Fat-assed ATVers want access through WSA

[1_pointer]

Not that I know the situation in the Gravelly's, but young bulls can/will breed cows. The problem of not having a healthy age structure is that too much breeding is done by genetically inferior bulls. Just because there are lots of animals doesn't mean the herd is in good health.

If I'm not wrong, but isn't Alt trying to solve a similar problem with whitetails in PA?

 

[flcowpoke]

Ten Bears and BuzzH, are ya'll married?

 

[dgibson]

What 1_p said. The biggest problem is the "gotta get a bull" attitude. Too many young bulls are being killed (by ATV hunters or whoever) and not nearly enough cows. They ought to refuse a bull tag to anyone who hasn't killed a cow yet, or who didn't kill a cow last year, or something like that. That would straighten things up right away. But it might upset some of the out-of-staters who can only hunt for a week, so on and so forth.

 

[Washington Hunter]

I've said it before but I'll say it again...you can't eat antlers.

 

[Oak]

"If ORVs have more infrastructure to use, this will lessen the impact of operating ORVs in unauthorized areas."
"The legislature finds that off-road recreational vehicles (ORVs) provide opportunities for a wide variety of outdoor
recreation activities. The legislature further finds that the growing popularity of ORV use and the limited amount of ORV trails presents a challenge for ORV recreational users, natural resource land managers, and private landowners. The legislature further finds that many nonhighway and unpaved roads provide opportunities for ORV use."

So the ATV users are only breaking the law because they don't have enough trails to ride? Good excuse. By that same logic, we should increase the number of hunting tags to reduce poaching.

The "real ticket" to ensuring hunters will be able to help pare down elk numbers in problem areas will be access, Mulligan said. To make that work, landowners and sportsmen must work together, he said.

Ten, is your reading comprehension bad enough that you can't see that they're talking about either access to or through private property? Read the sentence about three above the one you posted.

Too many elk create problems for private land, where many of the animals choose to spend the winter.

Do you realize that the more motorized access there is on public land, the more quickly those elk are going to move down to the private property (despite your claims of "acclimatized" elk)?

Oak

 

[Ten Bears]

"The legislature further finds that the growing popularity of ORV use and the limited amount of ORV trails presents a challenge for ORV recreational users, natural resource land managers, and private landowners."
CO, Is the number of hunters growning or declining? At what rate?

BUZZ, the number of elk is growing, but the age of the bulls and number of bulls to cows is low (so you say). Why would the branch antler restriction be bad idea (other then you don't want it)? Seems from the readings, I see a need to kill more cows in the works. How many high country pack hunters you know will spend all their time scouting and packing in to kill a trophy cow???? I think you suffer from an inner envy of ATV riders: You hate them for there noise and speed of travel. Yet, you are also envious of them for their speed, mobility, and ability to pack their camps and gear/game in and out quickly.

 

[BuzzH]

Ten bears, for the tenth time, there is a branch antlered restriction in the Gravelly's doesnt do any good. Average age bull is 2 years. Bull to cow ratios are low...because of too much access.

Why is it that historically exceptional animals came out of the gravelly range...but since its been roaded to death...large bulls are basically non-existant???

Why is it that 20 years ago hunters found and killed elk without ATV's??? The total number of elk killed hasnt changed much in Montana since the 70's...before everyone had an ATV.

As far as the elk being over the target level in the gravelly range...easy solution. Give out extra tags to hunters for cows, and limit ATV's. That way the atvers wont run elk onto private property where nobody can hunt them, or force them into country were people arent willing to hunt.

Oak already put the reasons up, apparently you dont know how to read.

 

[Ten Bears]

I see,,,,,. You don't want ATV's on the roads and trails, because you, yourself, don't want to have to hunt very far from the same roads or trails. Then again, you want to hunt big bulls (the ones with big antlers on their heads) in an area that has to many cows.....

How many acres in the Gravellys were recommended for wilderness???

 

[BuzzH]

Ten bears, dont make shit up.

I never said I want an elk close to a road. If you go back and look at what I recommended, closing all but the main Gravelly Range road, you'd understand that. The road runs nearly the entire length of the Gravelly range (the top). Thats more than enough access.

The problem is, theres so many miles of spur roads, illegal roads, and open country...the ATVers push the elk onto private property. Once those elk hit private property...game over they'll stay put all season. Then it doesnt matter how much access you have...the only key access then is to the private property (which most wont allow). If you limit access elk feel more secure and they stay on Public lands longer.

I'm not against access, but it should be wise access. Whats going on in the Gravelly's is not wise access.

I dont think theres any designated wilderness or even proposed wilderness in the Gravelly Range.

 

[Bambistew]

I got a question for you Ten...

Here are a couple facts to ponder...

Areas in the Gravellys "complex" (322,323,324,325,326,327,330,361) have lower harvest percentage than areas adjacent to them that are mostly wilderness (360,362,311, etc.).

Here are some approximate 4 year averages
Fat ass access (over populated)
area harvest% hntrs days/kill %cows
322---16.5------520----32---------50
323---16--------1300---31---------46
324---22--------2900---27---------60
325---22--------1600---28---------65
326---13--------1150---36---------40
327---20--------2000---24---------67
330---15--------1800---36---------40
361---13--------550----52---------55
Wilderness (at objective populations)
360---24--------1800---19---------47
362---26--------1100---25---------60
311---28--------1300---12---------70
314---24--------2500---24---------48
316---23--------450----27---------15
317---23--------4150---24---------40

Wilderness areas are at or close to manangement objectives (not overpopulated) All areas are very similar in habitat and ecosystem.

Now you tell me how the fat asses are going "control" the population?

Hell they already have an over population of elk, better access, and basically the same number of hunters... Whats missing? Hint, hint... fatties riding all over the place, driving around at sun rise and sun set in hopes of finding the animal of their dreams (rag horn or forky) along the road...

Over 50% cow harvest puts the fatties over the 20% mark for harvest%.

If you really want to dispute this you can check out the stats for yourself on the MT fish wild life and parks web site. They have some harvest info on there....

http://www.fwp.state.mt.us/hunting/harvest_reports.asp

What good is more access going do? Looks to me like it doesn't help harvest percentages...

 

[Ten Bears]

"Over 50% cow harvest puts the fatties over the 20% mark for harvest%."

You really shouldn't drink at lunch.

I'd answer your question, if you could ask it legibly. As it's written, I have no idea what you're babbling about.

What are you representing as "harvest%" following area? Is it "kill" "%cows" or "kill%" "cows"? Do they have an "anlter point" measure on those units?

"Wilderness areas are at or close to manangement objectives (not overpopulated) All areas are very similar in habitat and ecosystem."
Your argument could almost be read that ATV's make elk "more" reproductive.

 

[Bambistew]

I'm sorry, what was I thinking... You can barely read

In moterized areas hunters aka fatties only achieve 20% harvest if the cow harvest is over 50% of the total.

area (hunting district)
harvest%(% of hunters harvesting an elk)
hntrs(total hunters per area)
days/kill (average hunting days to kill an elk)
%cows(% cows of total harvest both bull and cow)

General hunting regulations are the same for all areas with the exception of 316 which is a longer rifle season (opens earlier)

It doesn't list antler points... or age, but on average the non-moterized areas and wilderness areas produce bulls that are 2-4 years older than the moterized areas. Call the fish and game they'll clue you in.

So not only does wilderness ares produce bigger bulls, but they also produce more elk! Does that make sence?

The question is... How can more ATV access provide better/higher harvest percentages? The stats show to me that less access means higher harvest.

 

[Ten Bears]

"I'm sorry, what was I thinking... You can barely read."
Big words for someone who can barely type, and seldom with a complete thought. At least MOOSIE's got "Hooked on Fonics".
How do you measure selectivity of hunters in these two "different areas"?

 

[Heavy Chevy]

I wonder if my son who is in a wheelchair and needs a atv to injoy the great out doors falls under your fat assed guide lines.

 

[Ithaca 37]

Heavy, Keep reading. Nobody here ever objects to handicapped hunters using whatever they need to get around.

 

[Heavy Chevy]

Ok just checking.

 

[Ten Bears]

HEAVY, don't let IT fool ya. Just last year he wanted to put a stop to a disabled guy for fishing in a put and take pond every day. Seems IT can assess the level and nature of a persons disability by just looking at them.