Non resident Landowner incentive.

[Schaaf]

Looks like the Governor is moving the Goal posts on the bill already. We knew this was a foot in the door, but didn't expect this so soon.

Word is He's amending this bill to ask for anther tag for the 2500 acres . Wonder if the supporters are having any second thoughts now.

That’s not true.

Proposed Governor amendments are to get rid of the acreage gradient and replacing it with a standard 3 licenses for anyone over 2500 acres. The other amendment would be to place a 3 year waiting period on any new landowner before being eligible.

Both were at the request of Pat Flowers.

 

[golfer]

Agreed, most NR come for 4-14 days. This bill has almost zero impact. It’ll impact the NR landowner who hunts the entire season, but who cares about this very minor group.
If we could get it shut down to 5-7 days, pick your week for NR it’d been worth a try. I shall be curious to see if limiting NR to 1 doe license(2 if holding “A tag”) will do anything positive.
Hang on wait and see. I’ve made recommendations to FWP & the commission to open mule deer season and run it in tandem with antelope, giving bucks perhaps a little respite during their most vulnerable days. Keep throwing $hit at the wall, hoping something sticks.

The 14 day window has been amended to help NR Landowner's. Basically giving them the entire season. Here is the recent wording of the amendment.

(b) A nonresident landowner, including the landowner's spouse or natural or adoptive child, who owns 160 acres or more of contiguous land may hunt for more than 14 calendar days during a calendar year if the hunting beyond the 14-day limit occurs on the nonresident landowner's private property.

 

[Eric Albus]

Don't they already aerial gun them in Valley (and neighboring) counties? You'd think with how serious everyone is in NE MT about shooting them that coyotes would be exterminated by now.....You can already shoot them from virtually anything that moves, trap, etc., the only thing remaining is poison. Given our liberal (hunting and tactics) approach on predators in MT I think they are low on the list of worries for wildlife. If only everyone that worried about predators worried the same amount about habitat, then we could actually get somewhere.

You can have the best habitat in the world, in a world over abundant with predators you’ll have a suppressed ungulate population.
Predators are a problem. One thing you’re correct about is poison, it worked, but the likelihood of 1080 coming back is zero.

 

[shoots-straight]

That’s not true.

Proposed Governor amendments are to get rid of the acreage gradient and replacing it with a standard 3 licenses for anyone over 2500 acres. The other amendment would be to place a 3 year waiting period on any new landowner before being eligible.

Both were at the request of Pat Flowers.

yea, the intel I got was wrong headed. Glad they got their request in.

 

[sclancy27]

You can have the best habitat in the world, in a world over abundant with predators you’ll have a suppressed ungulate population.
Predators are a problem. One thing you’re correct about is poison, it worked, but the likelihood of 1080 coming back is zero.

What is "over abundant"? >0?

 

[Eric Albus]

What is "over abundant"? >0?

When the govt trapper tells me he has killed 1600 coyotes since 1-1-23 this qualifies as an “over abundance”.

 

[shoots-straight]

When the govt trapper tells me he has killed 1600 coyotes since 1-1-23 this qualifies as an “over abundance”.

Or one hell of a subsidy for Ranchers.

 

[sclancy27]

When the govt trapper tells me he has killed 1600 coyotes since 1-1-23 this qualifies as an “over abundance”.

Some context here would be good. Like number of counties he covers, or total square miles those came from, really anything that attempts to get at population density.

A second thought would be that there is pretty good science showing that if you shoot more coyotes you get more coyotes as it changes their reproductive behavior. If shooting them worked at lowering populations we would have seen it. I guess lowering them temporarily during "critical" times could be argued as being effective, but if they keep increasing reproduction it ends up being an arms race of sorts. Perhaps a different strategy is warranted (and I'm not talking poison)

 

[Eric Albus]

Or one hell of a subsidy for Ranchers.

Or free grazing hunters.

 

[Eric Albus]

Some context here would be good. Like number of counties he covers, or total square miles those came from, really anything that attempts to get at population density.

A second thought would be that there is pretty good science showing that if you shoot more coyotes you get more coyotes as it changes their reproductive behavior. If shooting them worked at lowering populations we would have seen it. I guess lowering them temporarily during "critical" times could be argued as being effective, but if they keep increasing reproduction it ends up being an arms race of sorts. Perhaps a different strategy is warranted (and I'm not talking poison)

Approx 1000 of the coyotes were killed right here in Valley Cnty, he covers 4 Cnty area if I remember correctly. He has not had time to get to our part of Valley Cnty all winter, so he hasn’t covered anywhere close to all of it for those numbers.

Correct you are in pressured coyotes fecundity increases.

Lowering numbers during calving/fawning provides relief to a degree. Much better than doing nothing. When a coyote bitch learns to kill calves other coyotes watch and learn.

 

[brockel]

A second thought would be that there is pretty good science showing that if you shoot more coyotes you get more coyotes as it changes their reproductive behavior. If shooting them worked at lowering populations we would have seen it. I guess lowering them temporarily during "critical" times could be argued as being effective, but if they keep increasing reproduction it ends up being an arms race of sorts. Perhaps a different strategy is warranted (and I'm not talking poison)

I’m not sure I believe too much of that science. I believe prey species control the coyote population.

If you have an over abundance of prey species you are going to have more coyotes going into winter in better shape so more coyotes survive the winter into the next year so there’s more pups the following year. Less prey species your easy meals aren’t there so when pups are dispersed they have a tougher time making a living. Less prey makes the coyotes go into winter in tougher shape making less coyotes the following year.

I’m just skeptical that a female coyote can decide to have 2 pups this year because the neighborhood is crowded and then a trapper comes in and wipes a ton out and then the next year she decides to have 8 because it’s not so crowded anymore.

 

[sclancy27]

I’m not sure I believe too much of that science. I believe prey species control the coyote population.

If you have an over abundance of prey species you are going to have more coyotes going into winter in better shape so more coyotes survive the winter into the next year so there’s more pups the following year. Less prey species your easy meals aren’t there so when pups are dispersed they have a tougher time making a living. Less prey makes the coyotes go into winter in tougher shape making less coyotes the following year.

I’m just skeptical that a female coyote can decide to have 2 pups this year because the neighborhood is crowded and then a trapper comes in and wipes a ton out and then the next year she decides to have 8 because it’s not so crowded anymore.

I see it as when you kill a lot of coyotes, the prey per coyote ratio goes way up. Increased resources leads to increased litter sizes. This can (and I think does) cause overshoot in coyote populations. Add in they are extremely adaptable to different kinds of prey (grasshoppers, rodents, whatever) and you get populations that never really go down, even with fairly high predation. It just seems logical that there are other ways to mitigate for them other than shooting them, cause it doesn't really seem like it works. I think people just like to shoot them because it makes them feel like they are doing something. Coming from a guy that hunts coyotes.

 

[Eric Albus]

I’m not sure I believe too much of that science. I believe prey species control the coyote population.

If you have an over abundance of prey species you are going to have more coyotes going into winter in better shape so more coyotes survive the winter into the next year so there’s more pups the following year. Less prey species your easy meals aren’t there so when pups are dispersed they have a tougher time making a living. Less prey makes the coyotes go into winter in tougher shape making less coyotes the following year.

I’m just skeptical that a female coyote can decide to have 2 pups this year because the neighborhood is crowded and then a trapper comes in and wipes a ton out and then the next year she decides to have 8 because it’s not so crowded anymore.

It’s a known fact, pressured prey populations react with greater fecundity. In layman’s terms, relentless coyote hunting equates bigger litters….always remember this, nature abhors a vacuum.

 

[Ben Lamb]

It’s a known fact, pressured prey populations react with greater fecundity. In layman’s terms, relentless coyote hunting equates bigger litters….always remember this, nature abhors a vacuum.

Habitat is the best defense against undesired predation effects. Let's get SB 442 over the finish line and start working on making Montana's habitat great again.

 

[MTTW]

It has been proven that you do not have to manage predators as that has pretty much been the case in much of SW MT for decades. You can also see where it leads. With responsible management many units in the western half of MT would be closed to mule deer hunting on public land. They are in no danger of extinction though and the remnant population is what we manage for and get. If FWP did not embrace the law of diminishing returns, there is no way they could defend their mule deer season on public land in many parts of SW MT.

I am not saying that we need to manage predators as it is proven that we don't, but we need to restrict hunters. One or the other. That subsidy being paid to ranchers in NE MT is actually in large part being paid to hunters. I won't pretend to know what 1600 coyotes eat, but I know what 1600 dead coyotes eat. I would suspect that we will eventually know what an unmanaged predator population coupled with long term low coyote fur prices looks like in NE MT. A lot of people think that they know. I don't think they do, because this level of hunting pressure has never existed there.

The million-dollar question is...where do the deer hunters go from there?

 

[golfer]

So now that the Governor’s amendments have not passed (35-65) is this bill considered dead or does it go back to his desk as it was originally sent to him to sign?

 

[Ben Lamb]

So now that the Governor’s amendments have not passed (35-65) is this bill considered dead or does it go back to his desk as it was originally sent to him to sign?

Goes back as originally passed.

 

[Eric Albus]

It has been proven that you do not have to manage predators as that has pretty much been the case in much of SW MT for decades. You can also see where it leads. With responsible management many units in the western half of MT would be closed to mule deer hunting on public land. They are in no danger of extinction though and the remnant population is what we manage for and get. If FWP did not embrace the law of diminishing returns, there is no way they could defend their mule deer season on public land in many parts of SW MT.

I am not saying that we need to manage predators as it is proven that we don't, but we need to restrict hunters. One or the other. That subsidy being paid to ranchers in NE MT is actually in large part being paid to hunters. I won't pretend to know what 1600 coyotes eat, but I know what 1600 dead coyotes eat. I would suspect that we will eventually know what an unmanaged predator population coupled with long term low coyote fur prices looks like in NE MT. A lot of people think that they know. I don't think they do, because this level of hunting pressure has never existed there.

The million-dollar question is...where do the deer hunters go from there?

I disagree with “no need to manage predators”. How to do this effectively is the answer I do not have….well, I do but one way isn’t legal, and the other I struggle with morally.