Montana Wolf hunters!

Discussion in 'Wolf Hunting' started by Realtalk, Jan 29, 2019.


Help Support Long Range Hunting by donating:


  1. mustang58

    mustang58 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    269
    Joined:
    May 22, 2010
    Just to set the record straight. Wolves were put in Idaho 2 different places on back to back years. The first was at the end of the Salmon River road at Corn Cr. 1995. The second was in the back country in 1996. I don't remember the exact numbers but I think 20 the first time and 15 or so the second. I think actually there were more wolves put in Idaho than Yellowstone.
     
    HARPERC and RockyMtnMT like this.
  2. mtmuley

    mtmuley Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    517
    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2007
    Interesting. I've researched this a bunch. Got a link to info? mtmuley
     
  3. HARPERC

    HARPERC Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    5,456
    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2011
    My recollection of the refusal to admit they were here, was to pave the way for the imported wolves-if a recovering population existed-then transplant was illegal under the Endangered Species Act. There was a wolf killed by a coyote hunter on the Wyoming side. Those opposing wolf transplant pressed for prosecution-USFWS refused. Nobody really cared about the wolf, the issue was forcing USFWS to go on record wolves were here. A couple of road kills also disappeared into the swamp.
    As far as sightings etc. the Washington Lynx Fraud is an example of how big a lie they will perpetuate. If the Endangered Species Act won't work, we have the Undiscovered Species Act (Bigfoot) to fall back on. Likewise if we can't discover it, we can re-classify an existing animal. Weak genetics becomes an endangered Columbia Whitetail. Occasional color variant Black Footed Ferret, Dolly Varden becomes a Bull Trout-or is it the other way around.
    Changing the courts will hopefully help, but it still requires a pocket like Weyerhauser, to oppose the pockets of the Government.

    https://www.theadvocate.com/new_orl...cle_f772de78-f257-11e8-9334-778ea9f2d69a.html
     
  4. HARPERC

    HARPERC Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    5,456
    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2011
    I'll look as well, but I recall it the same way.
     
  5. NEMTHunter

    NEMTHunter Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    800
    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2014
  6. mtmuley

    mtmuley Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    517
    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2007
    I need to go through what info I have. Pretty sure my info is from the USFWS. Been wrong before though. mtmuley
     
  7. HARPERC

    HARPERC Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    5,456
    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2011
    Last edited: Apr 12, 2019
  8. BigGrizz

    BigGrizz Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    154
    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2014
    So I'm a podcast consumer. I listen to a lot of stuff, but I enjoy a lot of hunting and outdoor rec productions. I've started to sense a growing "environmentalist" tinge in some of the discussions between the bigger names out there today. It's almost as if there is some kind of insurgency within the hunting community. I do believe some of it is well intentioned and other parts more malicious. We should all be more diligent in the face of the aggressive advancement of ill-intentioned environmental policy and advocacy.

    I tend to agree that there is poor wildlife management across the Rockies, but some states have more influential variables than others. Here in WY for instance the Bighorn herds have suffered (Whiskey Mt herd especially) and now we're looking at really putting a damper on Mt Goats in some areas. I think WY G&F takes a mixed approach with quality goals in some areas and quantity goals in others. Moose and Mule Deer? WTHK.... I'm worried that one day we'll have an announced suspension of Mule Deer hunting or a real limit put on tags. All of this with poor census and estimation of predators.

    If one would sit down and read the most recent WGFD wolf report you would see that WY only seeks to get the minimum numbers. Nowhere in the report will you find an estimation of the actual population- at least that was the case last year. Idaho has their approach. So does MT. I think there is some coordination to a degree, but the demographics, geography and ecology in each state makes collective, coordinated management difficult at a certain point.

    What we need to be concerned about as outdoorsmen is giving that inch that they reel off into a mile. From what I understand, Colorado is being proactive with gaining control of wolves before they really dig in. Thats something the other states haven't done and it has cost them.

    Here shortly I think the big bears will become a more focused problem as they've started to move beyond the peaks and slopes to the open plains. There's enough agriculture in the Bighorn Basin to support them as they spread to the Bighorn Range. I have little doubt of this with court arguments over what the actual management area is, what their proper range is, and what exactly is the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem.

    I was once ok with having the large predators in the ecosystem. Not a proponent or opponent. I was the outdoorsman equivalent of Switzerland. Let me have my elk and deer tags every fall and I'll be peachy keen. That is no longer the case.

    I've come to the point where I can say yeah, perhaps the wolves and bears need to be in the Park to stabilize that environment in an attempt to keep it as natural and as close to unmolested as possible. I can kind of get onboard with that. Outside of the park? No. They may have had their place at one time, but not anymore. That world is gone and it isn't coming back. We are the super predator now, and there is no need for competition and conflict because those animals will lose a greater amount of the time.

    And who are we as a species to say exactly how this world should look in the future. Granted, we have had our effect, but what is the proper balance point? Nobody really knows, and it's difficult to attain it with so many conflicting opinions and government bodies in conflict. It's a difficult problem to navigate and solve.

    TL/DR Outside of the park, the wolves and bears are in my world and they will be reminded of that fact.
     
    Last edited: Apr 16, 2019 at 9:07 PM
    mspar likes this.
  9. MtPockets

    MtPockets Well-Known Member LRH Team Member

    Messages:
    367
    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2011
    BigGrizz, I'm with you 100%. I also used to be ok with the wolves and big bears being around, but with the extremism I see on the other side I felt like I had no choice but to take a more "kill them all" mentality.
    The problem, as I see it, is that our fish and game departments seem to be giving in to those who want to see a wolf or a bear behind every tree.
    What they don't seem to understand is that WE pay their wages and their bills. By letting the wolf and bear populations get out of hand to the point where it affects our hunting THEIR livelihood is very much at stake.
    Unfortunately, so is the livelihood of many folks who have absolutely no control over predator numbers.
     
    BigGrizz likes this.
  10. HARPERC

    HARPERC Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    5,456
    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2011
    https://www.facebook.com/BigGameFor...OVJrZRlIZkaE83yvcKJZsbFr8cjVn6HEZTvvB9Mw9Z-DE

    Before Washington had wolves, bears were taking a documented 50% of the elk calves. (Yeah I know it's not an elk). The American model of management has been to provide harvestable excesses for hunters. The calf survival in places is such there is no harvestable excess, some have likely passed that point. At some point a choice needs be made, I choose fewer bears, wolves, cougars, coyotes etc.
     
    RockyMtnMT and L.Sherm like this.