Development in Eastern Sierra threatens the mule deer herd.

[Tom]

WH, That is one of the few posts you've made I agree with, nearly 100%. They could raise it though, if they demonstrated it was needed by law. The state is by law, supposed to manage the wildlife in the state. The state is at fault, right?

Education would help them do a better job, I see that. If they raised it, and then had less money, because less tags were bought, then the management would get worse. But hey, the non-resident could fill the gap, lower theirs, raise the resident. I guess that promotes locals poaching, but that's a crime with fees and possible jail time. Education helps there too, I see that.

Yeah, education about habitat improvements, that's a major goal, and a basic goal.

 

[Washington Hunter]

Tom, I have always said that in most states residents should be willing to pay a little more for tags and licenses, and in some cases, non-residents should be paying less. I mean when they get to charging non-residents over $1000 for an elk tag, that's ridiculous. Sure there are some who can afford to pay that much (and they will) but I would rather tags be distributed on a random basis instead of only to those with the most money.

 

[FAIRCHASEBEN]

Tom ,
If it helps it costs me $45 to apply for a deer tag , $30 for the tag and $15 in application fees , and that's after I purchase a $33 hunting license , that's $78 total to hunt deer , does that make you feel better ?

But don't give up on your conspiracy theory that all western states have banned together to charge Texans more for everything .

 

[Tom]

Fairchaseben, it costs me $59 now for the super combo hunting and fishing liscense here, it includes 6 deer tags, 4 turkey tags, 1 red drum tag, and unlimited exotics including hogs, as well as, the bird and fish daily limits. I have to get the federal duck stamp separate, but it includes the state duck stamp, archery stamp, etc.

Most of my money for hunting here is spent on habitat food supply for animals. Westerners spend ziltch on that, it seems like, no conspiracy, just stupidity. No offense, but a spade is a spade, might as well call it that.

How do you get more, bigger, and better animals? Habitat, habitat, habitat. At least if you value the animals at all, do something about the habitat, big time. Its legal to plant stuff there, right? Legal to fertilize stuff, right? You just can't bait, right?

 

[FAIRCHASEBEN]

OK Tom ,
I'll go spread some whitetail clover mix out in the desert this weekend .

 

[Tom]

You better talk to a game/habitat biologist before you go and do that. I don't think there is a cactus clover, is there, they probably eat other things there, the deer and elk and other animals.

 

[Ithaca 37]

FCB, "OK Tom ,
I'll go spread some whitetail clover mix out in the desert this weekend ."

Just get those cows off the BLM and the habitat will improve real fast!

 

[Tom]

The cows generate money for the BLM, probably more than the elk, right? How do those finances work?

 

[1_pointer]

Just get those cows off the BLM and the habitat will improve real fast!

Not always true. Yes, improper grazing can deteriorate habitat, but on the flip side properly managed grazing can improve the habitat. Ask TNC about that...

 

[Ithaca 37]

Sure, But we're not seeing much properly managed grazing except maybe where TNC is involved. Unless there is fairly intensive monitoring of grazing I believe we're better off without any cows on the BLM. I don't believe we're going to get intensive monitoring anytime soon!

 

[1_pointer]

I disagree that only TNC is using properly managed grazing, but I'll leave it at that.

But, the monitoring I'd like to hear more about. What do you feel should be monitored? What do you mean by 'fairly intensive'? And yes, I will admit that in plenty of instances lack of monitoring is a problem for the agencies. But, what if the monitoring is there and adequate, but shows that an increase in grazing could happen and still meet the watershed/wildlife objectives? What if data is present that shows a range improvement could benefit the wildlife & livestock?

I'm all for monitoring and want that to be the focus of my career, but monitoring might not give you the answer you're looking for.

 

[Ithaca 37]

I think grazing allotments should be monitored closely enough to recognize problems developing as soon as possible. If an increase in grazing could actually benefit the wildlife I'd be in favor of it. My main interest is chukars and quail on BLM and I don't see grazing benefitting them in the places I hunt.

 

[1_pointer]

Chukars like over-grazing as it helps proliferate (with fire being the biggest catalyst) cheatgrass, which they thrive on.

If an increase in grazing could actually benefit the wildlife I'd be in favor of it.

Good to hear. Grazing can be a means to better wildlife habitat. Going from the above statement, I'm guessing you would support grazing practices (rest-rotation, deferred rest-rotation, etc) that would improve the health of the vegetation and the riparian areas. In some cases the agencies can't implement these types of systems because of protests/appeals. So, instead, the status quo system stays in place...

 

[Ithaca 37]

Chukars need a combination of cheatgrass, sagebrush and rocks. They have to have a water source from about May until November first, at which time they can get enough moisture from "green up grass".

Here's the problem: If there's too much cheat grass and it burns, it will burn all the sagebrush and the chukars won't want to live there. I've had good chukar areas that burned so hot all the sagebrush was killed and the chukars moved out. They can't seem to survive without some sagebrush for cover and the bare ground at the base of it when the snow comes.

1 pointer, You're just going to have to come chukar hunting someday with me and Scout. We'll show you what ideal chukar habitat looks like.

 

[1_pointer]

I'll cash in on that invitation this year! My comment about the cheatgrass was a bit, tongue in cheek, as I know they need the cover. Sagebrush die in fires quite easily and can take a long time to come back as most of the ssp. don't sprout, but have to come back through seed. A study in central UT showed that 30yrs after a fire, there were still no sagebrush colonizing the middle of the area, only the edges.