Jefferson County MT may offer wolf/lion bounty

[JohnDeereGreen]

http://billingsgazette.com/news/state-and-regional/montana/hunters-tell-jefferson-county-think-twice-about-wolf-bounty/article_ca0612aa-1a15-543a-8021-3195e12d5be0.html

Not sure if anyone else has posted this yet. According to the Gazette, Jefferson County is thinking about a wolf and/or lion bounty...if

"more than 51 percent of the livestock owners in the county petition for"

it.

 

[IdahoHombre]

Why any hunter would be against this baffles me. I don't buy avid hunters saying we need to let fish & game folks learn more about wolves before we put a bounty on their heads. That is gobbligook speak. Get the number of wolves down to the required 150, keep 'em there, and then study them.

Bounties were effective in ridding Idaho of wolves back in the earlier part of the 20th Century. There is a history of bounties working. Has there been fraud involved? Yes, but rules were put in place to prevent the fraud. Doing this by county could be problematic. What if a guy shoots a wolf down in Madison, and then brings it to Jefferson for the bounty? It would work best if the state would implement the bounty.

Of course, the ranchers don't have the state cornered like they might to the county.

Last December, I saw bounties coming down the pipeline... I think they're a great idea.

I still don't get "avid" hunters being against this. Maybe I'm wrong about that.

 

[tjones]

Ohh boy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Elkmagnet]

They didn't sound like real hunters to me.

 

[shoots-straight]

In Montana, it's illegal to entice people to hunt big game animals. I don't think people will hunt wolves just for the added $100. A tank of gas damn near costs that. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Push to far one direction and the pendulum will swing back to the other side. Idaho has killed around 274 wolves so far through hunting and trapping. Then there is the added WS kills. Idaho could end up around 400. That's a pretty good showing if you ask me. Montana sits at 145 right now, and WS has killed a bunch too. We need more in a few spots for sure but one has to be careful that we don't get too liberal and end up with another lawsuit that has potential to halt the hunts. We're not going to get those numbers down as low as 150. That will trigger the end to hunting and trapping. There are those of us that like hunting wolves.

Bounties are a terrible blemish on the sporting public. This is good talk to make more money for the wolf lovers.

 

[Gerald Martin]

+1 to what Shoots Straight says.

If we need to push for anything its for a wolf trapping season.


Let the guys who are successful sell the hides if they feel the need to convert a wolf hide into cash.

 

[Ben Lamb]

They didn't sound like real hunters to me.

I don't know Josh Pallister, but I know Rod Bullis. He's the real deal.

 

[Elkmagnet]

In Montana, it's illegal to entice people to hunt big game animals. I don't think people will hunt wolves just for the added $100. A tank of gas damn near costs that. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Push to far one direction and the pendulum will swing back to the other side. Idaho has killed around 274 wolves so far through hunting and trapping. Then there is the added WS kills. Idaho could end up around 400. That's a pretty good showing if you ask me. Montana sits at 145 right now, and WS has killed a bunch too. We need more in a few spots for sure but one has to be careful that we don't get too liberal and end up with another lawsuit that has potential to halt the hunts. We're not going to get those numbers down as low as 150. That will trigger the end to hunting and trapping. There are those of us that like hunting wolves.

Bounties are a terrible blemish on the sporting public. This is good talk to make more money for the wolf lovers.

I do agree, well said. Like I have been telling my friends " get out and hunt wolves you don't know if we will have a chance to next year"

 

[Elkmagnet]

I don't know Josh Pallister, but I know Rod Bullis. He's the real deal.

enough said

 

[IdahoHombre]

Well, it's good to hear other sentiments than mine own. The whole issue is obviously so politically charged that the once simple answers to life's problems (such as bounties on wolves) is just one big mess nowadays.

Bounties once upon a time worked. But that was back in the day when nobody wanted wolves. Times have changed.

I still think bounties could work, but for practical reasons, only at the state level. Counties will probably find themselves in a big mess otherwise.

Trapping appears to be working well in Idaho's back country, where hunting with firearms isn't as easy. Montana I guess should look in that direction next, if they're serious about the wolf problem. Not that trapping is any less politically incorrect than bounties...

I just want our elk herds in ID and W. MT back, and I have no sympathy for federally introduced wolves, even if they find that the wolves are not significantly hurting the herds.

There's a lot of moving pieces here, and the ranchers have a stake in this as much as the sportsmen. It'll be interesting to watch how this plays out.

 

[Rat Fink]

I don't know Josh Pallister, but I know Rod Bullis. He's the real deal.

Mr. Pallister is a Big time cat hunter around Helena. Shoots some monster cats all around here. I'm sure he's trying to protect his local cat hunting.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Mr. Pallister is a Big time cat hunter around Helena. Shoots some monster cats all around here. I'm sure he's trying to protect his local cat hunting.

Same as Pallister Plumbing?

At any rate, I think these three guys need a beer bought for them.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Well, it's good to hear other sentiments than mine own. The whole issue is obviously so politically charged that the once simple answers to life's problems (such as bounties on wolves) is just one big mess nowadays.

Bounties once upon a time worked. But that was back in the day when nobody wanted wolves. Times have changed.

I still think bounties could work, but for practical reasons, only at the state level. Counties will probably find themselves in a big mess otherwise.

Trapping appears to be working well in Idaho's back country, where hunting with firearms isn't as easy. Montana I guess should look in that direction next, if they're serious about the wolf problem. Not that trapping is any less politically incorrect than bounties...

I just want our elk herds in ID and W. MT back, and I have no sympathy for federally introduced wolves, even if they find that the wolves are not significantly hurting the herds.

There's a lot of moving pieces here, and the ranchers have a stake in this as much as the sportsmen. It'll be interesting to watch how this plays out.

Hombre,
You got it. It is politically charged, and there are a lot of moving pieces.

Trapping is going to be a valuable tool in wolf management, and while it may take us a few years to get all of the tools in place, it's better to measure twice and cut once.

If we screw this up, wolves go back on the ESA List. Taking a little time, rather than the Sundles/Bridges method, means we have sustainable management of all species. We can have herds come back, but it's not going to take a year or even a couple. It's going to be a slow process.

 

[mtmiller]

I think we all need to cut a check to Mr. Simms for weight loss on his livestock.

 

[Ben Lamb]

I think we all need to cut a check to Mr. Simms for weight loss on his livestock.

$5.2-5.4 million in FWP's budget goes to landowners, btw.

 

[Elkmagnet]

Most of the ranchers I know here in idaho will not touch federal dollars when it comes to wolves. They all say that accepting the money is like saying the system is okay and working when its not.

 

[IdahoHombre]

elkmagnet, I wish more folks had the gumption to go that route, including our esteemed governor, who talks big against the federal gummint's encroachment (like the wolf issue), but still takes their handouts here and there.

But I think Ben was referring to Montana State dollars that are going to ranchers. But if MT is reimbursing ranchers, I wonder if MT is doing it with their own money, or if MT's FWP Dept. is just an administration center for the feds, where federal money is doled out.

But in any case, the point you bring up is a HUGE one, and is one of those moving pieces in this political quagmire over wolves. Because, yes, when you take money from the feds, you are validating the feds. Same goes for welfare, social security, or any big federal ponzi scheme. You have an internal inconsistency if you have a Ron Paul Revolution bumper sticker on your car, and at the same time you're in the grocery store paying with food stamps.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Most of the ranchers I know here in idaho will not touch federal dollars when it comes to wolves. They all say that accepting the money is like saying the system is okay and working when its not.

Well, they'll soon have no nose then.

Most ranchers I know in MT have been actively looking to take money from hunters to pay for their wolf problems. The system works, when it's allowed too. The reason the system didn't work on the wolf issue is because the money grubbers on both sides saw a way to parlay the wolf into political and financial power. That's been ended. The Great Lakes are delisted and beyond my expectations, they're getting a hunting season, WY is moving forward (not sure if it will hold or not), and the Fed has done everything they can to get out of the wolf business in the GL and NR. So, if they don't want to be reimbursed for their loss, okay. THat just means more MT ranchers will cash in.

I wonder though, how many of those ranchers are looking to increase IGFD's role in wolf depredation removals, and putting the financial burden solely on the backs of hunters?

It's certainly where a lot of folks are headed in MT.

But I think Ben was referring to Montana State dollars that are going to ranchers. But if MT is reimbursing ranchers, I wonder if MT is doing it with their own money, or if MT's FWP Dept. is just an administration center for the feds, where federal money is doled out.

That number is all payments to the agricultural community from FWP - that includes Block Management, etc. The number from the Feds is much, much higher. Not sure what the actual number of federal dollars in subsidies is to MT ag, but it's impressive.

 

[BuzzH]

Not sure what the actual number of federal dollars in subsidies is to MT ag, but it's impressive.

I do...and the view from here is they do a much better job of farming the government than the land.

•$5.89 billion in subsidies 1995-2010.
$2.53 billion in commodity subsidies.
$764 million in crop insurance subsidies.
$1.95 billion in conservation subsidies.
$641 million in disaster subsidies.
•Montana ranking: 17 of 50 States


http://farm.ewg.org/region.php?fips=30000

 

[Elkmagnet]

I do...and the view from here is they do a much better job of farming the government than the land.

•$5.89 billion in subsidies 1995-2010.
$2.53 billion in commodity subsidies.
$764 million in crop insurance subsidies.
$1.95 billion in conservation subsidies.
$641 million in disaster subsidies.
•Montana ranking: 17 of 50 States


http://farm.ewg.org/region.php?fips=30000

I know a very large farmer in idaho who applys for every subsidy he can and he will tell you that the amount of money he receives is rediculous and subsidies need to end now. That is really all I know about subsidies the fact that he would say that I guess is all I need to know.