Wolf Management

[Black Hills]

Randy & all,

As we seem to be edging closer to getting wolves delisted in some fashion or another how about we talk about what the next phase will look like in wolf management for the states.

We are mostly fixated on getting a wolf hunting season (and that is important) but merely hunting wolves will not truly provide the management we will need in MT or any of the other states where wolves are thriving. We should look to Alaska and see how they employ "Wolf Control" in their overall wolf management plans.

We will have to get MT FWP tuned in to providing a true wolf control plan. It is very likely that the estimated wolf numbers for MT are quite low (not nearly enough of them collared to get good counts). Simply hunting them in a sport hunt season will not cull enough in the long run (they will get harder and harder to kill). Control techniques will be required and this in itself will be a challenge to get adopted by FWP. It will not be a real public favorite either from time-to-time as it will call for more aggressive and strategic taking of wolves in specific areas when it is needed, but so be it.

So, I would offer up for discussion that we begin to focus on more than just getting a hunting season approved as that will only be one small piece of controlling the wolf numbers. One can talk with the federal agents who are taking the wolves now for the FWP (the FWP does not do this themselves, they contract it to Wildlife Services of APHIS, part of the USDA) and you will hear that we have challenges ahead of us in wolf control.

This of course is all the more reason wolves need to be delisted and turned over to the states which will happen.

 

[drahthaar]

The state trapping assoc, as I understood it the first year, were willing to lay off for the first 3 years, then they wanted to jump in and start snaring and trapping. Also FWP is always going to be included in mgt., they have already killed a $%!&-ton of wolves and will continue to do so when needed. I also don't believe we can compare MT to AK when it comes to wolves. MT isn't near the vast ginormous wilderness AK is. I think if given an honest shot, no pun intended, hunters can control wolf numbers just fine, if we can hunt them through the end of the license year.

 

[BuzzH]

I think hunting, both by sportsmen and by Gov. hunters will be enough to manage wolves in MT and ID.

Since WY cant pull its head out...nothing will work there.

 

[Black Hills]

You missed my point......FWP is responsible for the CONTROL; of course they always be involved. The test is going to be getting them to be willing to provide the control needed. Again, as I said earlier, it isn't the FWP that is doing the killing of these wolves right now for the most part. It is the Wildlife Services folks from APHIS and they are running out of money/budget.

 

[onpoint]

The way I understand Debbie Barrett's bill, the supporters of that POS legislation think that it's worth taking tons of $$ out of other FWP functions and shifting it to FWP "wolf" mgmt activities.. Wolves are not the #1 priority statewide, when it comes to wildlife mgmt....

 

[Big Fin]

Sounds good to me. Like I have said, we get the current legislation passed, and we keep moving forward. Plenty of issues to deal with as it relates to wolves, elk, and other species, even when the language passes as it looks like will happen in the next month.

In Montana, I cannot see future wolf discussions without revisiting the Montana Elk Management Plan. That plan was drafted with consideration of a one-predator matrix. Not the case any longer. And we all know that the EMP keeps elk numbers at levels far below what we could really have.

Can we really have a serious discussion about wolf management and the control mechanisms to be used without an honest discussion of what the EMP should have for elk population objectives?

I cannot see a situation that does not eventually include trapping. I have trapped all my life, and the best way for "control" is to send trained trappers out in the field. Wish it was part of the plan right away.

Even with all of that, there will still be a need for Wildlife Services to continue to be part of the picture. To what degree, I don't know. Who will fund, and what instances will they be needed, remains to be answered.

I see wolves getting hit hard the first year, then wising up. Then, trapping and wildlife services will be doing more to impact the wolf numbers than hunters. Once we get down to a lower number, hunting will be even less effective and trapping will be more critical.

The Montana wolf management plan talks about many of these topics. It is frustrating to see the legislature in this session spend so much time trying to restate that plan. HB 414, being a good example. Much of the tinkering is feel good stuff that just puts us closer to RE-listing.

Once we get the Tester-Simpson language passed, I would love to see what more can be done to improve the situation. I think much can be done and still be within the strategies laid out in the Wolf Management Plan.

Management is "control" of numbers. To what degree and what level of control we need, I guess is what the next discussion will be. Some will want "control" to keep us right on the brink of Re-listing. Some will want them "controlled" only to the extent they are impacting game numbers or livestock losses.

Wolves are part of this landscape, as we will never get them removed, politically, or practically. I am all about the management/control that follows the Montana Wolf Plan, even if those management actions are aggressive and unpopular.

I am all ears for any ideas that we can be thinking about.

 

[BuzzH]

Fin,

I agree with the EMP, it needs to be totally reworked and this time, we need to be realistic about it.

Its ridiculous that people think only wolves are impacting elk in MT. Hunters need to start realizing that war has been waged on elk by the EMP since it was drafted and Debby Barret since she was elected.

I'm also in favor of sportsmen trapping/snaring wolves as well.

I think if we have reasonable wolf control and reasonable population goals for elk via a real EMP...alot of the paranoia and BS regarding elk and wolves will end.

 

[onpoint]

Fin,

I agree with the EMP, it needs to be totally reworked and this time, we need to be realistic about it.

Its ridiculous that people think only wolves are impacting elk in MT. Hunters need to start realizing that war has been waged on elk by the EMP since it was drafted and Debby Barret since she was elected.

I'm also in favor of sportsmen trapping/snaring wolves as well.

I think if we have reasonable wolf control and reasonable population goals for elk via a real EMP...alot of the paranoia and BS regarding elk and wolves will end.

A "real EMP" is gonna' take dogged and statewide sportsmen participation the likes of which maybe has never been seen before....better be up to the task.....promoters of agendas driven by things other than The North American Model and biology will be.

 

[mdunc8]

I know a lot of you probably don't agree, but I'd like to see them take a conservative approach statewide the first year or two. Maybe focus some of the quotas on a few key areas, but they need to steer clear of the maximum they think hunters can harvest for a year or two. They've got one good hunting season under their belt, but it would be nice if they worked out all the kinks before they went full bore. The last thing that needs to happen is to harvest as many animals as they feel is sustainable and then have the mange or something else take an additional chunk out of the population (like they saw in Yellowstone), which will only give the wolf loving crowd more ammunition. I like the trapping idea, but it would probably be a good PR move to wait a year or two to show the public that the state actually does know what they're doing and can manage a successful hunt.

Whatever happened with the bill that idiot introduced limiting the breeding pairs in Montana to 15? I'm assuming it died since I never heard anything about it on the news.

 

[BuzzH]

Onpoint and mdunc,

Couldnt say it better myself...or agree any more.

 

[Big Fin]

Whatever happened with the bill that idiot introduced limiting the breeding pairs in Montana to 15? I'm assuming it died since I never heard anything about it on the news.

It passed the committee last week. One step closer to Re-listing. It needs a VETO.

Obviously, a small group of legislators known more than the committee of hunters and ranchers show spent thousands of volunteer hours listening to biologists, taking two years of public comment, and using that to craft our citizen-based plan. A plan that has withstood all attacks and reflects the values of Montana citizens.

I mean, lets face it, if you are elected to the legislature and meet for an hour to talk about wolves, you suddenly know everything about wolves, and it makes you qualified to pass laws that restate the Montana plan. A plan that was crafted by the committee of hunters/ranchers, adopted by FWP and the Commission, accepted by the USFWS, and even promoted by that former Governor (using the term loosely here) Judy Martz.

 

[HowaHunter]

I know a lot of you probably don't agree, but I'd like to see them take a conservative approach statewide the first year or two. Maybe focus some of the quotas on a few key areas, but they need to steer clear of the maximum they think hunters can harvest for a year or two. They've got one good hunting season under their belt, but it would be nice if they worked out all the kinks before they went full bore. The last thing that needs to happen is to harvest as many animals as they feel is sustainable and then have the mange or something else take an additional chunk out of the population (like they saw in Yellowstone), which will only give the wolf loving crowd more ammunition. I like the trapping idea, but it would probably be a good PR move to wait a year or two to show the public that the state actually does know what they're doing and can manage a successful hunt.

Whatever happened with the bill that idiot introduced limiting the breeding pairs in Montana to 15? I'm assuming it died since I never heard anything about it on the news.

Hit the nail on the head here. States cannot appear to be taking more than sustainable numbers of wolves the first few years otherwise the opposition groups will be back in court. Lay low the first few years take 150 or so wolves like the first season in Idaho and let things die down. After that we will see generous numbers in allowable wolf harvest because acceptable management allows it. States cannot push the envelope too quickly because wolves need to be managed by the aid of hunting.

 

[lilbiggun]

I'm not up to speed on your wolf management plans, but I hope you folks figure it out quick.

We didnt, this state was to PC and honestly, except for trappers noone wanted to shoot a wolf except as a secondary.

Now we do have a problem. For the first 10 years of our bear camp, we never seen a track or a an actual dog, last time at the cabin, we watched a pack take down a cow moose (very impressive I might add, nature at it's best). Now here in anchorage the state is making war on those things, I think they are up to 9 killed.

I hope you guys keep a handle on the numbers and I hope politicians and emotions stay out of it.

 

[shoots-straight]

A "real EMP" is gonna' take dogged and statewide sportsmen participation the likes of which maybe has never been seen before....better be up to the task.....promoters of agendas driven by things other than The North American Model and biology will be.

You fellas might see a lot of me in the future. Sorry!

Whatever happened with the bill that idiot introduced limiting the breeding pairs in Montana to 15? I'm assuming it died since I never heard anything about it on the news.

HB 471 was tabled in committee today. It was over shadowed by all the bad that happened today.

 

[A-con]

In order to “control” the numbers, you first need accurate numbers. The first thing is to get an accurate count, what ever it takes.
Then you need a target number of wolves that the state can sustain, without negatively affecting the ungulate population. That number needs to be set by biologists, not politicians, and not by hunters or ranchers if you want it to be taken seriously.
These numbers should probably be set by unit or region.

I have nothing against trappers, but if widespread trapping is allowed, PETA will raise millions by running a photo of a wolf in some type of leg hold, and it will appear to be suffering horribly. It will appear all over the East coast, and on 60 minuets.
I’m just saying…..

As far as hunters controlling wolf numbers, I think you will see a lot of outfitters offer “wolf hunts”. It would be a profitable service they could offer when elk and deer seasons are over, and it would be in their best interest to control wolf numbers in their area.