Population Growth and Hunting in Rocky Mountain States

[Ben Lamb]

Do you really think the average hunters and anglers call 100% of the shots now? That's the real fallacy if there is one...we don't and haven't for a long time.

As to your last paragraph...I don't think habitat is the limiting factor in many cases, in some, surely. I also think that's a great long-term strategy to "build the bigger pie". But, currently, we don't even have enough berries growing on what we already have for habitat to worry about baking a bigger pie. Why don't we try to get big-game numbers up to the point we're utilizing what we have, while at the same time, doing habitat improvements? I'll tell you why, economics is trumping proper wildlife management. There is no doubt in my mind, we have depleted big-game in much of the West via prioritizing economics wayyyyy more often than anything to do with degraded habitat, access, etc.

Also, increasing access to places where we currently don't on public lands...may make the situation worse. Killing what's left on inaccessible public isn't making a bigger pie, its eating the last slice.

The perception is real, and in this game (as you well know) perception is king. And no, I think right now, at this point in time, we have the political management of wildlife. For the 20 years I lobbied, we had political management of wildlife in both the states I worked and at the federal level.

I like the berry analogy. Totally stealing that. I'm for all of that, but I do think increased access leads to spread out pressure, which could lead to more widely spread out animals outside of the secure areas so we spread that pressure out. I don't think access is the issue when it's tag allocation that promises the population objective of our dreams.

We like to bitch & moan about predators, but the biggest factor on these populations is humanity, both in terms of screwing up their place to live, but in over-allocation of the resource - i.e. generous seasons.

We have the tools to manage all land - private and public - much better. We'd rather ensure the ability of some folks to buy a third yacht over investing in our country though.

 

[mtnprst]

I’m confused. You totally disagree, but then post nothing having to do with what I wrote. The only clear message I got from your post is that you have a website to promote. Ironic....

So how are you proposing Randy and Rinella are responsible for the vast majority of non-hunters that are moving here? Particularly post-Covid?

The over promotion of western hunting has increased hunting pressure - anyone out west will tell you that. It started before Covid.

If you're a Wyoming native, and you hear Newberg or Rinella, or Call or Eastman or whomever have the gohunt.com employ on their YouTube channel/podcast/hunting movie, and highlight how Wyoming is the easiest place to draw a NR tag in the West .... it gets your hackles up. Then when you see this at the trailhead ... you understand how isn't harmless.

The over promotion of western-state hunting is about money and it's had a cost - the quality of the hunting and experience has decreased, and the excessive kill shots and dead animal photos and gore on social media is political suicide for the future of hunting.

Pay attention to the rapidly increasing restrictions on predator hunting and trapping. These are easy targets for the anti hunters because the no one eats coyotes and the Fair Chase of bear baiting is questionable. Anti-hunting attention will turn to ungulates next - and they'll use video'd kill shots, dead animal grip and grins, and other media distributed by self-promoting hunters and hunting industry marketing teams to make their case.

 

[BuzzH]

I completely agree with about 90% of this... as for the 10%

and I realize I’m poking the bear here, but didn’t you just post about the pile of tags you’re gonna draw and then place directly in the trash?

Now I believe your point was that the quotas are at a point where they are harming the resource and this act is in frustration at mismanagement.

However, it does come off as if residents have “tags to burn” and therefore a bit ridiculous when then then complain about NR allocation.

As a western resident in multiple states I never felt like drawing a tag was an issue. Could I hunt unit 10 in CO or the breaks in MT, no, could I get a good elk tag and kill a bull every year absolutely.

I don’t think resident hunting traditions are really being threatened by current tag allocation.

Housing prices in rural areas, yeah totally. I can’t afford to buy the house I grew up in... which was built on two teachers salaries. That’s a freaking major factor in destroying traditions.

The reason I'm going to trash a bunch of doe tags is, in fact, due to economics. The GF has been over-issuing doe tags, and really even buck tags, in many areas and pronghorn numbers have tanked big-time in the last 30 years. I'll do what I can within the confines of the system that is created to self-manage within my abilities. I wont apologize for it either.

Plus, they price doe tags at a point where, IMO, its a disservice to conservation efforts. If NR's, and R's, are going to trumpet on about how much they do for wildlife, then maybe they ought to put their money where their mouth is. Its absolutely BS that a NR can hunt a doe pronghorn here for $38. Maybe if the price was $75, the GF wouldn't have to issue thousands and thousands of them to "pay" for management. Same goes for Residents...no way a pronghorn does life is only worth $30. Pretty tough for us to claim to care and support wildlife when we value them less than a half a tank of fuel or a crappy steak dinner.

 

[mtnprst]

My comment was too broad.

What I was referring to was his shameless product pimping, on someone elses forum, that has rules against commercial advertisements, after shit talking the dude who is giving him the platform to do so. I could care less what his ideologies are. I'm not even going to visit his pages to give them the web traffic. There was ample opportunity to start a meaningful conversation about the commercialization of western hunting that didnt have to start with "Donate to my non-profit and follow my buddies Instagram page"

This is a great point - It speaks very well of Newberg for not banning Mountain Pursuit from this forum.

There is a stringent "cancel culture" within the hunting industry - esp. from all those making money from the "circle jerk" (see below).

So far, Newberg hasn't cancelled us and it speaks well of him.

We got banned from rockslide.com for speaking up ... but Denning was also selling GPS locations for big deer and using airplanes to scout and we called him out on it. Denning has ethical issues.

We also had podcast interviews with Hunt Backcountry (exogear) and a Wyoming-based podcast spiked (they recorded the interview but didn't publish) - because of our concern over 90/10 in Wyoming and how this would piss off their nonresident customers/audiences.

Again - it speaks well of Newberg to let us challenge his business model and question its affect on the western hunting experience and political damage to the future of hunting.

Here's the "Circle Jerk" ...

Within the hunting industry, a corrupt “circle jerk” of celebrity hunters, hunting movie producers, gear/clothing manufacturers, internet hunting service companies (gohunt.com, etc.), podcasters, and approving mainstream hunting nonprofits stroke each other daily to keep content machine producing, audience growing, and money rolling in.

 

[BuzzH]

The perception is real, and in this game (as you well know) perception is king. And no, I think right now, at this point in time, we have the political management of wildlife. For the 20 years I lobbied, we had political management of wildlife in both the states I worked and at the federal level.

I like the berry analogy. Totally stealing that. I'm for all of that, but I do think increased access leads to spread out pressure, which could lead to more widely spread out animals outside of the secure areas so we spread that pressure out. I don't think access is the issue when it's tag allocation that promises the population objective of our dreams.

We like to bitch & moan about predators, but the biggest factor on these populations is humanity, both in terms of screwing up their place to live, but in over-allocation of the resource - i.e. generous seasons.

We have the tools to manage all land - private and public - much better. We'd rather ensure the ability of some folks to buy a third yacht over investing in our country though.

I agree that spreading out pressure isn't a bad thing or disagreeing that it may lead to more access to wildlife.

The question is...is that really what we want? No place where animals can find refuge from the onslaught of people running arrows, bullets, and hooks through them?

Its a "kill what's left" mentality, NOT creating more wildlife mentality. Same with hunters whining about being able to access more private...you wouldn't have to access private if there was anything left on public. You're looking to kill what's left, and that is the WRONG strategy.

 

[jlong17]

This is a great point - It speaks very well of Newberg for not banning Mountain Pursuit from this forum.

There is a stringent "cancel culture" within the hunting industry - esp. from all those making money from the "circle jerk" (see below).

So far, Newberg hasn't cancelled us and it speaks well of him.

We got banned from rockslide.com for speaking up ... but Denning was also selling GPS locations for big deer and using airplanes to scout and we called him out on it. Denning has ethical issues.

We also had podcast interviews with Hunt Backcountry (exogear) and a Wyoming-based podcast spiked (they recorded the interview but didn't publish) - because of our concern over 90/10 in Wyoming and how this would piss off their nonresident customers/audiences.

Again - it speaks well of Newberg to let us challenge his business model and question its affect on the western hunting experience and political damage to the future of hunting.

Here's the "Circle Jerk" ...

Within the hunting industry, a corrupt “circle jerk” of celebrity hunters, hunting movie producers, gear/clothing manufacturers, internet hunting service companies (gohunt.com, etc.), podcasters, and approving mainstream hunting nonprofits stroke each other daily to keep content machine producing, audience growing, and money rolling in.

 

[Ben Lamb]

I agree that spreading out pressure isn't a bad thing or disagreeing that it may lead to more access to wildlife.

The question is...is that really what we want? No place where animals can find refuge from the onslaught of people running arrows, bullets, and hooks through them?

Its a "kill what's left" mentality, NOT creating more wildlife mentality. Same with hunters whining about being able to access more private...you wouldn't have to access private if there was anything left on public. You're looking to kill what's left, and that is the WRONG strategy.

No.

What I'm advocating are two separate things:

Tag numbers & access aren't either-or scenario, it's a "both" scenario. You can increase access to landlocked public lands while reducing tag numbers to allow herds to grow. They are interconnected issues, but the 100% the same.

Restoration of public lands should be a major priority, which it is based on the number of bills that have been introduced around this, including COVID relief, infrastructure, budgets for agencies & individual acts designed to fight invasive species like cheatgrass, etc.

Refugia will always exist at some level, especially in western states where the ability to create those refuges is part & parcel of the conservation strategies (Wildlife Management Areas, Wildlife Refuges, etc).

I think the majority of folks here would agree that objectives are lower than the actual carrying capacity of the land. That's pretty obvious, but what that ignores is the right of others who aren't as hyper-focused on huntable populations and have to live with those impacts. WY takes care of this through game damage payments, which can be very easily corrupted and suck up millions of dollars if not managed appropriately. Other states offer game-damage hunts, transferable tags, etc to help offset those costs, conservation easements from land trusts provide refugia, as do programs like LWCF that fund easement work w/o an access component.

 

[jt13]

The over promotion of western hunting has increased hunting pressure - anyone out west will tell you that. It started before Covid.

If you're a Wyoming native, and you hear Newberg or Rinella, or Call or Eastman or whomever have the gohunt.com employ on their YouTube channel/podcast/hunting movie, and highlight how Wyoming is the easiest place to draw a NR tag in the West .... it gets your hackles up. Then when you see this at the trailhead ... you understand how isn't harmless.

The over promotion of western-state hunting is about money and it's had a cost - the quality of the hunting and experience has decreased, and the excessive kill shots and dead animal photos and gore on social media is political suicide for the future of hunting.

Pay attention to the rapidly increasing restrictions on predator hunting and trapping. These are easy targets for the anti hunters because the no one eats coyotes and the Fair Chase of bear baiting is questionable. Anti-hunting attention will turn to ungulates next - and they'll use video'd kill shots, dead animal grip and grins, and other media distributed by self-promoting hunters and hunting industry marketing teams to make their case.

 

[BuzzH]

No.

What I'm advocating are two separate things:

Tag numbers & access aren't either-or scenario, it's a "both" scenario. You can increase access to landlocked public lands while reducing tag numbers to allow herds to grow. They are interconnected issues, but the 100% the same.

Restoration of public lands should be a major priority, which it is based on the number of bills that have been introduced around this, including COVID relief, infrastructure, budgets for agencies & individual acts designed to fight invasive species like cheatgrass, etc.

Refugia will always exist at some level, especially in western states where the ability to create those refuges is part & parcel of the conservation strategies (Wildlife Management Areas, Wildlife Refuges, etc).

I think the majority of folks here would agree that objectives are lower than the actual carrying capacity of the land. That's pretty obvious, but what that ignores is the right of others who aren't as hyper-focused on huntable populations and have to live with those impacts. WY takes care of this through game damage payments, which can be very easily corrupted and suck up millions of dollars if not managed appropriately. Other states offer game-damage hunts, transferable tags, etc to help offset those costs, conservation easements from land trusts provide refugia, as do programs like LWCF that fund easement work w/o an access component.

100%, I just think we need to focus on building herds first, setting realistic population objectives, etc. before we start beating the drums to kill what's left via increasing access.

I see more "kill what's left" going on than lets build a bigger pie...YMMV.

 

[Ben Lamb]

100%, I just think we need to focus on building herds first, setting realistic population objectives, etc. before we start beating the drums to kill what's left via increasing access.

I see more "kill what's left" going on than lets build a bigger pie...YMMV.

I do too, but I don't let chatter get in the way of hard work.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Hey @Jt13 -

Nice battery management. It's about time someone on this forum display proper care of their kit. Bunch of pikers running around here with 9 & 14% left.

 

[Oak]

Western slope Coloradoan's would love if there were more landowner tags and less NR allocation.

I'm still several pages behind in this thread but want to throw the yellow flag on this one. I'd rather have no LO tags and split that allocation with NR.

 

[jt13]

Hey @Jt13 -

Nice battery management. It's about time someone on this forum display proper care of their kit. Bunch of pikers running around here with 9 & 14% left.

#samsung #galaxy #batterymanagement #carcharger #tacticalbatterymanagement #mountainbatterymanagement #followmyIGpageandbuyatshirt #antiselfpromotion #donatetomynonprofit #itsonlyokaywhenidoit

 

[tjones]

#quietprofessionals

Ohh the irony.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

I'd rather have no LO tags and split that allocation with NR.

I wasn't talking about plebeians, you're just a notch better than the NR.

chit... sorry @Oak, I was back in Montana there for a minute. Yeah you're right

 

[Deleted member 28227]

This is a great point - It speaks very well of Newberg for not banning Mountain Pursuit from this forum.

Topic is fair game here "because of our concern over 90/10 in Wyoming"

Yeah, he's a pretty cool guy in that regard.

Start a thread, lay out your argument. Keep it civil, fact based, expect a lot of resistance, and don't lose your cool if people provide better arguments than yours. Teach folks some stuff, but be willing to learn something as well.

I've yet to see Randy ban someone who wasn't being a jerk.

 

[OverlordBear]

It would be nice to directly tie game damage payments to having to allow for public access onto your land. It only makes sense that if wildlife is damaging your property you give game agencies an opportunity to mitigate that damage through hunting pressure. If it was strictly a tit for tat there would be a lot less animals looking for sanctuary on private land.

 

[Hunting Wife]

The over promotion of western hunting has increased hunting pressure - anyone out west will tell you that. It started before Covid.

If you're a Wyoming native, and you hear Newberg or Rinella, or Call or Eastman or whomever have the gohunt.com employ on their YouTube channel/podcast/hunting movie, and highlight how Wyoming is the easiest place to draw a NR tag in the West .... it gets your hackles up. Then when you see this at the trailhead ... you understand how isn't harmless.

The over promotion of western-state hunting is about money and it's had a cost - the quality of the hunting and experience has decreased, and the excessive kill shots and dead animal photos and gore on social media is political suicide for the future of hunting.

Pay attention to the rapidly increasing restrictions on predator hunting and trapping. These are easy targets for the anti hunters because the no one eats coyotes and the Fair Chase of bear baiting is questionable. Anti-hunting attention will turn to ungulates next - and they'll use video'd kill shots, dead animal grip and grins, and other media distributed by self-promoting hunters and hunting industry marketing teams to make their case.

Still dodging my question, so I assume you have no answer.

How about this one then...Curious how you absolve yourself from the blame you bestow on Randy and others? I see wilderness athletic content, western guide training, all kinds of hunting-related social media, outdoors print media in your repertoire.

Not that I really expect an answer. But you sort of lack any credibility on the matter IMO.

 

[brocksw]

Wait wait wait just god damn minute here. I've only read the last few pages of this thread....but no joke... There is a dude on here from mtn tacticool or whatever his company is, and he's bashing Randy, Rinella, and the social media hunting culture, all while having his own social media hunting page and selling hunting related products on his website, while actively promoting said company in the same manner all the other hunting companies do?

And get this.... Make Hunting Great Again's Instagram page is his industry leader?

I'm not effin kidding you can't make this shit up....

 

[BlazerBeam]

I propose resident hunting only How's that? Just like you have to be a resident of MT to vote in MT, I propose you have to either reside in MT or have a business in MT to hunt here. Just like Indian Reservations. You would not believe how awesome the elk herd is on the Crow reservation in the Big Horns! What would be the arguments against that other than, "I live in Illinois and I want to shoot an Elk too!" (Dude ranch mentality) and money. I would like to hear arguments against implementing something like that, that doesn't revolve around money or "want to's". NR's can still hike and camp and be on the federal public lands, but to harvest wild game animals (public property held in trust by state governments) they need to have established residence in MT. Why would that be good idea or a bad idea without saying "funding" or "money" or "revenue" or claiming that you have a "right" to harvest the state of MT's (or any other state) resources?"
Disclaimer: I'm not a conservation expert or some natural resources attorney, but Let me have it...