YNP Wolf Expert

They are quit easy to put in a trap. Trust me! You just need the state control. I don't think the haters will give up though, and so neither will the lovers. Looks like Defenders poster child for revenue will continue.



I wanted to take a scalp,but the kill was not mine.
 
There are two different sets of issues regarding wolves. WY, MT, and ID are pretty well set, well MT & ID anyway, with WY not far behind.

Here in AZ & NM, it is a whole other ball game. Our habitat is very different than the big conifer forests up north with vasts tracts of contiguous habitat. Our environment consists of small sky islands that get their water from the summer monsoons. Elk can't move from one area to another, neither can the wolves. Up north, when the game population gets decimated by wolves, they can move on to greener pastures. One Canadian gray wolf collared in YNP made its way all the way to CA. Won't happen here. Those same sky islands are the water and feed source for ranchers that have been here since the 1860's. Our elk get big, not because there are so many and they can escape to remote wilderness areas, but because we have mild winters and long growing seasons. We have only about 35,000 elk in the entire state of AZ. That compares to 107,000 in ID, 120,000 in WY and 150,000 in MT. With the current wolf population objective, the wolves are expected to eat 12,000 elk each year along with some mule deer, Coues deer, domestic sheep and cattle. Keeping the wolves in the Wolf Recovery Area will allow the elk to survive, even if the population is greatly reduced. The wolf hippies plan to have wolves released throughout the state and into UT and CO. That is the death knell for big game hunting in AZ. We still have a chance to save our hunting heritage down here, but it won't happen if people with experience in MT and ID try to use the same management strategy down here. Its like trying to use a chainsaw from a northern logging camp to trim a bonsai garden down here. The attitude is "Well, it works just fine back home, it'll work for you too". I think one of the ranchers giving his testimony in the Dec 13 meeting said it best. If people back east want to have wolves out west, buy a big ranch, surround it with a high fence and put wolves in it. Then they can camp and hike in there all they want.
 
Now that I think about, that's just what they intend to do, except they're not going to buy a ranch, they're just going to take it. The ranch they want to take is called Arizona.
 
Most of your arguments are good sagebrush, the part about telling people to buy a ranch won't fly though, that's not how
it works.
Likely economic losses should be pointed out, especially lost revenue from less hunters going afield.
I don't know where the Indian tribes stand on the issue?, but their input could be helpful.
 
4100,

Pretty amazing statement there... So deep down you would like to rid the landscape of Outfitters. Wishing you could shoot them because you don't like competition. So you only want hunters who compete with you not to be able to hunt. WOW!

Never in a million years would I ever guessed I would read multiple statements from hunters saying they would rather have wolves then other hunters. WE ARE IN REAL TROUBLE.

SO YOU DON'T THINK ELK LIVING THROUGH A WESTERN WINTER IS ENOUGH OF A GAME OF "SURVIVAL OF THE FITESS"....

4100 YOU STARTED A CONSERVATION GROUP?????????????????
 
Piper,

The White Mountain Apache or Fort Apache Indian Reservation (FAIR) are fully cooperating with the Feds. and have since the very start. They have a big share of the wolves in AZ or had, and now the wolves have pushed many of their elk down onto the San Carlos Apache Reservation where they have not caved into the Gov. bribes to get them to sign on as cooperators. Our organizations have met with the San Carlos. They never had wolves as part of their culture they told us. They are kind of happy now, as they have made the Gov. take the wolves straying into their reservation out, plus the fact that many elk have moved down on them from the FAIR. The San Carlos now get $40,000 for their trophy elk hunts and the white eyes that can't afford that, can hunt some of their less elk populated areas for $3500. The White Mountain Apache still get $18,000 for their trophy hunts.

Yes 4100, states rights are where it is at but AZ and NM aren't there yet.

Trapping here in NM in the BRWRA trapping was completely stopped under our past Governor then we got it reinstated but with stipulations. For instance our government trapper has in the last year taken 12 mountain lions, 10 males, 2 females, out of our big horn sheep herd here on the San Francisco River Canyon, that is struggling due to several factors such as pneumonia down to 40 head from a high of 250-300. The trapper has to have a stop or keeper on his snares that will only let the loop close so far to let the wolf's leg slip loose.

In another instance of the Feds. interfering with the wolf program, The NMGFD in cooperation with the RMEF and others collared a significant amount of calf elk and were doing a study to confirm what calf elk death losses were due to. It turned out in their study they found that black bear were getting the most with lion and coyote due to part of the death loses with very little wolf predation. Do you want to know why? The USFWS had a pack of wolves that were denning very near the study site and they were feeding the wolves meat log rolls for Christ's sake! You think the crap hit the fan? You bet and big time. After all of the big money spent on this vitally needed research study by the NMGFD (hunter money) and the big donation of the RMEF, the Feds. sabatoged it. This my friends up north, is just a blip in the total picture of what we the citizens of NM and AZ are putting up with.
 
Buzz,

What is worse? Someone taking matters into their own hands and getting rid of a pack of wolves acting as a patriot. Or your buddy 4100fps saying in post #197 "he would like to rid the landscape of outfitters" Or a least he could shoot "competing wolves", wishing he could shoot "competing Outfitters".

And you label me as an extremist.... I guess you have a double standard.
 
It's obvious you can't read the written word. Now go back to that post and re-read it. Did I really say I wished to shoot outfitters.

Do I need to write with crayons for you?



I wanted to take a scalp,but the kill was not mine.
 
I always get a kick out of the people who come on here and say "Sure wolves have an impact on elk, but so does over grazing, outfitters, poaching, bears, cougars, coyotes, road kill, etc, etc."

If we were to resolve every one of those issues and the elk herds increased, the case would then be made that the elk herds could now support more wolves.
 
Stoney said,

Trapping here in NM in the BRWRA trapping was completely stopped under our past Governor then we got it reinstated but with stipulations. For instance our government trapper has in the last year taken 12 mountain lions, 10 males, 2 females, out of our big horn sheep herd here on the San Francisco River Canyon, that is struggling due to several factors such as pneumonia down to 40 head from a high of 250-300. The trapper has to have a stop or keeper on his snares that will only let the loop close so far to let the wolf's leg slip loose.

The reason why those sheep get pneumonia is because of domestic sheep. You'd be better off snaring woolies than lions...and around the neck for the win.

In another instance of the Feds. interfering with the wolf program, The NMGFD in cooperation with the RMEF and others collared a significant amount of calf elk and were doing a study to confirm what calf elk death losses were due to. It turned out in their study they found that black bear were getting the most with lion and coyote due to part of the death loses with very little wolf predation. Do you want to know why? The USFWS had a pack of wolves that were denning very near the study site and they were feeding the wolves meat log rolls for Christ's sake! You think the crap hit the fan? You bet and big time. After all of the big money spent on this vitally needed research study by the NMGFD (hunter money) and the big donation of the RMEF, the Feds. sabatoged it. This my friends up north, is just a blip in the total picture of what we the citizens of NM and AZ are putting up with.

WOW!!!!

I'm sure you have some proof of this?

I have a question, were the "feds" dropping those "meat log rolls" from a black helicopter? If so, was it determined if they were wearing jack boots?

Let me guess, your proof will come from the "tinfoil hat times" straight from the bunker room printing press...

You wonder why you're not taken seriously???

WOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
By far the biggest limit on elk is domestic cattle.
Hunters can't seem to kill enough elk in Nevada, NDOW is trying to come up with ways to kill more, giving everyone with a deer tag a free elk tag?, giving a free cow elk tag with bull tags?.
Do you have have any ideas Eel? NDOW wants to know, you can contact their website.
Wolves are not an option though, just in case that's what your thinking.
 
4100,

You could write in what ever you want. It is clear to see you would rather have wolves killing elk than Outfitters or hunters you do not approve of. A true sign just how selfish and elitist you are. Now I see the connection why you and Buzz are chums... I bet your fine with outfitters and unapproved hunters giving up their guns too!!!
 
>Stoney said,
>
>Trapping here in NM in the
>BRWRA trapping was completely stopped
>under our past Governor then
>we got it reinstated but
>with stipulations. For instance our
>government trapper has in the
>last year taken 12 mountain
>lions, 10 males, 2 females,
>out of our big horn
>sheep herd here on the
>San Francisco River Canyon, that
>is struggling due to several
>factors such as pneumonia down
>to 40 head from a
>high of 250-300. The trapper
>has to have a stop
>or keeper on his snares
>that will only let the
>loop close so far to
>let the wolf's leg slip
>loose.
>
>The reason why those sheep get
>pneumonia is because of domestic
>sheep. You'd be better off
>snaring woolies than lions...and around
>the neck for the win.
>
>
>In another instance of the Feds.
>interfering with the wolf program,
>The NMGFD in cooperation with
>the RMEF and others collared
>a significant amount of calf
>elk and were doing a
>study to confirm what calf
>elk death losses were due
>to. It turned out in
>their study they found that
>black bear were getting the
>most with lion and coyote
>due to part of the
>death loses with very little
>wolf predation. Do you want
>to know why? The USFWS
>had a pack of wolves
>that were denning very near
>the study site and they
>were feeding the wolves meat
>log rolls for Christ's sake!
>You think the crap hit
>the fan? You bet and
>big time. After all of
>the big money spent on
>this vitally needed research study
>by the NMGFD (hunter money)
>and the big donation of
>the RMEF, the Feds. sabatoged
>it. This my friends up
>north, is just a blip
>in the total picture of
>what we the citizens of
>NM and AZ are putting
>up with.
>
>WOW!!!!
>
>I'm sure you have some proof
>of this?
>
>I have a question, were the
>"feds" dropping those "meat log
>rolls" from a black helicopter?
>If so, was it determined
>if they were wearing jack
>boots?
>
>Let me guess, your proof will
>come from the "tinfoil hat
>times" straight from the bunker
>room printing press...
>
>You wonder why you're not taken
>seriously???
>
>WOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
>
>
Buzz,

We have few to no domestic sheep here and one domestic ewe went down river to Clifton, AZ and came back up river and they think she brought it back, but there are more big horn sheep in the huge Morenci Copper Mine there, than there are up river, so go figure. Why do you think the big hors stay in the mine site with all of the tremendous noise and huge equipment running 24/7? Lions have been proven over and over again to be the biggest threat to our sheep over all. Our NM lion biologist has proven this beyond a reasonable doubt. God what rock did you crawl out from under?

For starters try calling our NMGFD elk biologist Stewart Liley, whom did elk/wolf studies in Montana before coming here in 2007.

Second call someone at RMEF and see how much money they put into that particular study.

After discovering the hanky panky things got awful quiet with the Gov people. I have a personal friend whom was working for the USFWS and for both monitoring the wolves there at Cooney Prarrie, Gila National Forest NM near Beaverhead, NM

I will get some hard evidence for you and I have calls into both organizations to get it from the horses mouth, and then I will find what was left of the study after the USFWS started making excuses and back peddling. Government employees at their finest. You must have taken lesson from them Buzz.

The "tin foil hat reporters from the bunker room printing press" only print the truth and what is rally happening here, contrary to the dumbed down government/radical NGO liberal BS that you must prescribe to, and the USFS shoves down your throat every day or do they stick it up the other end and you stand there and take it and like it at the same time?

I have never in all my many years of meeting with pro-wolfers found anyone to be as arrogant, all knowing, all seeing, full of bull crap and knuckleheaded as you Buzz.

Black helicopter, jack boots yeah right. Try getting real for one moment.

Just to get you started on our bunkers printing press I am linking you to two sites. www.westerner.blogspot.com is put out by our former NM Secretary of Agriculture, and the www.wolfcrossing.org is a local tin foil hat wearer of the first order, naught! Read and weep brother, and you are definitely not my brother!

And you really think that more than one or two bloggers here on this site think you are credible? Get serious bonehead. You being a Forest Service employee should know that already.

Go back to work at your do nothing job as I think you are on my dime and I and many of my friends want to see nothing but a88holes and elbows out of you.
 
LAST EDITED ON Feb-06-14 AT 02:12PM (MST)[p]>By far the biggest limit on
>elk is domestic cattle.
>

Piper,
I agree with you. This is the larger issue in most areas. I don't like the mandates imposed on our game management professionals by the cow-lover folks.

I also don't like the management imposed on us by the pro-wolf folks regardless of what high position they hold or professional, paid-in-full, study to which they clinge!

It changes nothing simply because the lowly wolf isn't the biggest elk/moose management issue. Wolves are still NOT good for hunters in most areas!

Do we have elk/moose to hunt? sure but never enough as seen by the clamour for tags.
Do I like all the wolf red-tape? NO

My mind still refuses to wrap around the fact that some huntes embrace wolves.

Zeke
 
Buzz,

I just talked to Stewart Liley the NMGFD Elk Biologist and he confirmed that the Cooney Prairie cal elk mortality study was only one year into the project and when they found out the USFWS were feeding meat logs to a pack of denning wolves near the study site. This scuttled the whole project and it was part of a larger study up in the Valle Vidal Wilderness where there are no wolves. Then we had the big 300,000 acre Whitewater Baldy fire in 2012 that impacted the Cooney Prairie project so they haven't re-collared calf elk since.
Because of the big embarrassment there has not been much written or publicized on this boondoggle.

This big mistake cost the NMGFD and sportsmen of NM and the RMEF and all of their elk hunters much needed data to study the calf elk/mortality due to predators, and in particular this area which included wolves.

Piper,

My God man, you control elk populations by hunting the cow elk portion of the population and that can be done effectively by hunting alone. Don't you have any meat hunters in Nevada? I know most trophy bull elk hunters will give their left nut to hunt Nevada. Unbelievable that you can't get enough hunters to control the elk in NV. New Mexico has way more cow hunters than needed here.

You said and I quote, "By far the biggest limit on elk is domestic cattle."

Well then according to your thinking its pretty simple, if you have too many elk, get more domestic cattle.

Weird!
 
Stoney said,

I just talked to Stewart Liley the NMGFD Elk Biologist and he confirmed that the Cooney Prairie cal elk mortality study was only one year into the project and when they found out the USFWS were feeding meat logs to a pack of denning wolves near the study site. This scuttled the whole project and it was part of a larger study up in the Valle Vidal Wilderness where there are no wolves. Then we had the big 300,000 acre Whitewater Baldy fire in 2012 that impacted the Cooney Prairie project so they haven't re-collared calf elk since.


Because of the big embarrassment there has not been much written or publicized on this boondoggle.

Thats a steaming pile of "meat logs"...if ever there was one!

The anti-wolf crowd would have had that kind of thing splattered on every website, front page, on every news report they could find. Proof of that would not be kept quiet...and anyone with 2 firing brain cells knows it.

Serious question...you do realize how dumb your conspiracy sounds dont you?

Holy chit, even Toby Bridges isnt that far off his rocker...and thats saying something!!!

You've taken your imagination to places its never been...you're on a roll (pun intended)!

WOW!!!
 
stoney,
I was involved in setting up the elk management plans in NE Nevada some years ago.
We couldn't get more than a couple of sportsmen to show up at the planning meetings and we lost the ability to have thousands more huntable elk because of it.
I tried, but when there is only two of you its pretty tough going.
We(mostly me) somehow got the 072 elk herd set at 1000 head instead of 500, but the rest was a pretty good loss for sportsmen.
I somehow bluffed that one and made the ranchers think there was strong support from sportsmen for more elk, but after that and when they realized hunters just weren't going to show up, it all went down hill.

You don't seem to make sense sometimes?
In Nevada elk want to thrive, but they have to keep elk numbers so low that hunters can't seem to kill enough cow elk, look up NDOWs website, I believe its still on there.
 
Buzz,

Here is Stewart Liley's phone number and he will be more than glad to talk to you I would imagine: 505-532-2100

Now you can get it from the main man whom is in charge of this study.

Me thinks you are the only steaming pile around here!

Pick up that phone and talk to a real man. He is a native Montana boy I think. In almost 7 years that he has been our elk biologist we have seen a marked improvement in NM elk management. In fact he told me they were proposing very few changes for the next four year cycle of seasons.
 
Sorry to get off topic for a second but I had to comment real quick on the cattle being the worst thing for elk or game in general. It all depends on the owner and workers managing cattle on public land. There are good ones and bad ones like anything in life. There are numerous studies that show the positive and negative issues with cattle grazing and how it impacts our game animals. If someone would like to start another thread I could post more information than most would care to read on this topic.

Human(legal & illegal) harvest and predation are the top two things that cause game mortality. We could also start a habitat thread that is a major issues as well. Habitat conditions can lead to higher or lower mortality rates in game herds. I would be happy to share all that info in another thread as well.
 
Meat logs? Just when you thought you heard the stupidest wolf non-fact ever. How many meat logs will a 250 pound Russian hybrid Canadian wolf eat when it isn't killing for sport? Sad thing is, some guys will believe it. mtmuley
 
Stoney,

I'm going to leave discussing "meat log rolls" with other men to you...

I'm sure you're well versed in "meat logs", if only obviously.
 
Buzz,

That is where the wolves push the meat logs with their noses and they roll. Ha

mtmuley,

These Mexican pen raised wolves did not know how to hunt and the FWS has been supplemental feeding them since the inception of the program with road kill elk, meat roll, dog feed and etc. On the original releases the wolves followed our pack strings hoping they were going to get fed.

Blacktail-slayer,

Sorry for getting off post here with these wolf lover guys but I do admire how you stick to the real facts pretty much and not all of the other BS. Thank you for sticking up to the hardworking cattlemen whom have done so much in making so much water available to wildlife that they other wise would never have, plus they own a big share of the riparian area and habitat that elk vitally need in the spring and summer months.

The reason I started post on this thread was because of the Doug Smith article. Although he may be a dedicated individual it is pretty much a given science that wolves sport kill. Too much evidence other wise.
 
stoney, tell us again how wild sheep don't really get pneumonia from domestic sheep, I guess its another made up story by the sheep lovers and government according to you?

Blacktail isn't sticking up for anything, he doesn't get it, just like you.

Its the elk management plans that require cow elk slaughters, not some fantasy about habitat, its good old boy politics and the power of money.

As far as wolves go, one reason they would be preferable to guides and outfitters is in the long term health of the prey species. Guides and outfitters get paid to intensely focus on and kill the largest antlered most healthy animals in the herds, and they do this consistently, year after year, decade after decade.

Ask any cattle breeder, that's the exact opposite of what should be done to keep preferable genetic traits intact in any species.
I know the story, the trophys have already bred a lot of females before we kill them, and the females carry half the genes, but make no mistake, focusing on trophy antlers like we do, has an effect.


Wolves evolved with elk over thousands of years, and there is no question, they do kill the weakest animals off first, that happens in all predator-prey relationships.
Except when modern hightec man is the predator.

I'm not much of a wolf lover or hater, But I'm also old enough to have lost a lot of youthful selfishness, and it is what it is.
 
B_S said,
>Human(legal & illegal) harvest and predation
>are the top two things
>that cause game mortality.

Good hell Slayer, as it SHOULD be! (at least the legal part)
I thought that game management was for US, not so we could support more wolves!

Who on this site really wants the prey-predator balance thingy? Hunters have zero roll in the "P-P balance" master plan!

I agree with most of your comments but sometimes....

Zeke
 
Wow, I'm amazed by your last comment Zeke...

If all you think wildlife management is about, is to provide an animal for you to put a bullet into, thats pretty sad.

Pretty shallow and selfish...as a best case.

You're also wrong about the predator/prey relationship. Human hunting should be, and is, part of the "master plan".

Stewardship of ALL wildlife and the habitat it lives in, better be the driving force of any model. If not Sportsmen and wildife are both FRANKED...and you can take that FACT to the bank.
 
Buzz,
You know as well as I do that it all depends on who's master plan we're talking about.

You LOVE to twist and turn what people say so let me be more clear for you lest I wear a tin hat.

The master plan by the anti hunter, eco elite, wolf lover crowd is to eliminate hunters from the equation. FACT

The master plan by the thoughtful game managers is to include the hunter as the primary management tool. Not cars, fences, cows, wolves, disease... Hunters. FACT

Yes, there is a balance and I hope WE are always part of it.

I hope that clears things up and gets us back on track.

Zeke

PS: Thanks for reminding me, I have to go to the bank today.
 
LAST EDITED ON Feb-07-14 AT 10:44AM (MST)[p]Zeke,

Who drives the Management bus?

Yeah, thats what I thought.

The "master plan" of those driving the management bus, better damn well take into account cars, fences, wolves, lions, habitat, landowners, land management agencies, regulations, poaching etc. etc. etc.......................etc........and also etc.

Wildlife managers do not have the luxury of only being concerned and managing for wildlife that you can thump a bullet into. They also arent required to manage, nor should they, with a priority list based on same.

To conduct business, for your PRIVILEGE to hunt the excess/healthy wildlife, theres a lot of hoops for them to jump through. Further, if they skip a hoop, they're up a certain creek without a paddle via law and regulation.

To complicate the issue further, the wildife in any State is held in trust for ALL citizens, not just those of us that hunt.
 
Oh Buzz,
I agree 100% with your last post... but I'll clarify further.

A thoughtful professional management plan DOES take ALL those things into consideration but when there are excesses the managers don't say "Hey, let's throw up a couple more fences... or, let's have more hiways, or, Jeesus let's have more wolves so we can kill more elk and hit out objectives. That's what the anit's want!

THEY CALL UPON THE ONE THING WHICH THEY CAN CONTROL THE MOST/EASIEST/MOST EFFECTIVE. HUNTERS. Period and fact.

Call that selfish if you wish but God I hope there are always exesses and I get the call to help. Yes Buzz, I'm a hunter and proud of it! So are you and so are you!!!

Shitte, I think we're talking about the same thing again with just a different spin.

Always a pleasre BS'ing with ya Buzz.

Oh, and I'll concede, my first post did come off as overly selfish.

Zeke
 
I would like to point out "AGAIN" the fact that the livestock Growers Ass. has done more harm to our hunting than the anti's with the wolf, or any number of predators lurking behind brush.

It's not the average Stock man, but his association that's running amok. Do yourselves a favor a pay attention to what they have going on.

Here in Montana the next step is to reduce our elk herds even farther in the most important region in the state. That's region 3.All in the name of Brucellosis control. This is bad for all predators. The anti's along with sportsman should be screaming their heads off. Still all I hear is it's the "WOLF". What a shame.





I wanted to take a scalp,but the kill was not mine.
 
4100 & Buzz,

I might make a recommendation... You might start with sharing the truth with hunters, stockman and outfitters. Help everyone understand the truth. Do it so you "work with" all hunters concerned. Don't get in the bus and drive over just the hunters you don't like. Because if you fellas have not figured it out, if we don't ALL work together ALL of our hunting heritage is at risk. Not just region 3 or the NYEH. Cause if they destroy region 3 for brucellosis they will have their sights on western Wyoming next. Idaho is already in deep trouble!

As smart a Buzz may be on wildlife and conservation issues I think he does far more damage to our future than helps. All Buzz has successfully done on MM is drive a huge wedge between hunters. Some look up to him for his knowledge, while others get a chance to see his arrogance and his "know it all" attitude and simply assume all the USFS, USFWS, BLM, FG and G&F agencies have Buzz's attitude. Which many of them do. Wildlife in the end is the biggest loser....
 
4100,
I agree!
My thoughts were exactly the same, the actual rancher operator and his cow really isn't where all the crap is coming from. It's not the COWS, it's the big Associations who dictate policy because they have money and influence.
This thread was started about wolves so that's all most of us have been talking about.
We ALL know (or should know) that the lil old wolf isn't the only thing that sportsmen and our professional game managers have to worry about.
Thanks for pointing it out again.
Zeke
 
wolfhunter, YOU don't drive a wedge between hunters? Calling me a fag was a bit of a wedge. Not every hunter shares your poacher mentality and believes all the hype. The one fact for me is wolves are where I hunt, and not going away. I choose to learn and adjust and still kill elk. Then guys like you label me a wolf lover among other things. I've said it a hundred times, I wish the wolf wasn't here. But, if you pay attention, it really isn't that simple. mtmuley
 
LAST EDITED ON Feb-07-14 AT 02:38PM (MST)[p]Buzz is fully capable of speaking for himself but here's my take:

He's knowledgeable, arrogant, articulate, educated, involved, condescending, passionate, sharing, sharp, quick to the point and a great asset to MM.

We don't agree on everything and argue on occasion but we want the exact same things. He'd have to really work at it to lose my respect for him. I enjoy a guy who knows a few things and has the passion and willingness to share them with others whether we like his "attitude" or not. Plus, I think he's getting a bit more compassion for us little people too.

Zeke
 
mtmuley,

I think if you go back a read your post, YOU started attacking guys on here first. You mtmuley came across that you had it all figured out, because you read all of buzz's posts and a list of so called experts. You shocked me more than anyone on here for sticking up for wolves. You came across and still do as two sided. I realize the wolf issue is not simple. I have read much of the information out there and find very little unbiased truth written by the experts. I posted simply what I know to be true from personal experience and you and Buzzy jump all over me and say it's mythology. I surely haven't spent the most time, but I have a lot of days, weeks, months and years following wolves and hunting them.

Heck I am just a lowly guy who writes with crayons...NOT the all mighty BUZZ!! Nobody listens to me. Buzz is in a different position. He has access to a bunch more information and knowledge than the average guy. He is a professional or should be acting like one...
 
wolfhunter, never in any way did I say I had it figured out. Not glorifying any one poster either. I also challenge you to prove I "stick up" for wolves. I just don't play the blame game, that's all. mtmuley
 
I don't what to fight with you mtmuley...

Truthfully I just love chasing wolves. I would rather hunt wolves than any other animal. It doesn't matter what they score or how big they are. Every dead wolf is good for wildlife. Our deer and elk take a beating from winter alone they do not need anymore help to die... Did you find any wolves while you were in Irwin?? I have chased those wolves many times. Can not wait until we can trap in southern Idaho!
 
No time in Irwin to hunt. Work gets in the way. Was up near where I killed my last one last week when I was home, but too much snow to get where I wanted. Gonna get a beater snowmobile for next year. We have till March here in Montana. mtmuley
 
Zeke, you said,

"A thoughtful professional management plan DOES take ALL those things into consideration but when there are excesses the managers don't say "Hey, let's throw up a couple more fences... or, let's have more hiways, or, Jeesus let's have more wolves so we can kill more elk and hit out objectives."

I agree, but we arent "having more wolves"...we're killing wolves to the extent that their numbers are declining. We have State control and we can increase wolf quotas, etc. we have that right under the State Plans.

So, when I hear the whining and complaining that the wolves are going to wipe out elk, its a joke. In particular, when its pointed out, over and over and over again that WY, MT, and ID are all offering multiple elk tags per hunter, per year. Wyoming is setting record elk harvest since wolf reintroduction.

Sorry if I find it tough to accept claims that the wolves are taking away our heritage when I have 2-3 elk tags each year in Wyoming.

Further, I'm not going to pretend that we're ever going to kill wolves down to the minimums required to keep them off the list. I know we have room to reduce them some more, but even that wont satisfy the tin foil hats that want to "sss all of 'em".

Finally, even if we all shift our brains into neutral, put the dunce cap on, and get lobotomies to agree with the "wolves are eating all the elk" paranoia...how do we increase elk when we know whe arent going to be legally able to kill off wolves?

Well, IMO, we can address some of the other issues that we have more control over. Since wolves are NOT going to be shot down a lot lower than now, I suggest we look into increasing elk populations in other ways. Its the best move we have.

A good place to start...is at the start. How about we address the pi$$ poor elk management plans that keep elk numbers at levels that are wayyy below carrying capacity? Hell, lets really go crazy and knock it out of the park using SCIENCE to determine herd objectives!!! Theres a new idea!

Why dont we ask the G&F to quit handing out cow permits like popcorn at a circus?

Why dont we invest more money in enforcement to stop poaching?

Why dont we invest in more wildlife friendly hiways/freeways?

Those are things that can be addressed and are in need of fixing if we really are intent on growing elk herds.

As has been stated, over and over again, killing every last predator is not going to increase herds.

I'm not a fan of putting the cart in front of the horse...and thats exactly what the "kill all the woof, SSS crowd" is doing.

They're treating a symptom rather than disease.
 
I think even wolfhunter is starting to realize it isn't just a "kill the wolf" answer. Great post Buzz. mtmuley
 
>As far as wolves go,
>one reason they would be
>preferable to guides and outfitters
>is in the long term
>health of the prey species.
> Guides and outfitters get
>paid to intensely focus
>on and kill the largest
>antlered most healthy animals in
>the herds, and they do
>this consistently, year after year,
>decade after decade.
>
>Ask any cattle breeder, that's the
>exact opposite of what should
>be done to keep preferable
>genetic traits intact in any
>species.
> I know the story,
>the trophys have already bred
>a lot of females before
>we kill them, and the
>females carry half the genes,
>but make no mistake, focusing
>on trophy antlers like we
>do, has an effect.
>
>
>Wolves evolved with elk over thousands
>of years, and there is
>no question, they do kill
>the weakest animals off first,
>that happens in all predator-prey
>relationships.
> Except when modern hightec man
>is the predator.


The issue with hunters focusing on larger antler/horned animals has been proven for bighorn sheep but not deer. I will try and find a paper that shows over a 100 years of concentrating on larger antlered red deer I believe over in Europe that it had no effect on antler size. Maybe this is true for smaller populations like sheep and cattle compared to deer and elk.
 
For the ones that think trophy hunting is bad.

Hunter selection and long-term trend (1881?2008) of red deer trophy sizes in Hungary

1. Human harvesting has a large impact on natural populations and may cause undesirable life-history changes. In wild ungulate populations, unrestricted trophy hunting may cause strong selection pressures resulting in evolutionary change towards smaller trophies. It has rarely been tested how harvesting selection varies in space and time, and whether directional hunter selection is sufficiently strong to induce long-term decreases in trophy size in century-scale data.

2. We analysed two unique data sets of harvesting records spanning decade (1973?2008) and century scales (1881?2008) to identify changes in trophy size and how harvesting selection varies in space and time in red deer Cervus elaphus. We contrasted predictions from the trophy-hunting depletion, the restricted trophy hunting and the hunting pressure hypotheses.

3. Foreign hunters selected older and larger males than local hunters, but selection patterns for age-specific trophy size between counties and over time were dynamic. Patterns of red deer trophy size development from exhibitions (representing the 'upper tail' of antler sizes) were remarkably similar across Hungary from 1881 to 2008. A weak decline in trophy size between 1881 and 1958 was followed by a strong increase in trophy size between 1958 and 1974, culminating in a period of stable antler tine numbers and a weak decline in beam length until 2008.

4. We rejected the trophy hunting depletion hypothesis due to the increase in trophy size after a period of decline; patterns were most consistent with the hunting pressure hypothesis. Large increases in trophy size during 1958?1974 were likely due to a relief in hunting pressure due to implementation of strict management regulations allowing stags to grow old after the massive overharvesting during World War II, but we cannot exclude impacts from environmental factors, and that data from trophy exhibitions may underestimate trends.

5. Synthesis and applications. Trophy hunting does not necessarily lead to a non-reversible decline in trophy size, even over century-long time-scales. To ensure sustainable trophy hunting management, we need to consider factors such as spatial and temporal refuges, compensatory culling, saving stags until prime-age culmination and higher prices for larger trophies.
 
Piper,

Where did I say that domestic sheep don't give bighorns pneumonia? Why don't don't you learn how to read!
 
Blacktail_slayer,

Thank you for keeping on target and presenting some scientific reasoning and corroboration of the facts.

Piper,

You are right on target with some of the big time outfitters whom reap and pillage the biggest bulls and bucks they can find. Mossback Outfitters has been the most successful of any in the business, especially on bull elk. he expanded out of Utah into AZ and now NM. He may be in other states but if there are big bulls and big bucks he will be there soon.

A 200" class mule deer is harder to kill than a 400" bull. The Arizona Strip, the Pansaguant, and the Henry Mtns. produce the big ones and you can bet there will be at least 3-6 big time outfitters making the maximum efforts with their big crews to kill the big one. The same can be said for some of the DIY guys as they put together big teams of helpers to ferret out the big ones also.

Even with the extreme hunting pressure for big mature trophy sized animals most states including yours Piper continue to produce world class animals every year and more trophy animals are taken than any other time in history, Unit 1 in AZ this year produce at least three 400"+ bulls and one Mossback Outfitter bull was 440". In Unit 27 just west of me, a 412" net with muzzle loader bull was taken. Units 9 and 10 up by the Grand Canyon continue to produce record book bulls with new state records and new all time records being broken all the time.

Here in the Gila Region of SW NM we had no to few elk until the 1960's when they started transplanting elk from Yellowstone here. Because of good management by our Game Dept. and a temperate climate with terrain that allows most elk to get out of the snow among other factors, our elk grow big antlers. Catron County, NM is #1 in Pope and Young elk entries.

It is not genes or loss of genetic factors that these elk get big and that they continue to produce world class bulls every year.

The mineral content of the soils is a big factor in antler growth. The Arizona Strip is limestone country.

The Mogollon Rim running from Silver City, NM almost to Flagstaff,AZ is copper rich soils. the Mogollon Rim is home to the San Carlos and White Mountain Apache and the Gila and the Apache /Sitgreaves National Forest where many record book elk are coming from every year. Copper is probably the most important mineral in promoting rapid and big antler growth. This has been proven by an Manitoban elk farmer in Davison, Michigan.

Predators are another big factor in numbers of trophy record book deer and elk. The Jicarilla Indian Reservation in northern NM is #1 in Boone & Crockett mule deer entries. They continue to produce big bucks. If they have a bad moisture year or there are not enough big bucks they completely shut down there hunt for that year. They have an very extensive and on going coyote/cougar control program. In all of the rest of NM the Game Dept. hands are tied as killing coyotes is not politically correct anymore.
 
Blacktail, that is interesting info' I hope it tends to be true with mule deer and elk ?
There was a guy in Utah that would measure all the deer he could in check stations, and he would keep records. He claimed that there was a measurable decline in antler size over the years.
It was interesting, although not very scientific.

Stoney, trophy elk seem to be holding their own in the west, but time will tell on that. mule deer aren't though, and that's despite intense pressure for trophy's.
We all know this, but trophy muleys in Wyoming and most all of the west aren't showing up like they once did, and that is despite the fact that trophy hunting pressure has never been greater and hunters have never had the technology that they do now.
 
Piper,

I totally agree that muleys are in the ditch so to speak. All you have to do is read the hunting magazines such as Eastmans and Huntin Fool and you will see the extreme pressure being put on muleys just because they are getting fewer and fewer.

Both side of my family homesteaded the head of the Yampa Valley in NW CO and were the first white settlers there. My family has a collection of big, big old mossback 230-240 early day bucks taken up until about 1940. My great grandad John Franklin Bird guided Teddy Roosevelt in Yampa, CO in 1899 for big muleys. My family has two original one of a kind photos of my great granddad with Teddy and his hunting party. It was never written up as Teddy hunted mainly around Meeker, CO and word got to him to contact my Great Grandad to hunt mule deer at Yampa.

We moved to NM in 1973 to get out of the long cold winters up there. We have never regretted it. I packed and guided in the Flattops Wilderness in my first thiry years and have been guiding here in NM and AZ for going on 40 years. I hate to hunt the roads so I maintain a top quality string of mountain horses and mules to hunt the SW. I hate quads and don't even own one. All of my money is tied up in my livestock. We have 5 half draft horses for packing our big hunters and some of them came from the Peace River Country of Alberta, Canada. We go in from 10-16 miles or whatever it takes to get beyond other hunters.

I would like to discuss individual livestock growers versus livestock Grower Organizations.

All livestock organizations I belong to and know about are grass roots organizations with livestock people being the elected officers and board members and even the CEO's are livestock people. Some of the best and the brightest are members. Their individual ranches come in all sizes as some are small ranches and some are very big ranches. Some are mostly private, but a majority are checkerboarded state, BLM and USFS lands. They all have input into how the organization functions. One of the primary functions is their legislative cloudt. It is huge as livestock growers contribute a big share of the total tax revenues going into most rural counties in the Western US, and therefore have the ear of most of the legislators.

Bangs disease (brucellosis) is a very dehabilitating disease and I am very familiar with the big fight over the buffalo and elk coming off the Yellowstone that are supposedly carry the disease.
When cattle become infected and is detected in a herd the State Veterinarian comes in and tests to confirm and if it is confirmed the USDA basically quarantines not only that herd but much of the quarter of the state, and in a worst case scenario quarantine the whole state or neighboring portions of connecting states. What this quarantine doe is the infected animals have to be put down and not utilized in any manner. The herds and neighboring herds or all of the quarantined area won't be allowed to export their heifer calves, yearlings or cows. Intrastate shipment comes to a halt causing potentially devastating loses for not only the directly infected herd but for everyone all around him.

The battle has been fierce and I know that in NM every few years some of our big dairy herds get positive reactors and that disrupts the whole industry in that area.

It is a big issue argued on a daily basis around the Yellowstone.
 
Piper,


>We all know this, but trophy
>muleys in Wyoming and most
>all of the west aren't
>showing up like they
>once did, and that
>is despite the fact that
>trophy hunting pressure has never
>been greater and hunters have
>never had the technology that
>they do now.


That is why our bio's need to adjust season length, number of tags and such for the increase in technology and decrease in mule deer populations across the west. A limit on what kind of technology that can be used for hunting is another option.
 
Stoney, The test and slaughter program did there day-view a few miles from here, 2 or 3 years ago I believe, I know a little about it.

My problem with the livestock industry's clout comes from the experiences I had in Nevada.
It was and still is disturbing to me, even though I don't live there.
Overgrazing is still fairly prevalent there, but the damage done from past abuses is overwhelming, they say cheatgrass dominates 2/3rds of Nevadas land. 470 thousand cattle and 13 thousand elk, granted the most productive lowland is private, but still over 85% of Nevada is public.

I guess we can blame sportsmen for some the wildlife problems and cow elk slaughters that happen. Those that show up make things happen, and you can't blame people for sticking up for their interests.
Sad to see that stuff is going on in Montana.
I guess that's why I don't get overly excited about wolves like I used to, there aren't any in Nevada.
Yet I saw 3 wolves chasing elk a week ago about 5 miles from my house, and the season is now closed for wolves. but next year I will be able to get 2 or 3 OTC elk tags, and there will be plenty of elk.
 
Under technology:

It might be to have muzzleloaders to go back to primitive muzzle loaders instead of the GunWerks or Ultimate's that shoot out 400-600 yds.

Long range rifles would be hard to regulate. One of my hunters killed a late season unit 27 AZ bull at 875 yds. with 15 mph crosswind gusts with a 338 Lupa with big NightForce Scoppe. The bull didn't even get up. He was using a 300 grain bullet going 2695 fps. That big all custom rifle had the same ft.lbs. energy a 30-06 has at the muzzle as the 338 lupa did at contact point on the elk.

No GPS's

No two way radio communication.

Only you and one or two family members or friends and not the mega crew like Mossback hires.

No binoculars, no spotting scopes

No ATV's

No horse back hunters

Where do you start?

NM has a deer hunt in the Burros with primitive muzzle loaders so you could do some of those things.

We kill most of our big bulls on the archery hunts so limit all the gadgets and let offs and 350fps. bows and go back to primitive stick bows.

Do like my old longtime client Tim Wells of Sportsman's Channel's Relentless Pursuit and use a spear. Now Tim is one crazy dude.
He is possibly the best archery shot bar none of anyone I know, using a bare compound no sights, instinctive shooter using fingers.
He even does the Caveman advertisement for his show. What a hoot. He has taken Coues, Mule deer and elk with me and is doing a lot of Africa now and I believe he speared that water buffalo down in Australia. Them darn things were chasing him and his buddy around.Crazy.

I guess what Im saying is we either accept the modern ways and try to limit the unfair methods to the animals and at least give them a fighting chance, or go back to the caveman ways.
 
LAST EDITED ON Feb-08-14 AT 05:13PM (MST)[p]Technology is a tough one, I think banning drones and a few things would be acceptable, but limits on guns would be hard to do.

I think less rifle tags and a bigger percent of primitive weapon tags is an option for the future, season changes if archers start getting too effective, open sights on muzzle loaders instead of scopes, even separate longbow and recurve seasons could be an option.

I think sportsmen are going to have to become more ethical within our group, already I barely give a glance to pics of guided big money animals, and if I see them mounted I see them as a lesser trophy than ones taken the hard way,
I don't say it so much, but that's how I feel.
Maybe someday ethics will mean more than just "gettin er done" to the majority of sportsmen? maybe this endless cycle of getting them at any cost will dissipate?
 
BuzzH,

I have done a little research on this thread and I'm sorry to announce that you have lost this discussion hands down, that is if you go by your earlier statistics of how many are your brand of wolf acceptance versus those of us whom don't accept the way they were proliferated.

On this thread the results are in:

Don't accept: Acceptance:

2lumpy Piper
Yelum BuzzH
440sixpack 4100fps
blacktail_slayer mtmuley
elkmtngear
nfh
eelgrass
sagebrush
stoney
mnmthunting
blindsquirrel
pre64
Gator
deerslayer88
wolfhunter
idelkslayer
mightyhunter
YBO
ASB
mulecreek?
Zeke?
Stillhunterman?

Tally: 22 don't agree versus 4 thinking wolves are ok. That is 15%
in this highly scientific peer reviewed, government sponsored study with a committee of 10 starting the whole shooting match. By far and away we have a huge majority of 85% of the study group whom are mostly unhappy with the whole situation.

Buzz you keep belly aching about the non existent war hoop of yours that we want all wolves dead.

The majority of us think wolves have their place in the ecosystem somewhere.

According to you most of the 22 are barstool bums and or drama queens and me being a welfare outfitter wearing a tin foil hat fearing for the boot jack thugs jumping out of Black Helicopters.

What position do you have with the FS as you evidently are not at a desk job so you claim so I presume you are a trail cleaner, firefighter, grounds keeper, wildlife biologist, soils scientist, timber marker? You said something about taking classes in "Resource Policy" Are you a habitat/wildlife specialist or what.? Many of those type jobs entail many hours behind a desk. You have really got my curiosity up.

Anyway I guess I will cling to my Bible and my guns down here in the land of OZ.

As Ronald Reagan once said: You know you are in big trouble when they announce: I'm from the Government and am here to help you!
 
>BuzzH,
>
>I have done a little research
> on this thread and
>I'm sorry to announce that
>you have lost this discussion
>hands down,

You should work on reading comprehension instead of counting fingers and toes.
 
mtmuley,

I think Stoney just about covered everything when it come to what we can limit with technology. One thing that I would like to add that should be banned in all states is a new $20,000+ rifle scope that uses fighter jet technology. A hunter can hold down the trigger of their rifle and the rifle will not fire until the crosshairs are in the exact spot they need to be for a kill 1,000+ yards away. The scope can compute everything that is needed for that long of a shot and never miss. I know this is a product for only the rich but the price may come down in the future and even the rich should not be allowed to use technology like this for hunting outside a fenced in piece of private property. No scope like this should be allowed to harvest publicly owned wildlife except maybe predators. LOL
 
I knew exaxtly what technology could be limited when I posed the question. Looking for the response really. stoney likes to expound about his anti government agenda and then he embraces limiting our technology? More government it would seem. I'm a little sick of his BS accusing me of being "for" wolves. The Damn things are a part of where I hunt. Just because I won't poach every one I see or believe in his conspiracy theories doesn't make me "for" wolves. I've seen that rifle you talk about, not really a hunting tool but I get your meaning. mtmuley
 
blacktail_slayer,

I forgot a couple of things.

Trail cameras getting more sophisticated everyday.

Tracking collars on hounds w/GPS tracking for lion and bear. Guys can set in their warm pkups. or in town in the cafe and when the tip switch goes off then they go to the tree. In NM it is law that the hunter has to be at the start when the hounds are first released.

mtmuley and mtmiller,

It hasn't got much do to with anything other than BuzzH tries to dazzle everyone with his brilliance when he is only putting out a lot of BS. I try to bring a little humor into this discussion as in the end we all have to try and work together. Plus the fact that considerably more posters on this thread do not think like you 4 or 5 do.

BuzzH is good on many things having to do with states rights in managing the wolves but so very lacking in what relates to other matters such as outfitter welfare and damned old livestock ranchers and his real rabid take on the NAM.

For you to cheer lead him in the latter endeavor makes you in the category of the mis-informed and drinking the koolaid of poor suppressed average joe hunters, right along with him.
 
For anyone on this thread to give the impression that elk numbers in Wyoming are on the increase in the 'wolf zones' is twisting the facts. Elk numbers in ALL areas around Yellowstone Park are down, some dramaticly.

Teton Park permits used to number 2500 and were down to 650 in 2013. Elk counts on the National Elk Refuge are below half of those numbers before wolf introduction.

However, in those areas around Wyoming where wolves don't roam, populations are just fine. In fact, where elk have private land refuge, numbers are over objective. These are the 3 permit areas that have been mentioned.
 
I guess your either telling lies or not very well informed jm77?.
3rd elk tags are available in areas 92-93-94, they are public land areas and in wolf country, I know because I hunted in 92 last year with a type 6 tag.

You may also want to address the Montana cow hunts when talking about the areas around Yellowstone.

There are enough complicated pieces in wildlife management to decipher without telling untruths
 
Piper

Like I said, elk numbers are down in ALL the areas around Yellowstone Park. I don't know what to say if you don't believe that.
Just because elk are doing good in the Wyoming Range and there are wolves there, doesn't mean a thing. Wolf densities in that region don't compare with up north. Also wolf area 12 turns into a predator area after the season closes.
Sure I'm a liar and I'm uninformed because I think that wolves have had an affect on game populations. One thing I know for a fact; wolves and grizzlies have taken hunters out of the field in western Wyoming. If they all have moved to other areas and we haven't lost a single hunter over this, I'm fine with standing in line with wolves to hunt. But as hunters we can't afford to lose numbers from our ranks.
 
Of course wolves kill animals, can't argue with that.
I'm afraid lots of non-hunters like grizzly bears, lions and wolves, so we are stuck with them.
Best thing to do is hunt them when we can, try to keep the numbers somewhat in balance with the prey, and enjoy hunting
the wild country we have in Wyoming.

Area 93 is in the Gros Ventre mnts.

It will be interesting to see how many elk show up on the national elk refuge this year? we just got bombed with some snow.
 
mtmuley,

It was a hypothetical question and I threw out some things that would fall in the realm of limiting technology in regards to hunting.

I do not however subscribe to any of them. It was just a discussion of things that impact hunting differently these days.

I wasn't saying that you are for wolves period. You are however drinking koolaid with the wolf lovers it would seem from your stance on impacts that wolves have had and are having on the Northern wolf proliferation project. Oh, I forgot BuzzH has everything under control in the newly found state management programs.
 
LAST EDITED ON Feb-09-14 AT 03:59PM (MST)[p]Yeah, you would't want to limit technology. Might affect business huh stoney? mtmuley
 
>Of course wolves kill animals, can't
>argue with that.
>I'm afraid lots of non-hunters like
>grizzly bears, lions and wolves,
>so we are stuck with
>them.
>Best thing to do is hunt
>them when we can, try
>to keep the numbers somewhat
>in balance with the prey,
>and enjoy hunting
> the wild country we have
>in Wyoming.
>
>Area 93 is in the Gros
>Ventre mnts.
>
>It will be interesting to see
>how many elk show up
>on the national elk refuge
>this year? we just
>got bombed with some snow.
>
They are saying about 6k on the refuge now. Maybe more will move in? Used to be 13 to 15k on normal winters.

Elk area 93 is in the Green River Drainage. Guess I didn't know they called that the Gros Ventre? It is LQ and has a very stable herd and license numbers. Still a long way from Yellowstone.
 
BuzzH,

The public lands access much being blocked or impeded by private property is a much bigger issue in Montana than down here in NM but it still gets a lot of attention from a certain group of resident hunters. Our NM Senator Martin Heinrich had a bill in the US Senate last year that would have gone along way to start solving some of the access problems. It got bogged down in too many amendments and unrelated matters and the bill got derailed. The Forest Service and BlM really need to work on this issue to start gaining access by purchasing easements and building new roads around private property where possible. this all takes money and Congress is reluctant it seems to dole out any bucks for these endeavors. Maybe the bill will be brought back up again this year. This is one issue I can agree on with the Wildlife Federation's in all the states as well as the Montana Sportsman Alliance and Ravalli County Fish N Wildlife Association.

Where I strongly disagree with you Buzz is your complete lack of understanding how NMGFD's Landowner allocation system works. The state of NM is broken up in two elk management zones designated as core occupied elk range and outside the core. Inside the core the game management units are broken into public and private lands. There is a formula of occupied deeded acres times elk contribution ratings to get the private land weighted acres. The public land goes under basically the same formula and then drawing tags are issued to the public pool and landowner tags are allocated to the private landowners according to the formulas to arrive at each units number of elk licenses issued between public draw and private landowner authorizations.

The private landowners then declare whether they want to receive unit wide UW tags that can be used on public as well as unit wide private properties, or they can opt to keep their authorizations as ranch only RO and they have to use those authorization on their private land only. They also can keep all other hunters out. Not so with the UW tags landowners. They have to open their property to not only foot traffic but have to open the gates so hunters can drive the roads to retrieve any game if needed. They have to take down their no trespassing signs and provide maps to the Game Dept. to outline their acreage that is on their elk occupied acreages.

There are three systems in place, the regular E-Plus system which include the higher elk contributing rating ECR elk landowners, the small contributing ranch SCR which are smaller ECR acreages and then they have outside the core mostly private lands rating where the Dept. issues those landowners RO only tags to match there acreage and etc.

What a big share of the sportsmen don't understand is: In 2013 there were 336 E-Plus Unit Wide UW landowners that had a total of 739,127 elk occupied acres that was included into the public land mix in all of the respective units. This opened up a tremendous amount of access and land that other wise would have been posted and kept private access only. That is almost 3/4 million acres more than the hunters in those units previously had.

In the Small Contributing Landowner SCR system there are many more landowners in the system and they all go into a draw and the lucky draw landowners in 2013 numbered 565 with almost 51,000 more acres in the elk occupied landowner properties in those units The same thing happens in these landowner properties as they have to open up their property and all the UW hunters can hunt them.

This totals almost 800,000 acres that is now open to hunters unit wide, that prior to the system were mostly locked up.

The argument with the resident sportsmen is, it takes tags out of the public draw, which is true. Many of us on both sides of the issue are working to get the Game Dept. to really tighten up the system as their requirements to qualify,and are not strict enough and many landowners do not contribute nearly enough to elk to deserve what they can get out of selling their landowner tags.

NM also has an Open Gate program where willing landowners can lease their lands and streams for fishing and hunting, to the Game Dept. I don't know how much acreage they have signed up.

Some of the bigger ranches that go RO with their authorizations usually have resident elk herds living yearlong on their property.

NM has a lot of opportunity for sportsmen and fairness is what the Game Dept. strives for.
 
Stoney,

You can try to polish a turd all you want...its still a turd.

You arent going to convince me that NM's tag allocation is anything more than a welfare/give-away program.

I'm thankful I live in Wyoming everytime I look at that goat-#$@k of a tag allocation system that New Mexico has.

How about the pronghorn situation? Ranch assignments and you cant even hunt accessible public land outside the ranch assignments. Absolute joke.

Only 6% of the available tags are good for those not wanting to use a guide.

But, of course, 10% of the available tags go to those that are forced to use an outfitter.

Why not make 16% of the tags available to NR's and let them decide if they want to use a guide or not. Could it be that the welfare outfitters wouldnt be assured business? I guess a "free market" and "no goverment" is better for owners of businesses other than outfitting businesses??? Bigger joke.

Then theres the transferable landowner tags, welfare all the way for the landowners and the outfitters.

I can see why, as an outfitter, you'd be happy with the crap system NM has. Between the outfitters controlling a full 10% of the tags out of the gate, and probably another 20-25% via transferable landowner tags on the side, outfitters are assured a great revenue stream.

Wyoming has a great system, no transferable landowner tags, no outfitter guaranteed tags, and 20-25% of available tags go to NR's. Those NR's that draw are free to hire a guide if they want, and they arent assigned to a ranch.

You can keep your "fair system" that favors outfitters, landowners, and high paying clients over the DIY average guy.

You cant make chicken salad out of chicken chit...
 
>Stoney,
>
>You can try to polish a
>turd all you want...its still
>a turd.
>
>You arent going to convince me
>that NM's tag allocation is
>anything more than a welfare/give-away
>program.
>
>I'm thankful I live in Wyoming
>everytime I look at that
>goat-#$@k of a tag allocation
>system that New Mexico has.
>
>
>How about the pronghorn situation? Ranch
>assignments and you cant even
>hunt accessible public land outside
>the ranch assignments. Absolute joke.
>
>
>Only 6% of the available tags
>are good for those not
>wanting to use a guide.
>
>
>But, of course, 10% of the
>available tags go to those
>that are forced to use
>an outfitter.
>
>Why not make 16% of the
>tags available to NR's and
>let them decide if they
>want to use a guide
>or not. Could it be
>that the welfare outfitters wouldnt
>be assured business? I guess
>a "free market" and "no
>goverment" is better for owners
>of businesses other than outfitting
>businesses??? Bigger joke.
>
>Then theres the transferable landowner tags,
>welfare all the way for
>the landowners and the outfitters.
>
>
>I can see why, as an
>outfitter, you'd be happy with
>the crap system NM has.
>Between the outfitters controlling a
>full 10% of the tags
>out of the gate, and
>probably another 20-25% via transferable
>landowner tags on the side,
>outfitters are assured a great
>revenue stream.
>
>Wyoming has a great system, no
>transferable landowner tags, no outfitter
>guaranteed tags, and 20-25% of
>available tags go to NR's.
>Those NR's that draw are
>free to hire a guide
>if they want, and they
>arent assigned to a ranch.
>
>
>You can keep your "fair system"
>that favors outfitters, landowners, and
>high paying clients over the
>DIY average guy.
>
>You cant make chicken salad out
>of chicken chit...

BuzzH,

I continue to be amazed at your biased and uninformed assumptions about NMGFD's wildlife and conservation management.

The average resident sportsmen have it pretty good.. They get 78% of the bull elk public draw licenses, 100% of the public draw cow elk licenses, residents only (all species) hunts on the NMGFD's Wildlife Management Areas WMA's, 78% of all public draw antelope licenses and deer licenses.

Residents can also purchase landowner tags for both elk and antelope as well as go over the counter for deer licenses to hunt private property with permission, as well as residents can apply in the 10% outfitter pool of licenses.

As far as the elk E-Plus and the antelope A-Plus landowner system
this is more of a compensation program because legally the NMGFD cannot pay for wildlife depredation. It has been a win win situation for all sportsmen of NM because of the wildlife stewardship and incentives for these landowners to keep the many miles and miles of pipelines/drinkers and dirt tanks operational so that our wildlife can proliferate.

The landowner program has enable our elk herds to grow from almost nothing to 90,000 now and they are still expanding out everywhere in NM.

The landowner permit system has opened up almost 800,000 acres of previously posted lands that were't available to most sportsmen and also much of this newly opened private land controlled much access to the public land that was never there before.

Private land is just that, private land. The antelope in NM are almost entirely on private lands with some checker boarded State, BLM & Forest. Ranchere have developed and maintain almost entirely throughout the state all of the antelope water sources.

Outfitters are a major player in bringing in hunters from all over the US and world to help participate in the publicly owned wildlife management programs. They have a strong relationship with many ranchers and landowners and now many of these landowners have removed much of their livestock to make more room for the wildlife they help propagate and thus it has increase the numbers of wildlife and those numbers move out and spend much of their time on public lands especially in the fall during hunting seasons.

Resident hunters enjoy a great amount of opportunity at these publicly owned wildlife and are "subsidized" (using your terminology)to the tune of $106 resident hunting and elk license versus $845 non-resident hunting and elk licenses. Non resident angler and hunters make up about half of all license sales in NM amounting to over $10 millions dollars.

Resident hunters enjoy another "subsidy" in that according to the NAM, wildlife belong to the residents of that particular state and these wildlife spend much of their time on the private and public lands of the Forest Service and BLM

17482013_river_elk_az_trip_010.jpg
 
All I can say is I hope Disney doesn't start making movies about singing and dancing poliovirus or a whole new breed of polio hippies will want to re-introduce into AZ. We managed to eradicate wolves and polio. We don't want either one back. Just because the poliovirus is managing to survive in parts of the third world, we don't need to capture it and re-introduce it into it's previous home range.
 
3001copy_of_scan0007.jpg




Buzz,

Since you are involved with the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership I thought you might appreciate the above Teddy Roosevelt Mule Deer hunt in Yampa, Colorado in 1899 with my great granddad John Franklin Bird the guide. He is standing just to the left of Teddy and was the chief guide along with Teddy's hunting party. We have one more photo and the originals and they are ones of a kind. The TRCP has both copies of the photos I believe.

Since we are at loggerheads and vehemently disagree with each other we need to move out of this thread that Blacktail_slayer started and present our points of view in another thread.

Basically your strong conservation feelings differ not in values but in the ways to get to the same point that all conservationists including hunters want.

My main argument is your strong support of the state WF's and also their ties to the NWF.

Also your affiliation with the WYSA and maybe the WSFW, also brings up some very admirable and needed conservation and hunter rights issues.
 

Similar threads

wstrntines
And you think Utah non residents are the issue
Replies
99
Views
4k
Longun
Longun
elks96
Wolves killed 4 more this week…
Replies
63
Views
3k
coloradoman
coloradoman
Bluehair
A special wolf job opportunity
Replies
16
Views
1k
Bluehair
Bluehair

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

Member Gallery Photos and Videos!

DSC_0229i.JPG
327B1CAD-6345-4DCC-B6FA-A670B1FCD0CD.jpeg
BA0D4BD4-127B-4566-80DC-EBAD9612AE40.jpeg
20201028_101706.jpg
F28735FA-AB3C-4BBA-BE11-C534ECB0AB8C.jpeg
IMG_8694.jpeg
IMG_3815.PNG
5EDBA122-CE28-48BA-8A35-E1B076E3E8F0.jpeg
DSCN3100.JPG
20170407_083329.jpg
IMG_3580.JPG
Couple Fantastic Trophy Bucks!
Back
Top Bottom