Montana 1 upped by Idaho in Wolf take shenanigans.

[Trap]

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.

I feel like some are overjoyed that they(politicians) are taking counter actions. Is it so you can say “ I told you so”? Of course they are suing that’s what the eco freaks do. Look at the implementation of Idaho’s new rules. Little has changed other than year around private land trapping. If we take out 40 percent of wolves annually maybe we stay even population wise. We won’t ever put the “cat back in the bag” wolves are here to stay. Short of the use of poison we will never eliminate wolves from Idaho. Hiring paid trappers and sharpshooters is probably necessary in the very remote wilderness areas. I don’t like paid wolf killing either but some areas are too hard to access. Relying on recreational trappers and hunters will never bring wolf numbers into balance in areas like the selway. The serial litigators are suing. Of course they are the sky is not falling. Idaho wolves are way above objective so past seasons and methods were not working. Most of the radical methods in the new legislation are NOT being implemented right now in Idaho by the fish and game. It’s a political Footballl that goes nowhere but allows people on here to post how “dumb” they think the current party in power is. It also lets a few say “I told you so!”. Wow the organizations built on lawsuits are filing a lawsuit Is that somehow new or different than the last 20-30 years. We will never endanger wolves in the Idaho panhandle without poison. Year round hunting and trapping might keep them even. I was really close to an old forester and rancher who managed some large pieces of private land in Idaho. He told me if you shoot or trap every coyote you can you might keep the population stable. I love trapping coyotes and that statement has held true for years. Wolves seem even smarter and adaptable. Short of disease or using poison, just reducing the coyote or wolf population is a huge task. Moving them to endangered population levels is probably impossible.

 

[Trap]

Somebody please look at the facts on Idaho’s actual implementation of the new legislation. Every article quotes the use of helicopters, night vision and running wolves down with atv or snowmobile. None of that is legal right now. Also they love the scare tactics of paid sharpshooters. Idaho has already been doing that most recently I think the lolo zone. Not much has actually changed. Look at the regs for the truth or keep reading headlines from msnbc and other “hype “ media outlets

 

[JLS]

Idaho wolves are way above objective so past seasons and methods were not working.

I think if we were truly honest, wolf numbers are as legitimately “over biological objective” as elk are in units in Idaho and Montana that are considered “over objective”.

 

[Trap]

Somebody please look at the facts on Idaho’s actual implementation of the new legislation. Every article quotes the use of helicopters, night vision and running wolves down with atv or snowmobile. None of that is legal right now. Also they love the scare tactics of paid sharpshooters. Idaho has already been doing that most recently I think the lolo zone. Not much has actually changed. Look at the regs for the truth or keep reading headlines from msnbc and other “hype “ media outlets

You can hunt at night on private property with landowner permission or get a special permit from f &g for public.big game Vehicle restrictions don’t apply to

 

[Sytes]

Relying on recreational trappers and hunters will never bring wolf numbers into balance

I have shared this over and over...

Recreational hunters are freezer fillers with an added love for the rack.

There can be unlimited wolf tags, 24/7 hunting though the vast majority of hunters are dependant on weekend warrior or annual leave to hunt AND the vast majority don't look at their labrador and drool over filling a fraction of the freezer with canine rib and neck meat converted burger. Period... end of story.

It may bring another few though average hunter is 100% pure opportunistic wolf hunters.

However, it becomes a talking point, even by some here, that it is a dramatic effect on the wolf population... it's not. It's purely intended to assist towards quota. AND quota is what management on a biological manner is what manages the numbers.

I believe Idaho's political constituent public declaration to crack the piggy bank is 100% pure pendulum swing from a very liberal, ridiculous pandering of eco-extremists w/o regard to the mass excess of the introduced and embraced/enhanced, blind eye to credible #'s... (i.e. 1 or 2 quota for large spread districts - MT)

/Rant to return... haha!

 

[Ben Lamb]

I feel like some are overjoyed that they(politicians) are taking counter actions. Is it so you can say “ I told you so”? Of course they are suing that’s what the eco freaks do. Look at the implementation of Idaho’s new rules. Little has changed other than year around private land trapping. If we take out 40 percent of wolves annually maybe we stay even population wise. We won’t ever put the “cat back in the bag” wolves are here to stay. Short of the use of poison we will never eliminate wolves from Idaho. Hiring paid trappers and sharpshooters is probably necessary in the very remote wilderness areas. I don’t like paid wolf killing either but some areas are too hard to access. Relying on recreational trappers and hunters will never bring wolf numbers into balance in areas like the selway. The serial litigators are suing. Of course they are the sky is not falling. Idaho wolves are way above objective so past seasons and methods were not working. Most of the radical methods in the new legislation are NOT being implemented right now in Idaho by the fish and game. It’s a political Footballl that goes nowhere but allows people on here to post how “dumb” they think the current party in power is. It also lets a few say “I told you so!”. Wow the organizations built on lawsuits are filing a lawsuit Is that somehow new or different than the last 20-30 years. We will never endanger wolves in the Idaho panhandle without poison. Year round hunting and trapping might keep them even. I was really close to an old forester and rancher who managed some large pieces of private land in Idaho. He told me if you shoot or trap every coyote you can you might keep the population stable. I love trapping coyotes and that statement has held true for years. Wolves seem even smarter and adaptable. Short of disease or using poison, just reducing the coyote or wolf population is a huge task. Moving them to endangered population levels is probably impossible.

Sorry @Trap. I had too.

The wolf issue has been political since the early 90's. But it's not necessarily partisan. Governor Freudenthal (D) in Wyoming was about as anti-wolf as you can be, because the politics of Wyoming mandated that he take a hardline stance against the Feds on everything but the cash coming in to prop up the state. Governor Schweitzer (D) was pounding the feds on wolf delisting his entire tenure until we finally got it done in 2011. He was persistent in pushing forward with a 10J rule for the bitterroot elk herd once we presented the information that @tjones, @shoots-straight and many others in the Root had relative to low calf recruitment and low cow survival. Schweitzer also was helpful in ensuring the Bitterroot Valley elk study happened that showed what's eating what (lions were the predominate mitigating factor).

Republicans like Kelly Flynn & Chas Vincent in Montana along with a host of others, weren't biting on the forbidden fruit of anti-wolf horsecrap either. Kelly, as part of the wolf management plan committee, knew that MT made a commitment relative to the three legs of the delisting stool, and that going too far in one direction could lead to a potential relisting, and certainly a review. Chas had some bad ideas to begin with but we were able to find some common ground and loosen hunting regulations and laws post delisting in a thoughtful and meaningful manner. Bullock's first law that he signed was the bill to create 5 OTC wolf licenses along with loosened restrictions on wolf hunting (I can look up the bill if anyone wants).

2002 - Wyoming's Game & Fish commission ignored the agency's proposed course of action instead listening to lobbyists from the MT Stockgrowers Association & Sportsmen for Fish & Wildlife (and their lawyer, Harriet Hageman who has made serious money extending the drama around wolves) adopted a regulatory mechanism that they all knew to be unlikely to pass muster with the USFWS and the courts because virtue signaling was far more important than actually getting managed. I had the WSGA Executive Vice President tell me, and anyone who would listen, that they didn't care if wolves were delisted or not. They had a responsive gov't agency (USFWS) to deal with impacts and they were getting depredating wolves killed, so who cares about elk and deer?

During all of that, from 2002 until 2021, the far right side of the equation wanted to keep the conflict alive because they see votes in it at the local level. Far left groups are in the same boat, because the wolf is a money-maker for them. But neither side wins without the other there to help keep the hate & conflict alive. And now, thanks to Montana's legislature and Governor, relisting is a real possibility.

And that's because the side of the equation that wants fewer wolves is led by people who don't understand the ESA or how it works. People have been sold the idea that so long as you have 150/15 you'll be fine. You won't. Population is only 1 of 3 delisting requirements necessary to keep them delisted. The others are genetic diversity and an adequate regulatory mechanism as defined by the ESA and the agreements entered into by the states relative to getting their state plans approved.

So the states have just gotten rid of the Adequate Regulatory Mechanisms that had court approval and that helped ID & MT break free of WY in 2011 for the first congressional delisting of any animal. That delisting was done simply because you can't delist a species in a portion of their distinct population segment, which is what the 2009 delisting order did. As Judge Molloy said (paraphrasing): you don't have a wildlife problem. You have a political problem.

So that's when Senator Tester and Congressman Mike Simpson got together and took the draft of the rider that had been written by wildlife advocates in MT and added the congressional review prohibition. WE solved the delisting issue caused by Wyoming's intransigence with a political solution. Because that was the only way to get them delisted.

Then, some years later, Wyoming gets their plan approved with a few changes by the Obama administration (dems) and they get management of wolves, and by most accounts, they're doing a decent job managing an animal that should be managed biologically, but is under a political management.

Montana's legislature is by far more of a concern than Idaho's. Especially since the MT commission took it upon themselves to go full tilt crazy on loosening hunt & trap regulations beyond what is in statute and allowing for snaring, etc. Any time you have a huge change in management of a formerly listed species, especially one with such strong constituencies and political swagger, you will get a review.

So yeah, as someone who spent 9 years working to get them delisted in WY & MT, and then spent 10 years cautioning against going too far in one direction or another, to see it all come crashing down in a self-inflicted gunshot wound to the chest gives me a sense of schadenfreude. Having talked with a number of colleagues across the spectrum of the issue who put their time, effort and passion into carving out a compromise middle ground, we're all pretty much just laughing at this point.

If the animal gets relisted, it's on the heads of the politicians who wanted to play around with this to garner more votes.

 

[Rmilanowski]

Current Idaho count 1500 wolves w/ 500 taken out each of the past two years?
That's pretty fuggin out of control!

However, 90% is a dangerous chicken game w/ USFWS.

So the wolves are out of control in Idaho, mt lions are raging in the CA/NV Sierras, CO can't manage the mt lions now and just introduced wolves. I don't understand why legislative bodies are introducing preditors onto our lands, more than that why people think it's a good idea. With the numbers of people that hike, and camp CO it is just a matter of time....

 

[JLS]

With the numbers of people that hike, and camp CO it is just a matter of time....

Until what?

 

[Ben Lamb]

Until what?

 

[Rmilanowski]

Until what?

Until a hiker from Boulder tries to pet a wolf...

 

[BenInMT]

“The others are genetic diversity” This is the part of the equation that I cannot grasp. I’ve read all of the literature on reintroduction. This allegedly all started from a handful of wolves that were captured in BC and relocated to YNP blah blah we all know the story. If all of these wolves started from those handful of wolves how can you make a case for genetic diversity in just a few generations? I’m not saying I’m for this but couldn’t we eradicate all of them, get a dozen more wolves from BC and start over and be in the exact same spot in 20 years from now?

 

[Gerald Martin]

“The others are genetic diversity” This is the part of the equation that I cannot grasp. I’ve read all of the literature on reintroduction. This allegedly all started from a handful of wolves that were captured in BC and relocated to YNP blah blah we all know the story. If all of these wolves started from those handful of wolves how can you make a case for genetic diversity in just a few generations? I’m not saying I’m for this but couldn’t we eradicate all of them, get a dozen more wolves from BC and start over and be in the exact same spot in 20 years from now?

Part of the genetic diversity equation is that wolves have been expanding their range from southern BC down through NW MT and (I assume) Washington and Idaho as well.

 

[tjones]

Until a hiker from Boulder tries to pet a wolf...

Are Co. wolves different than MT wolves? The ones I have seen in MT and Idaho run like hell when someone tries to pet them.

 

[Ben Lamb]

“The others are genetic diversity” This is the part of the equation that I cannot grasp. I’ve read all of the literature on reintroduction. This allegedly all started from a handful of wolves that were captured in BC and relocated to YNP blah blah we all know the story. If all of these wolves started from those handful of wolves how can you make a case for genetic diversity in just a few generations? I’m not saying I’m for this but couldn’t we eradicate all of them, get a dozen more wolves from BC and start over and be in the exact same spot in 20 years from now?

The wolves that were reintroduced mixed with wolves that had natural migration down from Canada. Then you have to show genetic interchange between the areas of reintroduction in order to show that genetic diversity is occurring across the DPS'. You could do augmentation, but by then, you've essentially said that state management has failed one of the three legs of the stool by getting to a point where genetic interchange isn't occurring anymore. The Yellowstone DPS hit that milestone around 2004, IIRC.

It's important to remember that there are more than just 1 DPS involved in this issue as well mixed designations under the ESA when they were listed. Wolves above 90 were listed as endangered. Wolves below 90 were listed as nonessential, experimental in order to have more leeway in managing for conflict with livestock producers.

Then you have other states in the mix like WA, OR, and northern UT, which were all part of the DPS as well.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Are Co. wolves different than MT wolves? The ones I have seen in MT and Idaho run like hell when someone tries to pet them.

The CO subspecies, as recorded in the journals of John Fremont:

 

[Rmilanowski]

Are Co. wolves different than MT wolves? The ones I have seen in MT and Idaho run like hell when someone tries to pet them.

They just started reintroduction this year. CO has a larger population than Montana, and many more people that spend time hiking the fourteeners. The elk populations migrate into the cities of Fort Collins and Everygreen during bad winters. Wich creates the possibility that they will follow their prey. My main point is that introducing a top preditor into a state with a large population is a bad idea. WY was 35 people per square mile. CO has more than a million in the front range.

 

[Ben Lamb]

They just started reintroduction this year. CO has a larger population than Montana, and many more people that spend time hiking the fourteeners. The elk populations migrate into the cities of Fort Collins and Everygreen during bad winters. Wich creates the possibility that they will follow their prey. My main point is that introducing a top preditor into a state with a large population is a bad idea. WY was 35 people per square mile. CO has more than a million in the front range.

Yellowstone National Park has over 4 million visitors per year. None of them have been et by a woof.

 

[tjones]

Yellowstone National Park has over 4 million visitors per year. None of them have been et by a woof.

This and the fact just because there are more people doesn't mean wolves are more tolerant or hungry for them. Just means there are more folks for the wolves to avoid.

 

[JLS]

Until a hiker from Boulder tries to pet a wolf...

Who cares if they do?

 

[Carnage2011]

Are Co. wolves different than MT wolves? The ones I have seen in MT and Idaho run like hell when someone tries to pet them.

I wish I could find one that stood still long enough to take a picture let alone pet it..