195 BIG HORN SHEEP POACHED IN MONTANA

M

MT_DIY

Guest
FWP COMMISSION AGENDA ITEM COVER SHEET

Meeting Date: December 14, 2006

Agenda Item: Winter 2007 Sheep Trap and Transplant

Division: Wildlife

Action Needed:
____ Approval of Tentative Season _____ Approval of Final Season __X__ Develop/Endorse Course of Action ____ None - information only

Time Needed on Agenda for this Presentation: 20 minutes


Background
One hundred and ninety five (195) bighorn sheep have been identified for trap and transplant via net gunning. Strong sheep population levels in the targeted hunting districts prompt this trap and transplant effort. Overpopulation of sheep generates disease and die-off concerns.

The sheep will be trapped from the following areas:
40 from the Missouri River Breaks (HD 680)
50 from the Sun River (HDs 422 and 424)
55 from Region 2 (HDs 210, 216 and 283)
50 from Region 1 (10 from Wild Horse Island, 40 from HD 124)

These sheep will be relocated to:
North Dakota (20 from R6)
Nebraska (20 from R6, 30 from R4)
Utah (20 from R4, 55 from R2)
Wyoming (50 from R1)

In addition, up to 25 sheep may be captured from the Ruby Mountains and relocated to the Highlands south of Butte (HD 340) honoring the Greenhorn Mountains bighorn sheep release agreement as it relates to tolerated sheep distribution.

The destination states will cover sheep trapping and lab costs.

Public Involvement Process & Result
While no formal public involvement has been engaged to date, routine public interactions suggest this approach will be reasonably tolerated if not advocated.

UMMMM.....NO DON'T ADVOCATE OR "REASONALBY TOLERATE"
 
Statistics for Special Permit Drawings from 2005

Permit 680-00 Quota 15 1st Choice 2,079

Permit 422-00 Quota 5 1st Choice 707

Permit 216-00 Quota 8 1st Choice 890


Permit 124-00 Quota 10 1st Choice 582


These are ONLY Resident 1st Choicer's
Non Resident info can be found at their website
 
Thanks a lot Montana sportsmen for the sheep!!

Over the years, utah has sent moose, antelope, desert bighorn, and elk to other states.

If montana doesn't move some sheep - mostly Ewes, sheep have a tendancy to overpopulate and have major disease die offs. It doesn't make much sense to shoot Ewes.

A good deal for sportsmen in other states, we have been working hard to get wolves delisted in MT, WY, and ID. That will save lots of elk, moose and sheep in those states.

sportsmen need to work together, we are a very small minority, and there is no room to have infighting.

Don
 
What a crock of ****!!!!!!! I know good and damn well that there are many places here in Montana that sure could use some more sheep! Hell theres places where sheep hunting has been closed for years due to low sheep numbers! But instead lets let the other states have them. Wonder who came up with that idea?
ismith
"Never argue with an idiot; they'll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience." ~ anonymous
 
Don,
Why doesnt it make sense to shoot ewes? Because everyone should be a high rolling trophy hunter? What about those who would like to experience a sheep hunt once in there lives, even if its only a ewe hunt?
ismith

"Never argue with an idiot; they'll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience." ~ anonymous
 
The extra 25 will be caught in the Nevada Ruby Mountains or does Montana also have a set of Ruby Mountains? fatrooster.
 
Yeah, no ##### Ismith, why couldn't they be generous and give us a few more to shoot??? Instead they just increase the tag price. And I saw a head line a while back, "FWP gets 550k for New Building"...why didn't it read "FWP uses 550k to purchase winter range"???

---------------------------------------
This is my post

I've just pissed in my pants.......and nobody can do anything about it.
 
Yeah we have our own Ruby Mountains as well fatrooster. They are actually pretty close to me. There are lots of places FW&P could transplant sheep here in Montana. So why send so many out of state?
ismith
"Never argue with an idiot; they'll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience." ~ anonymous
 
LAST EDITED ON Feb-17-07 AT 10:32PM (MST)[p]That is kind of an ironic question fatrooster -

(Question for all of you) - Would it piss you off if the 50 were coming out of the Nevada Ruby's?

How about if they took all 195 Bighorns from your state???

Montana does not have ONE single herd that numbers over 200 sheep.

The 50 that went to Wyoming are going into an area with 200 head of sheep because they think they might need some different genetics.

They are taking the sheep from a SMALL Montana herd because the herd is getting too big ("over population of sheep generates disease and die off CONCERNS")and transplant them into a herd of 200 - it makes no sense

And Please understand - I'm all for keeping sheep on the mountain - and I don't care about state boundaries.

OK - Off my box - Yes, fatrooster - Montana has a Ruby Range. Southwest part of the state. You can breath a sigh of relief.

I need to go puke
 
LAST EDITED ON Feb-17-07 AT 11:52PM (MST)[p]Please let me know the ONE time you flew an area where you saw 200 huntable sheep together on the same slope.

Back in the day you could get it lasting for a while outside of Gardner but please let the world know where this amazing breeding section is at that you fly over.

Get back to the point of the thread -

Rare, ONE TIME sightings with fly-bys are what give the managers piss poor information and cause BAD decisions to be made.
 
LAST EDITED ON Feb-17-07 AT 11:53PM (MST)[p]And it would need to be HUNTING DISTRICT 124 to have ANY relevance to the topic.
 
Any relevance to "THE" topic? Did "THE" topic change from Mt sheep transplants to "Lets whine about 124 or dont whine at all!"? And who was is that stated there werent 200 sheep in any Mt district? MT FWP makes their decisions based on alot more than hunter, or "trophy hunter" input. Sure, there are alot of places in Mt that I think would be great for sheep. (Heck they used to be there!) So did Bison, and wolves, and Grizzly Bears....
Either they transplant or up the quota. Since they didnt transpant out of 270 recently, they increased the ram tags from 5, to 8, to 16 at the last minute last year, unbenounced to the other hunters that put in for those "8" tags.
Maybe we'll need some critters from Utah someday. Maybe a BOBCAT!!!!

bittersweetmuleymeat
 
bittersweetmuleymeat,
This transplant makes as much sense as if Utah decided it had too many monster bulls and decided to ship some to various states instead of increasing the harvest quota. Would have made much more sense to send Utah our excess wolf and grizzly bears. Maybe in the near future?
ismith


"Never argue with an idiot; they'll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience." ~ anonymous
 
>bittersweetmuleymeat,
> This
>transplant makes as much sense
>as if Utah decided it
>had too many monster bulls
>and decided to ship some
>to various states instead of
>increasing the harvest quota. Would
>have made much more sense
>to send Utah our excess
>wolf and grizzly bears.
>Maybe in the near future?
>
>ismith
>
>
>"Never argue with an idiot;
>they'll drag you down to
>their level and beat you
> with experience." ~ anonymous
>
>
>

Utah HAS sent Elk, moose, goats and more to other states, we just don't make as big of a fuss over it. What is wrong with western states helping each other? It has been going on since before any of us were around.

Andy
 
Andy,
I never implied that Utah hasnt ever transplanted animals to other states. However, Id be willing to bet they TRADED and didnt just give them away. I dont have a problem with transplanting critters, but come on, 195 frikin BIGHORNS? They should have shored up some region 3 herds that have declined. Thats a major state resource pissed away, and without public comment.
ismith
"Never argue with an idiot; they'll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience." ~ anonymous
 
DIY ? If this topic is only relevant to HD 124, you should have mentioned that from the git-go. Sorry, I took your title ?195 Big Horn Sheep Poached in Montana? to refer to more than HD 124. A little late to try your cover your ass now.

If your only definition of a successful herd is 200 animals together on the same slope, I think you are missing the point of proper management.

Why don't you look at what has happened with the sheep herd in HD 680 (you brought up that herd in your initial post). Increasing numbers every year, available habitat is filled and an increased number of ewe tags allocated.

You asked in your post, ?where is this amazing breeding section?? Well I will assume you are once again referring to a point on a map. Well I can't give you that, but I can tell you the counts were 25% higher than the previous year (2005) and a lamb ratio of 50:100 ewes and the number of ewe tags was also increased. Sounds pretty ?amazing? to me, do you agree? Seven years ago there was one ewe tag available, in 2006 there were 30.

You also said, ?Rare, ONE TIME sightings with fly-bys are what give the managers piss poor information and cause BAD decisions to be made?. I don't know if that means the managers will make BAD decisions, but it does mean they might not be able to make the best decisions. The good part is the managers aren't basing decisions only on a flight one time a year. Why don't you give your biologists a call and ask what they are basing their management decisions on instead of posting uninformed opinions.
 
ismith:

After reading your signature, I am somewhat hesitant to have a discussion with you on this topic, given that it appears you have not done much research before posting your opinions on this thread.

Given your comments, I suspect you have not called FWP on this topic. I have. After discussing the topic with biologists and listening to them, I feel there are somethings we need to consider.

Everyone in MT wants more sheep, especially those of us in Region 3 who have seen our sheep numbers suffer recently. I share your same concern.

MT operates under a policy that sheep will not be introduced in areas with domestic sheep or domestic sheep allotments. That is probably a good policy, when you consider that in every instance where domestic/wild sheep have mingled, we have had die-offs.

So until we as sportsman can get areas that are historical bighorn sheep habitat to be void of domestic sheep, we will not be seeing any more intra-state transfers. In effect, we are at max carrying capacity of our bighorn range, in terms of healthy habitat they can occupy.

FWP has population criteria for every unit in the state. They do so for the purpose of preventing disease related die-offs that come with overpopulation. This again is probably a good management policy.

To control populations to the desired objective, they either issue ewe tags or transplant sheep with surrounding states. Many units are undersubscribed for ewe tags, even though my research has shown that is not the case for the units from where these sheep came. FWP feels that issuing ewe tags is not always the most effective way to control populations.

I think sharing these sheep with other states makes the most sense, when we cannot relocate them anywhere else in MT. If these sheep (mostly ewes) can go elsewhere to augment or establish herds, that is great, even if it does not help me as a MT resident.

The cost of these transplants are paid by that state, or FNAWS.

Like you, I want sheep on every mountain. Until we remove more domestic sheep, or find a way for domestic and bighorn sheep to live together with out disease problems in the bighorns, we are probably at max capacity.

Before you come to a site and make comments that paint MT hunters as a bunch of selfish idiots, maybe you should call some people who actually know what the hell is going on, such as our FWP sheep biologists.

MT has the best sheep program in the world. To imply that it has happened by accident, or that the state and their sheep biologists don't know what they are doing seems to be very ironic, when our sheep populations are the envy of all our neighbors.

I am sure your comments are made out of your concern for the resuorce and preserving opportunity for MT hunters, but the comments don't reflect an understanding of what our sheep managers have to deal with when managing sheep in MT.

Enjoy those sheep guys. I would rather your get them for your state than to let them cause disease problems here in MT.

Happy Hunting!

"Hunt when you can - You're gonna' run out of health before you run out of money!"
 
ismith and DIY_MT, thanks for the info on the Montana Rubies. To answer your question DIY, no I would not like to see 200 sheep taken from the Nevada Rubies to be stocked elsewhere but our sheep population is not a big one so I do not feel that we could spare 200. But I wouldn't mind sharing some sheep with another Western state. I'm wondering if Wyoming needs to add some new genes to thier sheep herd why not make a trade. That way both states get new genes. I personally would love to see some Montana sheep come to Nevada, but not if it is going to hurt the herd in Montana. It sounds as if BigFin knows a little something about the sheep in Montana and it sounds as if some sheep relocation may not be so bad. I do not live in Montana so I cannot pretend to know anything about Montana sheep but sometimes you have to let the professionals do thier job. In this case that would be the Montana Fish and Game. This past hunting season in Nevada we had a depredation hunt for 1,000 doe mule deer due to fire burning up the winter range. We've seen this happen in years past and in that case many deer died on the winter range of starvation. Did I like a depredation hunt of 1,000 does? Hell no! And our winter has been a very easy winter with very little snow. But these guys have the statistics and history and training to do this job. Yes another answer would be to give out more sheep tags to the residents in your state but either way your population of sheep is going down. Why not spread some of it around? You may one day find yourself hunting sheep in another state as a nonresident because of relocation efforts. Anyway, I just wanted to express another view point. fatrooster.
 
>MT has the best sheep program
>in the world. To
>imply that it has happened
>by accident, or that the
>state and their sheep biologists
>don't know what they are
>doing seems

Ummm...actually it did happen by accident. How do I know? MT FWP can't figure out how to manage any other type of game, so the sheep must be an accident.




---------------------------------------
This is my post

I've just pissed in my pants.......and nobody can do anything about it.
 
Old Man of the Hills:

With such a factual, intelligent, and well informed comment as you posted above, please forgive me if I adhere to ismith's signature about arguing with idiots and go on without trying to impart any logic or facts to your conclusions.

"Hunt when you can - You're gonna' run out of health before you run out of money!"
 
Bigfin,
Sorry if I hit a sensitive spot. I am well aware of fish and games policy with the wild/domestic sheep issues. That said, I am also well aware that the Greenhorn herd will probally never become a huntable herd, which is a shame, because the Gravellies/Greenhorns have some great sheep habitat. I also know two different people who have found OLD ram horns in the Gravellies. Sheep are also vacant from a large swath of the Madison range, in an area where there are no range maggot grazing allotments. Your right, I didnt call fish and game, I have no desire to be brushed off by some desk clerk. I think its great our fine state wants to share some sheep, but dont you think 195 sheep is a little drastic? How the hell did the sheep population get so out of hand so fast? All im saying is this smells like politics, especially with the cladistine approach FW&P is taking with it.
ismith
"Never argue with an idiot; they'll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience." ~ anonymous
 
All western states have relocation efforts to thank, for the herds we have now. And of course, I agree that it is a valuable resource still, for the expansion/genetic stregth of herds.
But if I may offer another angle on this conversation; have any of you considered the natural/genetic benefit to NATURAL die-offs?
No, I'm not saying, "don't transplant and let them die".
What I am saying is that herds with natural population cycles are much more healthy as a whole.
As hard as it is to believe for some... Starvation and predation have been weeding out the weak for a few more years than we.
So, if the strongest opinion for the relocation is to "prevent die-off", I for one think that IS bad management, as this eventually leads to a genetically weak population and at that point it's too late for the quick fixes.

Just something to chew on.
 
Justdada,

I agree somewhat with your post. Having a certain segment of the sheep population dying off each year from predation, hunting, old age, is not unhealthy.

However, several of MT's sheep herds have taken serious nose-dives due to diseases being spread from domestic sheep. That isnt part of a natural process. Typically, the herds that are hit the hardest are those with high populations. For instance, the herd near Anaconda Montana suffered a big die off...went from something like 600 sheep down to around 100 in a year. It took a long time to build that herd back up to where its at today. Same thing happened near Lima...the gates of the Mountains...etc.

For the record, I dont think 195 sheep being taken out of Montana is that drastic.
 
BigFin,

Since I am such an idiot and you are so smart, maybe you could answer a few questions for me. Answering questions is not arguing, so you won't be bending your standards

1. How does MT's sheep management differ from other states so largely that it can account for the majority of record heads coming from our state? In other words, how do you ignore inherent genetics and superior habitat when making such statements and chalk it ALL up to superior management?

2. Name one other species that is managed as well as sheep, proving that MT has GOOD management policies and it is not a coincidence. Whitetails and elk don't count either; name a species that is HARD to manage, like mule deer, that they have done a good job with.

I hope you can answer these questions and prove me wrong, as I would love to have more faith in the FWP.



---------------------------------------
This is my post

I've just pissed in my pants.......and nobody can do anything about it.
 
Old Man:

Have you read your last post? I quote:

".....when making such statements and chalk it ALL up to superior management...."

and the next sentence is:

".....Name one other species that is MANAGED AS WELL AS SHEEP (my emphasis)..."

And you preface such profound statements with, "Since I am such an idiot....."

Well, you said it, I didn't.

I will let each person judge the status of MT wildlife and hunting opportunity rather than violate ismith's rules, which in this case is very good advice.

If the difference in MT & WY sheep management philosophy isn't enough to answer your question, I give up. Both are good plans with good genetics, good habitat, and reflect the wishes of their citizens, but have a different result. Management matters!

Those who think we are such a poor hunting state, as a result of FWP management, will add their opinions.

I am sure no one can answer your questions to your satisfaction, but at least they would be answers with fact, rather than opinions and personal bias.

Hopefully you spend as much energy helping helping with management plans, public input, and conservation programs as you do informing the world about everything that is wrong with hunting in MT and FWP.

FWP and the rest of us MT hunters (many of whom think it is pretty good here) could use some enlightenment about the ideas you have that would save us from being such a shitty hunting state.

If you have qualifications and training to lead us from this path of doom, please post them here, so we can tell our trained biologist to take a hike and we can follow you to the land of hunting heaven.

Until you provide those credentials, I am inclined to listen to guys who have done this terrible job of mismanaging these animals to the point where so many other folks would love to have the hunting that you and I get to enjoy as MT residents.

I hope you draw a sheep tag and have a happy hunting season, really.

"Hunt when you can - You're gonna' run out of health before you run out of money!"
 
old man,

The MTFWP is managing how the public wants them to.

Theres no question the genetics of MT's sheep play a huge part of why 180 class sheep are not that difficult to find. But, its also good management, and part of that management is keeping sheep populations in any given district at or below carrying capacity. Thats why moving 195 sheep from several districts is a good idea. Another thing MT does that nearly no other state allows is the hunting of ewes. From past experience, the MTFWP has learned that bloated sheep populations lead to bad things (huge die-offs). Its better to have a smaller, healthier herd of sheep.

I think the FWP manages mountain goats pretty well...much like they do sheep. Moose management is pretty good too.

I'll agree with you that their management plan for elk and deer is not that great. I think its ridiculous to allow resident, or non-resident hunters to have 5 weeks of bowhunting and 5 weeks of rifle hunting for deer and elk...pretty much state-wide. However, the hunters in Montana have made it more than clear that hunting opportunity is more important than quality. The MTFWP is managing elk and deer how a majority of the hunters want it managed. MT's hunters like to hunt mule deer and white tail during the rut, they like the tradition of hunting thanksgiving weekend, they like tracking elk in snow in late November. The arent willing to sacrifice those experiences and opportunity for shorter seasons and better quality.

I attended dozens of FWP meetings and open houses when I lived in Montana. Every time a biologist made a comment to shorten seasons, limit permits to geographic areas, etc. they were met with harsh criticism. MT hunters want opportunity...period.

So, blaming MTFWP for how the hunting public has asked them to manage is pretty low-budget on your part.

Try attending some meetings and you'll find out why MT manages the way they do.
 
>And you preface such profound statements
>with, "Since I am such
>an idiot....."
>
>Well, you said it, I didn't.

If you cannot recognize sarcasm, then I cannot help you. A sense of human is inherent and cannot be learned.

>If the difference in MT &
>WY sheep management philosophy isn't
>enough to answer your question,
>I give up. Both
>are good plans with good
>genetics, good habitat, and reflect
>the wishes of their citizens,
>but have a different result.
> Management matters!

Sooo...is the difference not enough to answer my question or do you no know the difference, because I gave you a good chance to explain things to me and prove me wrong and you declined.


>Those who think we are such
>a poor hunting state, as
>a result of FWP management,
>will add their opinions.

And those who think we are a good hunting state will add theirs-OPINIONS ARE LIKE ASSHOLES, EVERYBODY HAS ONE

>If you have qualifications and training
>to lead us from this
>path of doom, please post
>them here,

Yes, my qualifications are that I haven't been hijacked by a bunch of greenies like MTFWP has


>Until you provide those credentials, I
>am inclined to listen to
>guys who have done this
>terrible job of mismanaging these
>animals

Go for it. That is the fallacy of many in this state, so you may as well join the crowd. I choose to open my eyes, travel to other states, and observe what can happen with other types of management policies. Ours is, and I quote this directly from a biologist, "to NOT limit opportunity".


>so many other folks would
>love to have the hunting
>that you and I get
>to enjoy as MT residents.

I agree, but be happy with the status quo, why not try to better it?


---------------------------------------
This is my post

I've just pissed in my pants.......and nobody can do anything about it.
 
BuzzH,

Thank you!!!

You did exactly what BigFin must be too ignorant to do, and that was to provide some actual fact in the case to prove me wrong and restore my faith in the FWP.

I will agree with you that the FWP is managing how the public wants them to however I would like to make a few points:

As for the deer and elk, you bring up some interesting points. Quantity is definately managed over quality, and it may seem that the public supports such hunting, however I have my doubts. Realize that the public does not always know what is best and going by the public mentality can have catastrophic results.

Actually, to me it seems like the public wants stricter management than what is on board currently. Witness the LE mule deer units in the Bitterroot. They are wildly popular and are the result of some biologists STEPPING OUTSIDE OF THE "MONTANA" BOX and managing for trophy quality. WOW, what a concept.

But my main point (and axe to grind) about the MT FWP is that yes, they do listen to the public, a little too much. We are the last Western state to offer such liberal seasons. That points to poor management. Like you say, it is public sentiment to have those, but that doesn't make it right. Idaho, Wyoming, Colorado, Utah, New Mexico, and Arizona all have much more conservative seasons. They also all produce either more trophy MD or elk than MT. They also have much more competition for tags.

That all points to good management, in my book. Before you jump all over me, let me say that few of the mentioned states have gone a little too far, but that is a topic for another time. I think Idaho and Wyoming have struck the best balance between opportunity and quality and that we should look to those states for policies. The fact that MT is the last state with such policies tells me that such policies are not very good.

I'm not saying that our biologists are dumber than those in other states; I am smart enough to realize that they are all trained in the same universities. I just think that they have the wrong priorities and are managing for the wrong reasons, which equals poor management.

---------------------------------------
This is my post

I've just pissed in my pants.......and nobody can do anything about it.
 
Mt FWP does a lot of "managing" for other Montanans that arent hunters (Or at least not to the extent olot of us are). When you manage game in an area for trophy quality, it ussually means a "healthy" population. Many ranchers dont like "healthy" populations, (if you know what I mean)especially of elk , deer, and antelope. Not too many ranchers have mountain goats raiding their new alphalfa, or their haystacks on a bad winter.
Landowners with cattle and other agricultural interests are just another "bird" us hunters tend to forget about when the MT FWP is throwing their stones. Hmmmm.

The biggest opposition I get at meetings and correspondence with the FWP when puching "quality" areas is their obligation to manage for the large landowners as well. Biologists have alot of big words and thesises to explain their "management agenda" but that is what alot of it boils down too, plain and simple.

bittersweetmleymeat.
 
Old Man:

In reading your posts, I must admit that we share the same passion for MT hunting and our wildlife. I suspect you and I will never agree on the ability of FWP to properly manage.

As I responded to your request last night, I had a much more lenghty post, but I only pasted part of it, not wanting to bore everyone with our discussion.

Seeing now your passion for wildlife is high, in spite of your distate for FWP, I apologize for being the smart ass that I was and taking sarcasm one step further than need be.

I am sure our differences are not in our desire to see things better in MT, but rather our level of trust in FWP and the policies under which they operate.

For what it is worth, I apply in all western states every year, for evey available critter, so I am aware of the different management philosophies of each state and how they affect quality and opportunity in a +/- sense. My impression of FWP is based on observing and comparing what I see in all those other states. But, it is merely one man's observation and opinion.

I do wish you a good hunting season.

Here is the unedited remainder of that post.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
To answer your question #1:

In some states, not much differs, except that we have been doing it for a longer period than other states, and as a result, we have larger numbers of older class rams. Most states have seen the MT model and are copying that model. They are producing great sheep in other states by following the MT example. Watch what will happen in NV & NM in the next decade. The % of the NV & NM sheep that make the book will probably be higher than MT.

In some states, such as WY, things differ a lot. WY shoots a lot more sheep than we do, which is great. They provide more opportunity, at the expense of high-end quality. WY has great habitat, genetics, and good numbers as does MT, but their policy is to provide more opportunity, rather than extreme quality. As such, they have fewer record book rams, but more hunters get the chance to take one.

Not that one management plan is better than another, but they yield different results. If you are criticizing FWP for not knowing what the hell they are doing and in the next breath, stating what great sheep we have, you cannot ignore the difference in MT & WY and the fact that it is the result of different managment philosophies.

So to answer your question - different philosphies have different results, even if the genetics and habitat are equally good.

Do you imply that genetics and habitat without proper management will result in great sheep?

I agree that we have great genetics and habitat. If we had only great genetics and habitat without good mangement, we would not be writing the record book on sheep. If you think that can be done without proper management, then I guess we can differ.

Not sure why you refuse to give credit to FWP when it is due.

Answer #2:

Why don't elk and whitetail management count? Is it because those are doing very well in terms of mixing quality with quantity?

I am sure you will not give FWP credit for their good job of balancing opportunity with quality for these species, in spite of the headache of private land management that they cannot control.

Most biologists would agree that mule deer and elk are equally difficult to manage, especially with a high % of private land.

Do you agree that mountain goats are hard to manage? Probably not, since we have some of the best quality and quantity in the lower 48 and that would damage your backwards assumptions.

Seems like the only species you can find that is not managed to a point of envy by most of our neighbors is mule deer. From that, you seem to conclude that FWP is all at fault.

As for mule deer, we have good management when you consider blending opportunity with landowner tolerance. Mule deer are migratory, and like elk, spend a lot of time on private land. Since MT is 70% private, FWP is not allowed by the legislature to manage without consideration of landowner tolerance.

Would I love to see more trophy deer units like 270, 312, 441, 652, etc.? Yup!

Would I like to see mule deer hunting moved out of the rut to allow bucks to grow older? Yup!

Would that come at the expense of opportunity and result in insufficient harvest in the eyes of landowners? Yup!

Am I in the majority of hunters wishing MT FWP would be allowed to manage for greater mule deer quality? Nope. It has been proposed and shot down many times when masses of hunters show up to protest what would be a reduction of opportunity for the sake of quality.

I am sure I haven't answered your questions to your satisfaction.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

"Hunt when you can - You're gonna' run out of health before you run out of money!"
 
Bigfin,

I will agree that the FWP does a few things right

I will agree that the goats are one of them

I won't agree that elk are being mixed well with quality vs. quantity. I think that our elk hunting could be a whole lot better if people weren't allowed to pursue them for 10 weeks

I am not criticizing the FWP for being dumb; I know that they aren't, but I think that they could use a little backbone every once in a while when it comes to management.

I think the problem is that they allow too much public input on issues that the public is generally uneducated about. In other words, they are letting the public (which includes the agricultural spectrum) run the show when they are the BIOLOGISTS and are trained (with several years of higher ed) to be the ones (not totally) in charge.

We have come to the conclusion on this forum that the FWP is managing for quantity, not quality, just like BuzzH pointed out.

This only strengthens my case further in the sheep argument because under a "quantity over quality" management style, numerous trophy rams would not be taken. Our sheep management style is an anomoly. I'm not saying that our management is BAD, but from a mule deer hunter's perspective, we are the Colorado of sheep hunting, if that makes sense, and even when Colorado was over hunted for muleys, it still kicked out plenty of book heads, proving that bad management can still get good results, just not as good as it could be.

I guess to settle our differences we first need to agree on the definition of good management. Based on my defintion of trophy quality, I don't think the FWP does a good job. Based on your definition of equality for everyone, you believe they do.

Maybe we could partially agree on a few things.

You could agree that the trophy quality of our critters could be better

And I could agree that to do so would cause problems in other areas that may be greater than trophy quality in the big picture of things

How's that?

And I wish you a good season as well
---------------------------------------
This is my post

I've just pissed in my pants.......and nobody can do anything about it.
 
WOW - not the response I was hoping for. I was hoping this might lead to some positive discussion on how to improve the process in Montana.

Let me start by clarifying that I think MT F&G does a tremendous job in the balancing act presented. They have made some positive changes and it is finally starting to produce! Keep at it, everyone on this site cares about our herds.

The rough numbers:

174 of these transplants were ewes with 50% impregnated.
Unborn lambs would then equal 87 Bighorns.
Half of those should be males which makes 43 rams.
195 transplanted minus 174 ewes equals 21 rams.

That makes 64 Bighorn rams that just left MT's economy.

The gov tag auctions for $100,000 every year and at 64 rams that COULD equate to 6.4 MILLION dollars.

Now consider how much the 174 ewes are worth - how many offspring will they produce? Half of those will be rams.

You could easily pin another 5 MILLION dollars on the ewes.

I had a dream..... if we would have used that 11.4 MILLION dollars to develope a list of sheep producers who would sell out at market value today, sign their land into a conservation easement then we could use that 11.4 million to subsidize them out of the domestic sheep market.

I grew up with alot of these guys - the majority of them would love to change directions with the wool market getting soft and the FACT that domestic sheep will eat you out of house and home if you are not careful - sheep take the vegetation down to the root and recovery time is staggering. Most of them have already switched to cattle for that very reason.

Land owners that sign on would receive a lump sum placed in a long term, growth, mutual fund that produces a dividen large enough to cover their property taxes forever. Once the Bighorn transplants have become established the land owner could then transition into a guide service and collect the income.

The recent explosion in predator control means these sheep can live just about anywhere that WE WILL LET THEM. A great example is the elkhorns transplanted herd. These Bighorn have chosen a mole hill to live on and are thriving. That tells me ANY area in MT could sustain Bighorn populations. We have MILES and MILES of country that they would excell in if we just allowed it.

The ENTIRE STATE had Bighorn Sheep in my dream. Montana has the habitat to sustain 20,000 Bighorn sheep. We would be giving out 500 RAM TAGS A YEAR. How much money is that worth?

YES...YES...I know my numbers are VERY optimistic and it would take an act of Christ but is it possible - YOU BET!

Sorry this thread turned into a rant session.

Good luck to you all!!!!
 
bittersweetmeat

<<And who was is that stated there werent 200 sheep in any Mt district?>>

I don't know - I'm positive that I DID NOT.

Kind of funny that you are so smart yet illiterate. RE-read my post.

Or do you not understand the definition of HERD versus DISTRICT.

EINSTEIN
 
BigFin-Do you actually believe that crap from the MFWP, how about we start with the some transplant areas, so here we go, West Face of the Bridgers, there has never been domestic sheep herds there, Tabacco Roots, Hildegards, Snowcrest, Tongue River Breaks, Big Belts, and thats not even mentioning the areas like the unlimiteds and Elkhorns that could use a little genetic bump. Nope Im not buying any of their crap, this is about politics and not biology simple as that.
hunterrunningfrombearlgclr5ju.gif
 
"Montana does not have ONE single herd that numbers over 200 sheep.".....

DIY...Calm down there kiddo. Those were your exact words. You only added to them (The "running together" part) in attempt to cover your pre post lack of research on Montanas sheep herds.

Let me say, I too, would love to see sheep in some other areas in Mt, there's just a whole lot more to the story and getting fist fightin angry tough guy isnt gonna get you anywhere. Ther'es always a bigger Dog out there.

Like Grampa always said...."When you start saying you're the man, you're not the man anymore"

bittersweetmuleymeat
 
Sheepeater,
Thats exactly how I see it as well. It sure peaks my curiosity when they try to keep something like this on the down low.
ismith

"Never argue with an idiot; they'll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience." ~ anonymous
 
Sheepeater:

As one of many guys who has donated a lot of time and some money trying to get sheep re-introduced in the Bridgers, I am making my determinations based on personal involvement in these issues. You make it sound like I am some young punk being led astray by FWP.

FYI, contrary to what you say, there is an existing sheep allotment in the Bridgers. The holder of that allotment has been offered to be bought out on many occassions, and has refused. If you can convince that person to sell their allotment, lets get it going so we can get the sheep in there.

I am not one who thinks we should close the allotment or tell private landowners what they can or cannot do with their land or allotments. We should offer to buy out their allotments and sheep operations. If they are not willing to sell, we are pretty much screwed.

Having been involved, and having a lot of friends who were involved, I do believe that "crap," as you put it.

The Tabacco Roots do have domestic sheep activity on surrouding private lands. Since sheep have demonstated a migratory tendency, that has made introductions there to be off limits under the "no domestic sheep" policy of FWP. Whether we agree with the no domestic sheep policy, or not, until someone can get rid of the sheep operations, there will be no introduction to the Tabacco Roots.

The Hillgards had sheep, and they died off in the late 1990's. FWP cannot determine where the contracted source of the disease came from, and until such, are reluctant to reintroduce. Makes sense to me, but maybe not to others.

The Snowcrests will hopefully benefit from migration of the reintroduced bighorns in the Greenhorns in 2002. There is a domestic sheep allotment and a domestic sheep operation that is currently onging there. For that transplant to go through, FWP had to agree to issue the sheep operator a kill permit for any bighorn that mingled with his sheep. I don't like the kill permit idea, but he refused to sell, and if that is what it took to put sheep on those mountains, I think it was a good decision.

The Big Belts do have sheep allotments and domestic sheep activity in the surrounding private lands. Again, sheep migrating will possibly come in touch with these domestic sheep and if past history is any indicator, the chance for disease transmission is high.

If you see no domenstic sheep in the Tongue River breaks, then you have travled to a differnt part of the Tongue River country than I have. I have seen many domestic sheep in many places along the Tongue.

Give me some more areas, and with a little research and a few phone calls, and I could probably tell you in short order, where the nearest domestic sheep operation is that would affect FWP's ability to reintroduce. They could reintroduce to these areas, but it would be in violation of policies they must abide by.

Like you, I wish we could operate under a different policy. You seem to imply that FWP just makes this "crap" up and that they don't want any more sheep. BS.

FWP operates under direction of the legislture. Twenty-some years ago, when the legislature stipped our commission of most of its powers and took those powers upon themselves, along with making the Director a Governor's appointment (rather than a commission appointment), the legislature really became the micro managers of FWP and FWP policy.

If this is as you say, "political", take your frustations out on the people who set the political policy that affects the ability of FWP to improve our wildlife populations - the legislature. If you can get a bill introduced putting power back to the FWP commssion, myself and a lot of my hunting buddies will be standing behind you to help.

So, I suspect that we will disagree about the FWP "crap" that I am a sucker for, but years of research, listening to lots of people, and volunteering my time has made me think that what you call "crap" is most often biological fact.

I am convinced that the best sheep biologists in the country work for FWP - period. I am happy to disagree with you on that.


MT DIY:

As a side note, I believe MT Miller is a trained biologist (not with FWP) who volunteers his time on a lot of sheep projects. He would know more about this topic than most any of us posting to this thread.


Happy Hunting to all of you. Don't be pissed if I draw a sheep tag this year and you don't, and I promise to not be pissed if you draw and I don't.

"Hunt when you can - You're gonna' run out of health before you run out of money!"
 
Anyway, thanks for the sheep you guys. Probably dosen't mean much but some of us are very grateful and happy to get'em.
A thankful Utan.
 
Thanks for deleting my reply - No picture?

Thanks "pops" - I will calm down - and thanks for teaching us "kiddos" not to have an opion. You have taken a general statement and nit picked it apart. I'm an idiot because my lack of research??? - "I'm the man" ?????????

?????????

BigFin - you seem to have some insight into the landowner relationship. Would it be possible to consider not trying to buy the landowners out but instead transition from domestic to wild.

These lands have been in the families for generations and I don't think anyone wants to sell out. That is a deal breaker from the start.

Wouldn't an easement that covers the property taxes while allowing the Biologist and Landowner to work out herd management have any merit? Put the money into the landowners hands while retaining the ownership seems like a win-win.

The price of domestic sheep vs the price of trophy bighorns seems like everyone could win in this.

I understand that LOTS of variables are involved but I think we have other options that may get the ball rolling for everyone in MT.

You articulate your message well, you should start working on the honorable Senator Baucus - if we could convince him that this is a win-win the gate would swing our direction.

To any other "kiddos" that might have some ideas on improving this situation please type the word bowsite in and share your thoughts. Opions are even encouraged over there!!!
 
BigFin-You are so brainwashed it is not even funny. I have lived at the bottom of the bridgers for almost 20 years, I know almost every inch of the range, there hasnt been sheep grazed where Bighorns would thrive since I have lived here, just because you guys started a petition to get sheep back into the Bridgers doesnt make you highly involved. And yes there are sheep on private ranchlands below some of the other ranges I mentioned but so are there in alot of other areas where bighorns are thriving now, they would do fine, and believe me I was born and raised in the TR breaks if you can name one major sheep producer in the areas, around TR resevoir and below to to the res, I am listening. Oh there are so many if, and or whats with the MFWP it is not even funny. Not to mention the politics behind the livestock producers. Recreation has take over as king in Montana and its time this state starts to realize it. You failed to mention replenshing herds in the unlimited units, and some of the other areas, whats up with that. Politics buddy pure politics. Here is another thought why not issue ewe tags to youth hunters and let them continue to build preference points for the future, I know at least a half dozen young hunters and there families that would love to get a crack at hunting a ewe. I see absolutely not logic in giving away those sheep, at the very, very least they should have been sold to fund other projects here in Montana.
hunterrunningfrombearlgclr5ju.gif
 
BigFin-By the way I am very aware of your involvement in the local sportsmen's ring, so no need to quote that. I am looking for a solid answer from the MFWP, and why other options are not available other than charity. You might be better versed on this one than I, but what the heck has Wyoming given Montana, other than delayed wolf delisting, brucellosis problems, low water flows into the Bighorn, and a boat load of saline into the Tongue River. Once again I am listening.
hunterrunningfrombearlgclr5ju.gif
 
MT DIY:

I repesent a lot of landowners in my daily work, so a lot of times I am giving them advice that may be contrary to my habitat interests as a hunter. They are great people who, like you say, are just trying to make a living.

Most attempts I have been familiar with were an attempt to purchase the allotment and retire it, hoping it would give the landowner the cash to start with something other than sheep. Most often, that is just not enough money to get the started with anything else. Unfortunate, but true.

I am with you on the purchased easement idea. In fact, that has been tried, but there are strings attached with FWP purchasing the easement.

There is a big pool of money sitting the "Habitat Montana" fund. Almost $9,000,000 I beleive. That money is to be used for purchase of easements. It was earmarked for purchase of land until the 1997(?) or 1995 legislature made it so FWP can no longer purchase lands, but must instead purchase easements.

The hangup with that money is that the easement purchased must allow public hunting and eliminate outfitting. As much as I like that concept, it is just a killer with a lot of landowners. I understand their point of view.

I think some more investigation of using those funds, or other funds to buy out some of these operations is warranted. I will talk to guys I know who are big in the MT FNAWS to see what is being done to attack the issue from that angle.

Donated easements are great, but usually, these sheep guys are cash poor and land rich. Tax deductions do them no good, as they don't have much income to offset with the deduction. I don't see that as practical for most operators in MT, so I would favor a purcashed easement.

The other problem is that very few organizations are qualified to recieve or hold a conservation easement, so FWP becomes the natural choice. With the restrictions noted above, that has a lot of strings. The other qualified easement holders don't want to hold an easement that has a lot of restrictions related to hunting, public access, prohibition on outfitting, etc. That makes this easement problem harder to solve, but not impossible.

I think now that Baucus is the chair of the Congressional Sportsmans Caucus, and the fact that he will be running for re-election in 2008 with a national anti-gun presidential candidate, he will bend over backwards to impress hunters that he is our man. Whether or not he is, I don't care, so long as he will put some effort behind hunter projects.

If I find out anything more on this easement idea or option, I will PM you.

Happy Hunting!

"Hunt when you can - You're gonna' run out of health before you run out of money!"
 
Sheepeater:

From a "brainwashed" guy who would love to see bighorn sheep in the Bridgers as much as anyone, I guess the only thing I can do is to get you the name of the person currently holding the allotment that cancelled that transplant. I cannot recall for sure if it is a holder of a sheep or cattle allotment, but I recall it being a sheep allotment.

The transplant was ready to go (twice), but cancelled at the last minute due to landowner concerns. A final attempt was made to get FWP to try to do it again, and that was shot down for the same reasons. Because of that, nothing has been done on that project for over 8 years, so maybe you could pick it up and carry the ball across the goal line.

As I understand it, whether it is active sheep activity, or just an allotment that could be used in the future, it will kill the deal under the FWP policy. FWP also states they are required to get approval of all affected landowners in an area of new transplants.

I don't agree with that policy, as it gives a small landowner the ability to kill the deal. But, that is how it is.

I doubt I can answer all your question to a level that will satisfy you. That is fine.

The statements I made to your post were as told to me by Region 3, 4, and 6 biologists when I first heard about these transplants going out of state. Like you, I had the same concerns and thought their may be other options, so I decided to call and ask questions. Most of my questions were the same as some of the possible solutions you mentioned.

I still think there may be other options, but for the time being, I am comfortable with info that was used to "brainwash"
me.

As soon as I get the name of the current allotment holder or land owner that killed the relocation, I will PM you with that information.

Happy Hunting.

"Hunt when you can - You're gonna' run out of health before you run out of money!"
 
LAST EDITED ON Feb-23-07 AT 06:58PM (MST)[p]Im with you on that whole issue, but we are still not dealing with biology, and are purely staring in the face of politics, who cares if he has the allotment, put the sheep in there anyway. Why does one man control what would benefit so many, that is what torques me off especially on public land. That is where MFWP is being let around by the nose by the livestock producers, that is where the MFWP needs to wake up and realize that it is recreation that is now the top dog, and not Harold the 5th generaton sheep herder. Wake up MFWP it is not what it used to be. And just to clarify, I was born into a 5th generation ranching family, and have a double major of Fish and Wildlife and Range Science, so being snowballed by biologist's doesnt hold a single ounce of water with this kid.
hunterrunningfrombearlgclr5ju.gif
 
LAST EDITED ON Feb-23-07 AT 09:39PM (MST)[p]LAST EDITED ON Feb-23-07 AT 08:49?PM (MST)

Sheepeater:

I am fine with all that. Probably agree with a lot of what you would say about the biology of this.

I just have a hard time blaming FWP guys for everything, when I see them as guys doing the best they can, even though they know they are pawns in a bigger politcal game between interests with more political clout and better organized than the hunting community. You couldn't give me their job, no matter what the pay.

We have both seen many instances where non-wildlife interests use FWP as a mechanism to control policies that are detrimental to us. Our sheep discussion here is a perfect example. I just wish I knew how to change those politcal forces.

I am all in favor of making recreation the top priority as you suggest. Just don't know how to get it done.

When the legislature lets the livestock interests load the FWP committees and steers the most important wildlife-related bills from the FWP committee to the ag committees, I guess we can expect to see the results we have. I don't see it as FWP letting themselves be led around by other interest groups, as much as it is the legislature forcing FWP to operate under policies laid out by those interest groups.

Given the amount of time that folks in this valley have spent trying to change the politics that drive FWP, and the small resulting change to the political landscape, I am at a loss for what can be done to change it much more.

Guess I have kind of thrown my hands up in the air about trying to change the politics and decided to try make changes within those political realities, as much as I dislike those political realities.

Happy Hunting!

I will post a copy of my sheep tag after the drawing is completed in June. Dillusional, I know.

"Hunt when you can - You're gonna' run out of health before you run out of money!"
 
Bigfin hit the nail on the head when he said that the legislature has appointed the livestock industry to "load" up on the boards and committees. Fwp is only the little brother that's getting pushed around by legislative bullcrap. My father is a biologist here in Montana and so I know first hand all the hidden agendas from outside groups. ie...livestock, mining, ect...they have more pull than anyone and when you get them on these committees it's a joke.

By the way there were sheep on the Bridgers between North Cottonwood and Bill Smith cr. in the mid to late 80's. I saw them with my own eyes. I can't say if this is the allotment you all are talking about but they were there. I don't believe there are any more on the mountain but, if there is an active allotment still out there it's thing that's killing the sheep reintroduction.

By the way what's up with all the name calling. You can be passionate and even angry with an opinion but calling names is a bit like 3rd grade isn't it?
 
Bigfin,

Could you tell us more about how the Habitat money cannot be used for purchasing land? What were the forces and theories behind a law like that? And does it mean that there will be no more WMAs purchased in MT?

---------------------------------------
This is my post

I've just pissed in my pants.......and nobody can do anything about it.
 

Click-a-Pic ... Details & Bigger Photos

Member Gallery Photos and Videos!

Some 2023 Fuzzy Stuff
CCFAF245-62A9-49D2-BC46-A0D069C6D65E.jpeg
05CDC585-E66B-451A-912A-BBD762C10EEE.jpeg
Fantastic Bull Elk Score
CB9C279F-DBC8-4AAF-B42B-F65B8A9EA82A.jpeg
69D7D6C6-B964-411B-BECC-F5AFA3F6A0FA.png
777A07B5-1C6C-486D-8635-D6FCC24B9228.jpeg
078F0CD7-A55A-4057-B600-05F49766680E.jpeg
Sweet Wyoming Muley
20221030_084016.jpg
Huge Bull!
7AFCB60C-8331-4FA6-98F4-0819D1AC26BA.jpeg

Montana Hunting Guides & Outfitters

Bearpaw Outfitters

Mule deer, whitetail, antelope, buffalo, and prairie dogs on private ranch leases totaling about 100,000 acres.

Urge 2 Hunt

We focus on trophy elk, mule deer, whitetail and antelope and manage our ranches for top quality.

Vargo Hunting

Top quality bear, antelope and free range bison hunts on the Crow Indian Res. Turkey and cougar as well.

Back
Top Bottom