SB 380 Reconsideration of Bill!

[The Hedgehog]

Eric, The stuff you type just keeps getting dumber and dumber. Archers don't have an impact?

FWP should manage goats on a true district by district basis and put a halt to this 700/900 crap. Managing wildlife clearly isn't part of MOGA's agenda, which appears to be completely about maximizing the licenses for outfitter clients with disregard for all else.

Keep patting yourselves on the back about the great wildlife management you guys feel responsible for. It's odd that you guys believe all the residents of MT are so upset about leased private land, and that it's all our wet dreams to hunt where Guy Eastmun, Bill Jerdan, or Mike Waddle hunt. That's for pussies.

 

[Eric Albus]

howler, alan is full of B.S. on the archery antelope permits. Even by going to the limited antelope archery tags it has not hurt any outfitter I know...there is simply not enough demand for archery antelope for an outfitter to go and lease ranches...toughest sell in the business is an archery speed goat hunt...and it's the funnest hunt there is.

It is a proven fact, archery hunting does not control game populations or affect quality....but then throw in a basically unlimited rifle season and we have what we have... In the case of the breaks 100 either sex rifle tags...if the breaks were archery only how many elk do you think we would have....if Reg. 6 was archery only how many big mule deer would we have? Think about overall success for archery hunters.....and tell me how they will negatively impact any of our ungulates? ...and I am not a bow hunter, nor am I promoting a bow only agenda....

greenhorn, perhaps you don't care about the "leased land"....but you are in the minority...if you want to insult me, try something other than the deer. Maybe my kid, or my dog...that would piss me off...but deer? Come on.

buzz...sure bow hunters are having more impact...no doubt about it...but it is not significant enough to affect the populations.if you could read and comprehend you would have seen that in my prior post..
...the 100 either sex rifle tags are having more of an effect than the "thousands of bow hunters" ..

..yes I want very few predators...predators hunt year round, every single day around the clock, indiscriminately.....and when predators run out of deer/antelope here in Reg. 6 they resort to calves....ever seen a calf that had it's head eaten off while its mother was birthing it? , ever seen a mule deer doe standing in water up to her belly and let a boat come up within a few feet of her as she was less afraid of the humans/boat than she was the 2 coyotes on the bank? In spite of this I would still fight to keep coyotes from disappearing from the landscape..I just don't need to see lots of them on a daily basis to feel good....one every 5-6 days is plenty...

 

[Straight Arrow]

Eric, you have every right to your opinion. I will defend that to the end. But read your post; please differentiate between what is really factual and what is your opinion. You are not a professional biologist, nor do you have the time or resources for the extensive research and data required to support your statements as fact. Some of it sounds like the MOGA/Ellis self-serving script, with skewed conclusions supported only by indiscriminate data tailored to support the opinion expressed as fact..

Read your last paragraph. It has more to do with an emotional bent on predators than on any predator control management perspective. We are grossly exaggerating our own self importance if we base conclusions only on our own very limited observations in the field.

 

[The Hedgehog]

Eric no insult meant - but if I worked for 2 weeks this summer would you take me on an archery antelope hunt?

Do you think we could get an unlimited archery bighorn hunt for the breaks going? After all - it wouldn't hurt anything.

 

[Eric Albus]

greenhorn, you don't even have to work for a day and you can archery antelope hunt 'til your heart is content...you can even stay here....sheep are a little different animal and would not take the pressure of an unlimited archery season....at least in the breaks....so that is not a fair comparision...taking an animal that is not habituated to pressure is not fair, as you well know

straight, thanks for defending right to an opinion, and no I do not have a degree in biology...but I can draw on 250+ years of experience in NE MT of people who have seen us go from no big game to lots of big game, to lots of predators and no big game, the Gov't flying the breaks in the 50's w/ 1080'd meat scraps..then no predartors and lots of mule deer....then high fur prices of the 70's and no predators and lots of big game....in the 80's we had super high numbers of jackrabbits, I know guys that would fill the back of their pickups w/ rabbits, nightly to there was lots of rabbits for coyotes as well...hence, good fawn recruitement...lots of deer here in the 80's, rabbits disappeared, and so did the fawns....so, perhaps you are right, it's more practical experience than biology I guess. Few predators add up to lots of deer/antelope....but when you have a huge rabbit population you can have, lots of coyotes, lots of antelope/deer...so there are more things in the equation that just killing all the predators, and I do not advocate that..

 

[howler]

a few things to consider about the big bucks in the breaks during the 50's and 60's, the Fort Peck Game Range now known as the CMR was closed to hunting and opened to hunting in 1958, It was run by the BLM until 1976 and then the US Fish & Wildlife Service took over,, so most of the early sixty's the hunting was indeed great, and up until the mid 70's hardly anybody had a 4x4, when the 4x4 became normal transportation the big bucks hidey holes were all of a sudden available to lots of hunters, and the big deer have been in decline ever since. We have had many road closures on the CMR since, and all of them were met with extreme resistance. Of course not all the breaks are in the CMR,, All of the Monument status's proposed and for the most part instituted have also been met with extreme resistance, and for the most part most of the guys complaining about the lack of bigger bucks were also complaining about the road closures on the CMR and the different management strategies the monument status brought on. I like big Mule Deer too, but it really does take a lot to get them growed up, Give them the solitude they need to get up past 5 years old, do it by limiting the hunters or do it by making the hunters actually hunt for them and not in the comfort of a 4x4 pick-up. It is not an easy decision for a lot of guys, During the 80's we really had some mild winters in that country and it did produce some very high populations of deer, both mule and whitetail's, along with the high populations of deer came lots of complaints about to many deer and crop depredation, So out comes the unlimited Mule deer B tags, Wow we shot the mule deer down to a 40 year population low in the mid 90"s, I know Eric and I worked together to stop the unlimited sale of the B tags, We tried for years to get the FWP to issue B tags at a limited number and area specific, the FWP would not hear of it. they wanted to sell tags and generate money,,
the FWP and CMR were battling over management of big game on the CMR. the CMR guys wanted to protect the mule deer and the FWP wanted to sell more tags. The CMR shortened the mule deer season on the CMR, they closed the season 2 or 3 weeks before every where else, I know this got a bit long but there are a lot of factors that go into why the big bucks disappeared, unfortunately its more than coyotes

 

[theat]

howler - thanks for the CMR history lesson.

Everyone has their favorite culprit for the mule deer decline. There are not many that consider the big picture. Even less are willing to admit our own culpability, or give anything up to make a difference.

 

[Eric Albus]

howler is right about the start of the decline. to many "b" tags. from what i have observed: when deer populations at all time highs, neither hunting nor predation make much of a dent....what we all observed druing the 80's was a gradual decline in fawn recriutment, coupled w/ high coyote populations, and unlimited "b" tags....after a few years of huge hunter harvest, coupled w/ abnormally high coyote numbers...no fawn crop...no "new deer" to replace the "barren does" that the hunters shot(howler get the "barren does", inside joke)....so yes there are many factors to equation as a whole...but high predator numbers (like right now in the breaks) are keeping the mule deer from rebounding.

 

[MTGunner]

Mulie decline...

High predator numbers, loss of habitat, too many road hunters, too many nonresidents. These, all, have contributed to the decline of the mule deer population. There are too many road hunters, resident and nonresident alike, that will shoot any mulie buck when given the chance. It's too easy to shoot the easy one from the road, barrow pit if you prefer, as I have observed too many times. I see little to no back country hunters in my yrs. of hunting the breaks. I will say this, it does keep the competition to a minimum and has been a boon to my success. Yet, I will pass on a high thin 3 point or less. Let 'em grow up and just maybe, maybe, escape the road hunters. It is time to restrict tags for mule deer as has been such with 'lopers. More tags for revenue enhancement is just poor management. My decision to pass on younger mulies is my choice for the future of the species. Having been fortunate enuf to take a few good mule deer, hopefully again in the future, has been a blessing. More tags for all is indeed not the answer to the dilemma. There are plenty of fat WT does that fill the freezer well. Good choice, damn good groceries! MTG

 

[Eric Albus]

...the eastern side of Montana has not seen much in the way of lost habitat. If anything the habitat has improved. The number one problem we are seeing here is coyotes, high coyote numbers equal poor fawn recruitment, especially when deer/antelope numbers are already fairly low.
There are a ton of options out there to reduce pressure on the resource w/out reducing opportunity. If I were in charge we would have more hunter opportunity and less impact on the resource. Unlimited rifle hunting during the rut is about the worst thing that can happen to mule deer....don't get me wrong, I love hunting the rut, my best "breaks bucks"(both 190+) were taken during the rut....it's legal, but is it really fair? There are plenty of non-residents hunting the breaks, but that number pales when compared to the number of "west side" residents, most of them w/ a cow elk tag and 3 buddies hunting mule deer. The cow elk season during the deer season has not been a good thing for the mule deer.

We as residents must decide if we want to continue to hammer a finite resource.

 

[mtlion]

...the eastern side of Montana has not seen much in the way of lost habitat. If anything the habitat has improved. The number one problem we are seeing here is coyotes, high coyote numbers equal poor fawn recruitment, especially when deer/antelope numbers are already fairly low.
There are a ton of options out there to reduce pressure on the resource w/out reducing opportunity. If I were in charge we would have more hunter opportunity and less impact on the resource. Unlimited rifle hunting during the rut is about the worst thing that can happen to mule deer....don't get me wrong, I love hunting the rut, my best "breaks bucks"(both 190+) were taken during the rut....it's legal, but is it really fair? There are plenty of non-residents hunting the breaks, but that number pales when compared to the number of "west side" residents, most of them w/ a cow elk tag and 3 buddies hunting mule deer. The cow elk season during the deer season has not been a good thing for the mule deer.

We as residents must decide if we want to continue to hammer a finite resource.

Greed and hypocrisy have no bounds :hump:

 

[Big Shooter]

MTGunner......outstanding theory on improving the quality. I wish more residents, as well as non-residents thought the same way. Take what you said and combine it with what Albus posted in regards to not hunting the rut, and in my opinion, it could improve the quality. When you witness the bucks being harvested from the roads, I would bet a lot that most of it was done during the rut...just a guess. If people really felt the need to hunt during Thanksgiving, those whitetail does you mentioned would sure give them days of enjoyment in the field with friends and family if that is what they are so worried about.

I would go out on a limb, and guess that 99% of the people that use this forum are great hunters. With that being said, the rut should not be so important for us on here to kill a quality deer every year or every other year. The state is still going to sell the same amount of resident as well as non-resident tags, and if some residents throw their hat down in protest the first year or two, fine, let em, but I bet they will be back hunting soon. I can honestly say that there is no hidden agenda or angle in my opinion on this (which it is just that, my opinion and doesn't mean that everyone, or anyone should agree), but I can't imagine that after a couple of years of an earlier season we wouldn't all be seeing improvement in the quality.

 

[shoots-straight]

MTGunner......outstanding theory on improving the quality. I wish more residents, as well as non-residents thought the same way. Take what you said and combine it with what Albus posted in regards to not hunting the rut, and in my opinion, it could improve the quality. When you witness the bucks being harvested from the roads, I would bet a lot that most of it was done during the rut...just a guess. If people really felt the need to hunt during Thanksgiving, those whitetail does you mentioned would sure give them days of enjoyment in the field with friends and family if that is what they are so worried about.

I would go out on a limb, and guess that 99% of the people that use this forum are great hunters. With that being said, the rut should not be so important for us on here to kill a quality deer every year or every other year. The state is still going to sell the same amount of resident as well as non-resident tags, and if some residents throw their hat down in protest the first year or two, fine, let em, but I bet they will be back hunting soon. I can honestly say that there is no hidden agenda or angle in my opinion on this (which it is just that, my opinion and doesn't mean that everyone, or anyone should agree), but I can't imagine that after a couple of years of an earlier season we wouldn't all be seeing improvement in the quality.

Eric, and Shooter,

We (Ravalli County Residents) have already done what you are proposing. We went to a mule deer closure date of around the 12th of Nov. We went to unlimited permits in some areas, and limited permits in the most popular and the best mule deer habitat we had. We did this for quite some time.

The results are not what your hoping for. The people just killed their bucks in the time frame allowed. They hunted harder in the 3 weeks that they were given. In fact more deer were hammered in some areas because of the limited entry areas.

So now we are at limited entry in 3 of 5 areas, with one unlimited being mostly private, and the other rough and rugged with no access.

My conclusion, is the only way to keep "opportunity" is to have the access limited.

When I first hunted the Breaks, all the roads were 2 track, and you never new what mess you'd run into.

Then the government went in there and punched in great access roads. That didn't help.

 

[The Hedgehog]

Eric and Rod- Do you guys book Muley buck hunts during the rut?

 

[Big Shooter]

Shoots.....I don't mean cut the season down to three weeks over here, but just open it two weeks earlier and then close it two weeks earlier. I don't want opportunity taken away from anyone due to a shorter season, but the timing of the season, (again just my opinion), could be changed somewhat.

Kurt......yes I do book hunts during the rut.....but......over the past few years I have not hunted certain properties during the rut in hopes of increasing the age class and in turn improving the quality. I can honestly say that I would much rather hunt two weeks earlier and avoid the rut with my clients if I could. Knowing you and your intellect, you are going to have a sensible rebuttal for this and you may or may not call me hypocritical for advocating no rut hunting but yet still guiding during the rut. Guilty as charged but only due to the fact that a three week seaso really wouldn't work for me and my operation. Sad how you can get to know someone so well over a couple year period simply by disagreeing over certain topics

 

[shoots-straight]

Shooter, we went through the whole gambit. By moving the season up 2 weeks, your tapping into a season that's far less detrimental to the populations for another. It doesn't work as I said because people still feel inclined to shoot a buck. X amount of deer killed in 5 weeks moved one why or the other is still X amount of deer. It's not going to save anything. You need to keep the access tough to get to. Large tracts of un roaded, or locked gate entry areas.

We only made our season a 3 week long deal, and although it looked in the beginning to work, soon people caught on and figured out the system the unlimited part killed any gains.

 

[Big Shooter]

You need to keep the access tough to get to. Large tracts of un roaded, or locked gate entry areas.

We do that now and we (outfitters and landowners) catch all sorts of hell for it! I can see what you mean and I'm sure that it happens because a lot of hunters can't keep their fingers off of the trigger due to................their ego needing fed! Believe me, I am not throwing anyone on this site under the bus, but we all know it happens, and honestly the way that the system is set up now, that is their God given right. I wish that they all had he same attitude as MTGunner.

 

[Eric Albus]

greenhorn....yes we hunt the rut, but I am willing to give that up for the resource, and like Rod we have areas we rest in order to keep quality...believe it or not, with the outfitters I consort w/ it's not about the money, if it were, we would book 2-3 times the hunters and kill everything..

shootstraight..the problem becomes the quality...when word gets out there is quality and it's unlimited, the quality is soon gone.... I do agree that in some areas a 3 week season will not work, just not enough escape habitat... our permit areas in Montana struggle, poaching and mismanagement, too many buck tags in most of them, and allowing the harvest of antlerless in 270 has really hurt the area from what I have heard....the Dept. told us up here many years ago w/ permit area 652 that they did not want to see it work, and wanted it to fail...the young biologist working Reg.6 told me that...a couple years later he was shocked that it was working, the head of 6 had told him no way this would work and was a waste of time...now there are to few deer in 652, and to many permits..

mtlion? greed and hipocrisy? where in that post is there anything that lends to either?

 

[mtmiller]

the Dept. told us up here many years ago w/ permit area 652 that they did not want to see it work, and wanted it to fail...the young biologist working Reg.6 told me that...a couple years later he was shocked that it was working, the head of 6 had told him no way this would work and was a waste of time...

I am going to throw the BS flag. When did "the Dept" meet with "us" and state "that they did not want to see it work"? Were you part of the "us"?

 

[howler]

Eric has it right, the dept fought against the 652 trophy area tooth and nail, They did tell us (us being direcors of the Valley Co. Sportsmens Club) they did not like the permitted area and wanted to see it fail, We got some new guys in the FWP since and things are different now, Not lot different but different. The 652 trophy deer area was implemented by a fwp Commissioner from circle and he made sure it stayed intact while he was a commissioner, the commisioners come and go and during the formative years of the 652 area we had a commissioner that lived in that HD and they responded to the area hunters and made sure it remained. the dept tried several times to get rid of the area but failed account they did not have the support of the commisioners. the dept did implement a few changes that reduced the chances of 652 succeeding, 1. being if you drew the tag you had to shoot your mule deer in that district. we had hunters from all accross Mt. applying and recieving the special permit and when they drew the permit they had to shoot their mule deer in that district. many many younger deer were shot because the hunters did not find the trophy they were looking for and did not want to go deeless that year. It was very detrimental to the age class of the deer in that district. All this turmoil with the dept was during KL Cools running the dept. he did not do anybody any favors and was purley a money driven director. if it made money for the dept in his mind it was good. we sold thousands upon thousabnds of B tags when the resource could not handle it. It left A VERY BAD TASTE IN THE MOUTHS OF THE ACTIVE SPORTSMEN IN EASTERN MT THAT STILL LINGERS TODAY. I am not in the camp of the guys who want to kill evry predator in the area and think it will solve our problems, but I do believe we should have (for lack of a better word) trophy area's distributed all around the state and manage them for that purpose, to do that some people will lose there honey hole hunting area's but at least we will have something for everybody..