Bigger Pie Brainstorm

[R.K.]

My four would be pretty much a rehash of what's already said:

• Protect winter range/other critical habitat- this includes conservation easements, refuges, fish and wildlife areas, etc.
• Protect migration corridors
• Enforce wildlife harassment/herding laws, make penalties large enough to actually hurt those that herd/hoarde wildlife
• Habitat tolerance objectives instead of landowner tolerance

We have to prioritize protections of the critical habitat, or we won't have any habitat to support growing the pie. The harassment one is about spreading animals out across the landscape so they can better utilize all of it instead of being concentrated in smaller areas (this is a more short-term idea to tackle current issues, especially in Montana).


Honourable mentions:

• Legalize Corner crossing
• Remove protections from feral horses
• Cut grazing permits
• Charge market value for grazing permits on a cow-calf-unit-day basis.
• Eliminate domestic sheep in bighorn sheep habitat
• Increased "public access to private lands" programs
• More conservation easements
• Wildlife highway crossings
• Catalog the effect of "non-consumptive" users on wildlife and implement a program that charges them accordingly for the impact they have
• Reasonable season lengths that don't lead to game animals being pushed off of all the public land (Montana)
• Classify bison as wildlife instead of domestic livestock, begin reintroductions in suitable habitat
• Expand use of prescribed burning
• Constitutionally protect hunting as a right of the people
• Require scientific management of wildlife- ballot initiatives and legislative decisions are only suggestions, science rules all
• Landowner tags are for landowners and immediate family only, non-transferable, non-sellable, etc.
• Eliminate frivolous lawsuits a la wolves and grizzly bears

Habitat first. Populations and access after. Once we have the habitat, we can focus on growing the herds. And once we grow the herds, we can focus on gaining access to them. Or vice versa. With limited resources, we have to pick and choose where we dedicate those resources, and I feel that habitat is the one piece that we will never be able to recover once lost, and is therefore the most time sensitive. Anything that accomplishes all three is a major win in my book, but that's my opinion on it.

 

[RobertD]

Feral. Feral horses. Shouldnt even need tags for invasive feral animals.

Ah. I see the distinction and can agree with it. But my plan involves specifically keeping them around... we're gonna use that tag revenue to improve habitat and increase hunting opportunity. (I've seriously thought way too much about this idea that will NEVER see the light of day, haha.)

 

[Trailsend]

Public access to all public land, there is to much landlocked public land.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Oh, plus deys scary!

Basically i just cant see how adding grizzlies would in any way increase hunting opportunities but i can see many ways they would decrease them. Theyre pie shrinkers.

They're not. Grizzlies rely on large, unbroken tracts of native habitat in order to thrive. They're generalists, so they eat anything that comes in front of their face. The myth that predation is a primary limiting factor in ungulate recruitment has been pretty thoroughly debunked by actual biologists across the world. Anecdotally, it's proven true in MT, especially in areas like SW MT & the Rocky Mountain Front. The key to both of those landscapes is adequately protected habitat for the propagation of all wildlife.

So yeah, more grizzly bears means more elk & deer on the mountain. It means better connectivity between habitat types & it means more conserved landscapes across the private & public land interface.

So my wish list is to conserve habitat first & foremost. Biden's 30 by 30 proposal is critical for increasing the pie. Add on to that better land management to fight invasive species like houndstongue, toadflax, leafy spurge & cheatgrass and you have some building blocks to better manage what is already in the public realm, but the private realm too, and when you add 30 by 30 on top of that, you have a good chance of growing herds on public land & restoring keystone species like native grouse, sheep, etc.

I'd love to see new wildlife refuges, less exploitation of current refuges, more wilderness, better & more permanent protections for existing roadless areas, and better funding of non-game species as well, since that all relies on habitat conservation.

Removing the political oversight of our fish & game agencies across the United States would be a great item as well. Wyoming has largely maintained that insulation in the form of keeping their budget away from the Legislature to a large degree (The budget is presented to the Commission, who votes to adopt or alter).

Increase funding for access programs at the state level, and provide venues for all states to utilize existing federal/private revenue streams to enact bold conservation strategies to combat climate change impacts to habitat & herd/wildlife health.

Energy development reform to actually force industry to mitigate their impacts before development & clean up their own mess afterwards, rather than push the burden on to the taxpayer & raise the corporate tax rate for energy companies so that they are forced to invest their money back into either their workers or into conservation projects so as to actually be a net benefit to all of America, rather than just the shareholders.

Grazing reform, per @Oak's stipulations.

Increased excise taxes on non-consumptive gear purchases in order to help fund better stewardship & maintenence of public lands, and to find a better funding source over the next 100 years for LWCF.

 

[nrpate05]

Basically i just cant see how adding grizzlies would in any way increase hunting opportunities but i can see many ways they would decrease them. Theyre pie shrinkers.

In CO, I think reintroducing grizzlies would drastically reduce the amount of recreators and, therefore, the amount of stress on ungulate populations. It would be an interesting study to see how many people (hunters included) stay away from areas with grizzlies. Many areas that have grizzlies are over objective for elk.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

So in my little corner of the world, our gmu 113 has grizz. That means were not allowed to spring bear hunt there. To protect the grizz from idiots. So them being there makes the pie smaller. Just like now we cant night hunt bobcats in pretty much this entire portion of the state due to the astronomically small chance that a lynx just may be present and come into a call in the dark and be shot. Rare predator shrinks the pie further. And if grizz are killing blackies, our pie got even smaller cause that means less blackies to hunt and i know damn good and well we will never be allowed to hunt grizz. And i think you may be underestimating the grizz potential impact on ungulates. Look qt this. This lion killed 5 deer and 17 elk in 2 months. Why? Because half of its kills were being stolen by black bears so it had to keep killing and killing. Grizz would have no problem jacking a kill from lions or a few wolves, making the cats and dogs have to kill again and again, far beyond their own needs, just to sustain the welfare bears. Something to consider, bears impact predation rates beyond just the fawns and calfs they gobble down. https://www.themeateater.com/video/...gars-summer-diet-in-yellowstone-national-park

CO doesn't have spring bear or trapping. The black bears population is so large and the regulations so ridiculous you can now get 3 tags for the fall.

[Deleted] Ben's comment

There are several hunts in CO where you could draw a sheep or goat tag and then might not to be able to really do the hunt justice because you can't draw the camping permit... There are so many people getting hammered and shitting all over the tundra that they have to have camping by permit and you have to pull that camping permit in addition to your tags.

So yeah, I actually and literally want grizzlies in CO so that some people get mauled and some areas get less non-consumptive pressure.

I'll be in the bar with Mr. Leary if you need me.

 

[bisblue]

Energy development reform to actually force industry to mitigate their impacts before development & clean up their own mess afterwards, rather than push the burden on to the taxpayer & raise the corporate tax rate for energy companies so that they are forced to invest their money back into either their workers or into conservation projects so as to actually be a net benefit to all of America, rather than just the shareholders.


Increased excise taxes on non-consumptive gear purchases in order to help fund better stewardship & maintenence of public lands, and to find a better funding source over the next 100 years for LWCF.

These two are really cool, I came from the rock climbing world, and most users would be really stoked for a backpack tax, but they would also want to see that money go into more access for them to more places (better maintained or paved roads or cars and sprinter vans). I hear it all the time in public meetings as I live in a rock climbing epicenter.

I know on the BLM for mining work you have to issue a bond before work that would cover the value of restoration to make sure you don't go "bankrupt" as soon as you are done mining. I know this is how it works for small/medium operations, not sure on the big boys with more political power.

Stoked for all the responses, some really cool ideas. I just wanted to see how many different topics would come up.

 

[Dunning Kruger]

So yeah, I actually and literally want grizzlies in CO so that some people get mauled and some areas get less non-consumptive pressure.

Im going to accept that answer.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

Im going to accept that answer.

I'm glad bears eating hipsters could bring us together, now @Oak how do you actually get movement on the sheep allotment issue? Federal or State legislation?

 

[88man]

If you killed all the elk/mule deer/pronghorn there would be a ton more habitat for whitetail, which as we have found are super adaptable. So if the whole goal is just more shit for people to shoot then that’s probably your best route. Whitetail can exist at a much higher density that any of those species.

at low elevation

 

[Deleted member 28227]

at low elevation

High country whitetails

I was out trying to track down the group of bucks I found a few weeks back (after catching 60 cutthroat this afternoon). I managed to find one of them. He looks to be decent 8 point. Has anyone else noticed an increase in whitetails at higher elevations? I started scouting the area hoping to...

www.hunttalk.com

Depends on your definition I guess. 9,000-14,000 probably not 5,000-8,500 definitely.

I know there was one in RMNP that was hanging out around 8,700 for a while.

 

[Ben Lamb]

at low elevation

Buddy shot a whitetail buck about 3/4 of the way up Emmigrant Peak a few years ago.

I've seen 'em all over the RM Front, up high. Former FWP mule deer bio for R1 said her job got infintely harder when whitetail started taking over Muld eDeer Habitat higher up on the Mtn,

And oh yeah, all of the Mountains of the eastern US.

Those are the higher elevation whitetails I can think of.

 

[88man]

High country whitetails

I was out trying to track down the group of bucks I found a few weeks back (after catching 60 cutthroat this afternoon). I managed to find one of them. He looks to be decent 8 point. Has anyone else noticed an increase in whitetails at higher elevations? I started scouting the area hoping to...

www.hunttalk.com

Depends on your definition I guess. 9,000-14,000 probably not 5,000-8,500 definitely.

I know there was one in RMNP that was hanging out around 8,700 for a while.

Buddy shot a whitetail buck about 3/4 of the way up Emmigrant Peak a few years ago.

I've seen 'em all over the RM Front, up high. Former FWP mule deer bio for R1 said her job got infintely harder when whitetail started taking over Muld eDeer Habitat higher up on the Mtn,

And oh yeah, all of the Mountains of the eastern US.

Those are the higher elevation whitetails I can think of.

Is it safe to say very very few above 8000

 

[88man]

I'm glad bears eating hipsters could bring us together, now @Oak how do you actually get movement on the sheep allotment issue? Federal or State legislation?

do wolves eat hippsters? I have no issues with Griz outside of the current core. Its gonna be a chit show thou with all the human conflicts and a drain on fish and game personnel and budgets in colorado, just to many people. Is it really worth it?

 

[TrumpkinTheDwarf]

Just 4 you say?
1. Easements to all land locked public
2. Land use permits required for non hunters anywhere hunters have to pay
3. healthy grizzly bear populations in all historical ranges
4. legalize corner crossing

 

[Oak]

I'm glad bears eating hipsters could bring us together, now @Oak how do you actually get movement on the sheep allotment issue? Federal or State legislation?

Federal legislation. There have been several attempts that have gained no traction.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

do wolves eat hippsters?

Inverse effect, every Dylan has a "wolf" named luna that destroys rentals apts and hangs out the side of his WRX or Taco.

I voted no, they're in CO already and should be left to do their thing.

Grizz will have a hard time making into to the good spots for them in CO unaided.

 

[Dunning Kruger]

3. healthy grizzly bear populations in all historical ranges

So downtown denver, san francisco, etc etc?

 

[Ben Lamb]

So downtown denver, san francisco, etc etc?

Certainly plenty of public land in CA, OR, WA & CO to support some.

No self-respecting bear would be caught dead in a town with over 500 people in it. Too filthy & full of disease.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

Certainly plenty of public land in CA, OR, WA & CO to support some.

No self-respecting bear would be caught dead in a town with over 500 people in it. Too filthy & full of disease.