# Montana Hunters On Loosing "End"......Who's TEAM Are You On?



## klbzdad

The article speaks for itself. Pretty sad actually.

Montana Hunters, Anglers Stand To Lose Wildlife Heritage

o-||


----------



## Nambaster

*Re: Montana Hunters On Loosing "End"......Who's TEAM Are You*

Thanks for the link. I would not be too concerned about all the money that SFW pockets if it wasn't for them interrupting my own personal hunts for the benefit of the trophy hunting. Its fun talking about big animals of trophy quality, but not at the expense of being able to hunt. I stand on the side of Heritage.


----------



## elk22hunter

*Re: Montana Hunters On Loosing "End"......Who's TEAM Are You*

I have been and remain on the opposite side as this author who's so biased report was written.

I am all about hunting less for myself while hunting every year with others for QUALITY animals. I would ten times rather go on a trophy bull Elk hunt with my brother, son, daughter or other family member and see animals that rut, scream and run off satellite bulls than hunt spikes every year and not be a part of that magical moment called the "Rut".

I realize that takes money and if tags are worth more because of the quality of the hunts and tag allocations have been more limited in order to create quality, money's need to be made elsewhere. Sell the tags to the money guys and let them pay for the opportunity to hunt Mature animals living in a "Natural" environment instead of a bunch of Spikes in an unnatural environment with them doing all of the breeding because mature bulls are non existent, then I am ALL for it. I can wait my time to draw and help others to fill my hunting addiction while the money guy flips the bill for my quality hunt. The ONLY downside between me and him is that he can hunt every year and I can only when I draw. That is OK. I don't NEED to have the tag every year. I am totally content to hunt with other friends and family on the off years.


----------



## wileywapati

*Re: Montana Hunters On Loosing "End"......Who's TEAM Are You*

I agree with Elk22!! Freaking liberal Montana
Media!! There's no track record of anything 
Like this ever happening out west. They need
To get over their bias and just report the dang facts!!


----------



## utahgolf

*Re: Montana Hunters On Loosing "End"......Who's TEAM Are You*



elk22hunter said:


> I have been and remain on the opposite side as this author who's so biased report was written.
> 
> I can wait my time to draw and help others to fill my hunting addiction while the money guy flips the bill for my quality hunt. The ONLY downside between me and him is that he can hunt every year and I can only when I draw. That is OK. I don't NEED to have the tag every year. I am totally content to hunt with other friends and family on the off years.


well not everyone agrees with you and I respect peoples views, so I would say the other DOWNSIDE is having the big money guys dictate legislation not for biology reasons but for TROPHY hunting reasons. kinda sad, and if the heritage of hunting is to survive and be passed down to future generations, it will be because average hunters said NO to special interest hunting groups and trophy hunters.


----------



## wileywapati

*Re: Montana Hunters On Loosing "End"......Who's TEAM Are You*

I would also like to change my previous 
Eye vote from bwhntr to elk22.


----------



## Nambaster

*Re: Montana Hunters On Loosing "End"......Who's TEAM Are You*

My arguement is that a "Genuine Trophy" does not have to be grown and protected to maturity. When the "Trophy Hunters" push their agendas to increase their odds at harvesting record book animals they interfere with "True Heritage" they are hell bent on expending financial resources and regulation in order to get their name in the books. They over step their bounds in order to limit opportunity to increase their odds of harvesting a home grown animal.

There doesn't need to be a battle between the 2 groups biologically animals can reach maturity through natural selection. Both parties can win. Recently the "Trophy Hunter" has gotten a little too competitive and a balance needs to be restored.


----------



## elk22hunter

*Re: Montana Hunters On Loosing "End"......Who's TEAM Are You*

It's been no secret that I am usually on the opposite side of the equation when these scenario's get brought up. I am very *not* against the auction of tags and such. It has provided the DWR with HUGE high fencing projects against highways and too many other items to mention that cost a LOT of dollars. I love it when the rich guy pays and makes my hunting opportunities better. I am sure that there is a bit of home cooking with "biology" vs "trophy" but I am sure that it's not as bad as the guys who want to hunt and kill every year want me to believe.


----------



## stillhunterman

*Re: Montana Hunters On Loosing "End"......Who's TEAM Are You*

I really don't see what the big deal is, Montanan's are a pretty progressive bunch of folks and understand that the management styles of big game is changing; they are willing to go along for the ride on the money train for the ability to keep on hunting. They fully understand that Ranching for Wildlife is the future and is the best way to protect our resource and hunting heritage.

On January 12Th of this year, there was a Mule Deer Management Symposium held, hosted by the Montana Outfitters and Guides Association. A lot of hunters were looking forward to hearing about ways to help the plight of Mule Deer. It was sponsored by the Mule Deer Foundation, Boone and Crockett Club, Montana Fish Wildlife and Parks Foundation (a private non-profit foundation separate from the state agency and funded by individual donations) and Dallas Safari Club. I wish I could have attended, sounds like it was a fine event with important information on how we can continue to help private property owners evolve their Ranching for Wild....oops, sorry, they changed that nomenclature to one that is more correct and valid: it's called "Integrated Ranching and Farming" now.

Most of the attendees were from the MOGA, but some hunters were there; bad weather was a factor in who actually made it. :| Although most of the hunters who did make it were very impressed with the direction this program will take our heritage, there were some who were "biased" when it came to expressing their thoughts/opinions. Here is an excerpt from one of those types of posts I found on the interet:



> "...
> If you attended the Mule Deer Symposium last Saturday, Dec. 12th in Bozeman sponsored by Montana Outfitters and Guides Association (MOGA), the Boone and Crocket Club, the Mule Deer Foundation, and the FWP Foundation expecting to learn more about what was going on with Mule Deer populations that was not generally the case.
> 
> Most of the discussion centered on how best to privatize and commercialize wildlife and manage it like livestock. Curiously I seldom (once, maybe twice) heard the term Ranching for Wildlife. They may have chosen "Integrated Management" or possibly "Integrated Ranching" to distance themselves from the bad reputation RFW has earned.
> 
> You were sorely mistaken if you thought you might hear from experts about mule deer health, factors driving populations, winter range conditions, disease or even predation. Wolves barely even got a mention, it was all about profit.
> 
> Discussions about "culling" management bucks," running wildlife" as in a rancher running cattle, maximizing profit by managing for a particular B&C score, saving "breeder" bucks", selling bucks by the inch, and incentivizing landowners dominated the Symposium.
> 
> The first 3 presentations were informative. Miles Moretti, President/CEO of the Mule Deer Foundation gave a "Status Report on Mule Deer in the American West" heavy on Utah as that is where he is from. Miles did a good job of defining the causes of mule deer declines over the past 30 years. He also offered his thoughts on what needed to be done to bring mule deer populations back to higher levels. His primary focus was in habitat restoration to replace some of the less desirable habitat with more traditional mule deer habitat. While he said that loss of habitat was the biggest factor causing mule deer declines, it seemed that the audience firmly believe predation is the primary cause.
> 
> Quentin Kujala reported on the results of the 2011 FWP Mule Deer Hunter Preference Survey comparing resident and non-resident responses showing strong support by both residents and non-residents for the current system of managing mule deer in Montana emphasizing opportunity. Both residents and non-residents ranked trophy hunting at or near the bottom of a list of 10 reasons to hunt.
> 
> Link to News release on resident portion of study. You may have to cut and paste.
> http://fwp.mt.gov/news/newsReleases/...s/nr_3987.html
> 
> Quentin filled in for Paul Lukacs a prof at U of M describing "The effects of Mule Deer Buck Regulations on Mule Deer Populations and Harvest" which described the effects of the Montana's 3 restrictive mule deer season types; limited permits, unlimited licenses restricted to one unit and shortened seasons. His presentation included a slide comparing factors affecting mule deer populations. Habitat quality was by far the most important. During Q&A he pointed out in some situations predation can have an impact...





> "...Once the first 3 presentations were done however the main focus shifted to maximizing profit from wildlife especially mule deer. Rick Danvir from Deseret Ranches in Utah discussed "Landowners Role in Managing Wildlife with an Integrated Ranching and Farming business" He did show a slide emphasizing that wildlife belonged to the public and gave a good description of a holistic approach to land management indentifying factors contributing to productivity of the land. He is a big advocate of rest rotation grazing for cattle which is good for wildlife. He also emphasized the need for incentives for landowners in the form of licenses to sell in order to make managing for wildlife worthwhile. This marked the first gradual introduction to Ranching for Wildlife.
> 
> The next presenter, Ken Clegg, "The Impact of Mule Deer Harvest Rates on B&C scores" abandoned any pretense of doing anything but selling wildlife literally by the "inch" and how to maximize the profit from selling mule deer bucks. He manages a number of ranches in several Rocky Mountain states totaling a couple million acres including a couple ranches in Montana. He suggested landowners should keep track of the B&C score of every buck shot on their property to gauge how the management of the ranch was doing. He kept these records for many years on all the ranches he manages and this presentation was a result of what he learned from thousands of bucks.
> 
> Using a hypothetical population of 1,000 mule deer he showed how many bucks of various scores you could "harvest" to maintain a particular B&C score in your herd. This included a chart showing where in his words the "sweet spot" was in terms of profit. On the left side was the B&C score. Columns included the number of bucks of various scores you could sell to maintain each level of B&C score. On the right was the total profit you would realize by managing for each score. The Sweet Spot" was harvesting 3 % of the bucks to manage for an average score of 180. If you chose to sell 10% of the bucks, your average score would only be 118 and you couldn't charge nearly as much "per buck" not per hunter or per hunt but per buck in his words.
> 
> Another chart showed what bucks with various scores are worth. He also encouraged "culling" management bucks and recommended letting some of the largest "breeder" bucks live. He described how they sell bucks by the inch in Texas and used terms like "market the biggest" and harvest smaller bucks. One comment sounded like you should shoot a few monsters for advertising and only let most clients shoot smaller though nice bucks. There was absolutely no mention of quality hunting experience, ethics, hunter recruitment or retention, etc. Everything in his presentation was based on maximizing profit. He repeated the argument that landowners needed the "profit incentive" in order to manage for wildlife.
> 
> The closing presentation was supposed to be about a "Cooperative System of Integrated Management and the North American Model of Wildlife Management" by Paul Krausman, the Boone and Crockett Professor of Wildlife Conservation but he had to cancel. Representatives from the FWP Foundation and Boone and Crockett club replaced him for the symposium wrap up. The FWP foundation member discussed how his home state of Washington has gone to more limited entry type hunts and bragged about the size of the bull elk killed on his family's ranch now even though his name may never be drawn. His message was the need to "balance opportunity" among landowners and outfitters. He seemed to catch himself and added public hunters. It may not have been intentional but it was certainly obvious.
> 
> He then introduced the Director of Marketing for Boone & Crockett who explained a version of the North American Model (NAM) that seems to justify selling wildlife by the inch, not by the pound. He explained the NAM resulted from resentment of the European model where wildlife belonged to as he put it, "nobility and the wealthy". He referred to Robin Hood and the kings deer and how there was no incentive for the public to protect the "king's deer". Most in the room missed or ignored the irony of reserving the public's wildlife for the wealthy through schemes like Ranching for Wildlife.
> 
> Regarding the prohibition of selling wildlife he stated "some misguided people claim" what we are talking about is selling wildlife but they (we) are wrong; "the prohibition only applies to selling meat". Not sure 20 million hideless buffalo or tens of thousands of elk shot so their teeth could grace watch fobs would believe this ingenuous effort to justify selling public wildlife by the inch. Most people in the room, mainly outfitters and the guy in the SFW shirt were nodding up and down while the few sportsmen and FWP employees either looked shocked or were shaking their heads sideways.
> 
> Conspicuous by its absence was any attempt to address the Mule Deer satisfaction survey and the wishes of a large majority of both resident and non-resident hunters to manage mule deer for opportunity and how this related to the Ranching for Wildlife model so heavily promoted.
> 
> I did learn a whole new appreciation for the Ranching for Wildlife advocates. They are slick. All this time I thought it meant giving ranchers licenses to sell in return for a minimal bit public access. Now I realize it is a smokescreen for privatizing and commercializing public wildlife for profit. They really are managing wildlife just like livestock. I was just waiting to hear what color ear tags they preferred.
> 
> A few of the Q&A for all presenters afterwards.
> 
> Another justification for providing tags for landowners was that many ranches are raising wildlife which leave the ranch and are available to the public on nearby public land.
> 
> Someone mentioned the Utah CWMU or Cooperative Wildlife Management Units where landowners are given buck and bull tags to sell while leaving a smaller percentage (10% to 40%) of mostly cow and doe tags for the public. 110 ranches covering 2 million acres participate. Apparently signing up can give participating ranches control of significant chunks of public land thus evicting long time public land hunters.
> 
> An online search shows that initially, the public got the majority of the CWMU tags but not so surprisingly after a few years, the landowners "needed more incentives" and ended up with 60% to 90% of the tags. Oh yeah, they bragged about how 10 to 15 % of the public's tags were for bulls and bucks. I think a 1 in 75 chance of drawing was mentioned rather proudly like the public should be grateful. This was not mentioned at the Symposium. Montana sportsmen would do well to heed this example of how Ranching for Wildlife and Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife operate in Utah.


You can read the entire post as well as other "biased" thoughts on the information presented here: http://onyourownadventures.com/hunttalk ... p?t=253373

I was really impressed on how well the private land owners are getting down all of the facets of growing B&C critters, right down to the inch, and how they need more incentives to continue to Ranch for Wild....er, Integrated Ranching and Farming. Looks like things are heading in the right direction for sure! :evil:


----------



## wileywapati

*Re: Montana Hunters On Loosing "End"......Who's TEAM Are You*

Spreading like a virus.


----------



## TEX-O-BOB

*Re: Montana Hunters On Loosing "End"......Who's TEAM Are You*

Imagine for a second if someone here in Utah with enough foresight would have written this 25 years ago before we all drank the SFW coolaid? It's all about trophy hunting and money. I find it quite funny and ironic that SFW calls themselves a "Non Profit Organization" :? Really? :roll:


----------



## bullsnot

*Re: Montana Hunters On Loosing "End"......Who's TEAM Are You*

There are some conservation activities happening and some real good that is happening but I also think there are some issues that need to be addressed that does threaten the future of fishing and hunting for the masses.

Even the Priest needs rules and oversight or eventually all the collection plate does is solely benefit the Priest. Sure he might buy a Bible or two to say he's spending it right but we all know the difference between pacifying critics and really doing something for the greater cause.

Wildlife is not a commidity so says the North American Wildlife Conservation Model and I believe firmly that for the sake of preserving it for our kids and their kids. The reason it was written wasn't so a few guys can't make money from it. It was written because the author knew that greed and money would eventually overshadow everything. Do we not learn from history? Eventually every decision would come down to dollars and power rather than being about the resource and preserving it for the people that it is to be preserved for, everyone.

Just my 2 pennies.


----------



## klbzdad

*Re: Montana Hunters On Loosing "End"......Who's TEAM Are You*



bullsnot said:


> There are some conservation activities happening and some real good that is happening but I also think there are some issues that need to be addressed that does threaten the future of fishing and hunting for the masses.
> 
> Even the Priest needs rules and oversight or eventually all the collection plate does is solely benefit the Priest. Sure he might buy a Bible or two to say he's spending it right but we all know the difference between pacifying critics and really doing something for the greater cause.
> 
> Wildlife is not a commidity so says the North American Wildlife Conservation Model and I believe firmly that for the sake of preserving it for our kids and their kids. The reason it was written wasn't so a few guys can't make money from it. It was written because the author knew that greed and money would eventually overshadow everything. Do we not learn from history? Eventually every decision would come down to dollars and power rather than being about the resource and preserving it for the people that it is to be preserved for, everyone.
> 
> Just my 2 pennies.


+1 My two pennies makes four


----------



## elk22hunter

*Re: Montana Hunters On Loosing "End"......Who's TEAM Are You*

Question number 1- Why do you think all of the surrounding western states Educated Fish and Game offices are going to the SFW plan?

Question number 2- How do you think the divisions of wildlife can survive or the wildlife survive and flourish with the money brought it by licence purchases?

Question number 3- Isn't Millions of dollars extra from what the Fish and Game offices were getting previously going to be better in creating a quality, healthy and flourishing herd?


----------



## klbzdad

*Re: Montana Hunters On Loosing "End"......Who's TEAM Are You*



elk22hunter said:


> Question number 1- Why do you think all of the surrounding western states Educated Fish and Game offices are going to the SFW plan?
> 
> Question number 2- How do you think the divisions of wildlife can survive or the wildlife survive and flourish with the money brought it by licence purchases?
> 
> Question number 3- Isn't Millions of dollars extra from what the Fish and Game offices were getting previously going to be better in creating a quality, healthy and flourishing herd?


Answer 1: They aren't. SFW lobby King DP is pushing for the plan but is resoundingly being rejected by constituencies in each state. Arizona hates it, Idaho hates it, Colorado hates it, and most in Montana wish it wasn't there at all. New Mexico is its own beast....not sure how to place it. But the problem is not SFW, its in land ownership and access. If you're saying SFW's plan is to lock up land through purchases, that will limit us "average joes" further by limiting the ground we actually get to hunt on. I support those existing private land owners who are getting assistance from the division and mitigation payment when its appropriate and even when some land is identified as key winter habitat being given a conservation easement but I don't support limiting access to what is now public land by selling it to private parties who's interest is merely to make it a hunting ranch.

Answer 2: I'm a rookie on this one but the division does survive on the tag sales and they do manage wildlife. The conservation and conservation tags have done some really outstanding things for wildlife in our state but that is where it sure as hell should stop, IN OUR STATE! What monies SFW and MDF make from booth rental and other side expenses from sponsors is great for their organizations but the division does not benefit from those, it benefits from the earmarks agreed upon by the groups and the division and the sale of the public trust. Most of us would rather the division do it on their own but we'll see what changes happen in 2016 if any. So, the division survives and manages the best they can on tags and permits but they don't live or die by the expo. That is considered a bonus for wildlife. Someone with intimate knowledge, please correct my understand of the money relationship of funding the division if I'm wrong.

Answer 3: First, there isn't ONE herd of any ONE animal here. Bison herds, maybe but we have many different herds and since 1997 they have been managed within the 30 unit boundaries the WB implemented to manage hunters last year. Utah is unique in the state management area because it is the only division in this state and the only one I'm aware of in the US that is funded solely on the public trust of tag sales and associated fees and permits. The problem is some assume that the rich folks who buy a tag here or there are saviors of our heritage and nothing could be further from the truth. Never forget what gave us and help preserve our hunting and fishing heritage to begin with and that IS the NAM! Which DOESN'T include the version Perry posted the quote as being pitch at a MOGA meeting.

I think I have a good handle on how things work and feel I ask the right people the right questions but I don't have it perfect and I don't know everything. Just wanted this to generate discussion and see where it went.


----------



## utahgolf

*Re: Montana Hunters On Loosing "End"......Who's TEAM Are You*



elk22hunter said:


> I am sure that it's not as bad as the guys who want to hunt and kill every year want me to believe.


I don't expect a tag every year, or expect to harvest an animal each year, I'm fine with sitting out if the herds need help. But I don't like having this trophy concept decision made by special interest groups and some of their wealthy contributors who are trying to manage public utah land/resources as their private hunting ranch! Plus this idea of "trophy" or quality animals is misleading, A trophy means different things to different people. I guarantee that I've been just as excited, if not more excited with some of the smaller deer I've shot than the wealthy guy that writes a check to a guide with ten spotters and shows up and pulls the trigger on a 180 plus inch mule deer. I respect the fact that guys on here want to harvest bigger, "trophy" animals, a lot of you guys have harvested some amazing animals, and I think that's pretty great that you live in a state that's provided you the OPPORTUNITY to harvest those animals over the years. What I don't think is great and kinda pathetic, is that now that you're at a stage in your life where you want to see more quality animals, you want to do so at the expense of taking opportunity away from others to meet YOUR desire.


----------



## wileywapati

*Re: Montana Hunters On Loosing "End"......Who's TEAM Are You*



elk22hunter said:


> It's been no secret that I am usually on the opposite side of the equation when these scenario's get brought up. I am very *not* against the auction of tags and such. It has provided the DWR with HUGE high fencing projects against highways and too many other items to mention that cost a LOT of dollars. I love it when the rich guy pays and makes my hunting opportunities better. I am sure that there is a bit of home cooking with "biology" vs "trophy" but I am sure that it's not as bad as the guys who want to hunt and kill every year want me to believe.





Uh.... yeah elk22, the highway fencing would be stimulus dollars from our Democrat of a President. Peayday and auction tags didn't have squat to do with this.


Still convinced that hunters killing BUCKS/BULLS is a bad thing?? Maybe a buck will actually give birth this spring... Your Peayday worship is so bad you don't even know you are doing it anymore.


----------



## Iron Bear

*Re: Montana Hunters On Loosing "End"......Who's TEAM Are You*

Hunters are less important. Out west they have been replaced by natural predators. As a result there is more demand than supply enter fiscal competition for the commodity that is wildlife. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck. Luckily for Montana it wont have 6 million people by 2040 to compete for the limited resource available.

Can you imagine how much a 400" bull or 200" buck hunt in Calif would bring?

What does the NAWCM say about 100,000 deer hunters and only 30,000 buck statewide?

Can anyone explain why deer hunting back east is not only for the rich? Even though there is little public lands and most hunting is privatized. No trophy hunters back east? I can tell you deer hunters back east aren't all doom and gloom when it comes to there hunting heritage.


----------



## elk22hunter

*Re: Montana Hunters On Loosing "End"......Who's TEAM Are You*

Does anyone remember the movie "The Jerk"? At the end Bernadette Peters says, "I don't care about the money.......It's the STUFF!"

We were going to see the same issue if Mitt Romney was elected. The people that wanted Romney were mainly wanting to get the deficit in tact. If he had been elected, there would have been an uprising in complaints about how people voted when suddenly all of the "dessert" ended. We would not be eating Steak and Potatoes but cold cereal for our meals. Thats what it would take to not only get our spending to slow down but to turn it around so we were actually gaining on it.

Most people in this state don't realize how much it would HURT to lose all the money or all the "Stuff". The DWR ran off from a budget that was created from the "General Fund" of the state for a LONG time. There was not ANY extra money to do anything towards wildlife. SFW and other smaller groups have changed this. Yes it hurt that all of the tags don't go to the average hunter. Yes it hurt that tag numbers were cut while quality built. That money that made a big turn around in this state did NOT come from any of the "normal" budgets from the state. SFW taught the DWR how to make money from the recourse they were stewards over. That money made a stronger, healthier herd in most species across the state. Don't bite the hand that feeds you. If that money that some of you like to complain about was removed, you would feel greater pains by far than what you are experiencing now.
I do realize that the plan in place now caters to the hunter that doesn't shoot two points. I am in favor of that plan as two points do nothing for me. I don't say that as a pampas, self righteous jerk but going with my gut. I simply am not attracted to spikes and two points. I have NO problem with these type of animals being taken by hunters as they get their first buckie. I am all for it. I am just saying that I would have to be pretty hungry to see myself ever shoot a little buck and am OK if I go the rest of my life and don't ever shoot a buck again.

I am not disregarding some of your goals and aspirations in this. I am just letting you know WHY I see things differently.


----------



## GaryFish

*Re: Montana Hunters On Loosing "End"......Who's TEAM Are You*

I think it will be really interesting to see how SFW floats in Montana. It is such a different situation than Utah. 2/3 of Montana is privately owned, and nearly all of it when you get east of the Rocky Mountain Front. So private land owners already control most of the state - very different than here. There is also a huge surplus of deer - both mule and whitetail. Herd rations in most of central and eastern Montana are very close to 1:1. In most years, a hunter may purchase at least 2 tags, and up to 7 tags - over the counter for deer. And 2 elk tags. Ranchers already can get "land owner tags" for visiting guests as long a the hunter stays on that parcel of land. A big difference though, is that ranches of 20+ sections of land are quite common - very different than in Utah. And Ranches of 50+ sections are not out of the ordinary. On these ranches, many ranches already operate private, for profit hunts. Additionally, where Utah is a total draw hunt state, Montana has only a few premium units that require a draw - most of the state is wide open with OTC tags. Putting that in economic context, supply exceeds demand - just the opposite of Utah where demand exceeds supply. The other thing is that the habitats are just so vastly different, and the economies of agriculture are so vastly different. The cattle business is much more viable there, as the land is just better and can support more of it. Couple that with the scale of the ranches, and game animals on ranches are seen by some as an annoyance to some, and at best, as something to do in the fall by others.

Elk herds in Montana are another completely different deal as well. Montana has toyed with development of some trophy areas - the Elkhorn Mountains, Highwoods, and Missouri Breaks are a few. And those are going very well. And the area north of Yellowstone - near Gardiner - where the northern YNP herd used to winter, the elk have been brought to much smaller populations due to wolf predation. In the Bitterroot, the combination of development plus wolves have also reduced the elk herds greatly. But in those traditional elk areas in western Montana, the combination of commercial, actual economically viable lumber operations, and the jet-set big money development will continue to fragment habitats and push away from management of large tracts of land (outside Ted Turner and Hank Jr.'s places) for game management as the primary objective. So habitat investment ala. SFW is going to have a hard time taking root in that region.

Lastly, the "don't tell me what to do with my land" concept is stronger in Montana than even the most private property pockets of Utah. Ranchers already manage their lands, and don't need to place conservation easements that would hinder or allow someone else to tell them what to do. It simply won't fly with most significant land owners. And they make enough money off of cattle operations that they don't need it like land owners in Utah that operate glorified hobby operations do. And those land owners will forgo any money SFW could belly up to retain total autonomy on their lands. And these are the same guys that run the Legislature there, so regardless of what MGFP has to say, it has to go through the legislature to get done. With RMEF's lack of support of SFW, and seeing as they are based in Missoula, I really don't see SFW getting any kind of hold in Montana.


----------



## bullsnot

*Re: Montana Hunters On Loosing "End"......Who's TEAM Are You*

Case and point. Don is on record as saying that we need to cut LE elk tags so that we can increase the value of the auction tags and bring in more money for wildlife. I've had the same conversation with SFW reps. Why do we think elk age objectives went up recently despite the elk survey that took place that said something else altogether?

That is wrong in my view and takes us down a dangerous path. In my view there is no grey area there and clearly decisions were made for the wrong reasons. No if's, and's, or but's about it. If hunters said we want older bulls then fine. But when lobbyists say cut tags to raise tag values despite hunters saying we want more hunting opportunity and most say they are happy with a 300 inch bull we are going the wrong direction and making decisions for the wrong reasons.

I don't care if there are 400 inch bulls behind every tree and we raise 10 billion for wildlife in Utah if I have little chance of ever drawing a tag to hunt.


----------



## MWScott72

*Re: Montana Hunters On Loosing "End"......Who's TEAM Are You*

[quote="utahgolf What I don't think is great and kinda pathetic, is that now that you're at a stage in your life where you want to see more quality animals, you want to do so at the expense of taking opportunity away from others to meet YOUR desire.[/quote]

That just about sums it up, and perfectly at that.

I'm all for state game agencies to try and find incentives to get private land owners to open up their lands for the public to hunt, BUT it has to be done in a way that does not restrict access to existing public lands. When that happens, my support goes out the window.

It is true that some of the best animals (and habitat) are found on private lands - basically because a landowner can limit access. So be it. We need to find ways to encourage private landowners to manage for wildlife, and let's not forget that in order to do so, they need to realize a profit in doing so. None of this means a dang thing though when you sell out the little guy and restrict his access (whether it be to land or tags) - when that happens, you're on the slippery slope to the European "rich men only" type of hunting.

I don't need to kill a trophy buck every time I go out (unlike the guy that drops 15K). I do not even need to hunt each year, and especially so if the biologists tell me that the herd can't take the pressure and needs a break through fewer tags. What I do need each and every year is the ability to encourage my kids to hunt by having the opportunity to do so with them. How do we get the future generations involved in the sport if they have to wait years to even draw a tag just so some dude with a big pocketbook can get his name in the book? That's where this whole thing goes south and needs to be fixed.


----------



## wyoming2utah

*Re: Montana Hunters On Loosing "End"......Who's TEAM Are You*

This is what ticks me off the most: "The group also used some of that money to lobby its state legislature to weaken Utah's stream access law. That's right - money from the sale of a public resource was used to cut off the public from its public waters." Here we have an organization that not only espouses to do good for fishermen, but it takes money from those fishermen with that thought in mind and turns around and shuts them off public fishing waters....what a crock!

SFW should stand for "Screw the Fishermen Workgroup"!


----------



## elk22hunter

*Re: Montana Hunters On Loosing "End"......Who's TEAM Are You*



utahgolf said:


> I respect the fact that guys on here want to harvest bigger, "trophy" animals, a lot of you guys have harvested some amazing animals, and I think that's pretty great that you live in a state that's provided you the OPPORTUNITY to harvest those animals over the years. *What I don't think is great and kinda pathetic, is that now that you're at a stage in your life where you want to see more quality animals, you want to do so at the expense of taking opportunity away from others to meet YOUR desire*.


I am now 51 and yes I am at that stage. I became at this stage when I was in my mid 20's and nothing has changed. I don't see it changing very soon either.

I mentioned before, I am not putting down your "Opportunity" vs. "Quality". I am just letting you know that not EVERYONE is for Opportunity, especially if that Opportunity that gets brought up so often is having license to pull the trigger every year and mostly on the little guys.

I grew up in a time when "Opportunity" to take big animals in a mature setting was VERY RARE! I also realize that many of you have NEVER witnessed that. You feel that if we had more tags allotted, that you would be fine with 300 bulls as mentioned in previous posts in this very thread. I am hear to tell you as a person from the "Olden Days" that those bulls will be NON EXISTENT. Elk were seldom seen at all let alone a 300 bull. If a spike made it through one season and became a rag bull the next, once he was taken, that bull would be hauled around in the back of a truck for weeks to show everyone that you had taken a BRANCH ANTLERED BULL. Hello people! I have seen hunting in Utah that would make your head spin! You have NO idea. 

I also have created more opportunity for me and my family by focusing mainly on Archery. I am fine to create more Archery opportunity with the likes of the Wasatch Front where Opportunity meets Quality. Problem is that all of the whining rifle guys cry about it just like they do about the Elk Rut during the rifle hunt every time someone mentions the obvious of moving it. I simply have adapted to make changes to meet opportunities.


----------



## utahgolf

*Re: Montana Hunters On Loosing "End"......Who's TEAM Are You*

where does trophy hunting stop though? Big money guys who pay for tags each year will want bigger and bigger bulls and so will the outfitters who make more money off of how much an animal scores. We'll still see tags stay low even if the herds are doing well because we've crossed that step from basic management to trophy management. I guess for the average joe, hunting should be about NOT hunting and waiting every 15 years but be guaranteed a certain amount of inches, that's all that matters I guess. Groups like sfw will have done more to limit opportunity than any anti hunting group there is.


----------



## stillhunterman

*Re: Montana Hunters On Loosing "End"......Who's TEAM Are You*



elk22hunter said:


> utahgolf said:
> 
> 
> 
> I respect the fact that guys on here want to harvest bigger, "trophy" animals, a lot of you guys have harvested some amazing animals, and I think that's pretty great that you live in a state that's provided you the OPPORTUNITY to harvest those animals over the years. *What I don't think is great and kinda pathetic, is that now that you're at a stage in your life where you want to see more quality animals, you want to do so at the expense of taking opportunity away from others to meet YOUR desire*.
> 
> 
> 
> I am now 51 and yes I am at that stage. I became at this stage when I was in my mid 20's and nothing has changed. I don't see it changing very soon either.
> 
> I mentioned before, I am not putting down your "Opportunity" vs. "Quality". I am just letting you know that not EVERYONE is for Opportunity, especially if that Opportunity that gets brought up so often is having license to pull the trigger every year and mostly on the little guys.
> 
> I grew up in a time when "Opportunity" to take big animals in a mature setting was VERY RARE! I also realize that many of you have NEVER witnessed that. You feel that if we had more tags allotted, that you would be fine with 300 bulls as mentioned in previous posts in this very thread. I am hear to tell you as a person from the "Olden Days" that those bulls will be NON EXISTENT. Elk were seldom seen at all let alone a 300 bull. If a spike made it through one season and became a rag bull the next, once he was taken, that bull would be hauled around in the back of a truck for weeks to show everyone that you had taken a BRANCH ANTLERED BULL. Hello people! I have seen hunting in Utah that would make your head spin! You have NO idea.
> 
> I also have created more opportunity for me and my family by focusing mainly on Archery. I am fine to create more Archery opportunity with the likes of the Wasatch Front where Opportunity meets Quality. Problem is that all of the whining rifle guys cry about it just like they do about the Elk Rut during the rifle hunt every time someone mentions the obvious of moving it. I simply have adapted to make changes to meet opportunities.
Click to expand...

LOL, "olden days", remember them well. Started chasin' critters with dad in the late 50's, so I agree with you about the elk 22. I also can't fault you for your hunting style/attitude, we all have our own ideals, it's a pretty basic individual choice. I also can't blame the private property folks; they see a way to make more money off their land and they do it, good for them.

Do consv tags do good? Yep. Are they the only way to get extra funding for wildlife? Nope. Are the numbers of tags out of hand here in Utah? Yep. Somewhere in all this mess there has to be compromise. The blame, bickering and infighting amongst us hunters needs to stop, or at least be held to a minimum. He!!, we are all in the same boat, just that some have bigger paddles than others, what's the crime in that? None. Couple things about this whole mess really sticks in my craw: The fact that the 'system' allows this money train to continue amidst great debate and division; And the fact that wildlife conservation organizations are molding and shaping the way a public resource is being managed solely for their own financial gain.

I think there is room for all of us, if we can sit down together and work things out. Enough is enough, and the folks in other western states see that. Can a compromise be reached to the satisfaction of all? I don't know, it will take a great deal of work, but anything is possible. Personally 22, I think someone with your intelligence and passion for hunting would be able to help, and I think it's a mistake for opposite thinking hunters to alienate you and those of your ilk, instead of reaching out and accomplishing something viable that would work for all hunters and our wildlife. But then, I am mostly a glass is half full kinda guy so maybe I'm dreaming. :|


----------



## GaryFish

*Re: Montana Hunters On Loosing "End"......Who's TEAM Are You*

So is this thread about Montana at all, or just another "bash SFW" post?


----------



## goofy elk

*Re: Montana Hunters On Loosing "End"......Who's TEAM Are You*

Here's what I dont get, For those of you that just want to go out and hunt,
For heck sake just go!( I know, montana thread, But I'm talk'in Utah)

There's 30 general deer units, ONLY a hand full that take more than 1 point.

15,000 spike elk tags.

14,500 general season any bull tags,,( That didnt even sell out 2012 )

UNLIMITED archery elk for both spike and general.

A TON of antler less cow tags.

Over the counter, unlimited turkey tags.

Harvest objective, over the counter unlimited lion and bear tags.

Any so called 'average Joe' that cant find somthing to hunt every year
isn't looking very hard :shock:

And YES, there are too many concervation permits ,IMHO.
But the money these generate for the DWR, and Wildlife projects in 
Utah is second to none :!:

AND THESE projects DO create more oppertunity FOR EVERYONE....


----------



## stillhunterman

*Re: Montana Hunters On Loosing "End"......Who's TEAM Are You*



GaryFish said:


> So is this thread about Montana at all, or just another "bash SFW" post?


Yes, for the most part, hence my first post on this thread on the symposium held there and the comments about such. Since the core of the OP's post deals with the Utah model, it is relevant that we speak to that model, which was created (for lack of a better word at this moment) by SFW here in Utah. I don't much care for bashing myself, but I think intelligent dialogue addressing the issue-including SFW-is important, don't you?


----------



## stillhunterman

*Re: Montana Hunters On Loosing "End"......Who's TEAM Are You*



goofy elk said:


> Here's what I dont get, For those of you that just want to go out and hunt,
> For heck sake just go!( I know, montana thread, But I'm talk'in Utah)
> 
> There's 30 general deer units, ONLY a hand full that take more than 1 point.
> 
> 15,000 spike elk tags.
> 
> 14,500 general season any bull tags,,( That didnt even sell out 2012 )
> 
> UNLIMITED archery elk for both spike and general.
> 
> A TON of antler less cow tags.
> 
> Over the counter, unlimited turkey tags.
> 
> Harvest objective, over the counter unlimited lion and bear tags.
> 
> Any so called 'average Joe' that cant find somthing to hunt every year
> isn't looking very hard :shock:
> 
> And YES, there are too many concervation permits ,IMHO.
> But the money these generate for the DWR, and Wildlife projects in
> Utah is second to none :!:
> 
> AND THESE projects DO create more oppertunity FOR EVERYONE....


I applaud you for trying goofy, but I just don't think you get it, or ever will. Hope I'm wrong! :O•-:


----------



## GaryFish

*Re: Montana Hunters On Loosing "End"......Who's TEAM Are You*

I see where you are stillhunterman. Good point.

I love Montana. I lived there for a few years, and would love to live there again if the work stuff would allow me to do so. I guess my point is that love or hate the SFW model here in Utah, I don't see ANY applicability to Montana. It is just too different. The resources are different. The issues are different. The populace is different. The issues are different. The land is different. The things that drive the SFW approach in Utah (notice, I said drive which gives no preference) are simply not the same in Montana. In Utah, SFW is able to pursue their agenda based on more demand for hunting than resources - a scarcity of both habitats and game. In Montana, there is no such scarcity. In Utah, 95% of the population lives in urban areas. Montana's biggest city, Billings, is smaller than not one, but several cities in the SL Valley. Montana's population is MUCH more dispersed in a state nearly twice as big as Utah, and 1/3 of the population. Less than 1/3 of Utah is even half decent habitat for most big game, compared to all of Montana.

I think Goofy elk makes an interesting point though - if all you want to do is hunt, you can probably find a way in Utah. In Montana, EVERY resident that wants to hunt, can buy multiple deer and elk tags EVERY YEAR, hunt every season (archery, rifle), and pretty much hunt the entire state (save a couple small draw-only units).

So my point is - Love SFW. Hate SFW. I don't care. The Utah model cannot, will not work in Montana.


----------



## wileywapati

*Re: Montana Hunters On Loosing "End"......Who's TEAM Are You*

Here is my take as it relates to the 
Western states.

Once you segregate hunters via dollars,
Bonus points, size of animal pursued, public
Land vs private land, you immediately create
A system of entitlement.

We'll never change our elk plan cause it
Won't be fair to the guys that have been 
Waiting for 20 years. If you have 20 years invested
In drawing this elk tag the state OWES you
A 400" bull. Bonus points have an effect on
Management of our species.

Mule deer is the same thing. The trophy crowd
Will repeat the mantra that we need more and
Bigger bucks, but the population dynamics
On the best deer unit in the world ( The Henry's )
Doesn't support the claim, while a unit like
The WF Extended gets the crap pounded out
Of it for over 100 days every year with suspect
Habitat and is a success in maintaining herd size

Peayday moans about hunting being socialist
Peayday wants hunting run like a business where
The 1% is supposed to trickle down the supposed
Benefits to all the rest of us pukes.

The article is right, listen closely, hunting 
Is a HERITAGE.

So what would I do?? Dump bonus points
And go to a straight draw. Sell 1 auction tag
Per species with 100% of the funding going
On the ground and manage wildlife by what
Is best for wildlife. Including closing areas
For years if necessary.

All of these loopholes and entitlements
Ain't helping.


----------



## klbzdad

*Re: Montana Hunters On Loosing "End"......Who's TEAM Are You*

Nobody can argue that raising money for conservation isn't a good thing and the tags do raise money for Utah wildlife. Gary, great posts! I too believe that what has happened in Utah will not work anywhere else. We WILL see equal transparency in the future with regard to the conservation and convention tags. That will be a good step for our state in regard to sportsmen and our relationships with one another.

The lobby machine we see in neighboring states is taking the Utah model and trying to force it on those in those states who don't want it because of the divisiveness that they have watched happen in Utah. I'm a member of a few conservation clubs and refuse, for now, to join a certain one. But I don't fault the membership in any way shape or form or their passion that drives them to continue with that organization. I joined RMEF a long time ago because of the very principles it embraces especial the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation. There is only ONE version and RMEF holds true and their leadership is accountable to the members. Another group, The United Wildlife Cooperative gets my most support as a regional chair and contributor. The core of their mission is the NAM and the leadership is not only accountable to their membership but they listen and take action according to members regardless of personal conflicts with those views. I am also joining SCI. They return almost 98% of all moneys from tag auctions and have been on the winning side of tradition and HERITAGE almost every single time. While the SCI might not fully subscribe to the NAM, their dedication to wildlife conservation is impressive. And, for sake of argument, SCI recently sold a tag in California for 45K but every penny will go back to California Fish and Game. SCI Auctions California Big Horn Sheep Tag For $45,000.00

Great discussion here. It doesn't need to be a SFW bash because I believe the majority of that organization's members are good, honest, and hard working who agree our traditions and HERITAGE are threatened. A recent legislator and I had a conversation wherein he said, "If you tell people with limited access to information something that isn't true, or is changed to fit popular opinion, the same thing over and over again, they begin to believe it. So much so that its nearly impossible to change their mind even when presented with the truth." I know, a politician but he was taking to me as my friend. And he's right.


----------



## TopofUtahArcher

*Re: Montana Hunters On Loosing "End"......Who's TEAM Are You*



elk22hunter said:


> I mentioned before, I am not putting down your "Opportunity" vs. "Quality". I am just letting you know that not EVERYONE is for Opportunity, especially if that Opportunity that gets brought up so often is having license to pull the trigger every year and mostly on the little guys.


This is how we see things differently... as you support a group financially and physically that is pro-quality versus pro-opportunity like that of SFW, you actually ARE putting down my (our) opportunity. In every case you've stated since I've known you, you've adamantly defended the stance that you don't care to kill a big buck every year, or even to draw a tag every year... however, your actions speak louder in that you support "those powers that be" who DO want to limit my (our) opportunity in favor of when you do get the tag (once every 10-15 years - or was it 17 for your elk?) you want to be assured that you WILL take a big - excuse me - quality animal.

I for one would rather hunt every year with the chance of harvesting a mediocre or if I chose a forky WITH my kids hunting beside me, instead of us all putting in costly applications for YEARS waiting for the chance that maybe one of us will be lucky enough to pursue a mediocre animal on a severely limited private land CWMU unit where they get to tell me when, where and how to hunt their "cull" animals with all the other public draw hunters, while their paying clients get to pursue from Aug 20 to Nov 10 with whatever means they want in any part of the unit... or to draw a OIAL elk tag on public land in a LE unit only to find some $20K auction tagholder with his posse of guides and spotters chasing the same animals tell me to move on or else (been there had that happen).

Sorry Scott, I think you're misguided as to their ultimate business plan - or you're not entirely informed of their "end goal".


----------



## TEX-O-BOB

*Re: Montana Hunters On Loosing "End"......Who's TEAM Are You*



> Sorry Scott, I think you're misguided as to their ultimate business plan - or you're not entirely informed of their "end goal".


The irony here is that SFW disciples call US "uninformed"... :lol:


----------



## proutdoors

*Re: Montana Hunters On Loosing "End"......Who's TEAM Are You*



elk22hunter said:


> It's been no secret that I am usually on the opposite side of the equation when these scenario's get brought up. I am very *not* against the auction of tags and such. It has provided the DWR with HUGE high fencing projects against highways and too many other items to mention that cost a LOT of dollars.* I love it when the rich guy pays and makes my hunting opportunities better.* I am sure that there is a bit of home cooking with "biology" vs "trophy" but I am sure that it's not as bad as the guys who want to hunt and kill every year want me to believe.


 The problem is that the rich guys do NOT pay the bulk of the true costs, and it certainly does NOT create more hunting opportunities for you and me! Sure, the rich guys pay a lot of money to hunt 'trophies' every year, but you seem to ignore the price paid my the "non-rich" hunters: a LOSS of hunting opportunities because of inane rationing of permits to artificially drive up the demand for the policy induced limited permits. A LOSS of hunting opportunities because it becomes impossible for families to hunt together, like was the norm when you and I started hunting. Managing for "quality" will ALWAYS result in a high cost to those who wish to actually hunt. I see the conservation permit program as being welfare for hunters with deep pockets, much like corporate welfare. Just as most people I know are against the majority of entitlement programs for the less fortunate, but are seemingly okay with the rich getting richer....this is the SAME thing. Those who are connected, or wealthy get PRIVILEGES the rest are not able to avail themselves to........"all are equal, some more equal that others", seems to be what you espouse.


----------



## proutdoors

*Re: Montana Hunters On Loosing "End"......Who's TEAM Are You*



Iron Bear said:


> Can anyone explain why deer hunting back east is not only for the rich? Even though there is little public lands and most hunting is privatized. No trophy hunters back east? I can tell you deer hunters back east aren't all doom and gloom when it comes to there hunting heritage.


**** good questions!


----------



## proutdoors

*Re: Montana Hunters On Loosing "End"......Who's TEAM Are You*



GaryFish said:


> I think Goofy elk makes an interesting point though - if all you want to do is hunt, you can probably find a way in Utah. In Montana, EVERY resident that wants to hunt, can buy multiple deer and elk tags EVERY YEAR, hunt every season (archery, rifle), and pretty much hunt the entire state (save a couple small draw-only units).


 I disagree! This is nothing more than crumbs. Why should we be happy with getting crumbs while others get fat and sassy? Last I checked, the animals are NOT owned by those living high on the hog, nor does the land they view as their own private 'hunting' paradise. And yes, I am AGAINST government land still......! My point is, there could, and should, be so much more hunting opportunities available if we didn't have a system that caters to the few who prefer so-called 'quality' over opportunity....which bugs the hell out of me, call it was it is, ego quests......!


----------



## goofy elk

*Re: Montana Hunters On Loosing "End"......Who's TEAM Are You*

Here's the 2012/13 conservation money project list:

http://wildlife.utah.gov/pdf/conservati ... ojects.pdf

Lots of projects on general season unit, benefits all hunters,
I suggest some of you study it.............................


----------



## wyoming2utah

*Re: Montana Hunters On Loosing "End"......Who's TEAM Are You*

The irony is that a big portion of the money raised by SFW goes to SFW and not to wildlife. That is what many of us are upset about....if a much bigger portion of the money raised by auction tags were actually hitting the ground for wildlife, I, for one, wouldn't be so against SFW. The problem is that there is no oversight of that money and SFW is not upfront--and, in my opinion, blatantly misleading about how it all is used.


----------



## proutdoors

*Re: Montana Hunters On Loosing "End"......Who's TEAM Are You*



goofy elk said:


> Here's the 2012/13 concervation money project list:
> 
> http://wildlife.utah.gov/pdf/conservati ... ojects.pdf
> 
> Lots of projects on general season unit, benifits all hunters,
> I suggest some of you study it.............................


I sure hope you didn't direct this at me! I KNOW you know better than that!


----------



## Iron Bear

*Re: Montana Hunters On Loosing "End"......Who's TEAM Are You*

So when did access become an issue back east? Like its a new phenomena. :roll: 
Land back east has been private for a long time.

What have they been doing back east to produce this perfect storm of deer?

I wonder if land owners back east could get more money for a buck if they worked on increasing there cougar population. Get 1 cougar for every 150 deer and see how many buck you can afford to harvest come fall.

Supply and demand right? o-||

UWC, would you teach them boy's back east about "balance"? :roll:


----------



## goofy elk

*Re: Montana Hunters On Loosing "End"......Who's TEAM Are You*

Here's a classic, form this forum, not that long ago:



proutdoors said:


> elk22hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Treehugnhuntr said:
> 
> 
> 
> How is it any other state has any money for wildlife, without making millions of dollars off of conservation and convention tag sales?????
> 
> I really want to know.
> 
> 
> 
> Wyoming, and Idaho have SFW's of their own that they came to us for help setting it up. There are many others including Alaska that are wanting the same thing. I believe that is the main reason the Eastman has issues. He was dethroned in Wyoming becuase SFW is everything about what Mike is. Fair chase, public land and big critters.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Alaska now has SFW there, and New Mexico is getting it going there.
> 
> No other state, in fact combine ALL the western states and Utah equals/surpasses them, in acres recovered and improved. The NUMBER ONE difference is conservation tag generated money. It is spending a dollar and getting five dollars back. I believe the conservation tags are a GREAT DEAL and a solid investment in wildlife for now AND the future.
Click to expand...


----------



## klbzdad

*Re: Montana Hunters On Loosing "End"......Who's TEAM Are You*

IB.....what back east works well here in Utah? The perfect storm of deer? You mean the overpopulated areas that are getting pounded ever other year by decease? And do you know how much it cost to hunt elk in Kentucky or even closer to home, Colorado where you can get a tag for most units over the counter....oh wait, but most land in Colorado with the best hunting is intermingled with private land who's owners will gladly give you "access" for a fee. Lets not turn this into a fight between us and turn to the same old song and dance. What do we need to do? And what are your thoughts about how our neighboring states view what has happened with tags in Utah? That is why I posted the link.

And as a peace offering Iron Bear: I hate Cats Too


----------



## JERRY

*Re: Montana Hunters On Loosing "End"......Who's TEAM Are You*



goofy elk said:


> Here's the 2012/13 conservation money project list:
> 
> http://wildlife.utah.gov/pdf/conservati ... ojects.pdf
> 
> Lots of projects on general season unit, benefits all hunters,
> I suggest some of you study it.............................


I see the list, and at first glance someone might think, "That is a lot of money." But, when you look at the money raised, and the money that actually went back to projects, it is a spit in the bucket. Let's start seeing 80% to 90% of funds raised from expo tags go back to wildlife and conservation. Then I might applaud. Until then........

Imagine how many more projects for public ground could be funded.


----------



## goofy elk

*Re: Montana Hunters On Loosing "End"......Who's TEAM Are You*

Correct me if I'm wrong, BUT, I believe the Expo permit 'situation' has been settled.

A specific amount allowed to be retained, and the remainder of funds to wildlife projects..

Correct?


----------



## bullsnot

*Re: Montana Hunters On Loosing "End"......Who's TEAM Are You*



elk22hunter said:


> I grew up in a time when "Opportunity" to take big animals in a mature setting was VERY RARE! I also realize that many of you have NEVER witnessed that. You feel that if we had more tags allotted, that you would be fine with 300 bulls as mentioned in previous posts in this very thread. I am hear to tell you as a person from the "Olden Days" that those bulls will be NON EXISTENT. Elk were seldom seen at all let alone a 300 bull. If a spike made it through one season and became a rag bull the next, once he was taken, that bull would be hauled around in the back of a truck for weeks to show everyone that you had taken a BRANCH ANTLERED BULL. Hello people! I have seen hunting in Utah that would make your head spin! You have NO idea.
> 
> .


We can certainly manage some units for very old age class bulls for those that look for that and we can manage certain units for roughly 300 inch bulls. That balance is possible in todays world. I think you are dodging the point by bringing up the worst of times.

My point is that we have a situation where 80% of the state is an LE elk unit and the trend has been to continually grow older and older bulls which has continually cut opportunity. Many of these units now have lots of old bulls dying of old age. Obviously too much opportunity can be bad as well but there are balances that can be struck based on public desire. But to ignore that public desire and continue the trend towards older bulls and take more hunting opportunity away for the sake of cash is wrong in my view. Everyone does not want what you want. Managing some units for guys like you and some units for what others in the public want makes sense and is the right thing to do.


----------



## GaryFish

*Re: Montana Hunters On Loosing "End"......Who's TEAM Are You*

Bottom line is this - SFW functions on the concept of scarcity, real, perceived, or otherwise. With no scarcity of tags and game, people wouldn't be willing to buy all the $5/raffle tickets for "another shot" at a tag. If tags are readily available, no one will buy the tickets. So in its own perpetuation, SFW MUST maintain a stream of scarcity in order to survive.


----------



## Iron Bear

*Re: Montana Hunters On Loosing "End"......Who's TEAM Are You*

All conservation groups fuel themselves on fear. It American.

The UWC included. Don't look now but saving us from evil DP has been one of their greatest recruitment tools.


----------



## bullsnot

*Re: Montana Hunters On Loosing "End"......Who's TEAM Are You*



goofy elk said:


> Here's what I dont get, For those of you that just want to go out and hunt,
> For heck sake just go!( I know, montana thread, But I'm talk'in Utah)


You are right Goofy that there is plenty of opportunity to go hunt but I think the point is that even the LE units should be managed to public desire.

The opportunity vs quality sterotype is incorrect in my opinion. There is not this Mason Dixon line that exists and sportsmen either want opportunity or quality. Most sportsmen want some balance of both and this is where the balance and debate comes in.

So my point is when we look at how we manage these units, public desire should come into play. Money is needed for conservation activities but managing game populations solely for maximizing cash will lead to the end of the sport IMHO. It isn't a sustainable model. Also thinking that the masses should not have a say in how LE units are managed and simply tell them they can buy a spike tag or general bull tag is also a mistake. Isn't that like the jocks telling the nerds in high school that they can't sit at their table? I think there are only a select few people in this state that really understand what a 350 bull is and most people would be happy with a 300 inch bull. I say we can have units that give everyone what they want yet get more hunters in the field.

As to the point of this thread I don't think you can talk about the situation in Montana and other Western states without talking about what is happening in Utah. The article took us there anyway. Also bringing up fact is not bashing, for the record.


----------



## wyoming2utah

*Re: Montana Hunters On Loosing "End"......Who's TEAM Are You*



GaryFish said:


> Bottom line is this - SFW functions on the concept of scarcity, real, perceived, or otherwise. With no scarcity of tags and game, people wouldn't be willing to buy all the $5/raffle tickets for "another shot" at a tag. If tags are readily available, no one will buy the tickets. So in its own perpetuation, SFW MUST maintain a stream of scarcity in order to survive.


Exactly....they operate on the idea that the more money they can "earn" by auctioning off tags, the more money they bring in to "benefit" hunters. The problem is that most of all that money they are "earning" goes into their own pockets. So, they have a lot of incentive to keep the demand for tags high and the opportunity low...and, some of the "benefitting" actually hurts hunters not only by taking away their opportunity but also by limiting their ability to access public water!

Balance is the key...every hunter wants to shoot a trophy, but every hunter doesn't want to sit on the sidelines year after year after year.


----------



## bullsnot

*Re: Montana Hunters On Loosing "End"......Who's TEAM Are You*



wyoming2utah said:


> Exactly....they operate on the idea that the more money they can "earn" by auctioning off tags, the more money they bring in to "benefit" hunters.


I agree and at some point that becomes counter intuitive because to bring in more cash, you have to make more hunters sit on the sidelines and eliminates that benefit to them.

To be clear I support tag cuts where needed. I do not support tag cuts simply to create artificial scarcity and raising more cash. That's, at least in part, the point of the original article and this thread right?


----------



## goofy elk

*Re: Montana Hunters On Loosing "End"......Who's TEAM Are You*



wyoming2utah said:


> [. The problem is that most of all that money they are "earning" goes into their own pockets. So, they have a lot of incentive to keep the demand for tags high and the opportunity low...and, some of the "benefitting" actually hurts hunters not only by taking away their opportunity but also by limiting their ability to access public water!
> 
> Balance is the key...every hunter wants to shoot a trophy, but every hunter doesn't want to sit on the sidelines year after year after year.


For those of you that believe this, please go through this link,
Inculding 2011 and 2012 tax files:

http://www.sfw.net/financials.asp

90% of 25 million $$$$ back into widlife projects in Utah:

http://www.sfw.net/data/CP_Annual%20Report_FY12.pdf


----------



## stillhunterman

*Re: Montana Hunters On Loosing "End"......Who's TEAM Are You*



bullsnot said:


> wyoming2utah said:
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly....they operate on the idea that the more money they can "earn" by auctioning off tags, the more money they bring in to "benefit" hunters.
> 
> 
> 
> I agree and at some point that becomes counter intuitive because to bring in more cash, you have to make more hunters sit on the sidelines and eliminates that benefit to them.
> 
> To be clear I support tag cuts where needed. * I do not support tag cuts simply to create artificial scarcity and raising more cash. That's, at least in part, the point of the original article and this thread right?*
Click to expand...

Yeah, at least in part. Gary has a point in comparing Montana to Utah, and the viability of Utah's model working there. However, so much of that state's hunting regulations bypass the MFWP that end runs through the legislature happen more than in Utah, and leaves a lot of room to take pause. One such action currently is with SB151, supported by the MOGA and Landowners. Fortunately, the cat's out of the bag, and other western states remain on high vigil to keep Utah's model out of their state. I prefer the philosophy of "an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure".


----------



## Iron Bear

*Re: Montana Hunters On Loosing "End"......Who's TEAM Are You*



bullsnot said:


> To be clear I support tag cuts where needed. I do not support tag cuts simply to create artificial scarcity and raising more cash. That's, at least in part, the point of the original article and this thread right?


Like when the DWR was mandated to increase B/D ratio's? You never wanted to question what else kills bucks? And what other options to increase B/D ratios before an arbitrary number was pulled out of the air.

You mean that kind of artificial scarcity?

As I remember the UWC used tag cuts as propaganda to oppose option 2 and vilify the WB, SFW and So Utah deer hunters. Just sayin.


----------



## jahan

*Re: Montana Hunters On Loosing "End"......Who's TEAM Are You*



Iron Bear said:


> bullsnot said:
> 
> 
> 
> To be clear I support tag cuts where needed. I do not support tag cuts simply to create artificial scarcity and raising more cash. That's, at least in part, the point of the original article and this thread right?
> 
> 
> 
> Like when the DWR was mandated to increase B/D ratio's? You never wanted to question what else kills bucks? And what other options to increase B/D ratios before an arbitrary number was pulled out of the air.
> 
> You mean that kind of artificial scarcity?
> 
> As I remember the UWC used tag cuts as propaganda to oppose option 2 and vilify the WB, SFW and So Utah deer hunters. Just sayin.
Click to expand...

I know you are baiting, but I am a sucker and will bit. :mrgreen: UWC opposed the tag cuts do to the fact there was no biological reason for doing so. It was a social issue and survey's showed that the majority of hunters wanted a chance to hunt. That was UWC's gripe. Now if a unit is struggling and biologically it makes sense to do tag cuts, then gitty up.


----------



## Iron Bear

*Re: Montana Hunters On Loosing "End"......Who's TEAM Are You*

Where did tag cuts come from in order to increase B/D ratio's? Was it not from the DWR biologist? Based on what?

I'm not baiting I'm just adverse to hypocrisy and playing politics. I love to call a spade a spade.

And this forum needs "balance".


----------



## ridgetop

*Re: Montana Hunters On Loosing "End"......Who's TEAM Are You*

jahan, since you brought up the hunter survey. What I remember, many of the option 2 opposers were using the line "that most people would rather hunt every year with less quality, than hunt only 5-7 years with hopes of better quality. Good hell, if that was "really" the case. I would have been completly against it too but we all know many of the 30 sub units will be an every other year at worse, with even a few units huntable every year if they want. Now if the survery would have said: Would you be willing to sit out of the deer hunt possibly every other year but still have the option of hunting every year in a different unit, if the quantity and quality of the hunt would improve. I think more people would be in favor.


----------



## proutdoors

*Re: Montana Hunters On Loosing "End"......Who's TEAM Are You*



goofy elk said:


> Here's a classic, form this forum, not that long ago:
> 
> 
> 
> proutdoors said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elk22hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Treehugnhuntr said:
> 
> 
> 
> How is it any other state has any money for wildlife, without making millions of dollars off of conservation and convention tag sales?????
> 
> I really want to know.
> 
> 
> 
> Wyoming, and Idaho have SFW's of their own that they came to us for help setting it up. There are many others including Alaska that are wanting the same thing. I believe that is the main reason the Eastman has issues. He was dethroned in Wyoming becuase SFW is everything about what Mike is. Fair chase, public land and big critters.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Alaska now has SFW there, and New Mexico is getting it going there.
> 
> No other state, in fact combine ALL the western states and Utah equals/surpasses them, in acres recovered and improved. The NUMBER ONE difference is conservation tag generated money. It is spending a dollar and getting five dollars back. I believe the conservation tags are a GREAT DEAL and a solid investment in wildlife for now AND the future.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

 Thanks for showing how far I have come! :O||:

I am not bashful at admitting I was once a BIG supporter of the conservation permit program, and even of SFW. I even helped, as a Board Member of the largest bowhunting organization in Utah, get their first conservation permit, an archery deer tag on the Vernon unit. This year the org. has a pile of them. I got to see first hand the way these permits shift focus, away from the good of wildlife and of using hunters as a management tool, to the good of a select few hunters and using game as a means to boost egos. I sat in meetings where issues were discussed and where action was taken to benefit hunters, and NOT wildlife. 
While we are at it, I guess I should confess that I was once a hard-core republican, one who defended the GOP's every move. I could write a book on what led to my outlook on politics, hunting, and life in general.....I walked away from a six figure job and took over the family business, where I am now well under the poverty line if you measure my income. My point is, I have changed...I like to think for the better.....but I am sure I am better informed on many issues than I was 2-3 years ago. So, goofy, go ahead and pull up more things from my past. It makes me proud to know I am not stuck believing in the tooth fairy and crony-hunter management policies! 8)


----------



## proutdoors

*Re: Montana Hunters On Loosing "End"......Who's TEAM Are You*



Iron Bear said:


> Where did tag cuts come from in order to increase B/D ratio's? Was it not from the DWR biologist? Based on what?
> 
> I'm not baiting I'm just adverse to hypocrisy and playing politics. I love to call a spade a spade.
> 
> And this forum needs "balance".


What is "balanced" about posting misleading assertions? the DWR did NOT propose increasing B/D ratios. That came from the WB as a directive. What the DWR did was come up with a way to get to the new MANDATED B/D ratio objectives......! Just to clarify.


----------



## Iron Bear

*Re: Montana Hunters On Loosing "End"......Who's TEAM Are You*

Aude suggested tag cuts as the *only* way to increase B/D ratio's. I believe he produced the 8,000 number at a WB meeting.

It's not the only way to increase B/D ratios.

It was an attempt to vilify option 2. Pizz hunters off. The UWC stood behind this notion and still does. :roll: And may very well stand by if a new round of tag cuts are proposed. But you can bet they will be crying about how there is no biological reason for doing so.

Balance? You don't see the SFW demagoguery that goes on here. 

From the DWR website: Reducing the number of hunters is the best way to raise the number of bucks per 100 does. Reducing the number of hunters reduces the number of bucks that are taken during the hunting season. The end result of a higher buck-to-doe ratio is fewer hunters in the field, but more bucks for those who hunt.

http://wildlife.utah.gov/dwr/news/42-ut ... -fall.html

Well you could allocate more tags from riffle and muzzy to archery.

We could cut back on this. Or what Matt showed us the other day. Don't twist my word into a call for extermination. But we could cut back on this crap for the sake of the paying hunter. Cougar kill far far far more buck in Utah pre yr then hunters ever did. We cant hunt sheds with out a season or a class because if you spook a deer during this critical time it could be a death sentence for a struggling deer. What do you suppose the effect 2000 cougar have chasing deer 24/7/365?

But we don't even know how many cougar there are nor do our leaders care to find out. Why? Denial?

Any cattleman will tell you a scared critter is a critter that does not put much fat on.


----------



## proutdoors

*Re: Montana Hunters On Loosing "End"......Who's TEAM Are You*



Iron Bear said:


> Aude suggested tag cuts as the *only* way to increase B/D ratio's. I believe he produced the 8,000 number at a WB meeting.


I don't recall it that way. I recall he said it was the EASIEST way to increase B?D ratios. But, Aoudi repeatedly stated there was NO biological need to raise B/D ratios!



Iron Bear said:


> It's not the only way to increase B/D ratios.


Show me where Anise or any other DWR biologist even hinted at such....?



Iron Bear said:


> It was an attempt to vilify option 2. Pizz hunters off. The UWC stood behind this notion and still does. :roll: And may very well stand by if a new round of tag cuts are proposed. But you can bet they will be crying about how there is no biological reason for doing so.


There was, and is, NO biological reason for the new B/D ratio objectives. That is 100% for hunters, it is a SOCIAL objective, not a BIOLOGICAL objective. I am not here to defend UWC, there are plenty of folks who can do that if they wish. I like many of the things they do, but I do NOT like everything they do. For example, I was/am disappointed they got sucked into being supportive and a part of the deer transplants. But, that is a whole other issue.



Iron Bear said:


> Balance? You don't see the SFW demagoguery that goes on here.


 I do indeed see it. I also see how YOU have serious tunnel vision as well. That does NOT bring about 'balance', at least not IMHO. 8)



Iron Bear said:


> From the DWR website: Reducing the number of hunters is the best way to raise the number of bucks per 100 does. Reducing the number of hunters reduces the number of bucks that are taken during the hunting season. The end result of a higher buck-to-doe ratio is fewer hunters in the field, but more bucks for those who hunt.


 Correct, but you ignore who gave the DWR a MANDATE that legally they MUST implement. It was special interest groups that pushed the new deer plan, and it was the Wildlife Board that enacted it. The DWR is simply doing what they are required by Utah law to do. I talked to dozens of DWR biologists, and I can honestly say I don't remember a single one that believed higher B/D ratio objectives was a biologically based goal.



Iron Bear said:


> Any cattleman will tell you a scared critter is a critter that does not put much fat on.


True, but this cattleman can also tell you that I am feeding over 200 deer and 75 elk EVERY night, and NOT by choice. During the cold spell that was here during late December and early Jan pushed deer and elk to do crazy stuff to stay alive. They tore out my, and many other neighboring ranchers, fencing, destroyed 1/2 ton and 1 ton bales of hay, eating some put tearing them apart to make bedding as well. I couldn't drive them away. And guess what, they weren't eating my hay/pasture because of the dreaded cougars, it was because there is a severe SHORTAGE of quality winter feed available to these critters! You want more big bucks, grow more deer. You want more deer, grow more quality habitat! Any, and every, thing else is secondary and is treating the symptoms rather than the causes.

A little math for Goofy and others. 1 Ton of hay cost $180-$200. During a three week period I lost more than TWENTY FIVE TON. That cost me more than $4500 to feed animals I do NOT want to be feeding! That doesn't include the damage to my fences and the winter pasture feed the deer/elk have consumed.


----------



## Iron Bear

*Re: Montana Hunters On Loosing "End"......Who's TEAM Are You*

Like I always point out. We could all just walk away and biology will take care of itself. Mother nature does not need our input. I'm talking about facilitation of a general hunt. There is more than one way to skin a cat. Sure there is no biological reason to increase B/D ratios. But there are serious game management reasons to increase B/D ratios.

If the DWR biologist want to just be an observer then he should apply at YNP. But I'm paying his salary to facilitate a hunt. What ever that species may be.

Better habitat? Wow those 100s of millions coming from those high dollar conservation tags have really does us well. And before someone else does it I will. If we hadn't spent that money we would have probably seen an even bigger decrease in deer. :shock: Are they serious? That's the measurement of success?

I've asked this 50 time if I've asked it once. Name one unit that has had an increase in deer post restoration project that can be directly attributed to the HR done there?

Funny we support the habitat work that is the catalyst to raise millions that come from conservation tags and groups. We poor the money into a project and we see less game than before. So supply and demand kicks in and more money is raised. Nice little system they got there.


----------



## proutdoors

*Re: Montana Hunters On Loosing "End"......Who's TEAM Are You*



Iron Bear said:


> Like I always point out. We could all just walk away and biology will take care of itself. Mother nature does not need our input. I'm talking about facilitation of a general hunt. There is more than one way to skin a cat. Sure there is no biological reason to increase B/D ratios. But there are serious game management reasons to increase B/D ratios. Correction, there are serious HUNTER management reasons to increase B/D ratios, NOT game management reasons!
> 
> If the DWR biologist want to just be an observer then he should apply at YNP. But I'm paying his salary to facilitate a hunt. What ever that species may be. Who siad, or even implied they are mere observers? I said, and I will say it again, they are given MANDATES by the WB that they legally MUST comply with. They don't set the management plans, a committee submits a plan to the WB, who then passes them, alters them, or rejects them. The DWR is NOT the driving force behind the management plans, that......sadly....lies at the feer of special interest groups that use junk science!
> 
> Better habitat? Wow those 100s of millions coming from those high dollar conservation tags have really does us well. And before someone else does it I will. If we hadn't spent that money we would have probably seen an even bigger decrease in deer. :shock: Are they serious? That's the measurement of success? I don't disagree with anything you said here....
> 
> I've asked this 50 time if I've asked it once. Name one unit that has had an increase in deer post restoration project that can be directly attributed to the HR done there?
> 
> Funny we support the habitat work that is the catalyst to raise millions that come from conservation tags and groups. We poor the money into a project and we see less game than before. So supply and demand kicks in and more money is raised. Nice little system they got there.


I do NOT support many of the habitat projects, I simply state that habitat MUST be improved if we can be taken serious about wanting to see deer/elk population increases.


----------



## klbzdad

*Re: Montana Hunters On Loosing "End"......Who's TEAM Are You*

The UWC supported the "deer transplant" on the Parawan Front in an effort to increase the number of mouths taken from struggling winter range. The transplant is win / win. And as a cooperative, we felt it prudent to maximize the number of deer removed from the range in support of the division, we knew the division would not spend a penny, the COR did not allow conservation monies to be used, we may see some good come of these efforts, and the range has some relief despite the number of twin fawns the last two years. A certain "steering committee" voted against going with the actual numbers suggested by the division biologists and BLM range managers.

Iron Bear keeps suggesting cougars are worse than hunters. How would you, in your expertise, fix the cat problem in Utah? What do you suggest is done instead of habitat improvement projects? And how many of the RACs were opposed to Option 2 again but the WB still went with it? If you're so concerned about management IB, get yourself nominated for a seat at the WB table, replace Ernie Perkins, and lets see good knowledge and science at work!

I think we are just now seeing what happens when you attempt to manage elk by age objective. Might be time for some to understand that managing for "quality" will be the undoing of some of the successes we've had with big game in Utah.


----------



## Iron Bear

*Re: Montana Hunters On Loosing "End"......Who's TEAM Are You*

:lol: I'd need Herbert or Sheehan's position to clean house to get what I want done.

"Game" implies what the hunter hunts. "Wildlife" has a diffrent definition that does not imply hunting.

We need "game" managers not "wildlife" managers. Yellowstone needs "wildlife" managers. Here in Utah the 100,000 deer hunters need "game" mangers. Not the deer the hunters.

In wildlife management all critters get equal consideration. In game management hunter interest take priority.

It's not lost on me it is now called the Department of *wildlife* resources instead of the Department of Fish and *game* as it once was.

Biologist are great "wildlife" managers but make terrible "game" managers.

Ranchers and CWMU operators make good "game" managers but probably make terrible "wildllife" managers.

There is a distinction.

Redundant enough? :lol:


----------



## bullsnot

*Re: Montana Hunters On Loosing "End"......Who's TEAM Are You*



Iron Bear said:


> bullsnot said:
> 
> 
> 
> To be clear I support tag cuts where needed. I do not support tag cuts simply to create artificial scarcity and raising more cash. That's, at least in part, the point of the original article and this thread right?
> 
> 
> 
> Like when the DWR was mandated to increase B/D ratio's? You never wanted to question what else kills bucks? And what other options to increase B/D ratios before an arbitrary number was pulled out of the air.
> 
> You mean that kind of artificial scarcity?
> 
> As I remember the UWC used tag cuts as propaganda to oppose option 2 and vilify the WB, SFW and So Utah deer hunters. Just sayin.
Click to expand...

IB, the beautiful thing about generalities and labels used on internet forums is you are not required for them to be true to post them. Knock yourself out on your UWC slam fest. Have a nice day.


----------



## proutdoors

*Re: Montana Hunters On Loosing "End"......Who's TEAM Are You*



klbzdad said:


> The UWC supported the "deer transplant" on the Parawan Front in an effort to increase the number of mouths taken from struggling winter range. The transplant is win / win. And as a cooperative, we felt it prudent to maximize the number of deer removed from the range in support of the division, we knew the division would not spend a penny, the COR did not allow conservation monies to be used, we may see some good come of these efforts, and the range has some relief despite the number of twin fawns the last two years. A certain "steering committee" voted against going with the actual numbers suggested by the division biologists and BLM range managers.


 I do NOT see the transplant as a "win/win". I see it as a waste of resources, and will have NEGATIVE fallout down the road. There are biological reasons for deer herds to be under objectives.....otherwise they wouldn't be under objective. So, it is likely that the added pressure to the winter ranges will have dire effects on both the transplanted deer and the established deer. I was at the original UWC meeting, I was even asked....MANY times......to be a Board memeber. I do NOT see this being consistent with the goals and mission discussed back then. How is this, in your eyes, a "win/win"? And, how is this consistent with following the management model you espouse to adhere to?



klbzdad said:


> I think we are just now seeing what happens when you attempt to manage elk by age objective. Might be time for some to understand that managing for "quality" will be the undoing of some of the successes we've had with big game in Utah.


A-FREAKING-MEN!! 8)


----------



## proutdoors

*Re: Montana Hunters On Loosing "End"......Who's TEAM Are You*



Iron Bear said:


> "Game" implies what the hunter hunts. "Wildlife" has a diffrent definition that does not imply hunting.


 How do you propse we seperate the two? The fact is, MOST Utah residents do NOT hunt, nor do they place a higher value on mule deer than mountain lions. So, like it or not, we can't simply manage "game" at the expense of "wildlife".



Iron Bear said:


> We need "game" managers not "wildlife" managers. Yellowstone needs "wildlife" managers. Here in Utah the 100,000 deer hunters need "game" mangers. Not the deer the hunters.


I disagree, strongly! We should NOT manage "game" for hunters. Instead we should mange "game" WITH hunters. It is the mindset of managing "game" for hunters that has placed in the mess we are in now. With harvest age objectives, and higher B/D ratios strictly for the betterment of hunters, and rationed tags to artificially raise the value placed on conservation permits.....is it in wonder we have so many problems facing BOTH hunters and "game"?



Iron Bear said:


> In wildlife management all critters get equal consideration. In game management hunter interest take priority.


 That would be great......if you lived in a bubble! There is no possible way you can get away with managing "game" by neglicting/harming/ignoring "wildlife". The public wouldn't stand for it....and to be honest, I doubt very many hunters would either. At least not those they see themselves as stewards over the "game" and the outdoors!



Iron Bear said:


> Biologist are great "wildlife" managers but make terrible "game" managers.


See above!



Iron Bear said:


> Ranchers and CWMU operators make good "game" managers but probably make terrible "wildllife" managers.


 Blanket statements accomplish what?


----------



## Iron Bear

*Re: Montana Hunters On Loosing "End"......Who's TEAM Are You*

:lol: -O\__- O|* *(())* /**|**\ Insanity I tells yah. :lol: Incredibly I get some entertainment out of this.

Refer to my last 1100 posts. :roll:

I really hope I'm not the only one that see's this whole deal is back assward.

And other than knowing that you would argue that tomorrow was the 5th. I have no idea what your talking about Pro. Put a grizzly bear in the middle of your herd and tell me that the only reason you are not seeing and increase is because you don't have good ground.

I vote to privatize the whole dam thing then. -()/>-


----------



## klbzdad

*Re: Montana Hunters On Loosing "End"......Who's TEAM Are You*



proutdoors said:


> I do NOT see the transplant as a "win/win". I see it as a waste of resources, and will have NEGATIVE fallout down the road. There are biological reasons for deer herds to be under objectives.....otherwise they wouldn't be under objective. So, it is likely that the added pressure to the winter ranges will have dire effects on both the transplanted deer and the established deer. I was at the original UWC meeting, I was even asked....MANY times......to be a Board memeber. I do NOT see this being consistent with the goals and mission discussed back then. How is this, in your eyes, a "win/win"? And, how is this consistent with following the management model you espouse to adhere to?


How is it in conflict with the mission of the UWC or the NAM? The win / win here is that a certain group who pressured the division into smaller numbers also paid to reduce those numbers from a range that is deteriorating rapidly. Plainly, we needed 500 or more deer removed from that range, SFW would not agree to support those higher numbers, therefore we agreed to the transplant and instead of only the 150 deer the doe tags removed, we see more than 200 which is a step in the direction we needed to go. The division won, the groups got what they wanted for the most part, and new transplant methods and research principles have been deployed. The transplant is not expected to be some groundbreaking experiment.

So, how about these:

Sister #3 - Democratic Rule of Law
Hunting and fishing laws are created through the public process where everyone has the opportunity and responsibility to develop systems of wildlife conservation and use.

Sister #7 - Scientific Management
Sound science is essential to managing and sustaining North America's wildlife and habitats. For example, researchers put radio collars on elk to track the animals' movements to determine where elk give birth and how they react to motor vehicles on forest roads.


----------



## proutdoors

*Re: Montana Hunters On Loosing "End"......Who's TEAM Are You*



klbzdad said:


> Sister #7 - Scientific Management
> Sound science is essential to managing and sustaining North America's wildlife and habitats. For example, researchers put radio collars on elk to track the animals' movements to determine where elk give birth and how they react to motor vehicles on forest roads.


Sound science has proven that deer transplants do NOT work! FWIW, I got an excellent response from elkfromabove on another thread, so no worries. But, don't try and tell me sound scince has any part of this deer transplant!


----------



## proutdoors

*Re: Montana Hunters On Loosing "End"......Who's TEAM Are You*



Iron Bear said:


> And other than knowing that you would argue that tomorrow was the 5th. I have no idea what your talking about Pro. Put a grizzly bear in the middle of your herd and tell me that the only reason you are not seeing and increase is because you don't have good ground.
> 
> I vote to privatize the whole dam thing then. -()/>-


What I am talking about, and you know it but won't admit it, or you need to hone your reading comprehension skills........is that it is impossible to simly manage "game" and to do so at the expense of "wildlife". The public, like it or not, wants cougars, bears, coyotes, and yes even wolves, be part of the ecosystem here in the state of Utah. Those that want this outnumber those who don't, it is that simple. So, we can keep calling for the erdication of all predators and get nowhere, or we can deal with reality. As for PUTTING a grizzly in the middle of my herd, of course I would take action. I have to admit, being located in southern Sanpete County, I am not too worried about such. I will stay focused on REAL limiting factors, which are first; available feed, second; available feed, third; available man hours to take care of more cattle, fourth; available feed. Waaaaay down the list is coyotes, which killed a few calves last calving season. And yet, I have NO desire to wipe out all coyotes, as they help push the deer out on occasion...... :shock: :twisted: :mrgreen:


----------



## klbzdad

*Re: Montana Hunters On Loosing "End"......Who's TEAM Are You*



proutdoors said:


> klbzdad said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sister #7 - Scientific Management
> Sound science is essential to managing and sustaining North America's wildlife and habitats. For example, researchers put radio collars on elk to track the animals' movements to determine where elk give birth and how they react to motor vehicles on forest roads.
> 
> 
> 
> Sound science has proven that deer transplants do NOT work! FWIW, I got an excellent response from elkfromabove on another thread, so no worries. But, don't try and tell me sound scince has any part of this deer transplant!
Click to expand...

How do we get sound science to be able to say it is sound science? I would have rather those deer were taken by youth, elderly hunters or even veteran hunters but NOPE, the gracious "steering committee" voted nay. So, this still is within the scope of that sister of the NAM. Lee always explains it better than I do, but he nailed it! And Pro, SO GOD BUILT A FARMER! Have a great day!


----------



## proutdoors

*Re: Montana Hunters On Loosing "End"......Who's TEAM Are You*

8)


----------

