MTNTOUGH - Use promo code RANDY for 30 days free

Wolf Idiots -- what next?

The Hedgehog

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 19, 2000
Messages
12,167
Location
BEST town on EARTH
Collaring plan could bust wolf management budget

By WALT WILLIAMS, Chronicle Staff Writer

HELENA -- A legislative plan to put radio collars on gray wolves could bankrupt the state's fledging wolf management program, which is needed to delist wolves as an endangered species.

Senate Bill 461 would require one wolf from every wolf pack near a population or livestock center wear a radio collar so the pack could be tracked.

The bill easily passed the Senate, but once it hit the other chamber, the House Agriculture Committee amended it to require the state provide any landowner a free radio receiver to track wolves, as long as the person lives in an area frequented by wolves.

The amended version won the initial approval of the House Tuesday.

The amendment raised the bill's cost from $25,000 in 2006 to $385,000, which is about what the Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks plans to spend on its recently created wolf management program in a single year.

The cost would drop to $47,500 in 2007, because many landowners would have receivers by that time. But that's still nearly twice what it would cost without the amendment, according to a state fiscal analysis.

Montana must have a wolf management plan before the species is delisted as an endangered species by the federal government. Delisting has been sought by ranchers and state officials for years.

"It's going to divert dollars and time and attention away from the real job of managing wolves and into purchasing and distributing radio receivers that at best are going to give landowners a false sense of security," FWP chief of staff Chris Smith said Tuesday.

That's because there is no guarantee that the collared wolf would be with the rest of the pack while hunting, he said.

FWP has no problem with the bill as long as it doesn't require the agency to give away receivers, which cost at least $900 per device.

But House Republicans pushed to include the language so property owners would have one more way to protect themselves from the predators.

"Look at it as a smoke detector or burglar alarm in your home," Rep. Debby Barrett, R-Dillon, said.

Rep. Paul Clark, D-Trout Creek, tried to remove the amendment when the bill came up for debate on the House floor. "As landowners apply for these receivers they will use up the funding" for wolf management, he said.

His motion failed.

Rep. Diane Rice, R-Harrison, defended the need for receivers, saying schools in Gardiner and Mammoth would probably be the first to apply for them because students in both places can't walk to school because of wolves.

However school officials in both communities said Tuesday there were no rules preventing their students from walking to school.

Rice also said wolves have thinned an elk herd of 7,000 animals to "little bunches of 30" in the Madison Valley.

House Republicans noted the bill requires FWP to pay for the program using federal funds. But Clark and other Democrats countered that once those funds dried up, FWP would have to dip into money it raises from licenses to meet the requirements of the bill.

The federal government brought the wolves to Montana, Rep. George Golie, D-Great Falls, said. "They should pay for it."

The bill still must pass a final vote in the House. Then, if the Senate doesn't agree with amendments the House made, the bill will be sent to a conference committee.

The bill is sponsored by Sen. Donald Steinbeisser, R-Sidney
 
What?! Welfare ranchers holding up the process? Couldn't be...:rolleyes:

Oak
 
Holding up the process? What process would that be? Having wolves crammed up State's asses against their will, then being told to come up with funding to "properly magage" them, with federal approval of course? Or would it be reducing the budgets of those state's fish&wildlife depts. through lost license sales due to the effect wolves have had on elk/moose? Or maybe its the dishonesty on the part of the Feds about the actual number of wolves, their location, mortality rates on elk/moose, etc...? You're probably right. We wouldn't want to mess with that process.
 
Looks like another Montanan in need of an education on wolves.

The wolves were not "crammed up the States asses against their will"...

In fact, it was exactly the OPPOSITE. There was over-whelming national as well as STATE support of the wolf reintroduction. There were hundreds of scoping meetings held throughout Wyoming, Idaho, and Montana. There were several open comment periods, thousands of comments received, which again showed over-whelming support of the wolf reintro.

I'll tell you what the joke is, the welfare ranchers in Wyoming holding up MT and ID from delisting. Thats the joke.

Along with dingbats who say stupid crap like this: "Rep. Diane Rice, R-Harrison, defended the need for receivers, saying schools in Gardiner and Mammoth would probably be the first to apply for them because students in both places can't walk to school because of wolves.

Students cant walk to school because of wolves? For Christ sake, does she even know how dumb she sounds?

The representatives in MT need to quit catering to the welfare ranchers...make them buy their own receivers...
 
You are right that there were some ridiculous statements made in the above article. I think that there have been an equal amount made by both the pro-wolf and anti-wolf sides on this issue. As far as overwhelming state support for wolves? I'm sorry but that is not how I remember it. I'm sure there were thousands of comments in favor of wolves, but did they come form Montana/Idaho/Wyoming residents? Did they overwhelmingly outnumber the comments agianst reintroduction from those same residents?
 
You are right that there were some ridiculous statements made in the above article. I think that there have been an equal amount made by both the pro-wolf and anti-wolf sides on this issue. As far as overwhelming state support for wolves? I'm sorry but that is not how I remember it. I'm sure there were thousands of comments in favor of wolves, but did they come form Montana/Idaho/Wyoming residents? Did they overwhelmingly outnumber the comments agianst reintroduction from those same residents? I'm not a radical "redneck" that thinks my opinion is the only one that should matter and every wolf should be shot on sight. But, there should be a little give and take by bot sides. I don't think that has happened yet.
 
jmcd,

Good post and I agree with you, cooperation is a must in getting wolves delisted and keeping them under control...in particular cooperation by the States with the USFWS. Something Wyoming is NOT doing.

The answer to your question regarding if there was "over-whelming support by MT/WY/ID residents"...YES, there was.

In fact, many sportsmen groups were supportive, many hunters, etc.

No big deal, but its just not truthful to say that the States had wolves crammed up their ass. The message they all sent to the USFWS was a message of support.
 
Fair enough. We agree on the first part of your reply, but still not on the second part. But thats OK. Life would get boring if everybody agreed on everything. What would we argue about? ;)
 
I'm just not sure what conclusion the USFWS was supposed to come to when a landslide of public comments in the scoping meetings and for the EIS were in favor of the wolf reintroduction?

The fact is...most people living in MT, ID, and WY did not take the time to comment...and those who did were is support.

If it was so important to people in MT/ID/WY to not reintroduce wolves why didnt they let the USFWS know that?...why didnt they take the time to write comments???????????
 
What frikkin rancher would want a radio tracking receiver for wolves and be afraid of letting a kid walk to school in Gardiner. Gimme a break. Whoever voted for Diane Rice should be damn proud of themselves. Consider this a lesson..
 
Sadly, you are right that many did not take time to comment. I know many people who did not care enough at the time but are now pissed. But, simply not filing a comment or not attending a meeting and voicing opposition is not the same thing as showing overwhelming support. I'm not making excuses for laziness and hopefully something was learned. Back to my point though, I still don't believe that MT/ID/WY residents and their elected officials (ie. the States) where for wolves at all, let alone overwhelmingly. Also, I am sure that some "sportsmans" groups as a whole were for the wolves. But as far as MT/ID/WY residents that were members of these groups, were they overwhelmingly for it? It puts the states and their game management agencies in a crappy position when they are handed wolves they didn't want, get their hands tied as to how to "manage" them, need to figure out how to pay for them, then the USFWS calls it a great "success" and prepares to move on. Then you have a guy from a state that,as of yet, has no real wolf issue insulting people that don't want wolves.? Come on. Having a few wolves is fine. But the way this deal has been going is a little unnerving and its not just the "idiot welfare recipient rednecks" that are to blame.
 
jmcd,

You need to read the Final EIS on the wolf reintroduction plan. All the things you're talking about were agreed to by all the parties involved (MTFWP, USFWS, IDG&F, etc. etc, etc. The only thing that is currently not being addressed is Wyomings failure to come up with a state plan (again part of the original EIS and agreed upon by WY, MT, and ID) acceptable to the USFWS.

Turning control of the wolves over to the states was part of the EIS from day one...

I think what you're suffering from is a discontent for what was agreed upon in the beginning. That, and you apparently were not involved with this thing from the beginning and you're lacking some pretty important facts.

A quick search on the net will give you all the info you need...including a copy of the Final EIS...

Dont take my word for it, research it yourself.
 
Buzz,
Everything from your last post is correct and factual, including my discontent with the "agreement." You and I could probably go on for days; me arguing that the majorities in MT/ID/WY were against wolves, state wildlife agencies have been handed a turd to deal with, etc. and you arguing that several groups were in favor of wolves, the public comment process for the EIS was followed, many replies were favorable, etc. I think we agree that there is a lot of B.S. info out there being blown out of proportion by both sides (and yes, Rices' comments are idiotic) and that there will need to be cooperation before progress is made. I just don't think that either side has made much effort yet. I also think that even if Wyoming folded tomorrow, its going to be a long long time before we hunters get to manage wolves in any meaningful way. This states and feds squabbling is just the tip of the iceberg. We've still got lawsuits/public outcry from antihunting groups to look foward to. Anyway that's a different topic and I hope I'm wrong. Its late; I gotta crash. Thanks for the educ.. I mean opinions.
 
I just got back from fishing with the manager for the game and fish dept on endangered species.

I would love to bring him into this discussion, for he wrote the program on the wolfs here in AZ many years ago and is the man guy on it now.


Buzz, he knows frank very well also, he said he thinks he knows you as well, first name is Terry J
 
PEAX Trekking Poles

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
113,615
Messages
2,026,752
Members
36,245
Latest member
scottbenson
Back
Top