Lawnboy
Well-known member
Suggestions of said candidates would be great. Some of you are way more in the know about who would be good for this. Please throw some valid names out that he might consider so we can get going on the emails. Pretty Please
MT FWP Commission closes some wolf areas!
- Thread starter Big Fin
- Start date
Suggestions of said candidates would be great. Some of you are way more in the know about who would be good for this. Please throw some valid names out that he might consider so we can get going on the emails. Pretty Please
BuzzH
Well-known member
Ben,
If thats the case, lets save ourselves some money and elimate biologists all-together. It does NO good to hire a professional biologist and then throw their decisions in the circular file because the commission decides to read the newspaper.
No, I'm not OK with politics being the only reason for a regulation favoring hunters, in particular if those political motives go against the grain of biology and proper management.
I never once participated in either the Gardiner or Bitterroot elk slaughters...in fact, I've never hunted or taken an elk in either place. I also was opposed to antlerless mule deer hunting that took place in the Blackfoot for years and years as I watched deer numbers tank. I was against the "cow week" that was open pretty much all over region 2 a few years ago. As you know, I didnt sit in the background with my thoughts on those and plenty of other subjects that "favored" hunters.
I probably argued more than most residents last year against the Native Montana License as well...even though I knew I would be a recipient of the deal of the century. Hardly the actions of a self-serving political hack you make hunters out to be.
I share my disapproval for all things stupid when decisions regarding public wildlife are not founded on sound biology, be those decisions favorable to hunters or wolf-hippies.
You cant paint me into a corner...so no use trying.
If thats the case, lets save ourselves some money and elimate biologists all-together. It does NO good to hire a professional biologist and then throw their decisions in the circular file because the commission decides to read the newspaper.
No, I'm not OK with politics being the only reason for a regulation favoring hunters, in particular if those political motives go against the grain of biology and proper management.
I never once participated in either the Gardiner or Bitterroot elk slaughters...in fact, I've never hunted or taken an elk in either place. I also was opposed to antlerless mule deer hunting that took place in the Blackfoot for years and years as I watched deer numbers tank. I was against the "cow week" that was open pretty much all over region 2 a few years ago. As you know, I didnt sit in the background with my thoughts on those and plenty of other subjects that "favored" hunters.
I probably argued more than most residents last year against the Native Montana License as well...even though I knew I would be a recipient of the deal of the century. Hardly the actions of a self-serving political hack you make hunters out to be.
I share my disapproval for all things stupid when decisions regarding public wildlife are not founded on sound biology, be those decisions favorable to hunters or wolf-hippies.
You cant paint me into a corner...so no use trying.
Not trying to paint you into a corner Buzz, just making sure we all realize that politics is a part of the decision making process no matter what we think. It always has been, and it always will.
If we were serious about growing more elk, we'd all sit ou a couple of seasons, or move to less opportunity instead of demanding "our elk" every year. Right?
If we were serious about growing more elk, we'd all sit ou a couple of seasons, or move to less opportunity instead of demanding "our elk" every year. Right?
BuzzH
Well-known member
...or maybe quit allowing every hunter in Montana to kill 2 elk per year. Right?
There was another deal that the majority of hunters were NOT in favor of...neither were the FWP biologists. Yet it happened.
Hmmmm??????
I also realize that politics will never be out of the wildlife equation...and why it will always be as fugged up as a football bat.
There was another deal that the majority of hunters were NOT in favor of...neither were the FWP biologists. Yet it happened.
Hmmmm??????
I also realize that politics will never be out of the wildlife equation...and why it will always be as fugged up as a football bat.
Last edited:
The commission seats coming open are Bob Ream, Ron Moody and Shane Colton.
So Billings, Western MT, and central MT.
Wonder if sweet nectar would step up to the plate?
Ben, of all those items you mention coming down the pike, which of them became easier to solve with the Commission decisions today? I suspect we would agree the answer is "None."
Which ones were made more difficult? I suspect we would agree the answer is "All of them."
I am not "giving up" and not doing so because of two small areas being closed. It is about a much bigger issue. It is about a Commission who seems to run from their own shadow, leaving hunters hanging to dry while they put salve over political hot spots, counting on hunters to cover their butts no matter the decision made.
Being a Director/Commissioner is not supposed to be a place where you seek the path of least resistance. It requires leadership. It requires being able to stand up and do what is best for your constituents by doing what is best for the resource.
I agree the Commission is charged with managing wildlife for all citizens of Montana. Not citizens of other states, but of Montana. This decision was NOT about biology of what was best for the resource or the citizens of MT, as Ream admitted.
Since it was politics, one has to ask, "Was it best for Montanans?" If it were a referendum on the November ballot, I suspect that citizen vote would be far different than what the Commission voted today. I see nothing in this decision that represents the best interest of Montanans, rather pandering to those who can generate a huge amount of form letters from their out of state membership lists. Maybe I am wrong, but I am comfortable in my position that the Commission did not do fulfill their obligation to Montanans with this decision.
You are very astute and know full well the bigger picture implications of these actions today. They would have to hire a consultant to find a way to provide any more fire for the upcoming legislative session, beyond what they did in two votes today. In the process, dragging even more F&G issues onto the table of legislative committees. It is a predictable outcome and they still do it. Can all the blame be placed on the legislators when the Commission continues to do things that only provoke action?
This as a long-term struggle. Maybe it is time to let this Commission start being more accountable for their decisions and not covering for them every time they make a bad decision. Even if it result in some short-term pain and possible set backs, in the long run, hopefully they make better decisions.
I struggle to draw a parallel between the Simpson-Tester decision and this one. S-T was to gain state management control that every biologist said was proper under the ESA, only to be pulled away by the courts. It was what was best for wolves, elk, hunters, the future of the ESA, and most every other point, with the exception of the pocketbook of the litigators. Pretty easy for me to use politics as the last resort when the equation gets that far out of balance and know that it is helpful to the resource, as the S-T rider is.
S-T is far different than a Commission changing wolf management policy due to the complaints of some groups who have long-standing positions against hunting/trapping of wolves. Guess we get to disagree on that one.
This Commission continues to operate in a vacuum, as though they want to see how much powder they can load in the barrels of the legislative cannons, expecting us to walk up and take the volleys face on. My body and mind is only going to be a soldier marching into that battle for so long before I find different Generals and use different tactics.
You and I both know this Commission meeting, with the wolf closure and the Milk River fiasco, has done more the raise the venom against the Department and hunters/anglers, than any single Commission meeting in the last two years.
I do not feel this is an over reaction. I waited to hear more about the reasoning for the decision, and when Ream admitted this afternoon how this was all about politics, it was enough for me.
People spend years fighting these issues, trying to find solutions, trying to remove politics from both sides of the equation, then we have a Commission and a Director that continue to make decisions that build more enemies, even enemies within. Eventually, those who are fighting the fires tire of the folks who throw more fuel on the fire, with this Commission putting some serious accelerants on the flames today.
It would be easier to swallow if it was done for the betterment of the resource, the constituents, and the future generations. Neither of these decisions meet that criteria.
It seems when the "rational, reasonable and conservation minded hunters" do show up, it only emboldens the FWP Director and the Commissioners to continue making problems for themselves, taking for granted that those "rational, reasonable and conservation minded hunters" will provide political cover. When "rational, reasonable and conservation minded hunters" continue to defend every Commission decision, they might be serving as enablers to this behavior.
One thing we probably agree with on this one - If folks who have been involved for years, and there are many, are exasperated to the point of walking away, something has went afoul. Seriously afoul.
Maybe Santa will bring me some more patience/tolerance for Christmas. Right now I am fresh out. This kind of crap and these kind of decisions do nothing to help. And it is not about the small areas being closed, but the bigger pictures illustrated by their actions today.
I have no use for politics in this sphere, yet am not so naive to think it does not enter. The point of my battles have been to sterilize the politics as much as possible, believing what is best for the resource is best for us all, using political solutions only as a last resort and only when it supports what is best for the resource.
Lawnboy
Well-known member
That right there is the litmus test for the new commisioner.
Guys,
This should not come as a surprise to anyone-Ream and Moody have been in the pro wolf camp for years. They seem to love the praise they receive from that camp.
The guys in the Bitterroot have been on to their protection of ALL the predators for a long time.
http://howlingforjustice.wordpress.com/tag/ron-moody/
This should not come as a surprise to anyone-Ream and Moody have been in the pro wolf camp for years. They seem to love the praise they receive from that camp.
The guys in the Bitterroot have been on to their protection of ALL the predators for a long time.
http://howlingforjustice.wordpress.com/tag/ron-moody/
RobG
Well-known member
I listened in on the MFWP call today. The area that was closed is small - supposedly it only contains Yellowstone packs and no Montana packs. By Yellowstone packs it is meant wolves that primarily reside in the park. I think it does make some biological sense to protect those packs from hunters - that is supposed to be a self regulating system and the purpose of the park is to provide an area for that to happen. Losing collared wolves also affects research in those populations... so there is some biology.
I think we also need to weigh the importance of being able to kill a few of these wolves -- really an insignificant number -- against the damage this is doing to our image, which will eventually dictate whether we will be viewed as being responsible enough to hunt wolves. When weather drives the elk out of the park and people are shooting them from the roads we distance ourselves from those slobs. Don't you think killing national symbols might project a slightly worse image? If shooting an elk bogged down in a snowdrift is unsporting, thus bad for our sport, what is shooting a "glamor wolf" that thinks you are aiming a camera at her?
I'm not saying this is an easy problem - Ms. "Rock Star" wolf was a dozen or so miles outside of the park.
I'm hoping this is just a "time-out"so we can figure out a better way to do this. Maybe a quota on the number of collared wolves would make hunters take a 2nd look before they shoot... I don't know.
The fact of the matter is that all of the hunters in Montana, Wyoming, and Idaho only make up a fraction of 1% of the U.S. population. If we are going to continue to hunt wolves we will have to find a way to do it that doesn't give the anti-hunting community such ammunition to use against us because we are outnumbered.
That's my two cents anyway.
--rg
I think we also need to weigh the importance of being able to kill a few of these wolves -- really an insignificant number -- against the damage this is doing to our image, which will eventually dictate whether we will be viewed as being responsible enough to hunt wolves. When weather drives the elk out of the park and people are shooting them from the roads we distance ourselves from those slobs. Don't you think killing national symbols might project a slightly worse image? If shooting an elk bogged down in a snowdrift is unsporting, thus bad for our sport, what is shooting a "glamor wolf" that thinks you are aiming a camera at her?
I'm not saying this is an easy problem - Ms. "Rock Star" wolf was a dozen or so miles outside of the park.
I'm hoping this is just a "time-out"so we can figure out a better way to do this. Maybe a quota on the number of collared wolves would make hunters take a 2nd look before they shoot... I don't know.
The fact of the matter is that all of the hunters in Montana, Wyoming, and Idaho only make up a fraction of 1% of the U.S. population. If we are going to continue to hunt wolves we will have to find a way to do it that doesn't give the anti-hunting community such ammunition to use against us because we are outnumbered.
That's my two cents anyway.
--rg
shoots-straight
Well-known member
I'm really not sure of the "Biology" part. Wolves have been studied more than any other animal. Quit collaring them, problem solved.
bigeasygator
New member
I haven't been around the wolf debate long, and as a resident of the South I'm certainly not as close to the issue as some. However, I'm a reasonably educated fellow and can certainly understand some of the frustration of the folks closer to the issue. Here's what I see. Essentially, you have an agreed upon plan that gets shut down not because collared wolves have been shot, but because a "famous" wolf was shot. Neither one of these issues (collared wolves or specific wolves) should be anything new or unforeseen. This is caving to political pressure and the vocal voice of a national minority. My background is engineering and I hold an MBA -- I'm a much bigger fan of rational, scientific decision making than I am this political bullsh*t. At a minimum, it's frustrating that a given outcome (wolves getting shot) is leading to this backtracking, and if the concept of wolves with collars was going to be a "dealbreaker" it should have been discussed at length and factored into the wolf management plan already. I'm fairly certain based on the quotes from the folks that this isn't a decision based on biology though and is purely political...the folks making the decision have flat out admitted that. I'd be frustrated as hell if I lived in Montana knowing that the opinions of the New York Times or some photographer in California are deciding wolf management for the state of Montana.
BuzzH
Well-known member
The rockstar wolf was shot in Wyoming...why is Montana creating the buffer zone?
The Hedgehog
Well-known member
Good on Vermillion for having a pair. Saw a deer with a collar this year - long ways from the park. Good thing I didn't shoot- maybe it was somebody's "rockstar". So now, after this decision, when a disgruntled wolf hunter is hunting outside the "buffer zone" and he comes across a pack of wolves... Which is he more likely to plug: collared or uncollared? Would have been better to restrict harvest of collared animals if that was really the concern..
spook12
New member
Montana= Schizophrenic Wildlife management.
Hem
Well-known member
.Maybe wolves have been over-studied but collared wolves serve a purpose which may benefit hunters/elk management.Why not just protect those few for the sake of middle ground.Bad publicity is just that, the pot doesn't need to be stirred any more. The western states now have wolf hunts,THAT is good....clearly we have come a long way and should be thankful.I just can't subscribe to the "wipe them all out" notion and appreciate that wolves deserve a place in some of our wild lands.Shooting a collared wolf,or even an immature wolf is embarrassing to me as a hunter if it is a trophy kill."Misbehaving" wolves of any stature should be managed accordingly.This latest wolf controversy should have been anticipated,and a knee jerk response to create a buffer is lame.I hope this situation is resolved and goes away.For the record I DO support aggressive hunting of wolves.
Straight Arrow
Well-known member
Consider your predicament now if you shoot a collared wolf 150 miles from YNP. You might be tempted to install that collar on the axle of a freight truck headed for St. Louis before reporting your kill.
wyoming556
Banned
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2010
- Messages
- 1,242
Good point.
According to Ben Lamb "It even helped drag the bloodless, limp corpse of Wyoming over the finish line. Which, btw, their wolf plan is just politics and no biology. "
Something about that statement does not add up. If that was true WY would be creating the buffer zone but instead it's MT.
I personally like the WY plan. Gotta get these things contained somehow. Already had one with a collar get run over on the NE/SD border a couple of months ago and apparantly there are at least 2 more in the Chadron area right now.
Bambistew
Well-known member
Collars help locate a pack easier. Ranchers with tracking radios sure like that option.
RUT JUNKEY
Well-known member
I can't believe that they didn't think that it was a possibility that their "rock star" photo op park wolf wouldn't stay in the park? Also, if they were worried about the biology of the wolves. . .hey, how about make it illegal to harvest one with a collar? Seems like a lot of political pressure to me for sure. . .or bleeding heart huggers. I think the wolves have a place in the whole scheme of things, but, they do need to be hunted like everything else. I thought they made dumb decisions here in Hoosierland. . . guess its everywhere.
Similar threads
