Elkmagnet
Well-known member
You can dance with relisting. Theres a whole lot of serial litigators hoping we get down to 150.
Montana 1 upped by Idaho in Wolf take shenanigans.
- Thread starter shoots-straight
- Start date
I don't have any faith in Idaho or Montana figuring out how many wolves there actually are. mtmuley
Elkmagnet
Well-known member
Mathematical theory vs practical application.
Elkmagnet
Well-known member
I agree....
But if Im unsure what my bills will be for the month I don't drain my bank account to what I think the minimum total could be
I also don't believe that either state will ever be faced with the minimum number. mtmuley
Elkmagnet
Well-known member
I don't hold my breath on that either. So why not write the law at 250 to avoid the litigation nightmare the 150 number will cause? I also have a number of other issues with this bill as stated above.
I don't share your concerns. mtmuley
Hilljackoutlaw
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jan 15, 2019
- Messages
- 6,477
This bill faces the same opposition if the number was 1499.
HighWildFree
Well-known member
Beats me. It must be a good idea though because every seems super happy about it. /s
My best guess is that we still haven't made it out of the 1900s when we nearly wiped MT clean of game. Still trying to subdue the wilderness.
When you treat some wildlife like pest, it is really easy to transfer that to all wildlife. If bison and wolves need to be exterminated at every opportunity, then why not elk? Running coyotes over with snowmobiles and gopher derbies? Why not antelope on SxS?
Didn't someone say what you do for the least of these, you do for me?
FI460
Well-known member
Not the same. I know many wildlife professionals that would be just fine with 1499. Most would be fine with 500. Few are ok with 150.
So how many are you fine with? And as far as the post about gopher derbies and such, that's a stretch. mtmuley
Elkmagnet
Well-known member
Not from me or the people I talk to.
HighWildFree
Well-known member
I'm fine with a number that keeps them off the ESA and that has some science behind it. I agree with you that they would struggle to get it to 150 because of basic population dynamics.
Population growth rate would be highest for wolves somewhere around that level, that's why the population really exploded when we got to that number back in 09 or whenever. Plus we know in coyotes that increased harvest increases birth rates (not sure if the same is true for wolves or not). Plus, less wolves means less competition for cougars and bears which means more predation anyway.
Predator control to improve ungulate abundance is really difficult outside of simple systems like isle royale.
Point is that I agree that they will likely not be able to get below 150, that doesn't mean that groups won't try (and might succeed) in getting them relisted by showing that ID is not managing in good faith or whatever. All that legislation like this does is further normalize wildlife management through politics or the ballot box, open us up to litigation, and will likely not even achieve it's stated goal.
Exactly! Do we want legislators managing wildlife? They have constituents constantly complaining about deer and elk eating them out of house and home, is it that much a stretch to see areas where elk and deer are killed to near elimination via legislation because a constituent wants it? I’ve met with more than a few farmers and ranchers that threatened calls to governors or legislators if deer/elk weren’t controlled
Walkalot
Active member
- Joined
- Oct 28, 2020
- Messages
- 254
If were king (governor) i would tell the national gaurd to fire up the choppers and wipe them out to natural numbers. Only to manage elk, Moose, deer numbers to carrying capacity. Think of the elk hunts, moose hunts that have been termitated or units only issuing so many tags out compared to mt before wolf reintroduction. Yes wolfs have a place but true management or conservation isnt what has happened the last 26yrs.
Eco extremists will drool at the anticipation of quoting quotes from "hair on fire" (to borrow a HT member's term) Republicans use to push their 150 agenda along with broadcasting to their NY, CA, and other city eco extremist financial donors.
150 is political cannon fodder. If they made a righteous 2-3x's minimal USFWS count requirement, they would make much more headway...
150 is political cannon fodder. If they made a righteous 2-3x's minimal USFWS count requirement, they would make much more headway...
Walkalot
Active member
- Joined
- Oct 28, 2020
- Messages
- 254
Example look at all the gardiner area units elk, moose quotas today compared to prior the wolf reintroduction. Thats not management or conservation. I really dont understand the pro wolf side. I get they have a place but it is not a good thing they were reintroduced.
So more wolves might be killed. Good thing. I am not worried in the least of wolves being relisted. But, I don't like them as much as some do. mtmuley
Hilljackoutlaw
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jan 15, 2019
- Messages
- 6,477
Well im ok with 157. Keeps them off the ESA and keeps the depredation bill a lot lower.
shoots-straight
Well-known member
4. MANAGEMENT DIRECTION The goal of the IDFG plan is to ensure that populations are maintained at 2005-2007 population levels (518-732 wolves) during the 5-year post-delisting period through adaptive management under the guidelines of the 2002 State Plan. Consistent with the delisting rule, the state goal is to ensure the long-term viability of the gray wolf population. In order to ensure the population goal is achieved, the Department will maintain ≥15 breeding pairs (floor threshold). The Department will maintain balanced wolf and prey populations, and ensure genetic transfer among states through maintaining connectivity and functional metapopulation processes. The Department will manage wolves to minimize conflict with humans and domestic animals.
Some, or most didn't' read my post here. This is the Idaho management plan that was agreed upon by all involved there and with the feds.
You don't need to reach the min numbers to get relisted, you just need a judge that sides with the inevitable lawsuits that are headed to all our states because of this irresponsible legislation. There are reasons that earlier legislators decided that they needed experts to make laws in subjects like wildlife management. They knew that they didn't know everything. Today our legislators don't know, what they don't know.
Some, or most didn't' read my post here. This is the Idaho management plan that was agreed upon by all involved there and with the feds.
You don't need to reach the min numbers to get relisted, you just need a judge that sides with the inevitable lawsuits that are headed to all our states because of this irresponsible legislation. There are reasons that earlier legislators decided that they needed experts to make laws in subjects like wildlife management. They knew that they didn't know everything. Today our legislators don't know, what they don't know.
Similar threads
