Comments on: Wolf Management Not Based on Science
Newest First
By Montana Healthy Water on 08-04-12 @ 8:24 am
Let’s hear more about healthy ecosystems supported by sound science. Thank you
By 10 bears on 08-04-12 @ 11:24 am
All the “science” you can dazzell folks with still won’t ever make up for actual on the ground observations and words can be manipulated and arranged anyway you choose to make your
case. I’ll take eye wittness accounts over your science any day.
By Montana Healthy Water on 08-04-12 @ 11:49 am
Thank you for your response. If anyone were to muster up “eyewitness accounts” that refute whatyou say by their “actual on the ground observations”, how are you or anyone going to know the
truth?
By jimbo on 08-04-12 @ 4:36 pm
So, what part of wolf re-introduction was based in sound science? What part of the 30 breeding pairs, then changed to 15 breeding pairs in each of ID, MT, and WY, before delisting
was based in sound science? What part of delisting them about 8 years too late was based in
sound science? What part of where USFWS got these wolves was based in sound science.
Jay, none of this has been based in sound science from the get go, why are you flapping your
gums about this now?
You really discredit yourself with the comment about wolves dying slowly in a trap or snare.
You said you studied these wolves for ten years, this must have involved collared wolves along
the way. How did you get those collars on? Call them in and show them some milkbones?
Much of the “science” of wolves involves leg-hold traps and collars. Unless you are some
superhuman athlete capable of running with these creatures, you had to traumatize them just
the same to study them.
And what about snares, there isn’t a faster way to kill anything, please with the “dying” slowly
crap.
And quit being like all the wolf-whining hunters and laying this on MT FWP. They are just
picking up the pieces here and dealing with this issue that they really didn’t want in the first
place. This was a federal issue, a political pile of crap from the start. It’s never been based in
science.
By jimbo on 08-04-12 @ 4:38 pm
Sorry, 20 years, wouldn’t want to short you on that.
By jimbo on 08-04-12 @ 5:35 pm
Oh brother, scratch all that. I thought this fellow might actually have something to say without an agenda. Just found his website, kind of made me throw up in my mouth a little.
Jay should have a sit down with Charles Kay. The Sportsmen for the Wealthy’s personal wolf
researcher. Jeez, you could sell tickets.
By hotfishmt on 08-05-12 @ 6:45 am
The item that catches my eyes reading the author’s comments are 10 years, & 43 years researching Wolves. That is a lot of $$$ to spend for some social report on wolves….must be nice
not to work for a living. The funds used to support these men’s “research” could have been used
for better projects.
The shortage of funds for valuable projects often goes unfunded, and yet some weep easy
supervisor in some back room advisory board…..says….here YES….go study wolves into the next
century…and let us know how your retirement goes in Florida when you get done. Too many
groups are studying the subjects to death…..trap, collar, study, re-collar, study,aerial observations,
new collar again, etc….mean while make sure my retirement check is in the mail.
By terryt on 08-05-12 @ 9:14 am
Way past time we stop spending money on all these research projects. we need to start reducing the amount all forms of government spend on research and reduce taxes so montana
familys can live a little bit better.
We can afford the research when we dont have a deficit.
By montanaeasy56 on 08-05-12 @ 9:31 am
More money flushed down the toilet. Now the feds are going to declare 7 or 8 states “drought disaster areas” and spend MORE of our tax dollars. Back in the old days, farmers and ranchers
bucked up when things went bad. Now days they can just sit back and wait for us taxpayers to
bail them out…when will the insanity stop…
The views expressed in the comments section do not reflect those of the Beacon.