Post by: wolfbait on October 20, 2010, 06:52:55 PM
Post by: denali on October 21, 2010, 03:59:22 PM
Post by: addicted on October 25, 2010, 12:00:49 AM
Post by: denali on October 25, 2010, 01:27:07 AM
Post by: rock on October 31, 2010, 11:17:49 AM
Post by: christopheri on October 31, 2010, 11:26:05 AM
Post by: Lowedog on October 31, 2010, 11:42:12 AM
Still 48 to 52 667 people voted yes and 721 voted no. Why would anyone vote no? :dunno:
This may be one reason why someone would vote no... http://www.dailyinterlake.com/news/local_montana/article_981d4cc4-dbf4-11df-bc74-001cc4c002e0.html (http://www.dailyinterlake.com/news/local_montana/article_981d4cc4-dbf4-11df-bc74-001cc4c002e0.html)
Quote
Montana has had a similar agreement since 2004 that is set to expire at the end of this year, and Montana will negotiate for continuing its role in wolf management, said Carolyn Sime, who heads wolf management efforts for Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks.
“Our agency leadership has decided that ... it’s in the best interests of Montana in the long term to keep Fish, Wildlife and Parks on the ground,” she said from her Helena office.
The reason for that, simply put, is that Montana has considerable leverage and discretion in how to respond to wolves that are impacting wildlife and livestock.
“If we think an entire pack needs to be removed ... we’re the ones that still make that decision rather than the federal government,” Sime said. “Why would we give that up? It doesn’t make sense.”
As another example, she noted that Kent Laudon, the state biologist who monitors wolves in Northwest Montana, has several years of experience in talking with hunters, working with landowners and livestock growers and following wolf packs.
“He’s not a fed,” Sime said. “He’s a state guy.”