The 2010 big game application season is in full swing in some states while in others it has reached it's conclusion. I went and got myself in a bit of a logistics pickle this year so my approach to application season has changed. It's changed primarily because the construction company I work for transferred me to the Midwest in January. With that said, following is my strategy for 2009:
Utah
I purchased deer and elk points only this year. I have no chance at drawing tags in the units I'd like to hunt so, points is enough for 2010.
Nevada
Since hunting my "home" state will require traveling to it this year, I have decided that I will apply for "premium" hunts that have slim draw odds. I've also changed my approach because 2010 is a "family hunt" year which means I will be applying (as a party, with my dad and uncle) in Montana.
Typically in Nevada I would apply for archery tags for deer and antelope and rifle hunts for cow elk, all bighorn sheep, and mountain goats. I drew an antelope tag and killed a buck last year, therefore I am ineligible to apply for antelope until 2015.
This year I will apply for an archery bull elk tag, any weapon deer tag, all species of sheep, and mountain goats. In essence my goal is not to draw in Nevada this year so I can focus on the hunt with my dad and uncle.
Montana
Pops, uncle Jerry and I applied in the big game drawing for the general season deer/elk combo. If successful in drawing the combo we will apply for special elk permits in areas I know to hold good numbers of elk. I also purchased four chances for the elk Super Tag in Montana. If we fail to draw the big game combo we may buy 900 series (multi-region archery) antelope tags or...head to Idaho for a combo deer/elk hunt.
Idaho
I love hunting Idaho. Sure, the quality of the animals is down but, if you work hard enough you can still find some good deer and elk in The Gem State. My typical procedure in Idaho is to apply for the controlled hunts first and consider OTC tags second. Idaho will be the "go to" state for my dad, uncle and I should we fail to draw the combo in Montana.
Kentucky
Kentucky? Who hunts in Kentucky? I do. I have family there, so I'm going to hunt there again this year. I have not hunted the farm country since 2005 and I'm looking forward to being back there. Kentucky is home to some of the biggest whitetails I have ever encountered and, best of all, tags are available OTC...and they are cheap!
Wisconsin
Having grown up in the Northwoods - and now being within a five hour drive of the property we own there - it's time to hit the trees again! Archery season opens the 2nd week of September and runs into the first week of January. I'll get there as many weekends as I can.
Recap
As I mentioned above, the ultimate goal for 2010 is to hunt with my dad and uncle in Montana (or Idaho). Hunts in Wisconsin and Kentucky will be scheduled around that trip (if we draw tags). I'm really hoping not to draw in Nevada this year because I don't want to be in a situation where that takes away from the hunt with my family.
Regardless of how things shake out this year I'm looking forward to a fun season. I wish you all the same!
Steve
Wednesday, April 7, 2010
Friday, March 12, 2010
The Partner
How do you appropriately describe a hunting partner? How, in a short essay, do you capture twenty years without leaving something out? I don’t think it's possible, so I’ll try capturing the essence of it and the person.
I met my hunting partner in September of 1977. I don’t recall the details of our introduction but I’m sure it included smiles, laughter, some screaming on my part, and (maybe) some tears from him. The truth is, I don’t remember. What I do remember, however, is the first year we hunted together. It was November 1989, to be exact. It was a year I will always remember.
Our original hunting party consisted of eight guys; myself, my partner, two uncles, a cousin, a friend and his son, and that friend’s brother. We gathered that year - on the Friday before the week of thanksgiving - at our cabin in northern Wisconsin, a place we call “The Shack”. I remember it being cold that year. Brutally cold, as winters there often are.
The Shack sits at the bottom of a small hill on a small river lined with birch and poplar trees. In the summer the river will yield its share of northern pike, bluegills, bass, and the occasional muskie that (somehow) manages to get caught below the spillway 300 yards to the north. We’ve twice pulled muskie’s in excess of 35 inches out of that river which, truth be told, is not big enough for 35 inch muskie’s!
The river flows at a snail’s pace during a wet year and, in a dry year, doesn’t flow at all. In fact, during a dry summer the river resembles an oddly shaped swap more than it does a river. No matter the flow of the river it is a beautiful place where eagles have their pick of inattentive fish and, for the most part, travel it’s corridor with very little competition from other birds of prey. In recent years the river has also become home to quite the population of wild turkeys.
In addition to being the main flight pattern for eagles and less-than-intelligent muskie’s, the river also serves as a crossing guard for the deer. You see, even at its lowest levels, the deer prefer to cross the river in two places, places we call “The rapids” and “The ridge”. Those two spots are home to hunting stands that have seen more whitetails than I can attempt to recall. Given the opportunity, I’m sure the deer that have passed by those stands would tell you they have been looked at through more riflescopes than they can attempt to recall. Many deer have been killed in those two spots; many more have been spared (or missed due to poor marksmanship or a sleeping hunter).
My grandfather occupied The Ridge for much of his hunting career. His stand consisted of the remains of an old, red metal frame chair that was, at one point, lashed to a giant pine tree with a rope. A veteran of World War II and the recipient of a Purple Heart, Grandpa had an abundance of two things, patience and wit. I’m told he would sit so still in his stand that songbirds would land on the barrel of his rifle, an auto-loading Remington .30-06 now used by my hunting partner. I'm also told that the best way to test his patience is by repeatedly playing Hugo Montenegro on an old eight track during a marathon game of sheep's head. But, that's another story.
I never had the opportunity to hunt with my Grandfather which is something I would have enjoyed. Grandpa died in 2001 and we miss him still. To this day his red chair sits at the base of the tree having become a corroded reminder of a great man from bygone era. He was a product of a generation many referred to as "The Greatest Generation". I can't speak for them all but, with regard to him I'd have to agree.
When I first took to the field in 1989, The Ridge (near the red chair and that giant tree) was occupied by my hunting partner and me. I still clearly remember standing with him as the sun came up, causing the half-frozen river to sparkle as though someone had sprinkled its surface with a million diamonds. It was (and still is) a spectacular sight. I don’t remember if we saw any deer that morning - probably because I was distracted by my excitement to be hunting for the first time - but I do remember my partner standing next to me, silently, patiently, surveying the surroundings, watching for deer. Did he get his patience from my Grandfather? Something tells me he did. Something else tells me he was one of the offenders in the Hugo Montenegro story.
I didn’t kill a deer that year. In fact, I don’t think anyone killed a deer that year. Killing deer wasn’t of the utmost importance, being there was. After being there for the first time I promised myself that I would always be there and, in some ways, I am always there. It’s become part of me.
In the years since my first deer hunt my hunting partner and I have been fortunate enough to enjoy some other adventures together. We hunted elk in Idaho in 2007 (a physically brutal trip my uncle joined us for). We also hunted mule deer in Nevada in 2008, an early-season, high country archery hunt that pushed us to our limits. On those trips we did the same thing we always did back at The Shack; hunted, laughed, enjoyed being outdoors and, more importantly, enjoyed each other’s company.
This year will mark the twenty-first year (give or take a few) that I will make the trek to the northwoods to join my hunting partner and our (now much smaller) hunting party for the annual deer hunt. I'm looking forward to being there. I enjoy the smaller group we now have, although I do miss the guys that hunted with us in the past. Each of them brought their own brand of humor (and cooking skills) to camp and, to a degree, helped turn a young boy into a man, nobody contributing to that more than my partner.
I mentioned at the outset that it would be unfair to think I could appropriately capture twenty years in a matter of a few paragraphs. I do feel, however, that I have captured the essence of it (and the person). Some say details are everything. Some say less is more. I believe less is more so, I'll sum up my hunting partner in a single word: Dad.
I met my hunting partner in September of 1977. I don’t recall the details of our introduction but I’m sure it included smiles, laughter, some screaming on my part, and (maybe) some tears from him. The truth is, I don’t remember. What I do remember, however, is the first year we hunted together. It was November 1989, to be exact. It was a year I will always remember.
Our original hunting party consisted of eight guys; myself, my partner, two uncles, a cousin, a friend and his son, and that friend’s brother. We gathered that year - on the Friday before the week of thanksgiving - at our cabin in northern Wisconsin, a place we call “The Shack”. I remember it being cold that year. Brutally cold, as winters there often are.
The Shack sits at the bottom of a small hill on a small river lined with birch and poplar trees. In the summer the river will yield its share of northern pike, bluegills, bass, and the occasional muskie that (somehow) manages to get caught below the spillway 300 yards to the north. We’ve twice pulled muskie’s in excess of 35 inches out of that river which, truth be told, is not big enough for 35 inch muskie’s!
The river flows at a snail’s pace during a wet year and, in a dry year, doesn’t flow at all. In fact, during a dry summer the river resembles an oddly shaped swap more than it does a river. No matter the flow of the river it is a beautiful place where eagles have their pick of inattentive fish and, for the most part, travel it’s corridor with very little competition from other birds of prey. In recent years the river has also become home to quite the population of wild turkeys.
In addition to being the main flight pattern for eagles and less-than-intelligent muskie’s, the river also serves as a crossing guard for the deer. You see, even at its lowest levels, the deer prefer to cross the river in two places, places we call “The rapids” and “The ridge”. Those two spots are home to hunting stands that have seen more whitetails than I can attempt to recall. Given the opportunity, I’m sure the deer that have passed by those stands would tell you they have been looked at through more riflescopes than they can attempt to recall. Many deer have been killed in those two spots; many more have been spared (or missed due to poor marksmanship or a sleeping hunter).
My grandfather occupied The Ridge for much of his hunting career. His stand consisted of the remains of an old, red metal frame chair that was, at one point, lashed to a giant pine tree with a rope. A veteran of World War II and the recipient of a Purple Heart, Grandpa had an abundance of two things, patience and wit. I’m told he would sit so still in his stand that songbirds would land on the barrel of his rifle, an auto-loading Remington .30-06 now used by my hunting partner. I'm also told that the best way to test his patience is by repeatedly playing Hugo Montenegro on an old eight track during a marathon game of sheep's head. But, that's another story.
I never had the opportunity to hunt with my Grandfather which is something I would have enjoyed. Grandpa died in 2001 and we miss him still. To this day his red chair sits at the base of the tree having become a corroded reminder of a great man from bygone era. He was a product of a generation many referred to as "The Greatest Generation". I can't speak for them all but, with regard to him I'd have to agree.
When I first took to the field in 1989, The Ridge (near the red chair and that giant tree) was occupied by my hunting partner and me. I still clearly remember standing with him as the sun came up, causing the half-frozen river to sparkle as though someone had sprinkled its surface with a million diamonds. It was (and still is) a spectacular sight. I don’t remember if we saw any deer that morning - probably because I was distracted by my excitement to be hunting for the first time - but I do remember my partner standing next to me, silently, patiently, surveying the surroundings, watching for deer. Did he get his patience from my Grandfather? Something tells me he did. Something else tells me he was one of the offenders in the Hugo Montenegro story.
I didn’t kill a deer that year. In fact, I don’t think anyone killed a deer that year. Killing deer wasn’t of the utmost importance, being there was. After being there for the first time I promised myself that I would always be there and, in some ways, I am always there. It’s become part of me.
In the years since my first deer hunt my hunting partner and I have been fortunate enough to enjoy some other adventures together. We hunted elk in Idaho in 2007 (a physically brutal trip my uncle joined us for). We also hunted mule deer in Nevada in 2008, an early-season, high country archery hunt that pushed us to our limits. On those trips we did the same thing we always did back at The Shack; hunted, laughed, enjoyed being outdoors and, more importantly, enjoyed each other’s company.
This year will mark the twenty-first year (give or take a few) that I will make the trek to the northwoods to join my hunting partner and our (now much smaller) hunting party for the annual deer hunt. I'm looking forward to being there. I enjoy the smaller group we now have, although I do miss the guys that hunted with us in the past. Each of them brought their own brand of humor (and cooking skills) to camp and, to a degree, helped turn a young boy into a man, nobody contributing to that more than my partner.
I mentioned at the outset that it would be unfair to think I could appropriately capture twenty years in a matter of a few paragraphs. I do feel, however, that I have captured the essence of it (and the person). Some say details are everything. Some say less is more. I believe less is more so, I'll sum up my hunting partner in a single word: Dad.
Monday, March 8, 2010
The Points Game
Every year countless big game hunters play the numbers game which usually consists of hours upon hours spent studying bonus and/or preference point data to help us determine where (state or hunt units) we have the best opportunity to draw a tag. Studying this data can be a daunting task for the seasoned veteran and a frustrating, mistake riddled task for the novice.
My goal here is to explain the difference between preference points and bonus points, how each works, and how to use drawing and harvest statistics to put your bonus and/or preference points to work for you. Finally, we'll discuss some of the pitfalls to avoid when using statistics.
Bonus Points:
Bonus points generally increase the number of times your name "goes into the hat" for a big game drawing. These points are usually accrued when an applicant fails to draw their first choice permit for a given species in a given year. True bonus point systems, like the one used in Nevada, do not guarantee (
nor do they set aside tags for) applicants with the most bonus points. We can see this in the table, by looking at unit group 011-013, fourteen people drew tags with zero preference points while one applicant with seven points didn't draw.
How do Bonus Points work?
Let's stick with Nevada as an example. When entering the big game drawing in Nevada, bonus points are "squared" and this determines how many times your name is entered into the drawing. In other words, if you have 5 bonus points for elk, the system squares your points and your name goes into the drawing 25 times (5x5 = 25). The system then applies a random number to each of your 25 entries with the lowest number putting you closer to the top of the drawing list. Once each applicant has been entered into the system, and random numbers have been assigned, the computer does the rest. All you can do is wait, hope and chew your finger nails.
It's important to maintain bonus points on a year over year basis because, as discussed above, the more points you have the more chances you get in the drawing. Look at it this way, with five points this year your name is entered 25 times. Three years from now, with seven points, your name is in the drawing 49 times! That's nearly double the number of chances just because you maintained your points for another two years! In Nevada this is especially important because some tags can take up to ten years to draw!
Preference Points
Preference points work differently than bonus points in that applicants with the most points generally draw the tags. Preference points are usually accrued when applicants fail to draw their first choice permit for a given species in a given year.
How do Preference Points Work?
Colorado is probably the best example of a true preference point system, so I'll use information from the Colorado DOW website to explain their system based on a specific hunt.
In the first table, on the far left under Hunt Cde it says - EE076O1A. This means either sex, elk, unit 76, 1st season, archery. Under Quotas, it has Reg (regular, resident license), LOwn (landowners), NRes (non-residents), Yth (youth). You'll notice that a total of 125 licenses were issued under this hunt code. Under No. Apps (# of applicants), these are the number of people who applied for this license as their 1st choice and 2nd choice - 684 had it as 1st choice, 148 had it as 2nd choice. The next 2 columns are Public/Land Owner - that is the number of people who applied broken down by category - 315 residents applied, 362 non-residents, no youth, 4 resident landowners, and 3 non-resident landowners.
My goal here is to explain the difference between preference points and bonus points, how each works, and how to use drawing and harvest statistics to put your bonus and/or preference points to work for you. Finally, we'll discuss some of the pitfalls to avoid when using statistics.
Bonus Points:
Bonus points generally increase the number of times your name "goes into the hat" for a big game drawing. These points are usually accrued when an applicant fails to draw their first choice permit for a given species in a given year. True bonus point systems, like the one used in Nevada, do not guarantee (
nor do they set aside tags for) applicants with the most bonus points. We can see this in the table, by looking at unit group 011-013, fourteen people drew tags with zero preference points while one applicant with seven points didn't draw.How do Bonus Points work?
Let's stick with Nevada as an example. When entering the big game drawing in Nevada, bonus points are "squared" and this determines how many times your name is entered into the drawing. In other words, if you have 5 bonus points for elk, the system squares your points and your name goes into the drawing 25 times (5x5 = 25). The system then applies a random number to each of your 25 entries with the lowest number putting you closer to the top of the drawing list. Once each applicant has been entered into the system, and random numbers have been assigned, the computer does the rest. All you can do is wait, hope and chew your finger nails.
It's important to maintain bonus points on a year over year basis because, as discussed above, the more points you have the more chances you get in the drawing. Look at it this way, with five points this year your name is entered 25 times. Three years from now, with seven points, your name is in the drawing 49 times! That's nearly double the number of chances just because you maintained your points for another two years! In Nevada this is especially important because some tags can take up to ten years to draw!
Preference Points
Preference points work differently than bonus points in that applicants with the most points generally draw the tags. Preference points are usually accrued when applicants fail to draw their first choice permit for a given species in a given year.
How do Preference Points Work?
Colorado is probably the best example of a true preference point system, so I'll use information from the Colorado DOW website to explain their system based on a specific hunt.
In the first table, on the far left under Hunt Cde it says - EE076O1A. This means either sex, elk, unit 76, 1st season, archery. Under Quotas, it has Reg (regular, resident license), LOwn (landowners), NRes (non-residents), Yth (youth). You'll notice that a total of 125 licenses were issued under this hunt code. Under No. Apps (# of applicants), these are the number of people who applied for this license as their 1st choice and 2nd choice - 684 had it as 1st choice, 148 had it as 2nd choice. The next 2 columns are Public/Land Owner - that is the number of people who applied broken down by category - 315 residents applied, 362 non-residents, no youth, 4 resident landowners, and 3 non-resident landowners.
In the bottom table, the top 2 columns, 0-11+ is the number of Preference Points. The columns wrap which is confusing. The bottom 2 columns are the numbers of hunters with those preference points that applied. So, in this example, 193 hunters applied with 0 preference points, 138 applied with 1 preference point...(next column), 3 hunters applied with 6 points (bottom row, far left column), 2 with 7 points, and no one applied with 8 or more points. To see how many preference points it took to actually get the license - look at the Quota (from table above), which was 125 total licenses issued, then count backwards under Preference Points (bottom row, far right side 1st, last number listed) until you reach 125. You count starting from the hunter who applied with the most points to see how many points you needed to get the license that year. Thus, you would add 2 + 3 + 6 + 19 + 134 = 164. So hunters with 7,6,5,4 and some who had 3 points all drew that license. The hunters with 2,1, and 0 points did not draw. These are only tallied for the 1st choice, in this case.
It's pretty clear from the above example that preference points do favor applicants with the most points and that is why it is critical to maintain points year over year. Look again at the number of applicants with three points (134) vs. those with 4 points (19). All things being equal, that one extra point increases your chances by three times and (for this hunt) would have guaranteed you a tag.
Maintaining both preference points and bonus points is accomplished by applying for tags each year or, in some states, purchasing a point each year if you are unable to apply for a tag.
Drawing Statistics
Most big game hunters have heard the term "drawing statistics" at one point or another. But, what are all these fancy reports telling us and how can we use them to our advantage? The purpose of this section is to introduce you to some different report types and explain why they are useful. We'll again use Nevada as our guinea pig.
The first report shows detailed bonus point statistics for a handful of 2007 pronghorn hunts.
Reports like this are a good tool for determining potential success in 
drawing a tag based on your bonus point group because they break down the number of successful applicants in each point group. For example, look at unit 011. In the 4 point category, 12 out of 24 people drew tags for odds of 1 in 2 (or 50%). Those are pretty good draw odds in that point category. Some additional information this report lacks, however is information, such as harvest statistics, which will further help determine which tags to apply for.
The harvest report shown here can be used to compare drawing odds (from the report above) with the success rates of the people who hunted. We can see from thi
s report that 40 out of 54 hunters in unit 015 were successful on their hunts (74% success rate). One word of caution: Do not use harvest reports to determine drawing odds. We'll discuss below why that is a mistake.
Common Mistakes
The most common mistake people make when using drawing reports is to make their hunt selections based on a single report. To avoid this, be sure review as many reports as you can. Looking only at point statistics is a mistake because it opens you up for the potential of drawing a unit with historically low harvest. Compare point reports with harvest reports!
The most common mistake people make when using drawing reports is to make their hunt selections based on a single report. To avoid this, be sure review as many reports as you can. Looking only at point statistics is a mistake because it opens you up for the potential of drawing a unit with historically low harvest. Compare point reports with harvest reports!
Another mistake to avoid is using harvest reports to determine draw odds. For example, look back at unit 015 in the pronghorn harvest report above. Based on this report one is led to believe they have 1 in 7 chance of drawing a tag in that unit. That's because this report only tells us the total applicants vs. the total number who drew tags. If you were to apply for unit 015 with zero points thinking you had a 1 in 7 chance of drawing a tag, I'm afraid you'd have made a mistake. Going back to the detailed bonus point report we can see that only one person out of 110 drew a tag for this unit with zero points. Odds of 1 in 11 are much different than 1 in 7.
Use these reports wisely and study more than one report. Connect the dots with as much information as possible on a single unit and you're likely to make a sound decision.
Recap
By now you should have a good understanding of the difference between bonus points and preference points. Bonus points give you more chances at drawing a tag but do not guarantee tags for those with the most points. Preference point systems do not guarantee tags either but, tags generally go to the folks with the most points.
Drawing statistics and harvest reports are invaluable tools when applying for big game hunts as long as they are used correctly. Be diligent, use every report you can find and you'll likely avoid some of the mistakes we've talked about. Avoiding mistakes will help paint a clear picture of your chances before you apply for that tag of a lifetime.
Good luck and, as always, drop us a line if you have any questions.
Good hunting!
Steve
Saturday, March 6, 2010
Odds and Ends
Some odds and end to consider:
Montana
1. The big game application deadline is March 15, 2010 for deer, elk and big game combo licenses. Same deadline applies to outfitter sponsored licenses.
2. 900 series antelope tags must be applied for by June 1, 2010.
3. Application deadline for special permit areas is June 1, 2010. You must first be successful in the general season draw, or have applied for an outfitter sponsored license to apply for special permit areas.
Nevada
1. Deadline to apply for all big game species is April 19, 2010.
Idaho
1. Deadline to apply for controlled hunts is May 15, 2010.
Utah
1. Better hurry - deadline to apply for deer and elk hunts is March 8, 2010. This is an extended date due to online licensing problems. Applications must be submitted no later than 11:00 pm on the 8th.
Colorado
1. Application deadline for big game draw hunts is April 6, 2010.
I'll cover some of these states in more detail in a later post. In the meantime, give us a call if you have any questions on applying in these states or are looking to book a guided hunt.
Montana
1. The big game application deadline is March 15, 2010 for deer, elk and big game combo licenses. Same deadline applies to outfitter sponsored licenses.
2. 900 series antelope tags must be applied for by June 1, 2010.
3. Application deadline for special permit areas is June 1, 2010. You must first be successful in the general season draw, or have applied for an outfitter sponsored license to apply for special permit areas.
Nevada
1. Deadline to apply for all big game species is April 19, 2010.
Idaho
1. Deadline to apply for controlled hunts is May 15, 2010.
Utah
1. Better hurry - deadline to apply for deer and elk hunts is March 8, 2010. This is an extended date due to online licensing problems. Applications must be submitted no later than 11:00 pm on the 8th.
Colorado
1. Application deadline for big game draw hunts is April 6, 2010.
I'll cover some of these states in more detail in a later post. In the meantime, give us a call if you have any questions on applying in these states or are looking to book a guided hunt.
The Kephardt Initiative (I-161)
There is a bit of a fight brewing in the state of Montana. Now, when I hear the word "fight" I assume it's occurring between people (or groups of people) who don't care for one another. This fight is interesting in that it's pitting hunters against hunters and the results could be devastating for the state of Montana. Let me explain:
The issue at hand is what is called Initiative No. 161 (I-161) also known as the Kephardt Initiative. I-161 proposes to revise laws related to big game hunting and the issuance of "outfitter Sponsored" licenses in the state of Montana. Currently the state sets aside 5,500 outfitter sponsored licenses with current costs of $1,250 for big game (deer/elk) combo or $995 for the elk or deer combo when applying for only one of those species.
The goal of I-161 is to replace those outfitter sponsored licenses with an additional 5,500 general non-resident big game licenses. It also increases the nonresident big game combination license fee from $628 to $897 (a 43% increase) and the nonresident deer combination license fee from $328 to $527 (a 61% increase).
Proponents of I-161 argue that the increased numbers (and costs) of non-resident licenses will result in a proportional increase of revenue for the state. This is a short-sighted argument evidenced by what occurred last year in Idaho where non-resident deer and elk tag fees increased dramatically. The result of the fee increase was a shortfall of over $1 million when fewer hunters were willing to pay the higher tag fees.
Beyond potential decreases in non-resident hunters, I-161 threatens to impact the outfitting industry in Montana. According to the website stop161.org, Montana's outfitting and guiding industry contributes some $167 million annually to the states economy while nearly half of that ($83 million) comes from monies spent by people who are in Montana solely for a guided trip.
Montana's outfitting industry included (as of 2005) 1,000 licensed outfitters and nearly 4,000 hunting guides. If the industry were to suffer losses of as little as 20% of those jobs due to I-161 eliminated outfitter sponsored licenses, it would have a noticeable economic impact. I don't believe this is the impact we want to see on the sate of Montana.
My intent here isn't to get bogged down in the facts and figures of I-161. I simply find this initiative to be an interesting quandary because it was proposed by hunters thinking it would benefit hunters as well as the state. From my perspective it will have only polarizing effects. Furthermore, I have agree with the NRA's perspective that "ballot-box" wildlife management has never been, and likely never will be effective.
For more info on I-161, please visit the following links:
http://sos.mt.gov/elections/archives/2010s/2010/initiatives/I-161.asp
http://stop161.org/index.php
http://www.nraila.org/legislation/read.aspx?id=5349
http://www.billingsgazette.com/lifestyles/recreation/gazoutdoors/article_0c6cfce6-1756-11df-8b61-001cc4c03286.html
The issue at hand is what is called Initiative No. 161 (I-161) also known as the Kephardt Initiative. I-161 proposes to revise laws related to big game hunting and the issuance of "outfitter Sponsored" licenses in the state of Montana. Currently the state sets aside 5,500 outfitter sponsored licenses with current costs of $1,250 for big game (deer/elk) combo or $995 for the elk or deer combo when applying for only one of those species.
The goal of I-161 is to replace those outfitter sponsored licenses with an additional 5,500 general non-resident big game licenses. It also increases the nonresident big game combination license fee from $628 to $897 (a 43% increase) and the nonresident deer combination license fee from $328 to $527 (a 61% increase).
Proponents of I-161 argue that the increased numbers (and costs) of non-resident licenses will result in a proportional increase of revenue for the state. This is a short-sighted argument evidenced by what occurred last year in Idaho where non-resident deer and elk tag fees increased dramatically. The result of the fee increase was a shortfall of over $1 million when fewer hunters were willing to pay the higher tag fees.
Beyond potential decreases in non-resident hunters, I-161 threatens to impact the outfitting industry in Montana. According to the website stop161.org, Montana's outfitting and guiding industry contributes some $167 million annually to the states economy while nearly half of that ($83 million) comes from monies spent by people who are in Montana solely for a guided trip.
Montana's outfitting industry included (as of 2005) 1,000 licensed outfitters and nearly 4,000 hunting guides. If the industry were to suffer losses of as little as 20% of those jobs due to I-161 eliminated outfitter sponsored licenses, it would have a noticeable economic impact. I don't believe this is the impact we want to see on the sate of Montana.
My intent here isn't to get bogged down in the facts and figures of I-161. I simply find this initiative to be an interesting quandary because it was proposed by hunters thinking it would benefit hunters as well as the state. From my perspective it will have only polarizing effects. Furthermore, I have agree with the NRA's perspective that "ballot-box" wildlife management has never been, and likely never will be effective.
For more info on I-161, please visit the following links:
http://sos.mt.gov/elections/archives/2010s/2010/initiatives/I-161.asp
http://stop161.org/index.php
http://www.nraila.org/legislation/read.aspx?id=5349
http://www.billingsgazette.com/lifestyles/recreation/gazoutdoors/article_0c6cfce6-1756-11df-8b61-001cc4c03286.html
Friday, March 5, 2010
Nevada Bighorn Sheep
Nevada Department of Wildlife (NDOW) biologists continue to find bighorn sheep that have died due to complications brought on by pneumonia in the East Humboldt Range and in the Ruby Mountains.
“We have found 61 dead bighorn sheep in the East Humboldt’s and 18 in the Ruby Mountains for a total of 79 sheep over the last three months,” said Caleb McAdoo, NDOW big game biologist. “In other words, we have observed mortalities of 31% of the herd in the East Humboldt’s and 11% of the herd in the Ruby Mountains.”
McAdoo cautions the public that the full extent of the effects of the disease event won’t be known until later in the spring when aerial surveys of sheep populations are performed. Biologists anticipate that the magnitude of the die-off may be much greater than presently known.
According to McAdoo this isn’t uncommon as other states around the west, including Washington, Montana, and Utah, have also experienced die-offs in their wild sheep populations due to the effects of pneumonia. During the winter of 1995-1996, the Ruby Mountain sheep herd lost approximately 80% of its population due to pneumonia, though this is the first major disease event in the East Humboldt’s since bighorns were reintroduced there 18 years ago. Recently, 95% of the Hays Canyon herd in northwestern Nevada was likely lost to a pneumonia outbreak.
“Unfortunately, there is no known cure, treatment or protocol for pneumonia in bighorn sheep,” said McAdoo, “but we are going to use the data collected from this disease event which may help in future outbreaks.”
NDOW biologists and veterinarians have been performing a number of tasks, setting the stage for future study. This includes tagging and putting radio telemetry collars on sheep in both herds, taking biological samples from both live and dead sheep, and administering Draxxin, a broad spectrum antibiotic to more than 60 sheep. Soil and forage samples are also being taken to explore what effect forage quality and trace minerals in the forage may have on both diseased and healthy animals.
Over the next few years NDOW biologists will follow the collared and tagged animals observing overall health, lamb recruitment and herd growth in an effort to understand the long term affects a major disease event has. Biological samples taken from deceased animals will be compared to those taken from healthy animals to see if minerals, forage quality or even genetics may play a role in determining which animals may live and which may die.
To avoid putting more stress on the animals than necessary, work is being done from the ground as much as possible, as helicopters cause the animals to try to evade and escape, using precious energy and making them more susceptible to pneumonia.
The full extent of the die-off will not be known until later in the spring after the sheep have had time to recover from the winter and can be surveyed from the air.
So far only one Rocky Mountain goat has been found that has died from pneumonia. It is too early to tell if a large percentage of the goat population has also been affected by pneumonia. One good sign is that a fair number of kids have been seen on surveys. Kids are often one of the first segments of the population that are affected by major disease events.
McAdoo also wanted to recognize the sportsman’s groups that have assisted in funding the operations. “The cost for all the tagging, collaring and sampling work is very expensive,” McAdoo explains. “Elko Bighorns Unlimited (EBU) and Nevada Bighorns Unlimited (NBU) stepped up to the plate and are helping us out in these hard economic times and we thank them for that. NBU is donating $25,000 and EBU has provided $27,000 with the offer of more if needed.”
The above was taken from the Nevada Department of Wildlife website at the following link:
http://www.ndow.org/about/news/pr/2010/feb_10/022510_sheep_die_off.shtm
“We have found 61 dead bighorn sheep in the East Humboldt’s and 18 in the Ruby Mountains for a total of 79 sheep over the last three months,” said Caleb McAdoo, NDOW big game biologist. “In other words, we have observed mortalities of 31% of the herd in the East Humboldt’s and 11% of the herd in the Ruby Mountains.”
McAdoo cautions the public that the full extent of the effects of the disease event won’t be known until later in the spring when aerial surveys of sheep populations are performed. Biologists anticipate that the magnitude of the die-off may be much greater than presently known.
According to McAdoo this isn’t uncommon as other states around the west, including Washington, Montana, and Utah, have also experienced die-offs in their wild sheep populations due to the effects of pneumonia. During the winter of 1995-1996, the Ruby Mountain sheep herd lost approximately 80% of its population due to pneumonia, though this is the first major disease event in the East Humboldt’s since bighorns were reintroduced there 18 years ago. Recently, 95% of the Hays Canyon herd in northwestern Nevada was likely lost to a pneumonia outbreak.
“Unfortunately, there is no known cure, treatment or protocol for pneumonia in bighorn sheep,” said McAdoo, “but we are going to use the data collected from this disease event which may help in future outbreaks.”
NDOW biologists and veterinarians have been performing a number of tasks, setting the stage for future study. This includes tagging and putting radio telemetry collars on sheep in both herds, taking biological samples from both live and dead sheep, and administering Draxxin, a broad spectrum antibiotic to more than 60 sheep. Soil and forage samples are also being taken to explore what effect forage quality and trace minerals in the forage may have on both diseased and healthy animals.
Over the next few years NDOW biologists will follow the collared and tagged animals observing overall health, lamb recruitment and herd growth in an effort to understand the long term affects a major disease event has. Biological samples taken from deceased animals will be compared to those taken from healthy animals to see if minerals, forage quality or even genetics may play a role in determining which animals may live and which may die.
To avoid putting more stress on the animals than necessary, work is being done from the ground as much as possible, as helicopters cause the animals to try to evade and escape, using precious energy and making them more susceptible to pneumonia.
The full extent of the die-off will not be known until later in the spring after the sheep have had time to recover from the winter and can be surveyed from the air.
So far only one Rocky Mountain goat has been found that has died from pneumonia. It is too early to tell if a large percentage of the goat population has also been affected by pneumonia. One good sign is that a fair number of kids have been seen on surveys. Kids are often one of the first segments of the population that are affected by major disease events.
McAdoo also wanted to recognize the sportsman’s groups that have assisted in funding the operations. “The cost for all the tagging, collaring and sampling work is very expensive,” McAdoo explains. “Elko Bighorns Unlimited (EBU) and Nevada Bighorns Unlimited (NBU) stepped up to the plate and are helping us out in these hard economic times and we thank them for that. NBU is donating $25,000 and EBU has provided $27,000 with the offer of more if needed.”
The above was taken from the Nevada Department of Wildlife website at the following link:
http://www.ndow.org/about/news/pr/2010/feb_10/022510_sheep_die_off.shtm
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)