South East Montana - Custer National Forest

[Doublecluck]

They are also incredibly prolific and SHOULD rebound quickly from disease and/or winterkill. Unless they are routinely overharvested.

This is what I find when I search antelope populations in MT, which confirms both what I stated earlier about populations being affected more so by disease and weather as well as the fact that MT fwp changed the tag quotas based on the conditions.
http://r.search.yahoo.com/_ylt=A0SO...578.html/RK=0/RS=THmeKtDSKl8.L5gn7DVqOEg8Jr8-

 

[HalfAce]

Here is mule deer, is this data not accurate? Seems like region 7 was up from its 10 year average in 2016. This does not seem like a wipe out.. http://fwp.mt.gov/fwpDoc.html?id=78616

I don't know exactly how or why they changed it, but if you look at the bottom line in asterisks they state:

***The method used to make mule deer population estimates was changed in 2015. Previous population estimates are considered invalid***

All I know is there sure as hell were not 37,000 more Mule deer in Region 7 last year (2016) than there were a decade earlier in 2006. But I guess when you change the way the estimates are made, you can pick and choose the method which will give you more favorable results. 2006 was the greatest year of mulie hunting I've ever had in Region 7. Saying there is nearly 30% MORE Mule deer there now than there were back then is a load of bullshit. But the estimates sure do look good, too bad they are not worth the paper they are printed on.

 

[JLS]

Quack,

I'm not really tracking what point your trying to make. Yes, permit numbers were adjusted, but I don't think the desired end result was attained.

I know Greenhorn addressed this a while back, the area north of Hysham and Forsyth used to be absolutely phenomenal antelope hunting. Not so much anymore.

For many years, FWP has held to the philosophy of using macro management instead of micro management. They manage by huge hunt areas for deer and antelope, assuming that the pressure will self distribute to areas with healthy populations. This is a deep seated philosophy, but maybe one whose time has long passed.

I fully admit one always has to be careful what you ask for, and Montana has long held onto the buzzword of "opportunity". However, I'd have to agree 110% with Buzz and Greenhorn in that Montana does not even come close to managing to its potential. I'm also not convinced that by doing so would greatly reduce opportunity.

The paradigm shift to reach Wyoming's management approach is extreme, and IMO very unlikely to happen in my lifetime.

 

[Doublecluck]

Quack,

I'm not really tracking what point your trying to make. Yes, permit numbers were adjusted, but I don't think the desired end result was attained.

I know Greenhorn addressed this a while back, the area north of Hysham and Forsyth used to be absolutely phenomenal antelope hunting. Not so much anymore.

For many years, FWP has held to the philosophy of using macro management instead of micro management. They manage by huge hunt areas for deer and antelope, assuming that the pressure will self distribute to areas with healthy populations. This is a deep seated philosophy, but maybe one whose time has long passed.

I fully admit one always has to be careful what you ask for, and Montana has long held onto the buzzword of "opportunity". However, I'd have to agree 110% with Buzz and Greenhorn in that Montana does not even come close to managing to its potential. I'm also not convinced that by doing so would greatly reduce opportunity.

The paradigm shift to reach Wyoming's management approach is extreme, and IMO very unlikely to happen in my lifetime.

I completely agree, but nothing I have seen on this thread or in the field in Montana would lead me to believe that the current management plan or lack there of is going to lead to the day when the last elk,deer, or antelope is killed in region 7, Custer, or any other place in the state. Not to mention me believing that fwp or the people of Montana would just stand by and watch it happen.

Furthermore it's my opinion that when randy and his band of misfit, out of state, otc unlimited entry hunters arrive in region 7 and the Cnf this fall, they will likely find populations that are consistent with the long term averages.

 

[shoots-straight]

Buzz knows his shit inside and does a tremendous amount to help our cause.... but his message is often lost because he insults anyone who dares disagree. I realize it's hard to persuade those who won't listen or don't present facts to back up their arguments. However, I promise that it is impossible to persuade someone if you go about it in the manner that Buzz sometimes does. I'm no expert by any means. However, I make my living convincing others to use my particular medical device over another......and I live very comfortably. I came to this site to learn....but some of you with the most wisdom make it very difficult to learn.

Trust me when I say the BHR brings out the worst in Buzz, and others. He gets bored and jabs endlessly for no real reason other than to just jab.

This has gone on for many years. You should have witnessed some of the (discussions) a decade ago. :hump:

 

[JLS]

I completely agree, but nothing I have seen on this thread or in the field in Montana would lead me to believe that the current management plan or lack there of is going to lead to the day when the last elk,deer, or antelope is killed in region 7, Custer, or any other place in the state. Not to mention me believing that fwp or the people of Montana would just stand by and watch it happen.

Furthermore it's my opinion that when randy and his band of misfit, out of state, otc unlimited entry hunters arrive in region 7 and the Cnf this fall, they will likely find populations that are consistent with the long term averages.

I view the "last elk" statement as obvious hyperbole. Maybe it's not, I don't know. Buzz would have to answer that.

While I don't think FWP would stand by and literally watch the last elk, deer, or antelope extirpated, I can certainly give you examples of when they have watched a population get shot to holy hell because of an archaic management plan that is based largely upon social acceptance. In addition, Buzz had given you plenty of examples of "management" practices that have remained stagnant over the course of at least a decade while observed animals and hunter harvest have steadily declined. What you do with these examples is up to you.

 

[Doublecluck]

I view the "last elk" statement as obvious hyperbole. Maybe it's not, I don't know. Buzz would have to answer that.

While I don't think FWP would stand by and literally watch the last elk, deer, or antelope extirpated, I can certainly give you examples of when they have watched a population get shot to holy hell because of an archaic management plan that is based largely upon social acceptance. In addition, Buzz had given you plenty of examples of "management" practices that have remained stagnant over the course of at least a decade while observed animals and hunter harvest have steadily declined. What you do with these examples is up to you.

But the observed elk in this data show that most areas are at or above objective, the entire population is above objective. Have you read the elk management plan? It seems like their actions are in line with their management plan. I am confused, tags are limited in region 7 for elk, does fwp have a conspiracy against the elk in the bitterroot, but micro manage the ones in region 7? Again Game agencies do not manage game for the sole purpose of hunter harvest. Montana is not the hunting communities giant game farm.

http://fwp.mt.gov/fwpDoc.html?id=76529

http://fwp.mt.gov/fishAndWildlife/management/elk/managementPlan.htmly

 

[antlerradar]

Quack,



For many years, FWP has held to the philosophy of using macro management instead of micro management. They manage by huge hunt areas for deer and antelope, assuming that the pressure will self distribute to areas with healthy populations. This is a deep seated philosophy, but maybe one whose time has long passed.

This philosophy was described to me at a CAC meeting as The law of diminishing returns. There is no maybe about it, should have been buried in the 80's. The law of diminishing returns only has a chance of working when you have access to everywhere. Wide open access is not how I would describe region 7 today. When access starts to become restricted on some properties the law of diminishing returns starts to fall apart. Hunters are no longer able to self distribute so the places with access get hunted harder for a longer time. This contributes to even more properties restricting access and the access problem snowballs. Give it thirty years and what has happened in region 7 is the result.

 

[antlerradar]

But the observed elk in this data show that most areas are at or above objective, the entire population is above objective. Have you read the elk management plan? It seems like their actions are in line with their management plan. I am confused, tags are limited in region 7 for elk, does fwp have a conspiracy against the elk in the bitterroot, but micro manage the ones in region 7? Again Game agencies do not manage game for the sole purpose of hunter harvest. Montana is not the hunting communities giant game farm.

http://fwp.mt.gov/fwpDoc.html?id=76529

http://fwp.mt.gov/fishAndWildlife/management/elk/managementPlan.htmly

Elk are far from micro managed in 7. The 799-20 rifle licence is good in three very large hunting districts. The 900 archery is good in 23 districts.
A reason as to why 7 is not wide open. Think commercialization of wildlife.

 

[JLS]

But the observed elk in this data show that most areas are at or above objective, the entire population is above objective. Have you read the elk management plan? It seems like their actions are in line with their management plan. I am confused, tags are limited in region 7 for elk, does fwp have a conspiracy against the elk in the bitterroot, but micro manage the ones in region 7? Again Game agencies do not manage game for the sole purpose of hunter harvest. Montana is not the hunting communities giant game farm.

http://fwp.mt.gov/fwpDoc.html?id=76529

http://fwp.mt.gov/fishAndWildlife/management/elk/managementPlan.htmly

Yes, I've read the management plan and understand it well.

General tag cow harvest is allowed in region 7 on private land to focus elk populations on the Custer Forest. Bull harvest is limited for the exact reason antlerradar stated. All elk harvest on the Custer is limited to prevent over-harvest and excessive exploitation.

Maybe you should do some historical research about how the population objectives were reached, and the significance of Senator Barrett's legislation.

Montana is the hunting community's game farm, but it certainly could support more populations in areas with a significant amount of public land. In addition, some of the public land populations could certainly be higher too.

tjones gave you a bunch of information, you should read it.

 

[JLS]

This philosophy was described to me at a CAC meeting as The law of diminishing returns. There is no maybe about it, should have been buried in the 80's. The law of diminishing returns only has a chance of working when you have access to everywhere. Wide open access is not how I would describe region 7 today. When access starts to become restricted on some properties the law of diminishing returns starts to fall apart. Hunters are no longer able to self distribute so the places with access get hunted harder for a longer time. This contributes to even more properties restricting access and the access problem snowballs. Give it thirty years and what has happened in region 7 is the result.

You are absolutely correct. The "maybe" was meant rather tongue in cheek. Even in some of the smaller hunt districts, this access issue has produced identical results to what you see in Region 7.

 

[whiskeydog]

MT 2003 HB42... read and learn

http://leg.mt.gov/bills/2003/billpdf/HB0042.pdf

 

[Doublecluck]

Yes, I've read the management plan and understand it well.

General tag cow harvest is allowed in region 7 on private land to focus elk populations on the Custer Forest. Bull harvest is limited for the exact reason antlerradar stated. All elk harvest on the Custer is limited to prevent over-harvest and excessive exploitation.

Maybe you should do some historical research about how the population objectives were reached, and the significance of Senator Barrett's legislation.

Montana is the hunting community's game farm, but it certainly could support more populations in areas with a significant amount of public land. In addition, some of the public land populations could certainly be higher too.

tjones gave you a bunch of information, you should read it.

So are you saying fwp should adopt game management plans that produce the highest populations of game animals on public land and have no consideration for how that affects the other species that live in that habitat, the interests of landowners that surround it, farmers, the general public or anyone else?

 

[JLS]

Please stop putting words in my mouth. It would appear to me you want to argue for the sake of arguing.

Carry on.

 

[whiskeydog]

But the observed elk in this data show that most areas are at or above objective, the entire population is above objective. Have you read the elk management plan? It seems like their actions are in line with their management plan. I am confused, tags are limited in region 7 for elk, does fwp have a conspiracy against the elk in the bitterroot, but micro manage the ones in region 7? Again Game agencies do not manage game for the sole purpose of hunter harvest. Montana is not the hunting communities giant game farm.
y

I'm having a really hard time understanding how you can't see this!? Let's try this and oversimplify it a bit...

Take an imaginary state, call it Quackistan. Quackistan is not large and has only two lakes. The first lake, Private Lake, is average size and is surrounded by corn fields. Most of the private landowners allow hunting. The second lake, Public Lake, is a huge, beautiful lake, but is surrounded mostly by sage fields with scattered private crop fields owned by people who also allow hunting. The local biologists have come up with a management plan that calls for 10,000 ducks as a population objective and quotas to achieve that number. Ducks fly freely between the two lakes, populations are managed fairly well, most hunters go home happy, and the population stays at, near, or slightly above objective.

Then, years down the road, Jane Fonda moves in, buys Private Lake and all the surrounding corn fields and shuts down hunting access. Hunters soon begin to all focus on Public Lake and soon the numbers there diminish as the ducks quickly learn that they are safe on Private Lake. The biologists understand what is happening and quickly drop bag limits to attempt to rebuild the population on Public Lake. Additionally, they increase their management number from 10,000 to 15,000 understanding that if the ducks are going to congregate on Private Lake, then Public Lake can definitely handle the additional 5,000. This works for a time, but the bitch, Jane Fonda, starts complaining that the ducks are destroying her crops and gets a congressman to write a bill stating that the ducks need to be managed based on the total land available, not just that which can be hunted. The management plan goes back to 10,000. This doesn't take the pressure off of Jane's fields so years down the road, she gets another congressman to push through a bill which allows hunting year round to try and control the duck population. Jane agrees to allow duck hunting on her place, by appointment only, one month out of the year.

In the end, it still doesn't work. The objective calls for 10,000 ducks. Statewide there are currently 12,000 ducks (20% over objective) although 9,000 of them reside exclusively on Private Lake. The biologists testify that Public Lake can hold 8,000 by itself, but nobody listens.

 

[Doublecluck]

But the observed elk in this data show that most areas are at or above objective, the entire population is above objective. Have you read the elk management plan? It seems like their actions are in line with their management plan. I am confused, tags are limited in region 7 for elk, does fwp have a conspiracy against the elk in the bitterroot, but micro manage the ones in region 7? Again Game agencies do not manage game for the sole purpose of hunter harvest. Montana is not the hunting communities giant game farm.
y

I'm having a really hard time understanding how you can't see this!? Let's try this and oversimplify it a bit...

Take an imaginary state, call it Quackistan. Quackistan is not large and has only two lakes. The first lake, Private Lake, is average size and is surrounded by corn fields. Most of the private landowners allow hunting. The second lake, Public Lake, is a huge, beautiful lake, but is surrounded mostly by sage fields with scattered private crop fields owned by people who also allow hunting. The local biologists have come up with a management plan that calls for 10,000 ducks as a population objective and quotas to achieve that number. Ducks fly freely between the two lakes, populations are managed fairly well, most hunters go home happy, and the population stays at, near, or slightly above objective.

Then, years down the road, Jane Fonda moves in, buys Private Lake and all the surrounding corn fields and shuts down hunting access. Hunters soon begin to all focus on Public Lake and soon the numbers there diminish as the ducks quickly learn that they are safe on Private Lake. The biologists understand what is happening and quickly drop bag limits to attempt to rebuild the population on Public Lake. Additionally, they increase their management number from 10,000 to 15,000 understanding that if the ducks are going to congregate on Private Lake, then Public Lake can definitely handle the additional 5,000. This works for a time, but the bitch, Jane Fonda, starts complaining that the ducks are destroying her crops and gets a congressman to write a bill stating that the ducks need to be managed based on the total land available, not just that which can be hunted. The management plan goes back to 10,000. This doesn't take the pressure off of Jane's fields so years down the road, she gets another congressman to push through a bill which allows hunting year round to try and control the duck population. Jane agrees to allow duck hunting on her place, by appointment only, one month out of the year.

In the end, it still doesn't work. The objective calls for 10,000 ducks. Statewide there are currently 12,000 ducks (20% over objective) although 9,000 of them reside exclusively on Private Lake. The biologists testify that Public Lake can hold 8,000 by itself, but nobody listens.

Awesome man..I totally see it now... ha .. So it doesn't work from a game management standpoint or a public hunter sucess standpoint? How about when the wind blows and the two guys who stuck it out on the edge of the private have the best hunt of their life when 9000 birds set up on their spread? And I would find a new biologist because obviously the ducks would return to the public lake during nesting and broading season when hunters were not shooting at them. Am I missing the part where all of the ducks die from Randy's followers Hunting the public lake?

 

[BigHornRam]

I view the "last elk" statement as obvious hyperbole. Maybe it's not, I don't know. Buzz would have to answer that.

While I don't think FWP would stand by and literally watch the last elk, deer, or antelope extirpated, I can certainly give you examples of when they have watched a population get shot to holy hell because of an archaic management plan that is based largely upon social acceptance. In addition, Buzz had given you plenty of examples of "management" practices that have remained stagnant over the course of at least a decade while observed animals and hunter harvest have steadily declined. What you do with these examples is up to you.

A lot of what Buzz goes off on is one sided hyperbole. He blames cats, roads, logging, other hunters, FWP, ECT for the dimises of his spot. Yet he didn't self regulate when he noticed the downward trend. So I guess he's right. Time for FWP to end 11 week long general seasons. Sign me up.

 

[BuzzH]

Time for FWP to end 11 week long general seasons. Sign me up.

Finally, it sunk in...didn't think it would through that thick, numb skull.

 

[mtmuley]

Time for FWP to end 11 week long general seasons. Sign me up.

If/when this happens, gonna be quite an uproar from the good ol boy crowd. mtmuley

 

[BigHornRam]

If/when this happens, gonna be quite an uproar from the good ol boy crowd. mtmuley

You think? It will make this thread look tame.