Wolves in MT blamed for TOO many elk/deer

[BHR]

Buzz,

I see you too put your time and money where your mouth is. What were some of projects and C. E.s your Council funded? What about the other questions I asked? Ask yourself, what was my intent for starting this thread? To bad mouth land owners or the MT F&G. On another thread you claim that the F & G should be the ones managing depradation. Here they do it, and your not happy either. How about making an effort to work with other wildlife organizations and land owners, instead of bad mouthing them? Sometimes the carrot works better than the stick. Try it.

Paul

 

[BuzzH]

Paul,

We funded a ton of projects, many on private land.

Some that I felt were pretty good were near the Bandy Ranch in the Blackfoot, a WPA, near Ovando. Basically all the Waterfowl Production Areas statewide were funded either fully or partially through the WPAC.

Another pretty good one was developing and cleaning up a small wetland area practically in Anaconda. The school district there wanted to participate and use the repaired area to view wildlife, put up some wood duck boxes, use it as an educational tool.

There was several we approved in the Ninepipes area, those were mostly acquiring lands through cooperation with DU and Pheasants Forever.

I was shocked at the amount of proposals submitted and the numbers we approved...basically all of them that were reasonable. In fact, I dont remember not funding any...and we didnt have a huge operating budget. Just the state duck stamp money. It really opened my eyes to how you can get things accomplished by finding matching funds and cooperating with other agencies.

Also, I'm not agains the MTFWP dealing with the elk in this issue, just against killing bulls for a predation hunt. The way you control populations is to kill cows. I guess I've been involved too long, but I know whats going on with the bull tags. Three of those four either sex tags are going to go to landowners under the landowner preference Montana has...so they can wack a nice bull in their hay fields. If they want a cow tag and dont like the elk there, fine give them a half dozen...no problem. I also dont have a problem with them having the same chance as I do for an either sex tag.

I know what they're up to.

 

[BHR]

Buzz,

I don't see a problem with giving out 4 either sex tags. If you want landowner preference, buy some land, feed the wildlife, and pay the taxes on it. A fully outfitted hunt each year would be cheaper. The real problem here is some hunters obbsessions with big racks and the value that end up being place on these animals. I think that giving landowners some preference to hunting on their land as incentive for being good stewards is reasonable, as long as they let other hunters on their land as well.

Paul

 

[Calif. Hunter]

That's a big "as long as", BHR. Most of the landowners do not let others hunt free on their land unless that is a requirement of the program. IF that were the case, I'd be more in favor of such programs. In most cases, the tags just allow the landowner to sell extremely expensive hunts. In California, you can put in for decades for a chance at one of a dozen or so elk tags, or pay some rancher $15,000, $25,000 or more to shoot a tule elk bull in his pasture.

 

[BHR]

C. H.,

I think the the MT F & G does an OK job negotiating for the sportsmen. There is a Bison Rancher by the name of Teddy that was complaining about the abundance of cow elk on his property but didn't seem to have a problem with the bulls. The F a G did address his cow problem but did have him agree to a no charge youth bull hunt on his property as well.

I don't know the specifics in this particular case, but I would hope that the lucky person who drew the either sex elk tag would have the same access as the antlerless tag holders.

And what about peoples obsession for big racks. Is there that many people in California who would pay $15,000 to $25,000 to shoot a tule elk in a hay field?

Paul

 

[dgibson]

This legislation looks promising...click here. It would create a program to offer incentives to private landowners for opening their property to the public, improving habitat, etc. It kind of recreates the programs of a few states on a national level. Yes, it's "welfare conservation," but I believe it's a helluva lot better than nothing--without programs like this the East will pretty much be a lease-or-don't-hunt situation before long, and the West won't be far behind.

 

[BuzzH]

Paul,

Its obvious from your post you dont have enough of a background in the way the MTFWP runs things.

For starters, I agree somewhat with the landowner preference, but you dont understand how it works.

I know some landowners who own land in a very sought after trophy bull area in North Central Montana. They apply under landowner preference and they have drawn several bull tags that are less than 5 percent draw odds for the public.

Now, pay particular attention to this part...they've killed some awesome bulls...and they've NEVER killed an elk on their own property. In fact, a few have come off public land.

See the problem?

I think that they should be required to hunt just their property if they apply under landowner preference. If they want to hunt the neighbors place, public lands...they apply like everyone else.

But, because the fish and game commission is appointed by the Governor, rarely does wildlife or the average MT hunter get much consideration. I've found that the F&G and the F&G commission is more interested in people management than wildlife management. Heres the order of consideration that the F&G and its commission operates under:

1. Highest priority is the landowners
2. Outfitters and Guides
3. The average MT hunter
4. Wildlife

Thats a problem. In my opinion the health of the wildlife in Montana should be priority number 1 well ahead of the needs of the other 3. Beings how hunters have shouldered the bulk of wildlife management monitarily they should be the second priority, followed by COOPERATIVE land owners, then outfitters and guides.

Montana FWP, does a fair job, but theres lots of room for improvement.

You need to get out of the house more...

 

[BHR]

Buzz,

"I think that they should be required to hunt just their property if they apply under landowner preference. If they want to hunt the neighbors place, public lands...they apply like everyone else."

Agreed. If this is a loophole that is being abused, then it should be closed.

Paul

 

[1_pointer]

That's crap if landowners are able to hunt with landowner tags on other properties. I also disagree with the taking of bulls/bucks on depredation hunts.

I'm thinking WY is different, correct? It looks like one is restricted to their property, of which the must give a legal description of and provide a signature of a F&G official approving it.

 

[Calif. Hunter]

There are a lot of people from all over who are willing to pay that much money for a Tule elk bull, that can be obtained nowhere else and the drawings for non -residents are either nonexistent or at even worse odds than the resident draws. A landowner can sell his tag to anyone, resident or not, with a license. So an out-of-stater can buy a non-resident license for a couple hundred and then buy whatever landowner tag he can afford. Then he can get a Tule elk to round out his Rocky Mountain and Roosevelt mounts.

New Mexico has a better (but not perfect) system - landowners can get "ranch only" landowner tags, good for their property only, or they can get "unit wide" tags, good for anyplace in their hunt zone. However, they then have to let the public onto their land to hunt if they opt for the unit wide tags.

 

[BuzzH]

Pointer, Wyoming land owner preference is the same as MT. The tags they get under LOP are good anywhere in the unit...not just their land.

Just a year ago, the outfitters and landowners were wanting to receive permits they could sell to clients. Bad idea, and luckily it got shot down.

 

[1_pointer]

Buzz- I must've mis-read the LOP app. in the regs. That's not a good policy IMO.

 

[BuzzH]

Pointer, to receive a permit in the UNIT they apply for, they have to show that the species they apply for utilize their land (in that unit) at least a portion of the year. This is determined by the G&F, then they sign off for the landowner preference. But, it doesnt mean they have to hunt THEIR land, the tag is only unit specific.

Yes, the rule needs to be tightened. But please see my list above in how the G&F manages people...when they should be managing wildlife.

 

[1_pointer]

Point taken. Thanks for clearing that up. Looks like I need to buy a few acres in WY!

 

[BuzzH]

Pointer, maybe we should go in together on the land purchase. Find a place in a good antelope/deer unit. We could buy it, graze it to dirt for a profit, sell cows, maybe pick up a federal lease (hopefully landlocked so we have the only access to it), the whole nine. Bitch about wolves eating our cows and how the big-game is eating too much cattle forage.

Then kill our big bucks on public land or the neighbors place....its a great racket.

Should I start looking for land, partner??? I was kind of thinking the red desert area...

 

[1_pointer]

Just let me know when to write the check!

BTW, are absentee landowners able to hunt in Wilderness areas in WY without a guide? If so, I may be more serious than you'd imagine!