Spotted Dog Land Acquisition

[shoots-straight]

Hi guys another important issue we need sportsman to comment on. It's for the Acquisition of 27,500 acre's of private property in the upper Clark Fork. The largest elk herd in that area lives here. Please comment positively for the MTFW&Ps to acquire these lands. This is a great opportunity for all of us , to help increase our volume of land we can hunt without landowner permission.

http://doj.mt.gov/lands/naturalresource/noticespubliccomment.asp

 

[shoots-straight]

These lands will also have an emphasis on Wildlife vs Livestock. They'll be added to the State Wildlife Game range system.

 

[BuzzH]

SS,

Did RCFWA and others comment on this?

I'll send in my comments, I've actually hunted elk very near that place a long time ago.

 

[elk_hunter]

Comments sent!

 

[Sytes]

Done deal.

RE: Spotted Dog Land Acquisition
I support the opportunity to enhance our public’s preservation and enhancement of our natural resources as offered in the purchase of Spotted Dog land.
This would be a great and necessary enhancement for the future welfare of our public’s “Big Sky” Montana.
Sincerely,
---

Thanks for the heads up, Shoots----->

 

[shoots-straight]

Not yet Buzz, it just came up. There's only a 45 day comment period though. We won't have a general meeting before the fall. The Board will have to take it up on their behalf.


Thanks Elk Hunter.

 

[Gerald Martin]

I sent in my comments in favor of it.

 

[BRI]

This is a great thing for the public. However, the main thing I really don't like is their open road system they've identified. For one, those roads are crap and almost impassible when wet and it looks like they have the systems identified which would create a couple of loops the road hunters would love. If they don't change those, that area is going to get flat hammered by road hunters Also those roads go through the heart of the best country and it won't take those elk long to figure out they need to get out of there or be killed. I'd love to see them only have 4 access points and have some good walk in areas.

The strong rumor mill going around is the gov wants to purchase this ranch so that he has a place to put buffalo rather than kill them....I sure hope that isn't the case.

 

[shoots-straight]

BRI, why would putting Buffalo on historic range be bad? Why would you rather the Buffalo get killed?

 

[BRI]

Personally I think the impacts/risks to the adjacent ranches outweighs the benefits of buffalo on this land. Also, a primary objective of this purchase is to "enhance critical winter habitat for elk, mule deer and antelope". If buffalo from YNP were to be transplanted there, depending upon the numbers, couldn't that be a direct conflict as they would be competing for the same forage?

 

[----]

That is a huge chunk of land.
FWP is on a land purchasing binge like no other.
I'm all for it, but wonder if they're going to have the resources needed to manage all this additional land right away.

 

[BuzzH]

First off, I dont think its wise to be debating the "what-if's"...more important to get the land bought and this deal done first. I think BRI does bring up some good points...and they will need to be addressed, no question about that.

I think it would make great sense to come up with a management plan that fits the area with public input being part of the process. I agree that too much access will be a huge issue, but I think seasonal closures would be a better fit than just having a few access points. It would make sense to me to limit access during hunting season and also during the winter to ease the stress on wintering big-game and provide a walk-in type hunting experience.

As to the bison, not sure I agree with that either,not sure it would be the best "fit" for that property. A part of me would want to see it happen, and frankly, I dont really care what the adjacent ranches think. Ranchers run their cattle all over hells half acre and if I dont want THEIR cattle on MY LAND I have to fence them out. Maybe a dose of their own medicine would be a good thing regarding them fencing out bison.

I think the "competing forage" arguement has some merit...but bison would have lower impacts on that piece of land (assuming correct numbers) than the cattle that have been on it for the last 80+ years. I would think that if cattle have been run on that property for all these years, having some bison on there wouldnt be much different. Bison tend to feed on the uplands more and leave the riparian and wetland areas alone...just the opposite of cattle. I also think that grazing of some kind of stock, probably cattle, will continue on that property regardless. I like bison over cattle...but realize they come with a huge set of problems.

I think theres a lot of things to consider regarding management once the land is acquired...the important thing right now is to just get it.

 

[1_pointer]

Bison and cattle are quite a bit different in the habits and foraging abilities/preferences. If managed correctly, each could help the vegetation management. There evidence in UT that free ranging bison are doing more harm than the cattle that previously grazed there at one location. In another locale, the different foraging habits of bison have changed the vegetation which has greatly reduced the amount of elk use in some areas. So, just replacing cattle with bison will not always make things "better".

One big difference I see with the two of them on public land (regardless of state or federal) is that generally the cattle are allowed through a permitting process. This becomes important, IMO, because that means the cattle may or may not be allowed on the property year round. So, on a very dry year or to do vegetation management the cattle can be removed for the year or a period of the permitted grazing season. If this property is to be used as a bison 'refuge' where do they go on dry years or years with short feed or if an area needs rested due to vegetation treatments? Likewise, 27.5K acres won't feed all that many bison year round. Since I am totally unfamiliar with lands being discussed, the numbers I am throwing out are completely pulled out of my arse. Say the area is producing forage at 1 acre/AUM, which I wouldn't doubt is possibly and probably conservative. That means that total forage being produced is 27,500 AUMs worth. Lots of literature suggest that at a minimum 50% of forage needs to be left for recruitment and watershed health, so to be conservative lets assume that 65% of forage will not be grazed. That leaves 9625AUMs for all animal consumption. In order to be conservative, lets say that only 30% of the allocatable forage is allocated to bison; 9625X 30% = 2887AUMs. Bison use approximately 1.5 AUM of forage. So, 1.5 X 12 months is 18. That means in this hypothetical scenario the piece of ground could support 160 head of bison. This assumes that the forage is evenly distributed and every acre is available/suitable for bison grazing every day of the year.

Those are some concerns that I would think need to be raised. However, I agree with Buzz the most important thing is to get the land purchased THEN work on a management plan.

 

[sweetnectar]

I'm going to puke if they blow a bunch of my money on this. They can open up 10 times the amount of land if they just take the same money and purchase easements to open up way more already public land that sits untouched to the public being land locked.
I'll tell them where they can put it if they waste my money on this one chunk so road hunters can have it thinned out in a year or two. Then they have to keep wasting my money managing it year after year. We just watched this kind of waste of an idea happen on a chunk of ground near Billings.
This 27000 acre piece can easily turn into 300,000+ of accessable land by spending the money diffently (easements) and looking forward to the savings. Excuse me while I vomit.

 

[sweetnectar]

FWP is on a land purchasing binge like no other.

Also, I wonder how the state legislature feels about FWP becomming our states land purchaser. Their job is to manage our wildlife. Yikes!

 

[----]

I think securing wintering ground is a pretty acceptable way to manage wildlife...

Personally I think WMA's are one of the best thing's going for outdoorsmen in Montana.
I'll be hunting on at least two different one's this fall, and am really thankful for that opportunity.
For me, the more there are, the better off we are.

 

[Sytes]

Agree with randy on that point.

Of the things we DO spend money on - at least this one is tangible to the public.

All for getting easements run into our land locked public areas... none the less to get to our plum creek land that is open to us...

Speaking of such - A good elder gent passed away a couple years ago and his land went to his daughter... who sealed off the public access road to the plum creek land behind their property... This was the route to 1. hunt plum creek land and 2. access otherwise land locked public land...
Showed with hunting partner and I ready to enter to find it locked up compleetely... Called my contact with Plum Creek - they told me of the daughter takeover and elimination to publics access... The walk in small gate was completely locked up with a sign saying no trespassing, no hunting etc... WHAT B.S.! I was fried!

This is up miller creek where of Missoula area - What a bummer. The whitetail action, and Elk prospects were great... now a private reserve of hunting to the landowners holding captive our land... Pisses me off to no end.