BLM Closures in Colorado... We need your help!

[Gerald Martin]

BuzzH- This is sort of a highjack to the OP's original thread but I thought I'd add a couple comments to your remarks regarding "trophy" lion areas. I live in the northwest where we are surrounded by draw only areas. Last year and this year out of concern for too many toms being killed and not enough females, many of the districts have gone to a sub-quota for males with the rest being females. For example in 121 where I primarily hunt the male sub-quota is 8 and the total number of license is 22. That weights the harvest to at least 50% females since the quota rarely is completely filled. I think on average success rates are 60-80% of total license sales.

The way licenses are currently structured around here is highly in favor of us DIY guys. With NR quotas at 10% the 14 licensed outfitters in 121 have a hard time justifying keeping hounds just for the 3 NR's that draw. Not all NRs are booking hunts anyway and some are only applying to hunt with their DIY friends.

It's a great improvement from the quota race that filled and overfilled before it went to special draw. The quota only system was a gold mine for outfitters and hunting was super competitive with guys being paid just to go find tracks.

The highest the quota ever was for this unit was around 20 if memory serves me correctly . Now the harvest is generally between 14-18 lions each year.

It is a great improvement from a management and quality of hunt standpoint, IMO. Many houndsmen actually lobbied in favor of limiting the number of males killed and upping the numbers of females killed in regards to the new changes in region 1 and 2.

 

[BuzzH]

Gerald, that may be the case where you hunt in Montana, but where I hunt the lion harvest went from 100 a year to 10. Not to mention that at least one unit cut harvest all together (not sure if its still closed).

The MTFWP is managing lions about as poorly as everything else, catering to whining and special interest as per always. Its also at a huge expense to species that actually pay the bills and the MAJORITY of hunters in Montana actually hunt.

Increase opportunity for prey species and decrease opportunity for predators...smart thinking, in particular when the MTFWP "claims" to be trying to increase deer and elk in herds in Western Montana.

 

[243 AI]

One thing I've noticed over the past 20 years is most lion hunters now tree and release young males and most females. This is completely divergent from the old days of bounties and knocking every cat you catch out of the tree. Now, I don't want to go back to those days, but the modern houndsman has lined his pocket pretty well in many states to have something to chase on a regular basis.

Everybody wants a big-headed male (understandably so), but only taking adult males can't be the best thing to do. A female that lives a fairly long life and raises 2-3 litters is going to kill more animals over here lifetime than a male will simply because she has to feed the family. Her home range is also smaller so she has more of an impact on her range.

Since many lions are let go except for the biggest in most cases, the population grows. With this you don't have as many adult males running around that will kill kittens given the chance. That is also going to reduces the overall population.

With lots of lions running around, even if they are mostly females with young and young males, it makes hound hunters happy because they can spend very little time in the cab of a pickup or on a snowmobile of ATV before they cut a track and at least have something to chase to justify having dogs.

I've been at the Fish and Game meetings and listened to the houndsmen lobby hard to have all roads open so they can look for tracks all under the guise that they are helping big game get through the winter and saving them for the guys who want to blast one next fall.

I can't blame the hound guys doing this, but I really wonder if this benefits wintering big game because now they deal with people and lions?