cjcj
New member
Thank you too Elkgunner! i have to admit `im missing out on alot of good stuff! pics. and posts etc.
Pronghorn populations rebound on refuge
- Thread starter Ithaca 37
- Start date
JoseCuervo
New member
This article seems to say that the Antelope will "flourish despite drought". And if the grass is too short, then predators (Coyotes and Eagles) will snack on the fawns.
Therefore, one should strive to have tall grass for Pronghorns, and the most reliable way (controlled by man), is to remove the Welfare Rancher'scattle, as you can't do anything about the weather.
Seems like this thread now has plenty of evidence that Welfare Rancher'scattle are bad for Pronghorns. Get them out, NOW!
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Antelope flourish despite drought
CHEYENNE, Wyo. - This year's antelope hunting season is looking good despite continued drought conditions.
In a recent count, the Wyoming Game and Fish Department found more antelope in southeastern Wyoming than last year, and biologists said populations across the state are promising.
G&F wildlife biologist Grant Frost said he could tell pronghorn numbers would be up this year even before the count.
"It was generally that feeling of seeing them in larger groups and seeing more fawns," he said.
Hunter Kenny Moore said he's also seen more antelope in the Jackson and Cody areas, though others aren't seeing the higher numbers.
"I've been seeing a lot of antelope, but the fawn numbers are down," said Bob Freiss of Horse Creek Outfitting north of Rawlins. "There are no more fawns than there were last year. I'd say we're par with last year. Where I'm hunting, the drought is still having a tremendous effect."
Dry conditions have left vegetation sparse in some areas like Rawlins and left antelope vulnerable to predators.
"They are preyed on by eagles as well as coyotes," biologist Justin Binfet said. "If the grass is short, they can't hide."
Most of the state has fared better, though, particularly eastern Wyoming, which benefited from high moisture this spring.
"There was enough grass that the does could get good nourishment," Binfet said. "There may have been more sets of twins, and the does probably had a better chance of carrying to term."
The increased vegetation could also make hunters looking for big bucks happy this year, too.
"Diet plays a big part in horn development, and we've had a good spring with better grass," Binfet said. "They've had better horn growth this year."
Game and Fish has allotted 2,039 fewer antelope hunting licenses this year, though some areas have upped hunting quotas to save vegetation.
"When we're in a drought period and rangeland is in poor condition, it's just like running cattle," biologist Steve Tessman said. "You can't run as many animals on it or they'll destroy the vegetation."
Antelope hunting begins this fall. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Therefore, one should strive to have tall grass for Pronghorns, and the most reliable way (controlled by man), is to remove the Welfare Rancher'scattle, as you can't do anything about the weather.
Seems like this thread now has plenty of evidence that Welfare Rancher'scattle are bad for Pronghorns. Get them out, NOW!
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Antelope flourish despite drought
CHEYENNE, Wyo. - This year's antelope hunting season is looking good despite continued drought conditions.
In a recent count, the Wyoming Game and Fish Department found more antelope in southeastern Wyoming than last year, and biologists said populations across the state are promising.
G&F wildlife biologist Grant Frost said he could tell pronghorn numbers would be up this year even before the count.
"It was generally that feeling of seeing them in larger groups and seeing more fawns," he said.
Hunter Kenny Moore said he's also seen more antelope in the Jackson and Cody areas, though others aren't seeing the higher numbers.
"I've been seeing a lot of antelope, but the fawn numbers are down," said Bob Freiss of Horse Creek Outfitting north of Rawlins. "There are no more fawns than there were last year. I'd say we're par with last year. Where I'm hunting, the drought is still having a tremendous effect."
Dry conditions have left vegetation sparse in some areas like Rawlins and left antelope vulnerable to predators.
"They are preyed on by eagles as well as coyotes," biologist Justin Binfet said. "If the grass is short, they can't hide."
Most of the state has fared better, though, particularly eastern Wyoming, which benefited from high moisture this spring.
"There was enough grass that the does could get good nourishment," Binfet said. "There may have been more sets of twins, and the does probably had a better chance of carrying to term."
The increased vegetation could also make hunters looking for big bucks happy this year, too.
"Diet plays a big part in horn development, and we've had a good spring with better grass," Binfet said. "They've had better horn growth this year."
Game and Fish has allotted 2,039 fewer antelope hunting licenses this year, though some areas have upped hunting quotas to save vegetation.
"When we're in a drought period and rangeland is in poor condition, it's just like running cattle," biologist Steve Tessman said. "You can't run as many animals on it or they'll destroy the vegetation."
Antelope hunting begins this fall. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
JoseCuervo
New member
I have yet to ever see a credible or intelligent defense of Welfare Ranchers on this forum, or any other place in life.
Troy Jones tried to defend them here, by saying it is ok for them to destroy habitat because the BLM isn't catching them...
That is as lame as a defense as I have heard.
And even more difficult, is why would anyone try to defend the Welfare Rancher as they destroy our lands, destroy habitat for wild game, raise our taxes, and depress our commodity markets for those of us who raise cattle.
Troy Jones tried to defend them here, by saying it is ok for them to destroy habitat because the BLM isn't catching them...
And even more difficult, is why would anyone try to defend the Welfare Rancher as they destroy our lands, destroy habitat for wild game, raise our taxes, and depress our commodity markets for those of us who raise cattle.
Ithaca 37
New member
Gunner, It's crazy, isn't it! That's why the welfare ranchers are going to lose the battle-----all the arguments they and their defenders come up with are as full of holes as Swiss cheese!
I actually get bored winning all the debates with them and wish they really could think up a credible defense!
The other part of all of it that is unbelieveable to me is that anyone who considers themselves a hunter or fisherman would try to defend welfare ranchers who are destroying wildlife habitat!
Tells me they really aren't any good at hunting and fishing or they'd be able to recognize the link between quality habitat and their success.
The other part of all of it that is unbelieveable to me is that anyone who considers themselves a hunter or fisherman would try to defend welfare ranchers who are destroying wildlife habitat!
JoseCuervo
New member
I actually think the War has been won, and the Welfare Ranchers have lost. Now, like General MacArthur at the Court house in Appomatox, we are just negotiating the terms of surrender.
I think when Marvel changed from Idaho Watersheds Project to Western Watersheds Project, it was proof on how fast and quickly the victories were coming. No sense just liberating Idaho from the Welfare Ranchers, might as well make all of the West a better place for hunters and fisherman.
I think when Marvel changed from Idaho Watersheds Project to Western Watersheds Project, it was proof on how fast and quickly the victories were coming. No sense just liberating Idaho from the Welfare Ranchers, might as well make all of the West a better place for hunters and fisherman.
Ithaca 37
New member
Yup, That's what it comes down to. Tall grass is better escape/hiding cover for fawns. There's no way around it. The welfare ranchers and their buddies in SI can bitch and whine and try to deny the truth, but anyone with a brain can see what the problem is. Get the cattle out and you'll have better cover and more wildlife. Not just antelope, but all other species too.
I can't believe we have people here in SI who try to defend the welfare ranchers!
Sometimes I feel sorry for them. It must get tiresome being proved wrong all the time!
I can't believe we have people here in SI who try to defend the welfare ranchers!
cjcj
New member
General Grant [civil war], appamattox.
JoseCuervo
New member
CJ,
I am pretty sure you are WRONG. Genral Grant did NOT surrender to MacArthur at Appomatox.
If you really think it was Grant who surrendered at Appomatox, then you need to cut and paste the link, or otherwise, we will all think you are making it up.... kind of like the Coyotes in the Helicopters that Arizona uses to transplant them with.
I am pretty sure you are WRONG. Genral Grant did NOT surrender to MacArthur at Appomatox.
If you really think it was Grant who surrendered at Appomatox, then you need to cut and paste the link, or otherwise, we will all think you are making it up.... kind of like the Coyotes in the Helicopters that Arizona uses to transplant them with.
cjcj
New member
Thats pretty funny!
cjcj
New member
You must be smoking some good shit , Gunner did you say you saw coyotes flying helicopters in arizona!
Ten Bears
New member
BUZZ, the Bud McCauley I'm thinking of was a great man for common sense thinking. It may or may not be the same man, but I met him in the St. Regis / Superior MT country years ago.
IT, while I don't fault the cops for the bank robbers (I don't see the similarities in comparison either). I do fault the banks for not having adequate vault or security systems.
TROY, Idaho is a right to work state, so yes you have the right to work for low wages, and draw welfare if your wages are low enough.
IT, while I don't fault the cops for the bank robbers (I don't see the similarities in comparison either). I do fault the banks for not having adequate vault or security systems.
TROY, Idaho is a right to work state, so yes you have the right to work for low wages, and draw welfare if your wages are low enough.
Ten Bears
New member
1-P, you are right on top of things here. Keep up the good work.
BigHornyRam
New member
Ithaca and Gunner,
You guys are a couple of jokes, and crybaby whiners. I haven't seen one workable solution from either one of you. Just senseless babble and rabid enviro opinion. Instead of being so negative all the time, try thinking positive for once, and maybe you would come up with some solutions.
I recently talked with an Eastern Montana wild life biologist. He had a real positive attitude tempered with a real world outlook. He's smart enough to understand that being a narrow minded, selfish individual or group will get you nowhere, and will only make your job harder. He can see the big picture, that both of you are either too stupid or too full of your own agenda to see. Keep talking like a bunch of idiots. The only thing normal thinking citizens can see is a couple of idiots not at all worth bothering to listen to. And with loud mouth jackasses like you guy's, it is easy to see why ranchers are distrustful of gummint agencies, enviromentalists, wildlife biologists, and wildlife organizations. Work with these people if you want to get positive results. Work against them and they will only dig in their heels.
The biologist I talked with felt that having well managed, vaiable agricultual enterprises in the area greatly benefited the regions wildlife. I whole heartedly agree!
Paul
<FONT COLOR="#800080" SIZE="1">[ 08-20-2003 08:28: Message edited by: BigHornyRam ]</font>
You guys are a couple of jokes, and crybaby whiners. I haven't seen one workable solution from either one of you. Just senseless babble and rabid enviro opinion. Instead of being so negative all the time, try thinking positive for once, and maybe you would come up with some solutions.
I recently talked with an Eastern Montana wild life biologist. He had a real positive attitude tempered with a real world outlook. He's smart enough to understand that being a narrow minded, selfish individual or group will get you nowhere, and will only make your job harder. He can see the big picture, that both of you are either too stupid or too full of your own agenda to see. Keep talking like a bunch of idiots. The only thing normal thinking citizens can see is a couple of idiots not at all worth bothering to listen to. And with loud mouth jackasses like you guy's, it is easy to see why ranchers are distrustful of gummint agencies, enviromentalists, wildlife biologists, and wildlife organizations. Work with these people if you want to get positive results. Work against them and they will only dig in their heels.
The biologist I talked with felt that having well managed, vaiable agricultual enterprises in the area greatly benefited the regions wildlife. I whole heartedly agree!
Paul
<FONT COLOR="#800080" SIZE="1">[ 08-20-2003 08:28: Message edited by: BigHornyRam ]</font>
Ok Gunner, you threw down the gauntlet, I guess I will have to give an 'Educated Defense of Welfare Ranching'.
Livestock are not the problem, mis-management of them IS the problem. They can be used as a tool to better the habitat.
Red Canyon Ranch (owned and operated by TNC) near Lander, WY did a vegetation survey of one of their pastures that is adjacent to land owned by the WY DWR. Their property had approximately (this is taken from memory from a talk, but I'd be willing to look up my notes if needed) 2X the biodiversity in both plant and animals than the adjacent property. Of note is that the state lands have not been grazed for more than 40 years. While just across the fence the number of cattle had been increased nearly 200% since TNC took over the property. Hence, the proper management of cattle allowed for the increase in the number of plant and animal species. In addition, this ranch is 5000ac deeded property with an additional 30 000ac of USFS grazing allotments.
Deseret Land and Livestock took over a 230 000ac ranch in NW UT in 1983. 15 000 ac of which is owned by the federal government and managed by the BLM. Again from memory, in 1983 there were approximately 4000 muley's, 1000 elk, 100 moose, 0 pronghorn, and 2500 cattle. A few years ago before destocking of cattle due to the ongoing drought there were 3000 muley's, 3500 elk, 200 moose, 600 pronghorns, and 5500 cattle. Proper management of the livestock grazing and additional management practices improved the land so as to be able to support both more wildlife and livestock.
I think these two ranches are great examples of the possibilities that can be obtained with proper management.
PS- As an aside, most of the land that the BLM is mandated to manage were lands that were not homesteaded or passed into private ownership. This was due to a variety of reasons, one many of these lands were less productive for a variety of uses valued at that time. Another is that these lands were much abused by the time the federal government decided to take over management of these lands in 1934 (Taylor Grazing Act). These lands were often concieved as sacrifice areas by the locals to do with as they pleased. Many of the ranchers using these lands (at least in UT) had no deeded property, thus they used them to the utmost so as to make more money. So even if 60% of BLM lands are in poor condition now, what was the percentage 50 years ago? Additionally, these unproductive, most often arid/semia-arid lands don't change overnight. Succession or re-generation often take much longer on these lands than more productive/wetter areas. Just some food for thought.
Red Canyon Ranch (owned and operated by TNC) near Lander, WY did a vegetation survey of one of their pastures that is adjacent to land owned by the WY DWR. Their property had approximately (this is taken from memory from a talk, but I'd be willing to look up my notes if needed) 2X the biodiversity in both plant and animals than the adjacent property. Of note is that the state lands have not been grazed for more than 40 years. While just across the fence the number of cattle had been increased nearly 200% since TNC took over the property. Hence, the proper management of cattle allowed for the increase in the number of plant and animal species. In addition, this ranch is 5000ac deeded property with an additional 30 000ac of USFS grazing allotments.
Deseret Land and Livestock took over a 230 000ac ranch in NW UT in 1983. 15 000 ac of which is owned by the federal government and managed by the BLM. Again from memory, in 1983 there were approximately 4000 muley's, 1000 elk, 100 moose, 0 pronghorn, and 2500 cattle. A few years ago before destocking of cattle due to the ongoing drought there were 3000 muley's, 3500 elk, 200 moose, 600 pronghorns, and 5500 cattle. Proper management of the livestock grazing and additional management practices improved the land so as to be able to support both more wildlife and livestock.
I think these two ranches are great examples of the possibilities that can be obtained with proper management.
PS- As an aside, most of the land that the BLM is mandated to manage were lands that were not homesteaded or passed into private ownership. This was due to a variety of reasons, one many of these lands were less productive for a variety of uses valued at that time. Another is that these lands were much abused by the time the federal government decided to take over management of these lands in 1934 (Taylor Grazing Act). These lands were often concieved as sacrifice areas by the locals to do with as they pleased. Many of the ranchers using these lands (at least in UT) had no deeded property, thus they used them to the utmost so as to make more money. So even if 60% of BLM lands are in poor condition now, what was the percentage 50 years ago? Additionally, these unproductive, most often arid/semia-arid lands don't change overnight. Succession or re-generation often take much longer on these lands than more productive/wetter areas. Just some food for thought.
Ten Bears
New member
Easy 1-P, you might be seen in my light if you keep talking like that.
Well put.
Well put.
Ten Bears
New member
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> major portion of the pronghorn's's diet is composed of forbs and browse plants, but normally little grass.
A study in Kansas indicates cacti made up 40 percent of the antelope's diet
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Poor cow farmers wont be able to feed their cows on cacti now.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Fawns are usually born in swales and low-lying areas with small ridges or hills surrounding them where the vegetation is short and sparse. At birth a fawn weighs between five and nine pounds. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
http://www.ngpc.state.ne.us/wildlife/antelope.html#food
<FONT COLOR="#800080" SIZE="1">[ 08-20-2003 19:46: Message edited by: Ten Bears ]</font>
A study in Kansas indicates cacti made up 40 percent of the antelope's diet
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Poor cow farmers wont be able to feed their cows on cacti now.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Fawns are usually born in swales and low-lying areas with small ridges or hills surrounding them where the vegetation is short and sparse. At birth a fawn weighs between five and nine pounds. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
http://www.ngpc.state.ne.us/wildlife/antelope.html#food
<FONT COLOR="#800080" SIZE="1">[ 08-20-2003 19:46: Message edited by: Ten Bears ]</font>
Ithaca 37
New member
Paul, You must be gettin' tired of losing all the debates and lookin' like a fool!
JoseCuervo
New member
Paul,
Here is a "workable" solution:
Remove all the Welfare Rancher's cattle off of Public Lands.
As this article proves, wild game populations will go up (Pronghorn, etc..). Which is a good thing for those of us who are Hunters.
Federal Taxes will go down, as we will no longer have to hire Cow cops to try and enforce the laws to Welfare Ranchers .
Beef prices will naturally rise to the natural spot on the Supply/Demand curve, as Supply will be managed off of Private Land ranches, who are much better planners/managers than Welfare Ranchers . This will result in more income to good ranchers, which will stimulate local economies, which will result in more income in rural locations. Which is a good thing for those of us who live in rural Western states.
Our Court systems will have more room, as we won't have to keep filing lawsuits to get rid of the Welfare Ranchers , and as I am sure you are aware, the Welfare Ranchers, never win...
It sounds like I have a "Workable Solution", and one that is good for 99.9% of all Americans, good for 90+% of all Cattle Ranchers, and good for 100% of all Hunters. Yep, definitely a Win-Win-Win situation.
Here is a "workable" solution:
Remove all the Welfare Rancher's cattle off of Public Lands.
As this article proves, wild game populations will go up (Pronghorn, etc..). Which is a good thing for those of us who are Hunters.
Federal Taxes will go down, as we will no longer have to hire Cow cops to try and enforce the laws to Welfare Ranchers .
Beef prices will naturally rise to the natural spot on the Supply/Demand curve, as Supply will be managed off of Private Land ranches, who are much better planners/managers than Welfare Ranchers . This will result in more income to good ranchers, which will stimulate local economies, which will result in more income in rural locations. Which is a good thing for those of us who live in rural Western states.
Our Court systems will have more room, as we won't have to keep filing lawsuits to get rid of the Welfare Ranchers , and as I am sure you are aware, the Welfare Ranchers, never win...
It sounds like I have a "Workable Solution", and one that is good for 99.9% of all Americans, good for 90+% of all Cattle Ranchers, and good for 100% of all Hunters. Yep, definitely a Win-Win-Win situation.
JoseCuervo
New member
1-Pointer,
Hey, great try on making a good defense of Welfare Ranchers. At least you tried.
Paul just resorted to calling names.
You did not actually defend Welfare Ranchers, but did show, how if it is managed correctly, that it could possibly be improved, if one agrees that you must have the Welfare Ranchers. I am not sure you need the Welfare Rancher's cattle on the land, so I can't agree that we should try to do "the best we can" with them.
One of your examples, Deseret Land and Livestock shows a 25% decrease in Mule deer when 3000 cattle were added to the ranch. In my opinion, a Trophy Mule Deer buck is probably the most difficult animal in the West to find, and here you have a ranch that decimates 1/4 of the population.
Actually, I applaud you for bringing reason and science into the discusion, and not just calling names, like Paul did.
I think this thread does show that reducing cattle does improve Pronghorn populations, which would seem to be a good thing, for a bunch of people who are Hunters.
And all of these improvements are the result of pressure from the Jon Marvels of the world, who finally got fed up with seeing our Public Lands trashed. The number one defense of Welfare Ranchers that I hear is "Public Lands are better now than they were 30 years ago...". I take that to mean: "30 years ago, we Welfare Ranchers were getting away with murder, and now that we have started feeling the Heat, some of us are trying to improve, from the lowest point measurable."
It is somewhat interesting that you (1-Pt), Ithica (I think), Buzz (I think) all have expressed opinions that some grazing is acceptable. I refuse to, but I think that helps the Moderates (like Ithica) and the Experts (Buzz and 1-Ptr) be able to get your voices heard, as you can either choose between the Gunner's lawsuits, or the compromise offered by Moderates and Experts.
It is all part of what makes for a healthy "political" eco-system, and an entertaining set of debates.
Hey, great try on making a good defense of Welfare Ranchers. At least you tried.
You did not actually defend Welfare Ranchers, but did show, how if it is managed correctly, that it could possibly be improved, if one agrees that you must have the Welfare Ranchers. I am not sure you need the Welfare Rancher's cattle on the land, so I can't agree that we should try to do "the best we can" with them.
One of your examples, Deseret Land and Livestock shows a 25% decrease in Mule deer when 3000 cattle were added to the ranch. In my opinion, a Trophy Mule Deer buck is probably the most difficult animal in the West to find, and here you have a ranch that decimates 1/4 of the population.
Actually, I applaud you for bringing reason and science into the discusion, and not just calling names, like Paul did.
And all of these improvements are the result of pressure from the Jon Marvels of the world, who finally got fed up with seeing our Public Lands trashed. The number one defense of Welfare Ranchers that I hear is "Public Lands are better now than they were 30 years ago...". I take that to mean: "30 years ago, we Welfare Ranchers were getting away with murder, and now that we have started feeling the Heat, some of us are trying to improve, from the lowest point measurable."
It is somewhat interesting that you (1-Pt), Ithica (I think), Buzz (I think) all have expressed opinions that some grazing is acceptable. I refuse to, but I think that helps the Moderates (like Ithica) and the Experts (Buzz and 1-Ptr) be able to get your voices heard, as you can either choose between the Gunner's lawsuits, or the compromise offered by Moderates and Experts.
Troy Jones
New member
This is just a personal observation from last weekend while archery antelope hunting. The pasture I was hunting is 3,600 acres and has a goat population of 200 plus. It's grazed and has little water. By 10 a.m. it was already over 90 degrees and I had enough. I have permission to go on a nieghbors land to the North that hasn't been grazed in years. So I though I'd do a little scouting. The pasture is near 6,000 acres and has several good dams, with knee high grass. I went all through that pasture and did not see one, not one pronghorn.
If I were to guess, I would say that the antelope don't like the tall grass because of predation. But then again, I didn't find those stats from some obscure site for nut cases.
In all actuality, we have an easy 400 plus population of antelope just on the North unit of our ranch, so I really don't give a shit about Ithaca's or Elkgunner's woes.
Between my family, inlaws, nieghbors and friends, I will always have much more land than I could ever get around to hunting. On top of that, I get trophy animals every year. So really, Ithaca and Elkgunner I don't give a shit. I also Black Hills deer hunt on forest service and am alway successful, getting a 130 class or better whitetail. I have no complaints.
If I were to guess, I would say that the antelope don't like the tall grass because of predation. But then again, I didn't find those stats from some obscure site for nut cases.
In all actuality, we have an easy 400 plus population of antelope just on the North unit of our ranch, so I really don't give a shit about Ithaca's or Elkgunner's woes.
Between my family, inlaws, nieghbors and friends, I will always have much more land than I could ever get around to hunting. On top of that, I get trophy animals every year. So really, Ithaca and Elkgunner I don't give a shit. I also Black Hills deer hunt on forest service and am alway successful, getting a 130 class or better whitetail. I have no complaints.
Similar threads
