MT FWP Commission closes some wolf areas!

Big Fin

Big Fin

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 27, 2000
Messages
16,550
Location
Bozeman, MT
I see mention of this action made in some other threads. To me, it is important enough that it deserves its own thread. See the link below.

http://billingsgazette.com/news/sta...cle_f5e8f238-815f-52a9-a0a8-2956b65a4693.html

I have officially blown a gasket.

I do not see any biological basis for this decision. Yes, some collared wolves have been shot. That was an expected outcome as hungry wolves move from YNP to follow migrating prey, or just as a function of their normal travel patterns. The fact that the wolves killed had a higher percentage of collars than past years means nothing as far as concern for the health of the population. It has nothing to do with how robust the population is. It has nothing to do with how well we are managing under the plan approved by the USFWS.

Seems to have a lot to do with politics. Mostly with pressure. Mostly with concern for the vocal minority who is not paying the freight, at complete disregard to the majority who is paying the freight, both with license dollars and with lost opportunity.

For the Commission to take such action due to some collared wolves being shot, seems without any biological reasons. If someone has biological reasoning, please share it here.

Seems the MT FWP Commission gives little care for the bigger picture. Their credibility with hunters and anglers has already been hanging on by a thin thread. This kind of action, with little notice, little discussion, and apparently for no biological reason, pisses me off to no end.

So many fought so hard to get state control, and now we get state control that looks like this. Yes, within the MT Wolf Management Plan, the Commission has authority to change and adjust seasons as they deem necessary. Not sure what constitutes "necessary" in their minds - political pressure?

When you have authority, it is incumbent that you use such authority responsibly and with discretion. Not seeing the responsibility or discretion in this decisions when such a dramatic change of direction is made in our most hard-fought state management authority/plan. Anyone who has infor to change my mind, please post it here.

Congrats to Commissioner Vermillion for being the voice of reason and seeing the bigger picture.

After the last legislative session battles to preserve the authority of the Commission I hoped the Commission would be a little more accountable for the reasons and basis of their actions. This decision seems to have little accountability or concern for those who have had their backs in the legislative battles. Might be time to let them go it alone for a while.

Disappointed beyond description.
 
I heard on the radio this morning that this was a possibility, I didn't really think it would come to pass though... That's a bummer
 
Fin,
I believe you hit the nail on the head. "Political Pressure".

I saw earlier also about the guy in Wy. killing the star of the Lamer Valley. Imo they are acting like you shouldn't kill one of the radio collard wolves in any off the three states. The bio's should have expected for the packs to follow quarry into their wintering grounds. If I'm hungry dam straight i'm goiin move to where I can find food. IMO it all falls back to politics and huggers.
 
This is very disappointing.

As stated above . . . there is absolutely no biological reasoning for stopping the hunt in these areas.

What a bunch of idiots!
 
Also stated in that article "Wildlife officials said the statewide wolf harvest is down 18 percent this year". So in view of closing some hunting areas, what will the Commission do to increase the harvest to meet objectives? Or do they care?

My fear is that a buffer around YNP and perhaps Glacier NP will increase in size to respond to the political pressure. That could result in another set of problems with respect to political pressure.

This debacle emphasizes the need to support one of the stronger "wolf bills" in the legislative hopper.
 
Elk and deer with collars are shot as well.....what is next, close hunting seasons due to collared elk and deer being shot? What is going on in Montana anyways? It seems like the commission is working for the wrong people...
 
Hopefully Wyoming and Idaho will not cave to emotion. Let Montana stand alone shaking in her boots.
 
The more that these kinds of decisions are made, the more I find very little use for the various G&F commissions.

The time for compromise has already passed...several years ago.

Biology will never trump emotion on this issue.
 
They just boosted the coffers of SFW, BGF, Don Peay and Ryan Benson, with this stupid vote. They just opened the legislative session up to a free for all. Will Montana sportsman support these guys now?

They voted to acquire lands on the Milk River bottom too. Too bad many sportsman are going to take it in the shorts there too.

These guys can't move out soon enough.
 
Well, at least Commission Chairman Ream is not hiding that politics is at the core this decision. A quote of him in a newspaper tonight.

........But Fish, Wildlife and Parks Commission chairman Bob Ream indicated the closures are not meant to be permanent. He said commissioners were acting to address the “particular and unique situation” of collared wolves being shot.

“It seems to be kind of a compromise,” Ream said. “Is it political? Yeah, wolves are political.”

The closures were approved on a 4-1 vote. Commissioner Dan Vermillion of Livingston cast the lone dissenting vote.......
Click to expand...

So there you have it, politics it is. Not biology. Not out of concern of the Montana Wolf Management Plan. Plain old politics. Wonder what next political worry will stir them to action? Probably don't want to know that answer. Didn't know this was the MT Fish Wildlife and Politics Commission.

Shoot-Straight, you hit the bullseye on that one. I can guarantee that by this time tomorrow, BGF will have sent out a fundraising email on this topic. And, it will send more artillery our way in the upcoming session

With this cave in, and their absolute fiasco on the Milk River palm greasing of a political friend, the Commission is on its own come this legislative session. I have spent too much time and energy fighting to defend the Commission and their powers, only to see hunters, anglers, and the employees of the Department be lead by such a poor Director and a group of Commissioners seemingly so beholden to the political process.

Odds are I am going to be too busy to go to Helena every Tuesday and Thursday during the legislative session. Think I will spend those days wolf hunting.
 
Outrageous!

Totally agree that this is a political move. We do need to respond and let our voice be heard.
 
Big Fin said:
I see mention of this action made in some other threads. To me, it is important enough that it deserves its own thread. See the link below.

http://billingsgazette.com/news/sta...cle_f5e8f238-815f-52a9-a0a8-2956b65a4693.html

I have officially blown a gasket.

I do not see any biological basis for this decision. Yes, some collared wolves have been shot. That was an expected outcome as hungry wolves move from YNP to follow migrating prey, or just as a function of their normal travel patterns. The fact that the wolves killed had a higher precentage of collars than past years means nothing as far as concen for the health of the population. It has nothing to do with how robust the popualtion is. It has nothing to do with how well we are managing under the plan approved by the USFWS.

Seems to have a lot to do with politics. Mostly with pressure. Mostly with concern for the vocal minority who is not paying the freight, at complete disregard to the majority who is paying the freight, both with license dollars and with lost opportunity.

For the Commission to take such action due to some collared wolves being shot, seems without any biological reasons. If someone has biological reasoning, please share it here.

Seems the MT FWP Commission gives little care for the bigger picture. Their credibility with hunters and anglers has already been hanging on by a thin thread. This kind of action, with little notice, little discussion, and apparently for no biological reason, pisses me off to no end.

So many fought so hard to get state control, and now we get state control that looks like this. Yes, within the MT Wolf Management Plan, the Commission has authority to change and adjust seasons as they deem necessary. Not sure what constitutes "necessary" in their minds - political pressure?

When you have authority, it is incumbent that you use such authority responsibly and with discretion. Not seeing the responsibility or discretion in this decisions when such a dramatic change of direction is made in our most hard-fought state management authority/plan. Anyone who has infor to change my mind, please post it here.

Congrats to Commissioner Vermillion for being the voice of reason and seeing the bigger picture.

After the last legislative session battles to preserve the authority of the Commission I hoped the Commission would be a little more accountable for the reasons and basis of their actions. This decision seems to have little accountability or concern for those who have had their backs in the legislative battles. Might be time to let them go it alone for a while.

Disappointed beyond description.
Click to expand...

So... We're okay with the political solutions when they're playing to our side, but not when they're listening to others?

Simpson/Tester was a political solution to a problem. How was that any better than a political solution to an issue where there actually should be some concern not only for wolves (northern park wolf numbers are low due to decreased prey, mange and natural mortality) but for the perception of hunters in general?

I agree that this will be difficult to deal with in terms of the legislature, but to think that this emboldens those who for decades now have tried to screw up wolf management will give them anything more than they already have only works if rational, reasonable and conservation minded hunters don't show up.

And this is the session to not show up:
Ranching for wildlife will be introduced
Wolf bills that cause a relisting
Grizzly bear bills that will forestall delisting
Increased trespass fines for hunters
Loss of access due to gutting of budgets
Stream access attacks
Gutting FWP's ability to transplant sheep
Reversal of I-161
Elk archery permits
Etc, etc, etc.

But sure, give up because two areas that more than likely would not yield a large harvest of wolves due to lack of prey - that's what's going to keep me home.
 
Holy shit Ben, who raised a flap over the collared wolves being shot?

You act as though the commission is bound by a couple news paper articles and a news snippet at 10:00 pm.

I understand the sensitive nature of the wolf hunt, but come on, this has been negotiated for years. Its time to let biology, not politics, decide proper policy, regulations, and hunting seasons.

The reason that hunters have looked to the politics for relief on hunting issues, is not because they like it. Its because we have no choice. Sound biology is a fuggin' distant memory of times past. Its bogged down by polticial appointments to the various G&F leadership, commissioners, etc.

It sends a clear message that hard work via concerned sportsmen is immediately trumped at the first hint of the commission having to take some heat. I've a notion to ask each commissioner for a god-damned X-Ray to see if they have a spine or really are the jellyfish they seem to be.

Unbelievable...and until sound, biological decisions are made, expect less and less hunters to continue the fight.

I had a disagreement with an old friend from Missoula the other day on a lengthy phone call. He said the best thing is to open up hunting 365 days a year on elk, deer, sheep, goats, etc....no license required. Dont allow any predators to be shot. I couldnt see the logic and told him he was out of his mind. He continued to explain that, "until things are so bad that even the idiots can see the problems, nothings going to change."

Not sure he isnt on to something...
 
What a joke. If hunters had any idea that shooting a handful of collared wolves would shut it down I'm sure they would of taken aim at some other wolf if available. So they shot some collared ones. Go collar some new ones and keep up the data.

Frustrating!:mad:
 
The commission is bound by the constitution of Montana which says that they manage wildlife for all the people, not just those of us who pay the freight.

As hunters, we took the political solution for delisting because it was the only avenue open to us, very true. It even helped drag the bloodless, limp corpse of Wyoming over the finish line. Which, btw, their wolf plan is just politics and no biology.

We killed the shit out of elk in the bitterroot, and to my knowledge only one hunter got in the face of FWP about this. Rcfwa fought it and lost. That was a political decision on the Gand scale.

Gardner gut hunt- another political decision that hastened the crash of the northern herd, mandated by the legislature and hunters.

My point is: we're fine with political Decisions when they benefit us, but nobody else.

And what if the biology does in fact say we should limit harvest of wolves around Yellowstone? Northern park numbers are down significantly. If they were elk, would we be screaming to stop the slaughter?

Wyoming and Idaho both do not allow trapping of wolves around Yellowstone for the exact same reason the commission stopped it for this ear: it gives us all a black eye when named, collared wolves are harvested. Does that matter biologically? Probably not.

Does the removal of more wolves from areas that are known as source populations matter biologically? Maybe so.

I'm no Pollyanna. In fact my record on this issue is perfectly clear. The over reaction to this decision isn't helping.
 
Ben,

Is there a negotiated/approved wolf harvest quota around Yellowstone or not?

Can you provide a list of biologists that made a recommendation to lower quotas and/or stop the hunting of wolves near Yellowstone? Which biologists were in favor of a buffer zone?

Also, your facts regarding the bitterroot and the gardiner elk hunts (which I happen to agree with) only help to prove my point...that BIOLOGY, not politics, should be used in regard to PROPER GAME MANAGEMENT.

This bullshit of whipping around like a willow sprig in a hurricane, everytime a commissioner reads a newspaper, is getting old.

I'm just telling you, that hunters are sick of this political shit, be it in regards to elk, wolves, cats, lighted knocks, spears, silencers or anything else. They're also tired of being shat on by the commission.

Thats just the way it is.
 
BuzzH said:
Ben,

Is there a negotiated/approved wolf harvest quota around Yellowstone or not?

Can you provide a list of biologists that made a recommendation to lower quotas and/or stop the hunting of wolves near Yellowstone? Which biologists were in favor of a buffer zone?

Also, your facts regarding the bitterroot and the gardiner elk hunts (which I happen to agree with) only help to prove my point...that BIOLOGY, not politics, should be used in regard to PROPER GAME MANAGEMENT.

This bullshit of whipping around like a willow sprig in a hurricane, everytime a commissioner reads a newspaper, is getting old.

I'm just telling you, that hunters are sick of this political shit, be it in regards to elk, wolves, cats, lighted knocks, spears, silencers or anything else. They're also tired of being shat on by the commission.

Thats just the way it is.
Click to expand...

The decision to go eliminate specific areas in favor of a state-wide quota was political. Many of us wanted finer scale planning that would have focused harvest where it was needed and not where it was easiest. That would have avoided this entire situation to begin with, but hunters claimed it was too restrictive,so he agency caved.

316 still had a quota on it because of the proximity of Yellowstone.

Hunters are sick of the political stuff when it goes against what they want. We're fine with it when it suits us. Let's be honest about hat.

My points about Gardner and the root also point out that when the political decision was mandated, hunters didn't make nearly as much ruckus as they are now when two small areas that 99% of wouldn't set foot in to trap wolves. We put hundreds of thousands of acres off limits to hunters because of critical winter range, sun river ame preserve, etc.

A tiny asset buffer around a small portion of the northern end of Yellowstone is not that dissimilar.

You want to change the political nature of FWP? Eliminate all human interference and hand the whole thing over to biologists who don't hunt and fish. Despite our myths that hunters removed politics for. Wildlife management, it's always been a political game. It always will be. Too many other forces make it so.

Want a more sound, reasonable commission: write to Bullock with your nominations. I've spoken with him enough to know that he's more interested in getting the politics out and a good administrator in.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

cheeser
Press Release February 7, 2024 Legal action launched to protect wolves in northern Rocky Mountains
Replies
1
Views
254
bayoublaster7527
B
Hammsolo
Washington Wolf Policy Comments
Replies
2
Views
696
bigwhale
B
elkduds
CPW Sportspersons Roundtable Meeting 7/22/23
Replies
13
Views
1K
Oak
Oak
elkduds
CO wolf news: 10J approval pending
Replies
0
Views
473
elkduds
elkduds
Big Fin
FWP Commission to change Gardiner Elk hunting
8 9 10
Replies
183
Views
20K
Shed God
S

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
111,114
Messages
1,947,541
Members
35,033
Latest member
Leejones

Share this page

Back
Top