Montana 1 upped by Idaho in Wolf take shenanigans.

[Dakotakid]

Arguing for a certain number to meet an undetermined “objective” is pointless.

How does FWP manage a population without an objective?

 

[tjones]

There are goals but no population objectives. There are management objectives.
Population objectives for elk are counted by air when the elk are on green up. Same with deer.

Wolf populations are extremely difficult to count. Can't be done from the air like for elk.

When it can be done a pack member gets trapped and radio collared. They then track the collar to see how many wolves are in the pack. Anything other than that when it comes to wolf populations is a WAG.

Some guys get all bent when FWP or IFG can't tell us exactly how many wolves are out there but the same guy has never laid eyes on a wolf in the wild. They are just hard to find for everyone.

 

[Sytes]

Tell us, Jones... exactly how many elk are in R1...

Nice try.

 

[tjones]

Talk to your bio Chuck, I see why you have difficulty understand game management. There were plenty of flights done in R2 and R3 for elk. I have the counts and you can get them too. I don't know if your bio flies or not. Maybe you should ask.

Please quote where I said elk were counted exactly. I will wait.

 

[Ben Lamb]

How does FWP manage a population without an objective?

How is elk management going with objectives & a statutory mandate to manage to those objectives?

Everybody wants science based management until it means actually going with the science.

As Tony & so many other have said, the 15/150 was the bare minimum for delisting. Below that, and you end up essentially inviting litigation that can win, versus the new lawsuit, which I don't think wins in court.

But, setting an objective of 350-700 means you are recognizing the wild swings in populations that wolves can have. Between disease, intra-pack fighting, human take, natural mortality, etc you have a species that has both a high mortality rate & a high birth rate in specific conditions. That means trying to aim for even a broad ranging objective is going to be a futile task, brought about by the political pressure from hunters, ranchers and politicians eager to prove just how pro-hunting they are.

The reality is that the western states can handle a lot more wildlife than we currently have both in terms of predators and prey, but the political pressure to manage at human-approved numbers is more important than actually managing for the wildlife's needs. It ignores the reality of the situation that we all accept: wolves are tough to count. Especially in heavy timber. Accepting that, and looking at other methods of managing ungulates for human consumption while allowing for the natural harvest from carnivores is how you effectively manage that species (woofs). Helo gunships & gov't trappers are how you eliminate populations, not manage them. Recreational harvest is able to manage the population, but it will never be enough for folks who blame wolves for everything wrong, and it will always be too many for those who see no reason to harvest a wolf.

If you expect FWP to manage elk for maximum carrying capacity, and wolves for minimum, you are asking for the impossible. Improving season structure, reducing political influence in management and allowing the managers on the ground to be the deciding factor in management strategies is the only way to adequately, and scientifically address the situation.

 

[Dakotakid]

The premise of most of this tread is that Idaho’s decision to allow wolf harvests is destructive and therefore relisting should occur/will occur/ might occur.
It is going to be difficult for environmental groups to litigate that case without an objective and a measurable effect of the policy change.
The current population is having a negative effect on mountain lion numbers as discussed in a recent podcast.

what does the science say for health biodiversity population.
It can’t just be more more more, the west has space, the west has space.

the sustainable population is?

 

[Ben Lamb]

The premise of most of this tread is that Idaho’s decision to allow wolf harvests is destructive and therefore resisting should occur/will occur/ might occur.
It is going to be difficult for environmental groups to litigate that case without an objective and a measurable effect of the policy change.
The current population is having a negative effect on mountain lion numbers as discussed in a recent podcast.

what does the science say for health biodiversity population.
It can’t just be more more more, the west has space, the west has space.

the sustainable population is?

Idaho set seasons in statute. That, above all else, is wrong. Just as it is wrong in MT when they did it, or anywhere else. Enviro groups are currently using these laws to generate lawsuits that will in turn generate millions of dollars for other fights in this space. I can't see their lawsuits winning as the states did what was in their authority to do, even if I disagree with their approach. Most enviro groups that sue on this stuff are looking for only 1 policy change: Re-list the wolf. They honestly believe that the states have no desire to manage large carnivores like other wildlife, and given the political circus around this issue, and grizzly bears, I can see where they might think that.

Likewise, the attempts to further liberalize harvest of wolves will not stop here. People will be back with predator status, gov't hunters & trappers, demand that 15/150 be the objective under law.

We abandon the happy middle at our own risk, while those on the extremes continue to gain their power & influence with no regard to how people who live with these animals have to deal with their political posturing. MT & ID had that happy middle for a long time, and it largely reflected the science. ID was more aggressive, but they were mostly thoughtful in their approach. MT was more cautious.

All of the above is the political management of a wildlife species. It's not the scientific management of them.

What the science says a healthy, diverse population of wolves is changes based on research. When the original EIS was signed by Babbitt, science said 15/150 in Yellowstone, and 15/150 for each ID, MT, WY. That was based on the bare minimum to be a viable population, meaning no need for augmentation, no inbreeding, and the likelihood of not being harvested above replacement rates. That didn't include the territory outside of the DPS (Distinct Population Segment) for ID & Yellowstone. It had nothing to do with the Northern Endangered population (Above I-90) that was recolonizing on their own. Now that wolves have expanded their range significantly, there would need to be a serious effort to decide what a reasonable objective for the state units would be based on prey availability, open lands to support them and the political will of the citizens to have a certain number. Each state has to decide that, with the knowledge that their actions could reduce populations to the point where a re-listing may occur.

it's not an easy answer to get too, and it's politically inconvenient so most people try to punt and say "15/150!"

 

[Sytes]

Talk to your bio Chuck, I see why you have difficulty understand game management. There were plenty of flights done in R2 and R3 for elk. I have the counts and you can get them too. I don't know if your bio flies or not. Maybe you should ask.

Glad your R2 and 3 are doing great for elk count collections...

On the R1 side, different story from check points to aerial counts.

Chat with Buzz about our wonderful region 1 elk counts and the flights conducted while our "elk populations are circling the drain" counts.

"I've heard all those same excuses for that piece of chit helicopter the FWP spends a boatload of money on for years.
Every time a count is off, they must have missed a bunch of elk due to timing of the flight, the bulls were timbered up, every excuse under the sun.
How about just do your job right, fly on good days, and due it in a timely manner? Novel idea...but not good for excuse making on why the elk populations are circling the drain.
Of course, there's that pesky check station data too...elk hunters are doing just groovy in regions 1".

They then track the collar to see how many wolves are in the pack.

Explain this process (serious query - not our usual back and forth banter):

Boyd (no longer with FWP as the R1 primary wolf biologist) shared during one of our conversations it explains the territory though not size of the pack.
We were specifically speaking of the Lazy Creek Pack that I was working. She shared one of the collared left the pack with the belief to find a mate and start another pack. However packs size is a general estimate - though we have packs in R1 (highest presumed population) ranging from 5-12...
This is in our fancy "2 quota" per year area...

 

[shoots-straight]

Glad your R2 and 3 are doing great for elk count collections...

On the R1 side, different story from check points to aerial counts.

Chat with Buzz about our wonderful region 1 elk counts and the flights conducted while our "elk populations are circling the drain" counts.

"I've heard all those same excuses for that piece of chit helicopter the FWP spends a boatload of money on for years.
Every time a count is off, they must have missed a bunch of elk due to timing of the flight, the bulls were timbered up, every excuse under the sun.
How about just do your job right, fly on good days, and due it in a timely manner? Novel idea...but not good for excuse making on why the elk populations are circling the drain.
Of course, there's that pesky check station data too...elk hunters are doing just groovy in regions 1".


Explain this process (serious query - not our usual back and forth banter):

Boyd (no longer with FWP as the R1 primary wolf biologist) shared during one of our conversations it explains the territory though not size of the pack.
We were specifically speaking of the Lazy Creek Pack that I was working. She shared one of the collared left the pack with the belief to find a mate and start another pack. However packs size is a general estimate - though we have packs in R1 (highest presumed population) ranging from 5-12...
This is in our fancy "2 quota" per year area...

If that's the same Boyd that I know, She wasn't working on wolves up there after the reintroduction. She was studying those wolves that had recolonized the area. R1 has it's issues there's no doubt.

 

[Sytes]

Likely the same. She was instrumental in the entire study process of the R1 area where the main wolves moved from Canada into the US. A definitePerson that had intimate knowledge.

She actually worked as a wolf biologist for a few years recently but I think she got sick of it. The various stories she shared leads me to believe she's much better suited in the field than the office.

 

[schmalts]

All said and done, they best any state can do is keep the population numbers as close to the minimum as possible. No one will convince me that a high population of Wolves is a good thing for for deer and elk and moose hunters.

 

[Hydrophilic]

All said and done, they best any state can do is keep the population numbers as close to the minimum as possible. No one will convince me that a high population of Wolves is a good thing for for deer and elk and moose hunters.

So is hunting merely another extraction industry only concerned about hunters bottom lines? Or is there a proud tradition of conservation which has evolved beyond huntable game?

 

[shoots-straight]

So is hunting merely another extraction industry only concerned about hunters bottom lines? Or is there a proud tradition of conservation which has evolved beyond huntable game?

Conservation of species only applies to animals that benefit us.

 

[schmalts]

So is hunting merely another extraction industry only concerned about hunters bottom lines? Or is there a proud tradition of conservation which has evolved beyond huntable game?

Management of wolves is conservation. There was plenty of proud conservation long before the thousands of wolves were lowering the odds of the new generation of people getting to get into the field to enjoy hunting. Plenty of conservation long before huge amounts of money was spent to pay out for livestock and pet killings. Conservation was achieved as soon as they were reintroduced and met the minimum breeding pair number that bios came up with. After that conservation becomes competition, and I am top dog and give a rats ass about wolves in large numbers especially on private property. Without hunting, there is little funds to do conservation. Keeping the wolves at low number IS conservation.

 

[Dakotakid]

it's not an easy answer to get too, and it's politically inconvenient so most people try to punt and say "15/150!"
[/QUOTE]

I will try it a third way:

What are the “goals” for wolf populations.
As discussed the impacts on mountain lion populations are being observed.
Conservation has historically been a balance, what are the wolf population goals for a balanced ecosystem?

And if it is just more, more, how do you select which species gets preferred animal status?

We often hear criticism of hunters because they promote elk hunting populations but how is the hypocrisy not recognized for the unregulated wolf supporters.

 

[Ben Lamb]

I will try it a third way:

What are the “goals” for wolf populations.
As discussed the impacts on mountain lion populations are being observed.
Conservation has historically been a balance, what are the wolf population goals for a balanced ecosystem?

And if it is just more, more, how do you select which species gets preferred animal status?

We often hear criticism of hunters because they promote elk hunting populations but how is the hypocrisy not recognized for the unregulated wolf supporters.

The goals were set out in the original state wolf management plans:

Montana wolf management plan
Idaho wolf management plan

Over the last 19 years since these plans were put in place, we've had no shortage of changes, amendments, new techniques, laws and private efforts relative to wolf management as our understanding of the animal and species changes. it took an act of congress to get wolves delisted in MT & ID, the concerns isn't so much that one animal gets preferential treatment as it is that no animal be managed to such a small number that relisting is a possibility. But, when you are dealing with a species that has been extirpated from the landscape and was put on the Endangered Species List, then priority does go to those critters since they're the ones in the most dire need. That's what's been done since the ESA passed due to states not living up to their obligation to manage all wildlife for the public trust.

I think most of the supporters of unregulated/unmanaged wolves have zero issue with nonregulation of elk. It's not like they're avid hunters.

But circling back to the laws that were passed: This is really more about politics influencing wildlife management in the long run. If politicians see hunters supporting the political management of wildlife for species they have little use for, then it's a logical jump for those politicians to say all wildlife management should be political rather than scientific.

 

[Gerald Martin]

Who determines what the optimal number of wolves is?
How are we going to keep wolf populations at that optimum level with fair chase methods in habitat that favors the wolves?
How do we count wolves to arrive at an accurate population number?

In heavily timbered NW MT legal hunting and trapping is not going to substantially reduce populations whether there is a quota or not.
I agree a quota of two on an area is ridiculous, but it really is more of an aggravation for hunters than it is the one thing keeping populations high.
Snaring has a mostly unacknowledged side effect of by-catch in the form of mountain lions.

My opinion is that Region 1 of MT is probably closer to historical elk numbers than it has been for several decades. The higher numbers of elk during the ‘90’s and early 2000’s were the result of optimal forage conditions, no wolves, lower hunter numbers or at least less efficient hunters and probably some other factors I am overlooking.

I wish there were more elk in region 1. But I think that a belief that we can kill more wolves and then we’ll have more elk is little more than wishful thinking.

 

[Hydrophilic]

Keeping the wolves at low number IS conservation.

That’s not entirely true, it depends on the unit and the data.

 

[Trap]

That’s not entirely true, it depends on the unit and the data.

Not again please-I am sure you will go posting the same carefully select data and time frames showing wolves and elk co-existing and thriving! Wolves eat elk, more wolves mean less elk, the number of wolves necessary according to the eco terrorist is a simple formula. N plus 1-N is the current number of wolves on any given day plus 1. That is what they have demonstrated as the number they need its just 1 more regardless of the current number of wolves. If we don't have surplus elk to sell tags to create revenue to continue to manage for surplus elk the north american wildlife model breaks. I DONT think any state should try and manage wolves anywhere near the minimum required. WE ARE IN NO DANGER of getting anywhere close to that in Idaho. If you read the management plan for Idaho in 2008-2012 when they could actually start managing the wolves they stated an OBJECTIVE of somewhere between 500-750 the numbers were slightly different by 1 or 2 on either end but were basically exactly the current population estimate. WE are over 1500 so we ARE over objective and there was a STATED objective which proves current seasons and harvest methods were not working. Idaho is 2 to 3 times over the last stated population objective. Politicians should not have gotten involved this is a terrible precedent but Idaho was going here anyways. I like having managed wolves on the landscape in an appropriate amount. Lawsuits would have been filed and the same groups were still filing lawsuits over wolves(great lakes) and grizzlies but this unfortunately was really a gift to them to file sooner and raise more funds for the next one. Look at the headlines-'Idaho orders killing 90 percent of wolves'-that is not at all what the bill said and even with ALL the additional methods and seasons we couldn't do that in our wildest dreams. Wolves are really pretty amazing animals and trapping and hunting them down to 150 is not even possible with the new rules. Idaho fish and game pretty much neutered the new law with how they intend to regulate the rules(which I think was smart given all the publicity).

 

[Sytes]

So is hunting merely another extraction industry only concerned about hunters bottom lines? Or is there a proud tradition of conservation which has evolved beyond huntable game?

We are the apex of all species and we regulate their existence. Pretend we don't all you'd like though without hunter boots on the ground and conservation coffers filled with our $, their existence would slowly fade.

We pay for organizations to preserve land and sustain their existence while humans continue to encroach on the land they roam...ed.

From RMEF to DU... our gloves on labor to Banquets and land estate transfers... we maintain our proud conservation traditions from the city masses eroding our wildlife's land to survive.

If that means in context of an apex predator (woofs) reduced to 1/2 the ungulate wild depredation they specifically take... a (3-400% vs current 800% of the minimum) and that alleviates a bit of pressure from one angle... we can also focus on season length, limited areas that need limited tags, select choice of seasons, etc. Humans are a bitch to comprehend shorter seasons, limited tag areas, etc. We want now! Seems the chant. Not... We want for our children...
Various areas to focus. This is one area with opportunity.

Some micro organism is likely the apex of all life... haha! Though until it wipes us, I'll keep supporting our heritage, conservation efforts, etc.

We all have our positions... though if it's to cultivate a harmony within a further restricted area as more humans creep developments... it's just not going to happen.