MT Wolf Population

[shoots-straight]

I love ya like a brother, but that's BS. When we give up the ethical high ground, we're no better than SFW or Center for Biological Diversity. We're better people than that.

You might be shocked by the methods to which Teddy Roosevelt, Aldo Leopold and other great men used when they hunted big game animals.

To claim, (because of personal beliefs) that your taking the "High Ground" doesn't make it so. Ethics, and morality in hunting are really tough to define. Ethically, I believe I do take the "High Ground" because I don't advocate illegal activity. I don't tell others to SSS. I fight against poaching, etc. Methods by which we take animals are neither moral, or ethical. They are more apt to be political, or whether sporting or unsporting. You might not like the method someone uses when they pursue an animal. That doesn't mean your better than them. Doesn't mean your worse either. Just means you don't like to hunt that way.

You claim trapping is OK, but you don't like baiting because it's not fair chase. Tell me what the difference is. Never mind, because I do both, I'll tell you. Trapping is baiting but your able to catch your prey 24/7 if everything goes well. Traps aren't smart yet. They don't care if the animal is adult, young, female, or male, they just catch what steps there. You do have the capability of turning them loose though. Baiting, you have to be there when your prey is. If a bear shows up, you have time to watch it and wait to see if cubs show up. You can identify boars from sows. You have time to look over the hide of the bear. Spot and stalk, you find a bear, decide if you want that bear, then stalk to where you can shoot, and if everything goes well, Boom. Sows with cubs, and bears with poor quality are shot each year in this fashion. Is that more ethical? Where's the high ground there. Boone and Crockett believe that harvesting bears over bait to be fair chase. IMO, it's a better method for bears too.In the thicker areas it's a more efficient way of hunting them.

I love you like a brother too, but little bro, I believe it's un-ethical to claim that baiting bears isn't ethical, or fair chase, or morally wrong, without ever doing it. What higher being told you that your taking the high ground. RB? That is an Elitist attitude, and wrong headed.

OK, you love to fly fish. I believe that we do more harm to our fisheries by letting people catch and release trout all year long. Too hard on the resource for me, even if done properly. I have fished using this method, so I have some experience to add my opinion. I don't think fly fishing is any more ethical than bait fishing, just more of an elitist thing to do. Both methods catch fish, and both can kill them. Wasn't' that the point some time ago. I know the arguments both pro and con,just saying.

You don't have to like baiting. That's not the point of my argument. We might need the tool, to be in the tool box if needed. That's why we're going to run the legislation. We may need the option for hunting and trapping wolves down the road.

The definition of ethics, is what we do when no one is watching. To shoot or not to shoot. It's the decision you make on your own when the time comes. It's what's inside you when all by yourself, and you answer to no one. It's your individual choice to shoot, hold off on iffy shots, waste meat, participate, or not too. Making the right decision when the time comes, now "That's the 'High Ground" to me.​

 

[MTbowhunter84]

What would it take to make a wolf license part of our sportsman's license? We definetly need more ground troups out there this coming year that are packing wolf licenses.

Not a bad idea at all. More than that though we just need to be vigilant and get out more and create more opportunities. I have not yet helped out the situation with wolves, but am planning a trip this next season to attempt to assist in controlling the wolves. I live in Eastern MT and we do have a limited number of wolves out here, but I plan on heading out west to where the problem is. I don't know a lot about hunting them, but figure I'm doing no good by staying home thinking about it just need to go do it. I'll take all the advice I can get.

 

[shoots-straight]

Never said that trapping was morally wrong. Baiting is a different issue. It's not fair chase, IMO.

That is the first time I can honestly call BS on one of your statements. That is nothing more than Elitism.

It use to be that our outdoor heritage was protected by this large castle with thick high walls, made up of many layers, that no one cared to chip away at. Those walls aren't as high, or thick anymore. Things like baiting, trapping, hound hunting, make up many of those layers that protected us. They insulated our core. Sure those methods, invites attack from those that want to destroy our heritage, but they keep the core safe. Those layers aren't just being chipped from the outside, but they are also being removed from inside as well. Apathy, and internal bickering are taking a toll.

There are many sportsman, that dislike trapping. Their outspoken support of anti trapping groups are in newspapers all the time. Many use dogs to hunt with. Those dogs are susceptible to getting into traps. Also, trappers are competition to hound hunters. Bobcats would only be harvested by houndsmen if trapping were illegal. So there some self serving there, along with stupidity. To believe that using hounds to hunt with will not be next in line is naive.

Your dislike of baiting I can live with, if you understand the real reason, and accept it. You don't like it because you feel it's not sporting, period. I know you think your taking the high ground and protecting us from attacks. The truth thought is by doing so we have one less layer of the castle to protect us. We chipped that layer off from the inside. Put that layer back up, and make them take it away from us. California is good example of that right now. They banned the hunting of lions in their state. So their President of the Fish & Game kills a legal lion in Idaho, and gets attacked more easily for doing it because those layers of the castle are even thinner, and the walls shorter in that state. Strange though, they still allow baiting of bears there.

I know many traditional bowhunters that feel the same way about bowhunting as you do baiting. They feel that hunting with a long bow, or recurve bow is more sporting, and the taking of game with it is therefore more ethical. Many feel that using that equipment is taking the high ground. The true high ground in Bow hunting to me, is being efficient with what ever equipment you use, and not taking un ethical shots. Many archery hunters are taking to far of a shot these days. The TV shows are to blame for this. They are showing long range shots taken and made all the time. This is un ethical IMO. They should be fair and show the bad too. I understand why they don't though, as that would cast a bad light on them, and we can't tarnish their image. That has a bigger impact on our heritage than the baiting of predators. The new wave hunters, participating in the outdoor hunting way of life, that try to emulate what they see on TV are a bigger threat to our core than the baiting of predators.

Your acceptance of trapping, but not baiting, has me scratching my head. Maybe you really don't like trapping either. It is a part of our outer walls, that are under attack all the time. Do we remove it by ourselves so we can avoid the battle? How about hound hunting? That was frowned on just as much as baiting in Washington, and Oregon. I say No, leave them up there, fight for those methods of taking game, even if you'll never do it. By doing so we keep the walls of our castle intact. Protecting the core is what it's all about.

 

[devon deer]

The entire world is watching what we're doing.QUOTE]
You ain't wrong there Ben, i am watching from the UK, i am sure i'm not alone.
And as a previous poster said, by the time i have shelled out $944 for a NR Elk/Deer combo the last thing i am willing to do is pay an extra $350 to shoot a wolf, only $19 for a resident.
Why should anyone, resident or non resident have to pay anything to shoot a wolf?
Arent they just a predator like a coyote?

Cheers

Richard

 

[Drake4]

Why should anyone, resident or non resident have to pay anything to shoot a wolf?
Arent they just a predator like a coyote?

Cheers

Richard

Nope..they are a big game animal.

Here are my thoughts on the trapping, baiting issue. I could actuallly care less who thinks this stuff is morally/ethically right or wrong. I love to hunt spring bears, spot and stalk. I don't think I would ever bait one or chase one with hounds. I have nothing against people who do. If it is legal, than have at it. And I am glad that those methods are legal. I just enjoy the spot and stalk too much. That being said, I have never tried baiting..who knows, I may love it.

With the wolf..it is time to get something done. If that means baiting them, trapping them, aerial gunning, bombing..I don't care and I don't care what the wolf huggers think. We are well past that point. We showed that the MT hunting season, as was put in place for this year, is not going to impact the overall population. It is only going to get tougher to kill them from here on out. It's time to do something and quit being so damn hung up on what the rest of the world thinks is morally correct. Screw em'.

 

[devon deer]

Nope..they are a big game animal. Well perhaps they need to be re-classified then.
Here are my thoughts on the trapping, baiting issue. I could actuallly care less who thinks this stuff is morally/ethically right or wrong. I love to hunt spring bears, spot and stalk. I don't think I would ever bait one or chase one with hounds. I have nothing against people who do. If it is legal, than have at it. And I am glad that those methods are legal. I just enjoy the spot and stalk too much. That being said, I have never tried baiting..who knows, I may love it.

With the wolf..it is time to get something done. If that means baiting them, trapping them, aerial gunning, bombing..I don't care and I don't care what the wolf huggers think. We are well past that point. We showed that the MT hunting season, as was put in place for this year, is not going to impact the overall population. It is only going to get tougher to kill them from here on out. It's time to do something and quit being so damn hung up on what the rest of the world thinks is morally correct. Screw em' I sincerely hope you dont mean me, because i aint no tree hugger, give me a gun and i would assist with reducing the wolf numbers, but not for $350 though .

Cheers

Richard

 

[Drake4]

Originally Posted by devon deer
Well perhaps they need to be re-classified then.

I sincerely hope you dont mean me, because i aint no tree hugger, give me a gun and i would assist with reducing the wolf numbers, but not for $350 though .

Ask Wyoming how that re-classification is going. Won't happen.

If you aren't a tree hugger then I wasn't talking to you. I wasn't responding to your post.

 

[npaden]

Back to my question from earlier....

Is Idaho that much different that Montana on politics? They have trapping, baiting, aerial gunning, multiple tags, cheap tags, etc. already in place. I don't remember any of that even being a blip on the radar screen.

Seems Montana really messed up not putting all that into place right from the start. Now instead of the focus being just on the fact that some of their precious wolves are going to be killed, the antis are going to get to focus on the specific methods used to kill them.

 

[shoots-straight]

Seems Montana really messed up not putting all that into place right from the start. Now instead of the focus being just on the fact that some of their precious wolves are going to be killed, the antis are going to get to focus on the specific methods used to kill them.

No, these people are not the antis, these people are our own. My little bro

 

[Big Fin]

Back to my question from earlier....

Is Idaho that much different that Montana on politics? They have trapping, baiting, aerial gunning, multiple tags, cheap tags, etc. already in place. I don't remember any of that even being a blip on the radar screen.

Seems Montana really messed up not putting all that into place right from the start. Now instead of the focus being just on the fact that some of their precious wolves are going to be killed, the antis are going to get to focus on the specific methods used to kill them.

It is not a function of politics as much as it is the difference in the management plans put together by each state.

Both states must abide by the management plans they submitted for approval. So long as the management action is allowed under the plan, that state is just fine.

MT would have put trapping in from the get go, as Idaho did, but our trappers association was fresh off a near loss in a ballot initiative to outlaw trapping. So, the trappers asked to not have trapping as part of the equation in the first year.

MT can be more aggreessive in our management and still be within the plan that was approved. That is what this argument is about. How do we get more aggressive and still stay within the plan.

Also, ID has way more wolves than MT and MT has way more wolves than WY. A function of habitat and where the wolves were released. ID was ground zero for one of the release areas and has so much habitat that is hard to reach. ID needed to be very aggressive right from the start, as they have as many wolves than MT and WY combined.

ID and MT will always have more wolves than WY, as we have 2X to 5X the amount of acreage that is prime habitat. So, MT and ID need to be thinking about strategies that are effective in large areas. So far, ID has been leading the push for aggressive management tools.

I suspect MT is going to follow in their footsteps.

People should understand that some action in ID may not be allowed in MT, as our plans as accepted were different plans. And, some things we may do in MT may not be allowed under the ID plan.

Some items in ID may or may not require legislative approval, as they may be powers granted to the ID F&G commission. Different items in MT may or may not require legislative approval.

Both states are different in what powers they granted to their game commissions. With that, it is expected that commission responsiveness to certain requested actions will be different in both states.

I suspect both states are going to put the heavy pressure on wolves goinig forward. Full steam ahead, so long as we don't go outside the boundary of the plan we adopted.

 

[Ben Lamb]

It's friday, I'm tired and cranky so I'll just agree to disagree.

Call Pos and ask him about this. See what he has to say about it all.

Now let's go get some beer and drop grubs down a hole.

 

[tjones]

Call Pos and ask him about this. See what he has to say about it all.

.

This is bigger then Pos.

 

[Horn Seeker]

I wish there was a way around the perceived ethics and morals issues, but I dont think there is. Involving EVERYONE in these decisions simply introduces too many variables. Democracy is a beautiful system at one moment.... and horrible at another. I lived through the ban of hound hunting in Washington. I grew up hunting hounds and raising hounds...it was my life. I lived and breathed them. Then I watched on a cold ass fall night as over 70% of the voters in Washington agreed that I was some sort of unethical, unsportsman like heathen and said, "you shalt not hunteth the hounds anymore"... ^%#$#*#&& YOU!!! We just kept hunting... it was a little hairy at times...always out there, "coon" hunting... but, in the end, it worked.

See, there are times when the majority just doesn't work. How often does 51% get what they want, and 49% dont. That sounds like a hell of a good deal eh?

Baiting bears is very little different than hound hunting. If YOU are the baiter, or the houndsman... you are spending a lot of time and effort in creating "the shot" (in that, hounds are a 365 a day a year commitment, baiting less so, but many serious baiters collect bait for a month before opener and run baits hard for a month at a time). How many guys buy a bear tag "just in case" every year? How many of them, while out deer hunting "see and shoot" a bear? Lots. Is that so much more sporting and ethical than collecting bait, transporting bait to the site and maintaining your bait and spending XX hours hunting/targeting a BEAR at that bait site? Joe Shmoe takes his rifle for a walk, jumps a bear outta the chokecherry patch and blasts a hole through him at 300 yards.... Now that is the definition of sporting and ethical. How so compared to the baiter?

Back to Wolves:
Does anyone here doubt that if we had an open wolf season, for trapping and hunting....365 days a year... we would EVER get below 15/150? We wouldn't. Not unless there was a sizable bounty.

 

[BuzzH]

I think with year round hunting and trapping you could get below 15/150...

How much trapping have you done?

 

[Horn Seeker]

None personal, only work... for bears.

I am just wondering how many trappers would hit it? Maybe there would be more interest than the hunting generated? Or...is it just that much more effective. Once the numbers got down "near" there Buzz... dont you think the effort to find those last 150 would be pretty serious?

 

[BuzzH]

I think plenty of trappers would be working the wolves over pretty good...gang sets done right will dent a pack...quickly. Traps "hunt" 24 hours a day.

I couldnt think of anything more exciting than cutting tracks on a pack of wolves headed right toward a couple dozen snares...

 

[shoots-straight]

Buzz is right. Tapping will control the population. After you educate the trappers, they would get better. Add in baiting to the trapping, and you've got things going your way. Then we're talking about numbers.

 

[----]

I've never even thought about trying trapping. If we get a wolf trapping season though, I'll definitely give it a go. I would hope I'm not the only one that'd take it as a good reason to learn trapping.

 

[Breaks Runner]

Basically, trapping a wolf in a steel trap is no different than trapping a coyote. Everything is just "scaled up". I will say it gets frustrating waiting for them to return to the sets......their homerange is just so big it may be weeks before they show up again...keeping steel traps going in the winter is a lot of work in constantly changing conditions, rain, snow, wind, thawing and freezing, etc. I would be surprised if snaring was allowed. Like Buzz said, it's a good way to kill a lot of wolves in a hurry(in tandem with bait). Over harvest would be a likely problem, unless the quota system was changed to allow a trapper more than one wolf.

 

[Horn Seeker]

I'm sure you guys are right, but its hard to believe that as big as the wolf country is... lawful hunting and trapping could ever take them under 150. Sure sounds like a step in the right direction though!

Shoot, I'd like to just see them backed off to 400 or so!