FWP Gives permission to kill 3 yearlings

[larry]

Montana's FWP is in the sticks and in the stone age when it come to managing the states wildlife resources.

thats the problem, they aren't managing the resources, they are managing their checkbook.


Sourdough, there was no depredation. If you look up the actual number of lion dpredations on livestock in the state of MT, you will see how unfrequent it is.

[sourdough]

larry,

I am sure that the Montana livestock producers are losing livestock to lion predation whether or not the FWP is doing the paperwork on them or not, is another story it is a shame if they are not. USDA may have better information on losses and take than FWP this is all speculation on my part as I don't live Montana. I do know that predators are the hardest game animal to get true numbers on, one can really not base a quota on take as there are to many variables, and you can't count them from the air. I am not defending either party just bring up healthy debate.

sourdough

[huntinlass]

If you look up the actual number of lion dpredations on livestock in the state of MT, you will see how unfrequent it is.

Larry is correct. Most ranchers are critical of predators no matter if there is any basis or not. They would be correct in that assumption with wolves and coyotes up in this country but not so much the lions.
Perhaps this was a political thing. The FWP might want to keep this rancher appeased because he has a lot of land that they want public access to or ............... I don't know this to be the case in this particular deal because I am not familiar with the case, but I do know the FWP will deal if there is something in it for them.

Someone also talked about the deer populations being down. Isn't it convenient that the lions get the blame immediately. Something that should be heavily considered in this down deer population equation are 2 things. Black bear numbers are up and they love fawns but the biggest one is the long wintery springs we've had for the last 3 years. This will take a toll on the fawn crop.

[Doogie]

only 2 things? I think your missing a big one there, starts with a w and ends with a f

[MTblack&tan]

Well said huntinlass. I like your viewpoint on things. I too think there are too many factors in the fluctuation of deer populations. Thats why I get so worked up when lions get all the blame for deer numbers being down. I truly think a big, if not the biggest, factor is COYOTES. They play hell on them little guys in the spring. Either way you look at, this situation was handled wrong. It would have never been handled this way if it had involved some other predator or animal. Do you think it would have been handled this way if it had been a wolf deal?

[huntinlass]

I did forget to mention the coyotes, but not on purpose (thanks mtblackandtan). I guess I figured that everyone already knew it.

Wolf deal, well let's see................what a joke right. FWP wants proof it's an actual wolf predation, but not until they wait maybe 3 days to get around to checking it out. By then said kill is already completely gone as is any and all evidence. FWP says whoops, my bad............call me the next kill and I'll try to be more prompt (yeah right!!) Anyway, this is the pattern there.

ok, I quit............DON'T GET ME STARTED

[larry]

larry,

I am sure that the Montana livestock producers are losing livestock to lion predation whether or not the FWP is doing the paperwork on them or not, is another story it is a shame if they are not. USDA may have better information on losses and take than FWP this is all speculation on my part as I don't live Montana. I do know that predators are the hardest game animal to get true numbers on, one can really not base a quota on take as there are to many variables, and you can't count them from the air. I am not defending either party just bring up healthy debate.

sourdough

Where do you assume that I get my information from? Apparently you think it is coming from FWP records? In the future I would advise you to steer clear of trying to make a healthy debate based on assumptions and speculation.

[sourdough]

Larry,

Then there is only one place else you could get all this great information out of your Azz.
What I piss in your cornfakes, Rockcreek withdrawal, mother didn't breast feed you long enough, bullied in school, or are you just a prick with nothing better to do with your time?

sourdough

[larry]

Larry,

Then there is only one place else you could get all this great information out of your Azz.
What I piss in your cornfakes, Rockcreek withdrawal, mother didn't breast feed you long enough, bullied in school, or are you just a prick with nothing better to do with your time?

sourdough

HaHa, no, looks like its the other way around after this response. Just pointed out that i don't think to many debates get settled or decided when one party brings assumption and speculation to the table as their basis long story short, you may be trying to play devils advocate here, idk, but i do know that you know less than nothing about the area, depredation, rancher, hunter, and game warden in question. Not hard to do the math on that one.

[sourdough]

Larry,

Wow, you had another bowel movement. Haven't see any hard evidence on your part, all you managed to do is list a few game wardens phone numbers and state that lions take fewer livestock than one thinks that was real tough. I would like to see this information you have or at least site where you got it. Is it so top secret that only you have it? I for one am going off the information that was stated above. You have an agenda and a hard on for the livestock industry, fish and game, and unnamed houndsman. Why didn't you list their phone numbers on here as well? You stated that there was another way of handling it. Typical dumb ass statement made by someone who would of handle it in the same way if put in the same position, then never state how. These game and fish departments never manage the states resources right. Go get a degree hire on and fix it then. Don't just sit back and jaw about it. Become a fish cop. You seem to have all the answers and with the self inflated ego you have already you should fit in great. Hell I might even let you use me for a character reference. Instead of wasting everyone time on here with useless information and bullying comments why don't you find some self help program on the net I am sure there is a forum that you can talk on that can get you through this anger problem. Here I found some sites that might be useful.

http://www.asktheinternettherapist.com/​counselingarchive-types-of-anger.asp

http://www.anger-management-information.com/​Free-Anger-Management-Classes.html

The first step there Larry is admitting you have a problem. I wish I could be your sponsor. Maybe you can find someone near you and get this problem fix? Heck the game warden might be able to go with you now, after placing his phone number on the web, I am sure if he didn't have an anger problem then he does now! that was one of the smartest things I have ever seen done! great job, have to hand it to you. You got balls. I am sure it will work out for you down the road.

Until your next bowel movement.

sourdough

[MTblack&tan]

You stated that there was another way of handling it. Typical dumb ass statement made by someone who would of handle it in the same way if put in the same position, then never state how.

I guess that makes myself and a few others some real dumb asses then. I for one can say that I would not have handled it in the same way if put in that position. Just me though.

after placing his phone number on the web, I am sure if he didn't have an anger problem then he does now! that was one of the smartest things I have ever seen done! great job

I would say that since his job involves the interest of public wildlife, he ultimately answers to the public. So realistically, his contact number is public information. I don't see any thing wrong with it. People should have the opportunity to give him their opinion on the situation, wether they agree with him or not. If you agree with how it was handled, call him and tell him you think he did the right thing. Might just make his day. Wether posted on here or not, anyone could get a hold of his number with one simple call.

[sourdough]

You stated that there was another way of handling it. Typical dumb ass statement made by someone who would of handle it in the same way if put in the same position, then never state how.

I guess that makes myself and a few others some real dumb asses then. I for one can say that I would not have handled it in the same way if put in that position. Just me though.

after placing his phone number on the web, I am sure if he didn't have an anger problem then he does now! that was one of the smartest things I have ever seen done! great job

I would say that since his job involves the interest of public wildlife, he ultimately answers to the public. So realistically, his contact number is public information. I don't see any thing wrong with it. People should have the opportunity to give him their opinion on the situation, wether they agree with him or not. If you agree with how it was handled, call him and tell him you think he did the right thing. Might just make his day. Wether posted on here or not, anyone could get a hold of his number with one simple call.

First of all my comments were directed toward Larry. But if you want to get into it that's fine. I will say that you should read my above posts first, before you get into a beef with me. I didn't provoke the response I received from Larry.

You said that you would of handled it different but again did not state how!

I also agree that people should have the opportunity to give their opinions on a situation and I did You can agree or disagree with what I have said that's your right.
If you had a problem with anything I said in the above posts I made you should of said something then to tie yourself to larry is fine I don't know if it useful the internet is no place to put phone numbers their are people that view this site that are not friendly to us or fish and game a quick look on the internet and you have someone address of where they live if you think that's ok then that's your right.

sourdough

[MTblack&tan]

Lets state it then if it makes you feel better. Since there are three different parties involved here is how I would break it down:

If I were the game warden:
After recieving the second phone call, went to the ranch for an investigation. Taken statements and photos, and physically verified what the rancher was saying had happened. Upon the investigation made an educated decision on what the course of action should be. Not sure on protocol for who a warden needs to get to OK the course of action, but I do believe that a State Trapper should have been called to conduct the removal of the lions. This course of action would have led to a solid decision. So when the public found out about the situation, there would be hard evidence to back it up and no more questions. (I believe this is where the whole thread and concern started, too many unanswered questions)

If I were the Rancher:
I would have continued to make the phone calls. If I really would have felt my horses were in danger, I would have shot at the lions in hope of deterring them from coming around again. I do believe the rancher has a right to defend his livestock.

If I were the houndsman:
I would have run the lions in hopes that the disturbance would make the lions move on. I don't believe in killing females and especially one with three male juveniles with her. If the lions continued to come around after being harassed, the warden would have an easy decision to make about what to do with the cats. At which point the State Trapper would have been called and the situation handled properly.

Thats just how I think it should have been handled.

[sourdough]

Now that was some useful information. I already know what Larry thinks of the state trapper so look out with that comment. So shoot to scare them away and risk losing something that night. You don't know fish and game protocol but you do know he didn't follow it. Larry called him but his explanation was not good enough. Here I am in an argument with someone else over an attack from Larry. and still no one knows for sure what happened but the rancher, game warden, and houndsman this was a worth while thread.

sourdough

[larry]

Sourdough, for one , you stated that you were looking for a debate. Iam not and never have on this thread, therefore your questions to me are of little concern or importance to me. I simply pointed out that the basis for your desired debate was basically rediculous. I'm sorry that you are unable to take realistic constructive critisism. Istrongly agree with mtb&t's procedure. I have first hand knowledge of several of the determining factors here, and am allowed my own personal opinion wether you like it or not, and I don't have to explain any of it to you. In my limited personal experience with fwp, I have found that calling them on their BS and not tolerating their "stupid human tricks" gets my position across effectively. Not sure what response you didn't deserve that was provoked from me, other than the realistic one you got, but again, I would hope it's common knowledge not to base a one sided debate off of assumptions and speculation, DUH! Sorry that i am not seeing things through your rose colored glasses, but that doesn't give you the right to throw a childish little temper tantrum. Go have a time out and think about how little you really know about this topic.
PS, I never attacked you, still haven't, and don't plan on it, but i gotta wonder if your estrogen levels are peaking right about now??? I don't agree with a damn thing you think you are qualified to say on this single thread, get over it.