Leupold BX-4 Rangefinding Binoculars

More Lost Hunter Opportunity

BigHornyRam

New member
Joined
Feb 26, 2002
Messages
433
Location
T Falls, MT
Quota cut, as officials worry about low calf numbers
Posted at 2:50 p.m. June 19
By Associated Press




GREAT FALLS - State wildlife officials have cut the hunting quota for elk in a portion of the Sun River Wildlife Management Area near Augusta, citing concerns about the low number of calves this year.

While overall herd population was strong, wildlife biologists did not find the number of elk calves they had expected, and decided to cut the hunting quota by half in the northern district as a precaution.

Biologist Quentin Kujala said officials do not know why the calf population declined this year, but they are looking at the possibility that wolves may have contributed to it.




"It behooves us to ask that question," he said.

Kujala counted 2,511 elk on the Sun River Wildlife Management Area this year. Last year, he counted 2,638.

Kujala said the biggest concern was the lower number of calves. He counted only 18 to 20 elk calves per 100 cows this year when he expected to find 30. Last year he counted 36 calves per 100 cows and the year before there were 26.

Kujala said a severe storm in June last year could have killed some of the newborn elk, and the continuing drought could have hurt the ability of elk cows to produce calves.

"We are measuring last year's calves and in June last year we had real significant snow and cold," Kujala said. "You can wonder, 'Did that take a certain percent of the calves on the ground at that time?' There are no clear answers."

But, Kujala said, "I don't think we can exclude the potential for wolves to be part of that 18 to 20."

In late winter, Kujala counted a dozen wolves at the west end of Gibson Reservoir, which is in the Sun River area. The wolves were eating a white-tailed deer, he said. He also saw wolves there last year and they were feeding on a white-tailed deer then, too.

"The wolf represents one more addition to what we consider," Kujala said.

"I bring it up because everybody brings it up to us," Kujala said. "I guess the best response is, 'that's a good question.' "

Grizzly and black bears also are known to feed on newborn elk.

In Hunting District 442, the north end of the area, the Fish, Wildlife and Parks Commission cut the elk quota from 400 to 200. In HD 424, the southern district, the quota was left at 50 elk.

During the 2002 hunting season, hunters checked only 130 elk through the Augusta game check station, what Kujala called a light harvest. He said that might be due to a light winter in the area. Hunters normally are more successful when there is heavy snow.
 
Wow, one hunting area in MT has a few less elk.

The article pretty much sums up the problem to what????

I can see the headlines now: "Twelve wolves near Gibson Reservoir wipe out Sun River Elk Herd, 2,600 elk dead!"
rolleyes.gif
rolleyes.gif


Oh, and on all that lost hunting opportunity, how many residents with general elk tags can hunt bull elk in 442? How many licensed elk hunters are there in MT?
 
All it sums up is the cow/calf ratio sucks.
You can blame what you want, but don't we pay people to figure it out and take care of our resources?
 
LA-
We do, but do we ever listen to them?

I'm sure wolves are a factor. But, has that area been in a drought and if so, how long? I'd be suprised if any type of survey could distinguish the difference in either factor for causing a decrease in calf numbers.

<FONT COLOR="#800080" SIZE="1">[ 06-26-2003 09:01: Message edited by: 1_pointer ]</font>
 
Pointer,

Here's a good survey. Go to the Lamar Valley during calving season and count how many calves the wolves kill. Bring a big talley sheet.

Wasn't Buzzy and IT asking for examples of lost hunter opportunity less than a year ago? Now you give it to them and they dismiss it. Well this is only the beginning of lost hunter opportunity courtesy of the wolves. A couple more years of wolf expansion and it will be common place.

Paul
 
Paul- I agree. Wolves will reduce the numbers of game animals in some areas. What I want to know is what relationship other factors have before I attribute the reduction solely to wolves. Now, if WY would play ball and get on with the delisting process maybe we can have other hunter opportunities?
 
Paul, perhaps you'd be taken a little more seriously if you could find any proof that wolves are taking away hunter opportunity.

The above article sure as hell DOES NOT prove that wolves have reduced the Sun River elk herd. Even the biologists cant put the blame on anything. I bet its more than likely a combination of a couple bad forage years (drought), maybe a higher population of older animals (beyond reproductive age), predation, etc.

Low cow/calf ratios do not mean that wolves or any other predator is wiping them out, you just jump to conclusions, inaccurately, while using about as much commmon sense as a tire iron.

Also, reducing the number of cow tags, that more than likely the Fish and Game can barely give away, is not taking away hunter opportunity. For Christ sake, I've heard from reliable sources that MT is going to start selling second antlerless "b" tags for elk, so hunters can take 2 elk per year. I can hardly believe that wolves are having much of an impact when theres talk of second elk tags. Yet, some people still think the big bad wolf is killing all the elk in Montana.

Bottom line is Paul, you havent proved jack diddly shit as far as wolves reducing elk hunting opportunities in MT or anywhere else for that matter. Also a net loss of 120ish animals to the Sun River elk herd and one year of a low calf crop is not a reason to hit the panic button...maybe you should study up on population dynamics and wildlife biology.
 
"the power of grassroots activism sends a clear message to wildlife managers -- the public will no longer tolerate the use of cruel and antiquated wildlife management techniques. National public opinion surveys have shown that most Americans no longer view wildlife as a resource to be "controlled," "culled," "stocked," and "harvested" for profit. Instead, growing is an awareness that wild animals have intrinsic worth, play an important role in the maintenance of healthy ecosystems, and should be treated humanely and non-intrusively. Ultimately if federal and state wildlife management agencies fail to hear this message and act on it, the public will. Through enhanced public education, strategic policy efforts, and grassroots activism, we can bring an end to subsidized lethal predator control and ensure that humane treatment and co-existence become the guiding principles of "wildlife management" in North America."

I dont think it's Paul that is missing the boat on any of this.
Its not what a few wolves will do,it's what the anti-hunter is doing to use the wolf in there promotion to bring an end to hunting.
We all know it's a fact that wolves will kill game animal's,so in ADDING that to the mix of predator's we already have it put's a bigger strain on the resorce (hunting surplus animals by humans).
 
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> We all know it's a fact that wolves will kill game animal's,so in ADDING that to the mix of predator's we already have it put's a bigger strain on the resorce (hunting surplus animals by humans). <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Could be maintain the same amount of 'surplus' animals we have now with more and better habitat?

IMO, anit-hunters will not take hunting away, our disregard for the non-hunting, voting public and turning them against hunting will. Hunting opportunity, IMO, is directly related to the amount of good habitat available.
 
I just got back from a raft trip on the Middle Fork of they Salmon. I met many people from all over the USA. Most did not hunt. Of course the evening discussions included the wolf. Every single person on that trip was of the opinion that the wolf introduction was STUPID! Go figure.

Paul
 
wink.gif
Those aren’t mainstream
wink.gif

Mainstream is the people that "Run" the newspapers and the TV programs, it isn't the people that fill up the U.S. it is those elitists that run the medias...
rolleyes.gif
 
"Could be maintain the same amount of 'surplus' animals we have now with more and better habitat?"

1-Pointer,I wont agrue the "more and better habitat" ,that we agree on.
It's how some people want to go about getting it that I have a problem with.
"IMO, anit-hunters will not take hunting away, our disregard for the non-hunting, voting public and turning them against hunting will. Hunting opportunity, IMO, is directly related to the amount of good habitat available"


I really wish it was as easy as that Tyler.
The fact is still there -----many people do not like hunting,no matter how hard we try to involve them,some group's are fighting to stop all hunting and they are using predator's ( and anything else they can )as a means to do that.
It's one step at a time,devide and conquer.
Place more land under wilderness ,bring in more perdators,let it go back to nature,control human access,slowly move the people out of the CORE AREA's.
 
Have any of you had your opportunity to hunt private property reduced by landowners who are able to charge $4,000 for an elk hunt?

From Buzz's "The rest of [this] story" post: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>But Olson said landowner tolerance is almost gone for elk in HD441.

"The camel's back is almost broken. The population goal is 500 and last year we were way above that."

He said hunter access continues to be an issue there.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>In HD 417, which is west of HD 410, there are about 800 elk, although the population target is 400. Stivers said permit numbers have been increased there, but hunter access to private land is an issue.

"Access is difficult in HD 417. The northern third of hunting district has ample BLM land but not a proportionate number of elk," Stivers said. "A disproportionate number of elk occur in southern two-thirds in which access is more restrictive."
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hmm, look at all that lost hunting opportunity that you didn't mention Paul. Sounds like the landowners are bitching about all the elk but aren't letting hunters in to kill them. Sounds pretty typical. Maybe the game department can just start issuing "private land only" licenses for the area so the only ones who could hunt would be those who own land or those who can pay. Bet the landowners would go for that.

Commercialization of wildlife and loss of habitat are two things that are going to take a hell of a lot more of your hunting opportunities away than all the wolves in North America ever will.

Oak
 
Oak, good post, as per usual, Paul C. posts a portion of an article to tell us how the big-bad wolf is taking his elk away from him. Never mind that the population goals are being exceeded.

Funny thing is, all the good elk hunters I know in MT still kill one every year...maybe Paul has to have an excuse? I cant imagine needing an excuse with over the counter tags and 10 weeks of hunting in just about the entire state. I guess its easier to blame wolves for a lack of success than it is to get out and hunt elk??? The elk are there, and in record numbers despite the wolf, how can that be????
 
MD- I see we mostly agree, I just don't agree with more wilderness meaning less hunting. Last I knew, one could still hunt wilderness, you just need an outfitter in WY and it takes more work to get there. I'm not trying to change the minds of those in the anti-hunting groups as there mind is made up. I'm more worried about those that don't have a strong opinion on the subject, fence-sitters if you will, that some hunters offend by being slops, showing little to no respect for others or wildlife, and those that strap a bloody animal to the top of the vehichle or 4-wheeler for the drive home.

Oak- I agree with the commercialization comment! It is already happening on a wide scale here in UT, with the CWMU program. Areas with fed. land (with open access) are off limits to general season hunters because it's in a CWMU, which I think sucks.
 
Caribou Gear

Forum statistics

Threads
111,155
Messages
1,949,107
Members
35,056
Latest member
mmarshall173
Back
Top