MT Landowners granted new wolf tool

[wolfbait]

MT Landowners granted new wolf tool
by Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks
August 7, 2014

The Montana Fish & Wildlife Commission recently adopted rules and an annual wolf quota completing the process necessary to allow private landowners to take a limited number of wolves per year that potentially threaten livestock, domestic dogs or human safety.

The rule was adopted to comply with Senate Bill 200, a new state law passed by the Montana Legislature last year.

The annual quota allows landowners or their agents to take up to 100 wolves a year without a hunting license. The statewide quota for this effort will be examined in four 25-wolf increments. Each time the number of wolves taken nears 25, 50, and 75, the commission must approve the next increment toward the 100-wolf quota.

"This approach offers another tool landowners can use if it's needed," said Jeff Hagener, director of Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks in Helena. "One of our top priorities is to minimize livestock losses and we're continuing to make a positive impact there."

Montana's verified wolf population remained stable last year at minimum of 627 wolves, compared to 625 in 2012.

The rule, which doesn't apply to public lands, comes as confirmed wolf depredations on livestock took a significant drop in 2013 and follows a trend of fewer overall agency control actions.

Confirmed livestock depredations due to wolves in 2013 were down 27 percent from 2012 loses. Cattle losses were the lowest recorded in the past seven years and reflect a general decline in wolf depredations that began in 2009.

A variety of nonlethal predation deterrents are also employed in Montana in cooperation with landowners to reduce the risk of wolf attacks. FWP collaborates with landowner communities on range-rider projects and with individual landowners to provide fladry—a century's old technique of attaching colorful flags or fabric on fence lines to flap in the breeze to keep wolves at bay—and advice on keeping wolves out of livestock areas.

In all, 75 wolves were removed via lethal control in 2013, down from 108 in 2012. Of the 75 wolves removed for livestock depredations, eight were taken by private citizens with permits to take offending wolves or under Montana's defense of property laws.

Landowners also have the right to take wolves in the act of attacking livestock without affecting the 100-animal quota.

http://www.pinedaleonline.com/news/2014/08/MTLandownersGrantedN.htm


In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, any copyrighted material herein is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes only. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml

[villageidiot]

So what benefit is it for a rancher to even report a wolf he kills out on the range.  He sees one near his cows, shoots it and moves on.  If he reports it then it will be added to the quota which when reached will likely shut down the hunt.  So in reality if you shoot a wolf in Montana and report it you are punished by shortening the season.  I really have my doubts the ranchers ever report any wolves they ever kill.   SSS

[wolfbait]

WY, MT, ID WA and OR state or federal wolf counts are so far off it would be laughable if it were not so serious, and affecting the game herds and livestock. Look at WDFW and their one added wolf, but there could be more BS. Look back at the info of the wolf intro, the feds spent most of their time lying from day one, and were never held accountable, the same lies are being retold by the state agencies, that wolves "migrate" to, same lies just different states.

SS-even if every wolf seen was shot, chances are the wolf count will never even get close to the minimum number of wolves required.

FWS wolf recovery in the Northern Rocky Mountains (NRM) has involved deception from day one using misinformation, half truths and deliberate lies to sell the program to Congress and the American public; and 2) since August of 1994, that deception has included deliberately underestimating the total number of wolves in the three states with disastrous consequences.

“Every year, most wolf populations almost double in the spring through the birth of pups [Mech 1970]. For example in May 2008, there will not be 1,500 wolves, but 3,000! (Wolf population estimates are usually made in winter when animals are at their nadir*. This approach serves to provide conservative estimates and further insure that management remains conservative).”

(*lowest point)

“70% Kill Needed to Reduce Wolf Population”

Mech continued, “As indicated above, 28-50% of a wolf population must be killed by humans per year (on top of natural mortality) to even hold a wolf population stationery. Indeed, the agencies outside the NRM which are seeking to reduce wolf populations try to kill 70% per year (Fuller et al. 2003).” (emphasis added)

“Such extreme taking of the kind necessary to effectively reduce wolf populations is done via concerted and expensive government agency (Alaska, Y ukon Territories for example) programs using helicopters and fixed wing aircraft. Normal regulated public harvest such as is contemplated in the NRM is usually unable to reduce wolf populations (Mech 2001).” (emphasis added)


Read More @ http://idahoforwildlife.com/files/pdf/georgeDovel/The%20Outdoorsman%20No.28%20May%202008%20FWS%20Biologist%20Says%20Wolf%20Numbers%20Underestimated%20Mech%20Says%203,000%20Wolves%20Exist%20in%20ID,%20MT%20&%20WY.pdf

[vandeman17]

So what benefit is it for a rancher to even report a wolf he kills out on the range.  He sees one near his cows, shoots it and moves on.  If he reports it then it will be added to the quota which when reached will likely shut down the hunt.  So in reality if you shoot a wolf in Montana and report it you are punished by shortening the season.  I really have my doubts the ranchers ever report any wolves they ever kill.   SSS

I know I wouldn't... 

[Stein]

So what benefit is it for a rancher to even report a wolf he kills out on the range.  He sees one near his cows, shoots it and moves on.  If he reports it then it will be added to the quota which when reached will likely shut down the hunt.  So in reality if you shoot a wolf in Montana and report it you are punished by shortening the season.  I really have my doubts the ranchers ever report any wolves they ever kill.   SSS

You don't run the risk of getting sideways with the law for illegal harvest of wolf.

MT is so desperate for increased wolf harvesting the LOWERED the price of nonresident tags to $50.  They should make it so you have 24 hours after shooting one to go buy a tag.

[wolfbait]

So what benefit is it for a rancher to even report a wolf he kills out on the range.  He sees one near his cows, shoots it and moves on.  If he reports it then it will be added to the quota which when reached will likely shut down the hunt.  So in reality if you shoot a wolf in Montana and report it you are punished by shortening the season.  I really have my doubts the ranchers ever report any wolves they ever kill.   SSS

You don't run the risk of getting sideways with the law for illegal harvest of wolf.

MT is so desperate for increased wolf harvesting the LOWERED the price of nonresident tags to $50.  They should make it so you have 24 hours after shooting one to go buy a tag.

If MT is so desperate to increase the wolf harvest, I wonder how hard leo's would try to catch wolf shooters? Maybe it is more like ID was with their no pinch zones

At any rate I'm sure most ranchers know about magic meatballs by now.

[AspenBud]

So what benefit is it for a rancher to even report a wolf he kills out on the range.  He sees one near his cows, shoots it and moves on.  If he reports it then it will be added to the quota which when reached will likely shut down the hunt.  So in reality if you shoot a wolf in Montana and report it you are punished by shortening the season.  I really have my doubts the ranchers ever report any wolves they ever kill.   SSS

I've always wondered that. In all seriousness, why would any of them report so much as seeing a wolf? All it will do is bring unwanted attention. McIrvin, for example, probably brought on more problems by complaining about them rather than quietly doing something about them.

[Stein]

So what benefit is it for a rancher to even report a wolf he kills out on the range.  He sees one near his cows, shoots it and moves on.  If he reports it then it will be added to the quota which when reached will likely shut down the hunt.  So in reality if you shoot a wolf in Montana and report it you are punished by shortening the season.  I really have my doubts the ranchers ever report any wolves they ever kill.   SSS

You don't run the risk of getting sideways with the law for illegal harvest of wolf.

MT is so desperate for increased wolf harvesting the LOWERED the price of nonresident tags to $50.  They should make it so you have 24 hours after shooting one to go buy a tag.

If MT is so desperate to increase the wolf harvest, I wonder how hard leo's would try to catch wolf shooters? Maybe it is more like ID was with their no pinch zones

At any rate I'm sure most ranchers know about magic meatballs by now.

There is always the "triple S" doctrine among ranchers - shoot, shovel & shut up.