Habitat Hunting Access Summit

[Tymurrey]

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]

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]

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.

 

[Fritz the Cat]

Alabama just went to "mandatory" testing in two counties.

https://www.outdooralabama.com/arti...s-announced-lauderdale-and-colbert-counties-0

 

[Kurtr]

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]

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%.

 

[Fritz the Cat]

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?

 

[PrairieGhost]

Commercialization of hunting

Equals 21 st century market hunters.

 

[PrairieGhost]

The "one good group " study would only be as good as that groups pre-determined outlook they are looking for.

That's why the "group" contains parties of multiple interests.

 

[Obi-Wan]

That's why the "group" contains parties of multiple interests.

And who picks the “parties of multiple interest “ Nancy Pelosi ?

 

[PrairieGhost]

And who picks the “parties of multiple interest “ Nancy Pelosi ?

Wow that would be as bad as Farm Bureau.