Montana proposes 220-wolf hunting quota for 2011 season

If filled, the quota will result in estimated 25% reduction in state wolf population-

Montana’s wolf hunt is expected to be easier on the state’s wolf population than Idaho’s. With the congressional delisting of the wolf in the Northern Rockies, Montana and Idaho can pretty do what they want in terms of wolf quotas.

State wildlife officials propose 220-wolf quota for 2011 season. By Eve Byron Helena Independent Record.

Also, Obama administration takes wolves off endangered species list. AP.  They are also delisting the Great Lakes population, which is certainly ready. Unfortunately, all three states: Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan have fallen to tea party governors. Michigan’s seems as bad as Wisconsin’s notorious Scott Walker.

36 Responses to “Montana proposes 220-wolf hunting quota for 2011 season”

  1. Cody Coyote Says:

    Let’s generate a new word to describe what Montana and Idaho have in mind for wolves under their state management plans:

    “Canicide “

    • william huard Says:

      I don’t understand how the USFWS can allow Idaho to attempt aerial gunning of 50 wolves during denning season! What is that?
      The upcoming hunting season should be done with FAIR CHASE methods and baiting, trapping and electronic call signals should not be allowed

      • Savebears Says:

        I am not an advocate for aerial gunning, but once delisted, the USFWS has no more say in it, it is under state control, the only say USFWS has is if the numbers go under the required minimums…

      • Ralph Maughan Says:

        william hurard,

        Idaho’s politicians can now legally do it. Because we knew they wanted to do it all along is why I opposed giving Idaho management authority.

      • WM Says:

        I would venture the means and method of knocking the population down would have been more conservative had a hunt last year been allowed to go forward. Now, with this constant barrage of suit after suit, and who knows what tomorrow may bring in the way of relisting, they will take whatever windows they get just to hold the line.

        That, william, is the part of this some of you folks just don’t get. It is all about the numbers, that were promised (or their understanding of the numbers) at the start of reintroduction and what has actually transpired.

      • Daniel Berg Says:

        I think we’ll find out how just how shrewd some of the anti-wolfers are at the state level sometime soon. Aerial hunting of wolves is something that Sarah Palin was/is infamous for supporting, even among some of those who are not “serious” ennironmentalists.

        Widespread and overt use of that tactic could potentially draw more of the general public into the issue.

      • william huard Says:

        This is a mess. You know well enough that the USFWS needed to put these minimum numbers on the table to get people that opposed reintroduction to agree. In hindsight, that was a mistake, because these numbers are now arbitrary and have no scientific justification to them.
        It’s like Obama having an economy off cliff and saying that unemployment wouldn’t go over 8%. it’s the same thing- people hold you to those numbers.
        I think the real issue here is that Idaho is incapable of managing wolves responsibly.

      • Elk275 Says:

        I am very much against aerial gunning. How stupid can a group of people be, (anti wolfers) so soon. It reminds me of a crimimal after serving his term in the state pen immediately getting out of jail, going to the bar, getting drunk and not remembering what they did when drunk and the judge a month later senting him back to the big house.

      • william huard Says:

        Elk 275
        I’m sure you don’t believe me when I say that I am not anti-hunting. I believe in fair chase hunting, no unfair advantage, no dogs, call signals, baiting, trapping. You know Idaho is incapable of doing the right thing here. Aerial hunting in the spring when wolves are trying to raise pups is nothing short of dispicable, and it says alot more about Idaho than I really care to know.

      • Elk275 Says:


        I know you are not anti hunting.

        ++I believe in fair chase hunting, no unfair advantage, no dogs, call signals, baiting, trapping. ++

        I believe only in fair chase hunting but what is an unfair advantage. No Dogs, one of my best lady friends has 5 cockers and springers and is trying to win a nation field trial championship. She hunts with her dogs, so is that an unfair advantage. She will not hunt with me; she thinks that I am a bubba hunter. Up flies the pheasant, bang, I shoot it. But no it is all about the dog, the pheasant has to get out aways and only proper shots can be taken. What the hell, I do not have the proper attire anyway to hunt with her. No green weenies, green loden wool pants and coat, tattersall shirt with a tie and a waist coat.

        Interesting, I went to a field trial with her and they plant pheasants, the dog flushes, the shooter shoots and the dog retrieves the pheasant. You are against live pigeon shoots in PA, what is the difference between shooting live pigeons in PA and shooting live pheasants at a field trial. Good questions, it does not bother me either way.

        Calls, is it wrong to call ducks, elk, moose, turkeys, etc. Calling is a time honored method of hunting. Electronic calling is different. Baiting, I do not know where baiting is legal in Montana, but it is used in Idaho on bears.

      • JB Says:


        Utah’s director of the DNR compared with wolf reintroduction with reintroducing the T. Rex, and one of Idaho’s F&G commissioners referred to wolves as “stone cold killers” and went on and on about how they destroy wildlife. Idaho’s own governor said he would support a hunt to kill all but 100 wolves (in 2009) and then ordered law enforcement not to enforce federal law with respect to wolves. So I wonder…what would you have done were people who wield this kind of political power saying these sorts of things and threatening these sorts of actions about elk?

        They knew exactly what they were doing–stoking the fire of controversy for their political gain. Throwing all the blame at environmentalists for using the only tool they have to advocate their interest in this matter is disingenuous. There is plenty of blame to go around.

      • Savebears Says:

        Boy I used to love it when one of my female golden’s was working a pheasant field, she was the prettiest dog when doing the job she loved. Man I sure miss that dog.

        I also honestly say, there is something to be said about using a bugle to entice a bull during rut, of course turkey hunting with a mouth call and getting large long bearded tom to come strutting in…man oh man, and talk about great eating!

  2. Phil Says:

    I don’t think planning to kill about 1/3 of the wolf population in the state is a responsible or a reasonable hunt. It seems as though Montana wants to establish that 100-150 numbers mark as quickly as possible.

    • Savebears Says:

      Right now, it really does not matter what you think Phil, the ball is in the State Game Agencies court..

      • Phil Says:

        SaveBears: Yes, it does not matter what I think, but this is one of many reasons why people were against the states to have managements on wolves. This does not show any reasonable management plan by the states. They want to show they can have a respectable plan? Killing off (if they reach their quota) 1/3 of the population in the first years hunt is not reasonable.

    • Savebears Says:

      Hopefully they act responsibly..

  3. Nancy Says:

    +Interesting, I went to a field trial with her and they plant pheasants, the dog flushes, the shooter shoots and the dog retrieves the pheasant+

    Elk – spent my teens at field trials with pointers and setters. Took home my share of trophies – Top Jr. Handler in my region twice. But we never shot the birds! They (quail) were planted prior to the trials or were in the area, the dogs roamed the fields, went on point when they found them and a starter pistol fired signaled a good flush. Game over. Garnishing points had to do with the dog’s ability to stand without breaking and how the handler worked with the dog before and after the bird flushed.

    • Savebears Says:


      Some of the trials I went to, we used the starter pistol system, but there were others that we were allowed to shoot the birds over the dog, and then had a hell of a dinner later in the evening..

      • Savebears Says:

        To add, some of the birds hunted are not native to America, so I guess, we could either could have been doing a service or allowing a non-native species to proliferate! But I can tell you, my first golden was hell on field trials and her partner was a great water dog and hell on retrieving ducks, the perfect combination of dogs and they both loved going on point after grouse!

      • Elk275 Says:

        I have only been to one field trial and it was in mid October, there could be others ways of doing it.

        I got bore and went home, got my side by side 28, and bubba boy went blue grouse hunting in local attire.

    • Savebears Says:

      Elk are you guys getting a lot of grouse down your way this year, man they are overrunning us this year, I was heading into town this morning and seen dozens and had one group of over 10 sitting in the middle of the road looking at me!

      • Elk275 Says:

        Save Bears, I am a city boy, I like to have 2 or 3 beers (3 is the limit) and a short drive home, so no mountain living for me.. I live in Bozeman proper. I used to see 7 or 8 coveys of Huns between my home and Costco. In the last several years the Huns have gone. I use to have them in my yard. No more.

  4. Phil Says:

    Elk: Whether it is ariel hunting or using calls it is not a fair game for both sides. The call brings the target either close enough or right in front of you. What equal opportunity is that for the elk, deer, duck, etc? What equal opportunity is it for the duck who is found and forced to fly off from the dog? Hiding for the duck is a defensive mechanism, but when human technology is put into use to make the hunts easier for the humans then that defensive mechanism is useless.

    “What is the difference between shooting live pigeons in PA?” In my thinking, I see it no different then canned hunts that occur in Texas or whereever.

    • Savebears Says:

      Well Phil,

      I can tell you as my maximum range is about 30 yards with my long bow for an ethical kill and filling the freezer, I am going to continue to use calls, remember I don’t use a gun to secure my meat, I use a wood longbow, wood arrows and hand sharpened steel broad heads and feathers on those wood arrows, if I were to try a longer shot, I risk only wounding the game I am pursuing.

      I can also say, running through the woods willy nilly ain’t going to cut it!

    • wolf moderate Says:

      Phil, have you used a call before? Or are you basing your experience on watching “horn porn” videos? Those videos where the elk are bugling like crazy and running to the bugle rarely happen in real hunting situations. Most of those videos are shot, either on private property or extremely limited hunting areas. It’s not like you sound the call and the infantry of animals that you are hunting come sprinting in or something. Also, to master the art of calling takes hard work and dedication. My bugling is horrid lol.

    • Elk275 Says:

      Phil, calls and dogs have been used since caveman days. That is the way it is done, there is an entire culture around dogs, calls and decoys. It appears to be a genteel. Ariel hunting is a different situation and has nothing to do with modern sport hunting. It is not sport hunting but animal reduction, we both know that.

      ++The call brings the target either close enough or right in front of you. What equal opportunity is that for the elk, deer, duck, etc? ++

      I am capable of shooting at 500 yards and have shot many animals at that distance. If the range is not crowded, I will shoot at 300 and 400 yard targets. Ethics is a hard to define. I was looking at rifle scopes with electronic red dots in the middle of the cross hairs Sunday. Should they be allow or not, should one be allow to use a GPS, a range finder or the new modern progressive gun powers and rifle bullets that have been introduce in the last 5 years increasing muzzle velocity up to 150 per second.

      Each year modern firearms brings the hunter closer to his prey. The biggest development is used by both hunter and wildlife watcher, modern optics. Forty years ago good quality binoculars were expensive and most hunters did not have a decent pair. The best German quality binoculars available forty years now that same quality or better quality is available at Wal Mart for less than $200.

      I was talking with an employee of a archery products company the other day and her company is developing a small range finder that will be mounted on the bow. Modern archery equipment has nothing in common with archery equipment 30 to 50 years ago. The mountain man of the fur trade era wouldn’t have a cure on how to shoot a modern muzzle loader.

      Is technology destroying the sport of hunting or fishing or all modern sports. I used to like to rock climb, today I do not recognize modern rock climbing gear. The same with skiing, boating, etc. If I play golf or tennis I am sure that technology has changed them too.

      • Phil Says:

        Whether it is 500 yards or 50 yards, the calls are the baits for the animal to swing your way. It does not give the animal an equal fighting chance. Basically, the calls are forcing a reaction from the instinctive behavior of that animal. “Each year modern firearms brings the hunter closer to his prey.” I think it should be that it brings the prey closer to the hunter, but you are exactly right on.

        Even though I do not believe hunting is a outdoor sport, you are right. Modern technology only benefits the rock climber, and modern technology only benefits the hunter which gives an unequal playing field. I am not trying to start a vicious argument, but to me it is clear.

      • Savebears Says:


        I mouth call, I can bugle with nothing other than my mouth, now I am unfair because I have learned and hone a skill that uses no tools? I don’t own a commercial bugle, I have also hunted Moose, and use a birch bark call, that I peel off the tree to call them. When turkey hunting, my wife is my caller, she can mimic a turkey to a tee with nothing but her own mouth. She is also pretty good at mewing to elk with nothing more than what god gave her. So based on your opinion, we should duck tape our mouths when we are out hunting?

      • Savebears Says:

        Of course I also speak fluent German and Japanese, I guess that gives me an unfair advantage as well! But I don’t write them fluently, but can write it both languages as well, it appealed to the natural instinct of a Japanese woman enough that we were married for over 5 years many years ago..

      • wolf moderate Says:

        Don’t give these guys an excuse to duct tape your mouth shut. It’s a slippery slope, it starts when only you hunt, then to one hour before and after the hunt, then all the sudden they got you muzzled 24/7! I saw it happen once.

      • Savebears Says:


        I know people that can use a blade of grass to call in elk, very similar to what the Native Americans did, I guess that was unfair as well..of course as a country we did silence that group of people!

      • Elk275 Says:

        Save Bears

        My moose call is high tech compared to yours: mind will not pass Phil’s muster, oh well. I use a 2 pound coffee can with a hole punched in the middle of the bottom of the can. Then I knot a flat shoe lace and let the length of the lace run down the middle of the can. You wet the lace and run your hand down it. The can amplifies the sound created by the fiction with your hand on the lace. Works very good, I used it in Alaska one day and there was my moose five minutes later.

        I do not what anyone says about calls etc. The biggest technological advantage is modern optics, something few think about.

      • Savebears Says:


        I have heard of that one, I have never tried it though, I might play around this year and see how that works out, I would love to get some good photos of bulls in rut, something to add to my collection.

  5. Phil Says:

    wolf moderate: I did not say a herd of deer or elk will flock to your destination when hearing the call, but deer hunting occurs during the season when the males are in their testes hormone stage, right? Isn’t that one factor as to why their velvets begin to peel? I am not going to pretend to know the exact effects of calls, but I do understand the call is either a mating call or a male to male conflict call.

    SB: Come on. LOL Chasing the deer in the woods would be fun.

    • Savebears Says:

      Phil, at the time I hunt deer, calling them is pretty much useless, I don’t hunt deer during the rut, its to damn cold at that time of the year, I hunt deer during archery season, which occurs in September around the area I live in, the rut happens in Nov-Dec, to much snow and to damn cold to be drawing a bow!

  6. Phil Says:

    SB, wolf moderate and Elk: As hard as it is, and as much proof as there is out there, I will try to see it your way due to the fact that you go through what you are saying.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: