Montana 1 upped by Idaho in Wolf take shenanigans.

[tjones]

Objectives and minimum numbers are two completely different things. Mostly there is no objective but there is a minimum number.

 

[shoots-straight]

Uhh I got the numbers from Idaho’s wolf management and conservation plan it set a MINIMUM of 150 wolves and 15 breeding pairs. I understand that’s the minimum to prevent delisting. Last two years numbers averaged between 1500 and 1600 wolves. That’s quite a bit above Idaho’s objective and I think they feel 350-500 is probably a good number? Either way current seasons and methods were not meeting the objective at best they we’re keeping them stable at a population that was way over objective. Additional opportunities to take wolves were/are needed. So I was positive our fish and game was going here slowly anyways so a lawsuit was most likely coming. I agree with you 100 percent on electing idiots who did this for political reasons and they have NO business passing game management policies. I’m glad you feel Montana was managing wolves well but Idaho is different. Almost all of the middle of Idaho is wilderness and it’s very difficult to manage wolves there especially with a 72 hour trap check rule. What has happened to the selway and the adjoining wilderness is really sad. I blame the anti groups more than the politicians because they have no business intervening in state management when we are way over any agreed upon population

Show me in Idaho's "Wolf management plan, where it says they are managing for 150 wolves?

The way this plan was written it could be any number as long as they can co exist. 15 packs is a triggering mechanism for different management strategies.

Here's the plan to look over. Idaho Wolf management plan 2002

 

[Trap]

Show me in Idaho's "Wolf management plan, where it says they are managing for 150 wolves?

The way this plan was written it could be any number as long as they can co exist. 15 packs is a triggering mechanism for different management strategies.

Here's the plan to look over. Idaho Wolf management plan 2002

Ok I feel like I am repeating myself I said already 150 is the MINIMUM number that they (fish and game) publicly state constantly. I feel like they want to MANAGE to 350-500 I didn’t read the link but I will check it out later. I think there management plan might have evolved a little in the last 19 years that was written in 2002.

 

[tjones]

Ok I feel like I am repeating myself . I feel like they want to MANAGE to 350-500 I didn’t read the link

What you “feel” means nothing. Read the link and understand what “minimum” means. This one trips up lots of guys.

 

[shoots-straight]

Ok I feel like I am repeating myself I said already 150 is the MINIMUM number that they (fish and game) publicly state constantly. I feel like they want to MANAGE to 350-500 I didn’t read the link but I will check it out later. I think there management plan might have evolved a little in the last 19 years that was written in 2002.

Read the plan, You don't know what you don't know.

 

[Trap]

Objectives and minimum numbers are two completely different things. Mostly there is no objective but there is a minimum number.

I agree that’s what I was trying to point out

What you “feel” means nothing. Read the link and understand what “minimum” means. This one trips up lots of guys.

Ok I read a little that’s 19 years old and they were estimating 261 wolves in Idaho? I think there management plans might have changed a little since 2002. Look up recent fish and game information and they state 150 wolves as minimum not as a management goal. I “feel” 350 to 500 because I have been told this by fish and game

 

[tjones]

I agree that’s what I was trying to point out


Ok I read a little that’s 19 years old and they were estimating 261 wolves in Idaho? I think there management plans might have changed a little since 2002. Look up recent fish and game information and they state 150 wolves as minimum not as a management goal. I “feel” 350 to 500 because I have been told this by fish and game

I wish your feelings were around back when everyone was working on the delisting.

 

[Sytes]

Wish we had productive quotas and contract hunters to reduce the numbers. Montana is far over any remote concern of touching the "danger zone", USFWS #'s regardless the eco nutters continuous filings...

Touching under 300% the concerned # that may cause relisting would never come close if effective management took place. 450-500 woofs for MT is just fine. 600 - 800% is excessively ridiculous.

But hey, Earth Justice is filing a complaint... Place the woof signal Batman, so naïve city folk send their NRA Eco-extremist $... Scare tactics for the loss.

 

[Trap]

I wish your feelings were around back when everyone was working on the delisting.

I wish your feelings were around back when everyone was working on the delisting.

What? keep researching a plan written 19 years ago.Management plans should and do change. Idfg website says they want a minimum of 150 wolves that’s the website from 2021 not 2002. That’s not what they are managing for but the management number is a lot less than 1550. Have a good one.

 

[Gerald Martin]

I just hope I get to gun from the helicopter when the MT legislature gets serious about bringing elk down to objective across the state.
We have way too many of those nasty things.
Plus, all those elk give the wolves food and helps keep their numbers too high.

 

[Dakotakid]

I have not seen population objectives.
Anyone know what is actual objective number?

 

[Trap]

I have not seen population objectives.
Anyone know what is actual objective number?

The minimum from the 2002 plan is 15 breeding pairs not a population number which is I guess Why “I don’t know what I don’t know” according to shoots straight. The actual plan we had in Idaho when we got management was to maintain 518-732 wolves from 2008-2012. Now they have openly stated 15 pair and 150 wolves at a minimum but I have been told I haven’t seen any formal plan 350-500 would be objective basically they don’t have one since the 2008 plan or it’s not well publicized. So the last thing i have seen was 13 years ago but they had an objective of 518-732. So Idaho would be more than double what they wanted back then

 

[Dakotakid]

My question was more for the experts that have higher powers. How many breading pairs and total numbers to reach objective?

 

[tjones]

Again there is NO objective.

Minimum numbers are not objectives.

 

[shoots-straight]

Lets just manage all species at their minimum population levels to keep them viable and see how that works.

 

[Sytes]

Better yet, let's continue to mis-manage woofs as we do for our elk in R1 and elsewhere...

After all wtf? Right?

 

[Trap]

Again there is NO objective.

Minimum numbers are not objectives.

The 2008-2012 management plan in Idaho had an objective of 518-732 which was exactly what the prior years population estimates were. We are more than double that right now. Which is why I got into this circle jerk discussion Idaho was going to expand seasons and methods of take no matter what. The eco freaks were going to sue no matter what or who expands wolf harvest opportunities. I still don’t think the politicians should have done this

 

[Sytes]

The eco freaks were going to sue no matter what or who expands wolf harvest opportunities

Amen. They never stopped. It's their bread and butter.

Same nutters backed by the purchase power of Yvon Chouinard's, Patagonia clothing / gear... action works... you buy their items, your $ supports their cause. Other Companies that sell equal / better quality.

Same eco extremists with judicial injuctivitis, U.S. District Court complaints, etc... over grizzly state management.

Taking Bearings on Yellowstone Grizzly Bear Delisting - Patagonia Stories

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service recently announced its plans to remove Endangered Species Act protections from the Yellowstone grizzly bear. Patagonia

www.patagonia.com

Bread and butter...

 

[Dakotakid]

Again there is NO objective.

Minimum numbers are not objectives.

Lets just manage all species at their minimum population levels to keep them viable and see how that works.

Ok, let’s try this:

Why are there no objectives?

 

[Gerald Martin]

Ok, let’s try this:

Why are there no objectives?

Because no one has established an official objective.
A MINIMUM population number was established to determine the threshold of where endangered species status would not be required.
Objective numbers have not been set for wolves in MT by FWP like they are for deer and elk.
Arguing for a certain number to meet an undetermined “objective” is pointless.