Anti's get their way in Montana

bsnedeker

Well Known Rokslider
Joined
May 17, 2018
Messages
2,864
Location
MT
Just got an email notification from FWP that the anti's won a court order to stop the wolf regulation changes made last year. We are back to a limit of 5 total wolves per year instead of 20, decreased quotas in the areas with the highest numbers of wolves, and snares are taken away as a method of take.

Pretty absurd considering our wolf harvest remained essentially unchanged from years past even with the extremely loosened regulations. Our wolf population remains about 3 times the number where we were supposed to change their status to recovered.

Sent from my SM-G998U1 using Tapatalk
 

WCB

Well Known Rokslider
Joined
Jun 12, 2019
Messages
2,535
I guess I am totally lost on the challenge...why can't a pro hunting group now file a complaint in favor of the new regulations and the court order be temporarily halted while that is figured out. The whole system is baffling. It is like here in MN...they were delisted we hunted/trapped for a couple years. Populations stills stable but a simple court order puts them back on the list. What is to stop them from putting elk on the list or mule deer due to population declines?
 

FLATHEAD

Well Known Rokslider
Joined
Jun 27, 2021
Messages
1,922
Same reason Florida cant have a bear season even though they're covered up with them.
Pressure from Anti-Hunting groups and the uninformed general population.
Hunters need to be more vocal about why we have game populations
and who fits the bill.
And remind the pine nut munching, tie dyed wildlife gawkers they wouldn't have anything to look at if it weren't for hunters.
 

black dawg

Well Known Rokslider
Joined
Jan 17, 2017
Messages
471
Location
sw mt
It sucks that these numbers are so easily changed by both sides, but it really does nothing to change the amount of wolves being killed. The same few guys that have always been killing them will still be doing their thing. Meanwhile the rest of us do nothing more than buy a tag just in case, very few ever actually devoting any time. Myself included.
 

S.Clancy

Well Known Rokslider
Joined
Jan 28, 2015
Messages
1,557
Location
Montana
It sucks that these numbers are so easily changed by both sides, but it really does nothing to change the amount of wolves being killed. The same few guys that have always been killing them will still be doing their thing. Meanwhile the rest of us do nothing more than buy a tag just in case, very few ever actually devoting any time. Myself included.
This is exactly right.
 

MT257

Well Known Rokslider
Joined
Sep 25, 2016
Messages
1,070
I know this is for Montana, but the way the politicians have gone about wolf regulations in both Montana and Idaho in past years I wouldn’t be surprised to see bigger issues with wolf management in the future.
 

N.ID7803

Well Known Rokslider
Joined
Nov 25, 2020
Messages
333
Location
N. Idaho
Yeah its ridiculous how these things can even happen with the facts that are out there:

Northern Rocky Mountain Distinct Population Segment (NRMDPS) area includes all of Idaho,
Montana, Wyoming, eastern 1/3 of both Washington and Oregon as well as a
portion of Utah
o Recovery Goal for the NRMDPS: 300 total wolves
o Management Objectives: 1100 total w 500 in ID, 400 in MT, 2-300 in WY
o Current population: 3300+ total, 1543 in ID, 1100 in MT, 314 in WY
o We have 3 times the management objectives set by the US Fish and Wildlife
Service

They do this same stuff in the forestry industry as well. Its down right criminal. Best thing we can do is try to inform those who are not informed.
 

S.Clancy

Well Known Rokslider
Joined
Jan 28, 2015
Messages
1,557
Location
Montana
Yeah its ridiculous how these things can even happen with the facts that are out there:

Northern Rocky Mountain Distinct Population Segment (NRMDPS) area includes all of Idaho,
Montana, Wyoming, eastern 1/3 of both Washington and Oregon as well as a
portion of Utah
o Recovery Goal for the NRMDPS: 300 total wolves
o Management Objectives: 1100 total w 500 in ID, 400 in MT, 2-300 in WY
o Current population: 3300+ total, 1543 in ID, 1100 in MT, 314 in WY
o We have 3 times the management objectives set by the US Fish and Wildlife
Service

They do this same stuff in the forestry industry as well. Its down right criminal. Best thing we can do is try to inform those who are not informed.
I think the forestry stuff (suing to stop harvest) is significantly more egregious than the wolf stuff. Arguing that logging destroys habitat is a joke. I've been able to track a logging project in SW MT pre and post logging, the biodiversity shift is insane. Turns out early successional plants provide feed and habitat for a number of different critters. This is based on personal observation.
 
Joined
Sep 26, 2022
Messages
94
Location
B.C
Governing by Emotion Not Science.
It's pure BS that they sell out to the anti movement! Not looking after what's good for ALL WILDLIFE and not just Wolves, Bears and Cats.....
It's pathetic really ........
And it's happening slowly everywhere.
Just like the Grizzly Bear closure in BC ...... Oh unless your first Nations of course.
Our Managers have become Weak, Lame, no room for a pair of balls, they cave to the Votes and that right there is the bottom line.
Wildlife management has become a political pawn, management happens by emotion, not Science.
They do not manage for all species.
Shame on the Officials making these decisions.
 

Forestryguy

Well Known Rokslider
Joined
Jan 23, 2014
Messages
620
Location
Wisconsin
As hunters we need to organize better than we are now. We need to stop bickering between each other and start putting our time, voices and money together. The anti-hunting crowd has won the hearts and minds game so far and fundraising game. Most of us that hunt and harvest timber are also not the type that want to make the Fed agencies pay back the cost of our court costs. It also doesn't help that the majority of the US population now lives in cities and is never exposed, in anyway, to hunting, wildlife and timber management.
 

Lawnboi

Well Known Rokslider
Joined
Mar 2, 2012
Messages
6,573
Location
North Central Wi
You can still kill 5 wolves a piece. The real problem is no one hunts them in general. They complain about them, but don't hunt them.
Careful what you wish for. Last season we had in WI they killed so many it gave the antis the fuel to shut it down.
 
OP
bsnedeker

bsnedeker

Well Known Rokslider
Joined
May 17, 2018
Messages
2,864
Location
MT
Update last night from FWP: A win for the good guys!

Court ruling reinstates the 2022 wolf hunting and trapping regulations

HELENA – Montana’s 2022 wolf regulations passed by the Fish and Wildlife Commission in August will go back in effect immediately after a court ruling in a lawsuit against Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks denied the plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction and lifted a temporary restraining order.

The lawsuit challenges Montana’s wolf management. Two weeks ago the judge in the case issued a temporary restraining order reverting wolf regulations back to the 2020 wolf hunting and trapping season. That temporary restraining order expired Tuesday.

Though the court denied the plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction, the lawsuit is still ongoing.

Wolf hunting season is open across Montana, as defined in the 2022 wolf regulations. This includes wolf management unit 313, which borders the area north of Yellowstone National Park. The quota in this WMU 313 is six wolves.

Trapping for wolves remains closed in areas with occupied grizzly bear habitat.

Bear activity is still high in many areas as bears prepare to enter their winter dens. Trapping season in occupied grizzly bear habitat will be closed until bear activity decreases or Dec. 31, whichever comes first. FWP staff will assess bear activity on a weekly basis and may open areas to trapping if bear activity decreases.

Wolf hunters and trappers can find many resources about wolves online, including:
 

N.ID7803

Well Known Rokslider
Joined
Nov 25, 2020
Messages
333
Location
N. Idaho
Real good news. Sounds like the anti’s brought a butter knife to a gun fight!

From Montana Trappers Association.
Here is a brief summary of the hearing today on the wolf preliminary hearing:

-> None of the three individuals the plaintiff called to the stand had working knowledge of how IPOM is used to produce population estimates in Montana
-> Only one of the witnesses has lived in Montana and been involved in our wolf management plan. She moved here in June of last summer
-> All of the witnesses gave testimony that they had not felt there was opportunity for their concerns to be addressed through public commenting periods. After being cross-examined, they all agreed that there had been ample opportunity.
-> All three witnesses admitted to not requesting information from FWP detailing IPOM. The question was then asked to all how they could possibly testify against it knowing no details.
-> The one factual statement that was relevant to today’s hearing was made by an individual who’s testimony may get thrown out based on the question that he is experienced enough in the field to give testimony. That argument was never an opportunity to compare IPOM to any other method the state has used, IPOM has always accounted for a higher number of wolves.
-> The legal team for FWP is by no means allowing any sub-par testimony to go unquestioned. They came prepared and loaded for bear.
 
OP
bsnedeker

bsnedeker

Well Known Rokslider
Joined
May 17, 2018
Messages
2,864
Location
MT
Real good news. Sounds like the anti’s brought a butter knife to a gun fight!

From Montana Trappers Association.
Here is a brief summary of the hearing today on the wolf preliminary hearing:

-> None of the three individuals the plaintiff called to the stand had working knowledge of how IPOM is used to produce population estimates in Montana
-> Only one of the witnesses has lived in Montana and been involved in our wolf management plan. She moved here in June of last summer
-> All of the witnesses gave testimony that they had not felt there was opportunity for their concerns to be addressed through public commenting periods. After being cross-examined, they all agreed that there had been ample opportunity.
-> All three witnesses admitted to not requesting information from FWP detailing IPOM. The question was then asked to all how they could possibly testify against it knowing no details.
-> The one factual statement that was relevant to today’s hearing was made by an individual who’s testimony may get thrown out based on the question that he is experienced enough in the field to give testimony. That argument was never an opportunity to compare IPOM to any other method the state has used, IPOM has always accounted for a higher number of wolves.
-> The legal team for FWP is by no means allowing any sub-par testimony to go unquestioned. They came prepared and loaded for bear.
Lol...sounds about right. What a bunch of clowns!
 
Top