SB 380 Reconsideration of Bill!

[shoots-straight]

What good is "habitat" if there is no MANAGEMENT ? ?

What good is access if there's no game? You need habitat in order for game to exist. More non resident tags mean more killed animals.

Outfitters need to have a come to Jesus meeting to see if the road they are on now, is where they want to be in 10 years.

OR NOT!

 

[Straight Arrow]

What good is "habitat" if there is no MANAGEMENT ? ?

Hunt Talk is a great venue that allows us to vent a bit. However, there are those who suspect some Hunt Talkers are skewed a bit wacko radical ... and when the vent is yelled out, it merely confirms the suspicion.

Rhetorical queston: Was that quote really expressed by an outfitter?

 

[Big Shooter]

"What good is access if there is no game?"....you just described a lot of Block Management.

 

[shoots-straight]

"What good is access if there is no game?"....you just described a lot of Block Management.

True story! The really good pieces seem to end up leased.

 

[JLS]

"What good is access if there is no game?"....you just described a lot of Block Management.

I've hunted a fair number of BMAs, and spent time on a lot of others. Ironically enough, the ones with good habitat had game.

Access to poor habitat is worthless.

Good habitat with no access is worth something.

Good habitat with good access is priceless for the unwashed Joe Public.

 

[The Hedgehog]

I've a friend who shot a 430 bull elk on a BMA. I shot a 161 3/8 whitetail and an 82" pronghorn on BMAs. They can't all be good, and they certainly all aren't bad.

 

[Pierre]

Game management means more than an outfitter managing harvest on leased land. Our public game managers do a pretty good job with the public weighing in. In a huge number of cases, outfitter leased lands are managed for horn porn and leave managing antlerless critters to someone else. Then brag about what a great job they are doing. North American Model be damned. Public Trust be damned.

 

[Big Shooter]

True story! The really good pieces seem to end up leased.

LOL! Not really my point though. Honestly, not all of it is bad, but we have all seen various pieces that have been hammered. There is one by where I used to live that was about as pretty and as high quality of habitat as you can find. One fall I was putting tubs out there for one of my feed customers and I probably should have opened a damn sandwich shop back there with all of the traffic. Point being....not managed. Great program, but needs some tweaking to improve it. Surely there is a way.

 

[Eric Albus]

Joe, does "game management" mean shooting every legal animal on a property? Putting the resource second to the "publics want" is detrimental to the resource. Put the resource first and the rest will fall into place.

 

[JLS]

Eric,

Does game management mean trying to grow the biggest deer or elk so you can charge more for them? If people didn't pay more for bigger animals your outlook on game management might change.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Joe, does "game management" mean shooting every legal animal on a property? Putting the resource second to the "publics want" is detrimental to the resource. Put the resource first and the rest will fall into place.

Eric, managing for antler size isn't putting the resource first. Managing for quality habitat does. That's why folks fought tooth and nail for Habitat Montana.

Let's not confuse harvesting and opportunity for wildlife management. They're only a part of the overall picture.

 

[shoots-straight]

Put the resource first and the rest will fall into place.

Another post we agree on!

That's what I tried to testify on when discussing SB 380. If you take care of the resource, and work on increasing the elk in those wilderness areas ( ones that need it) the clients will be there. I never heard one proponent speak on behalf of the resource as to whether it could stand the additional pressures of 1500 more NR tags. 8 of 13 wilderness areas are in restricted season structures, so I guess most of the 1500 would be hunting the last 5. That is until those areas became restricted.

 

[Pierre]

Eric, game management means a lot of things to different folks. Public game management by FWP means taking into consideration the science based management within the framework of tolerances you are dealt. The public weighs in and the science is considered. I've been at this awhile and what I can tell you is that in my experience, sportsmen are very conservative with the resource. I've seen them advocate on the side of the resource more often than not. They are the first to advocate reductions in licenses and opportunity where critters are short. I have never seen MOGA take anything but "the most they can get for themselves".
The very easiest thing to do is to restrict access, restrict take, and raise more bucks and bulls. Any moron can pull that off. So, congratulations, that is known as animal husbandry. But, who is harvesting antlerless critters? Are you delegating the responsibility for that end of managment to the lowly Montana Resident Hunter? Are these critters moving off the property and eating someone else out of house and home? Is the landowner AND HIS NEIGHBORS tolerant of more wild critters eating his grass?
MOGA has abandoned the N. AM. Model, sees the Public Trust as their personal trust, and claims big qame management expertise. Think you are the first? We have the above and Fair Chase because the average folks were sick of the European Model where the royalty and the wealthy landowners claimed all. When this country was formed, we abandoned the Euro model. Now you folks want to go back? Over sportsmen's dead bodies.
When was the last time MOGA gave anyone credit for a job well done? Instead I see you folks critisizing and chastising our biologists and claiming supremacy. The presentations Mac promoted at your annual convention were telling. How to grow bigger antlers and how to charge by size? You folks will follow Mac right into the mud. How is that working out for you? Trained biologist my aching arse. Been there, done that, and know better.
As you are riding the gravy train, think about all that public land you have enclosed in your trophy ranches. If the public isn't allowed access and it is being outfitted, the state and the feds should be charging for its use for hunting. The school trust could use the money....or is that another trust you don't believe in?
And lastly, MOGA has done a huge disservice in turning hunting into a quest for scores. You have minimized the experience in trade for horn success. You and your partner SFW have done the field of game management no favors. You have done NR hunters no service either.

 

[Eric Albus]

Joe, if Montana is doing such a great job "managing", why then are most of the resident sportsmen I speak w/ unhappy? Why is Montana referred to as a "third world country" by neighboring states biologists?

Why is managing for a diverse age structure a bad thing?

Ben, you may not know this, but Reg. 6's public land is some of the most superior mule deer habitat you can find. The hunting is sub-par, and has been for the last 15 years. Can't keep putting infinite pressure on a finite resource. Elk wise, public land in 6 is superior also, and our elk numbers keep right on growing....oh, I forgot, we don't have wolves here, and our elk are MANAGED.....

 

[Pierre]

Most of the resident hunters I talk to are mostly pissed at MOGA outfitters leasing all the land in E. Mont. Never heard the third world country line...please share.
Managing for a diverse age structure is fine if you are handling all the other parts....you know, those pesky antlerless critters that eat grass and move between properties?
If you overlay the leased lands map and the over objective map, MOGA's short comings jump right out atcha.
Eric, while you MOGA folks are busy patting yourself on the back for doing jack, try reading or viewing "Back From the Brink".

 

[shoots-straight]

Joe, if Montana is doing such a great job "managing", why then are most of the resident sportsmen I speak w/ unhappy? Why is Montana referred to as a "third world country" by neighboring states biologists?

Why is managing for a diverse age structure a bad thing?

Ben, you may not know this, but Reg. 6's public land is some of the most superior mule deer habitat you can find. The hunting is sub-par, and has been for the last 15 years. Can't keep putting infinite pressure on a finite resource. Elk wise, public land in 6 is superior also, and our elk numbers keep right on growing....oh, I forgot, we don't have wolves here, and our elk are MANAGED.....

Eric, if your motivations are for the health of the herd, and not advancing a agenda driven by greed, then we will find common ground to work with.

What public areas in region 6 are Elk numbers increasing?

 

[Pierre]

Eric, The idiocy of your philosophy is readily apparent in MOGA assertions that you need more buck and bull tags because pops are over objective. There is NO tie between harvest of horns and pop objectives. I still can't believe you think you can fool us. Any rancher or manager that can't put that together deserves to fail miserably.

 

[Eric Albus]

shoots, 410, 411, 412, 417, & 530 are all over objective, and I would also venture to guess 620 thru 622 is as well, probably 700 and 630 if not over are close...
...there are not any outfitters that I consort w/ that are not worried about herd health and the overall well being of the wildlife. Long before I started outfitting we were planting food plots for the wildlife, and long after I retire from outfitting I will be working for the resource. The biggest obstacle that each side must overcome is the fact that we are both working for a common goal, healthy, viable, abundant wildlife. (of course being the piss poor manager i was just accused of, might be a while before i can afford to retire)

joe, are you intimating something? Are you making a pathetic attempt to insult me and my ability to manage farm/ranch or just wildlife? Where have you ever heard me advocate "more buck/bull harvest"?
The idiocy of "my philosophy"? Do tell.
.

 

[shoots-straight]

shoots, 410, 411, 412, 417, & 530 are all over objective, and I would also venture to guess 620 thru 622 is as well, probably 700 and 630 if not over are close...
...there are not any outfitters that I consort w/ that are not worried about herd health and the overall well being of the wildlife. Long before I started outfitting we were planting food plots for the wildlife, and long after I retire from outfitting I will be working for the resource. The biggest obstacle that each side must overcome is the fact that we are both working for a common goal, healthy, viable, abundant wildlife. (of course being the piss poor manager i was just accused of, might be a while before i can afford to retire)

joe, are you intimating something? Are you making a pathetic attempt to insult me and my ability to manage farm/ranch or just wildlife? Where have you ever heard me advocate "more buck/bull harvest"?
The idiocy of "my philosophy"? Do tell.
.

Sorry Eric, but you said:

Elk wise, public land in 6 is superior also, and our elk numbers keep right on growing....oh, I forgot, we don't have wolves here, and our elk are MANAGED

We aren't talking Elk objectives in those statements. We were talking about increased elk populations. In most cases those elk objectives were set lower than where they were at the time.

Like I said before:

What public areas in region 6 are Elk numbers increasing?

Make sure you read what I say closely. It's minute details that are important.

MOGA, (your a director) has said time and again that more archery tags need to be issued because the elk are over objectives. Elk numbers are not controlled by the harvest of bulls. Anyone knows that, but MOGA keeps on using that as a lame attempt to issue more tags so they have more clients.

How come MOGA never testified at any committee hearing in Helena, when the resource was being attacked? They only time they showed up is when they had their hand out, or to bash predators.

 

[Eric Albus]

shoot, i am one member of a large board. We are not always in agreement on every issue.

I have never advocated "more bull tags" in the breaks, and never will. Personally I would like to see the "either-sex" rifle tags cut in half....and have an "archery either sex" tag that was very limited. I grew up hunting the breaks, and remember the quality we USED to have. The cow elk should be hunted on a quota...when the ojective number is met, season closes....or have the season bulls for the first 2 weeks, then cow only the last 3....but wait, this makes sense, as it would lead to accessing some of the private land.... perhaps I am an "idiot savant"