Grizzly news for MT and WY

[FlareBlitz91]

Probably because Idaho has not had a success elk population in wolf predation zones and despite the bounty on the wolves they're still not shrinking in population.

Pescetism is right, I shouldn't derail the discussion, so this will be my last comment on wolves in Idaho.

The report for the current management plan lays out quantitative data on wolf population, range, predation on ungulates, and livestock conflict, that report builds a beautiful narrative through data on what an objective reader would read as a wildlife management success story. Population stable between 1100-1200 wolves for about 10 years, wolf harvest by hunters and trappers stable at between 300-400 wolves per year, yes there are wilderness areas where elk remain below objective, IDFG cites data on the fact that while 70% of a wolf's diet is elk, only about 6% of calf elk are lost to predation and 3.5% of adult cow elk to wolves. Additional limiting factors are the usual suspects, habitat(!!!), winter severity, and human harvest. The commonly cited areas with low elk numbers that used to hold more elk have seen forest composition changes over the past several decades that has drastically lowered the carrying capacity in those zones. IDFG goes on to detail that they use wolf removal in those zones as a tool to alleviate pressure on the elk. Yes there is livestock predation, but those numbers have also remained stable over the years and there are tools there too for compensation as well as government programs to remove "problem" wolves.

WHen you have such stable numbers that you can practically set your watch to, in the world of wildlife biology, that is the type of success that we almost never see. It means we have an equilibrium and that the population is floating just under the carrying capacity.

The entirety of the report would suggest that IDFG should keep doing what they were doing in wolf management, not perfect across the board but about as close as anyone gets. Then all of a sudden they leap to this conclusion that the population should be cut in over half.

The 500 number they are citing isn't some biological truth, its a number that was suggested by USFWS in the mid 00's when there weren't that many, as we know the word of USFWS isn't the word of god, they are required by law to make decisions based off of the best data available to them at the time, which they did. However we now have 2 decades of data in Idaho that is showing that the state can handle the number it currently has.

I promise I'm bringing this back to ESA and state level management....IDFG made this decision not based off of science but based off of state agricultural and other interests in a way that is unsupported by the very data they cite and present.

If a federal agency did that they could be sued for being what the courts call "arbitrary and capricious," but when a state does it you have no recourse because they can manage wildlife however they see fit from one year to the next, which is what Bigsky is getting at. The states do not leave me with a warm and fuzzy feeling that they are going to do this properly.

 

[FlareBlitz91]

I think the antis attribute more power to the hunting lobby than they should and vice versa, I think some of us think the anti-hunting lobby is behind all of this and it isn't. We're tiny voices in all of this.

One thing I will say as a hunter and all around outdoorsman who values public lands and wild places, protections on grizzly bears end up protecting their habitat, habitat that is shared by animals we like to pursue.

If we snapped our fingers and removed the ESA tomorrow, there would be a LOT of habitat potentially on the chopping block for increased resource extraction and development that would contribute to declines in many species.

I think a lot of people believe that the ESA is used as a weapon from only one direction, is it pollitical? of course, everything in our lives is political in one way or another, but I'd argue there are more species that should be listed that aren't because of politics than vice versa. The fact that "candidate" species exist is a testament to that, those are species where the services have found they justify listing but that listing is precluded by some other factors, which are often political. Monarch butterflies have been circling the drain for years now while being a "candidate" species and they only just proposed to list them last month.

I hunt sage grouse knowing full well we might see their extinction in my lifetime, not because of hunting, but because of habitat fragmentation due to development, mainly oil and gas. They would most likely be listed if it wasn't for political dealings.

 

[HingleMcCringleberry]

I hunt sage grouse knowing full well we might see their extinction in my lifetime

So that's ok because you want to hunt them, vs the grizzly bear situation?

Let's face it, the USFWS has continously moved the goalposts of what recovery looks like since the 1990s. They have zero interest in ever removing lower 48 grizzly bears from the esa.

I can only assume it's to appease cat ladies living in NY. Whatever the reason it's disingenuous and not what the esa was enacted to do.

 

[mtwarden]

If the states fail at their mission, get them relisted. The continual assault with litigation and the subsequent moving of the bar is not science based, it's politically based—period.

If a person lived in Montana long enough you will remember that the state implemented a very science based hunting season (in consultation and with approval by the USFWS) in the 80's—this is while they were listed. The season had a very modest quota, with an even lower sub quota for sows; in addition ALL human mortality- car wrecks, trains, etc counted towards that quota. The anti hunting groups couldn't stand the idea of hunting the majestic grizzly, so they sued. First shopping for the right judge and then subsequently ending that season.

I've went from an avid supporter of the ESA, to sadly one who no longer is— based on what I've got to see for the last forty plus years. It appears it's no longer a tool for good, but instead a tool to press an agenda

 

[Grundy53]

Agree with this completely. Two years ago, MT started allowing black bear hunting with hounds. Last year the commission extended the season statewide until mid June. This year they voted to get rid of the sidebar that protected bear populations by shutting a unit down once the sow harvest reached 40%. This is all despite FWP biologists warning the commission that this liberalized harvest will lead to a reduction in the bear population.

This year legislators have already proposed a bill to allow year round wolf hunting, as well as other bills to liberalize wolf harvest. These actions do not give people a warm and fuzzy feeling about the state's ability to responsibly manage grizzly bear hunting.

It gives me a warm and fuzzy feeling.

Sent from my SM-S928U using Tapatalk

 

[Wrench]

I hunt sage grouse knowing full well we might see their extinction in my lifetime, not because of hunting, but because of habitat fragmentation due to development, mainly oil and gas. They would most likely be listed if it wasn't for political dealings.

Oil and gas are to blame? Not urban sprawl, farming practices (chemicals, fences and lack of cover habitat) and predation?

I've been part of state management strategies that focused on reducing predation and decreasing bird strikes on fences which is a serious problem for the dumber varieties of grouse.

 

[Wrench]