FWP giving up on scientific management

[Deleted member 20812]

Hell, even Buzz says FWP is fugged up with respect to proper counting of elk. Lays blame directly on FWP. though hey, your point is what?

Certainly. And there sure as hell won’t be any scientific research to challenge that now, will there? That’s the beauty of research data, is upsetting long held paradigms.

A great example of that was Jim Williams’ research on WT deer in NW MT. He showed how little understood about their movements, migrations, and landscape uses and completely tipped over the long held belief you couldn’t overhunt whitetails. Good thing he wasn’t trying to extrapolate across landscapes any more and challenged the paradigm.

You don’t even realize my initial point was how bad this decision is going to screw people like you, who live and hunt in an area that’s poorly managed and very likely poorly understood. Even if it is understood, the proper management decisions certainly aren’t being made to help the elk out.

You’re don’t even understand when someone is trying to argue for your cause, which I believe is to want better elk hunting. Were I in your shoes, I’d want the best researchers in Montana completely involved in evaluating elk management in NW Montana, and those are going to be your longer term, graduate level research projects.

Not my pig, not my farm. I mostly hunt Idaho now. For the time being, they still value collaborative research in trying to understand areas like the Clearwater, Lochsa and Selway. Best of luck.

 

[Sytes]

You don’t even realize my initial point was how bad this decision is going to screw people like you, who live and hunt in an area that’s poorly managed and very likely poorly understood. Even if it is understood, the proper management decisions certainly aren’t being made to help the elk out.

You’re don’t even understand when someone is trying to argue for your cause, which I believe is to want better elk hunting

I believe it IS a bad idea to go to some wacked out 2 year plan for science in every way shape and form... at the same time, if science is not used and political pandering to eco environmentalists is the reason for a quota of 2 wolves in an area as large and as elk hindered as 110 (as one example) because we border a National Park (as Theat shared in a prior wolf thread) then yes. there's a problem with the politicized venue for this area and this returns BACK to my initial comment in this thread.

 

[TheTone]

Not my pig, not my farm. I mostly hunt Idaho now. For the time being, they still value collaborative research in trying to understand areas like the Clearwater, Lochsa and Selway. Best of luck.

And in my experience talented bios avoid working in those areas because it’s hard and has long term issues that aren’t turning around anytime soon

I’ll predict that FWP is going to struggle to recruit and retain quality employees if this and other wildlife unfriendly practices continue

 

[Deleted member 20812]

if science is not used and political pandering to eco environmentalists is the reason for a quota of 2 wolves in an area as large and as elk hindered as 110 (as one example) because we border a National Park (as Theat shared in a prior wolf thread) then yes. there's a probl

I would certainly agree the quota could and should be higher than 2. Would it make a difference though, when the harvest is zero? Asking for a friend.

Must be a win though. Now folks can hunt wolves at night, but FWP won’t be able to do a multi year collaring study to get a better handle on managing wildlife in Region 1.

 

[MTTW]

I predict that other than bickering and moaning between the wolf lovers and the wolf haters, nothing changes. I agree that hunting will suck in NW MT 10 years from now, and it will with or without this change. In MT there is a lack of will to actually manage game and predators together and that lack of will has been present since before wolf reintroduction.

MTFWP bios have not been doing their job for many years. Whether that is because they are not allowed to, or another reason, the results are the same. My personal belief is that they have not been allowed to practice unbiased science where big game is concerned for many years.
A lot has changed in MT in 40 years, big predator wise especially, and the fact that Mule deer management has not changed appreciably in that time pretty much throws science out the window.
If you don't have elk in R1 go somewhere else. If you don't have mule deer in sw mt go somewhere else. That is their management policy, and has been for years. It is not real scientific so whatever.

 

[Deleted member 20812]

If you don't have elk in R1 go somewhere else. If you don't have mule deer in sw mt go somewhere else. That is their management policy, and has been for years. It is not real scientific so whatever.

Unfortunately, there is a lot of truth to this. I think some of it is very much cultural, and you’re correct in that it wouldn’t necessarily change without this decision. But, ultimately it’s still one more bad decision that lacks merit, which in turn perpetuates the cultural problem.

 

[Sytes]

I would certainly agree the quota could and should be higher than 2. Would it make a difference though, when the harvest is zero? Asking for a friend.

Must be a win though. Now folks can hunt wolves at night, but FWP won’t be able to do a multi year collaring study to get a better handle on managing wildlife in Region 1.

Tell your "friend" the harvest is closed because the whopping 2 have been taken each and every year. This is the challenge faced in MT and ID for that matter though ID is a bit better at harvesting wolves...

I've been at wolves the past four years. was onto them on a few occasions then, my Weyerhaeuser land closed due to Southern Pines Plantation buyout and the owner buying the land I hunted the Lazy Creek Pack... well - I'll say, I spent many of my annual leave days, $$$, and time I could use for other "to do's" to shoot a canine. No meat (less your Newberg or whomever), nothing gained and 1 wolf down means jack squat in the grand scheme of wolf quotas. Once I was onto them, went home, found the quota filled... It needs to be reigned in and it has not. Fumes show at R1 meetings. Wolves push elk onto private (as shared in examples by Gerald), Wolf #'s and the hunters ability to manage are not cutting it. We need contract hunters, etc to cull the numbers for sake of ungulate populations, etc. Yes, again before you headline the false idea I've said otherwise, wolves are but one portion of a problem. I agree. Season lengths are fk'd, needs limited tag #'s, I'm game for archery, muzzy, or rifle. choose one per animal hunted... etc and that's a start.

That's the challenge MT faces, we allegedly have equal quantity of wolves as ID yet, ID nails some 4-500 a year. Meanwhile, MT totals around 250-300... Hmmm. Mathematicians? Wheres Wllm with his guru excel sheets, etc

 

[Deleted member 20812]

Tell your "friend" the harvest is closed because the whopping 2 have been taken each and every year.

My bad. The picture you posted showed a harvest of zero.

@MTTW pretty well summed it up. I could care less who folks want to be angry at and about what, and what they fume about. Misdirected anger only distracts from the bigger underlying issues.

 

[Sytes]

My bad. The picture you posted showed a harvest of zero.

Wait for 2021 to show stats. That was to present the quota, the size of this one section, and the relation to GNP. Unfortunately FWP's wolf historical quota records are still not accessible.
313 Quota 1, harvest 2.
316 Quota 1 harvest 0.

 

[MTGomer]

“Just doing my job” is an excuse for a Safeway employee when he’s stocking the shelf with Hunts Ketchup when everybody knows Heinz is way better.

If people like Kujala stick around through this and continue to spin the narrative in the news, they’re complicit.

 

[shoots-straight]

Tell your "friend" the harvest is closed because the whopping 2 have been taken each and every year. This is the challenge faced in MT and ID for that matter though ID is a bit better at harvesting wolves...

I've been at wolves the past four years. was onto them on a few occasions then, my Weyerhaeuser land closed due to Southern Pines Plantation buyout and the owner buying the land I hunted the Lazy Creek Pack... well - I'll say, I spent many of my annual leave days, $$$, and time I could use for other "to do's" to shoot a canine. No meat (less your Newberg or whomever), nothing gained and 1 wolf down means jack squat in the grand scheme of wolf quotas. Once I was onto them, went home, found the quota filled... It needs to be reigned in and it has not. Fumes show at R1 meetings. Wolves push elk onto private (as shared in examples by Gerald), Wolf #'s and the hunters ability to manage are not cutting it. We need contract hunters, etc to cull the numbers for sake of ungulate populations, etc. Yes, again before you headline the false idea I've said otherwise, wolves are but one portion of a problem. I agree. Season lengths are fk'd, needs limited tag #'s, I'm game for archery, muzzy, or rifle. choose one per animal hunted... etc and that's a start.

That's the challenge MT faces, we allegedly have equal quantity of wolves as ID yet, ID nails some 4-500 a year. Meanwhile, MT totals around 250-300... Hmmm. Mathematicians? Wheres Wllm with his guru excel sheets, etc

You do realize that Montana (1186) doesn't have the population of wolves that Idaho(1500) does. There's 2/3 of the Idaho population + or-. 2/3 of 500 would be about 333. All things considered, we do very well without the season length, snares, and bounty. You don't need a excel sheet just math.

 

[BuzzH]

IMO/E, all this is doing in Montana is making it "official" as the MTFWP has been making management decisions IN SPITE of, or with no regard for wildlife science, for decades.

Anyone with even a basic understanding of science will tell you, no matter the field but in particular wildlife, 2 years isn't even a proper start in most all wildlife research.

I also don't care how "good of a guy" folks like Kujala, Thompson, etc. may be...they're letting the wildlife and people of Montana down by going along for the ride. I'd rather pick shit with the chickens than be a sell-out like that.

 

[OntarioHunter]

And in my experience talented bios avoid working in those areas because it’s hard and has long term issues that aren’t turning around anytime soon

I’ll predict that FWP is going to struggle to recruit and retain quality employees if this and other wildlife unfriendly practices continue

Sorry, I won't buy that. Wildlife biology is a field that is flooded with wannabes desperate for employment. I was faced with this constantly working for the US Park Service. Anyone with common sense and enough courage to swim against a current (actually a torrent) of incompetence is quickly expendable. There's an unlimited supply of unemployed yes men/women waiting in the shadows willing to do, say, or write whatever foolishness is politically correct at any given moment. Anyone with real credentials never lasts long. NPS doesn't give second thought to throwing a brown-nosing "expert" under the bus when they get hauled into court. Then the expert's diplomas become meaningless wallpaper ... for the rest of his life. I didn't get a PhD being that stupid. See ya!

 

[Sytes]

You do realize that Montana (1186) doesn't have the population of wolves that Idaho(1500) does. There's 2/3 of the Idaho population + or-. 2/3 of 500 would be about 333. All things considered, we do very well without the season length, snares, and bounty. You don't need a excel sheet just math.

My impression... Montana's FWP, as mentioned by others has been pretty piss poor at their counts. Unless they are great in the area that supports one argument though terrible in all others, as mentioned...
ID has been using cameras, etc for their counts. I find it likely, given the mutual border, terrain and our extended other areas with wolf populations, we are at least equal...

Even if we played the alleged quantity FWP claims:
MT 1200 / 300 1/4
ID 1500 / 500 1/3

Ten years from now...? No matter, differing thoughts of math. (Is that possible?)

 

[Deleted member 20812]

https://fwp.mt.gov/binaries/content/assets/fwp/conservation/wildlife-reports/1-montana-wolf-monitoring-study-final-report-compressed.pdf

Actually, Montana’s wolf population estimates are probably far more accurate an elk and deer estimates. Interesting study. Good thing they finished it.

 

[shoots-straight]

My impression... Montana's FWP, as mentioned by others has been pretty piss poor at their counts. Unless they are great in the area that supports one argument though terrible in all others, as mentioned...
ID has been using cameras, etc for their counts. I find it likely, given the mutual border, terrain and our extended other areas with wolf populations, we are at least equal...

Even if we played the alleged quantity FWP claims:
MT 1200 / 300 1/4
ID 1500 / 500 1/3

Ten years from now...? No matter, differing thoughts of math. (Is that possible?)

I was being kind, actually Idaho's 500 was all wolf deaths. (might be wrong)
Montana this year killed 329 legally. That no control, or landowner, plus poached. I don't have that number but bet it would take us up to 400 dead wolfs.

What's that percentage?

montana wolf status

 

[SAJ-99]

Tell your "friend" the harvest is closed because the whopping 2 have been taken each and every year. This is the challenge faced in MT and ID for that matter though ID is a bit better at harvesting wolves...

I've been at wolves the past four years. was onto them on a few occasions then, my Weyerhaeuser land closed due to Southern Pines Plantation buyout and the owner buying the land I hunted the Lazy Creek Pack... well - I'll say, I spent many of my annual leave days, $$$, and time I could use for other "to do's" to shoot a canine. No meat (less your Newberg or whomever), nothing gained and 1 wolf down means jack squat in the grand scheme of wolf quotas. Once I was onto them, went home, found the quota filled... It needs to be reigned in and it has not. Fumes show at R1 meetings. Wolves push elk onto private (as shared in examples by Gerald), Wolf #'s and the hunters ability to manage are not cutting it. We need contract hunters, etc to cull the numbers for sake of ungulate populations, etc. Yes, again before you headline the false idea I've said otherwise, wolves are but one portion of a problem. I agree. Season lengths are fk'd, needs limited tag #'s, I'm game for archery, muzzy, or rifle. choose one per animal hunted... etc and that's a start.

That's the challenge MT faces, we allegedly have equal quantity of wolves as ID yet, ID nails some 4-500 a year. Meanwhile, MT totals around 250-300... Hmmm. Mathematicians? Wheres Wllm with his guru excel sheets, etc

Just a side note, that same ranch asked for a game damage hunt in 2020. The problem with NW MT and ID panhandle is that lands elk need to winter are all private and have cattle on them. Others may have Californians on them which are giving elk safe haven. Sure predation is a problem but hunters face other problems that are making the drop in numbers seem worse.

 

[BWALKER77]

I would certainly agree the quota could and should be higher than 2. Would it make a difference though, when the harvest is zero? Asking for a friend.

Must be a win though. Now folks can hunt wolves at night, but FWP won’t be able to do a multi year collaring study to get a better handle on managing wildlife in Region 1.

Why do you care if an over grown coyote is hunted at night? All emotions aside..

 

[mtmuley]

Why do you care if an over grown coyote is hunted at night? All emotions aside..

I'm for killing wolves, but bullshit like calling them an overgrown coyote doesn't help anything. mtmuley

 

[Deleted member 20812]

Why do you care if an over grown coyote is hunted at night? All emotions aside..

Not worth my time. Keep trolling.