Leupold BX-4 Rangefinding Binoculars

Wolf increase 07

ELKCHSR

New member
Joined
Nov 28, 2001
Messages
13,765
Location
Montana
MONTANA WOLF POPULATION GROWS IN 2007​

More than 420 wolves now inhabit Montana, nearly equally distributed between the state's northern and southern areas, according to the annual wolf conservation and management report released by Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks.

FWP’s report, which is available on line at fwp.mt.gov, shows Montana's wolf population increased about 34 percent from last year. The minimum Montana wolf population is estimated at 422 wolves, in 73 verified packs, and 39 breeding pairs.

FWP’s report is part of the annual federal recovery update required by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The end of 2007 count also estimates that 359 wolves inhabited Wyoming and 732 wolves inhabited Idaho.

Annual reports from Idaho, Wyoming, and information about wolves in Yellowstone National Park and the northern Rockies as a whole are available on line at westerngraywolf.fws.gov

Most of the increase in Montana's wolf population occurred in northwestern and far western Montana near the Idaho border where the population grew by about 92 wolves. Wolf numbers in the Montana Greater Yellowstone Area increased by about 14 wolves.

"Our monitoring is getting better and we have hunters, landowners and many others taking the time tell us where and when they see wolves or wolf sign," said Carolyn Sime, FWP's wolf management coordinator in Helena.

In the northwestern Montana endangered area, biologists estimate the wolf population at 213 wolves, in 36 verified packs, and 23 breeding pairs. In the southern Montana experimental area, biologists estimate the wolf population at 209 wolves, in 37 verified packs, and 16 breeding pairs.

While wolves are still listed under the Endangered Species Act, they remain under two different sets of federal regulations in Montana. These regulations will expire when the wolf is delisted. The federal delisting decision is set to take effect in late March, but legal challenges now underway may stall the removal of the wolf from the federal list of endangered species.

A total of 102 wolf deaths documented in 2007, 73 were related to livestock depredations, seven were killed illegally, and six were struck by vehicles or trains. Others died from a variety of causes common to all wildlife species, including poor health and old age. Despite the loss of 102 wolves, the Montana wolf population is still very secure. FWP documented a minimum of 163 pups at the end of 2007.

Confirmed cattle deaths in Montana increased from 32 in 2006 to 75 in 2007, and confirmed sheep death losses increased from four to 27. Three wolf packs accounted for 25 percent of the confirmed cattle losses and 30 percent of the wolves authorized to be killed in response.

One wolf pack and lone wolves were responsible for all confirmed sheep losses. Two llamas and three dogs were also confirmed killed by wolves. Additional losses and injuries occurred, but either could not be verified or were determined to be "probable" wolf kills.

"We know Montana's wolves inhabit places where people live, work and recreate," Sime said. "We expect and try to anticipate conflicts and gear much of our wolf management work toward helping landowners reduce the risk of livestock depredations."

Sime noted that of 73 wolves that were killed to prevent further depredations, 11 were killed by private citizens in southern Montana's experimental area. She said a variety of nonlethal tools were also employed in cooperation with landowners to reduce potential conflicts.

For example, FWP again collaborated in several range rider projects. FWP and Wildlife Services also field-tested electrified fladry for the first time through a Conservation Innovation Grant provided by the USDA Natural Resources and Conservation Service.

USFWS recently announced that it would delist the northern Rocky Mountain’s gray wolves in Montana, Idaho and Wyoming—and parts of Washington and Utah—on March 28, based in part on the USFWS’s determination that the northern Rocky Mountain population has exceeded recovery goals and all potential threats to the wolf have been resolved.

The minimum recovery goal for wolves in the northern Rocky Mountains is 30 breeding pairs and at least 300 wolves for three consecutive years, a goal that was attained in 2002 and has been exceeded every year since.

To learn more about Montana’s recovered wolf population, and to access Montana's 2007 annual wolf program report , visit FWP online at fwp.mt.gov. Click "Montana Wolves". Web visitors can also tell FWP when they see wolves or wolf sign.

The information helps to verify the activity, distribution, and pack sizes of Montana’s recovered wolf population.

-fwp-​
 
I forgot...

I'm supposed to give a little editorial when posting these types of articles so every one knows my stance one way or the other.... ;)

Why are we spending money, doing any research, or counting of wolves, it's a fact lawyers (hock, spit) and environmental groups (again, hock, spit) will only put lawsuits and injunctions to stop any measure of control this research by our ‘ologists’ may lead to...
 
Why are we spending money, doing any research, or counting of wolves, it's a fact lawyers (hock, spit) and environmental groups (again, hock, spit) will only put lawsuits and injunctions to stop any measure of control this research by our ‘ologists’ may lead to...
How else do you expect the USFWS or MT FG&P to manage wildlife? I guess they could always just give you call to find out what to do...
 
LOL... :)

I like our 'ologists'

I think they serve a vital role

It's the other groups who are on a never ending drum beating venture to go against our specialists advisement running on pure emotion, causing more harm than good in the long run trying to save some thing they know nothing about

Again I ask, why waste money on professional findings if it all just gets tossed out in the end?

Hmmmmmm?
 
Again I ask, why waste money on professional findings if it all just gets tossed out in the end?
Because it doesn't get tossed out. Things may take longer than they 'should' or could have, but the information will always be useful and in many cases the decision is still implemented.
 
it's a fact lawyers (hock, spit) and environmental groups (again, hock, spit) will only put lawsuits and injunctions to stop any measure of control


lawyers and environmental groups don't "put" injunctions on,,,common knowledge or lack ther of
 
LOL Tyler...

You’re not getting the tongue in cheek humor.... (Darned two dimensional media :D )

All well!!!

My point isn't really the question asked; it's the first part of my original statement that's wrong with this whole equation

Why are we spending money, doing any research, or counting of wolves, it's a fact lawyers (hock, spit) and environmental groups (again, hock, spit) will only put lawsuits and injunctions to stop any measure of control this research by our ‘ologists’ may lead to...

You don't or won't answer, because you, just as every one else, have no answers for their madness.... :)

This should have tipped you off about where I stand on this issue... ;)

I like our 'ologists'

I think they serve a vital role

:D It's nice having 280 and José on my ignore list, seems to be a very useful function on this board, thanks Del... :D
 
Quote:
Why are we spending money, doing any research, or counting of wolves, it's a fact lawyers (hock, spit) and environmental groups (again, hock, spit) will only put lawsuits and injunctions to stop any measure of control this research by our ‘ologists’ may lead to...

You don't or won't answer, because you, just as every one else, have no answers for their madness....
Could someone explain what it being said here. I still haven't gotten my Dictionary back...
 
Which words are you having problems with that you need a dictionary??? :p

Or is it you dislike the fact you can't make a decent argument (or any argument)... :D
 
Elkchsr, do the environmental groups have any criteria for when they think wolves should be delisted?
 
Oak...

It's beyond me what they think

I would ask you the same question... What could be their possible motive beyond emotion???

What they started as was great, what they've become is a disgrace

Now beyond trying to set me up for some thing, why don't you weigh in with your two cents... ;)
 
You didn't answer my question. I asked what their criteria is for delisting. They can't "put lawsuits and injunctions" on the delisting process without having a biological argument. I'm just asking about something you posted, with the hope you could explain it a little better.
 
LOL... :D

What sense can be made for their reasoning to let wolf populations double the amount that is dictated by the 'ologists' involved to sustain a healthy population and still fight delisting?

What numbers will they allow before the lawsuits end???

I'm thinking we're at a stale mate yet again

I'm not going to waste my time looking up what we all know is the truth...

And you're not going to answer any of the questions presented because you actually agree...
 
Just as I thought. You refuse to explain your post, because you can't. I have made attempts to play nice and let you explain what you post, without calling names, and you can't or won't do it. What's the point of posting if you're not going to back up what you post?:confused:
 
Rusty-
I can make an argument. They don't want the wolves delisted, that is their 'madness' you so uncleverly allude to. It has nothing to do with science or data, which you seem to think is a waste of time collecting. But, what isn't getting through to you is that without the data, research, NEPA, etc that de-listing and proper management would never happen. You are attempting to make the argument that because groups litgate over something that all the work/money is for naught. However, those that are involved with these types of issues realize that is not the case. Well collected/researched information is NEVER bad for natural resource management and is what is used to defeat these appeals. So the answer to your 'query' is that we have to spend the $$ on the studies and research by the specialist in order to be able to attempt to properly manage things. Without that the appeals are very tough to defend against and then management does get dictated by the judge (not the lawyers/environmental groups as you deluded to).

I'd be willing to bet you a case of whatever you drink or even a new shovel that the wolves will be delisted even considering these new lawsuits? If you're willing to take that bet, just let me know if you'd prefer to buy me a case of beverages or a new shovel!
 
I'd be willing to bet you a case of whatever you drink or even a new shovel that the wolves will be delisted even considering these new lawsuits? If you're willing to take that bet, just let me know if you'd prefer to buy me a case of beverages or a new shovel!

LMAO...... :D
 
LOL Oak...

I have made attempts to play nice and let you explain what you post, without calling names

Post what ever you like, it's definitely a free board to do such...

My last statement still holds true and stands on it's own...

If you weren't trying to pick a fight over nothing, you would have just glanced over this post as you have for years and ignored it...

So... grandstand all you want, it's getting you no where... :D

I dissappeard from every thing on the board at that time, I've got other things that take me away from this board, some times at months on end... Sorry... :)

Tyler...

You're a funny guy.... :D

You'll have to show me where I've stated in this thread any of the accusations towards me your making... :p

You need to slow down when reading posts, or at least read the entire post instead of selective reading then jumping to conclusions... :)

I've even almost spelled it out for you, but apparently, it's still eluding you as to what was posted...

All well, what does a guy do.... :)
 
MTNTOUGH - Use promo code RANDY for 30 days free

Forum statistics

Threads
113,567
Messages
2,025,359
Members
36,235
Latest member
Camillelynn
Back
Top