Post by: thatdamguy on December 29, 2015, 06:51:29 AM
http://canadafreepress.com/print-friendly/77682
How a Public/Private Partnership Skirted the Law and Destroyed a National Treasure and What We Must Do to Restore The Rule of Law and the Northern Yellowstone Elk Herd
Post by: SemperFidelis97 on December 29, 2015, 07:25:23 AM
Sent from my E6782 using Tapatalk
Post by: timberfaller on December 29, 2015, 08:25:26 AM
I've seen what the screwy Spotted Owl and Salmon gave us, but the wolf tops the list!!
Thanks all you educated past your intelligence liberals!! AND all you LIV'S!
Post by: rudysts on December 29, 2015, 09:13:28 AM
This is wrong
Post by: jpharcher on December 29, 2015, 09:32:18 AM
Post by: Lincoln4 on December 29, 2015, 09:47:52 AM
Post by: Boss .300 winmag on December 29, 2015, 09:53:02 AM
Post by: boneaddict on December 29, 2015, 09:55:36 AM
Not hard to believe. I'm seeing it here, In 5 years, oh heck, three, you can quote me and say, man you were a fool Bone. I'm currently witnessing the destruction of the methow. This years abundant success will just drive it in the hole faster. Sorry, but it's happening here folks. It's an epidemic.
I love that even amongst our ranks on here, there are those that call themselves outdoorsman, yet they don't even recognize what is happening. Keep trusting your department. :rolleyes:
Post by: Special T on December 29, 2015, 10:28:12 AM
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I547 using Tapatalk
Post by: Dan-o on December 29, 2015, 10:34:06 AM
Horrible situation.
I'll admit that 20 years ago I was among those who trusted the pro-wolf groups to keep their word. Time and time again, they've lied and gone back on their word. I don't care what issue, you can't deal with people like that.
It's one more reason the SSS crowd is growing in numbers. You simply can't trust
Post by: JDHasty on December 29, 2015, 11:15:43 AM
Post by: Eli346 on December 29, 2015, 11:34:13 AM
Post by: Curly on December 29, 2015, 11:44:01 AM
Quote
Restoring the Northern Yellowstone Elk Herd
MTFWP is now taking public comment on changes to hunting regulations in HD 313. Their suggestions include shortening the season, or limiting bull elk permits to 75, and closing part of the unit. Deckard Flats is still a killing field for the now greater percentage of animals migrating out of Yellowstone National Park and yet, MTFWP’s quota for wolves in the unit is three. Reason and best available science requires man to step in and remove the large predators from the region. Long-range and night shooter teams could be camouflaged along the trail to take out wolves that are preying on the migrating elk. Collared wolves can be located and the entire pack taken out using aerial gunning. After the wolves are cleared out and once again safe for hunting dogs, send in the lion hunters. Bears, including the now over populated grizzly should be taken out of the unit as they emerge this spring. None of these large predator species are endangered, just protected by zealots at the expense of the local people, our way of life, and the animals we love. The Northern Yellowstone Elk Herd is endangered due to over predation by large carnivores. Remove the large carnivores and the herd will immediately begin to recover. Wolves taken in Montana should be tested for the thirty or so diseases of which they are vectors. If the wolves are infected with EG, mange, parvo, distemper, Moose Tania, etc., this experiment should be officially deemed a failure, and all of the wolves removed from the west.
Post by: pianoman9701 on December 29, 2015, 11:57:13 AM
Post by: DOUBLELUNG on December 29, 2015, 12:21:49 PM
Post by: pianoman9701 on December 29, 2015, 12:24:38 PM
Post by: wolfbait on December 29, 2015, 06:30:09 PM
You're all extremist wolf haters! Can't you see how the rivers have been helped by the wolves eating all the ungulates???? :bash: :bash: I can't wait to hear our moderates chime in about how it's all about balance.
And lets not forget that beavers flourish
The lopsided telling of the story of the wolf is another aspect of the problem this paper seeks to address. While it's true beaver populations have increased dramatically since the reintroduction of the wolf all newspaper accounts fail to mention those 129 introduced beaver. I'm not saying that bringing them in and dumping them in the creek is the reason they swam upstream and recolonized Northern Yellowstone, but it sure might bear mention in a story about wolves returning beaver to the Park http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/02/16/1168581/--Science-is-self-correcting-on-Wolves
Do You Realize Now What You Have Done?
http://canadafreepress.com/print-friendly/77682
Thanks for posting That-DG
A well put together piece which explains the wolf introduction start to finish, except it isn't the finish, the USFWS, state game agencies and environmentalist are still implementing wolf introduction in states. Washington etc. is going through the same fraudulent introduction.
Post by: SpringerFan on December 30, 2015, 06:21:54 AM
Post by: thatdamguy on December 30, 2015, 07:04:38 AM
You're all extremist wolf haters! Can't you see how the rivers have been helped by the wolves eating all the ungulates???? :bash: :bash: I can't wait to hear our moderates chime in about how it's all about balance.
And lets not forget that beavers flourish
The lopsided telling of the story of the wolf is another aspect of the problem this paper seeks to address. While it's true beaver populations have increased dramatically since the reintroduction of the wolf all newspaper accounts fail to mention those 129 introduced beaver. I'm not saying that bringing them in and dumping them in the creek is the reason they swam upstream and recolonized Northern Yellowstone, but it sure might bear mention in a story about wolves returning beaver to the Park http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/02/16/1168581/--Science-is-self-correcting-on-Wolves
Do You Realize Now What You Have Done?
http://canadafreepress.com/print-friendly/77682
Thanks for posting That-DG
A well put together piece which explains the wolf introduction start to finish, except it isn't the finish, the USFWS, state game agencies and environmentalist are still implementing wolf introduction in states. Washington etc. is going through the same fraudulent introduction.
I had not seen that article mentioning the bias science, thanks for posting that wolfbait.
Post by: Jerky on December 30, 2015, 12:13:02 PM
Post by: pianoman9701 on December 30, 2015, 12:16:42 PM
Post by: Jerky on December 30, 2015, 12:27:43 PM
P.S. Thanks for the welcome.
Post by: pianoman9701 on December 30, 2015, 12:43:43 PM
Post by: Jonathan_S on December 30, 2015, 12:45:25 PM
Post by: Jerky on December 30, 2015, 01:42:41 PM
Are you familiar with this article about this parasite in the U.S.? http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/public/wildlife/diseaseEchinococcusWolves.pdf
Post by: Jonathan_S on December 30, 2015, 02:05:14 PM
Post by: pianoman9701 on December 30, 2015, 02:10:46 PM
I am unfamiliar with this issue, but a quick search reveals Echinococcus granulosus is a tapeworm found in canids that requires an intermediate host, usually a wild or domestic ungulate which typically included domestic cattle and sheep and could also include deer, elk, etc. You say 60% of released wolves were infected, but this infection rate was from wolves captured and killed in Idaho and Montana. Were the wolves that were captured and killed the same individuals that were earlier relocated, or were they wolves descended from relocated individuals? Could the infected wolves have acquired this parasite from domestic sheep or cattle after release? Just because the genetics are believed to be Eurasian does not mean it was brought here from relocated wolves. If they came directly from Eurasia your argument would be more plausible but it is not clear how a Canadian wolf acquired a parasite that may have originated in another continent. I honestly don't know the answers and am interested in if the parasite was detected in captured wolves or if it is prevalent in wolf populations that relocated individuals came from. BTW, "vast" is the word you used to describe my wildlife background and not mine. I was merely providing you with a little information about myself that you had requested. I'm not just stirring the pot so to speak, just voicing my opinion on a public forum even though it may not be a popular one.
Are you familiar with this article about this parasite in the U.S.? http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/public/wildlife/diseaseEchinococcusWolves.pdf
I am quite familiar with that article. Although, according to Jim Beers, a former USFWS employee who worked on the program, they knew the wolves carried the parasite and ignored it. He's written several papers on the release of these animals and the many frauds committed to achieve it, among them, the misappropriation of $millions in PR funds. As a student of conservation, these should be of great concern to you.
Post by: Jerky on December 30, 2015, 03:27:03 PM
Post by: pianoman9701 on December 31, 2015, 05:51:45 AM
Post by: WALLEYEGUY on December 31, 2015, 06:37:09 AM
Post by: pianoman9701 on December 31, 2015, 06:47:06 AM
The anti's are playing the game way better than we are, bottom line we loose. :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash:
Yes, and they're not in this for the wolves. HSUS, DOW and others are in this to end hunting and livestock production. The wolves are a means to the end.
Post by: thatdamguy on December 31, 2015, 07:27:08 AM
The anti's are playing the game way better than we are, bottom line we loose. :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash:
Yes, and they're not in this for the wolves. HSUS, DOW and others are in this to end hunting and livestock production. The wolves are a means to the end.
:yeah:
Couldn't agree more. Here is a documentary explaining why it was never really about the wolf, it is about ending big game hunting and making farming and ranching unsustainable.
Not a valid vimeo URL
Post by: wolfbait on December 31, 2015, 11:33:15 AM
The misappropriated funds are just one aspect of the whole fiasco. The entire program was mishandled and continues to be. The residents of the NE part of this state are forced to suffer fools who have no skin in the game telling them they need to be employing non-lethal management tools to try and prevent losing their stock and pets, and very likely their kids, sooner or later. With 13+ confirmed packs within a hundred mile radius, it's time to start killing wolves and teaching them fear of man for the benefit of both the wolves and man. I don't have a problem with biological diversity. What I have a problem with is mindless regulation and lack of management to keep these things deep in the wilderness where they belong. They don't belong among humans ruining their livelihoods.
The anti's are playing the game way better than we are, bottom line we loose. :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash:
Yes, and they're not in this for the wolves. HSUS, DOW and others are in this to end hunting and livestock production. The wolves are a means to the end.
:yeah:
Couldn't agree more. Here is a documentary explaining why it was never really about the wolf, it is about ending big game hunting and making farming and ranching unsustainable.
Not a valid vimeo URL
The Fraud and Corruption of the wolf introduction, right down to bought judges.
That's another great video, That DG, thanks agin for posting. :tup:
Post by: pianoman9701 on December 31, 2015, 12:35:09 PM
The anti's are playing the game way better than we are, bottom line we loose. :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash:
Yes, and they're not in this for the wolves. HSUS, DOW and others are in this to end hunting and livestock production. The wolves are a means to the end.
It's not just the "antis" doing it alone. They're getting a lot of support from the WDFW and USFWS.
Post by: bobcat on December 31, 2015, 12:41:41 PM
So why is it a big deal now? I don't get it. I know it's not something desirable and if we had a choice in the matter it would be better if it never existed. But it does! Kind of like saying the government is responsible if you get a mosquito bite.
It's silly to blame the governmental agencies for something which is just a part of nature.
Post by: Curly on December 31, 2015, 01:02:00 PM
(And it is the government's fault that we have so many wolves, thus the government deserves some blame for the parasite). :twocents:
Post by: bobcat on December 31, 2015, 01:06:35 PM
Post by: JimmyHoffa on December 31, 2015, 01:08:50 PM
The parasite that's being discussed- first I'll say I have not read a whole lot about it, but I'm pretty sure it's a parasite that native wolves in Washington, Idaho, Montana, etc, had before wolves were eliminated from all these states, back in the early 1900's.Small pox and polio were just part of nature too, should the government start bringing those back?
So why is it a big deal now? I don't get it. I know it's not something desirable and if we had a choice in the matter it would be better if it never existed. But it does! Kind of like saying the government is responsible if you get a mosquito bite.
It's silly to blame the governmental agencies for something which is just a part of nature.
Post by: Curly on December 31, 2015, 01:09:05 PM
Post by: bobcat on December 31, 2015, 01:16:10 PM
The parasite that's being discussed- first I'll say I have not read a whole lot about it, but I'm pretty sure it's a parasite that native wolves in Washington, Idaho, Montana, etc, had before wolves were eliminated from all these states, back in the early 1900's.Small pox and polio were just part of nature too, should the government start bringing those back?
So why is it a big deal now? I don't get it. I know it's not something desirable and if we had a choice in the matter it would be better if it never existed. But it does! Kind of like saying the government is responsible if you get a mosquito bite.
It's silly to blame the governmental agencies for something which is just a part of nature.
Is small pox and polio covered under the Endangered Species Act?
Post by: bobcat on December 31, 2015, 01:17:27 PM
Well, the Yellowstone release and subsequent migration into WA definitely sped up the wolf recovery process in WA. Who is to say how long it would have taken to get to the numbers of wolves we have today without the help of USFWS? :dunno:
So let's say they sped the process up by 100 years. Is it worse to deal with the wolves and the parasite now or 100 years from now? Does it matter?
Post by: JimmyHoffa on December 31, 2015, 01:18:56 PM
Probably not until the 'best available science' says they should be. :yike: Wolves are far from being an endangered species.The parasite that's being discussed- first I'll say I have not read a whole lot about it, but I'm pretty sure it's a parasite that native wolves in Washington, Idaho, Montana, etc, had before wolves were eliminated from all these states, back in the early 1900's.Small pox and polio were just part of nature too, should the government start bringing those back?
So why is it a big deal now? I don't get it. I know it's not something desirable and if we had a choice in the matter it would be better if it never existed. But it does! Kind of like saying the government is responsible if you get a mosquito bite.
It's silly to blame the governmental agencies for something which is just a part of nature.
Is small pox and polio covered under the Endangered Species Act?
Post by: pianoman9701 on December 31, 2015, 01:22:36 PM
The parasite that's being discussed- first I'll say I have not read a whole lot about it, but I'm pretty sure it's a parasite that native wolves in Washington, Idaho, Montana, etc, had before wolves were eliminated from all these states, back in the early 1900's.Small pox and polio were just part of nature too, should the government start bringing those back?
So why is it a big deal now? I don't get it. I know it's not something desirable and if we had a choice in the matter it would be better if it never existed. But it does! Kind of like saying the government is responsible if you get a mosquito bite.
It's silly to blame the governmental agencies for something which is just a part of nature.
No. It didn't start showing up in the US until the 40s and it was pretty rare before the imported wolves started showing it.
Post by: Curly on December 31, 2015, 01:23:31 PM
Well, the Yellowstone release and subsequent migration into WA definitely sped up the wolf recovery process in WA. Who is to say how long it would have taken to get to the numbers of wolves we have today without the help of USFWS? :dunno:
So let's say they sped the process up by 100 years. Is it worse to deal with the wolves and the parasite now or 100 years from now? Does it matter?
I think it is worse to deal with now. Hunting would probably be outlawed in 100 years anyway. Plus, aren't the wolves bigger that were released than the wolves that were traditionally here? I'm not sure who to believe on that issue......I've heard conflicting reports, but it wouldn't surprise me if it was true.
Post by: bobcat on December 31, 2015, 01:29:06 PM
But then it's hard to blame the USFWS as well, because they are simply following the endangered species act. But to that I would argue that if wolves need to be recovered so do bison. And they're not doing that.
The law definitely needs to be changed.
We eliminated wolves 100 years ago and sure didn't need to bring them back.
However, I honestly believe the wolves would have ended up here anyway, with the help of the USFWS or not.
Post by: nwwanderer on December 31, 2015, 01:29:46 PM
Post by: Curly on December 31, 2015, 01:34:50 PM
I should clarify- I think the USFWS deserves the blame for the wolves, but not the WDFW. They had nothing to do with it and I'm sure they'd prefer not to have to deal with all these wolf issues.
But then it's hard to blame the USFWS as well, because they are simply following the endangered species act. But to that I would argue that if wolves need to be recovered so do bison. And they're not doing that.
The law definitely needs to be changed.
We eliminated wolves 100 years ago and sure didn't need to bring them back.
While I agree that USFWS deserves the blame, I think WDFW can share a little of the blame. WDFW should have tried to implement state wolf plan that would have allowed less wolves. The plan they came up with is laughable. The eastern 1/3 of the state is not federally protected anymore and yet because of the wolf plan, the eastern 1/3 is getting hammered by the wolves. That is nuts. :twocents:
Post by: bobcat on December 31, 2015, 01:37:37 PM
Post by: Curly on December 31, 2015, 01:41:27 PM
Either way we'd have wolves in this state, wolf plan or no wolf plan. Shoot them on sight or don't shoot them ever. Doesn't matter, it's just like coyotes- you can't kill them all. They only were able to wipe them out 100 years ago using poison, trapping, along with shooting them.
Exactly. But it would make a lot of ranchers and sportsmen feel better if we were able to legally shoot them. It wouldn't likely hurt the population anyway, so why not allow hunting of them? Just because of some whining crybaby wolf huggers?
Post by: bobcat on December 31, 2015, 01:47:03 PM
Either way we'd have wolves in this state, wolf plan or no wolf plan. Shoot them on sight or don't shoot them ever. Doesn't matter, it's just like coyotes- you can't kill them all. They only were able to wipe them out 100 years ago using poison, trapping, along with shooting them.
Exactly. But it would make a lot of ranchers and sportsmen feel better if we were able to legally shoot them. It wouldn't likely hurt the population anyway, so why not allow hunting of them? Just because of some whining crybaby wolf huggers?
Eventually they will be able to. Or at least the WDFW will do it. It's only been a few years. Have patience. Wolves are always going to be livestock killers from now on though. People just need to get used to the idea of it.
Post by: thatdamguy on December 31, 2015, 02:05:51 PM
Either way we'd have wolves in this state, wolf plan or no wolf plan. Shoot them on sight or don't shoot them ever. Doesn't matter, it's just like coyotes- you can't kill them all. They only were able to wipe them out 100 years ago using poison, trapping, along with shooting them.
Exactly. But it would make a lot of ranchers and sportsmen feel better if we were able to legally shoot them. It wouldn't likely hurt the population anyway, so why not allow hunting of them? Just because of some whining crybaby wolf huggers?
Eventually they will be able to. Or at least the WDFW will do it. It's only been a few years. Have patience. Wolves are always going to be livestock killers from now on though. People just need to get used to the idea of it.
In NE Washington the people have run out of patience, especially the farmers and ranchers.
Attached is a PDF explaining that to the WDFW.
Post by: bobcat on December 31, 2015, 02:12:54 PM
Either way we'd have wolves in this state, wolf plan or no wolf plan. Shoot them on sight or don't shoot them ever. Doesn't matter, it's just like coyotes- you can't kill them all. They only were able to wipe them out 100 years ago using poison, trapping, along with shooting them.
Exactly. But it would make a lot of ranchers and sportsmen feel better if we were able to legally shoot them. It wouldn't likely hurt the population anyway, so why not allow hunting of them? Just because of some whining crybaby wolf huggers?
Eventually they will be able to. Or at least the WDFW will do it. It's only been a few years. Have patience. Wolves are always going to be livestock killers from now on though. People just need to get used to the idea of it.
In NE Washington the people have run out of patience, especially the farmers and ranchers.
I don't think there's ever been any doubt that people have the right to protect themselves and their property (livestocks/pets) from wolves.
I sure wouldn't be asking for permission to protect myself if my life was in danger.
Post by: M_ray on December 31, 2015, 02:30:48 PM
Post by: M_ray on December 31, 2015, 02:38:26 PM
Great article.
Not hard to believe. I'm seeing it here, In 5 years, oh heck, three, you can quote me and say, man you were a fool Bone. I'm currently witnessing the destruction of the methow. This years abundant success will just drive it in the hole faster. Sorry, but it's happening here folks. It's an epidemic.
I love that even amongst our ranks on here, there are those that call themselves outdoorsman, yet they don't even recognize what is happening. Keep trusting your department. :rolleyes:
:chuckle: And I had someone on here tell me that the wolves in WA just ran across the border :bash:
Post by: Mr Mykiss on December 31, 2015, 02:59:23 PM
Post by: JimmyHoffa on December 31, 2015, 04:47:09 PM
I've heard that. They could be the same species, but the higher latitude versions are generally larger. The wolves that were released on the peninsula years ago were called 'buffalo wolves'. They were a much larger gray wolf from northern Alberta that primarily preyed on bison.
Plus, aren't the wolves bigger that were released than the wolves that were traditionally here? I'm not sure who to believe on that issue......I've heard conflicting reports, but it wouldn't surprise me if it was true.
Post by: Jerky on December 31, 2015, 09:15:23 PM
Post by: nwwanderer on December 31, 2015, 09:45:00 PM
Deer, elk, turkeys, geese, wolves, bears and more cost producers more than has every been calculated. The departments responsibilities for these costs have been largely ignored and producers have been bullied for generations, nothing new here. Mending those fences will require far more than a $850,000 facilitator. A department that cooperates with the private landowners that feed and house 'their' wildlife and finds productive, logical, worthwhile, and lasting programs that give these critters value to those landowners has a chance. A department that pats you on the head in Olympia and threatens you locally does not fill the bill.
Post by: csaaphill on December 31, 2015, 11:07:03 PM
I clearly read that Robertson Pittman act Dollars were miss appropriated in the article did I or did I not? And those funds were used for animal rights reasons. Meaning Abbott said use them any way you want. Someone needs to eat a bunch of crow. sorry :chuckle: I know someone will say no, but the money was used to fund new office buildings. Also they were used to pay the court costs of the animal rights activists who filed suit and won so yes it was but even Bush would not go into the fray to hold someone accountable.Interesting that at least one of the parties named on the suit are also members of the WAG. Who would have thought that a member of the WAG would end up suing the WDFW over killing wolves? Oh that's right, it was I and a few others. The Wildlife Commission has appointed several animal rights groups to the WAG and will spend our hunter and fisher dollars to defend their plans in federal court against groups which have advance warning of those plans from sitting on the advisory group which recommends them. At the very least, this is negligence in the operation of the department. At worst, this is collusion with anti-hunting groups to subvert hunting in our state. If you didn't see this coming, you're blind as a bat.Anther fact check:
1. The wildlife Commission did not appoint the members to WAG. They had nothing to do with it.
2. Our "Hunter and Fisher" dollars, or Pittman-Robertson funds, cannot be used by the animal rights groups or WAG or the Wildlife Commission.
3. There are 14 other members on the WAG, other than the animal rights groups you mention, so it's not like they are getting information that isn't also known by the other interests represented, namely livestock producers and hunters.
Correct me if I'm wrong.
Shouldn't say it but what Irritates me is this article even highlighted agenda 21 among other what has been deemed conspiracy theories, which I Get berated for and trying to show people what's going on, but I hang back for a while and someone else posts something similar to what I've been saying all along and no one calls him a conspiracy theorist. :dunno:
Any rate this stuff makes me mad and the very thing I knew would happen and was happening.
they don't have to outlaw hunting with this kind of stuff just let wolves handle it for them. >:( :( :'(
Post by: cooltimber on December 31, 2015, 11:16:52 PM
Then you'll have hunting by permit only,or YOU don't need that hunting rifle.
Post by: Jerky on January 01, 2016, 12:32:18 AM
Post by: pianoman9701 on January 01, 2016, 08:14:13 AM
If translocated are larger and are not adapted to be here, Bergmann's rule will asure that only the small survive eventually, especially with climate change overlaying everything. It may take a few generations though. So riddle me this...if all of the misappropriated funds were reapproriated, any disease issues were eliminated, folks were held accountable for past actions, and lost revenue was paid to ranchers then all of you guys would be good with wolves, even if it meant reduce tag numbers for deer and elk? I beg to differ and I think many hide behind these issues. I don't see you guys complaining about spread of CWD, west nile, or bird flu, misappropriation of other funds, and loss of crops from deer/elk and other wildlife in WA.
I can see you're certainly very concerned for your wolves. But, your question is strawman argument. That's like asking "if the President weren't a lying, treasonous criminal who supplied arms to ISIS, and is undermining our Constitution and economy, would you support him?". There's no way to separate the existing problems and create the fairy tale scenario that you suggest. The corruption problems do exist. The diseases do exist. The damage to our ranchers and ungulates do exist. The complete lack of management does exist. The purposeful deception of Congress to pass this plan exists.
Post by: Eli346 on January 01, 2016, 08:55:04 AM
The anti's are playing the game way better than we are, bottom line we loose. :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash:The antis are playing a better game than us because they have an unlimited supply of government money to sue the government with. How stupid is the grant system in this country?
Post by: BOWHUNTER45 on January 01, 2016, 09:10:39 AM
Post by: wolfbait on January 01, 2016, 11:35:09 AM
Sounds like you guys have some New Blood to put in line ....hahaha
Jerky wrote:"I have hunted all of my life and still do. I don't believe our wild lands should be managed as an eternal ungulate farm for us hunters
I am educated as a wildlife ecologist and have studied the works of many of the founders of conservation and wildlife management. I have worked for several state and federal agencies as a wildlife professional during my career. I have been an avid hunter all of my life (>35 yrs) and have also followed wolf issues for many years. I understand principles of population dynamics among wild animals and I too have concerns and issues with management and our legal system, but don't hold the same beliefs as many do here." http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,188697.0.html
Naw, I don't think any education we might give him would stick, my question would be "which environmental group does he represent? DoW or CNW etc..
Post by: JLS on January 01, 2016, 11:59:50 AM
Wolves did not cause the collapse of elk herd numbers in the Bitterroot Valley. Lion predation and very liberal antlerless elk seasons have been directly identified as the reasons that herd crashed. We can sure attribute it to wolves though, if it makes people feel better. Why worry about correctly identifying causative issues and resolving them when we can make stuff up to suit our biases?
Also, Wyoming Game and Fish have done some very interesting and informative studies on elk numbers in and around Yellowstone Park. Not everything fits the narrative stated as fact in this article.
Lastly, the Northern elk herd is AT the objective that FWP has decided it should be at. An objective that was largely influenced by stockgrowers in the Paradise Valley. So, regardless of how many predators one wishes to kill, the state of Montana is forbidden by law to manage that herd for any more elk than are currently in it.
Post by: ribka on January 01, 2016, 12:08:48 PM
I have hunted all of my life and still do. I don't believe our wild lands should be managed as an eternal ungulate farm for us hunters. I know I am in the vast minority here, so hate away...and don't believe everything you read on the internet even if it supports your views.
How should lands be managed?
As an ecologist did you believe everything while studying to get your degree at the university?
Have actually spent any time in n Idaho or new Montana? Do wolves only kill to eat?
How does introducing more wolf packs into a densely populated state with limited hunting opportunities help highly stressed elk and deer herds?
You referenced climate change. Please enlighten me about climate change and wolves. I'll get out the jiffy pop
Post by: Jerky on January 01, 2016, 01:56:48 PM
Wolfbait-I don't currently represent any state or fed agency or environmental group. Why would you assume I do just because I don't share the prevailing opinion here? Is there no room in the hunting community for other schools of thought?
ribka-current land use policy mandates multiple use management. I think wildlife and their habitats should be managed according to the maximum benefit of all stakeholders, of which we hunters may only be one group. Unfortunately, that might mean lowered harvest quotas. Removal of apex predators from a landscape simplifies a system and can result in inbalance. There are many examples of this in the published literature, which is where I get most of my information. This source is peer reviewed by other scientists before being relaesed for public consumption. My education taught me to think critically and not believe everything I read. I have hunted elk in Idaho and elk/deer in Montana. I saw wolf tracks while hunting. It depends on what is stressing deer/elk in WA. If they are hammering winter forage to the extent that the veg does not recover quickly enough, fewer deer/elk would allow veg recovery and maintian the carrying capacity of the land. Large winter kill is an indication winter habitat may not be adequate to support current population levels. If WA State did not have adequate resources to support many wolves, then the wolves that came here would not be successful and populations would not grow. Obviously this does not appear to be the case. I mentioned climate change with reference to Bergmann's rule which states generally speaking animals that live further from the equator (ie. in colder climes) are larger. If our climate continues to change, and get warmer in WA, larger critters will not be optimally adapted here. Smaller ones will ultimately be more successful. Please realize I speak in general and theoretical terms as it is unlikely we would see results of these changes in one's lifetime due to the generation time needed to effect measurable change in wolf size.
Pianoman-wolves are not mine any more than they are yours. I apologize if I implied otherwise.
Post by: wolfbait on January 01, 2016, 05:27:28 PM
BH45-I'm perfectly fine in the line I'm in just as you believe you are as well. I can respect that.
Wolfbait-I don't currently represent any state or fed agency or environmental group. Why would you assume I do just because I don't share the prevailing opinion here? Is there no room in the hunting community for other schools of thought?
ribka-current land use policy mandates multiple use management. I think wildlife and their habitats should be managed according to the maximum benefit of all stakeholders, of which we hunters may only be one group. Unfortunately, that might mean lowered harvest quotas. Removal of apex predators from a landscape simplifies a system and can result in inbalance. There are many examples of this in the published literature, which is where I get most of my information. This source is peer reviewed by other scientists before being relaesed for public consumption. My education taught me to think critically and not believe everything I read. I have hunted elk in Idaho and elk/deer in Montana. I saw wolf tracks while hunting. It depends on what is stressing deer/elk in WA. If they are hammering winter forage to the extent that the veg does not recover quickly enough, fewer deer/elk would allow veg recovery and maintian the carrying capacity of the land. Large winter kill is an indication winter habitat may not be adequate to support current population levels. If WA State did not have adequate resources to support many wolves, then the wolves that came here would not be successful and populations would not grow. Obviously this does not appear to be the case. I mentioned climate change with reference to Bergmann's rule which states generally speaking animals that live further from the equator (ie. in colder climes) are larger. If our climate continues to change, and get warmer in WA, larger critters will not be optimally adapted here. Smaller ones will ultimately be more successful. Please realize I speak in general and theoretical terms as it is unlikely we would see results of these changes in one's lifetime due to the generation time needed to effect measurable change in wolf size.
Pianoman-wolves are not mine any more than they are yours. I apologize if I implied otherwise.
"Wolfbait-I don't currently represent any state or fed agency or environmental group."----Which environmental groups did you represent in the past? If you don't mind me asking.
. "If WA State did not have adequate resources to support many wolves, then the wolves that came here would not be successful and populations would not grow."
If I remember right, when the USFWS brought the first wolves in, they started killing livestock right out of the cages. And as has happened in just about every confirmation of wolves in WA, the wolves were confirmed because they were killing livestock. Funny how wolves always seem to show up first in the middle of cattle country.
The thing that makes wolves such proficient killers is that they have an unlimited prey base and unlimited boundaries, which only exacerbates with the protection of the USFWS and WDFW.
Back in 2009 I ran into a couple of guys who were doing a wolf/deer predation study, I ask the one guy that seemed to be the know it all, what would happen when the wolves finished off the deer herds and he said they would gradually disperse to new killing grounds, leaving a few behind to keep the livestock trimmed up etc..
"Removal of apex predators from a landscape simplifies a system and can result in imbalance".
What we have now is an imbalance do to the introduction of an apex predator, unless the end result is a new game management program which includes very limited human harvest.
Post by: bobcat on January 01, 2016, 05:48:52 PM
Don't worry about answering any questions regarding your past involvement with wildlife or environmental organizations, at least not until the person asking can provide his credentials, and more specifically if he's a hunter or not. :hello:
Post by: idahohuntr on January 01, 2016, 05:50:56 PM
BH45-I'm perfectly fine in the line I'm in just as you believe you are as well. I can respect that.Jerky, being New here it might help you to know many of the folks you are engaging on here like Wolfbait etc. believe there is a mass government conspiracy to kill off humans with chemtrails and vaccines. Something to keep in mind while debating. :chuckle:
Wolfbait-I don't currently represent any state or fed agency or environmental group. Why would you assume I do just because I don't share the prevailing opinion here? Is there no room in the hunting community for other schools of thought?
ribka-current land use policy mandates multiple use management. I think wildlife and their habitats should be managed according to the maximum benefit of all stakeholders, of which we hunters may only be one group. Unfortunately, that might mean lowered harvest quotas. Removal of apex predators from a landscape simplifies a system and can result in inbalance. There are many examples of this in the published literature, which is where I get most of my information. This source is peer reviewed by other scientists before being relaesed for public consumption. My education taught me to think critically and not believe everything I read. I have hunted elk in Idaho and elk/deer in Montana. I saw wolf tracks while hunting. It depends on what is stressing deer/elk in WA. If they are hammering winter forage to the extent that the veg does not recover quickly enough, fewer deer/elk would allow veg recovery and maintian the carrying capacity of the land. Large winter kill is an indication winter habitat may not be adequate to support current population levels. If WA State did not have adequate resources to support many wolves, then the wolves that came here would not be successful and populations would not grow. Obviously this does not appear to be the case. I mentioned climate change with reference to Bergmann's rule which states generally speaking animals that live further from the equator (ie. in colder climes) are larger. If our climate continues to change, and get warmer in WA, larger critters will not be optimally adapted here. Smaller ones will ultimately be more successful. Please realize I speak in general and theoretical terms as it is unlikely we would see results of these changes in one's lifetime due to the generation time needed to effect measurable change in wolf size.
Pianoman-wolves are not mine any more than they are yours. I apologize if I implied otherwise.
Post by: wolfbait on January 01, 2016, 06:04:55 PM
Jerky- welcome to the forum. It's good to hear the opinions of someone who actually has an education in wildlife management.
Don't worry about answering any questions regarding your past involvement with wildlife or environmental organizations, at least not until the person asking can provide his credentials, and more specifically if he's a hunter or not.
Of course I'm a hunter Bobcat, why just yesterday I killed a pack rat with my slingshot.
Note: mistakenly hit modify instead of quote, this post has not been edited by me-bobcat
Post by: Cougartail on January 01, 2016, 06:07:05 PM
Jerky- welcome to the forum. It's good to hear the opinions of someone who actually has an education in wildlife management.
But certainly not as entertaining..
Post by: bobcat on January 01, 2016, 06:10:56 PM
Of course I'm a hunter Bobcat, why just yesterday I killed a pack rat with my slingshot.
:chuckle: Oh, finally, an answer to the question, not a good answer but an answer nonetheless. It's a miracle for the first day of 2016!
And not to question your choice of weapon, but don't you think a 30/06 or similar would be a more ethical and effective choice for pack rats?
Post by: wolfbait on January 01, 2016, 06:44:18 PM
Of course I'm a hunter Bobcat, why just yesterday I killed a pack rat with my slingshot.
:chuckle: Oh, finally, an answer to the question, not a good answer but an answer nonetheless. It's a miracle for the first day of 2016!
And not to question your choice of weapon, but don't you think a 30/06 or similar would be a more ethical and effective choice for pack rats?
The 410 does wonders if you are close enough, actually I like using my 17 WSM with the v-max, scoots along at 3000 fps, and it's good practice. But do to the location of the rat I couldn't use either.
You must be new to rat hunting, Bobcat?
Post by: wolfbait on January 01, 2016, 06:48:46 PM
BH45-I'm perfectly fine in the line I'm in just as you believe you are as well. I can respect that.
Wolfbait-I don't currently represent any state or fed agency or environmental group. Why would you assume I do just because I don't share the prevailing opinion here? Is there no room in the hunting community for other schools of thought?
ribka-current land use policy mandates multiple use management. I think wildlife and their habitats should be managed according to the maximum benefit of all stakeholders, of which we hunters may only be one group. Unfortunately, that might mean lowered harvest quotas. Removal of apex predators from a landscape simplifies a system and can result in inbalance. There are many examples of this in the published literature, which is where I get most of my information. This source is peer reviewed by other scientists before being relaesed for public consumption. My education taught me to think critically and not believe everything I read. I have hunted elk in Idaho and elk/deer in Montana. I saw wolf tracks while hunting. It depends on what is stressing deer/elk in WA. If they are hammering winter forage to the extent that the veg does not recover quickly enough, fewer deer/elk would allow veg recovery and maintian the carrying capacity of the land. Large winter kill is an indication winter habitat may not be adequate to support current population levels. If WA State did not have adequate resources to support many wolves, then the wolves that came here would not be successful and populations would not grow. Obviously this does not appear to be the case. I mentioned climate change with reference to Bergmann's rule which states generally speaking animals that live further from the equator (ie. in colder climes) are larger. If our climate continues to change, and get warmer in WA, larger critters will not be optimally adapted here. Smaller ones will ultimately be more successful. Please realize I speak in general and theoretical terms as it is unlikely we would see results of these changes in one's lifetime due to the generation time needed to effect measurable change in wolf size.
Pianoman-wolves are not mine any more than they are yours. I apologize if I implied otherwise.
"Wolfbait-I don't currently represent any state or fed agency or environmental group."----Which environmental groups did you represent in the past? If you don't mind me asking.
. "If WA State did not have adequate resources to support many wolves, then the wolves that came here would not be successful and populations would not grow."
If I remember right, when the USFWS brought the first wolves in, they started killing livestock right out of the cages. And as has happened in just about every confirmation of wolves in WA, the wolves were confirmed because they were killing livestock. Funny how wolves always seem to show up first in the middle of cattle country.
The thing that makes wolves such proficient killers is that they have an unlimited prey base and unlimited boundaries, which only exacerbates with the protection of the USFWS and WDFW.
Back in 2009 I ran into a couple of guys who were doing a wolf/deer predation study, I ask the one guy that seemed to be the know it all, what would happen when the wolves finished off the deer herds and he said they would gradually disperse to new killing grounds, leaving a few behind to keep the livestock trimmed up etc..
"Removal of apex predators from a landscape simplifies a system and can result in imbalance".
What we have now is an imbalance do to the introduction of an apex predator, unless the end result is a new game management program which includes very limited human harvest.
Adding an example of WDFW wolf management---Federal recovery goals for the Rocky Mountain region were met seven years after wolves were released in central Idaho and Yellowstone National Park in 1995. In Oregon, state recovery goals were achieved last year, six years after the first wolf pack was documented in 2008.
Washington’s first wolf pack was discovered in 2008, too. It has nearly as many wolves as Oregon, but under the state’s wolf plan recovery is at least several years away and as much as a decade away, wildlife officials say. WDFW estimates wolves will be eligible to be taken off the state’s protected species list by 2021 — plus or minus three years. On paper, there’s been no progress in meeting recovery goals in three years.
The key difference between Washington’s wolf plan and the plans other states used is the minimum number of breeding pairs needed before wildlife managers can consider management measures, including hunting, to control how many wolves live in the state, and where. http://www.capitalpress.com/Washington/20150604/washingtons-wolf-experience-unlike-rest-of-the-west#.VXCAVeoGBig.facebook
Post by: Little Dave on January 01, 2016, 08:54:11 PM
I don't believe our wild lands should be managed as an eternal ungulate farm for us hunters.
It is a similar respectable ideal expressed by Aldo Leopold. An ideal though. We need to keep ideals in mind but still work toward the next-best condition which considers other realities.
Specific to this situation is the constituency that supports Wildlife Management, which is both financial and political. As we understand the current model, we must have a certain amount of revenue from hunting and fishing to support programs (the financial). If that falls short, we know for a fact that wildlife management is near last on prioritized funding, way behind education which is well over half and constantly demanding more. So for lack of enough sportsmen, and resentment by other stakeholders for interference in their affairs, dwindling political support will do nothing to sustain a course toward an ideal.
From our perspective as the educated, with an academic perspective on history, the biological principles, and the hypothetical ideal state, we need to respect the political reality of NOT trying to reach one stakeholder's ideal if it will not achieve the next best stable state in a sustainable manner. Tactfully, we need to keep sportsmen and rural landowners engaged.
Do not overestimate the general public's interest in the natural world. This changes like the wind and could be completely gone in as little as five years. More enduring is the interest of sportsmen and rural landowners.
Post by: bearpaw on January 01, 2016, 09:26:48 PM
The article posted if ripe with incorrect statements.
Wolves did not cause the collapse of elk herd numbers in the Bitterroot Valley. Lion predation and very liberal antlerless elk seasons have been directly identified as the reasons that herd crashed. We can sure attribute it to wolves though, if it makes people feel better. Why worry about correctly identifying causative issues and resolving them when we can make stuff up to suit our biases?
Also, Wyoming Game and Fish have done some very interesting and informative studies on elk numbers in and around Yellowstone Park. Not everything fits the narrative stated as fact in this article.
Lastly, the Northern elk herd is AT the objective that FWP has decided it should be at. An objective that was largely influenced by stockgrowers in the Paradise Valley. So, regardless of how many predators one wishes to kill, the state of Montana is forbidden by law to manage that herd for any more elk than are currently in it.
FYI - A good deal of Montana hunters are not real satisfied with MT wildlife management!
Is it possible that MFWP is pretty similar to WDFW in the way they under manage wolves and other predators like cougar. It seems we have the same problem in Washington, the overall predator footprint is too large in some areas whether it's wolves, cougar, or too many hunters making the greatest impact in any given area. The fact is that these agencies are responsible for declining herds, the agencies are the ones setting seasons or preventing adequate hunting of predators. Like Washington, Montana is way too conservative on cougar hunting quotas. I'm not at all surprised cats are eating too many elk in the bitteroot! I would add something, if cougars are forcing the calf rate down to 10 calves per 100 cows or whatever it said, then if wolves eat another 3% that is also cause for concern regarding wolves! That is an additional impact on the herds that didn't exist for decades until agencies planted Canadian wolves.
Post by: bearpaw on January 01, 2016, 09:46:19 PM
Quote
The key difference between Washington’s wolf plan and the plans other states used is the minimum number of breeding pairs needed before wildlife managers can consider management measures, including hunting, to control how many wolves live in the state, and where. http://www.capitalpress.com/Washington/20150604/washingtons-wolf-experience-unlike-rest-of-the-west#.VXCAVeoGBig.facebook
That comment is 100% on the money! :tup:
Post by: Jerky on January 01, 2016, 10:59:24 PM
Post by: bearpaw on January 02, 2016, 04:32:21 AM
Some of you guys crack me up...new guy doesn't believe what I do so he must not really be one of us. My opinions are solely mine and represent me alone. I have never been part of an environmental group, represented one, or affiliated with one. Sorry I don't fit neatly into that box. I am just a lifelong member of the hunting fraternity with an opinion like most others here. To be honest I am pleasantly surprised that I haven't been summarily written off and ran off this thread already because of my views. Valid points have been added by others to this discussion, possibly as a result of my participation. That is why I am here. I apologize to those that went and got the proverbial bowl of popcorn if this string didn't result in the pot stirring entertainment you had hoped. Maybe next time from somebody else. Thanks for the welcomes fellas.
I can assure you there are members with many different views regarding wolves or most any other topic on this forum. Unless you violate the rules you will not be banned from the forum. If you feel you are being harassed by other member(s) please report it to the moderator team, we will assess the situation and take appropriate action. If you choose not to post in a topic due to opposing views that's your choice but please don't infer that you will be run off the forum or off a topic for having an opposing view, that's not really a very accurate statement!
Welcome to the forum, I hope you enjoy the many different discussions and activities available to members. :hello:
Post by: JLS on January 02, 2016, 09:22:08 AM
The article posted if ripe with incorrect statements.
Wolves did not cause the collapse of elk herd numbers in the Bitterroot Valley. Lion predation and very liberal antlerless elk seasons have been directly identified as the reasons that herd crashed. We can sure attribute it to wolves though, if it makes people feel better. Why worry about correctly identifying causative issues and resolving them when we can make stuff up to suit our biases?
Also, Wyoming Game and Fish have done some very interesting and informative studies on elk numbers in and around Yellowstone Park. Not everything fits the narrative stated as fact in this article.
Lastly, the Northern elk herd is AT the objective that FWP has decided it should be at. An objective that was largely influenced by stockgrowers in the Paradise Valley. So, regardless of how many predators one wishes to kill, the state of Montana is forbidden by law to manage that herd for any more elk than are currently in it.
FYI - A good deal of Montana hunters are not real satisfied with MT wildlife management!
I never stated nor implied that they were. They should not be satisfied, and I'm not either. Montana is crumbling to pressure from a stockgrower influenced legislature that wants elk herds drastically reduced.
Is it possible that MFWP is pretty similar to WDFW in the way they under manage wolves and other predators like cougar. It seems we have the same problem in Washington, the overall predator footprint is too large in some areas whether it's wolves, cougar, or too many hunters making the greatest impact in any given area. The fact is that these agencies are responsible for declining herds, the agencies are the ones setting seasons or preventing adequate hunting of predators.
I agree that cougar harvest in parts of Montana is way too conservative. However, it is largely driven by a very vocal contingent of outfitters that want trophy areas for cats. Wolf hunting is very liberal, outside of a stupidly low quota in the Buffalo Fork/Hellroaring area. Anyone that is complaining about wolf, or predator numbers in general in Montana should spend more time hunting and less time complaining.
Like Washington, Montana is way too conservative on cougar hunting quotas. I'm not at all surprised cats are eating too many elk in the bitteroot! I would add something, if cougars are forcing the calf rate down to 10 calves per 100 cows or whatever it said, then if wolves eat another 3% that is also cause for concern regarding wolves! That is an additional impact on the herds that didn't exist for decades until agencies planted Canadian wolves.
For the majority of Montana, wolves are but a miniscule factor in terms of elk hunting. Montana has long had a harboring issue with elk. Archery hunting for elk on public land is very, very, good. Rifle hunting is steadily getting worse as elk learn to take refuge on private land. It has been well documented that elk are learning to migrate to these ranches even BEFORE the rifle season opens and they stay there for the duration of the season.
I am in no way supportive of the shoulder seasons in Montana that are going to be used to drastically reduce elk numbers. The real wolf in Montana is the Republican legislature, which has mandated the Montana reduce elk numbers by about 45% statewide. In addition, FWP has consistently contradicted its elk management plan by counting elk that are not available to the public and incorporating those numbers into the total population counts.
Debbie Barrett and her legislative cohorts have done far more damage to Montana elk hunting than any Canadian Superwolf ever will.
Post by: JimmyHoffa on January 02, 2016, 10:15:51 AM
Some of you guys crack me up...new guy doesn't believe what I do so he must not really be one of us. My opinions are solely mine and represent me alone. I have never been part of an environmental group, represented one, or affiliated with one. Sorry I don't fit neatly into that box. I am just a lifelong member of the hunting fraternity with an opinion like most others here. To be honest I am pleasantly surprised that I haven't been summarily written off and ran off this thread already because of my views. Valid points have been added by others to this discussion, possibly as a result of my participation. That is why I am here. I apologize to those that went and got the proverbial bowl of popcorn if this string didn't result in the pot stirring entertainment you had hoped. Maybe next time from somebody else. Thanks for the welcomes fellas.Well, it is kind of hard to grasp someone claiming to be a hunter (which gives the assumption that they would support improving hunting now and for future generations) and be 'fine' with the wolf situation. If there was any chance that these wolves are going to be managed, maybe it would be more easily accepted. But knowing this state, the lawsuits and initiatives, I just don't feel like these wolves will ever be under control. They eat game and make more wolves, that's just what they do. If I had a crystal ball, I just don't think it would show me a better hunting future in WA; instead I think it would show smaller/troubled herds and impossible to draw special permits in a draw only system. If reduction in herd size is a management goal so it doesn't look like an ungulate farm, use the human hunters...add a bunch of permits or extend the seasons or put does/cows on the hit list for modern rifle, etc. There are other ways to control game that won't destroy ranching communities and hunting opportunity.
Post by: bearpaw on January 02, 2016, 11:26:25 AM
The article posted if ripe with incorrect statements.
Wolves did not cause the collapse of elk herd numbers in the Bitterroot Valley. Lion predation and very liberal antlerless elk seasons have been directly identified as the reasons that herd crashed. We can sure attribute it to wolves though, if it makes people feel better. Why worry about correctly identifying causative issues and resolving them when we can make stuff up to suit our biases?
Also, Wyoming Game and Fish have done some very interesting and informative studies on elk numbers in and around Yellowstone Park. Not everything fits the narrative stated as fact in this article.
Lastly, the Northern elk herd is AT the objective that FWP has decided it should be at. An objective that was largely influenced by stockgrowers in the Paradise Valley. So, regardless of how many predators one wishes to kill, the state of Montana is forbidden by law to manage that herd for any more elk than are currently in it.
FYI - A good deal of Montana hunters are not real satisfied with MT wildlife management!
I never stated nor implied that they were. They should not be satisfied, and I'm not either. Montana is crumbling to pressure from a stockgrower influenced legislature that wants elk herds drastically reduced.
Is it possible that MFWP is pretty similar to WDFW in the way they under manage wolves and other predators like cougar. It seems we have the same problem in Washington, the overall predator footprint is too large in some areas whether it's wolves, cougar, or too many hunters making the greatest impact in any given area. The fact is that these agencies are responsible for declining herds, the agencies are the ones setting seasons or preventing adequate hunting of predators.
I agree that cougar harvest in parts of Montana is way too conservative. However, it is largely driven by a very vocal contingent of outfitters that want trophy areas for cats. Wolf hunting is very liberal, outside of a stupidly low quota in the Buffalo Fork/Hellroaring area. Anyone that is complaining about wolf, or predator numbers in general in Montana should spend more time hunting and less time complaining.
Like Washington, Montana is way too conservative on cougar hunting quotas. I'm not at all surprised cats are eating too many elk in the bitteroot! I would add something, if cougars are forcing the calf rate down to 10 calves per 100 cows or whatever it said, then if wolves eat another 3% that is also cause for concern regarding wolves! That is an additional impact on the herds that didn't exist for decades until agencies planted Canadian wolves.
For the majority of Montana, wolves are but a miniscule factor in terms of elk hunting. Montana has long had a harboring issue with elk. Archery hunting for elk on public land is very, very, good. Rifle hunting is steadily getting worse as elk learn to take refuge on private land. It has been well documented that elk are learning to migrate to these ranches even BEFORE the rifle season opens and they stay there for the duration of the season.
I am in no way supportive of the shoulder seasons in Montana that are going to be used to drastically reduce elk numbers. The real wolf in Montana is the Republican legislature, which has mandated the Montana reduce elk numbers by about 45% statewide. In addition, FWP has consistently contradicted its elk management plan by counting elk that are not available to the public and incorporating those numbers into the total population counts.
Debbie Barrett and her legislative cohorts have done far more damage to Montana elk hunting than any Canadian Superwolf ever will.
Are you suggesting everyone else in MT is responsible for poor wildlife management except for the agency that actually sets the seasons on elk, cougar, and wolves! That would be like saying WDFW wants to increase elk numbers and reduce wolf and cougar numbers but the hunters and eastern Washington residents won't let them! We all know how badly WDFW wants to reduce wolf and cougar numbers! :chuckle:
I have never heard of an outfitter or hound hunter who wants fewer cougar tags in MT, the outfitters and hound hunters I know in MT want more cougar tags. MFWP has resisted increasing cougar tag numbers for years! Could the primary problem be certain commissioners, biologists, and anti-hunting groups?
In western Montana there is plenty of public access on lots of public ground, a lack of logging on the forest and predators play a much larger role in determining herd numbers as this topic has proven. Herds in many of those western Montana units are the herds that hunters complain about having depressed herd numbers.
In other MT units (especially central and eastern MT) there are access issues, elk herds have grown on large ranches that have been purchased by non-resident owners who don't allow public hunting. Those large elk herds maraud neighboring ranches when hunting seasons aren't open so neighboring ranches want elk numbers reduced. You can't blame the ranchers when those herds are consuming their livelihood. Those elk aren't being hunted, they are not the herds hunters are complaining about having low elk numbers.
I haven't studied all the "Shoulder Seasons". I hope MFWP isn't trying to reduce elk numbers in public land units where herds are depressed? I hope MFWP intends to reduce herds in areas with excessive elk numbers where certain landowners are preventing elk harvest, areas where herds need reduced!
Post by: JLS on January 02, 2016, 11:48:07 AM
The article posted if ripe with incorrect statements.
Wolves did not cause the collapse of elk herd numbers in the Bitterroot Valley. Lion predation and very liberal antlerless elk seasons have been directly identified as the reasons that herd crashed. We can sure attribute it to wolves though, if it makes people feel better. Why worry about correctly identifying causative issues and resolving them when we can make stuff up to suit our biases?
Also, Wyoming Game and Fish have done some very interesting and informative studies on elk numbers in and around Yellowstone Park. Not everything fits the narrative stated as fact in this article.
Lastly, the Northern elk herd is AT the objective that FWP has decided it should be at. An objective that was largely influenced by stockgrowers in the Paradise Valley. So, regardless of how many predators one wishes to kill, the state of Montana is forbidden by law to manage that herd for any more elk than are currently in it.
FYI - A good deal of Montana hunters are not real satisfied with MT wildlife management!
I never stated nor implied that they were. They should not be satisfied, and I'm not either. Montana is crumbling to pressure from a stockgrower influenced legislature that wants elk herds drastically reduced.
Is it possible that MFWP is pretty similar to WDFW in the way they under manage wolves and other predators like cougar. It seems we have the same problem in Washington, the overall predator footprint is too large in some areas whether it's wolves, cougar, or too many hunters making the greatest impact in any given area. The fact is that these agencies are responsible for declining herds, the agencies are the ones setting seasons or preventing adequate hunting of predators.
I agree that cougar harvest in parts of Montana is way too conservative. However, it is largely driven by a very vocal contingent of outfitters that want trophy areas for cats. Wolf hunting is very liberal, outside of a stupidly low quota in the Buffalo Fork/Hellroaring area. Anyone that is complaining about wolf, or predator numbers in general in Montana should spend more time hunting and less time complaining.
Like Washington, Montana is way too conservative on cougar hunting quotas. I'm not at all surprised cats are eating too many elk in the bitteroot! I would add something, if cougars are forcing the calf rate down to 10 calves per 100 cows or whatever it said, then if wolves eat another 3% that is also cause for concern regarding wolves! That is an additional impact on the herds that didn't exist for decades until agencies planted Canadian wolves.
For the majority of Montana, wolves are but a miniscule factor in terms of elk hunting. Montana has long had a harboring issue with elk. Archery hunting for elk on public land is very, very, good. Rifle hunting is steadily getting worse as elk learn to take refuge on private land. It has been well documented that elk are learning to migrate to these ranches even BEFORE the rifle season opens and they stay there for the duration of the season.
I am in no way supportive of the shoulder seasons in Montana that are going to be used to drastically reduce elk numbers. The real wolf in Montana is the Republican legislature, which has mandated the Montana reduce elk numbers by about 45% statewide. In addition, FWP has consistently contradicted its elk management plan by counting elk that are not available to the public and incorporating those numbers into the total population counts.
Debbie Barrett and her legislative cohorts have done far more damage to Montana elk hunting than any Canadian Superwolf ever will.
Are you suggesting everyone else in MT is responsible for poor wildlife management except for the agency that actually sets the seasons on elk, cougar, and wolves! That would be like saying WDFW wants to increase elk numbers and reduce wolf and cougar numbers but the hunters and eastern Washington residents won't let them! We all know how badly WDFW wants to reduce wolf and cougar numbers! :chuckle:
I have no idea where you derived this from my post. I did not speak to WDFWs management of predators at all so your statement makes no sense to me. FWP is doing a poor job of managing elk hunting because they are held hostage by a legislature that does not really care about the public land elk hunter. FWPs elk management plan sucks in the first place, and has since it was implemented 12 years ago. Elk population objectives are ridiculously low and are driven by social tolerance instead of biological carrying capacity.
Do you even know who Debbie Barrett is? Do you know what the content of SB42 was that she sponsored and introduced in 2004? Do you understand the long term impact this has for the public land elk hunter in Montana?
I have never heard of an outfitter or hound hunter who wants fewer cougar tags in MT, the outfitters and hound hunters I know in MT want more cougar tags. MFWP has resisted increasing cougar tag numbers for years! Could the primary problem be certain commissioners, biologists, and anti-hunting groups?
The Bitterroot and other parts of NW Montana went to a limited permit for lions largely at the request of outfitters. I do not know of a single biologist in Montana that is anti hunting. Feel free to fill me in if you do. Houndsman are the most vocal supporters for lowering female sub quotas for lion harvest.
In western Montana there is plenty of public access on lots of public ground, a lack of logging on the forest and predators play a much larger role in determining herd numbers as this topic has proven. Herds in many of those western Montana units are the herds that hunters complain about having depressed herd numbers.
There is a wealth of new logging in western Montana. You can see it from the freeway and every highway. The problem might be a little more than just predators, but we can agree to disagree here.
In other MT units (especially central and eastern MT) there are access issues, elk herds have grown on large ranches that have been purchased by non-resident owners who don't allow public hunting. Those large elk herds maraud neighboring ranches when hunting seasons aren't open so neighboring ranches want elk numbers reduced. You can't blame the ranchers when those herds are consuming their livelihood. Those elk aren't being hunted, they are not the herds hunters are complaining about having low elk numbers.
I can blame the ranchers who want shoulder seasons to kill elk into February but don't allow any public access during the general season. This problem goes far beyond central and eastern Montana. It is highly prevalent in many areas of SW Montana from the Deer Lodge valley towards Billings and Dillon. It's not just non-resident owners who create this problem.
These elk don't "grow up" on these ranches in many parts of the SW corner of the state. They migrate there from public land because they've learned it is a refuge for them.
It's funny how ranchers don't mind elk during hunting season when they are selling hunts, but outside of that they hate them.
I haven't studied all the "Shoulder Seasons". I hope MFWP isn't trying to reduce elk numbers in public land units where herds are depressed? I hope MFWP intends to reduce herds in areas with excessive elk numbers where certain landowners are preventing elk harvest, areas where herds need reduced!
Montana could easily support as many elk as Colorado. The Missouri Breaks north of Lewistown had phenomenal public land hunting in the early 2000's. However, due to an asinine population objective the season was opened up to shoot cows left and right and "reduce the herd". What's ironic is that private land elk numbers probably haven't changed all that much but the public land hunting is a shadow of what it used to be. Again, this is courtesy of Debbie Barrett.
I'm switching states to hunt elk in this year for various reasons, and it has absolutely NOTHING to do with wolves.
Post by: ribka on January 02, 2016, 11:58:33 AM
:tup:
:tup:I don't believe our wild lands should be managed as an eternal ungulate farm for us hunters.
It is a similar respectable ideal expressed by Aldo Leopold. An ideal though. We need to keep ideals in mind but still work toward the next-best condition which considers other realities.
Specific to this situation is the constituency that supports Wildlife Management, which is both financial and political. As we understand the current model, we must have a certain amount of revenue from hunting and fishing to support programs (the financial). If that falls short, we know for a fact that wildlife management is near last on prioritized funding, way behind education which is well over half and constantly demanding more. So for lack of enough sportsmen, and resentment by other stakeholders for interference in their affairs, dwindling political support will do nothing to sustain a course toward an ideal.
From our perspective as the educated, with an academic perspective on history, the biological principles, and the hypothetical ideal state, we need to respect the political reality of NOT trying to reach one stakeholder's ideal if it will not achieve the next best stable state in a sustainable manner. Tactfully, we need to keep sportsmen and rural landowners engaged.
Do not overestimate the general public's interest in the natural world. This changes like the wind and could be completely gone in as little as five years. More enduring is the interest of sportsmen and rural landowners.
Post by: JLS on January 02, 2016, 12:02:13 PM
Some light reading on the opposing viewpoints on lion harvest in Montana.
Post by: BOWHUNTER45 on January 02, 2016, 12:30:27 PM
"If WA State did not have adequate resources to support many wolves, then the wolves that came here would not be successful and populations would not grow."
Post by: BOWHUNTER45 on January 02, 2016, 12:37:53 PM
Post by: bearpaw on January 02, 2016, 01:57:12 PM
The article posted if ripe with incorrect statements.
Wolves did not cause the collapse of elk herd numbers in the Bitterroot Valley. Lion predation and very liberal antlerless elk seasons have been directly identified as the reasons that herd crashed. We can sure attribute it to wolves though, if it makes people feel better. Why worry about correctly identifying causative issues and resolving them when we can make stuff up to suit our biases?
Also, Wyoming Game and Fish have done some very interesting and informative studies on elk numbers in and around Yellowstone Park. Not everything fits the narrative stated as fact in this article.
Lastly, the Northern elk herd is AT the objective that FWP has decided it should be at. An objective that was largely influenced by stockgrowers in the Paradise Valley. So, regardless of how many predators one wishes to kill, the state of Montana is forbidden by law to manage that herd for any more elk than are currently in it.
FYI - A good deal of Montana hunters are not real satisfied with MT wildlife management!
I never stated nor implied that they were. They should not be satisfied, and I'm not either. Montana is crumbling to pressure from a stockgrower influenced legislature that wants elk herds drastically reduced.
Is it possible that MFWP is pretty similar to WDFW in the way they under manage wolves and other predators like cougar. It seems we have the same problem in Washington, the overall predator footprint is too large in some areas whether it's wolves, cougar, or too many hunters making the greatest impact in any given area. The fact is that these agencies are responsible for declining herds, the agencies are the ones setting seasons or preventing adequate hunting of predators.
I agree that cougar harvest in parts of Montana is way too conservative. However, it is largely driven by a very vocal contingent of outfitters that want trophy areas for cats. Wolf hunting is very liberal, outside of a stupidly low quota in the Buffalo Fork/Hellroaring area. Anyone that is complaining about wolf, or predator numbers in general in Montana should spend more time hunting and less time complaining.
Like Washington, Montana is way too conservative on cougar hunting quotas. I'm not at all surprised cats are eating too many elk in the bitteroot! I would add something, if cougars are forcing the calf rate down to 10 calves per 100 cows or whatever it said, then if wolves eat another 3% that is also cause for concern regarding wolves! That is an additional impact on the herds that didn't exist for decades until agencies planted Canadian wolves.
For the majority of Montana, wolves are but a miniscule factor in terms of elk hunting. Montana has long had a harboring issue with elk. Archery hunting for elk on public land is very, very, good. Rifle hunting is steadily getting worse as elk learn to take refuge on private land. It has been well documented that elk are learning to migrate to these ranches even BEFORE the rifle season opens and they stay there for the duration of the season.
I am in no way supportive of the shoulder seasons in Montana that are going to be used to drastically reduce elk numbers. The real wolf in Montana is the Republican legislature, which has mandated the Montana reduce elk numbers by about 45% statewide. In addition, FWP has consistently contradicted its elk management plan by counting elk that are not available to the public and incorporating those numbers into the total population counts.
Debbie Barrett and her legislative cohorts have done far more damage to Montana elk hunting than any Canadian Superwolf ever will.
Are you suggesting everyone else in MT is responsible for poor wildlife management except for the agency that actually sets the seasons on elk, cougar, and wolves! That would be like saying WDFW wants to increase elk numbers and reduce wolf and cougar numbers but the hunters and eastern Washington residents won't let them! We all know how badly WDFW wants to reduce wolf and cougar numbers! :chuckle:
I have no idea where you derived this from my post. I did not speak to WDFWs management of predators at all so your statement makes no sense to me. FWP is doing a poor job of managing elk hunting because they are held hostage by a legislature that does not really care about the public land elk hunter. FWPs elk management plan sucks in the first place, and has since it was implemented 12 years ago. Elk population objectives are ridiculously low and are driven by social tolerance instead of biological carrying capacity.
Do you even know who Debbie Barrett is? Do you know what the content of SB42 was that she sponsored and introduced in 2004? Do you understand the long term impact this has for the public land elk hunter in Montana?
I have never heard of an outfitter or hound hunter who wants fewer cougar tags in MT, the outfitters and hound hunters I know in MT want more cougar tags. MFWP has resisted increasing cougar tag numbers for years! Could the primary problem be certain commissioners, biologists, and anti-hunting groups?
The Bitterroot and other parts of NW Montana went to a limited permit for lions largely at the request of outfitters. I do not know of a single biologist in Montana that is anti hunting. Feel free to fill me in if you do. Houndsman are the most vocal supporters for lowering female sub quotas for lion harvest.
In western Montana there is plenty of public access on lots of public ground, a lack of logging on the forest and predators play a much larger role in determining herd numbers as this topic has proven. Herds in many of those western Montana units are the herds that hunters complain about having depressed herd numbers.
There is a wealth of new logging in western Montana. You can see it from the freeway and every highway. The problem might be a little more than just predators, but we can agree to disagree here.
In other MT units (especially central and eastern MT) there are access issues, elk herds have grown on large ranches that have been purchased by non-resident owners who don't allow public hunting. Those large elk herds maraud neighboring ranches when hunting seasons aren't open so neighboring ranches want elk numbers reduced. You can't blame the ranchers when those herds are consuming their livelihood. Those elk aren't being hunted, they are not the herds hunters are complaining about having low elk numbers.
I can blame the ranchers who want shoulder seasons to kill elk into February but don't allow any public access during the general season. This problem goes far beyond central and eastern Montana. It is highly prevalent in many areas of SW Montana from the Deer Lodge valley towards Billings and Dillon. It's not just non-resident owners who create this problem.
These elk don't "grow up" on these ranches in many parts of the SW corner of the state. They migrate there from public land because they've learned it is a refuge for them.
It's funny how ranchers don't mind elk during hunting season when they are selling hunts, but outside of that they hate them.
I haven't studied all the "Shoulder Seasons". I hope MFWP isn't trying to reduce elk numbers in public land units where herds are depressed? I hope MFWP intends to reduce herds in areas with excessive elk numbers where certain landowners are preventing elk harvest, areas where herds need reduced!
Montana could easily support as many elk as Colorado. The Missouri Breaks north of Lewistown had phenomenal public land hunting in the early 2000's. However, due to an asinine population objective the season was opened up to shoot cows left and right and "reduce the herd". What's ironic is that private land elk numbers probably haven't changed all that much but the public land hunting is a shadow of what it used to be. Again, this is courtesy of Debbie Barrett.
I'm switching states to hunt elk in this year for various reasons, and it has absolutely NOTHING to do with wolves.
I agree that MT could have as many elk as Colorado but as long as MFWP mismanages elk and predators on public lands that is not likely going to happen. Public land holds the greatest opportunity to expand herds. I definitely think MFWP should do a better job of working with hunters, landowners, and legislators to accomplish better elk management everywhere in MT.
I never said any MT biologist was anti-hunting, not sure where you got that?
I don't know Debbie Barrett but I would like to hear her side of the story too! You seem to be biased against the legislature, those are representatives of the people, could it be that your views are not the same as most Montanans?
Some of your comments are confusing? The Block Management program is funded by non-resident hunters and has been very successful at opening up thousands of acres of private land to public hunting in Montana. However, I respect private property rights of landowners and do not think landowners should be required to open their lands to public hunting in order to have a hunting season. What is wrong with a landowner only allowing family members, friends, or paying hunters to hunt?
We simply may have to agree to disagree on some issues! Good luck with your new hunting area.
I couldn't get the link about hound hunting to work? I know that hound hunters often only want to hunt toms, that doesn't mean they want the entire season to close when a certain quota is met. As I mentioned, hound hunters I know think the quotas and seasons need expanded. :dunno:
Post by: JLS on January 02, 2016, 03:12:56 PM
Are you suggesting everyone else in MT is responsible for poor wildlife management except for the agency that actually sets the seasons on elk, cougar, and wolves! That would be like saying WDFW wants to increase elk numbers and reduce wolf and cougar numbers but the hunters and eastern Washington residents won't let them! We all know how badly WDFW wants to reduce wolf and cougar numbers! :chuckle:
I have no idea where you derived this from my post. I did not speak to WDFWs management of predators at all so your statement makes no sense to me. FWP is doing a poor job of managing elk hunting because they are held hostage by a legislature that does not really care about the public land elk hunter. FWPs elk management plan sucks in the first place, and has since it was implemented 12 years ago. Elk population objectives are ridiculously low and are driven by social tolerance instead of biological carrying capacity.
Do you even know who Debbie Barrett is? Do you know what the content of SB42 was that she sponsored and introduced in 2004? Do you understand the long term impact this has for the public land elk hunter in Montana?
I have never heard of an outfitter or hound hunter who wants fewer cougar tags in MT, the outfitters and hound hunters I know in MT want more cougar tags. MFWP has resisted increasing cougar tag numbers for years! Could the primary problem be certain commissioners, biologists, and anti-hunting groups?
The Bitterroot and other parts of NW Montana went to a limited permit for lions largely at the request of outfitters. I do not know of a single biologist in Montana that is anti hunting. Feel free to fill me in if you do. Houndsman are the most vocal supporters for lowering female sub quotas for lion harvest.
In western Montana there is plenty of public access on lots of public ground, a lack of logging on the forest and predators play a much larger role in determining herd numbers as this topic has proven. Herds in many of those western Montana units are the herds that hunters complain about having depressed herd numbers.
There is a wealth of new logging in western Montana. You can see it from the freeway and every highway. The problem might be a little more than just predators, but we can agree to disagree here.
In other MT units (especially central and eastern MT) there are access issues, elk herds have grown on large ranches that have been purchased by non-resident owners who don't allow public hunting. Those large elk herds maraud neighboring ranches when hunting seasons aren't open so neighboring ranches want elk numbers reduced. You can't blame the ranchers when those herds are consuming their livelihood. Those elk aren't being hunted, they are not the herds hunters are complaining about having low elk numbers.
I can blame the ranchers who want shoulder seasons to kill elk into February but don't allow any public access during the general season. This problem goes far beyond central and eastern Montana. It is highly prevalent in many areas of SW Montana from the Deer Lodge valley towards Billings and Dillon. It's not just non-resident owners who create this problem.
These elk don't "grow up" on these ranches in many parts of the SW corner of the state. They migrate there from public land because they've learned it is a refuge for them.
It's funny how ranchers don't mind elk during hunting season when they are selling hunts, but outside of that they hate them.
I haven't studied all the "Shoulder Seasons". I hope MFWP isn't trying to reduce elk numbers in public land units where herds are depressed? I hope MFWP intends to reduce herds in areas with excessive elk numbers where certain landowners are preventing elk harvest, areas where herds need reduced!
Montana could easily support as many elk as Colorado. The Missouri Breaks north of Lewistown had phenomenal public land hunting in the early 2000's. However, due to an asinine population objective the season was opened up to shoot cows left and right and "reduce the herd". What's ironic is that private land elk numbers probably haven't changed all that much but the public land hunting is a shadow of what it used to be. Again, this is courtesy of Debbie Barrett.
I'm switching states to hunt elk in this year for various reasons, and it has absolutely NOTHING to do with wolves.
I agree that MT could have as many elk as Colorado but as long as MFWP mismanages elk and predators on public lands that is not likely going to happen. Public land holds the greatest opportunity to expand herds. I definitely think MFWP should do a better job of working with hunters, landowners, and legislators to accomplish better elk management everywhere in MT.
Your continued assertion about predators is confusing. Have you read the EMP? If so, you would understand that the elk objectives were set in 2004. Debbie Barrett's legislation mandated that all elk units would be managed at or below the objective population. Thus, it doesn't matter HOW MANY predators you kill in many units, the state is prohibited by law to manage for more elk. This would include the Northern Yellowstone herd, which was one of the primary talking points of the original article.
What would you suggest FWP does for better elk management?
I would also directly challenge your assertion about mismanagement of predators on public lands. You can hunt wolves for months at a time, and kill more in a year than most folks will kill in a lifetime. There is general tag spring and fall bear hunting, with many districts open to unlimited harvest. What more would you suggest? Enlighten me as to how they could manage better? As I said earlier, IMO anyone that complains about the number of predators in Montana should spend more time in the field with a rifle because the opportunity is certainly there.
I never said any MT biologist was anti-hunting, not sure where you got that?
The following quote insinuates/directly implies that biologists have resisted increasing tag numbers. If I incorrectly drew the parallel that you were insinuating that they were associated with anti-hunting groups then I apologize for my misinterpretation.
Quote
I have never heard of an outfitter or hound hunter who wants fewer cougar tags in MT, the outfitters and hound hunters I know in MT want more cougar tags. MFWP has resisted increasing cougar tag numbers for years! Could the primary problem be certain commissioners, biologists, and anti-hunting groups?
http://www.outdoorlife.com/blogs/newshound/2014/04/montana-mountain-lion-hunters-oppose-increasing-harvest-quotas
In addition, the above link would directly contradict your statement that FWP has resisted increasing cougar tags.
I don't know Debbie Barrett but I would like to hear her side of the story too! You seem to be biased against the legislature, those are representatives of the people, could it be that your views are not the same as most Montanans?
There are very divergent viewpoints between many landowners and the general public hunters in Montana, hence the long standing issues with public access. I am biased against a legislature that is continually pushing towards a Ranching for Wildlife model and away from a North American model of wildlife management. As to whether my views are consistent with the "mainstream", I guess it would depend on who you ask. My views are first and foremost to the North American model of conservation and a close second to the public land hunter. I would challenge you to name one thing that Debbie Barrett has done that is supportive of either of these.
Some of your comments are confusing? The Block Management program is funded by non-resident hunters and has been very successful at opening up thousands of acres of private land to public hunting in Montana. However, I respect private property rights of landowners and do not think landowners should be required to open their lands to public hunting in order to have a hunting season. What is wrong with a landowner only allowing family members, friends, or paying hunters to hunt?
There is nothing wrong with only allowing family members, friends, paying hunters to hunt. What is wrong is continued attempts by these same people to then make the elk overpopulation a "problem" when they don't allow reasonable public access by the public to hunt. Reasonable public access has been a long standing requirement for private landowners for many years if they were to expect help from FWP in terms of game damage. What constitutes reasonable access has been a long standing dispute. My comments had nothing to do with Block Management, rather they had to do with folks creating a problem and then expecting the state to help them resolve it.
In years past, a landowner was not granted a special season outside of the general hunting season unless they qualified for game damage assistance under state law, which required reasonable public access (thereby disqualifying anyone who commercially outfitted for the entire season). FWP has changed their stance on this under pressure from the legislature and will now allow special seasons outside of the general season. I highly disagree with this.
A landowner's property is theirs, and they can choose whatever level and type of hunting they wish. However, they don't live in a vacuum, and under the Rathbone Decision the Montana State Supreme Court dictated that landowners must tolerate a certain level of wildlife on their land as part of living in Montana.
We simply may have to agree to disagree on some issues! Good luck with your new hunting area.
Thank you.
I couldn't get the link about hound hunting to work? I know that hound hunters often only want to hunt toms, that doesn't mean they want the entire season to close when a certain quota is met. As I mentioned, hound hunters I know think the quotas and seasons need expanded. :dunno:
The link worked for me. Google Search "Region 2 mountain lion working group Montana" and you should get it. It speaks directly to the conflict between elk/deer hunters and outfitters/houndsmen in terms of lion quotas and harvest guidelines. It has no bearing on population numbers if you expand the seasons but not the quotas. Lion hunters/outfitters have very strongly advocated for lower quotas and permit only systems for many years. I was at some of these public meetings and witnessed it firsthand.
[color](http://)
[/quote]
Edit: I am not in any way directly opposed to ranchers. I have some very good friends in Montana that are ranchers. Some allow public hunting and some don't. I respect both and realize it is their choice.
What I don't support are ranchers who attempt to use the legislature to subvert the commission process for fish and wildlife management in order to create a better system for them to profit off of wildlife. Management of wildlife should be first and foremost for the betterment of the resource, not to maximize the profits one can make on their ranch.
Legislative control of hunting issues is a very dangerous precedent and has been a front burner issue in Montana for years. The recent MO has been to go the legislature if the commission tells you no, and the legislature's pattern has been to put the landowner interests far and above the general public's interests.
Post by: JLS on January 02, 2016, 05:29:00 PM
Another article about mountain lion quotas, as well as the working group document.
Post by: wolfbait on January 02, 2016, 06:36:39 PM
November 16, 2010
Editor’s Note: The following is a copy of a letter sent by Gary Marbut, President of the Montana Shooting Sports Association, in response to a column recently found in the Billings Gazette written by Jeremy Pelzer.
Jeremy,
Greetings from Montana.
In re your article about Wyoming joining Montana and Idaho to negotiate about wolves, be advised that the sentiment in Montana and Idaho is not all as it has been held out to be.
There are LOTs of citizens, hunters and landowners in Montana who are absolutely fed up to the gills with our Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks’ tolerance of wolves, total agreeability to do whatever the feds want about wolves, and outright complicity with the feds and sometimes illegal acts done in the process of foisting wolves on Montana.
Throughout this fiasco, FWP has minimized and dramatically downplayed current and future impact of wolves, especially on game populations. Their position on wolf impact all along has been so disingenuous and so incorrect as to qualify as deceit rather than innocent mistake. Administrators have actually ordered FWP personnel to silence about wolf impact on game populations. The people of Montana are angry, almost beyond measure, at our state wildlife agency for having so readily sold Montana citizens down the river over wolves.
People in Idaho feel the same, or even more strongly.
And, FYI, there are many of us who bless Wyoming for having held out on wolf management to prevent the acceptance of an area-wide wolf management practice that would favor wolf-lovers at the expense of hunters, stockgrowers and others.
This is definitely not the picture usually presented – that Montana and Idaho are smugly happy with the status quo and blame evil Wyoming for blocking progress to making overpopulation of wolves a permanent institution here.
In order to radically alter the status quo, I wrote a bill that was introduced into the 2009 Montana legislative session, SB 183, that would have forcibly wrested control of wolves out of federal hands, and the hands of our FWP, and placed wolves under stern management according to the will of the Legislature (FWP not only has NOT sought permission from the Legislature for its wolf policy and practices, it has actually outright ignored legislative direction).
An Idaho clone of that same bill was introduced in the Idaho Legislature in 2009. That bill didn’t pass in 2009. We fell three votes short in the Senate. However, we will be back with that bill in 2011, introduced again by Senator Joe Balyeat (R-Bozeman). With substantially improved public sentiment (improved for state control of wolves), I believe we can get this bill passed.
About the three states hiring an attorney to “negotiate” with the USFWS, I believe that is a ploy invented to help persuade the Montana Legislature to not pass the 2011 version of SB 183 (no bill number yet for 2011). Heck, the feds know that the wolf train wreck can no longer be camouflaged. They definitely do not want to be seen as having their hand on the throttle of the train when it comes completely off the tracks. They want out, right now. So, there’s nothing for them to “negotiate.” Even if something reasonable could be negotiated with the USFWS, the results of that negotiation would and could not bind the federal courts or those suing to allow the wolf rampage to continue unabated.
So, there is zero potential benefit to the three states negotiation with the USFWS, EXCEPT that Montana and Idaho wildlife managers can warn their legislatures to hold off on corrective legislation while “delicate negotiations” are in progress to magically solve the entire wolf problem.
Ditto for the secret (and thereby illegal in Montana) negotiations that are rumored to be going on between state wildlife agencies and Defenders of Wildlife and EarthJustice, the plaintiffs in the pending suit to block wolf delisting. Absolutely nothing binding can come from any such negotiations. They are designed only to give state wildlife administrators a reason to ask state legislatures to hold off on stronger legislative medicine while the wildlife agencies continue to cooperate with the stall tactics that are an ongoing win for the wolf advocates.
Negotiations are a ruse – just another tactic to stall any real solution while wolves put an end to hunting.
Gary Marbut, president
Montana Shooting Sports Association
http://mainehuntingtoday.com/bbb/2010/1 … th-wolves/
Post by: bearpaw on January 02, 2016, 08:29:13 PM
Are you suggesting everyone else in MT is responsible for poor wildlife management except for the agency that actually sets the seasons on elk, cougar, and wolves! That would be like saying WDFW wants to increase elk numbers and reduce wolf and cougar numbers but the hunters and eastern Washington residents won't let them! We all know how badly WDFW wants to reduce wolf and cougar numbers! :chuckle:
I have no idea where you derived this from my post. I did not speak to WDFWs management of predators at all so your statement makes no sense to me. FWP is doing a poor job of managing elk hunting because they are held hostage by a legislature that does not really care about the public land elk hunter. FWPs elk management plan sucks in the first place, and has since it was implemented 12 years ago. Elk population objectives are ridiculously low and are driven by social tolerance instead of biological carrying capacity.
Do you even know who Debbie Barrett is? Do you know what the content of SB42 was that she sponsored and introduced in 2004? Do you understand the long term impact this has for the public land elk hunter in Montana?
I have never heard of an outfitter or hound hunter who wants fewer cougar tags in MT, the outfitters and hound hunters I know in MT want more cougar tags. MFWP has resisted increasing cougar tag numbers for years! Could the primary problem be certain commissioners, biologists, and anti-hunting groups?
The Bitterroot and other parts of NW Montana went to a limited permit for lions largely at the request of outfitters. I do not know of a single biologist in Montana that is anti hunting. Feel free to fill me in if you do. Houndsman are the most vocal supporters for lowering female sub quotas for lion harvest.
In western Montana there is plenty of public access on lots of public ground, a lack of logging on the forest and predators play a much larger role in determining herd numbers as this topic has proven. Herds in many of those western Montana units are the herds that hunters complain about having depressed herd numbers.
There is a wealth of new logging in western Montana. You can see it from the freeway and every highway. The problem might be a little more than just predators, but we can agree to disagree here.
In years to come the new logging will pay off! Stopping logging in previous years hurt the herds.
In other MT units (especially central and eastern MT) there are access issues, elk herds have grown on large ranches that have been purchased by non-resident owners who don't allow public hunting. Those large elk herds maraud neighboring ranches when hunting seasons aren't open so neighboring ranches want elk numbers reduced. You can't blame the ranchers when those herds are consuming their livelihood. Those elk aren't being hunted, they are not the herds hunters are complaining about having low elk numbers.
I can blame the ranchers who want shoulder seasons to kill elk into February but don't allow any public access during the general season. This problem goes far beyond central and eastern Montana. It is highly prevalent in many areas of SW Montana from the Deer Lodge valley towards Billings and Dillon. It's not just non-resident owners who create this problem.
These elk don't "grow up" on these ranches in many parts of the SW corner of the state. They migrate there from public land because they've learned it is a refuge for them.
It's funny how ranchers don't mind elk during hunting season when they are selling hunts, but outside of that they hate them.
I haven't studied all the "Shoulder Seasons". I hope MFWP isn't trying to reduce elk numbers in public land units where herds are depressed? I hope MFWP intends to reduce herds in areas with excessive elk numbers where certain landowners are preventing elk harvest, areas where herds need reduced!
Montana could easily support as many elk as Colorado. The Missouri Breaks north of Lewistown had phenomenal public land hunting in the early 2000's. However, due to an asinine population objective the season was opened up to shoot cows left and right and "reduce the herd". What's ironic is that private land elk numbers probably haven't changed all that much but the public land hunting is a shadow of what it used to be. Again, this is courtesy of Debbie Barrett.
I'm switching states to hunt elk in this year for various reasons, and it has absolutely NOTHING to do with wolves.
I agree that MT could have as many elk as Colorado but as long as MFWP mismanages elk and predators on public lands that is not likely going to happen. Public land holds the greatest opportunity to expand herds. I definitely think MFWP should do a better job of working with hunters, landowners, and legislators to accomplish better elk management everywhere in MT.
Your continued assertion about predators is confusing. Have you read the EMP? If so, you would understand that the elk objectives were set in 2004. Debbie Barrett's legislation mandated that all elk units would be managed at or below the objective population. Thus, it doesn't matter HOW MANY predators you kill in many units, the state is prohibited by law to manage for more elk. This would include the Northern Yellowstone herd, which was one of the primary talking points of the original article.
Your going to have to show me where the legislature mandated MFWP to allow wolves to populate to the extent they reduced the Northern Yellowstone Elk Herd from nearly 20,000 elk to a struggling 4,000 animals and to totally eliminate the elk seasons that many hunters relied on for years to fill their freezer? Your also going to have to show me where the legislature mandated for the herd declines in the bitteroot! I have to question if that's what the legislature actually did!
What would you suggest FWP does for better elk management?
Increase predator harvest where needed. They have proof cougar are impacting the Bitteroot and wolves have impacted the northern Yellowstone.
I would also directly challenge your assertion about mismanagement of predators on public lands. You can hunt wolves for months at a time, and kill more in a year than most folks will kill in a lifetime. There is general tag spring and fall bear hunting, with many districts open to unlimited harvest. What more would you suggest? Enlighten me as to how they could manage better? As I said earlier, IMO anyone that complains about the number of predators in Montana should spend more time in the field with a rifle because the opportunity is certainly there.
I never said any MT biologist was anti-hunting, not sure where you got that?
The following quote insinuates/directly implies that biologists have resisted increasing tag numbers. If I incorrectly drew the parallel that you were insinuating that they were associated with anti-hunting groups then I apologize for my misinterpretation.
You were incorrect! Thank you for apologizing for your misinterpretation!QuoteI have never heard of an outfitter or hound hunter who wants fewer cougar tags in MT, the outfitters and hound hunters I know in MT want more cougar tags. MFWP has resisted increasing cougar tag numbers for years! Could the primary problem be certain commissioners, biologists, and anti-hunting groups?
http://www.outdoorlife.com/blogs/newshound/2014/04/montana-mountain-lion-hunters-oppose-increasing-harvest-quotas
In addition, the above link would directly contradict your statement that FWP has resisted increasing cougar tags.
I don't know Debbie Barrett but I would like to hear her side of the story too! You seem to be biased against the legislature, those are representatives of the people, could it be that your views are not the same as most Montanans?
There are very divergent viewpoints between many landowners and the general public hunters in Montana, hence the long standing issues with public access. I am biased against a legislature that is continually pushing towards a Ranching for Wildlife model and away from a North American model of wildlife management. As to whether my views are consistent with the "mainstream", I guess it would depend on who you ask. My views are first and foremost to the North American model of conservation and a close second to the public land hunter. I would challenge you to name one thing that Debbie Barrett has done that is supportive of either of these.
Some of your comments are confusing? The Block Management program is funded by non-resident hunters and has been very successful at opening up thousands of acres of private land to public hunting in Montana. However, I respect private property rights of landowners and do not think landowners should be required to open their lands to public hunting in order to have a hunting season. What is wrong with a landowner only allowing family members, friends, or paying hunters to hunt?
There is nothing wrong with only allowing family members, friends, paying hunters to hunt. What is wrong is continued attempts by these same people to then make the elk overpopulation a "problem" when they don't allow reasonable public access by the public to hunt. Reasonable public access has been a long standing requirement for private landowners for many years if they were to expect help from FWP in terms of game damage. What constitutes reasonable access has been a long standing dispute. My comments had nothing to do with Block Management, rather they had to do with folks creating a problem and then expecting the state to help them resolve it.
In years past, a landowner was not granted a special season outside of the general hunting season unless they qualified for game damage assistance under state law, which required reasonable public access (thereby disqualifying anyone who commercially outfitted for the entire season). FWP has changed their stance on this under pressure from the legislature and will now allow special seasons outside of the general season. I highly disagree with this.
A landowner's property is theirs, and they can choose whatever level and type of hunting they wish. However, they don't live in a vacuum, and under the Rathbone Decision the Montana State Supreme Court dictated that landowners must tolerate a certain level of wildlife on their land as part of living in Montana.
I completely agree that elk learn where to go for safety during hunting seasons. It's obvious you did not read my comment correctly and again misinterpreted my comments. Perhaps I didn't clarify well enough? I meant to say that certain landowners are not hunting elk and neighboring landowners are being impacted when those elk enter their property outside of current hunting seasons. The impacted landowners need an opportunity to hunt those elk when the elk enter their lands. I also don't expect any landowners to be forced to allow public hunting on their land. I didn't ask for the landowners creating the undermanaged elk herds to be given a special season for their benefiit, there's quite a difference between what I said and what you implied I said. I hope you can see the difference?
We simply may have to agree to disagree on some issues! Good luck with your new hunting area.
Thank you.
Awesome, we agree on something!
I couldn't get the link about hound hunting to work? I know that hound hunters often only want to hunt toms, that doesn't mean they want the entire season to close when a certain quota is met. As I mentioned, hound hunters I know think the quotas and seasons need expanded. :dunno:
The link worked for me. Google Search "Region 2 mountain lion working group Montana" and you should get it. It speaks directly to the conflict between elk/deer hunters and outfitters/houndsmen in terms of lion quotas and harvest guidelines. It has no bearing on population numbers if you expand the seasons but not the quotas. Lion hunters/outfitters have very strongly advocated for lower quotas and permit only systems for many years. I was at some of these public meetings and witnessed it firsthand.
[color](http://)
I was able to read the link, it was downloading rather than opening and I figured that out finally, LOL. Thanks, it was good reading. I saw and wasn't surprised that hound hunters on that working group were the most supportive of more cougar and for trophy cougar but they did settle on a nearly identical proposal as the status quo. It appeared outfitters were more in line with other hunters agreeing with more balanced management. I know an outfitter and hound hunter in Region 2 who says there should be longer cougar seasons and higher quotas but he wasn't on the working group. I must say the majority of the opinions I referenced live in other regions and I don't know if there have been cougar working groups in those regions? But it says hound hunters on the working group did support higher cougar numbers in Region 2 so I was incorrect about region 2.
Edit: I am not in any way directly opposed to ranchers. I have some very good friends in Montana that are ranchers. Some allow public hunting and some don't. I respect both and realize it is their choice.
What I don't support are ranchers who attempt to use the legislature to subvert the commission process for fish and wildlife management in order to create a better system for them to profit off of wildlife. Management of wildlife should be first and foremost for the betterment of the resource, not to maximize the profits one can make on their ranch.
Legislative control of hunting issues is a very dangerous precedent and has been a front burner issue in Montana for years. The recent MO has been to go the legislature if the commission tells you no, and the legislature's pattern has been to put the landowner interests far and above the general public's interests.
[/quote]
I would never support landowners to benefit in the manner you just described, if you think I suggested that you were mistaken. I am constantly reminded that in NE Washington even though residents and their legislators have certain beliefs, the majority living in the I-5 corridor and their legislators have different beliefs. I think the same scenario could apply with you in Montana! Is it possible that your beliefs and what you perceive to be in the public's best interest is not exactly what the majority of Montanans actually believe is in their best interest?
Post by: JLS on January 02, 2016, 10:17:50 PM
Your continued assertion about predators is confusing. Have you read the EMP? If so, you would understand that the elk objectives were set in 2004. Debbie Barrett's legislation mandated that all elk units would be managed at or below the objective population. Thus, it doesn't matter HOW MANY predators you kill in many units, the state is prohibited by law to manage for more elk. This would include the Northern Yellowstone herd, which was one of the primary talking points of the original article.QuoteYour going to have to show me where the legislature mandated MFWP to allow wolves to populate to the extent they reduced the Northern Yellowstone Elk Herd from nearly 20,000 elk to a struggling 4,000 animals and to totally eliminate the elk seasons that many hunters relied on for years to fill their freezer? Your also going to have to show me where the legislature mandated for the herd declines in the bitteroot! I have to question if that's what the legislature actually did!The legislature mandated to manage at or below objective. Objectives come with season structure/harvest guidelines. The elk herd in Bitterroot was identified as over objective, meaning a very liberal antlerless harvest was implemented. As a result, hunters shot the crap out of elk herds over several years. Biologists finally acknowledged that a number of elk being counted in objective population were actually inaccessible to the public because they spent nearly all of their time on private land that did not allow hunting and therefore should not have been counted as part of the populations (per the EMP). Elk herd went to very limited season structure/harvest guideline and as a result herd numbers are improving. Make sense?
Wolves and lions were present in the Bitterroot before the population crashed. I'm not going to delve into an argument as to what caused the crash, but I don't think it rocket science to correlate the timing of the crash and look at antlerless elk harvest data leading up to that. Herd numbers began responding immediately to reduced hunting,despite relatively unchanged populations of lions and wolves.CORRECTION: lion quotas were reduced in the same general period. Also, the article added below speaks to the legislative mandate to lower herd numbers.
Also, I have two elk units transposed. The Northern Yellowstone elk herd is in HD 314. I was actually looking at the objective for HD 316, on the west side of the Paradise Valley, which is at objective despite only several thousand elk. The Northern Yellowstone herd does not have an objective. However, please tell me how FWP an effectively alter this herd via predator harvest when the majority of the herd calves and summers inside of YNP and grizzlies are still an ESA species? If you want to make FWP a whipping boy for something, that's fine. I have. However, it would make sense to use an example that they actually have a high degree of direct control over. This isn't one of them.
Lastly, you're acting like these two units are the entirety of elk hunting in Montana. I personally take much greater issue with the abysmal elk management in the Missouri Breaks, and I'm willing to bet a lot of Montana hunters would agree with me. At the same time, I could just as easily point out units that have TONS of elk along with grizzly bears, wolves, and lions. Bottom line, not everything is black and white and to try to use two hunt districts to paint a picture of elk hunting and elk management in Montana is missing the bigger picture.
What would you suggest FWP does for better elk management?QuoteIncrease predator harvest where needed. They have proof cougar are impacting the Bitteroot and wolves have impacted the northern Yellowstone.See above comment reference the Bitterroot harvest guidelines and YNP issues with predator harvest. So your entire synopsis of how to improve elk management is to shoot more predators? What about access issues and elk that migrate to inaccessible ranches? What about public land elk herds that get hammered under liberal season structures because of "over objective" elk herds that include elk that primarily reside on private land?QuoteI completely agree that elk learn where to go for safety during hunting seasons. It's obvious you did not read my comment correctly and again misinterpreted my comments. Perhaps I didn't clarify well enough? I meant to say that certain landowners are not hunting elk and neighboring landowners are being impacted when those elk enter their property outside of current hunting seasons. The impacted landowners need an opportunity to hunt those elk when the elk enter their lands. I also don't expect any landowners to be forced to allow public hunting on their land. I didn't ask for the landowners creating the undermanaged elk herds to be given a special season for their benefiit, there's quite a difference between what I said and what you implied I said. I hope you can see the difference?In the past, so long as a landowner allowed reasonable public hunting during the general season, they would qualify for a damage season if a herd of elk spilled into their haystacks in the winter. Now, that privilege is potentially being extended to landowners who do not allow any hunting all, and also possibly/very likely expanded into an extended season granted without documented damage being done at all.
I certainly agree that a landowner should not pay the price because their neighbor does not allow any or enough hunting. I am entirely sympathetic and empathetic to elk management issues that can/do affect landowners. However, with a little compromise some very good solutions can be reached. One rancher I know outfits for two weeks then allows public hunting for three weeks. The public hunting is primarily for antlerless elk with some permit only bull hunting. Another outfitter I know allowed free public cow hunting so long as it didn't directly interfere with his client's mule deer hunts. He did so because he realized the impacts his neighbors could suffer and was trying to do the right thing.QuoteI was able to read the link, it was downloading rather than opening and I figured that out finally, LOL. Thanks, it was good reading. I saw and wasn't surprised that hound hunters on that working group were the most supportive of more cougar and for trophy cougar but they did settle on a nearly identical proposal as the status quo. It appeared outfitters were more in line with other hunters agreeing with more balanced management. I know an outfitter and hound hunter in Region 2 who says there should be longer cougar seasons and higher quotas but he wasn't on the working group. I must say the majority of the opinions I referenced live in other regions and I don't know if there have been cougar working groups in those regions? But it says hound hunters on the working group did support higher cougar numbers in Region 2 so I was incorrect about region 2.The same attitudes are/were very prevalent in Region 3 and 4 when I attended the meetings.QuoteI would never support landowners to benefit in the manner you just described, if you think I suggested that you were mistaken. I am constantly reminded that in NE Washington even though residents and their legislators have certain beliefs, the majority living in the I-5 corridor and their legislators have different beliefs. I think the same scenario could apply with you in Montana! Is it possible that your beliefs and what you perceive to be in the public's best interest is not exactly what the majority of Montanans actually believe is in their best interest?I never said you suggested that, I was merely explaining my stance. I am sorry if it came across that I was implying you made any statements.
As to representation you are correct but incorrect. Many of the counties in Montana are VERY conservative Republican and very pro-stockgrower/private property rights. The majority of hunters in Montana are not represented very well in the legislature, particularly in the Senate. Legislation is constantly introduced that would be damaging to the public land hunter. It's been that way for many years and appears to be getting worse.
So, to answer your last question, it would again depend on who you are asking. The majority of hunters in Montana are public land hunters, so in my opinion the answer would be yes. There are current and past legislators who would love to have FWP cater to their economic interest at the expense of the public land hunter. They would answer no. I am not anti-landowner, anti-outfitter, anti-houndsman. I am pro-North American model and pro-Public Trust Doctrine to the core. That is what guides my beliefs and dictates my stances.
You seem to take issue with how critical I am of certain legislators in Montana, and I'm not sure why that is. I am equally critical of FWP's elk management plan. I believe it is entirely too conservative, and wonder at times if that was done purposely to placate an angry landowner contingent. If so, then FWP set themselves up to be back-doored by Senator Barrett who then made it law for FWP manage at or below their objectives and put themselves in the position where they are today.
Even very small concessions in terms of public access would greatly change the nature of elk hunting in Montana. Maybe things will change and maybe they won't. However, I will stand firmly behind my opinion that lack of hunter access and legislative pressures in regards to elk management are far greater threats to elk hunters in Montana than wolves ever will be. The 2000 cow elk that hunters used to kill at Gardiner could easily be made up across the state if there were different attitudes and approaches amongst all involved. Continuing to worry about a wolf that was reintroduced 20 years ago is detracting efforts from actually finding meaningful solutions to much more impactful problems.
Edit: I referenced the Absaroka study earlier, here is the link to it. Also, a study on the Bitterroot was added. BOTH OF THESE WERE FUNDED BY SPORTSMEN'S GROUPS. I also changed an incorrect statement that I had in my above post.
http://wyocoopunit.org/projects/absaroka-elk-ecology-project#Funders
There are some very interesting results in these studies. I don't think it's unreasonable to look at the Absaroka study and question how much of this is applicable to the Northern Yellowstone herd? After all they summer in very close proximity to each other. There were well documented examples of very low calf recruitment and a rapidly aging cow population in the Northern Yellowstone elk herd dating back to the mid-90's.
Why is it that elk numbers in the Sunlight Basin area have been increasing across the past decade despite the presence of multiple wolf packs? I am starting to believe more and more the predators are doing the dirty job of exposing and potentially magnifying bigger underlying issues that cause population declines. That doesn't mean I think they are good and we need more wolves, or really any at all. I'm simply saying that they directly or indirectly (in the case of both of the referenced studies) bring to light issues that have much greater significance in terms of population management.
The Bitterroot study points out critical variations in how different elk herds respond to aggressive antlerless harvest. It also brings up the "H" word as a key factor in population dynamics. It's interesting to note that even despite the Bitterroot studies, there was extreme resistance by houndsmen to increase lion quotas, hence the formation of the working group to address the issues.
Read these articles and derive your own conclusions. I'm not here to tell anyone what to think. I'll tell you what I think, but I can also present facts and examples to support it, and it will be peer reviewed science, not an op-ed from the Canadian Press or a blog post from Lobowatch.
You can't expect biologists to use science for management if you refuse to believe it.
Post by: bearpaw on January 03, 2016, 12:03:01 AM
Post by: JLS on January 03, 2016, 07:07:28 AM
All we have to do is shoot more predators and all will be right with elk hunting in Montana.
Post by: Houndhunter on January 03, 2016, 07:57:12 AM