Collaring wolves

[Ben Lamb]

Getting the science to back you up your management decisions is never a bad thing. I think they'll find that they were fairly close on numbers of wolves in most areas. This study should reinforce their numbers. It should also show genetic exchange which is going to be key.

Bingo. Good use of funds, IMO.

FWP is mandated by the legislature to spend $900,000 per year on wolf management and that includes trapping, collaring, studies, FTE's, etc. It's the first time I'm aware of that the Legislature has dictated how much money is to be spent on one specific critter. That law is pretty short sighted, IMO.

Personally, I think the best bang for the buck that RMEF could be spending in regards to research is on soil science and plant nutrition on public land. Most of the focus seems to be on numbers of elk and/or predator/prey dynamics rather than range condition.

The Absoroka Elk ecology project is a wonderful template to use in other similar landscapes where elk seem to be selecting irrigated acres over public ground. There's something bigger at play than just toothy critters.

Kudos to RMEF for stepping up and helping out.

Someone asked if the enviros had ever helped fund some of these things and at least in MT, they have tried. Defenders of Wildlife wanted to help fund the Bitterroot Study, but the agency said no.

 

[jryoung]

Someone asked if the enviros had ever helped fund some of these things and at least in MT, they have tried. Defenders of Wildlife wanted to help fund the Bitterroot Study, but the agency said no.

I wonder why they said no? Kind of hard to tout how groups like the RMEF are stepping up with funding when other funding gets turned away. I'd be curious as to the details, because on the surface it doesn't look good.

I completely agree regarding the plant nutrition study, if you aren't looking at all the factors what's the point. Similar to my first point, the RMEF should lead the dialogue here and develop a framework for discussion backed by scientific analysis of several factors.

 

[mtmuley]

I asked about the funding. It would seem that if some of these groups want real on-the-ground data, they would help with the money. That it has been offered, (in one case) and turned down is a little surprising. mtmuley

 

[MDF Regional Director]

IMO,..very good use of funds. In order to help manage, you have to have information, the more collars the better the data. The more data, the better the decisions.

 

[HSi-ESi]

This is a good use of funds in my opinion as well.

The RMEF funds many projects and studies that are not directly related to elk (Range management, fencing, burn projects, etc). This is very similar in the fact that itcould potentially enhance lands for elk. RMEF has walked this tight rope for a long time.

Some folks may think that RMEF will cross the line one way or another.

Any additional genetic information that can be obtained will be money well spent.

 

[Stillhunterman]

Bingo. Good use of funds, IMO.

FWP is mandated by the legislature to spend $900,000 per year on wolf management and that includes trapping, collaring, studies, FTE's, etc. It's the first time I'm aware of that the Legislature has dictated how much money is to be spent on one specific critter. That law is pretty short sighted, IMO.

Personally, I think the best bang for the buck that RMEF could be spending in regards to research is on soil science and plant nutrition on public land. Most of the focus seems to be on numbers of elk and/or predator/prey dynamics rather than range condition.

The Absoroka Elk ecology project is a wonderful template to use in other similar landscapes where elk seem to be selecting irrigated acres over public ground. There's something bigger at play than just toothy critters.

Kudos to RMEF for stepping up and helping out.

Someone asked if the enviros had ever helped fund some of these things and at least in MT, they have tried. Defenders of Wildlife wanted to help fund the Bitterroot Study, but the agency said no.

I wholeheartedly agree with this statement and it extends beyond just elk and Montana. Utah is so wrapped up in elk/deer numbers, predator-prey dynamics, and keeping certain conservation groups happy with social wildlife management strategies, they can't see the forest for the trees. Soil science and plant nutrition on public land is currently an after thought for most western wildlife agencies, but some good work is being done by independent researchers.

As to the OP, yeah, it would be worth the money spent to have the needed data, if only to refute what will most likely be more attempts by the pro wolf groups to undermine state control of wolf management.