A blog for those politicos looking for a place to vent!
My only concern is that wolf population, from a biologist point of view, are based off breeding pairs, not actual individual wolves. Usually only the alpha male and alpha female breed, and some alpha males have more than one pack. I believe the numbers that are allowed to be killed are too high. I don't want to see the elk populations being decimated, but at the same time, they were fairly high and getting diseased prior to the wolves being brought in. And in order to maintain a balance, the prey numbers drop low, and then the predator numbers naturally drop low, and balance is achieved. But people want to hunt them. So I guess if we need to make those people happy, we need to keep the hunt numbers at a lower level. Ooo! Watch for the guy who is wearing a shirt that reads "liberalism is a mental disorder." Made me laugh for quite awhile. I secretly think that shirt is the whole reason HDC posted the video ;)
I would also submit that the management of game herds has been hurt just as badly by the lack of sportsman access.Proper herd counts cannot be managed as in the past when landowners cooperated with sportsmen instead of closing their land for the exclusive playground use of wealthy out of state hunters. It should also be added that these hunters wish to only harvest the best breeding stock of the herd.I am in agreement that a landowner should be able to do what he chooses with his property, however, the game animals themselves belong to the people of Montana. I would suggest that if a landowner is taking payment from the government for CRP, he should be REQUIRED to allow reasonable, no fee access to his property by sportsmen. If not, that landonwer should never recieve any CRP payments, preference for hunting privleges nor should he be given any privleges as far as any damages that the animals may have caused him.Under current game management systems, the hunter is an integral part to the proper management of the resource. This is all being thrown off by the pursuit of profit, while additionally taking a quality of life issue aways from the residents of Montana.I do not hunt, but I think it is a really bad situation to continue to hear about land being closed to a proud Montana family tradition, while at the same time landowners are profiting and complaining at the same time.
Absolutely refreshing to hear those comments from someone who isn't an avid hunter! Thank you to DeConstructor. I completely agree that it's a landowners choice, BUT they should not receive monies from the state when their gates are locked to average people who want the thrill of the hunt and freezer full to feed their families.
I have family that owns land near Drummond and every year they get huge amount of elk on their land, but won't let anyone come hunt. Then they complain that the elk populations are getting so high that their crops are getting destroyed. But they still will not let anyone come hunt. I do think it is a landowner's right to allow people on his personal property, but I do think there should be incentives for those that allow hunters on their land. I do not necessarily think we should keep out of state hunters from hunting. I do think that instate hunters should have more rights, but those out of state hunters spend more on tags, buy products from our businesses, and spend money in our state. And I would almost rather have a guide instructing an out of state hunter than them just wandering around our backcountry with a gun that they've never used before.
Seems like some high numbers. What about giving out fewer elk tags? Or not allowing out-of-staters to hunt elk? That would surely help the elk population. I really dont know too much on the subject. What about the coyote problem we have in montana? I know there is problems west of town with those. Anyone having problems with this?