Well, it's essentially what they are. Most sportsman can't even tell the differance when viewing them in the field.
FWP giving up on scientific management
- Thread starter HighWildFree
- Start date
D
Deleted member 20812
Guest
Fire up the chopper and shoot elk the same way. And with night vision. Kill em all, they’re just overgrown grass rats.
D
Deleted member 20812
Guest
Typical narrow mindedness on your part how you think your perspective is the only correct one.
Some people hate elk and deer. If you can’t see that and see the parallels, it’s only because you don’t want to or refuse to.
Where did you get the info? Two totally different critters. If you can't tell the difference, stay on the porch. mtmuley
MTLabrador
Well-known member
Pretty clear difference even at almost a mile.
As one of the many who spent years working on delisting, I'm not inclined to have a bunch of jackasses get us to the point of relisting. That is what the legislature and the Governor are headed toward. So yeah, that gets under my skin.
We get one bite at the apple when it comes to managing these species when they are delisted. We eff it up, and we are done. And if we wonder how steep the delisting slope is for grizzly bears, ignorant asses at the Legislature are doing nothing to help that cause, even though it is a delisting that is long overdue.
If we can't take enough wolves with the prior regulations, we aren't trying very damn hard. Lots of good trappers who are making a difference. Plenty of ancillary harvest with elk and deer hunters.
But, down at the pub the legislators pushing these kind of bills will have the resident barstool biologists open their wallets to buy another round for their Helena heroes. Intellect and long-term vision, as shown on numerous occasions, both at the State and Federal level, is not a prerequisite for elected office.
Some can call it emotions. For me and many others on this forum, gaining state control was the culmination of many years of hard work, only made possible by alignment of the Congressional planets that will never occur again if we lose control. It took an actual Act of Congress to get what we have. Why some are hell-bent on screwing that up is beyond me.
As much as most might not be able to tell the difference, and I would suspect the legislators have an even higher degree of inability to decipher between coyotes and wolves. And I would bet all the cash in my sock drawer that less than half of those legislators understand the management plan we agreed to and what the criteria is for relisting.
We get one bite at the apple when it comes to managing these species when they are delisted. We eff it up, and we are done. And if we wonder how steep the delisting slope is for grizzly bears, ignorant asses at the Legislature are doing nothing to help that cause, even though it is a delisting that is long overdue.
If we can't take enough wolves with the prior regulations, we aren't trying very damn hard. Lots of good trappers who are making a difference. Plenty of ancillary harvest with elk and deer hunters.
But, down at the pub the legislators pushing these kind of bills will have the resident barstool biologists open their wallets to buy another round for their Helena heroes. Intellect and long-term vision, as shown on numerous occasions, both at the State and Federal level, is not a prerequisite for elected office.
Some can call it emotions. For me and many others on this forum, gaining state control was the culmination of many years of hard work, only made possible by alignment of the Congressional planets that will never occur again if we lose control. It took an actual Act of Congress to get what we have. Why some are hell-bent on screwing that up is beyond me.
As much as most might not be able to tell the difference, and I would suspect the legislators have an even higher degree of inability to decipher between coyotes and wolves. And I would bet all the cash in my sock drawer that less than half of those legislators understand the management plan we agreed to and what the criteria is for relisting.
I agree, but that doesn't change the fact many people miss identify them. Go on one of the trail cam groups and see what I mean.
D
Deleted member 20812
Guest
Everyone should read this 10 times. Then read it again.
HighWildFree
Well-known member
There's a difference between research and management. FWP partners with UM and MSU and produces some world class science. There is valid criticism that FWP doesn't always apply that science to it's management decisions. Politics and social pressure are far more influential than science when it comes to wildlife management. People want more elk, fewer elk, more walleye, less wolves, whatever. None of that has to do with science, just social values.
Science is just a series of data points that kind of give us an idea of how things work. If we're smart we use those data to try and achieve those social values about wildlife.
Wildlife management with science is like hiking through the woods at night with a full moon, you can't really see anything too good, but you have some idea of where things are and where you are going. Hiking through the woods at night without science is like doing it blindfolded.
This is the kind of research that the current administration wants FWP to bow out of https://missoulian.com/news/local/c...cle_5f669d79-4943-56a0-8b4c-940c143311e5.html
Science is just a series of data points that kind of give us an idea of how things work. If we're smart we use those data to try and achieve those social values about wildlife.
Wildlife management with science is like hiking through the woods at night with a full moon, you can't really see anything too good, but you have some idea of where things are and where you are going. Hiking through the woods at night without science is like doing it blindfolded.
This is the kind of research that the current administration wants FWP to bow out of https://missoulian.com/news/local/c...cle_5f669d79-4943-56a0-8b4c-940c143311e5.html
The largest wolf populated region in Montana (Region 1): How many were collared for POM assisted count purposes? 1.
Yep... One.
2019 is the most recent one available for the poublic to view.
I wondered how the hell can the general public have a reasonable belief of our estimation for wolf counts if we are only able to manage a total of 12 collars within all of Montana for 2019? Top that with only 1 in the most populated portion of our state? All $ from wolf tag sales is required to stay with the specific wolf
Along with this, we base territory size off an estimate gathered over a one year time frame from 2008-09. Territory size is a leading equation piece to our POM based approximated wolf count. So say our wolf counts continue to build and more packs form...
Meh, I'm all for wolves however, when we have comments by our FWP such s this;
Yet a quota of 2 total wolves and in one district a single wolf... apparently eco-extreme environmentalists trump ungulate population objectives.
SAJ-99
Well-known member
I think that the number you are looking at is just the number of collars placed in 2019, not the total number of collars being tracked. Also, the quotas are in districts 110 and 313 (because they are next to the parks) and there was an opportunity to provide public comment. Whether we like it or not, when dealing with a public resource, opinions of non-hunting members of the public matter just as much as hunter opinions. It is easy to label them "eco-extreme environmentalist" but we need to entertain the thought that these may be more representative of 350mil Americans than we are and we have to find compromise somewhere.
That's, as stated, 2019. Exactly my point. When we drop 1/2 to 2/3 our annual collared wolves, our counting suffers over the course of future data collection when action used to count/track, etc takes a significant drop.
It must maintain a common denominator to keep with a scientific base for our wolf studies.
Territory space of packs from a one year estimate over a decade ago used as a key part of the equation to estimate wolf population #'s also hinders that estimate. More wolves, tighter territory. Hey, something learned from Isle Royale...
Who do you think collects the pre-drafted forms from the "350mill" Americans?
Center for Biological Diversity is one example. Many others I'm able to offer, though you get the idea.
Eco-extremes.
It must maintain a common denominator to keep with a scientific base for our wolf studies.
Territory space of packs from a one year estimate over a decade ago used as a key part of the equation to estimate wolf population #'s also hinders that estimate. More wolves, tighter territory. Hey, something learned from Isle Royale...
Who do you think collects the pre-drafted forms from the "350mill" Americans?
Center for Biological Diversity is one example. Many others I'm able to offer, though you get the idea.
Eco-extremes.
Wrong Burgundy
Well-known member
This is all too true. I smack my forehead repeatedly when voters try and justify old GG's policies and frankly, his beliefs, from zealot/religious nonsense to reward the rich/squash the common man mentality.
Or, publicly available info of his stellar hunting track record, such as:
On October 28, 2000, a Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks game warden cited Gianforte for unlawfully killing an elk in Park County. The case did not go to trial and he paid a fine of $70, according to court records.
Gianforte’s property abutted the East Gallatin River outside Bozeman and included an easement long used by locals for fishing. (The easement was granted through an agreement with the property’s previous owner.) Gianforte argued that the easement was ruining his property and sued the state of Montana to have the area closed off.
Gianforte violated Montana regulations by harvesting a wolf without first completing a state-mandated wolf trapping certification course. Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks issued the governor a written warning, and he promised to take an online course.
This is the behavior of the Governor....or lack there of. Oh, and HB 637 was signed by GG on the 14th, even though the following groups implored him to veto it:
Montana Wildlife Federation
The Montana Chapter of Backcountry Hunters & Anglers
Montana Bowhunters Association
Traditional Bowhunters of Montana
Hellgate Hunters and Anglers
Great Falls Archery Club
Laurel Rod and Gun Club
Helena Hunters and Anglers
Bearpaw Bowmen
Gallatin Wildlife Association
Western Bear Foundation
Flathead Wildlife, Inc.
Bridger Bowmen
We are not going in the right direction with this so-called "administration", and the public land hunter/angler will take it in the teeth.
Hydrophilic
Well-known member
In Oregon you're labeled eco-extremist if you try to save a couple trees along a salmon river.
SAJ-99
Well-known member
Two things going on here. I know I'm not going to change your label of eco-extremes, so I leave that. But on collars I think we can come to some agreement. Collars are expensive, sometimes wolves with collars are taken by hunters and trappers - See GiGi's wolf. That collar is reused because of cost. What you are looking at is the number of collars reused or new collars put on. Best I can find, about 50 (+ or -) packs are tracked with collars in MT. If that number isn't high enough for you, not sure what you can do except buy a collar and give it to FWP. The Yellowstone wolves are probably Fed collars, so you can knit-pick my example, but you get the point. The problem is once people find a scapegoat, wolves for many, they are not going to be happy with anything. This is especially true of data that might not confirm their beliefs. I'm not sure what more collars is going to solve, especially when long-term projects are being tossed in favor of barstool biology. As far as quotas, Im not saying I agree or disagree with the number. Just saying we have to find a way to work with opposing views.
The Hedgehog
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2000
- Messages
- 11,617
For what it's worth - This is not something new and could have been mentioned years, if not decades ago.
HighWildFree
Well-known member
Maybe all the wannabe biologist in the legislature want to solve this problem
Brown trout declining in SW MT
Brown trout declining in SW MT
Once extremes, such as you mentioned, reach the bi-polar political setting we've become entrenched within, the pendulum has a long swing between each party.
Irrelevant
Well-known member
since I'm off the wagon...
There was a great quote in the last Bugle from Jack Ward Thomas, "Not only is nature more complex that we think it is, it's more complex than we can think."
There's a lot of wisdom there, more than a legislature, or most citizens, will ever grasp.
There was a great quote in the last Bugle from Jack Ward Thomas, "Not only is nature more complex that we think it is, it's more complex than we can think."
There's a lot of wisdom there, more than a legislature, or most citizens, will ever grasp.
