No King's Deer

[cgasner1]

Maybe. There are some good things on that list.

I'll use an analogy that I know well. Here in WA, we want more salmon. We established several reaches of poor quality habitat as "Intensely Monitored Watersheds". Then invested a ton of money in projects to restore the habitat, tens of millions. Prior to every project, we performed several years of surveys to gather accurate baseline data on how many fish and where they were located, then completed the projects, and continued surveys for 6 years to document the difference. The results were that more fish used the best habitat created by projects, but... there was the same overall number of fish as the pre-project baseline! The projects were a complete flop at achieving the goal. The point is, you can do a lot of things that "make sense", that should help, but the proof is in the results. If you don't get the results, then it doesn't matter how many feel good projects or efforts you implement, it was still unsuccessful.

How pist would you be right now if they hadn’t done all that work and your salmon numbers were still stagnant? If these issues were a easy fix they would be fixed

 

[WyoCoalMiner]

Is there any debate that another $2 million in state resources would help mt mule deer? What about 4 million?

There would be from me. I think its a rather easy argument to make that the population declines in MD are not due to a lack of funding. Western states spend 10's of millions on MD management each year and is there any state that is seeing large scale improvement over time on MD? Perhaps this is due to the manner in which the agencies use these funds, I think this is a big part. Perhaps no amount of money will improve the situation for MD. While I agree dirt cheap res licenses are a joke, I think a significant change in price would have relatively little effect on MD.

 

[Ben Lamb]

There would be from me. I think its a rather easy argument to make that the population declines in MD are not due to a lack of funding. Western states spend 10's of millions on MD management each year and is there any state that is seeing large scale improvement over time on MD? Perhaps this is due to the manner in which the agencies use these funds, I think this is a big part. Perhaps no amount of money will improve the situation for MD. While I agree dirt cheap res licenses are a joke, I think a significant change in price would have relatively little effect on MD.

I think there's always a need for more funding. We've tried to do Cadillac conservation work on a General Dollar budget for decades. BLM for example - $4 million in on-the-ground work to eradicate cheatgrass would help ensure conservation uplift. $4 million in CRP payments produces good forage, etc. I know of a group that has several million to spend on habitat improvement, but some state agencies won't partner with them because it's outside of their comfort level.

But the reality is if you only look at a piece of the puzzle, you still get the declines.

 

[Nameless Range]

But at the same time, "you have it good, you should have it good" those are positive affirmations.

Yes, I believe it is good that the residents of a state should have good and affordable access to their wildlife. I believe we have that in Montana. Neither beliefs entail pride in the status quo nor a belief that improvement shouldn't happen - particularly when I've explicitly said the opposite numerous times.

From the landowner's perspective, you're right, they're not equal. But not if you view it from the user standpoint. And the experience garnered from the fee, they are very similar.

Sure, but the economic equation here requires a buyer and seller. Focusing on one half of that isn't really helpful from the perspective of whether something is a good deal in a market - and public access to private land is the market that Block Management works within.

As to the data, maybe. I don't know how inaccurate those number are either way.

 

[SAJ-99]

I think a significant change in price would have relatively little effect on MD.

I think that is true, but it missed the actual thing people (subset of MT Rs) are arguing about. They are saying there are too many NRs killing their mule deer. The proposal to change MD seasons pretty much showed where most Montana hunters stand on MD.

Well the Wilkes have gone from almost no access allowed to allowing a pile of it, primarily for cow hunters, but some bulls as well. I think they're a pretty good example of how you can increase access by not being a gaping asshole. They've allowed overland travel to the Durfee's for folks who help at the outfit (fencing, etc), they've steadily increased the number of people they run through the ranch each year to about 350-400 last year as I understand it. They bring on all kinds of people who might not have a chance at a large, mature animal due to exigent circumstances and their reputation around Lewistown is changing significantly. I know that they've been asked to quantify their access program in numbers and I think it's important that those properties do so to show the increase in access allowed, and especially when there's a roughly 90% success rate on harvest.

I think this is what @Irrelevant talks about when he says "equitable" (yes, semantics). For the 400 people that get the pleasure of be selected, they feel like it's a win. For the rest of the hunters who don't know how to "get on the list", they feel it's not worth it. (yes, a lot of selfishness). The example also shows the paradox. Some people who help out with fencing get access defined as walking across the ranch land to public. Some people get the privilege of being escorted around to shoot a cow. There is strong case for the whole thing being inequitable. Wilks don't need help with fencing, they want bull tags. They have more money than some countries. Money isn't the issue with a LOT of Montana owners of large ranches. In many cases the public is getting thrown scraps in the LO tag program, in other cases I would say it is closer to "equitable". All that said, the stuff you point out helps. But it doesn't address the real problems or the scale of it.

I take some exception your second sentence claiming it was the public hunter that was the gaping asshole in this relationship. It is good to hear the Wilks are being better neighbors. Maybe it was the losses in court after diverting water away from the neighbors downstream?

 

[El Jason]

To your point, the resident cost of hunting licenses is a hell of a deal embarrassing

FIFY.

 

[WyoCoalMiner]

I think there's always a need for more funding. We've tried to do Cadillac conservation work on a General Dollar budget for decades. BLM for example - $4 million in on-the-ground work to eradicate cheatgrass would help ensure conservation uplift. $4 million in CRP payments produces good forage, etc. I know of a group that has several million to spend on habitat improvement, but some state agencies won't partner with them because it's outside of their comfort level.

But the reality is if you only look at a piece of the puzzle, you still get the declines.

A few years ago I was on a committee that was to decide how to use the funds generated from a large conservation org banquet in Wyo. If I recall it raised several $100,000. We received proposals from multiple research groups, agencies, conservation orgs and private entities requesting funding for their projects. The usual players, Monteith Shop, Jackson Hole Conservation Alliance, WG&F, etc. Some wanted money to pay for more collaring programs, some to by land, some for easements, and of course cheatgrass spraying. In the end the bulk of the money went to cheatgrass treatment in Western Wyo. Two winters later 66% of the MD herd died from winter kill.

 

[El Jason]

In the end the bulk of the money went to cheatgrass treatment in Western Wyo. Two winters later 66% of the MD herd died from winter kill.

That doesn’t invalidate the need to address cheatgrass. Without addressing cheatgrass invasion, winter range quality will absolutely continue to decline.

 

[Khunter]

I’m not sure I agree, the New Mexico landowner tag program is very well structured in my opinion. Colorado’s program is decent as well, but does not provide the same level of public access that New Mexico does.

And no thanks on the other part

4,032 posts and counting and way too many wasted mostly on awful policy preferences with a complete inability to read the room when doing so.

 

[WyoCoalMiner]

That doesn’t invalidate the need to address cheatgrass. Without addressing cheatgrass invasion, winter range quality will absolutely continue to decline.

I don't disagree. Just making the point that there is far more involved in the decline of MD than any one thing and simply throwing more money at it will not necessarily solve the problem. I wonder if that cheatgrass treatment had been done 10 years earlier, would it have made a shits bit worth of change in the outcome of the winter of 22-23? I say it would not.

 

[antlerradar]

I don't disagree. Just making the point that there is far more involved in the decline of MD than any one thing and simply throwing more money at it will not necessarily solve the problem. I wonder if that cheatgrass treatment had been done 10 years earlier, would it have made a shits bit worth of change in the outcome of the winter of 22-23? I say it would not.

I think that we are delusional if we think that there is any way to avoid swings in mule deer populations that result from winters like 22-23 in WY. or the droughts a few years earlier in SE MT. The more I think about this, the more I think we shouldn't even try, but instead focus our resources on the recovery. The cheatgrass treatment was likely money well spent in this regard.

 

[WyoCoalMiner]

I think that we are delusional if we think that there is any way to avoid swings in mule deer populations that result from winters like 22-23 or the droughts a few years earlier in SE MT. The more I think about this, the more I think we shouldn't even try, but instead focus our resources on the recovery. The cheatgrass treatment was likely money well spent in this regard.

I see your point, and I used to be 100% on board with it. But to be honest the longer I see the continued decline of MD across the board in the west the more I think so much of the money spent has been the equivalent of a band aide on a bullet wound. In the last 20 years we have gathered so much information on MD, how they use the landscape, what habitat they need, how they interact with development or don't. We have spent so much money and effort to improve those things and still across the board they decline. Not sure anymore we have enough band-aids to cover this bullet wound. I don't know. Just that MD seem to be going down the same path as RM Bighorns. Where it appears no amount of money will make a meaningful change. Meanwhile, it seems that Nosler can't make bullets fast enough to slow the increase in elk.

 

[elkduds]

I think that we are delusional if we think that there is any way to avoid swings in mule deer populations that result from winters like 22-23 or the droughts a few years earlier in SE MT. The more I think about this, the more I think we shouldn't even try, but instead focus our resources on the recovery. The cheatgrass treatment was likely money well spent in this regard.

Habitat quantity and quality is the most significant variable we can control, in restoring MD herds after unavoidable heavy winter kill. For all wildlife, not just those species most at risk.

 

[Irrelevant]

What would those returns be like if you hadn't done that habitat work? - sure the # of salmon didn't increase as hoped, but did it decrease and if it did decrease, was the decrease slowed? What is the baseline? I agree with your point that you have to see results in order to claim a success. Everything that's been posted except the issue w/ upland and 932 has the success associated with it though.

You can extrapolate how those programs will go based on other states, however. CO, UT, WY and others have a similar approach as 932 using different funding sources, etc. Those programs have a proven track record of increasing habitat uplift and conserving critical species. The wildlife crossings work as well has parallels in other states that show remarkable drops in animal/vehicle collisions, etc.

It often seems like people are looking for a one-time, final fix for all that ails the world. Nothing works like that, especially something as complex and controversial as wildlife management & conservation. Reviewing programs that work as well as that don't work means you should constantly be looking at ways to improve based on what you've done in the past. Reintroductions are good example: The work done in the early 20th and post war years could not happen today in terms of elk transplants. Agencies would be reticent to do this due to disease issues such as brucellosis and CWD, habitat concerns etc. In the 1950's, those issues weren't nearly as prevalent as they are today, or well understood. So things change, adapt and hopefully improve.

It means that maybe you couldn't identify the problem correctly. If trawlers kill all the salmon in the ocean, then freshwater habitat is irrelevant. If hunters overharvest deer it doesn't matter how great the habitat is.

 

[Irrelevant]

There would be from me. I think its a rather easy argument to make that the population declines in MD are not due to a lack of funding. Western states spend 10's of millions on MD management each year and is there any state that is seeing large scale improvement over time on MD? Perhaps this is due to the manner in which the agencies use these funds, I think this is a big part. Perhaps no amount of money will improve the situation for MD. While I agree dirt cheap res licenses are a joke, I think a significant change in price would have relatively little effect on MD.

You won't know until you try, according to some.

 

[Irrelevant]

Habitat quantity and quality is the most significant variable we can control, in restoring MD herds after unavoidable heavy winter kill. For all wildlife, not just those species most at risk.

Disagree, not with habitat not being important but the "most". We can expressly control how many we kill. Habitat can burn, experience a drought, or see landscape-level infestations of noxious weeds.

 

[cgasner1]

You won't know until you try, according to some.

We are all gonna die anyways may as well stay in bed tomorrow

 

[Gerald Martin]

We are all gonna die anyways may as well stay in bed tomorrow

We’re all going to die anyway, everyone PM me your best hunting spots…

 

[cgasner1]

We’re all going to die anyway, everyone PM me your best hunting spots…

I sent it to you awhile back just in case

 

[elkduds]

Disagree, not with habitat not being important but the "most". We can expressly control how many we kill. Habitat can burn, experience a drought, or see landscape-level infestations of noxious weeds.

Fire typically improves wildlife habitat. I did not consider willful eradication since modern management of game species seeks to maintain self-sustaining herd size. Droughts are more common than non-droughts now, at least in southwest states, it has not seriously impacted herd stability. What has limited herd survival, recovery from winter die-off, even susceptibility to diseases like CWD and sheep pneumonia is habitat interruption and loss. Fragmenting habitat interferes with migration, which can endanger entire species including bison, wolves and grizzlies, like them or not. Loss of winter range habitat to development even including reservoirs, impacts of consumptive uses such as logging, mineral development and grazing (yes it is), recreation's intrusion to on everything from calving grounds to sheltering cover. Conflicts between predators and livestock are competition for habitat between people and wildlife.

Per AI, "Habitat is critically important to wildlife conservation because it is the most significant factor in species survival, providing the essential elements of food, water, and shelter, and a place for reproduction."