Montana HB 73 signed into law

[Dad]

email from Big Game Forever:

February 13, 2013

We would like to thank Governor Steve Bullock, the Montana Legislature and Montana FWP for their support and enactment of HB 73. We were informed that the Governor signed the bill in a 9:30 am ceremony this morning. A special thank you to Kelley Flynn and Ted Washburn for sponsoring HB 73, Senator John Brendon for carrying the bill on the Senate floor and Senate President Jeff Essman for signing the bill without hesitation. This is a step in the right direction to facilitate recovery of impacted moose, elk and deer populations in the state of Montana.

Citizens for Balanced Use, Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife Montana, Montana Guides and Outfitters and Big Game Forever would especially like to thank Montana’s Sportsmen and Livestock producers for your efforts in support of HB 73. The emails and phone calls to the Governor’s office and Legislature provided vital support for passage of the bill. We are encouraged by the strong support for HB 73. The bill passed with significant bi-partisan support; 96-3 in the Montana House and 45-4 in the Montana Senate.

We encourage Montana Sportsmen and Livestock producers to take a few minutes and send a thank you message to Governor Bullock, the Montana Legislature and Montana FWP for their support of HB 73.

Happy Trails,
~dad

[Colorado_Dave]

Yes, and I heard they were launching a new set of license plates in honor of this momentous occasion. The purchase of one of these plates provides a donation to the Montana Cattleman's Association.

[Dad]

Bison? Hmmm. Good Idea! We could revive the buffalo hunt. There may be time, the legislature is still in session.

Happy Trails,
~dad

[buffalogirl]

Yes, and I heard they were launching a new set of license plates in honor of this momentous occasion. The purchase of one of these plates provides a donation to the Montana Cattleman's Association.

These would be funny IF they werent so true!

[ELK]

It's one of life's little ironies that the folks who know exactly how easy it is to raise livestock and live with wolves happen not to live in wolf country, nor evidently raise livestock.. How do you suppose that happened?

[RikWriter]

It's one of life's little ironies that the folks who know exactly how easy it is to raise livestock and live with wolves happen not to live in wolf country, nor evidently raise livestock.. How do you suppose that happened?

Perspective? Lack of emotional attachment? Any number of good reasons that the Montana cattlemen can't think straight when it comes to wolves.

[Illinoisdeb]

Sorry, Sorry Day

[Illinoisdeb]

Great article about the this year's wolf hunt and especially "06". Read this originally via Yellowstone Reports.

http://www.outsideonline.com/outdoor-ad ... l?page=all

[ELK]

That was a very interesting article, but pretty over the top, the most famous wild animal in the world? I wonder how many people would actually recognize that wolf if they saw it, maybe a few hundred? I suspect far less than go home complaining because they saw so few elk or moose.

[Connie]

Great article about the this year's wolf hunt and especially "06". Read this originally via Yellowstone Reports.

http://www.outsideonline.com/outdoor-ad ... l?page=all

Thanks for the post, Deb. I didn't find it over the top - it barely touched the surface.

[ELK]

"What else does Yellowstone have to advertise?"

Are you really saying this is true....for you?

Again put things into perspective, the wolf was killed several miles from Yellowstone, presumably looking for food or new territory. Whether anyone likes it or not, there simply is not enough for the number of wolves to eat left in Yellowstone. All 3 states have agreed to maintain 50% more than the original number, sadly there is only one way to control the wolf population and that is hunting.
You know the wolf import has cost families in the 3 states chosen to raise them a huge amount of money, and they are called dirty names and denigrated in every way possible. I don't believe I have ever read one word of appreciation for the sacrifices some of the residents have had to make even aside from the loss of some our our ungulate populations, which may be considered fair game by researchers and wolf watchers.
All I ever see is a sense of entitlement to have plenty of wolves to watch. And I am concerned the situation will get worse as the wolves leave the park more and more to find food in a more natural enviroment where they are hunted as well as being the hunter will make them behave like wolves and make them harder to see, which will infuriate those who feel entitled to a robust population of wolves interacting with humans.

[mywolvesrock]

Deleted

[Cobalt]

Double standards.
I seem to read on this board and elsewhere many times about how the wolf is running out of food due to being allowed higher then natural numbers the land can support, yet I seldom read how elk and deer are fed to keep the numbers far above what the land can naturally support.
I know my state doesn't have a wolf feeding station but I can go to several places and watch thousands of elk and big horn sheep fed on a daily basis.
I also read about all the hardships and monetary losses the farmers and ranchers suffer because of the wolf but seldom read about these same problems caused by the more desirable big game animals when they compete for or destroy crops.
I even read how some groups are making money off of the wolf by collecting funds from special interest groups but seldom ever hear about those that promote big game hunting doing basically the same thing.
I read many times about the loss of money the big game guide and outfitters suffer due to lower numbers of game but the same people will totally dismiss the large mounts of money wolf watchers inject in too the local economy.
I read how land owners are forced to put up with wolves crossing or living on their property but never ever hear about the money the same land owners make by selling hunting permits to shoot big game animals which they don't own.

[Dave Parker]

I also read about all the hardships and monetary losses the farmers and ranchers suffer because of the wolf but seldom read about these same problems caused by the more desirable big game animals when they compete for or destroy crops.

Cobalt,

Actually there is a bill making it through the Montana Legislature this session that would allow more flexibility as well as compensation for farmers that are loosing large amounts of crops and hay to elk and deer. If it passes, it will remove more control from the state game dept and allow the county commissioners to manage wildlife and kill wildlife due to crop losses.

We also voted a few years ago, to get rid of the outfitter sponsored hunting permits.

I often hear the number of $35 million being injected into the economy because of wolves, on the opposite, when talking about hunting in the State or Montana, our hunting industry is estimated worth over 500 million, now I don't know how much was lost because of the reduction in hunting opportunities after the wolves were reintroduced, I don't believe a study has been done to compare the actual loss of hunting revenues vs. the increase due to wolf viewing opportunities. I do know that the hunting revenue from out of state hunters stayed in the state, and much of the wolf watching income goes to out of state companies.

Like I said before, it would be interesting to see a study done on that aspect of income. The loss of the 3000 late season tags in the Gardiner area, was a pretty big hit to the hunting revenues.

[Dad]

In Montana, when deer, elk and antelope are overpopulated we have “damage” hunts with increased “bag limits” (more tags per hunter for antlerless). Those hunts have not occurred for some time in the western part of the state where wolves have decimated big game populations including moose.

Wolf proponents would have you believe that the taking of a few “park wolves” in the areas adjacent to the park is going to wipe them out. It would be the best thing that could happen for the wolf proponent’s anti-wolf hunting initiative. Wolves are quite gregarious and are always seeking new territories into which they can expand their gene pool and find prey. Wolves move both ways across boundaries. And, wolves were present in southwest Montana before the re-introduction to YNP. Now, park wolves are leaving the park to seek hunting opportunities because they have reduced the park elk population to a level that cannot support the current wolf population.

In Montana wolf hunting quotas have never been filled and despite the anti-hunting, wolf proponent’s predictions, wolf populations have continued to increase. Game populations in a number of areas in western Montana are at point of crash (failure).

It is pointless to attempt to engage in common sense discussion with anyone who only interest is advancing pro-wolf, anti-hunting and anti-rancher agenda. Prior to re-introduction, wolf proponents agreed to population levels that would cause population controls to begin (i.e. hunting, trapping). Those agreements were as reliable as the treaties between the United States and various American Indian nations a going back two hundred years.

For all of the statistics there are many effects which are difficult to quantify such as lower animal weight, lower birth rates, high calf losses, injuries, et ceteras. These are real issues that affect both wildlife and livestock, directly attributable to stresses from high wolf populations.

Population figures from Big Game Forever http://biggameforever.org/
Big Game Population Statistics:

Lolo Elk Herd, Idaho
Before Wolf Introduction: 20,000
After Wolf Introduction: 1,700

Yellowstone Elk Herd
Before Wolf Introduction: 20,000
After Wolf Introduction: 6,500

Jackson, WY Shiras Moose
Before Wolf Introduction: 1,200
After Wolf Introduction: 120

Gallitan Valley Elk Herd
Before Wolf Introduction: 1,500
After Wolf Introduction: 200

Happy Tails,
~dad

[Hayden Valley Girl]

Dear dad,
You need to stop blaming the wolf for everything. Read the link below about how the numbers really add up. Next thing you know you will be saying the wolf wants to take your guns away too.
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=15511

[samparks23]

In Montana, when deer, elk and antelope are overpopulated we have “damage” hunts with increased “bag limits” (more tags per hunter for antlerless). Those hunts have not occurred for some time in the western part of the state where wolves have decimated big game populations including moose.

Wolf proponents would have you believe that the taking of a few “park wolves” in the areas adjacent to the park is going to wipe them out. It would be the best thing that could happen for the wolf proponent’s anti-wolf hunting initiative. Wolves are quite gregarious and are always seeking new territories into which they can expand their gene pool and find prey. Wolves move both ways across boundaries. And, wolves were present in southwest Montana before the re-introduction to YNP. Now, park wolves are leaving the park to seek hunting opportunities because they have reduced the park elk population to a level that cannot support the current wolf population.

In Montana wolf hunting quotas have never been filled and despite the anti-hunting, wolf proponent’s predictions, wolf populations have continued to increase. Game populations in a number of areas in western Montana are at point of crash (failure).

It is pointless to attempt to engage in common sense discussion with anyone who only interest is advancing pro-wolf, anti-hunting and anti-rancher agenda. Prior to re-introduction, wolf proponents agreed to population levels that would cause population controls to begin (i.e. hunting, trapping). Those agreements were as reliable as the treaties between the United States and various American Indian nations a going back two hundred years.

For all of the statistics there are many effects which are difficult to quantify such as lower animal weight, lower birth rates, high calf losses, injuries, et ceteras. These are real issues that affect both wildlife and livestock, directly attributable to stresses from high wolf populations.

Population figures from Big Game Forever http://biggameforever.org/
Big Game Population Statistics:

Lolo Elk Herd, Idaho
Before Wolf Introduction: 20,000
After Wolf Introduction: 1,700

Yellowstone Elk Herd
Before Wolf Introduction: 20,000
After Wolf Introduction: 6,500

Jackson, WY Shiras Moose
Before Wolf Introduction: 1,200
After Wolf Introduction: 120

Gallitan Valley Elk Herd
Before Wolf Introduction: 1,500
After Wolf Introduction: 200

Happy Tails,
~dad

Dad,

I'm sorry your elk herds have had such bad luck. Here in Wyoming, the vast majority (6 out of 8) of our elk herds in wolf populated areas are well above game and fish objectives. An excellent non-biased source (Big Game Forever) you have picked as well .

[Dave Parker]

Dear dad,
You need to stop blaming the wolf for everything. Read the link below about how the numbers really add up. Next thing you know you will be saying the wolf wants to take your guns away too.
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=15511

[ELK]

Sam,
Teh reason the elk herds are "above" objectives is becasue G&F has kept dropping the "objective". One only has to look at what we were told we had to have as a minimum in the beginning and what is not considered enough now to know honesty was never a part of the plan. I once thought researchers were top drawer, but have come to the conclusion they are in it for the money and prestige and honesty has no part in it. Anyone who can believe the story that wolves have been only a part of the dramatic decline in a realtively few years will believe anything. Sure weather, bears, lions, etc have always been a factor along with the hunting that is gone in some places, but obviously the researchers did not believe they could make a significant impact on the elk or they would not have imported so many wolves.
It is beyond me why they brought in so many (and they had plans for even more), obviously there was no record of such a population ever being in Yellowstone, they had to rely on "reports of howls" etc to make the case. In all honesty I think they really believed their own hype that locals would kill off the wolves, instead we overall stuck to our part of the bargain, and the population exploded, but of course the law suit happy enviros did not honor theirs. We now have many times the original number and hatred is spewed at the locals becaseu some have been hunted. And now we have the semi threatening 754 web site, which seems rather scary.
The researchers could ease some of the tension by admitting they understimated the explosion in numbers, the amount of damage the wolves have done and are doing to other wildlife and to private property, maybe radical wolf people would ease off a little.

[Hayden Valley Girl]

Dear dad,
You need to stop blaming the wolf for everything. Read the link below about how the numbers really add up. Next thing you know you will be saying the wolf wants to take your guns away too.
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=15511

Dave,
You crack me up!!! Thanks I needed this today!!
PS...I want a birth certificate so I know if this is a Montana, Wyoming or Idaho wolf!!!

[Hayden Valley Girl]

Sam,
We now have many times the original number and hatred is spewed at the locals becaseu some have been hunted. And now we have the semi threatening 754 web site, which seems rather scary.
.

Elk,
Did you actually check out this web site? There is nothing scary whatsoever about. They are not making threats. Looks more like a page to educate and recruit people to help their cause. Soon they will have a store and try to make a few bucks. Nothing any different about it than any of the other wolf web sites I have seen.

[samparks23]

Sam,
Teh reason the elk herds are "above" objectives is becasue G&F has kept dropping the "objective". One only has to look at what we were told we had to have as a minimum in the beginning and what is not considered enough now to know honesty was never a part of the plan. I once thought researchers were top drawer, but have come to the conclusion they are in it for the money and prestige and honesty has no part in it. Anyone who can believe the story that wolves have been only a part of the dramatic decline in a realtively few years will believe anything. Sure weather, bears, lions, etc have always been a factor along with the hunting that is gone in some places, but obviously the researchers did not believe they could make a significant impact on the elk or they would not have imported so many wolves.
It is beyond me why they brought in so many (and they had plans for even more), obviously there was no record of such a population ever being in Yellowstone, they had to rely on "reports of howls" etc to make the case. In all honesty I think they really believed their own hype that locals would kill off the wolves, instead we overall stuck to our part of the bargain, and the population exploded, but of course the law suit happy enviros did not honor theirs. We now have many times the original number and hatred is spewed at the locals becaseu some have been hunted. And now we have the semi threatening 754 web site, which seems rather scary.
The researchers could ease some of the tension by admitting they understimated the explosion in numbers, the amount of damage the wolves have done and are doing to other wildlife and to private property, maybe radical wolf people would ease off a little.

Elk, when did they lower objectives (please cite that source)? I know for a fact they have been the same for at least the last 5 years. We need to look at the objectives, not the "starting point." What does it mean for a herd to over management objectives? It means the game agency is actively managing to reduce that herd by having liberal hunting seasons, increased cow/calf harvest, etc. So when an elk herd is over objective and game and fish knocks it down to where they want it, of course you and the other anti-wolf fanatics immediately blame wolves.

Game and Fish Populations/Objectives/Recent Trends (the two in red are the only herds that are below management objectives)

Clarks Fork Herd
2012 population= 5000
1999-2008 pop. average= 5300
2006-2010 pop. average= 5400
objective= 3000

Cody Herd
2012 population= 8000
1999-2008 average= 8050
2006-2010 average= 7900
objective= 5600

Jackson Herd
2012 population= 12,000
1999-2008 average= 13,900
2006-2010 average= 12,300
objective= 11,000

Wiggins Fork Herd - I have constantly herd outfitters complain that wolves are decimating the Wiggins Fork herd, I guess they haven't look at the numbers
2012 population= 9100
1999-2008 averages= 6400
2006-2010 averages= 7100
objective= 7000

Fall Creek Herd
2012 population= 4600
1999-2008 average= 5200
2006-2010 average= 5500
objective= 4400

Upper Green River
2012 population= 2600
1999-2008 average= 2550
2006-2010 averages= 2600
objective= 2500

Hoback Herd
2012 population= 800
1999-2008 averages= 1050
2006-2010 averages= 1000
objective= 1100

Afton Herd
2012 population= 2100
1999-2008 average= 2450
2006-2010 average= 2300
objective= 2200

Elk, I'm sorry you are frightened by the 754 site. What do you find scary about it?

[ELK]

Sam, here is a link to the Cody working group, it explains how they have kept the numbers form crashing....no hunting.

Cody Elk Working Group Goals (continued from last meeting)

• Goal: Redefine Cody Herd Unit. o How would it be redefined?  Front country/back country •Splitting it now may eliminate hunting in the back country. Should have been split long ago.

　

o McWhirter advised that in the Clarks Fork Herd Unit there is a fairly distinct non-migratory group and a migratory group of elk. It could possibly be looked at separately.  There are major issues with recruitment, but not with elk numbers.

 Significant hunting opportunity has been lost in order to keep the elk numbers there.

The word "war is what worries me about "754 War", also Connie said she didn't know how much she should say about it, which indicates it may have an agenda that they do not wish to have known. If they are jsut another fund raising "non profit" hoping to jump on the gravy train, that is fine....as long as they get no taxpayer dollars.

[Steve]

Did you read the whole thing?
http://wgfd.wyo.gov/web2011/Departments/Wildlife/pdfs/CEW_MINUTES_0227120001872.pdf
The part about non residents being more successful than residents because they are using outfitters and guides in the back country vs residents using the front country?
That's why they are talking about redefining the herds.

[Cobalt]

Cody Elk Survey and Harvest Data Presentation – McWhirter
• Cody elk survey data
o Observed 7,346 elk – more than ever counted before.
 The Cody Elk Herd Unit objective is 5,600 elk.