Lets Call the Dogs Out on this one!

[shoots-straight]

buzz...the numbers were not set low...in fact 2300 head of elk on the north side of the lake is not a bad number...closer to the high side than the low of what the breaks should have elk wise(in my opinion). Time to "revisit the objectives" take that up w/ the landowners and biologists in the breaks. I only have to deal w/ the "spill over" on the elk in the breaks, and personally wish there were fewer elk around. It is nice to see them, but it gets old, and expensive, fixing fence and seeing crops damaged.

straight...to answer, I do not have a problem w/ RMEF purchasing land, and I have no problem w/ them placing easements, or allowing public access to the land, and they can allow management by any entitity they deem responsible...personally I think it is great that an organization will do that.... I do have a problem w/ them, or any other organization, turning it back to Gov't though.

Circle speak? Give me a break...you will find my beliefs to remain consistent. However, unlike most on here I am not so blinded by my own interests to not see the whole picture....and I can usually find the sty in my own eye, rather than behold the moat in my neighbors...unlike many others I know.

Eric, lets put numbers in perspective for you.
I'll compare the Missouri Breaks EMP areas, to the Bitterroot, Ravalli County EMP numbers. They are similar in lots of ways. Just one happens to be West, and the other East. Both these areas geographiclly are a little over 1 million acres.

The Missouri Breaks region, CMR, and the surrounding Hunting districts of
HD 410
HD 417
HD 426
HD 621,622,623
HD 630,631,632
HD 700
Those areas combined are more than Ravalli County in acreage. The public lands in that area make up roughly the same proportion though Ravalli county is 66% public, and the Breaks region is close to 61%. Give or take

Debbie Barretts bill hurt us too, so after a lengthy battle here we ended up with 6,670 Elk for a objective number.

The Breaks ended up with 4788.

That's almost 2000 less elk in roughly the same amount of lands, owned by roughly the same types of land agencies.

Our biggest land use is Timber land, followed by agriculture, where yours is agriculture. (Ranching)

The biggest difference is Ravalli County has lost thousands of acres of habitat to development. There's over 45,000 people living here. Yet we are OK with housing 2000 more Elk, and in fact are working to fix the EMP to give us more. Recreational hunting, and viewing of Elk have a big impact on our economy. They could also be on yours.

There very little in human population compared with us in your region.

We have a hard time understanding the numbers in your region, when in fact there's more habitat available.

 

[Straight Arrow]

I do have a problem w/ them (RMEF), or any other organization, turning it back to Gov't though.

Eric, fair enough; your position is clear. But the answer to my question is clearly YES, you are opposed to RMEF. The "circle-speak" is that you cannot claim to support RMEF or any other organization and at the same time oppose the fundamental method by which they acquire habitat for wildlife and provide for public lands for public access. You can't support one without the other. Attempting to say you do is "circle-speak, in that you purport to support RMEF but oppose accomplishment of their mission. Contradictory, not consistent, in my opinion.

 

[Elkmagnet]

buzz...the numbers were not set low...in fact 2300 head of elk on the north side of the lake is not a bad number...closer to the high side than the low of what the breaks should have elk wise(in my opinion). Time to "revisit the objectives" take that up w/ the landowners and biologists in the breaks. I only have to deal w/ the "spill over" on the elk in the breaks, and personally wish there were fewer elk around. It is nice to see them, but it gets old, and expensive, fixing fence and seeing crops damaged.

If that's true you should post your address and an open invitation for us all to come hunt those dam elk

 

[ingomar]

Very interesting info going back and forth. What would everyone think if we could open up 866,000 acres at no cost to the state or public???

That is the amount of acreage that would be opened up in Montana if the corner crossing bill passes!!!

 

[Eric Albus]

shoots, what you have to take into consideration is the amount of habitat and escape coverer w/in the different areas. The Breaks Area that elk prefer to spend the majority of their time is within 3-4 miles of Ft. Peck Lake. There may be as many acres here but living space is pretty confined. Landowner tolerance is still taken into high consideration as well.

elkmagnet, draw the tag and give me a call....we have allowed the public access for years. same w/ antelope.....ironic, ain't it.

 

[Eric Albus]

greenhorn...that is where the chasm between landowners and sporstmen begins.

 

[Elkmagnet]

shoots, what you have to take into consideration is the amount of habitat and escape coverer w/in the different areas. The Breaks Area that elk prefer to spend the majority of their time is within 3-4 miles of Ft. Peck Lake. There may be as many acres here but living space is pretty confined. Landowner tolerance is still taken into high consideration as well.

elkmagnet, draw the tag and give me a call....we have allowed the public access for years. same w/ antelope.....ironic, ain't it.

Someone is drawing the tags. Put that offer up on the elk forum in a thread titled with the unit # and put a phone # and some pics of elk you have seen on the property. I think that should do it. Better yet do the same thing on you're local Craigslist.

All BS aside if you are really allowing access to any and all, I applaud you for that. Unfortunately its easier for people to say they do than to actually do it. If ranching was easy everyone would do it

 

[Eric Albus]

straight, I do not think that it is "circle speak" to agree w/ RMEF and what they are attempting to do in preserving habitat, I just disagree w/ turning the land over to the Gov't...unless they would manage it like social security, the postal system, medi-care, or block management.

 

[Eric Albus]

elkmag....we get enough folks coming out bow hunting and rifle hunting that draw the permits...it is not a secret that we allow access.

 

[shoots-straight]

shoots, what you have to take into consideration is the amount of habitat and escape coverer w/in the different areas. The Breaks Area that elk prefer to spend the majority of their time is within 3-4 miles of Ft. Peck Lake. There may be as many acres here but living space is pretty confined. Landowner tolerance is still taken into high consideration as well.

elkmagnet, draw the tag and give me a call....we have allowed the public access for years. same w/ antelope.....ironic, ain't it.

Eric, I respect you for verbalizing with us.

That said. You have plenty of habitat compared to us. More, way more. The West side of the Root is mostly Granite. Grass has a hard time growing there and much of the Bitterroot Range is cliff.

The East side of the Root is the Sapphire Range. It's mountains aren't as tall, and more gentle, but there's still a lot of land that to high. Our Elk herd is limited by winter range. Everything above 5,000 ft will have too much snow for elk by about the 15th of Dec. and won't melt off until the end of March. So not much of any wildlife will be there then. If you have Google Earth downloaded take a look at the Root. Between the houses, development, and the high country elk are crunched hard. We still find it socially to ask for more elk. Science has nothing to do with our, nor your elk objectives. It really should though. You yourself, always are writing how you want the dept to manage scientifically, but then agree with the social end of it when talking numbers. Don't be that guy.

I don't think your tolerance level for elk is very good in that region. Manly because of the competition for land, and grass within the Ranching community. Even though we all own the public lands.

 

[Eric Albus]

You are correct, the tolerance level for elk here in Eastern Mt is not great for elk. If the breaks met the 2300 number on the north side it would be plenty of elk. You do not hear me clamor as much about elk management as I do deer management(specifically mule deer). Elk are a much different "animal", and one must take into account landowner tolerance. Elk (as I can attest first hand) cause a lot more damage than deer. Just have 30-40 head living in a grain field, and running thru the fence every morning/evening....can't imagine putting up w/ 300 head doing the same thing(like the folks in the breaks). If the elk stayed on public land I do not think that you would hear any landowner complaining very much. The problem is that they don't seem to unstand where the line is...until hunting season. Then elk in particular know exactly where the "kings X" is located.