Habitat Hunting Access Summit

Tymurrey

Founding Member
Founding Member
Joined
May 19, 2015
Posts
426
Likes
184
Points
200
Greetings Boys!! Haven't been on here all summer due to protracted and exhausting election "exuberence" and I see things are still status quo. Whew...reading this thread from start to now...WOW. Some things just don't change. Sticking to the OP, habitat is dwindling and hunters are competing for less and less each year. That is an undeniable fact. The popular options to alleviate this pressure seem to be A: increase the amount of habitat on public lands; B: Increase access to the private lands that still have good habitat; or C: restrict the number of non-resident hunters. Starting with option A, I think the reality of increasing habitat on public lands will only cause more hunters to use those lands having improved habitat, resulting in even more hunter competition. Thereby exacerbating the problem. Option B IMO would require something like the block management program of MT. Humans tend to be inconsiderate of anything that isn't theirs so it's not unreasonable to compensate landowners for the poor behavior and degredation/damage to land that seems to be omnipotent in every human grouping, including sportsmen. Also, I think it's important for hunters to note that landowners giving access to other hunters means that they are giving up their own quality of hunting for the public's benefit. Should they be compensated...or not? Option C is the most difficult cost/benefit option IMO. Does the loss of revenue to the local businesses from nonresidents offset the benefits of improved hunting for residents? IDK. Is having the local cafe in town where one goes to get coffee in the morning or ice cream for the kids in the afternoon the rest of year besides the fall worth it? Only those who go to the cafe can say. Additionally, the assumption is that with fewer non-residents there will be less competion. I don't necessarily think that is the case. There are many sportsmen that have stated that they quit hunting due to competion. Would they pick it back up if fewer non-residents were allowed in? If they do resume hunting, wouldn't the level of competion for good hunting land then remain the same, but with less revenue for businesses? IDK. Unfortunately, it always seems to boil down to the benjamins. In my mind I would rank the Options as B, C, then A, but opinions are like....well you know
Appreciate your thoughts on this. I think one thing that might start to save some hunting is people are actually farming for wildlife now. They are buying land just to hunt on. Even though this land is then posted up tight it's still the owner and any of his friends or family that he lets hunt that isn't competing on other land. Plus the increase in wildlife productive land he creates benefits the surrounding land. Then again i'm taking 25 acres of cropland out of production and putting in large scale tree planting and native tall grasses and my brother is taking 20 acres out of native prairie and putting it into cropland right next to mine. I tried to tell him that it's his to do with what he wants but he has a son that likes to hunt and at some point you can't always rely on others to let you hunt on theirs. Although the pasture didn't provide much for wildlife, but nesting and brood rearing is important too. I just don't think he and many others can envision the future where they have nowhere to hunt when everything gets locked down and at that point they and their family will quit hunting or it will be to late to build up the habitat needed.
 


BrockW

Established Member
Joined
Feb 9, 2018
Posts
194
Likes
102
Points
190
Brock has great access to maps as he is a GIS geographic information systems technician for the Department of Mineral Resources in Bismarck.

Must be another slow day at the office.
Argumentum ad hominem

…doesn’t everyone have OnX?
 

BrockW

Established Member
Joined
Feb 9, 2018
Posts
194
Likes
102
Points
190
Does colorado allow baiting or wyoming?
Excellent example. Thank you for highlighting these states. This is another great comparison for Saskatchewan, a province where baiting practices are extremely popular (especially with guides and outfitters) and completely unregulated. It’s worth noting, Sask has the fastest growth in prevalence on record, for the entire planet. Saskatchewan passed BOTH Colorado AND Wyoming in prevalence, and they did so in half the time, only 20 years!

Neither CO or Wy allow baiting, and both have had CWD for around 40 years. Each state still has low prevalence of disease in large portions of each state. Colorado hasn’t eclipsed 30% in any unit that I’m aware of. Wyoming has a single unit where disease prevalence has just recently matched the level of Saskatchewan. I believe Saskatchewan has 18 units that are above 80% prevalence.

Not only that, Sask has seen significantly more geographic spread across the province than both CO and WY. To the tune of an additional 20 million acres! That’s equivalent to adding on half the state of North Dakota in geographic spread in half the time.
 

Kurtr

Founding Member
Founding Member
Joined
Apr 12, 2015
Posts
19,038
Likes
3,370
Points
883
Location
Mobridge,Sd
Excellent example. Thank you for highlighting these states. This is another great comparison for Saskatchewan, a province where baiting practices are extremely popular (especially with guides and outfitters) and completely unregulated. It’s worth noting, Sask has the fastest growth in prevalence on record, for the entire planet. Saskatchewan passed BOTH Colorado AND Wyoming in prevalence, and they did so in half the time, only 20 years!

Neither CO or Wy allow baiting, and both have had CWD for around 40 years. Each state still has low prevalence of disease in large portions of each state. Colorado hasn’t eclipsed 30% in any unit that I’m aware of. Wyoming has a single unit where disease prevalence has just recently matched the level of Saskatchewan. I believe Saskatchewan has 18 units that are above 80% prevalence.

Not only that, Sask has seen significantly more geographic spread across the province than both CO and WY. To the tune of an additional 20 million acres! That’s equivalent to adding on half the state of North Dakota in geographic spread in half the time.
So in the 40 years both have had cwd how much has the population dropped? In Saskatchewan how many cases are white tails vs mule deer?
 


BrockW

Established Member
Joined
Feb 9, 2018
Posts
194
Likes
102
Points
190
So in the 40 years both have had cwd how much has the population dropped? In Saskatchewan how many cases are white tails vs mule deer?
Enough for an outfitter to go out of business in the hot spot in Wyoming. Ive seen similar accounts from folks in Saskatchewan. Though I think in Sask outfitters have a lot more wiggle room on where they can operate. From what I’ve heard from Sask folks, the outfitters basically run the show in Sask.

Not sure off the top of my head on species. But iirc whitetails in Saskatchewan have significantly worse than whitetail in Wyoming. Both in geographic spread and prevalence. Wyoming’s worst spot for whitetail is like 20-25% and Sask is over 50%.
 
Last edited:

Fritz the Cat

Founding Member
Founding Member
Joined
May 11, 2015
Posts
5,221
Likes
810
Points
483
Enough for an outfitter to go out of business in the hot spot in Wyoming. Ive seen similar accounts from folks in Saskatchewan. Though I think in Sask outfitters have a lot more wiggle room on where they can operate. From what I’ve heard from Sask folks, the outfitters basically run the show in Sask.

Not sure off the top of my head on species. But iirc whitetails in Saskatchewan have significantly worse than whitetail in Wyoming. Both in geographic spread and prevalence. Wyoming’s worst spot for whitetail is like 20-25% and Sask is over 50%.
What??? Shane Mahoney and Valerius Geist were from Canada who wrote the NAM 25 years ago and they have not banned outfitters and commercializers in Sask yet?

1732163129991.jpeg
 


Fritz the Cat

Founding Member
Founding Member
Joined
May 11, 2015
Posts
5,221
Likes
810
Points
483
The script was written 25 years ago to ban ban ban. Everyone is just watching the movie now.

1732284517021.jpeg
 

Fritz the Cat

Founding Member
Founding Member
Joined
May 11, 2015
Posts
5,221
Likes
810
Points
483
Was listening to KFYR this morning Micheal Bell program. Had a lengthy conversation with someone talking about this event coming up Dec.17th. The venue only holds 250 and it sounded like they wanted more people to register via GnF website.

The call-in speaker made it sound like there is going to be a panel having a discussion fielding questions.

Anyone attending?
 

savage270

Founding Member
Founding Member
Joined
May 18, 2015
Posts
722
Likes
319
Points
225
Location
Bismarck
No need to attend. I think we've pretty much solved the issue here in this thread. GnF just needs to read it and get to work.
 


bravo

Founding Member
Founding Member
Joined
Oct 17, 2015
Posts
760
Likes
682
Points
298
I was there, pretty good info from both the G&F and landowers. Some eyebrow raising moments from the Q&A portion, I suggest watching.
 


Recent Posts

Friends of NDA

Top Posters of the Month

  • This month: 409
  • This month: 160
  • This month: 141
  • This month: 119
  • This month: 115
  • This month: 102
  • This month: 92
  • This month: 84
  • This month: 78
  • This month: 77
Top Bottom