Originally Posted by buffybr
Originally Posted by shrapnel
Originally Posted by Brad
MT FWP is run by landowners and the politicians that cater to them, not by science/biologists...


I talked to the retired FWP biologist that spent decades managing the Madison-Wall Creek Wildlife Management Area out of Ennis, Montana. Specifically, we talked about grazing allotments on the National Forest and the impact on elk. It was concluded by him that the cattle grazing on the National Forest had virtually no impact on the available grass for elk forage. He also mentioned how the elk moved out of the high country due to snow and weather conditions and not because of lack of grass.

Further, he explained the reasons for shoulder seasons and how landowners were involved in that decision process by FWP. The lies that Brad and Pete want to spread is nothing more than an emotional rant because they want to force landowners to allow them to hunt on private property in the name of game management. You guys need to get more information other than Gallatin Wildlife Federation and other environmentally based organizations that want to overturn private property rights for the sake of personal selfishness.

Nothing but crickets from the gallery I am sure, as our boys that want everything for themselves, realize they are not in the majority for wanting things their way...

I've been friends with that FWP biologist for the past 40 or so years. He is definitely a science biologist and has probably forgot more about elk biology than most that post here will ever know.

He once explained to me how with proper timing, allowing a proper number of cattle to graze on the forest land in the Wall Cr Area actually benefited the grazing for the elk.


This is what I was referring to in my post. This has been well studied and documented.

I'm not a biologist but I understand that some areas have above-optimal elk numbers. For me taste, I prefer more elk! I buy B draw tags every year and don't fill them just to preclude someone else from filling them (for my wife and myself). However I'm not doing it to spite ranchers; I support their existence. I did a project in eastern MT for the BLM on lease land in 3 counties and visited almost every BLM lease to work on water features. I found that almost all of the ranchers were stunningly well informed and caring about their charge as lease holders. I also discovered that without them, there would not be nearly the amount of water available for wildlife. In eastern MT the ranchers sustain an artificially high number of wildlife as a coincidence of their grazing. Without their land (and water) maintenance there would be less wildlife. I know this discussion pertains to FS leases and while my experience with these lease holders is limited, I'm confident the FS ranchers are cut from the same cloth.

The OP seems to think he should be able to hunt around flat land ranches, where trucks are driving about, and get a wilderness experience. Again I will suggest that he puts in a bit of effort rather than coming on here and complaining. Those folks driving about through elk only serve to drive them into the mountains where they are huntable by those without permission. Worse would be sitting on a high ridge with no elk sign and watching a thousand head bedded peacefully on ranch land. I think many of us have been there. Also, the old damage hunt system was only for landowners that allowed some amount of public access--isn't the shoulder season the same? I know multiple large land holders that allow access just so that they could have damage hunt rights. I think the shoulder season further motivates ranchers to allow public access.

A few years ago there was a ballot measure to increase NR license fees. Have the OP's posts here motivated any from MT to vote differently?

Should we now explore the role that wolves have played in running elk out of the mountains and into the flats?