Fresh Tracks Weekly - Point Schemes Disguise Tag Declines

[Big Fin]

Marcus and I did this video, knowing that when draw results come out from a lot of states people will have all kinds of ways to revamp the point schemes we deal with. Almost like point schemes somehow create larger herds, which results in more tags - NOT!

More animals in the hills goes a long ways towards improving draw odds. @DFS, thanks for the numbers you posted a while back. It got me thinking beyond just Montana. I went back to some of the tag numbers I've seen in other states for other species, and the track record was very similar. Other than antelope in Nevada, deer and pronghorn numbers have decreased across the west. Elk are the only bright spot, as a species. Colorado is one state that has shown positive results with sheep, goat, and moose, yet most other states follow a trend similar to Montana.

If point schemes were going to solve the problem, the vast array and complexity of point schemes would have rescued us by now. It still gets back to quality habitat, in large quantities - not sexy and not an easy problem to solve. But, we have no other choice.

Enjoy.

 

[wytex]

I've always seen PP schemes as a way for G&f agencies to make money when herds were low and license numbers drop. They sell PP to make up the diff.

 

[El Jason]

They sell PP to make up the diff.

And make people happy who feel they deserve a tag.

 

[ovis2]

As one who has eventually benefited, and paid for in time and money, across the points schemes, I think most of them are just superficial frosting for hunters to believe we'll eventually get that prized tag. Being somewhat of a statisical nerd, I have submitted numerous public comments to several western game departments, but alas the points go on. As mentioned, the various point schemes don't change the number of critters on the ground. Habitat preservation and development, as well as good scientific management, are the keys to good game populations. Then it becomes supply and demand. With the growth of social media and what I call checklist hunting, the strain on permit availability will only continue. Somewhat counter this rant, Wyoming's sheep and moose preference points large costs (and non-resident permit availability) seems to have actually started reducing the number of applications - and I am happy to say, after this latest go-round I don't need to donate my annual sheep money .

 

[Forkyfinder]

Colorado is one state that has shown positive results with sheep, goat, and moose, yet most other states follow a trend similar to Montana.

I would like to understand - what did they do?

I appreciate the commentary about our predecessors taking care of things - but the reality is that our problems are a lot different.

 

[MTTW]

Look at the last 20 years and project it out 20 more.

It works because a bunch of entitled old guys enjoy stealing from the next generation.

I read the other day that some people would eat shit just so others would have to smell their breath.

In other words they think they are winning only because others are losing.
I should get what I want because I have been wanting it longer. Where else does that work?

 

[Big Fin]

I would like to understand - what did they do?

I appreciate the commentary about our predecessors taking care of things - but the reality is that our problems are a lot different.

I'll let @Oak or @Sandbrew chime in on what Colorado did.

I agree, our problems are a lot different. In Montana, we could do some things for moose/goat/sheep that would be very helpful, with only one of the problems related to hunting/hunters.

1. Make it illegal to shoot a nanny. There is no reason a hunter cannot tell a nanny from a billy after a bit of observation. When some units have 50% harvest of nannies, we know the end result is a reduced population.

2. Quit being so passive with sheep relocations. The legislature needs to be pressured by hunters to encourage FWP to expand sheep herds, a position different than the last 20+ legislatures.

3. Moose is going to be a hard one, as it is mostly ticks, which are a function of not having cold winters.

Everything else is habitat. Intense daily human use of every segment of land displaces fawns/calves and hurts herds. Lack of funding for forest management and invasive weed control lets habitat quality shrink every year. Local planning regulations that do not consider wildlife issues hammers winter/migration habitat in areas like Bozeman, Missoula, Flathead, other booming areas.

Very little of the decline is hunting regulations, though that is what most hunters spend their time complaining about. Habitat is hard work. It is expensive, even more expensive ten years from now. Habitat investment is like planting trees - the person doing it seldom lives long enough to see the full benefit. Habitat requires giving wildlife the same priority of other important public land uses.

So long as we ignore habitat, we better get used to accumulation of wildlife on private lands. Every species is smart enough to seek habitat that is higher quality forage/water, less lead poisoning, less motorized disturbance, and does not have dog walkers, mountain bikers, hikers, and other human activity ongoing at every daylight hour. It's not like landowners are harboring wildlife, it's just wildlife making a smart decision of where is the better place to live.

The reason for the videos is to hopefully get a few viewers to realize that Point Schemes are doing nothing for their long-term benefit. They are a response to old farts like me worrying they might die without getting their third or fourth moose tag. They are born of the frustration driven by shrinking opportunity, all of which is a function of our failure to invest in habitat at levels commensurate with those who built what we enjoy today.