Montana: "Lets kill predator wolves"

Status
Not open for further replies.
That's good news, until some hippy-dippy, tree-hugging judge issues an injunction (which I'm sure is already in the works).

My folks just moved from Missoula back to Tennessee. They say the wolf population is out of control there. Part of the reason they moved back is the wolves have killed so much of the elk population. They moved to Montana to hunt elk.
 
Last edited:
For eons wolves have played an important role in balancing the ecosystem. But I agree, if property is being threatened or destroyed, you gotta do what you gotta do!
 
I can only imagine how bad it is there... Even at my cabin in northern MI, my family and hunting party have noticed a large decrease in deer population over the last couple of years. In those same few years, the wolf population has been getting much larger.
 
Finally catching up to Idaho are they. I, being from Oregon, am looking forward to getting together with some friends and taking a trip to ID or MT(once passed) to hunt Wolf.

Looks like you have to be a non-resident to hunt wolves in Idaho as I don't see a tag availalble for residents. I don't like this much, it doesn't allow the rancher being impacted by the wolves to do anything about it as a resident. That just seems odd, maybe it's a typo?

Source of data.
http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/apps/fees/

License Fees
Permit/Validation Fees
Controlled Hunt Tag Fees
Nonresident Tag Fees
Deer $301.75
Elk $416.75
Bear $186.00
Reduced & Second Bear $31.75
Mountain Lion $186.00
Reduced & Second Mountain Lion $31.75
Pronghorn $311.75
Turkey $80.00
Extra Turkey $80.00
Wolf $186.00
Moose, Bighorn Sheep, Mountain Goat (controlled hunt tag only, does not include nonrefundable $14.75 application fee) $2,101.75
Nonresident Junior Mentored Tags / Fees
Junior Mentored Deer Tag * $23.75
Junior Mentored Elk Tag * $39.75
Junior Mentored Bear Tag * $23.75
Second Bear * $23.75
Junior Mentored Turkey Tag ** $19.75
Extra Turkey ** $19.75
Click to expand...


License Fees
Permit/Validation Fees
Controlled Hunt Tag Fees
Resident Tag Fees
Idaho Residency Requirements
Deer $19.75
Elk $30.75
Bear $11.50
Second Bear $11.50
Mountain Lion $11.50
Second Mountain Lion $11.50
Pronghorn $31.25
Turkey $19.75
Extra Turkey $12.25
Moose, Bighorn Sheep, Mountain Goat (controlled hunt tag only, does not include nonrefundable $6.25 application fee) 166.75
Special Resident Tags / Fees
Junior/Senior/DAV Deer Tag * $10.75
Junior/Senior/DAV Elk Tag * $16.50
Junior/Senior/DAV Bear Tag * $6.75
Junior/Senior/DAV Turkey Tag * $10.75
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Idaho had the hunt for a short period but because of the ruling it had to stop. Even though the info is still on Idaho's website you cant hunt wolves there (at the moment). Just another great reason to scrape together the money to hunt in Alaska.
 
jeepmor,

You think those ranchers are gonna run to town and tell everyone he shot a wolf? Or be the first in line to buy a license? Get real, I'll bet they've already shot the tar out of them, don't most ranchers have tractors with front end loaders? Well, there in lies the answer, buried under cow flop!:eek:
 
Agreed. My guess is the "shoot, shovel, and shut up" method has been employed for awhile now. Unless ranchers are softer these days than they used to be...
 
"..."Lets kill predator wolves"..." That'd be all of 'em. I wonder how much it cost the tax payer when wolves were re-introduced.
Killing the predators isn't a great idea. Up here, the deer populations have exploded because of a lack of predators and the mile after mile after mile of corn and soy bean fields. It's only in the last few years that our MNR has woken up and allow more than one tag. I suspect the Insurance companies demanded it. Road kill claims are costing them millions.
"...gray wolf heards..." Grey wolf what?
 
Mans folly of trying to control the environment through thoughtless extermination continues...

The ecosystem is a delicate balance and we shouldn't fiddle with it like this...
 
Fully concur with "thoughtless extermination". The problem is that too many Ignoranti get all emotional against thoughtful control of populations--whether predator or prey.

I still maintain that the greatest enemies of rational control of species numbers in the wild were Felix Salter and Walt Disney. They anthropomorphized animals to the detriment of both animals and people.
 
I still maintain that the greatest enemies of rational control of species numbers in the wild were Felix Salter and Walt Disney. They anthropomorphized animals to the detriment of both animals and people.
Click to expand...

Really? Not Peter Bently (author of Jaws) - for contributing to the approximately 25,000,000 to 100,000,000 annual shark deaths (yes, some are for fins, food, etc. but some are just due to fear).

Or the people responsible for creating devices that burn whale blubber, which lead to the decimation of whales? Or the creators of combustion engines, which lead to the massive need for oil, which as been very bad for land, sea and air... has all of this REALLY made our lives better, or just more busy and convenient for junk?

Look, I'm no eco-nut, but why not just trap and remove the wolves to other territories rather than shooting them? Wolves have fought extinction for awhile... humans are creative enough to find another solution.
 
I feel for the ranchers. But, it as also been customary for hunters to kill predators that compete with them. I don't see anything wrong with that concept myself.

Hunting is big business in Montana. I hate to say it, but through last year I have spent over $75,000 to outfitters and Montana Fish Wildlife and Parks.

Anybody who thinks that wolves haven't changed the hunting in parts of Montana over the past 25 years isn't paying attention although the wolf proponents go to a lot of trouble to manipulate the data.

I find it hard to see what benefit bringing grey wolves in to replace smaller timber wolves from the past is any benefit to anybody.

They will be cloning a sabre tooth tiger next.
 
leadcounsel, Benchley's efforts didn't lead to the body of weird, pointless and contra-productive law which messes up millions of honest hunters and landowners.

Forget wolves for the moment. Look at the silliness about the wild horses in the west and how the laws and regs force the continuation of ruining habitat. Google for what T. Boone Pickens' idiot wife is doing and her yapping about what she wants your tax dollars to do.

Over-harvest of sharks was just an add-on to stupidity and greed. You can get into the deal for the Atlantic Giant Tuna, cod, swordfish, mackeral--and a bunch more.

Anyhow, I'll re-phrase to make it "on-land" wildlife so we can stay away from the finny critters...
 
leadcounsel said:
Mans folly of trying to control the environment through thoughtless extermination continues...

The ecosystem is a delicate balance and we shouldn't fiddle with it like this...
Click to expand...
Thoughtless extermination would indeed be a travesty. Be that as it may, there is no ecosystem unscathed by man. Whatever the reason, we are in it for the long haul.
 
As usual, we are reaping what we sow. So may people thought it was such a necessity to reintroduce wolves to areas where the populations had been decimated. Now that they have reestablished themselves....too well in most cases....we have to take steps in the opposite direction. Once again, our attempts at playing God have had unintended consequences, and now theres a debate as to whether we should be allowed to...at least partially....correct the mistakes that have been made? I'm not in favor of outright extermination, but am vehemently opposed to granting these critters protected status when they have established themselves outside of the original intended area. I believe the wolf population should be managed for maintain the orignal projected numbers for the areas designated for reintroduction. Any wolves exceeding that number, or that migrate outside of the orignal boundries should be able to be lawfully taken, as should any wolf caught in the act of depredation. Ranchers shouldn't have to shoulder the financial burden of livestock loss because some people think wolves should roam the entire US eventually. The ranching industry shouldn't have to suffer at the cost of reintroducing wolves. While not in favor of thoughtless extermination, those that oppose all sorts of thoughful controls are pushing things in that direction
 
I live in N. Idaho. This is a subject that has divided communities, friends & neighbors here. There was a short "Season" here last year. A judge from Montana put a stop to it shortly after it started.

The general feeling is the elk population is down as a result of the Greys being introduced. On any given day you'll hear people quoting SATS from both sides. "Theres a reason they (the wolves) were wiped out decades ago" can be heard everywhere. My wife works for IDFG so I'm kinda on the fence. Our elk population is down but so is our deer. If you talk to the "Old timers" around here they'll tell you it's because of the coyotes that the deer population is down. I found tracks from a pack of yokes this past weekend at least 15 strong. I've yet to see wolf tracks. I did see a huge male wolf cross the road south of here in Stanley ID two yrs ago but that it. Nothing up north.

Once a month IDFG does a monthly report on AM radio. Just so happened that I was listening in on last months report. It was about the wolves in this area etc & I don't really remember much about it. There TONS of info about it online if you just search Idaho wolves, but I do remember the guy doing the report saying at the end that "the money from buying licenses, tags & permits fund IDFG. Unless you pay for these, you shouldn't have a say in it anyways." IDK which side to be on. I have no desire to hunt wolf but on the same note, I'm an avid coyote hunter. I think that if I saw as many wolf tracks in the
hills as I do coyotes, my feelings would change. I just don't belive the elk population being so low is a direct result of the wolf population. I think a lot of elk get poached & the wolf gets the blame.
 
Look, I'm no eco-nut, but why not just trap and remove the wolves to other territories rather than shooting them?
Click to expand...

No...but you sound like one. That line in your responce is both driven by emotion not fact and contains an ignorant idea which sounds just like an eco-nut.

Nobody is talking about decimating the wolves. They're talking about controlling the population at numbers that won't hurt other animal populations. Relocating them just makes them someone else's problem and some other animal's predator.
 
The Sierra Club and the U.S. Forest Service were presenting an alternative to the Wyoming ranchers for controlling the wolf population. It seems that after years of the ranchers using the tried and true method of shooting or trapping the predators, the Sierra Club had a "more humane" solution to this issue. What they were proposing was for the animals to be captured alive. The males would then be castrated and let loose again. This was ACTUALLY proposed by the Sierra Club and by the U.S. Forest Service. All of the ranchers thought about this amazing idea for a couple of minutes. Finally an old fellow wearing a big cowboy hat in the back of the conference room stood up, tipped his hat back and said; "Son, I don't think you understand our problem here... these wolves ain't (expletive deleted) our sheep... they're eatin' 'em!" The meeting never really got back to order.
 
Outfitter, that really did happen in a public hearing in Colorado, decades back during the fuss over 1080 traps. I never can remember the movie actor's name; met him at Kerrville, one year; maybe late 1970s. Ah! Popped up: Slim Pickens. :)
 
All this is much ado about nothing. Let's look at the numbers:

In Montana, hunters killed 72 wolves during a two-month season, while wildlife agents killed another 145 for harassing or preying on cattle and sheep. In Wyoming, where wolves are still under federal protections, agents killed 32 wolves, and in Idaho, another 138 were killed by agents.
Click to expand...

http://missoulian.com/news/local/article_01475a9c-3cf8-11df-a9f6-001cc4c002e0.html

Even bringing in professionals to kill wolves, the numbers are still very low. And the wolf populations are still increasing, albeit at a slightly slower pace.

The bottom line here is that you cannot exterminate wolves by chasing after them with rifles, or "calling them in" to a set location. They are extremely intelligent animals. I'd say the wolf pack, operating together, is the second most intelligent creature on the planet. And we are talking about packs here. You can shoot members till you run out of bullets--ASSUMING you can find them and hit them--but the pack remains, and can rebuild very quickly.

The way wolves were exterminated was through mass poison and very extensive trapping by experts. Along with habitat loss, of course.
 
maybe they could "re-locate" a "herd" of them to SE MN cause we too have had a explosion of deer populating the area,so bad in fact that now we are slaughtering approx 900 of them post-season to check for CWD (chronic wasting disease) at one point 2-years ago the DNR estimated by aerial counts we had about 39-deer per square mile, now that number is up to 68-per square mile,, cars hitting them all the time, and now that we got a good melt-down a week ago the ditches and woods are littered with corpses,,, My Wife LOVES wolve's and thinks they are one of the almighty's most beautiful creations so i highly doubt she would let me shoot one, but YEA !! could you imagine seeing a pack of wolves bounding in to your distressed rabbit call ??? WOW !!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

T
  • Locked
Wolf Tickets for Sale
Replies
5
Views
594
Titan6
T
Baba Louie
  • Locked
Wanta Hunta Wolf?
Replies
11
Views
713
rbernie
rbernie
F
  • Locked
Off endangered list, wolves face new pressure from hunters
2 3 4 5 6
Replies
141
Views
6K
eliphalet
E
O
  • Locked
Idaho wants public input on plan to kill wolves
Replies
12
Views
681
caribou
caribou
W
  • Locked
No wolf hunting this year! (?)
Replies
10
Views
878
Art Eatman
A
Back
Top