Wolves and elk
04-09-2010, 11:05 AM
#51
Giant Nontypical
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: IL
Posts: 6,575
btw these states with wolf management programs should provide non-residents with the same priced tags.
If the tag is $10 for a resident, everyone in the state is going to get a tag and if they see a wolf they'll shoot it. A non-resident going on an elk hunt with an outfitter or DIY to pay $150 for the random chance they'll get a shot at a wolf means few non-residents will buy a tag, but for $10 they certainly would in hopes of harvesting a wolf. More people in the field hunting and holding a wolf tag would mean reaching quotas...
If the tag is $10 for a resident, everyone in the state is going to get a tag and if they see a wolf they'll shoot it. A non-resident going on an elk hunt with an outfitter or DIY to pay $150 for the random chance they'll get a shot at a wolf means few non-residents will buy a tag, but for $10 they certainly would in hopes of harvesting a wolf. More people in the field hunting and holding a wolf tag would mean reaching quotas...
04-09-2010, 11:10 AM
#52
Fork Horn
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: beautiful western montana
Posts: 193
btw these states with wolf management programs should provide non-residents with the same priced tags.
If the tag is $10 for a resident, everyone in the state is going to get a tag and if they see a wolf they'll shoot it. A non-resident going on an elk hunt with an outfitter or DIY to pay $150 for the random chance they'll get a shot at a wolf means few non-residents will buy a tag, but for $10 they certainly would in hopes of harvesting a wolf. More people in the field hunting and holding a wolf tag would mean reaching quotas...
If the tag is $10 for a resident, everyone in the state is going to get a tag and if they see a wolf they'll shoot it. A non-resident going on an elk hunt with an outfitter or DIY to pay $150 for the random chance they'll get a shot at a wolf means few non-residents will buy a tag, but for $10 they certainly would in hopes of harvesting a wolf. More people in the field hunting and holding a wolf tag would mean reaching quotas...
04-09-2010, 11:15 AM
#53
Giant Nontypical
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: IL
Posts: 6,575
found this data from MT's website
FWP sold a total of 15,603 licenses (15,514 residents; 89 non-residents).
price of a wolf hunting license at $19 for residents and $350 for non
residents.
Based on 2007 elk license sales figures, about 12% of Montana resident elk hunters also bought a wolf
license in 2009.
Unless they're trying to keep all the wolf hunting for residents, they should price these more as a opportunity tag for both residents and non-residents I feel.
Wonder what the 2010 Wolf seasons will bring? quotas etc...?
FWP sold a total of 15,603 licenses (15,514 residents; 89 non-residents).
price of a wolf hunting license at $19 for residents and $350 for non
residents.
Based on 2007 elk license sales figures, about 12% of Montana resident elk hunters also bought a wolf
license in 2009.
Unless they're trying to keep all the wolf hunting for residents, they should price these more as a opportunity tag for both residents and non-residents I feel.
Wonder what the 2010 Wolf seasons will bring? quotas etc...?
04-09-2010, 11:20 AM
#54
Fork Horn
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: beautiful western montana
Posts: 193
found this data from MT's website
FWP sold a total of 15,603 licenses (15,514 residents; 89 non-residents).
price of a wolf hunting license at $19 for residents and $350 for non
residents.
Based on 2007 elk license sales figures, about 12% of Montana resident elk hunters also bought a wolf
license in 2009.
Unless they're trying to keep all the wolf hunting for residents, they should price these more as a opportunity tag for both residents and non-residents I feel.
Wonder what the 2010 Wolf seasons will bring? quotas etc...?
FWP sold a total of 15,603 licenses (15,514 residents; 89 non-residents).
price of a wolf hunting license at $19 for residents and $350 for non
residents.
Based on 2007 elk license sales figures, about 12% of Montana resident elk hunters also bought a wolf
license in 2009.
Unless they're trying to keep all the wolf hunting for residents, they should price these more as a opportunity tag for both residents and non-residents I feel.
Wonder what the 2010 Wolf seasons will bring? quotas etc...?
04-09-2010, 01:35 PM
#55
Typical Buck
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: British Columbia
Posts: 694
Finnbear, you simply do not understand the dynamics of wolf reintroduction, you don't get it, you never have. Once we go from ecosystem biology to political biology we are doomed. The wolf is a perfect example of "political biology". You yourself have made claims that "the wolf was here first". So were the indians, are you going to leave and go back to Europe? Why are you still here? What part of unsustainable do you not get? What part of ecosystem dynamics do you not get? This year Montana FWP eliminated all cow hunting for youth, archery, and handicap hunters do to low population numbers in area 250 due to wolf predation on elk herds. Why? The reason is the lack of understanding biological principles, or worse, ignoring them to appease a certain element of society. Why do we not re-introduce wolves to the greater Chicago area, where they once roamed?
WTF????????????? ecosystem biology to political biology? What are you talkin about? Why is killin off a species not political but introducing one is? Why is introducing a species considered pandering to a certain element of society and bad........only because it is not you being pandered too. I believe it is economic biology you are really trying to implement. In your world only animals that can be cashed in are worthy. Wolves are killin elk without compensating you, thus bad.
I assure you there are plenty of REAL hunters that can quite effectivly compete with wolves. TRY it yourself and see if your up to the challenge.
It is your agument that makes no sence. Is there not both native Americans and Americans of European decent living side by side in Montana and Idaho. By your argument this is not possable.
04-09-2010, 02:09 PM
#56
Fork Horn
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: beautiful western montana
Posts: 193
WTF????????????? ecosystem biology to political biology? What are you talkin about? Why is killin off a species not political but introducing one is? Why is introducing a species considered pandering to a certain element of society and bad........only because it is not you being pandered too. I believe it is economic biology you are really trying to implement. In your world only animals that can be cashed in are worthy. Wolves are killin elk without compensating you, thus bad.
I assure you there are plenty of REAL hunters that can quite effectivly compete with wolves. TRY it yourself and see if your up to the challenge.
It is your agument that makes no sence. Is there not both native Americans and Americans of European decent living side by side in Montana and Idaho. By your argument this is not possable.
I assure you there are plenty of REAL hunters that can quite effectivly compete with wolves. TRY it yourself and see if your up to the challenge.
It is your agument that makes no sence. Is there not both native Americans and Americans of European decent living side by side in Montana and Idaho. By your argument this is not possable.
04-09-2010, 02:20 PM
#57
Typical Buck
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: British Columbia
Posts: 694
Tango, it is obvious you have absolutely no clue what you are talking about. What are the ramifications to elk herds in the Madison Valley, Gallatine Valley, Idaho Selway etc? Do you even have a clue? You surmise that it boils down to "real hunters"? Defend your position instead of making broad pointless nonsensicle arguments like "turn back the page" or any of the other clueless dribble you have espoused. You compare todays ecosystem with yesterdays, thats absurd, you compare Canada's ecosystem with ours here, also absurd. I strongly suggest you actually have a look at BIOLOGICAL data before you run your mouth about "real hunters". Get a clue.
It seems you have nothing to contribute other than crying wolf.
04-09-2010, 02:58 PM
#59
Fork Horn
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: beautiful western montana
Posts: 193
Tango, go over and read the letter the RMEF CEO sent to the Defenders of Wildlife, and then tell me how you feel, can you at least do that? Can you be honest about it? This isn't about economy anymore, or hunting rights anymore, this about ending a wildlife management disaster. Do you realize that wolves have nearly wiped out moose in Yellowstone? The estimated population trend of yellowstone moose is near zero.
BTW, I just sent a donation to the RMEF for finally blasting the anti-hunting organizations they way they should have years ago.
BTW, I just sent a donation to the RMEF for finally blasting the anti-hunting organizations they way they should have years ago.
04-09-2010, 03:35 PM
#60
Fork Horn
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Fairbanks, Alaska
Posts: 419
On the contrary tango, you're actually the one who's always crying wolf on this board, with very little if anything useful to contribute. Your assertion that the hunters in MT/ID/WY aren't "real" hunters because they're fighting back against the wolf lobby is preposterous. Everybody understands that the wolf is there to stay and that's a fact. What they're tired of is this ****amamie puppet show that is being perpetuated by outside interests. What it has left the states with is a game of continual litigation, abrupted hunting seasons, and hunting quotas that don't even come close to controlling a wolf population that is now nearly six times the recovery goal that was established when they were first reintroduced. It's clearly a game that is being used as a tactic to force out the western big game hunting and ranching interests with the wolf as the primary tool. The groups like Defenders of Wildlife know full well that once the wolf is classified as common game and controlled that their agenda is going to have to take another route.
Now you seem to think that you're so high and mighty over there in BC because you live around wolves, so I decided I'd take a few minutes to look over the provincial hunting regs there. What I found was the following, bearing in mind I'm not claiming to be an expert I just caught on to the obvious. BC doesn't charge a license fee for residents to shoot wolves. In fact they were the only big game species listed that didn't have a tag fee. In general the season length was quite lengthy, from approximately September well into the following spring. The limit was most commonly 3 wolves per person, and in some areas there was no closed season below 1,100 meters in elevation. So the bottom line is you have exponentially more opportunities to keep wolf populations in check up there, which is all that the states want as well. Now seriously tell me that you wouldn't be in the slightest bit perturbed if some group out of Ottawa sued saying that out of the blue your wolves are "endangered" even though there isn't a shred of evidence to support that. Then imagine that your hunting opportunities for wolves were slashed and you had to stand by idly and watch their numbers climb to levels well exceeding recovery goals, and the same said group still claimed they were "endangered." Would you seriously want to have to kowtow to that kind of stupidity? That's what they're dealing with south of your border, and you obviously have no first-hand knowledge of it whatsoever.
Now you seem to think that you're so high and mighty over there in BC because you live around wolves, so I decided I'd take a few minutes to look over the provincial hunting regs there. What I found was the following, bearing in mind I'm not claiming to be an expert I just caught on to the obvious. BC doesn't charge a license fee for residents to shoot wolves. In fact they were the only big game species listed that didn't have a tag fee. In general the season length was quite lengthy, from approximately September well into the following spring. The limit was most commonly 3 wolves per person, and in some areas there was no closed season below 1,100 meters in elevation. So the bottom line is you have exponentially more opportunities to keep wolf populations in check up there, which is all that the states want as well. Now seriously tell me that you wouldn't be in the slightest bit perturbed if some group out of Ottawa sued saying that out of the blue your wolves are "endangered" even though there isn't a shred of evidence to support that. Then imagine that your hunting opportunities for wolves were slashed and you had to stand by idly and watch their numbers climb to levels well exceeding recovery goals, and the same said group still claimed they were "endangered." Would you seriously want to have to kowtow to that kind of stupidity? That's what they're dealing with south of your border, and you obviously have no first-hand knowledge of it whatsoever.