Another wolf down

[BiggWimm]

Saw this article while browsing my local internet news. Found the parts interesting about hunters targeting collared wolves. From the success rates and hunting information that I read on this site about guys hunting wolves, I have trouble believing that. Seems like most people are just happy getting a wolf and are not going to pass on a non-collared wolf in order to find one with a collar. Besides, not like you get to keep the collar and it must do some damage to the hide.

http://www.ksl.com/?sid=23326483&ni...ost-famous-wolf-shot-by-hunters&s_cid=queue-1

 

[montanadogs]

http://billingsgazette.com/news/sta...cle_82a01d64-7e4e-5f17-a8bb-34e7b1193c06.html

Here is yet another article about wolves. I really found it interesting when Shane Colton said that when they loose collared wolves management becomes difficult. Really come on.

 

[bigeasygator]

I like how the writer of the first article is the manager of the Science and Innovation section but seems to put no scientific thought or evidence into this piece.

 

[Ben Lamb]

FWP Commission just closed wolf hunting and trapping adjacent to YNP. 4-1 vote. Anybody listen in?

 

[Big Fin]

FWP Commission just closed wolf hunting and trapping adjacent to YNP. 4-1 vote. Anybody listen in?

No, I did not listen in. I was busy playing phone tag with a NPR reporter about the topic of collared wolves leaving YNP and some groups claiming hunters are specifically targeting collared wolves. Glad to know of this decision prior to connecting with the NPR reporter.

What was the Commission's cited rationale for closing? On the surface, it seems to be a cave in and not at all based on the management plans adopted.

Hungry wolves are leaving the park in search of food. They have reached capacity in the park and also are heavily dependent upon a migratory food base - elk and bison. Those food sources leave the park. When they do, some of these wolves will have a tendency to follow that food source. Some of the wolves have collars. None of this should be a surprise and the state management plans should not be changed due to this completely expected outcome.

Can you elaborate on the reasons given, before I blow a gasket? First impression is that this decision is BS.

As if we weren't going to have enough stupid wolf bills in the legislative session next month, a move like this is only going to make it worse.

What insight can you give to the basis for their decision? Hopefully I am missing something and I am going off half-cocked as I rant to myself here at the my office.

 

[belly-deep]

How big is the buffer zone going to be?


I don't think hunters should be targeting collared wolves for two reasons. First, if they are packs managed by states, it costs hunters' dollars to recollar wolves. Second, when the FWP needs to kill a pack for livestock predation, the best way to find the offending pack is by collars.

 

[Ben Lamb]

No, I did not listen in. I was busy playing phone tag with a NPR reporter about the topic of collared wolves leaving YNP and some groups claiming hunters are specifically targeting collared wolves. Glad to know of this decision prior to connecting with the NPR reporter.

What was the Commission's cited rationale for closing? On the surface, it seems to be a cave in and not at all based on the management plans adopted.

Hungry wolves are leaving the park in search of food. They have reached capacity in the park and also are heavily dependent upon a migratory food base - elk and bison. Those food sources leave the park. When they do, some of these wolves will have a tendency to follow that food source. Some of the wolves have collars. None of this should be a surprise and the state management plans should not be changed due to this completely expected outcome.

Can you elaborate on the reasons given, before I blow a gasket? First impression is that this decision is BS.

As if we weren't going to have enough stupid wolf bills in the legislative session next month, a move like this is only going to make it worse.

What insight can you give to the basis for their decision? Hopefully I am missing something and I am going off half-cocked as I rant to myself here at the my office.

Randy,

I didn't listen in as I had a meeting that I had to be at. Wolf populations in the northern tier of the park are down from past years due to mange and lack of forage (elk). Additive to that are the 6 wolves that were collared which were harvested and I think it creates a situation where the commission felt the need to close the hunt adjacent to the park.

I agree that this will set off the legislature and they will try to remove management of wolves from FWP, which would cause a petition to relist based off the abandonment of the plan. FWP's temporary closure of these units could very well have been the right thing to do regarding wolf biology, but it's a tough sell politically.

I don't know that I would blow a gasket on this, but I do think that it sets us up for a more difficult time during the session. The Commission did not abandon the plan. They used the plan and their powers to adopt a change to the regs. They utilized the plan and their powers appropriately, even if we don't like the outcome.

 

[ridge-runner]

The commission is stated saying that the closure isn't permanent, so it will be interesting to see the next move. Nothing fans the flames more than an animal with a "name" getting in the papers.

 

[BuzzH]

I tend to agree with belly-deep, but on the other hand there is nothing preventing deer, elk, sheep, goat, etc. hunters from taking those animals when they have radio collars.

This stinks of a way for the wolf hippies to interfere with the legal harvest of wolves...I cant see taking a step backwards. IMO, hunters have sacrificied plenty and invested wayyyy more into the wolf issue than anyone else.

I cant like the FWP commissions decision to create a buffer zone around YNP. Schizophrenic planning isnt going to help the situation.

 

[Ben Lamb]

The no trapping component does mirror Idaho and WY though.

I don't see this as Schizophrenic either. The Commission has made it clear since summer that they would be using the December 10th meeting to re-evaluate how the hunt is going, and make changes that they believe would be needed. They're following the law, and the course they laid out.

 

[ihuntelk]

It looks like a knee-jerk reaction by the commission. Hopefully some of the stupidity that Idaho's legislature tried to pull last year can be averted in Montana. I'm afraid you have more Ranch-islatures than Idaho has so it's probably gonna get ugly........

Fin, I hope you were able to set NPR straight.

I know most guys are just so tickled to shoot a wolf that they're probably not looking for a collar.

I know that my brother and I (both Natural Resource backgrounds) had that discussion 2 weeks ago. The wolves were serenading us and we were trying to get down the canyon to poke a hole through one. We each said that if they came in as a pack, I was going to do my best to NOT shoot one with a collar - if any of them had collars. If only one came in and it was wearing a necklace - sorry.

On a side note, my brother did his MS on the Steamboat elk herd (unit 100) in SE Wyo. He'd send out a letter to every hunter informing them that many of the elk in the unit were sporting collars and to please not shoot them, if given the opportunity. When one of his collars would get turned in, he'd always ask about the situation. Many hunters stated that with a big herd of elk standing there, they'd pick out the one with the collar so they could follow it after the initial shot and not end up shooting 2 or 3 if the elk didn't immediately go down.
Yup, these are the same people we share the woods with and vote with!

-Cade
www.HuntforeverWest.com