It would be far more productive.
Wolves vs Black Bear
- Thread starter Sytes
- Start date
I know the “minimum count” aspect really gets some folks’ hair on fire, but that’s exactly what it is. No one is saying there only “x” number of wolves. That would be intellectually dishonest at best.
A minimum count means there “at LEAST” this many, and likely between 50-80% more IME when it comes to woofs. Possibly even double that. I don’t know what the time lag or population dynamics are/were when they incorporated the trail cam data.
Has it markedly changed there season structure? Or even more importantly, has it changed their annual harvest? You can sink all the money in the world into getting “dialed in”, but what did it get you?
IMO, when it comes to bang for the buck, NW Montana would be far better off looking at widespread habitat enhancement and shortening the elk season.
Also, FYI the trapper compensation Idaho is not a state sanctioned program. It is a privately funded cooperative effort where you must be a member in order to get Bernie benefits.
A minimum count means there “at LEAST” this many, and likely between 50-80% more IME when it comes to woofs. Possibly even double that. I don’t know what the time lag or population dynamics are/were when they incorporated the trail cam data.
Has it markedly changed there season structure? Or even more importantly, has it changed their annual harvest? You can sink all the money in the world into getting “dialed in”, but what did it get you?
IMO, when it comes to bang for the buck, NW Montana would be far better off looking at widespread habitat enhancement and shortening the elk season.
Also, FYI the trapper compensation Idaho is not a state sanctioned program. It is a privately funded cooperative effort where you must be a member in order to get Bernie benefits.
T
tjones
Guest
Always good to have the voice of reason in a wolf thread.
Agree... I know a few here were a bit annoyed Montana does not permit when an attempt to change did not pass.
Interesting Wolf Related Group in Idaho
www.hunttalk.com
JLS - if you actually read my comment(s) regarding minimal counts - I shared the exact same sentiment. The only addition I express on this point is minimal counts do jack squat for identifying, as best possible actual wolf counts so we may further conservation as a whole.
And here we mutually agree with a voice of reason...
BrentD
Well-known member
Sytes there is no shortage of voices of very careful reasoning involved in wolf management and you seem to be at odds with them, mostly or completely, i'm not sure.
Just exactly what do you want in explicit, pragmatic, and affordable management? what would it take to make you happy? No vague handwaving allowed.
Just exactly what do you want in explicit, pragmatic, and affordable management? what would it take to make you happy? No vague handwaving allowed.
Knowing the exact number does jack squat for wildlife management. In terms of helping elk numbers, it really doesn’t accomplish anything.
No offense, but reading your comments and actually comprehending your meanings are two different things. My apologies for repeating what you already said.
No offense, but reading your comments and actually comprehending your meanings are two different things. My apologies for repeating what you already said.
Last edited by a moderator:
I'll take your word regarding, "No offense".
Perception and fact are common areas of disconnect. Internet forum discussions lack the physical queues/gestures, tone of voice, etc and the separation between perception and fact spreads further.
I was a bit taken aback by @Gerald Martin 's quick retort as he's typically a passive commentator with occasional soft jabs. It had me wonder what the hell are people taking from this? People have taken this a direction I never intended. While we agree about wolves, we hold our differences as well. My fault for not communicating it in a manner that did not instantly tip people - as this is one of the hottest potatoes in Region 1. We have the extreme, Toby Bridge/Jay Mallonees, "No wolves/Love wolves!" and those of us, "Stuck in the middle..." that value wolves in our landscape w/ hunter supported conservation.
Gerald's comments has me trying to figure how to word this differently. There are a few I value for words shared here. Gerald's one of them. Had I to do the excel sheet over again... heck, I don't know... maybe offered only the first 5 years or so to present the intent.
To be specific:
The purpose for the use of black bears and wolves is strictly for the interest of displaying a raw perspective of the reproduction rate (see disclaimers offered on post with #'s) vs harvest & quotas in Region 1.
Brent, that is one heck of a stretch. You give a whoop-load of credit as Montana faces the questionable elk shoulder seasons as one quick example, etc... You must have seen the threads here with a good amount of gurus pointing out the poor decisions made by <enter your State F&G>…
*No quotas exist in R1 for black bears. Approx 500-700 black bears are harvested each year. There are an approximate 5000 in R1. FWP counts collected via use of, "Mark Recapture Estimate". An old method that our last stats are based on 10 years ago - and updated based on harvests and general biological input (early/late spring - huckleberries in the fall or not, etc) Apparently we are due for an updated Mark Recapture, per R1 FWP.
*A wolf quota of two (110) in my elk stomping grounds quickly fills and there is a heck of a lot of wolf activity all along that stretch as well as in the Whitefish Watershed where I reside. Average pack size, 5-6 and swells a few after birthing though diminish / part ways - thus FWP R1 average is 5-6 per pack. And #'s? It's not specific to minimal count however, it is... oxy moron anyone? Minimal count involved with the Patch occupancy model - aka phone calls, etc. I believe we need better
A bit of clarity to this portion: R1 believes the cause for the increase in smaller packs is due to hunters and mortal kills of alphas by other wolves/animals. It leaves the pack without the social cohesion and all females in packs produce litters and break into additional packs as they sort out the new alphas. FWP believes this has swelled wolf numbers though territorial behavior keep wolves from exceeding.
Chat with level minded people who listen at the FWP R1 meetings rather than rant. PM if you would like to know the source.
With this in mind, it has me question black bears in R1 with an estimated population of 5000. 500-700 harvested annually (10%-14%) and this is acceptable w/o quotas and that of wolves with riding quotas to close the entire State, Region and (or) district and areas such as mine with a dedicated quota of two... I'll place a premium dollar bet against anyone who believes there are less than 20 wolves in 110 to match even the low side of the percentage of black bears taken.
I would like co-ops to support trappers financial burdens to assist with wolf #'s in X area kept within a conservation balanced level of predator v prey.
I would like longer seasons to hunt/trap wolves.
I would like snare use authorized.
I would like night hunting authorized.
I would like five tags available initially with replenished tags for any tags used.
I would like to see better count methods used to gain better understanding of populations.
I would like conservation minded wolf counts within wolf districts to determine reasonable quotas.
As said over and over... I would like better / more accurate #'s to more effectively manage the ratio of wolves within areas where we are challenged with disappointing low elk counts. And again, before people think I am laying out an entire elk management plan, there are several aspects to improve elk counts, however predators in excess will hinder elk to recover if their calving of the few and the fawn / calves are met with far too many predators. It was Griz, Black and Lions and the elk population managed a far greater cohesive level. My wife's family generations have been in this area - again, no limited tag districts hurt us however, there was a massive difference in elk harvest before and dissipated as wolves migrated in the 80's and continued to present repopulating and has since added to the challenges faced to support a healthy elk population. Again, please read... "has since added to the challenges"... not, "wolves killed off all the elk".
Have at it...
BrentD
Well-known member
No it is not a stretch, but you place all of the blame on your management agency, as does most everyone in every single state in the nation. No news there. What you don't acknowledge is that what they can actually DO is about about 25% colored by science. It is YOUR politicians and YOUR politics that prevent a 100% science solution. They aren't stupid, but they do want to stay employed, and they do answer to politicians that YOU put in place. So, suck up a big hunk of blame for own dinner tonight.
*No quotas exist in R1 for black bears. Approx 500-700 black bears are harvested each year. There are an approximate 5000 in R1. FWP counts collected via use of, "Mark Recapture Estimate". An old method that our last stats are based on 10 years ago - and updated based on harvests and general biological input (early/late spring - huckleberries in the fall or not, etc) Apparently we are due for an updated Mark Recapture, per R1 FWP.
*A wolf quota of two (110) in my elk stomping grounds quickly fills and there is a heck of a lot of wolf activity all along that stretch as well as in the Whitefish Watershed where I reside. Average pack size, 5-6 and swells a few after birthing though diminish / part ways - thus FWP R1 average is 5-6 per pack. And #'s? It's not specific to minimal count however, it is... oxy moron anyone? Minimal count involved with the Patch occupancy model - aka phone calls, etc. I believe we need better
A bit of clarity to this portion: R1 believes the cause for the increase in smaller packs is due to hunters and mortal kills of alphas by other wolves/animals. It leaves the pack without the social cohesion and all females in packs produce litters and break into additional packs as they sort out the new alphas. FWP believes this has swelled wolf numbers though territorial behavior keep wolves from exceeding.
Chat with level minded people who listen at the FWP R1 meetings rather than rant. PM if you would like to know the source.
With this in mind, it has me question black bears in R1 with an estimated population of 5000. 500-700 harvested annually (10%-14%) and this is acceptable w/o quotas and that of wolves with riding quotas to close the entire State, Region and (or) district and areas such as mine with a dedicated quota of two... I'll place a premium dollar bet against anyone who believes there are less than 20 wolves in 110 to match even the low side of the percentage of black bears taken.
I would like co-ops to support trappers financial burdens to assist with wolf #'s in X area kept within a conservation balanced level of predator v prey.
I would like longer seasons to hunt/trap wolves.
I would like snare use authorized.
I would like night hunting authorized.
I would like five tags available initially with replenished tags for any tags used.
I would like to see better count methods used to gain better understanding of populations.
I would like conservation minded wolf counts within wolf districts to determine reasonable quotas.
As said over and over... I would like better / more accurate #'s to more effectively manage the ratio of wolves within areas where we are challenged with disappointing low elk counts. And again, before people think I am laying out an entire elk management plan, there are several aspects to improve elk counts, however predators in excess will hinder elk to recover if their calving of the few and the fawn / calves are met with far too many predators. It was Griz, Black and Lions and the elk population managed a far greater cohesive level. My wife's family generations have been in this area - again, no limited tag districts hurt us however, there was a massive difference in elk harvest before and dissipated as wolves migrated in the 80's and continued to present repopulating and has since added to the challenges faced to support a healthy elk population. Again, please read... "has since added to the challenges"... not, "wolves killed off all the elk".
Have at it...
Start with FUNDING the state (and feds) to do these things. I don't have to be a Montanan to know that their budgets have been slashed and hashed to death and then some. Defunding is a real thing with real consequences and now they are coming home to roost on the very people that so ardently supported the practices with their votes. You want more accurate counts, and you can't even begin to imagine what those counts would entail, much less cost. And to some degree (a pretty large one at that), no amount of money will get it done. Counting can (and usually is) way harder than rocket science. At least not without inventing new technology that we can't even imagine. For 40 yrs, I have wanted NASA to be working on wildlife counting - good luck getting that to happen. That is the sort of level of stuff that seems to be needed to get these things done to your satisfaction. Prepare for a VERY LARGE dent in YOUR WALLET if you are going to really put your money behind your complaints.
And SUBSIDIES for trappers can be added to the bill for subsidizing ranchers. Reach for your wallet again.
Snares? Catch my dog, and I will hold you personally responsible. I already know of too many dogs killed in Wyoming by devices directed (illegally, of course) at wolves. I wouldn't even consider taking my dog into much of National Forest land in Wyoming.
Night hunting? Sure. Why not? Will it matter? No. Just more guys driving around at night with spotlights on their trucks, and guns out the windows (and a cooler of cold ones at their feet. Great combination. Don't expect it to balance the wolf population to your satisfaction, however.
Then, give us all YOUR approved wolf numbers. The ones that YOU will settle for and not continue to rip on the management agencies over. What are they? My feeling, from reading your posts in the past year, is that no matter what the numbers (other than Zero), you are going to be unhappy and blaming someone other than yourself. Do you really have a satisfactory population size you will be content with or is this really just you want to feel better about being able to shoot more wolves, even if it doesn't make much of a dent in the numbers of them? Maybe that's really what you want?
And while you are at it what are the elk numbers you will settle for? It seems you want a specific crop of targets every year? By the way, is this minimal target crop sustainable? That is a wee bit of a problem we tend to overlook 200 bushel corn in Iowa translates to how many elk/acres in Montana? Personally, I don't feel wildlife is only as good as the size of the crop of the target opportunities, but I know I'm old fashioned that way.
You want all these things but you haven't told us yet, what it will take from all of those things before you say, "Good". That's what I'm asking for. Your benchmark numbers whereupon you will congratulate all those sadly underfunded state and federal agencies with a "job well done."
theat
Well-known member
Charles,
As you know, I have had the privilege of working with biologists in many western states. Included in that are many wolf biologists primarily here in Montana. Believe me, there isn't one of them that wouldn't love to have more funding for them to spend more time in the field collaring, counting, or studying wolves. Unfortunately, Montana hunters and in particular the state legislature has decided that FWP should not spend much of their budget on wolf management. For awhile, FWP didn't even have the ability to fund a single full time wolf biologist. Certain powerfully placed members of our state legislature have repeatedly tried to hamper FWP from managing anything based on science including wolves. Repeated attempts have been made to make wolf tags free or eliminate the need for tags. How is FWP going to pay for this massive increase in surveys, counts, collaring etc? I'm not sure that it is still the case, but a couple years ago the MT wolf biologists that I was working with could only spend a percentage of their time on the clock doing wolf work due to funding short falls. Hell, some of those same esteemed legislators passed a bill that messed with how game wardens were paid and created a situation where they could only spend part of their duty time actually doing law enforcement.
As I am sure you have gathered in your wolf pursuits, they are very difficult to find, let alone get an accurate count or catch and collar them. You would be surprised, or maybe not, about how many people we encountered while working around the state that complained about us waisting money collaring wolves and the only money FWP should spend on wolves is to kill them. Sure makes it much easier to count wolves when there is one with a collar in the pack. Also makes it much easier to determine which packs are causing issues with domestic animals and for Wildlife Services to find the culprits and eliminate them.
As far as your proposals go,
1. I don't have a problem with the co-op idea per say, but I think that it would be perceived by many as paying someone to kill a wild animal. It is undeniable that wolves hold a special place in many Americans hearts and are a very controversial topic. The last thing we as hunters need to do is draw any more negative publicity to ourselves through something that many will consider blood money or a bloodsport etc etc...
2. Not opposed to longer seasons. Longer trapping seasons will likely lead to more conflicts with other recreationists, dogs, and bears. As long as these conflicts are monitored and minimal, I wouldn't mind seeing the trapping season extended.
3. I am definitely opposed to the use of snares for wolf trapping in any locations where there is potential for catching dogs. My labrador was caught in an illegal wolf snare about five years ago. If I hadn't noticed him struggling when I did, I am sure that he would have died. I reported that snare and several others in that area to the game warden and while investigating he found a large mountain lion that the trapper had snared and stuffed under a cut bank nearby. My new lab got her leg caught in another illegal snare set for wolves this winter as well. With the influx of new residents that is nowhere near slowing down and the prominent and active anti trapping groups in the state, I think it was very smart of FWP to not allow wolf snaring. Every dead pet fido caught in a snare pasted all over facebook is one year closer to the next anti trapping initiative passing. I am a trapper and I want to keep trapping.
4. Since wolves are considered big game in Montana they can't be hunted at night. Spotlighting has always been considered nefarious/illegal and associated with poaching to many. Personally, I don't have a problem with allowing night hunting for wolves, but once again, I think it is one more target on our backs. Makes the "fair chase" argument that much harder.
5. I don't think it will make a lick of difference, but I have no problem with increasing the amount of wolf tags each hunter/trapper buys. If they are going to do this, and want more funding needed for the increased population monitoring that you want, they should actually make wolf trappers contribute to wolf management. As it is now, wolf trappers need nothing other than the regular trapping license that every trapper buys and that didn't increase in price when wolf trapping was made legal. How about... first two come with the trapping license and $15-20 for every one after with no limit???
6. Completely agree. I would love for FWP to receive the financial support needed for the biologists to get more accurate counts for wolves and all other species. I wish that more Montana resident hunters wouldn't throw such a fit whenever FWP asks for an increase in license fees. I wish that our legislature wouldn't continually force politics into wildlife management decisions and hold the department hostage with funding issues. How do you propose they pay for this?
7. The quotas in the units bordering National Parks are kept purposefully low. Initially I supported keeping them low particularly near Yellowstone. Those wolves that come and go from the park are often visible and people keep track of them and even name them. The park had a couple wolves with collars shot in Montana. this was big news and gave FWP and Montana in general a black eye. Both in Yellowstone and Glacier there have been long term wolf studies taking place and when those known wolves get shot/trapped it often makes national news. Now that the initial hooplah during the first few years we had a wolf season is over, I'd like to see them bump those quotas up.
As you know, I have had the privilege of working with biologists in many western states. Included in that are many wolf biologists primarily here in Montana. Believe me, there isn't one of them that wouldn't love to have more funding for them to spend more time in the field collaring, counting, or studying wolves. Unfortunately, Montana hunters and in particular the state legislature has decided that FWP should not spend much of their budget on wolf management. For awhile, FWP didn't even have the ability to fund a single full time wolf biologist. Certain powerfully placed members of our state legislature have repeatedly tried to hamper FWP from managing anything based on science including wolves. Repeated attempts have been made to make wolf tags free or eliminate the need for tags. How is FWP going to pay for this massive increase in surveys, counts, collaring etc? I'm not sure that it is still the case, but a couple years ago the MT wolf biologists that I was working with could only spend a percentage of their time on the clock doing wolf work due to funding short falls. Hell, some of those same esteemed legislators passed a bill that messed with how game wardens were paid and created a situation where they could only spend part of their duty time actually doing law enforcement.
As I am sure you have gathered in your wolf pursuits, they are very difficult to find, let alone get an accurate count or catch and collar them. You would be surprised, or maybe not, about how many people we encountered while working around the state that complained about us waisting money collaring wolves and the only money FWP should spend on wolves is to kill them. Sure makes it much easier to count wolves when there is one with a collar in the pack. Also makes it much easier to determine which packs are causing issues with domestic animals and for Wildlife Services to find the culprits and eliminate them.
As far as your proposals go,
1. I don't have a problem with the co-op idea per say, but I think that it would be perceived by many as paying someone to kill a wild animal. It is undeniable that wolves hold a special place in many Americans hearts and are a very controversial topic. The last thing we as hunters need to do is draw any more negative publicity to ourselves through something that many will consider blood money or a bloodsport etc etc...
2. Not opposed to longer seasons. Longer trapping seasons will likely lead to more conflicts with other recreationists, dogs, and bears. As long as these conflicts are monitored and minimal, I wouldn't mind seeing the trapping season extended.
3. I am definitely opposed to the use of snares for wolf trapping in any locations where there is potential for catching dogs. My labrador was caught in an illegal wolf snare about five years ago. If I hadn't noticed him struggling when I did, I am sure that he would have died. I reported that snare and several others in that area to the game warden and while investigating he found a large mountain lion that the trapper had snared and stuffed under a cut bank nearby. My new lab got her leg caught in another illegal snare set for wolves this winter as well. With the influx of new residents that is nowhere near slowing down and the prominent and active anti trapping groups in the state, I think it was very smart of FWP to not allow wolf snaring. Every dead pet fido caught in a snare pasted all over facebook is one year closer to the next anti trapping initiative passing. I am a trapper and I want to keep trapping.
4. Since wolves are considered big game in Montana they can't be hunted at night. Spotlighting has always been considered nefarious/illegal and associated with poaching to many. Personally, I don't have a problem with allowing night hunting for wolves, but once again, I think it is one more target on our backs. Makes the "fair chase" argument that much harder.
5. I don't think it will make a lick of difference, but I have no problem with increasing the amount of wolf tags each hunter/trapper buys. If they are going to do this, and want more funding needed for the increased population monitoring that you want, they should actually make wolf trappers contribute to wolf management. As it is now, wolf trappers need nothing other than the regular trapping license that every trapper buys and that didn't increase in price when wolf trapping was made legal. How about... first two come with the trapping license and $15-20 for every one after with no limit???
6. Completely agree. I would love for FWP to receive the financial support needed for the biologists to get more accurate counts for wolves and all other species. I wish that more Montana resident hunters wouldn't throw such a fit whenever FWP asks for an increase in license fees. I wish that our legislature wouldn't continually force politics into wildlife management decisions and hold the department hostage with funding issues. How do you propose they pay for this?
7. The quotas in the units bordering National Parks are kept purposefully low. Initially I supported keeping them low particularly near Yellowstone. Those wolves that come and go from the park are often visible and people keep track of them and even name them. The park had a couple wolves with collars shot in Montana. this was big news and gave FWP and Montana in general a black eye. Both in Yellowstone and Glacier there have been long term wolf studies taking place and when those known wolves get shot/trapped it often makes national news. Now that the initial hooplah during the first few years we had a wolf season is over, I'd like to see them bump those quotas up.
Last edited:
Well said. You just saved me a lot of typing.
OverlordBear
Well-known member
I thought your whit was hilarious and I understood the joke behind the exaggerated numbers. Usually when I tell people jokes like that I am the only one who laughs at work. Lol
Thanks @theat . Great review and really appreciate your time sharing your experience.
I spoke with … FWP R1 and had a fantastic discussion with … We discussed Idaho's game camera counts and it was interesting hearing … opinion and the one factor that struck a good chord, it a good first step however, it's not been peer reviewed to an extent to shift the count process - yet.
As for funding, seems MT resident's, on the majority side of this, oppose higher license fees (unless it's NR's). It puzzles the heck out of me as I'm 100% supportive... One interesting aspect, and something I'll have to chat with … another time about, Idaho charges much less for wolf tags, yet build much more $ for wolf purposes. May be worth a conference with IDFG and FWP - and consider a proposal for MT.
Thanks again. Great info.
edit added:
Hind sight re snares. I agree, especially viewing your personal experience. How do the Hounds-men in ID deal with it? I know they were a main opposition towards MT's proposal for snares and understand why though is there a time frame where they *could be used outside cat season w/ notification within X yards of snares? More rambles not really digging for a response..
I spoke with … FWP R1 and had a fantastic discussion with … We discussed Idaho's game camera counts and it was interesting hearing … opinion and the one factor that struck a good chord, it a good first step however, it's not been peer reviewed to an extent to shift the count process - yet.
As for funding, seems MT resident's, on the majority side of this, oppose higher license fees (unless it's NR's). It puzzles the heck out of me as I'm 100% supportive... One interesting aspect, and something I'll have to chat with … another time about, Idaho charges much less for wolf tags, yet build much more $ for wolf purposes. May be worth a conference with IDFG and FWP - and consider a proposal for MT.
Thanks again. Great info.
edit added:
Hind sight re snares. I agree, especially viewing your personal experience. How do the Hounds-men in ID deal with it? I know they were a main opposition towards MT's proposal for snares and understand why though is there a time frame where they *could be used outside cat season w/ notification within X yards of snares? More rambles not really digging for a response..
Last edited:
@BrentD You are assuming far too much about who I am... While I appreciate some info you share, your direct assumptions of my opinions about MT FWP are FLAT OUT WRONG. (yes... caps used intentionally). I have disagreements with my FWP and I utilize all manner to express my displeasure with certain actions, such as elk shoulder seasons, etc. I disagree with the manner for wolf "counts" Patch, etc. That far from proclaims I dislike my FWP members. I am friends/acquaintance with many R1 and R2 FWP employees, from wardens to biologists and techs. My appreciation extends far greater than your dismissive attitude proclaims - to the point, I am wasting too much time expressing such for you to digest. This is more for others than for yourself.
In other words, thank you for the quality input you've shared & Piss off for your assumptions - you have no clue the extent I assist and appreciate R1 FWP administration actions. Yup, I agree with most and disagree with some.
In other words, thank you for the quality input you've shared & Piss off for your assumptions - you have no clue the extent I assist and appreciate R1 FWP administration actions. Yup, I agree with most and disagree with some.
Idaho has had snares from the beginning of trapping. I have owned and hunted hounds around snares this whole time. I know many other houndsmen and we have had ZERO problems so far , that’s over a decade. I’m not saying they are not a concern or other houndsmen outside my circle haven’t had problems but it is 100 percent overblown and a tactic of people who just like wolves more than trapping. Proven fact - well broke dogs that are broke to lead will survive in snares for a long time. My freind that traps the joe has released many snared hounds from his snares. If the dog is broke to lead he probably won’t kill himself fighting the snares. I expect some so called experts in the know to blow up on that fact and have some reason it’s improbable or impossible. Sorry it’s proven fact in Idaho. Snares are effective and Montana will be fine with them. Snares are a concern but so is turning your hounds loose around wolves. Houndsmen have to be careful and most are. I would be more concerned about my dogs loose in the presence of wolves than snares. That’s just me. I see foundation for wildlife management is in Montana now that should help a bunch. My wife’s family homesteaded in old Rexford (under koocanusa res now
) they are all still in the area. I was from Kalispell 30 years ago. Region 1 definitely needs enhanced wolf management. Honestly your graphs made perfect sense to that end. There is a hyperactive response to anything that seems drastic when you mention wolves on here. Not sure why. Snares are a good thing as long as you have well educated trappers who take precautions. Idaho went pretty strong on trapping classes and now requires a full day general trapping class and a full day specific wolf trapping course. Somebody will still set a trap in a stupid place but Idaho overall has done fine with snares. I know quite a few hounds that were killed by wolves in the early days I don’t know if 1 hound killed by trapping yet. Just my experience I am sure it’s happening but I know of ZERO personally. My freind in Lewiston had an entire pack of hounds(8) killed by wolves. The story was published in outdoor life or similar publication. Pick your poison dog owners.
Dakotakid
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2014
- Messages
- 817
“. Hell, some of those same esteemed legislators passed a bill that messed with how game wardens were paid and created a situation where they could only spend part of their duty time actually doing law enforcement.”
I believe this was actually Pitman Roberts funding changes. The feds declared that PR couldn’t be used for enforcement. PR was a large source for funding.
I believe this was actually Pitman Roberts funding changes. The feds declared that PR couldn’t be used for enforcement. PR was a large source for funding.
h
hell yeah
BrentD
Well-known member
I grew up with wolves and dogs. I'll pick wolves every time.
Similar threads
