MT FWP looking for public comment

[tjones]

We cleared the first hurdle in getting some wolves removed from a hunting district that is in big trouble. Please comment here as the Defenders are putting on the full court press

http://fwp.mt.gov/news/publicnotices/notice.html?action=getPublicNotice&id=2518

 

[Randy11]

Why thing I'm struggling with is why are they picking this one area only?
The West Fork has definitely been hit hard, but there's other areas further North that have been hit just as bad. Is it just because it's the worst hit area South of that experimental and non-experimental divider line?

 

[tjones]

Yes that is right Randy. The line is I90 south that the 10j applies to. Also there are some other areas that have been hit hard, but FWP does not have the "documented" wolf numbers to be able to get the 10j to work.

 

[Sytes]

http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/D3ZL3GL
For the direct link to the comment section.

Comments placed. Thanks for the thread and link, TJones.

Glad to see 10J moving... small step though better than those who previously stated something to the effect of 10J has no chance in hell...

 

[Ben Lamb]

Tony's being a little modest here. He's been one of the driving forces behind getting this on the go. Some folks talk a big game, others actually put their butts on the line and move the ball.

Good job Tony!

The reasoning on the line is based off of two designations. North of 90, wolves are classified as endangered. South of 90, it's non-essential, experimental. The reasoning behind this was to allow for more liberal control actions of the reintroduced wolves out of ID and Ystone given the higher densities of livestock in the area, and the lack of local political support.

If wolves had not been reintroduced, then the entire Northern Rockies Distinct Population Segment would have been classified as Endangered, and no 10(j) actions would have been applicable.