Don't be so sure. There is a lot of resistance to baiting in MT within the hunting community.
MT Wolf Population
- Thread starter Drake4
- Start date
Don't be so sure. There is a lot of resistance to baiting in MT within the hunting community.
T
tjones
Guest
That is a legislative change, as I understand it FWP can not do this.
T
tjones
Guest
,,,and also a lot in favor of it.
At the current growth rate the wolf population in Montana will have doubled to 1314 wolves in 2016. If each wolf is responsible for just 10 big game deaths then the state of Montana would lose 13,140 big game animals in that year alone. It has to be pretty apparent that the current control measures have failed to even keep the population in check let alone reduce the population. Science based wildlife management calls for increasing the take by increasing opportunity.
trevore
New member
I'd come up to Montana and buy a tag to hunt a wolf. Anybody here willing to help a non res out with a wolf hunt?
Yup. Equal amounts of work and fun.
T
tjones
Guest
FWP needs to come out with the most liberal, non restrictive wolf season they can while working within the wolf plan. They need to use every tool in the tool box. Baiting, trapping, what ever. And we as hunters need to support it. Stay within the plan and absolutely quit being so damn cautious.
If this stings someones fragile sense of sensibility, or nicks their personal ethics, then that person needs to get over it for the greater good. If they don’t with the next legislative session coming up, we can expect a rash of anti wolf/FWP legislation. Bills like SB414 from last session that WILL land the wolf back on the list and if that happens, then we deserve it.
If this stings someones fragile sense of sensibility, or nicks their personal ethics, then that person needs to get over it for the greater good. If they don’t with the next legislative session coming up, we can expect a rash of anti wolf/FWP legislation. Bills like SB414 from last session that WILL land the wolf back on the list and if that happens, then we deserve it.
Candidate Jones, I will be your campaign treasurer.
Really, I agree with you 100%. The time for action is now. There is no reason for delay on some of these issues. Many of them are department/commission issues that can be addressed easily. Some may require legislative action, such as fee changes, etc. We can use those a year from now when the legislature meets.
The MT plan that the USFWS agreed to and was the focus of the Simpson-Tester rider, is very flexible. So long as all tools fall within the scope of what is allowed in the plan, and we do not get to below the 15/150 issue for three consecutive years, we will be find.
Given the direction numbers are headed, I think we have a ton of options before worrying about the 15/150 numbers.
To me, this is not about anti-predator, kill all the wolves, rhetoric. This is about seeing what the management plan says, what the populations trends are showing us, and taking the necessary management steps to manage.
We also don't set policy based on 1 years data alone. I do not think you can say that FWP failed in managing wolves.
Again, I'm all for increasing take, but we better be damned sure we follow the plan, and do it in a sensible and reasonable manner, not just go out to whack wolves. Focus the harvest where we need it, provide ample opportunity and follow the plan, otherwise we give enough ammo to end up back in court, or back on the list.
And if you don't think that ethics play a huge piece in this, then remember what happened w/ the Bitterroot extension. There is a loud and vocal group opposed to anything we do w/ hunting or killing of wolves, and if we don't maintain public support, we're screwed in the long run.
The Legislature is one thing, the public initiative process is another, and lawsuits are a third.
jryoung
Well-known member
I'm in to hunt MT this year, but am not sure I'm going to get wolf tag. It sucks that it's nearly $1,300 for non-residest to get a deer/elk and wolf tag.
Forutnately I can change my mind later this summer though, but the shelling out I'll be doing in the next week or so will hurt (as I'm buying my Dads license too).
Forutnately I can change my mind later this summer though, but the shelling out I'll be doing in the next week or so will hurt (as I'm buying my Dads license too).
Ben, are your referring to hunters or non-hunters? Not familiar with the ethics discussion as it relates to the Bitterroot extension.
Does that have to do with pregnant females being hunted during dates covered by the proposed season extension? If so, is that really a concern when we have elk damage hunts into February where fetuses are four months along? Or when we still allow the shooting of bears or lions that might be pregnant? Or ........
Give me the low down on this ethics argument. Not having been there, I am in the dark on it.
It's very much about the non-hunters, and a lot of hunters who have ethical concerns about being aggressive on a species that was just delisted.
We protect bears w/ cubs, lions w/ kittens, we should do the same for wolves.
A four month old fetus in a elk is much different sociologically than a wolf who's only days away from giving birth. What will a grip and grin photo of wolf with her teats hanging low do to the ethical image that hunters have cultivated over the last 100 years?
The ethics of this issue cannot be understated. The entire world is watching what we're doing. I share the same concerns as Tony and Robert for the Root. I want wolves managed as well, but I don't want to see hunters give up the moral high ground in order to do it.
If we put so much focus on wolves that we ignore other, more important issues such as loss of winter range, poor habitat conditions in summer and transitional ranges, and noxious weeds, that we'll end up pissing away our opportunity to really help elk, deer and moose for the long run.
The above comment(s) make more sense than anything I could have written. Staying within the plan and using any/all tools in the box is not doing anything but what is legal. Hell - if you're afraid of ethical or legal repercussions just sit on your hands and worry/talk about it. The hunting community sure ought to have plenty of experience by now with legal issues thrown at us by all the fuzzy hugger groups.
IT IS TIME TO TAKE AN OFFENSIVE APPROACH, we'll play defense when the need arises.
Well said tjones.
npaden
Well-known member
I do think Idaho seems to have it going on a little better than Montana on this issue right now. Aerial gunning in hard to access areas, trapping season already in full swing, 2 tags per person, very cheap tags, wolf tag included in super combo license for residents, etc.
Curious if the numbers will show they made a dent in their population or not.
Curious if the numbers will show they made a dent in their population or not.
T
tjones
Guest
FWP says there is 4, sometimes 6 wolf packs in HD250, the odds of killing a pregnant female would have been slim to none. This excuse was nothing more then histaria started by Ream and Moody and spun to the public.
We best be careful playing the personal ethics card. I know lots of hunters and non hunters that have ethic concerns with hunters killing multiple doe deer and antelope.
The wolf plan was accepted and with stood court challenges, its time to use it and not be afraid.
The quick fix is to limit hunters and reduce predators while we work on habitat, winter range and other issues. Hunters have given, predators need reduced and by the counts what we are doing is not working. FWP touts adaptive harvest management for all other species, learn as you go and adapt. With and increase of 15% in wolf numbers its is obvious we have not adapted enough when it comes to wolf management.
shoots-straight
Well-known member
Southern BC, and Alberta's environment, and species of wolf are exactly the same "world" that region 1 has. Apples to apples there.
Problematic for a few. I would venture to say that a large majority of hunters will support this legislation. I'm prepared to duke it out.
How about 16 years of data? They haven't decreased yet. We have got to reduce some populations in order to grow elk. Both lions, and wolves are a big reason the Root elk are teetering on this cliff. We don't have time. You can always change regs latter if too many wolves are taken. That won't happen though.
The loud vocal group will oppose any type of hunt, period. If your trying to show them it's alright they way a wolf dies, your naive. The remaining 70% of the population, are the ones we need to win over. Of those we're just looking to turn 1/2.
Will the use of electronic calling devices for predatory animals turn public opinion against us? Hell no!
Will baiting bears, and wolves turn those people against us. Some. Some hunters are against baiting of anything. That's totally stupid, with no foundation. Morality, and ethics in hunting don't have a place. How can it be morally better the way an animals life is taken. Showing the animal respect up to that point goes a lot farther. We can argue morality, and ethics in hunting forever. It does us no good to do so. It's usually coming from a hypocritical person.
Will trapping turn the general public against us? No, we use is now on a variety of animals, and the US FWS, as well as the MTFW&Ps used trapping to manage wolves. How'd that go? No matter what we do, trapping will be attacked. If we rely on trapping to control wolf populations, it will gain, not lose support.
I could give a rats ass, what the world feels is right or wrong with how we manage our game populations. Morality is different for all, don't bring morality to the table with this. We aren't even close to treating wolves ethically, or morally wrong.
So are you trying to tell us that using electronic calls, baiting, and killing more than 1 wolf could be morally, or ethically wrong? Seriously?
Last edited:
shoots-straight
Well-known member
Similar threads
