Montana 1 upped by Idaho in Wolf take shenanigans.

[BuzzH]

Some info on the grizzly seasons in the past, some might find interesting...killing 14-23 bears a year or so with all mortality.

1985 - Montana statewide grizzly bear mortalities, 1984-1985 - Biodiversity Heritage Library

The Biodiversity Heritage Library works collaboratively to make biodiversity literature openly available to the world as part of a global biodiversity community.

www.biodiversitylibrary.org

 

[Sytes]

Excellent piece on Grizzlies, the ESA, and the corrosive impacts of excess litigation

This article by NPR touches on points I have been making since the wolf litigation started in 2004. As much as I hate to see Congress intervene or state legislatures intervene, I think the litigators run a serious risk of having such happen on Grizzly Bears. I would fully support any...

www.hunttalk.com

 

[mtmuley]

FIFY....

Which are disliked more on HT? Outfitters or ranchers? Maybe we need a poll. mtmuley

 

[BuzzH]

Which are disliked more on HT? Outfitters or ranchers? Maybe we need a poll. mtmuley

I don't know, I don't dislike either if they aren't hypocrites...

 

[mtmuley]

I don't know, I don't dislike either if they aren't hypocrites...

Me neither... mtmuley

 

[Trap]

The tags weren't $50, they were way cheaper, there was a $50-$75 trophy fee, like lions, when you killed one.

Whether you want to believe it or not, the Spring season was the nail in the coffin...1993 or 1994 was the last spring hunt and it was limited quota (I applied and didn't draw). IIRC, it went for 2 spring seasons. There were at least 2 really dandy bears killed during the spring, one with a borrowed 30-30.

IMO, the fall season would have eventually gone away either way, but the Spring season drew a boat-load of attention to the grizzly hunt in Montana.

There's no way an unlimited hunt would happen now, and for good reasons. Too many people would know about the hunt, too many long-range rifles, too much fancy glass, gear, etc. to allow people to find success. I bet a 1-3 day season would smash the quota. Its also possible that if it was the same as the old season, depending on the mortality quota, most years wouldn't see a season at all. Too many bears getting killed by the FWP, vehicle collisions, poached, etc.

Its never going back to that, it will be LQ, best case....but do agree that a season is warranted.

The idea of killing problem bears with a hunt sounds good in theory, but never works in reality.

Good information. I think we are talking about different hunts. the unlimited fall hunt I am referring too was cancelled in the late 80s or thats what I remember. So what I am thinking about would have already been gone by that time? I could be wrong just going by memory and its been a long time. I think in this age of tag madness and demand for sheep hunts if they can still make that unlimited sheep hunt work they could pull off the unlimited grizzly. I remember the bear quota being filled before they even opened the season back then and it was mostly bears getting wacked by trains when they were leaving glacier. I have pondered the massive crap show an unlimited grizzly tag could create ha ha. But I still believe they could make it work probably at least have to limit it to residents. I did the unlimited sheep hunt back around the same time and even back then I felt like the entire national guard had been sent to that mountain range. If they have kept that going all these years I feel they could bring that bear hunt back. Really it was a limited success hunt(sometimes no hunt) but took care of the problem bears fast. Regardless a hunt is necessary no matter how they structure it and LQ could definitely be the way to go. My whole point is lets point fingers at the groups that constantly get in the way of state management of wildlife. Its always the same people in the same groups and they have the balls to call it conservation. Little to none of them live in Montana,Idaho or Wyoming yet they are making management decisions via the courts for all 3 states. The latest strategy has been to focus on apex predators they set recovery numbers and then constantly move the goal line. They did it with wolves now they are doing it with grizzly bears. They have a simple formula for how many we need its N plus 1. N is the current number plus 1 we always need at least one more. I think that was part of the point of this thread. Idaho passed some new wolf laws and boy did we mess up now we are going to get sued. That's sadly true. Does it make any sense when we are 10 times the minimum number of wolves? Which groups are really the problem? Or we can still be pissed at ranchers! and I see now I forgot to include outfitters ha ha. And the ranchers told me those damn farmers get all the subsidies lets not let the farmers off the hook!! Thanks for some of the additional information on past grizzly hunts its been and interesting thread

 

[BuzzH]

Good information. I think we are talking about different hunts. the unlimited fall hunt I am referring too was cancelled in the late 80s or thats what I remember. So what I am thinking about would have already been gone by that time? I could be wrong just going by memory and its been a long time. I think in this age of tag madness and demand for sheep hunts if they can still make that unlimited sheep hunt work they could pull off the unlimited grizzly. I remember the bear quota being filled before they even opened the season back then and it was mostly bears getting wacked by trains when they were leaving glacier. I have pondered the massive crap show an unlimited grizzly tag could create ha ha. But I still believe they could make it work probably at least have to limit it to residents. I did the unlimited sheep hunt back around the same time and even back then I felt like the entire national guard had been sent to that mountain range. If they have kept that going all these years I feel they could bring that bear hunt back. Really it was a limited success hunt(sometimes no hunt) but took care of the problem bears fast. Regardless a hunt is necessary no matter how they structure it and LQ could definitely be the way to go. My whole point is lets point fingers at the groups that constantly get in the way of state management of wildlife. Its always the same people in the same groups and they have the balls to call it conservation. Little to none of them live in Montana,Idaho or Wyoming yet they are making management decisions via the courts for all 3 states. The latest strategy has been to focus on apex predators they set recovery numbers and then constantly move the goal line. They did it with wolves now they are doing it with grizzly bears. They have a simple formula for how many we need its N plus 1. N is the current number plus 1 we always need at least one more. I think that was part of the point of this thread. Idaho passed some new wolf laws and boy did we mess up now we are going to get sued. That's sadly true. Does it make any sense when we are 10 times the minimum number of wolves? Which groups are really the problem? Or we can still be pissed at ranchers! and I see now I forgot to include outfitters ha ha. And the ranchers told me those damn farmers get all the subsidies lets not let the farmers off the hook!! Thanks for some of the additional information on past grizzly hunts its been and interesting thread

We're talking about the same fall hunt...you just don't remember the spring season.

 

[mtmuley]

I don't know, I don't dislike either if they aren't hypocrites...

I'm gonna take a guess and say the hypocrite rancher takes subsidies and leases to an outfitter. The hypocrite outfitter takes set asides and leases from a rancher. Close? mtmuley

 

[shoots-straight]

I predict a lawsuit to be filed in 10,9,8,7,6,5,4,
,............................................................................................................................................... ............................................................................................

Here it is:

Environmental groups threaten lawsuit over Montana wolf laws

The notice alleges that new laws expanding trapping could lead to unintentional injuries and killings of grizzlies and lynx, which are both listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act.

ravallirepublic.com

 

[Sytes]

Earthjustice, representing Center for Biological Diversity, Friends of the Clearwater, Humane Society of the United States, International Wildlife Coexistence Network, Sierra Club, Western Watersheds Project, Wilderness Watch and Wolves of the Rockies

When did these clowns ever stop lawsuits / intent injunctions... typical fund-scare tactics...

 

[shoots-straight]

Well, this is a little more than a "Scare Tactic". There will be a suit filed.

 

[Trap]

That bill that created the new rules in Idaho has already been neutered by the fish and game based on the new proposal on how they will manage it. Those groups would have found a way to sue anyways. I don’t remember very many years they haven’t had a lawsuit since wolves first showed up. This did give them a convenient excuse

 

[shoots-straight]

That bill that created the new rules in Idaho has already been neutered by the fish and game based on the new proposal on how they will manage it. Those groups would have found a way to sue anyways. I don’t remember very many years they haven’t had a lawsuit since wolves first showed up. This did give them a convenient excuse

Except the last 10 years that we've been managing wolves responsibly. They always have an excuse, but these laws passed gave them the opportunity and the tools they needed.

 

[TheTone]

That bill that created the new rules in Idaho has already been neutered by the fish and game based on the new proposal on how they will manage it. Those groups would have found a way to sue anyways. I don’t remember very many years they haven’t had a lawsuit since wolves first showed up. This did give them a convenient excuse

The legislature went to fish and game and asked them to figure out the mess they created. Basically said, oops we didn’t mean to do all that, can you fix it

 

[Trap]

Except the last 10 years that we've been managing wolves responsibly.

Except the last 10 years that we've been managing wolves responsibly. They always have an excuse, but these laws passed gave them the opportunity and the tools they needed.

They were just too busy suing over the Great Lakes wolves and others. They were still filing lawsuits over wolves. It was coming no matter what but this obviously gave them a reason (in their minds) to sue right now. We will never have enough predators to satisfy the center for biological diversity and others. I think the Idaho bill was wrong way to do it but they were going to file a lawsuit eventually over something

 

[Trap]

I was against the legislature trying to manage any wildlife and agree it was just a gift to enable the lawsuits. I just don’t think it matters really they would have filed lawsuits eventually. We were managing wives but I don’t know about responsibly we were at least 10 times the required amount. Idaho had to expand seasons and methods of take and wether it was politicians or fish and game it was coming. It’s all really just a crap show

 

[shoots-straight]

I was against the legislature trying to manage any wildlife and agree it was just a gift to enable the lawsuits. I just don’t think it matters really they would have filed lawsuits eventually. We were managing wives but I don’t know about responsibly we were at least 10 times the required amount. Idaho had to expand seasons and methods of take and wether it was politicians or fish and game it was coming. It’s all really just a crap show

I have no idea why so many of you continue to draw lines and claim those were some magical number that if breached, gives you attitude you have.

There was no required amount of wolves drawn up in any document written. There was, however a number that was a minimum amount that triggered a delisting to take place. Everyone that was involved at the time knew that the total (recovered) numbers would be much higher. Where that number hangs out is about half of what we have now.

I'm speaking Montana only.

It's a crap show because we put people in places of power that will pander to the uneducated for votes. They don't really care if the Wolf ends up on a list. All they care about is they did your bidding and get your support. Even if it's wrong headed.

There wasn't any lawsuit coming. They only file if there's a chance at winning. They had zero until this recent Shit Show made the big time.

 

[mtmuley]

We are doing well in Montana as far as wolf management. mtmuley

 

[shoots-straight]

We are doing well in Montana as far as wolf management. mtmuley

Were! I have hopes that the commission realizes the misgivings of the legislature and takes it a little bit easy.

 

[Trap]

I have no idea why so many of you continue to draw lines and claim those were some magical number that if breached, gives you attitude you have.

There was no required amount of wolves drawn up in any document written. There was, however a number that was a minimum amount that triggered a delisting to take place. Everyone that was involved at the time knew that the total (recovered) numbers would be much higher. Where that number hangs out is about half of what we have now.

I'm speaking Montana only.

It's a crap show because we put people in places of power that will pander to the uneducated for votes. They don't really care if the Wolf ends up on a list. All they care about is they did your bidding and get your support. Even if it's wrong headed.

There wasn't any lawsuit coming. They only file if there's a chance at winning. They had zero until this recent Shit Show made the big time.

Uhh I got the numbers from Idaho’s wolf management and conservation plan it set a MINIMUM of 150 wolves and 15 breeding pairs. I understand that’s the minimum to prevent delisting. Last two years numbers averaged between 1500 and 1600 wolves. That’s quite a bit above Idaho’s objective and I think they feel 350-500 is probably a good number? Either way current seasons and methods were not meeting the objective at best they we’re keeping them stable at a population that was way over objective. Additional opportunities to take wolves were/are needed. So I was positive our fish and game was going here slowly anyways so a lawsuit was most likely coming. I agree with you 100 percent on electing idiots who did this for political reasons and they have NO business passing game management policies. I’m glad you feel Montana was managing wolves well but Idaho is different. Almost all of the middle of Idaho is wilderness and it’s very difficult to manage wolves there especially with a 72 hour trap check rule. What has happened to the selway and the adjoining wilderness is really sad. I blame the anti groups more than the politicians because they have no business intervening in state management when we are way over any agreed upon population