So what happened to the "let's bash landowners thread"?

[BuzzH]

....a conference win once in a while would be nice for them I bet.

 

[Calif. Hunter]

So what bowls are these teams playing in?

 

[MattK]

Calif- It's the FCS championship...where a winner is crowned based on a playoff system instead of the hula hoop bowl or some other bowl game where a #3 can play a #24 and then let the polls decide the winner and who should play in a championship game...

 

[BuzzH]

Not a "bowl" game...FCS national title...and the spiders are going to take a beating MONTANA style.

 

[Calif. Hunter]

hula hoop bowl

THAT is funny!

 

[Stillookinfor200]

Didnt ask to be born in Zootown, but I was. There is still a few good peole here. Have land in Central Mt as well, gonna retire out there soon, maybe then Ill grow those dreadlocks. No interest in "buying" 200 (still lookin for net BTW) I DO wish Mt had more "quality" areas, we have the chance to do that here, its big country, still a few good genetics floating around here and there, people complain about hard draws but its not like Mt doesnt have a lil bit of everything to offer, if you want meat, its out there, wanna shoot a 24" 3 yr old every year, plenty of areas to do that. Its been tough waiting on 200 (havent harvested a Muley buck in over 15 years, and I pretty much live out there from Sept on)

One BIG "problem" I see with growing big guys is everyone WANTS them, but very few have the will power to wait on them to grow up (even then feed, genetics etc need to come in to play) but at least they have a chance (age) I dont have ANYTHING against anyone shooting young Muleys, if the law allows so be it, I DO have a problem with people being self proclaimed trophy hunters (you know, the ones that see a 200" deer everyime they go out) then wack a young buck the last week EVERY YEAR because they need to kill something, only to throw the rack out in the back yard for the dog to chew on.

BTW, I been around the block a few times, I TRY to see everyones point of view, once in a while I even learn something by listening instead of name calling.

Guess you can teach an old dog new tricks.

Gotta get ready for my date, hope hes cute (and a Griz fan) Snicker.

 

[Oak]

The biggest problem you guys have with growing big ones is that you allow practically unlimited hunting for them the second half of November.

 

[Stillookinfor200]

I agree with that, there has been a few areas that have closed the last two weeks (for Muleys) for some time now, mixed results, but it has surely helped. One of the areas I hunt does so, its tough hunting VERY tough, but I still hunt it. In this area, the mule deer are migratory, just when they are getting down to where the masses (shouldnt say that, as I think only 150 people or so hunt this area each year)....but just when they are getting down and grouped up the season closes for them. I go in after them early on, but holy heck, those deer scattered out in summer territory are like finding a needle in a haystack, there is alot of tough terrain with VERY few deer, again, Im not complaining, I still hunt it every year as I know the buck I am looking for is there. Spent the last three days of that season last year in a couple feet of snow, sleeping in a shelter I built, the bucks were still filtering down. Wasnt a hunter within 6 miles or more.

I have wondered about an area like this and if it wouldnt be better (being selfish I am) limiting the tags(they are unlimited now, just very few people hunt here because of the terrain/success/etc) , maybe going to a 4 pt or better, and allowing the tag holder so hunt those last couple weeks, just another way of managing I guess. Same goal (having a healthy population of mature bucks) different way to approach it.

You are right ...ALOT, and I mean ALOT of young muleys get slayed the last two weeks in Mt, partly because they are vulnerable and partly because many people get in a panic and say screw the "trophy hunting" gotta kill when the season is nearing an end. I encourage people to fill their freezers with whitetail does or a cow elk where it is allowed. Leave the bucks grow a little.

On the other hand...Some of the best "trophies" I have seen harvested are 22" 140 bucks taken by a kid or an adult that appreciates them. Its just many people (I would say most) have this "gotta kill something....anything with antlers attitude.

In all, as comlplicated as MT regs can be, I wish they were a little MORE complicated, a few more Muley draw areas.

 

[Meatatarian]

I think they'll be tough on Richmond as well, get to step on a few spiders...sure made short work of the #1 ranked James Madison.

The bobcat football team at least gets to watch what a real football team is capable of...poor bobcats.

It appears, at this time anyway, the real football team they're getting to watch is not a fellow MT team...

 

[Meatatarian]

I find it ironic how people are beating the drum of a loss of opportunity equalling a loss of youth recruitment, yet want more restrictions on hunting seasons. What's the difference between losing tags and losing access? Both represent a loss of opportunity, which is bad for recruitment and retention. By cutting out the last half of November, it would cut out the very time when many families can hunt together. That is the time high school football is finally over as well as a break at Thanksgiving, which allows high school and college kids to come home and hunt with their families.

Greenhorn has proven that if someone wants to put in the time and effort, big deer can be had on a regular basis. Even with the season being open 'til the end of November. Has hunting transgressed to the point that selfishly wanting easier, bigger bucks outweighs family hunting opportunity? Personally, I'd rather be able to hunt five weeks with a rifle, and not see a huge buck, than only be able to hunt one week and then have to watch football the rest of the time. And I'm a diehard football fan. Maybe I'm too much of an old-fashioned traditionalist...

 

[BuzzH]

Meatatarian,

I agree....but we have TWO species of deer for lots of opportunity. Dont need to hammer the one so hard for 11 weeks.

 

[The Hedgehog]

I have wondered about an area like this and if it wouldnt be better (being selfish I am) limiting the tags(they are unlimited now, just very few people hunt here because of the terrain/success/etc) , maybe going to a 4 pt or better, and allowing the tag holder so hunt those last couple weeks, just another way of managing I guess. Same goal (having a healthy population of mature bucks) different way to approach it.

So, low pressure already, plenty of cover, and you think maybe limit it to permit, antler restrictions, and allow just a few to hunt through the rut when they are in a winter-range mode... Sounds like you'd like to limit hunters with the exception of those that want an easier hunt for a big B&C number? Not everybody cares about killing something that has X number of inches. Some people like to enjoy great hunt every year - not a easy one every 5 or 10 years.. Montana has great options already. The whole state isn't wide-open full on rut hunting, and there's certainly good deer to be hunted on public land. If an easy rutting, winter range buck is what you're hoping to gun down - I can see why you want to lease up some private land..

Have you considered buying a license in Nevada, Colorado, or one of the reservations in NM?? Might be right up your alley..

How was your date? Butt sore?

 

[Stillookinfor200]

Date was great Sweetie, no, my butts not sore silly.....not MINE anyway...he he. Oooops, sorry, occasionally I cant resist lowering myself to your level of mentality Sunshine, that way you can comprehend at least A LITTLE of what Im saying....

Sooooooo, dont think I ever said anything about wanting to lease land....am I mistaken? Course, I never said anything about being Gay either, but you figured that out pretty quick.....hmmmmmm, you know what WE say, takes one to know one.....Sorry, there I go again.

Lets see....about limiting the tags....just a different way of doing what they are trying to acheive now with an added experience. Funny thing is I only know of TWO bucks taken in this area in 10 years that werent taken from a road. Hmmmm, theres some quality youth hunting there, would hate to limit that. And here is a REALLY good tip....if you dont like hunting there, dont apply.

Not everyone is interested in killing a monster, they just want to kill a nice buck or at least have a good experience every year.....this is true, I agree, its just there is alot of zones throughout the state already where one can do that....(shoot young, small bucks) and VERY FEW quality deer zones. Im just sayin.....I had more areas for my daughters to learn about hunting than they had youth to experience them (They're grown now, and still love to hunt) One daughter likes to fill her freezer and nothing more, the other is pushing for more "quality" game opportunities in Mt....hmmmm.

An EASY B&C mule deer in Mt? He he, that would be interesting to see, its hard enough just to grow one....start out with 1000 animals.....minus the does/fawns.....minus the young bucks.....minus the genetics that will never make a big animal, figure in the feed, health.....blah blah blah. There will most likely be ZERO animals out of that 1000 that grow BC. So, yah, and EASY BC hunt every 6 or 7 years, I dont care to have that, and you wont see it. Even good ole 270, suposedly thge premier quality mule deer zone in Mt produces very few outstanding bucks....oh sure, you here the stories every year, but start taping them, I wish they would bump it back down to 50 tags, Im sure that will tick a few people off.......NO opportunity, CANT take the kids hunting....cant pass it on. BS! Like I said, my daughters had more quality hunts than we had seasons to experience them all in.

Im preaching DIVERSITY.....call it greed if you wish, but my tags costs the same as yours do in Bozeman. There are plenty of places to hunt in Mt and several ways to hunt those areas, just hoping for a little more effort towards growing some nice Mule deer.

Sooooo, yes more people, more opportunity, take more kids hunting, so how many of you residents went to the F&G meetings and begged them not to limit (cap) the numbers of archery elk hunters in the Breaks?

 

[BuzzH]

Why limit the number of archery hunters in the breaks?

The F&G is catering to landowners and shooting the living shit out of the elk in the breaks already.

With that type of "management" theres no good reason to limit archery hunting in the breaks. Just another elk area to hunt now.

Plus, the "caps" they put on the breaks are a damn joke anyway...everyone that wanted a tag got one. Makes no sense to give out more permits than people want.

 

[Stillookinfor200]

Think it was more for the future (the #s they set) The #s of hunters have been growing and would more likely continue to grow. Most everyone did get their tags this year, everyone knew that would be the case....it WONT be the case in the future, thats what the cap was all about, also there is a LITTLE contraversy to say the least about going to this DRAW as you know what that will eventually mean for the Non Resident hunters.....back to the 10%

 

[Big Fin]

.........so how many of you residents went to the F&G meetings and begged them not to limit (cap) the numbers of archery elk hunters in the Breaks?

I went to all the meetings and asked them to cap the tags. Really didn't have an opinion about the area outside the Breaks.

Was really funny what a shitstorm that created with outfitters, and what a frenzy outfitters whipped up with a few landowners (not the majority).

And after all the threats and the promise of demise of central Montana, what happened? Nothing. Everyone who applied got a tag. No outfitters went out of business because their clients couldn't get tags.

If folks think the Breaks was a big fight, wait until we get our new elk management plan for the Madison Valley. Legislatively, FWP has no choice but to go antlerless only if population objectives are not met by 2009. A legislator from that area got the law passed, now the outfitters may be faced with antlerless only, until the numbers get down to objective.

I am lobbying FWP to go with some limited entry bull tags, when that happens. Enough so that most residents will get a tag if they want to hunt there.

Brace yourself, as this one is coming, and coming fast.

I will be there at those meetings, just like I am for all of the meetings.

 

[Stillookinfor200]

I too, asked for the Cap, Ive seen how the Breaks has changed so much in the last 20 years especially. Outfitters are still throwing a fit.....and you hit the nail on the head when you said "frenzy" So true. The Outfitters that this MAY effect a few years down the road just need to adapt or go broke....those are their choices. Thing is, some of the outfitters that have been complaining for years about the public hunting grounds getting swarmed with masses of archery elk hunters like they have never seen before are the ones having a fit about the tag cap. Go figure.

Also thought it was a good idea to treat the hard deer/elk draws like the Moose/Sheep/Goat, think the way they proposed it was if you were succesfull in drawing a deer/elk tag in an area that you had less that a 10% chance of drawing, you couldnt draw another (10% or less chance) deer/elk tag for four years, I went up and told them to shoot for seven, why not? Same as moose/sheep/goat, and odds are already against you anyway.

 

[BuzzH]

Bigfin,

I think it would be fair to note that the elk management plan is a joke, and I'd let it be known that its a joke....matter of fact I have.

The "above" objective thing always leaves me scratching my head for a couple reasons.

1. The "objective" populations for elk are NOT based on any kind of game management models, rather an arbitrary number that the landowners, outfitters, hunters, etc. agreed to for each hunting unit or herd, with landowners largely getting their way. I think its crap that there is nothing based on CARRYING CAPACITY or a percentage of carrying capacity to quanitify population objectives. I'm hear to tell you...I have looked very hard for any indication of a population problem in many areas of the state they claim are "over-objective". I cant find so much as browse-line in any of the areas I hunt that are "over-objective". If your plan calls for 1 elk to be in a given unit...I suppose 2 elk living there is, by definition, "over-objective".

2. Reducing elk in areas with "over-objective" numbers is an excercise in how to make the problem worse rather than helping in many...hell most, cases. Theres many areas in the state where elk are over-objective in TOTAL population, but a majority of the elk that are causing the over-objective populations are unmanageable because of private property issues. So, the FWP issues a shit load of cow permits to reduce the population...and the only huntable elk are those found on public, where they are largely NOT OVER OBJECTIVE, and those elk take a hammering. Meanwhile back on the private ranch with little or no hunting allowed, the total elk numbers still increase, while the huntable population of elk decline.

That elk management plan is the biggest farce I've ever seen in Montana. I wrote exhaustive comments on the above two items...and of course, they were ignored.

All I have to say is good luck, its such a mess now, I honestly dont know if it can ever be addressed.

 

[sreekers]

Buzz, do you think Wyoming manages the same way, or is it any better here? Of course unit to unit will also factor into that answer.

 

[Big Fin]

Bigfin,

I think it would be fair to note that the elk management plan is a joke, and I'd let it be known that its a joke....matter of fact I have.

The "above" objective thing always leaves me scratching my head for a couple reasons.

1. The "objective" populations for elk are NOT based on any kind of game management models, rather an arbitrary number that the landowners, outfitters, hunters, etc. agreed to for each hunting unit or herd, with landowners largely getting their way. I think its crap that there is nothing based on CARRYING CAPACITY or a percentage of carrying capacity to quanitify population objectives. I'm hear to tell you...I have looked very hard for any indication of a population problem in many areas of the state they claim are "over-objective". I cant find so much as browse-line in any of the areas I hunt that are "over-objective". If your plan calls for 1 elk to be in a given unit...I suppose 2 elk living there is, by definition, "over-objective".

2. Reducing elk in areas with "over-objective" numbers is an excercise in how to make the problem worse rather than helping in many...hell most, cases. Theres many areas in the state where elk are over-objective in TOTAL population, but a majority of the elk that are causing the over-objective populations are unmanageable because of private property issues. So, the FWP issues a shit load of cow permits to reduce the population...and the only huntable elk are those found on public, where they are largely NOT OVER OBJECTIVE, and those elk take a hammering. Meanwhile back on the private ranch with little or no hunting allowed, the total elk numbers still increase, while the huntable population of elk decline.

That elk management plan is the biggest farce I've ever seen in Montana. I wrote exhaustive comments on the above two items...and of course, they were ignored.

All I have to say is good luck, its such a mess now, I honestly dont know if it can ever be addressed.

Buzz:

I completely agree. The biologists here would agree. Unfortunately, we have this thing called politics that is running the population objectives, not science.

Here is a pretty good article that articulates exactly what you are saying. They could issue 20 cow permits per hunter, and it would not make a rat ass difference in elk numbers. If you can't get to them, you ain't gonna kill 'em.

I find it funny that a radical legislator who hates FWP got the legislation passed that requires numbers reduced by 2009, is also a solid ally of the outfitting industry. When they passed this, their party controlled all parts of MT government. The notion was that once they cornered FWP by passing legislation they knew was impossible for FWP to meet, they would then claim FWP was incapable and we needed to hand over the management to landowners.

These legislators will deny that in public, but I know for a fact that was part of the strategy. Now, they don't control any part of MT government and they are trying to figure out how to work within this stupid legislation, especially if FWP is serious about going "antlerless only" until objectives are met.

Will that force these groups to increase allowed objectives? Will they allow some access to solve the population problems? Will it result in landowners saying, "Fug it!" and close their land completely?

I don't know, but they have some legislation that has backfired on them, and now they are screaming bloody murder with every tactic they can think of.

Pardon me if I am sitting here on the sidelines laughing my ass off as it all unfolds.

I have seen some draft legislation that is being prepared for the legislative session that starts in January. Talk about some crazy chit. The same old morons up to the same old tactics.

Looks I will take up part time residency in Helena, at least on Tuesdays and Thursdays, as those are historically the days the House and Senate Fish and Game committees meet. Lots of times, they try to sneak a bill past some other committee compelely unrelated to wildlife.

After a dozen years of doing this, it has actually become entertaining. I am a poster child for the "pain in the ass" resident hunter for some of those legislators. They don't like me, and the feeling is very mutual. And, we have no problem telling the other how we feel about it.

Should be interesting to see what MOGA comes up with this round. I used to get their newsletter and emails from a friend and former MOGA member, but I think someone made the connection, and he got taken to task for being a friend of mine. We agreed it best he not endanger himself by associating with me.

Damn, that was a long reply to a short issue.



>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

Montana Outdoors: Small snapshot of a very big elk problem
By MARK HENCKEL
Montana Outdoors

Look at southcentral Montana's elk Hunting District 560 as a small snapshot of a very big problem. In fact, it's a problem that frustrates game management, hunters and even legislators across Montana and beyond.

HD 560 encompasses the Boulder River drainage, south of Big Timber and the Yellowstone River, going west as far as Mission Creek and east to Bridger Creek. It spreads out from the high country of the Absaroka-Beartooth Wilderness to foothills and private lands.

"For many years, there have been three distinct elk herd units within this hunting district based on summer/winter range areas: the Main Boulder herd, the West Boulder/Greeley Creek herd, and the Elk Creek/Deer Creeks herd," said Justin Paugh, wildlife biologist with Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks at Big Timber.

"We've got pretty good access on the Main Boulder herd and the Elk Creek/Deer Creeks herd because they live nearly the entire year on Forest Service lands with varying degrees of hunter access. Elk from the West Boulder/Greeley herd spend nearly the entire year on private lands. Several ranches in this area do not allow hunting, while others allow very limited hunting through leasing, fee hunting or allow a limited number of family and friends," he said. If you look at the hunting district as a whole, it's well over the management objectives - a mandate that the Montana Legislature dictated must be achieved by its 2009 session which begins in January.

Here are the numbers. The total herd objective for HD 560 is 700 elk. According to Paugh, the most recent surveys put the total count at 842. But what's distressing is how those 842 elk are distributed between the three herds.

The Elk Creek/Deer Creeks herd has a goal of 100 elk and has 114 - pretty darn close. The Main Boulder herd has a goal of 300 elk and has 139 - less than half the objective. And the West Boulder herd has a goal of 300 elk and has 589 - almost twice the objective.

"It comes down to a situation regarding hunter access in relation to harvest," Paugh said. "We're trying to maximize harvest on the West Boulder to reduce elk numbers but the hunters can't access the elk there. In the meantime, we're really hammering the elk on the Main Boulder that live on public land. The Main Boulder elk herd continues to decline."

FWP has employed several hunting regulation options to try to correct the situation. Hunting on the Main Boulder is limited to antlered bull elk only to try to protect cows and calves. Hunting on the West Boulder is either-sex elk and 50 A/9-B/12 licenses are available there so that hunters can shoot a second, antlerless elk.

But if hunters can't obtain access to shoot one elk, adding licenses to take a second elk becomes an exercise in futility.

Paugh said that the situation in HD 560 is not unique. In truth, the same thing plays out across Montana for elk, deer and other species where hunting access dictates the ability of wildlife managers to bring herds to management objectives.

"In my area, it's a real similar situation in the Crazy Mountains in HD 580," he said. "We're in a situation there where there is some access to public ground on the national forest on the north end of the Crazies. But even by the end of archery season, a lot of the elk have been pushed out of the Forest Service area and are showing up on the private land. Or they're on Forest Service land that you can't access without coming through private ground. And, basically, there's no access to elk ground for the public on the south end of the Crazies.

"We're way over our herd objectives in all portions of 580," he added. "There are a few landowners that do let quite a few people hunt, but it's a situation where their neighbors don't allow hunting and the elk get pushed off. There could be 200 elk on the neighbor's ranch which is closed and no elk on the ranch where people can come in and hunt."

As always, private lands are just that - private lands. No one can force any private landowner to grant access to hunters or anyone else. That IS the law.

But as Paugh's situation shows, and as other situations around the state play out in similar manner for wildlife managers, putting elk numbers at herd objectives is not a simple matter of hunting districts, hunting regulations and hunter harvest.

It's far more a matter of hunter access to allow the regulations and harvest to take place. Without the access, there's absolutely nothing that anyone can do to manage wildlife numbers - not even legislators.

Gazette outdoor editor Mark Henckel can be contacted at [email protected] or at 657-1395.


Published on Thursday, December 18, 2008.
Last modified on 12/18/2008 at 12:50 am


Copyright © The Billings Gazette, a division of Lee Enterprises.