculous for them to be forced via legislation to kill elk, deer, and pronghorn down to minimum objective numbers...but not wolves.

 

[Elkmagnet]

Question for you.

If managing for the minimum is never the way to success, why does Montana manage elk, deer, pronghorn, goats, sheep, and moose that way then?

Seems ridiculous for them to be forced via legislation to kill elk, deer, and pronghorn down to minimum objective numbers...but not wolves.

I don't think you will find many of us who want any species managed to minimum numbers regardless of species.

 

[mtmuley]

I don't think you will find many of us who want any species managed to minimum numbers regardless of species.

I wouldn't mind wolves around that promised number. mtmuley

 

[Elkmagnet]

And if the minimum was 500? You get my point i hope.

Whatever the minimum is you need to shot for a number above it. Im surprised I have to explain that.

 

[Hilljackoutlaw]

Whatever the minimum is you need to shot for a number above it. Im surprised I have to explain that.

Right over ur head

 

[BuzzH]

I don't think you will find many of us who want any species managed to minimum numbers regardless of species.

I think you have some convincing to do in regard to your elected officials, because that's EXACTLY what they want.

 

[Sytes]

I believe if quotas kept our POM #'s @ 2-3x's the minimum, would be a hell of a lot better than 8-12x's minimal count...

And FFS stop pandering to eco extremists with the BS quota 2 for district 110.