# Montana Shuts Down Wolf Harvest....WTH?!?!?!



## klbzdad (Apr 3, 2012)

I'm pretty disgusted at this prospect. There is ZERO biology or science to support their decision....its solely based on a couple of crappy ass groups of anti's. Decide how you feel for yourself.

Billings Gazette Article on Wolves

:roll:


----------



## Duckholla (Sep 24, 2007)

Sounds to me like they're just being proactive. Those collared dogs provide them with a large portion of their data, if too many get taken out that makes it harder for them to do their research. It's not the whole state, sounds like it's just a specific area to me, and it isn't permenant. 

I wouldn't get too excited over this, as distructive as those things can be they still need to be managed correctly like any other wild game animal.


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

... but the collared ones are the easiest to hunt. I mean you buy a simple reciever off ebay and aim it around till you get a signal... -8/- 


-_O- :^8^: 


-DallanC


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

Thing is, there is nothing about wolves that has anything to do with biology. It is pure emotion. From ALL sides.


----------



## MadHunter (Nov 17, 2009)

GaryFish said:


> Thing is, there is nothing about wolves that has anything to do with biology. It is pure emotion. From ALL sides.


And lets not forget P.R. (I don't mean Puerto Rico)


----------



## klbzdad (Apr 3, 2012)

DallanC said:


> ... but the collared ones are the easiest to hunt. I mean you buy a simple reciever off ebay and aim it around till you get a signal... -8/-
> 
> -_O- :^8^:
> 
> -DallanC


 -_O- -_O- -_O-

Oh, I anticipated them doing this very thing. The stupid part is they only decided this out of pure public perceived perception.....in other words, they were paranoid that their collard "pet" doggies that were sooooo famous (I call it human presence habituated) were shot for wondering out of the "zone". Well, I hunt on public land and some of it boarders private property and a national monument off limits to hunters. Am i supposed to be considerate of one of the Cedar Breaks bucks or bulls if they step across lines onto public land and I have a tag? Let me answer that, NOPE. Not too butt hurt or excited just yet, but remember, any time the anti's do something "proactively" look how long and expensive it is to undo their "pro-activity". I thought laughing was a form of emotion....now I'm so confused. 

Another Article on the "Buffer Zone"


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

The Fish and Wildlife service rely heavily on collared wolves, to locate packs for removal of problem animals also. I spoke with a guy that has shot a lot of wolves in Idaho(Nez Perze) and its a concern from their point of view also. It is a PR problem, a science problem, and a management problem. To keep hunting wolves, and avoid these kinds of issues, a compromise is going to be needed on collared wolves. Any time a collared, or numbered wolf is killed, that data is logged. That information can be seen at some point by the anti-hunting crowd. Wolves that are not collared or numbered, dont carry this consequence. If there is not a lot of publicity, and data, that show how many wolves hunter shoot, then it is not happening, and that info cant be used in anti hunting campaigns, right? This is kind of like SSS, I would think that some might get this.


----------



## Cooky (Apr 25, 2011)

Does anyone know what percentage wolves are collared? Is there an attempt to have a representative sample or if one happens along they put a collar on it? Are the collared wolves really being targeted by hunters or are they just the dumb ones that got too close to people for a second time (the first time they got a collar not shot)?


----------



## stillhunterman (Feb 15, 2009)

Cooky,

At the end of 2011 there were appx 17 percent of Yellowstone's wolves collared. Currently, efforts are being made to have 30 to 35 percent collared. Specific wolves are definitely chosen, such as the Alpha male/female of each pack. Also, northern wolves are getting more attention and may have more collars per capita; they are reducing in number quicker and more drastic than central park wolves. So yeah, those who do the collaring do target specific wolves and packs/areas. Hope this helps.

As for hunters targeting wolves, I just don't buy it. The researchers are ticked off the critters with collars are being killed, and what better way to stop that from happening than to blame the legal hunters who are killing them and raise a huge stink about it. This whole thing could get ugly fast. I can't believe the Montana commission decided to do what they did with the buffer zone deal. Guess we will see how it all plays out.


----------



## Cooky (Apr 25, 2011)

stillhunterman said:


> Cooky,
> 
> At the end of 2011 there were appx 17 percent of Yellowstone's wolves collared. Currently, efforts are being made to have 30 to 35 percent collared. Specific wolves are definitely chosen, such as the Alpha male/female of each pack. Also, northern wolves are getting more attention and may have more collars per capita; they are reducing in number quicker and more drastic than central park wolves. So yeah, those who do the collaring do target specific wolves and packs/areas. Hope this helps.
> 
> As for hunters targeting wolves, I just don't buy it. The researchers are ticked off the critters with collars are being killed, and what better way to stop that from happening than to blame the legal hunters who are killing them and raise a huge stink about it. This whole thing could get ugly fast. I can't believe the Montana commission decided to do what they did with the buffer zone deal. Guess we will see how it all plays out.


Thank you.


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

The thing I find interesting, and in all reality, I think it is a pretty good poker hand by Montana Wildlife Board. And that is, the STATE wildlife board did this. Not the Feds. Not a Judge. Not a law suit. The STATE did. And above all, the claim for state control has been central to the wolf debate. And I think it is a good move. Is it reactionary? Perhaps it is. But when the wolfie lovers claim the state just wants to kill them all, Montana now has yet another example of how they can effectively manage the wolves, being sensitive to all sides of it, and support the science of this on-going wolf experiment. Sure, this may appear that the battle was lost, but this was a brilliant move in the long-term war.


----------



## klbzdad (Apr 3, 2012)

Holy piss! Gary, you just changed my perspective! I owe you dinner!


----------



## bwhntr (Sep 12, 2007)

GaryFish said:


> The thing I find interesting, and in all reality, I think it is a pretty good poker hand by Montana Wildlife Board. And that is, the STATE wildlife board did this. Not the Feds. Not a Judge. Not a law suit. The STATE did. And above all, the claim for state control has been central to the wolf debate. And I think it is a good move. Is it reactionary? Perhaps it is. But when the wolfie lovers claim the state just wants to kill them all, Montana now has yet another example of how they can effectively manage the wolves, being sensitive to all sides of it, and support the science of this on-going wolf experiment. Sure, this may appear that the battle was lost, but this was a brilliant move in the long-term war.


Gary doesn't say too many things that I care to even post a response to...however...
Just when I thought you couldn't possibly be any dumber, you go and say something like this... and totally redeem yourself!" :mrgreen:

Interesting perspective.


----------



## klbzdad (Apr 3, 2012)

bwhntr said:


> GaryFish said:
> 
> 
> > The thing I find interesting, and in all reality, I think it is a pretty good poker hand by Montana Wildlife Board. And that is, the STATE wildlife board did this. Not the Feds. Not a Judge. Not a law suit. The STATE did. And above all, the claim for state control has been central to the wolf debate. And I think it is a good move. Is it reactionary? Perhaps it is. But when the wolfie lovers claim the state just wants to kill them all, Montana now has yet another example of how they can effectively manage the wolves, being sensitive to all sides of it, and support the science of this on-going wolf experiment. Sure, this may appear that the battle was lost, but this was a brilliant move in the long-term war.
> ...


Right? Sometimes we get so stinking wound up in our own narrow views we fail to see what others see. This time last year, I was bitter about SFW and now, I'm just bitter about the past and present leadership but see huge changes coming that hopefully include crystal clear transparency and a change of the guard that changes the focus right back to where it was promised it would be. Again, by 2016 I hope we see good things. If only now we could control, manipulate, and vote on the weather. Stupid Mother Nature....


----------



## bwhntr (Sep 12, 2007)

Too true klbzdad. At the least we can hope for a statewide archery and open season on wolves...come on 2016. 8)


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

klbzdad said:


> Holy ****! Gary, you just changed my perspective! I owe you dinner!


Glad to be of some help. ;-)


----------

