MT FWP Commission closes some wolf areas!

[theat]

I tagged along to film a couple of Gardiner late season elk hunts the last year the season was open. We saw several wolves and not a single one was willing to do any tricks for for the treats we were offering Actually any of them that spotted or smelled us got out of there as quickly as they could, not very tame at all.

 

[RobG]

RobG,

I've hunted quite a bit near Yellowstone...and if elk, deer, sheep, goats, black bears, or wolves happen to live in a territory that over-laps a legal Montana hunting area...thats just the way it is.

Where do we draw a line where its acceptable to hunt wolves, for fear we might shoot one with a radio collar or one thats been viewed by a tourist?

I think the line they drew was reasonable and targeted. To counter it you need to make the case that we need to shoot the park animals, especially the collared ones. I also believed they anticipated this problem based on Moody's comments in today's paper. We have to balance the benefit of killing a relatively few wolves with other issues. You said that my "wolf hippie" comments is right out of the wolf hippie play book. I absolutely disagree, killing Yellowstone wolves is right out of the hippie play book. A greater gift could not have been given to them. Again, it baffles me that hunters can't understand this.

Wolves occupy a pretty big range, and some travel a longgg way from the park boundary.

Its also fair to note that the famous wolf wasnt even shot in Montana...it was in Wyoming.

I think the "rockstar" was fair game given it was 15 miles from the park (it also filled the quota so it ended the hunt). We'll just have to deal with that fallout as I don't think there is much we can do.

Also, your elk around Mammoth arguement is not the same thing. Montana didnt suddenly pass a law that allows wolves to be shot in Lamar Valley.

Yes it is - (I didn't say we were hunting the Lamar or Mammoth - just that if we suddenly had a hunt where those elk were shot it would just not feel right because we've come to know those animals personally... #6 had an obituary from RMEF if memory serves. Would they have posted a hero shot if a hunter took it?)

I just didnt, and still dont, see the reason for the panic decision. It did way more harm to the validity of a wolf season that it ever will to help. We're seeing the fall-out right now. Hasty decisions over things like this are rarely the correct one.

Again, the comments by Moody in today's Bozeman paper and those at the meeting indicate that this result was anticipated, not a knee jerk reaction. The comments from the commissioners and Pat Flowers that I heard involved the problems with losing such a large number of research animals, but also perception. I think Fin's comments at the beginning summarize the problems this will create and wish they would have been said for the cameras at the meeting.

 

[BuzzH]

RobG,

To counter it you need to make the case that we need to shoot the park animals, especially the collared ones. I also believed they anticipated this problem based on Moody's comments in today's paper. We have to balance the benefit of killing a relatively few wolves with other issues.


How can you claim they anticipated the problem? If that were the case, they would have argued PRIOR to the first wolf season that the risk of killing a marked, fan favorite, wolf could be avoided by closing the area in question. They also could have made recommendations for a regulation not allowing collared wolves to be shot from the get-go.

Thats not what happened...what happened is it was closed immediately after a newspaper article regarding killing the famous wolf. It was a knee-jerk reaction...absolutely zero to do with a pro-active approach. It was a 100% re-active closure based on emotion...period. No biological reasons of any kind, purely perception, which is BS. Perception isnt reality, and never will be.

The case I'll make for killing collared animals is the fact that Montana law currently allows collared and tagged elk, pronghorn, black bears, bighorn sheep, deer, mountain lions, etc. to be harvsted. It should be no different for wolves.

Wolves should not be managed any differently than any other game animal in Montana.

 

[RobG]

RobG,

To counter it you need to make the case that we need to shoot the park animals, especially the collared ones. I also believed they anticipated this problem based on Moody's comments in today's paper. We have to balance the benefit of killing a relatively few wolves with other issues.


How can you claim they anticipated the problem? If that were the case, they would have argued PRIOR to the first wolf season that the risk of killing a marked, fan favorite, wolf could be avoided by closing the area in question. They also could have made recommendations for a regulation not allowing collared wolves to be shot from the get-go.

Sorry I wasn't clear. I meant that they anticipated the need to revisit and possibly close some areas later in the season. They could not have known where the wolves would be so it would have been impossible to close off the areas in advance. I'm speculating, but I bet if they had to do it over they would have a quota in the area, perhaps with a lower threshold for collared wolves. I have also heard it suggested by hunters that bright orange collars could be used.

Again I'm speculating the elk collars are bit of a different issue since a lower number are harvested. I know they only can afford to collar so many animals and at the elk brucellosis meeting I don't remember any of the collared animals being harvested. If a significant number had been harvested it would have messed up their research.

 

[Z Barebow]

I attended the meeting. I can't remember where I heard about the meeting but I think it was in the paper or I was alerted by Gallatin Wildlife Association. It was part of a conference call that included all regional offices so it was quite accessible to the public. I also remember hearing that they had received a thousand or so comments... the opportunity was obviously there.

I think the closure is analogous to the Deckard's Flats area around Gardener where the Commish can close it down if it gets too out of hand. And again, I'm sure they said they had reserved the right to revisit the issue mid season.

I don't mean to be insulting to the folks here but the anti-wolf comments at the meeting were pretty much "kill them all" which isn't a productive approach at any level. The commissioners needed reasons to counter the fact that research and well-known animals were getting shot. They already knew that a lot of hunters want all wolves gone and that isn't a possible option, nor new or actionable information. Rational comments like Fin's were needed - hopefully they got some early on.

I was surprised the commissioners caved, but I'm also surprised at the outrage by the more progressive folks here. The amount of area closed is small and focused, it isn't fair chase to be shooting wolves accustomed to being watched by tourists, it won't appreciably affect the overall population, and nature itself has reduced the park wolf numbers considerably so reducing them further isn't going to help wildlife much. Get the wolves elsewhere to head off the crash there; Jellystone has run its course mostly...

Finally, comments at the meetings an hour before the decision are really just for show so submit them earlier. The smart groups that testify just want to make the evening news to make their members think they are getting their money worth (the rest of us just want to vent). This is a good opportunity for SFW etc to reach a wider audience, which is another reason to have measured, reasonable comments because nothing reaches a wider audience than a frothing-at-the-mouth dumb statement made in front of a camera!

However you found out, apparently the public notice of agenda did NOT meet the definition/criteria which allowed unit closures for wolves at that meeting. (As noted by judge). On the flip side, if the commision would have allowed dynamite to kill wolves, that action would have received an injunction also.

If the commision would have ruled at the following meting (RE: wolf), the filing parties would not have had a pot to p!ss in.

Proper procedure would have allowed for discussion at initial meeting, but no action. A recommendation could have been made. But a final vote would have been undertaken at a subsequent meeting. (Again using open meeting notification rules and publication requirements)

Because the subject is wolf, opinions are strong. The court injunction has nothing to do with the wolf. An issue was acted upon in breech of Montana's open meeting rules. (The issue just happened to be a wolf). Breeches of open meeting rules happen, and most of the time no one calls out the board/ruling body because the topic usually isn't that controversial. But when you have parties of embedded interest on a subject, the board better keep their "noses clean" or an attorney or saavy group will call them out.

Without executive order, issues work must work through at the "speed of government". Not saying it is right or wrong, those are the rules when you play in the government sandbox.