Small article in this months Outdoor Life about hunting for Sheep in the Montana Unlimiteds.

No, I don't want to get myself killed so I won't go in there, but I am wondering if anybody else here on this forum has gone in there and been successful. would be interested to hear a bit about your hunt in there.

I must confess to being uninformed on this and
decided to ask. What is this? Like open national forest? Just would like to know. Thanks
gene

What do you mean by get yourself killed? Just curious.

I have not been in there yet. I will one day though. I do have a firend who shot a ram in there several years ago. I don't see where it would be any worse than a typical Dall hunt in AK.

Marc
A dall hunt is a cake walk compared to a Montana unlimited sheep hunt. Doing it yourself on this particular hunt has become virtually impossible in the last few years. A few outfitters that work with the Atcheson's fly this area and usually have whatever small populations of sheep that inhabit these units pegged. Most of these units have a quota of 1, sometimes 2 rams. The outfitters usually reach the quota within a few days. The other units with no big time outfits hunting them usually never meet there quota. Considered by many if not most, the single most difficult do it yourself hunt in North America. If you don't mind a grueling backpack trip in some of the most God awfully rugged and some of the most beautiful country in the west with a 99% chance that you WON"T see a legal ram but would like the expirience then go for it. Surely a hunt you will remember forever sucessful or not. Good luck !

Since I live a few miles from a couple of these areas and have hunted them, I'll give you an idea on how things can work out.

One: Access is very difficult, the one area (300) that has limited ATV access is scheduled for "roadless" status by the anti-hunters in the Gallatin Nat. Forest office, so getting in there will be even worse. I killed a moose there two years ago and it was hell getting it out, even with a ATV. The 500's and other 300 units are strictly horse or foot country only. Even with an ATV or horse expect to hike, at 8000 feet plus elevation, most of the time.

Two: If you hire an outfitter there is no telling if you will even see a legal ram or that you will see it before the season closes. The season has closed after only a day or two a couple of times. I have hunted 300 a couple of times and 500 once and not seen a legal ram, probably just bad luck. This isn't a big deal for me since I live here, but for an out of state hunter it could be. Also, the outfitted areas are public land and there may be several locals hunting the same rams you just layed out $K to hunt. One local told me how he and a buddy killed a ram right in front of an outfitted hunter. The locals were using the method discribed below and the outfitter had a camp that was a short ride from the sheep. The locals saw the outfitter glassing the sheep from a mile or so, unfortunately for the outfitter, the locals were only 400 yds from the rams at the time.

I have spoken with a couple of locals that have killed a few sheep over the years. Here's how they said they did it.

One: Several scouting trips to the area during the summer to locate the areas the sheep prefer, and to figure out which trails lead where, etc. Obviously, this is why an out of stater would want to hire an outiftter.

Two: About a week before the Sept opener head to the sheep areas. Locate a legal ram. Live with the sheep for the week, following them as they roam around grizzly country. On opening morning shoot the first legal ram you see.

Three: spend a couple of days packing it out and hopefully not attracting a grizz.

You might get lucky, a few years ago a freak storm sent the sheep to lower elevations in 310, as I recall. 19 Rams were killed, of course the unit then remained closed for a decade....

Frankly, if you really want a big horn ram then BC, even at the high $K it will cost is a good idea, perhaps even less expencive than a Montana unlimited tag. I've done 3 trips, total cost about $500, for gas, tags etc. BUT I've spent nearly 45 days on those adventures. How much would it cost you as an out of state hunter with a guide for 3 unsuccessful trips, $10K? more? If you decide to do-it-yourself, how much time off work or away from home can you afford? Keep in mind that the state may issue 50 plus tags for an area with a quota of only one or at best three rams, if the preceeding winter was mild. BC prices start to look reasonable if you look at success rates vs. dollars spent.

22WRF,

I didn't read the article but I've done the hunt a few times (years ago).

As stated: the outfitters have the few legal rams pegged, usually. However, I know a few guys who have put in the time pre-season and have taken some rams. They all say look in the trees a bit below the tree line (not too low).

Every time I've gone I've seen sheep and even a few rams, but none were legal. Even had my cross hairs resting on one that was pretty close.

If you want to go:
Although the country's not terribly tough in most places you'd better be in great shape to get around. Elevations in the 8,000 - 10,500 would be common.

If you're new to the area I'd make sure you get up there at least several days beforehand (a week would be better), talk to as many biologists as you can to find out their normal haunts (you can almost always see lambs, ewes and small ramns in the same place every year on Jumbo mountain in the Spanish Peaks) and get some darn good glass.

That said, if someone has some pegged its not unlikely that someone else will put their tent right on top of the turds the sheep left the day before, chasing them to some place a few miles away. Expect to see more people than you'd like.

They used to have a 48 hour closure notice once a certain number of rams have been taken. If they've all been taken on the first day you still have two more to hunt. I always planned on a three day hunt.

Get Duncan Gilchrist's book:
http://www.wildramhunters.net/cgi-bin/shop.pl/SID=11175...duct.html/product=27

If you really prepare and work your tail off you'll still face a very small chance of success , unfortunatley. You'll have fun though.

Thank you, thank you, thank you. Facinating.

You guys that have hunted it will have to admit that you had fun though, didn't you?

I hunted one area a few years ago as well.

Let me just toss this out there... You odds of actually killing a ram in an unlimited area are about as good as your odds of drawing a tag in a limited area... For a NR it's kind of an expensive vacation... IMO That being said I'll do it again in a few years when move back a little closer... Until then I'll keep putting in for limited areas.

I spent 21 days chasing sheep in the spanish peaks from one end to the other... Never saw a legal ram during the season but saw quite a few ewes, lambs and small rams. Saw quite a few elk and goats too.

I've spent many a day in those mountains chasing elk and deer, but will tell you that the sheep hunting pretty much kicked my azz... I was in prime shape too! 22 years old and jogged 4 miles a day, on top of living at 6000 feet... Hiking 8-12 miles from the trail head camping at 9500' just to wake up with a bunch of othere guys with horses and wall tents...

For just getting to go on a sheep hunt its probably worth it just to say you went, but I wouldn't expect to kill anything... you might be better off to pretend your sheep hunting and carry your bow and an elk tag instead... I gaurantee you'll have better luck.

I personally like the "anit-hunters" remark about closing off the forest... The fat assed ATV'ers did it single handedly! Can't read the signs so they are closing it off...

Ivan, you obviously haven't been keeping up with the current problems in the Gallatin Nat. Forest. If the closures were based on only abuse by ATV's and other motorized users I'd agree with you completely. The problem is they are not.

First off, trails in sheep unit 300 were trashed by the outfitter's horses in that area and some amazingly bad trail planning by the Forest Service itself. ATV use is minimal and any use for that matter, except hunters, is minimal in this area. The manner in which motorized users were treated by forest service officals at public hearing is an issue, as is the foggy and or just plain BS justifications given for closures. A possibility exists that forest service officials met with so-called "wilderness advocates" in private about the travel plan, these are some of the reasons there may be Congressional hearings on this issue.

By your standards I guess I have no right to hunt since I don't run 5 miles a day up hill in both directions. What you fail to see here is that many, if not most, so-called main stream pro-wilderness organization have been co-opted by militant anti-hunters. You see your own preferences for hunting transportation is justified, too bad if I can't handle it. The anti's see it as great, one less hunter, one day closer to no body hunts anymore. If I can't get to an area I sure as hell can't hunt it. They win, we all loose. Next time you support radical, unjustified restrictions on access because you think they may help you, or just not effect you, think about who might be really coming out ahead.

I don't mean to start a chit storm...

But all the travel plans I've seen, are not proposing "shutting" the forest off completely. Closing some roads here and there and trying to rope in the fuggn fat ass atv'ers isn't going to stop most people from hunting. They aren't going to close all the roads and trails...

It means that the fat assed crowd is actually going to have to set your beer down, and get out and walk for their animal...

If you think ATV abuse isn't causing these closure issues then you may want to read up on some of the reasons why there are closure recommendations. The number one reason is due to the fat ass crowd not staying on roads!

I really don't buy the conspiracy about militant anti hunters in bed with conservation groups... Do you think the RMEF is in bed with them??? How about Ducks Unlimited? Do you know where they stand on the road closures and roadless areas? No wilderness area I know of is closed to hunting… and no roadless area is closed either… A few less people may use them because of it, but that’s their preference…

What’s wrong with having a little wildness/roadless area? Its not like they make up a majority of public land and they never will... a very small portion of what’s left of our public land can even be considered for this... less than 10%, closer to 5%... I just can’t understand why the fat assed crowd isn’t happy with having the other 90%+ to tool around on? So if some of us are for closures and against the fat asses then we’re anti hunters?

Do we need a fuggn road up every drainage and down every ridge just so our asses can grow bigger?

Just because a guy can't haul his fat ass around on an "iron horse" any more doesn't mean that those areas are closed off... Just means they have to lace up their boots a little tighter and hike up the hill... The only one closing the forest down are the people that aren't willing to walk or ride a horse... Its not like you can go to many places in MT and be that far from a road anyway...

There is something an estimated 20-25,000 "new" roads/trails created by the fuggn fat ass crowd every year! Don’t you see a problem with that? The Forest service and BLM couldn’t close roads fast enough to keep up with the new roads created!

Road cost money to maintain, and last count I heard… the Forest service only has about 30% of the money they need to keep them open. You can thank Bush for slashing their budget… I guess then you could claim Bush to be against hunting too! Some of his policies definitely puts hunting on the back burner ahead of resource extraction.

If you look up the amount of hunters that use atv accessible areas compared to wilderness areas I think you'll find that use is pretty comparable... I think just as many people want to get away from the atv's as want to use them... I know I do, so that must make me an "anti hunter"...

Lets do a little comparison on a couple hunt areas in MT 360 vs. 324... One is made up of mostly wilderness and non motorized travel areas, and the other is riddled with ATV trails... 324 is slightly bigger, and holds a few more elk... close to the same amount of private land… The consensus... A higher percentage of hunter success is generally always attributed to the wilderness area 360, there are a few more "hunters" in the ATV area but that should be the case since it's bigger, and a main road to other areas runs right though it, so the road hunters can claim they hunt there too. What I find interesting is for just about every unit you look up that is comprised of wildness/roadless areas, the harvest percentage is higher compared to ATV and roaded areas???

Do a quick survey of your friends that elk hunt… I’m sure you have many in MT… I know I do… Out of all the ones I can think off right off, I would say that the guys that hunt in the wilderness or roadless areas and actually get out and walk generally kill 3 elk for ever 1 that is killed in an ATV area! Stupid fuggn anti hunters!

Sounds to me like the anti hunters should be pushing for more roads... it makes the hunting worse!

Roads or no roads people will still hunt there, whether it's a 300 pound doughnut eater or a 30 year old man that is willing to strap his boots on and live theie hunting experience...

I said it once and I’m sure I’ll say it again, the ATV’er have no one to blame but themselves for road closures… Obey the laws and stay on the trails and they’re fine with me, make rouge trails and destroy chit and I say ban em all!

Ivan

I tend to agree with you. Even though I am getting older and cannot get up and down the mountains like I used to be able to, I would much rather NOT be able to access a wilderness area for the very reason that it is wilderness and therefore tough to access, than to have all wilderness areas covered by roads so that people in 4 wheelers and pickups can destroy the wilderness quality of the wilderness.

Its kind of like the Boundary Waters/Quetico National Park on the Minnesota Ontario Border. NO MOTORS ALLOWED. If you can't paddle a canoe you don't get to come in.

there has to be some areas left like that for those that are willing to pay the price of being in superb shape in order to access them.

I still think that you are miss informed about this specific situation. Your reference to areas outside the Gallatin Forest is interesting but has nothing to do with the access in the sheep area 300. (This forest already has nearly 50% actual or defacto wilderness. By the way most of the elk killed by residents are not killed in the wilderness. And the highest elk numbers are not found in the wilderness areas of this particular forest.)

Sheep hunting in 300 still requires days of backpacking at 8000'. I never said I wanted to drive up to the sheep. I just do not want to have to walk 15 to 20 miles before I have to walk another 50 while some "fat-ass"(your term for anyone that doesn't walk in?) on a horse rides on in on the same trail. No horse access, no ATV access, no problem with me, as long as we all get to play by the same rules. Is this partly a resident hunter vs. outfitted non-resident hunter problem? Absolutely.

Nice distraction, deflection, dragging RMEF and DU into the mix, they are not the groups I was refering to and also not the groups whose actions are in question in the Gallitin National Forest access plan.

I am currious as to why you hate ATV's with such a passion.

Sorry the hunt areas that I mentioned where not in the GNF... one borders it and the other is less than 40 miles from the border... Same country same elk same type hunters, same type access. You want me to look up areas in the GNF that are comprised of wilderness vs non wilderness? It will be the same answer, higher success rate. They may not kill as many elk, or be quite as many hunters but the overall success rate will be higher...

Like I said roadless and wilderness isn't "locked off"... only from the pansies that don't want to make the effort to hunt there.

As far as the DU and RMEF goes... you're the one with the conspiracy theorys! Did you look up what the RMEF had to say about the clousures and ATV abuse??? Anti hunters in bed with wilderness advocates trying to take your hutning away makes me laugh!

I think I see your delima for ATV trail closures... 15- 20 miles though? Then another 50??? Are you planning on walking in circles? you have to be talking about the Gallatin Crest area. The area their proposeing closure on is only about 10-15 miles across as a crow flies and roughly the size of the spanish peaks wilderness... AND they are still poposing keeping a moter cycle trail through the middle of it open, so you'll only have to walk 6-7 miles from the trail maybe... Is that to much to ask for an unlimited sheep area? You can bet your ass though, that the fat assed ATV crowd will still be useing those trails though! They can't read...

I have a problem with ATV'er that can't read signs and destroy chit... If they stay on the trails thats fine, but they don't, I'd be willing to bet that 65-75% of ATV riders break the law... So what can the forest service do? CLOSE THE ROADS and keep them out... but that won't work, cause they'll just drive around the gates, tear them down etc and drive where ever the fugg they want anyway cause they know that its unlikely that they will get caught and if they do its a slap on the wrist... I see it every time I'm in an area that they have a remote possibily of access. They don't have the money to enforce the laws and the atv'er aren't going to police themselves... They can do more destruction in one season than.... well there is really nothing to compare it to. Spend some time in and around areas where they are legal to ride on the trails, and you'll see more rouge trails than you will see actual legal trails. They ride where ever the fugg they want too. Through streams, wetlands (mud bogg'n) in alpine areas that take generations to grow back, etc etc. THE NUMBER ONE CAUSE OF FOREST DESTRUCTION TODAY IS ATV ABUSE! Look up the reason for the closures in Hylight Basin... #1 on the list is FUGGN FAT ASSED ATVERS!!!

I honestly think we're probably more on the same page than you think. You should check out the draft alternative travel plans put out for the GNF and see for yourself what is really being closed off. The biggest thing that is in the works is shutting down ATV trails and leaving them open to motercycles... which good or bad is not really closing anyone out. The only other thing I did see that was interesting was closure on a couple hiking/stock trails on a seasonal basis for stock in the Bear Tooth Plateu. But again it was three trails and about 30 miles seasonaly... These area's are fragile and can't handle the number of people that go there. Should we just continue to trash them? The forest is going to be there for all of us to enjoy for years to come but we need to take care of it now so that will happen. Like I said the two major reasons for the closures is $$$ and fuggn fat asses on ATV's trashing the place!

BTW I agree with you 100% about residents or even NR DIY sheep hunters verses the outfitted hunter in the unlim area. The outfitters shouldn't be alowd to guide in them IMO.

Lastly... fat ass is an ATV'er... take a look around next time you're at the pump or some place where you'll see a car load of them filling up for the day, then take a look at how big they are... 75% of em could use a little walking.

Sorry I wasn't mroe clear when I was comparing it to a Dall hunt. I meant that purely in terms of physical exertion-mountians and packs and such. I know the odds of a kill are less than 2% or something. I meant that a 45# pack in AK mountians was similar to a 45# in MT mountains.

I was looking at it as a kind of fun hunt to go on, knowing full well there was at best a slim chance of killing a ram. And look at it this way-in AK you are walking out through the mountains with a 100#+ pack. If you don't shoot a MT bighorn, then your pack weighs less than when you went in. So when looked at in that light, it is an easier hunt than a Dall!

Ivan,
Maybe we are closer to agreement than I thought. I agree that a majority of the guys filling up at the gas pump are way too plump and lazy. I also beleive that the solution is far more restrictive regulation of ATV users rather than a blanket closure.

Some examples of why the issue is a mess: One road I avoid in the spring because it's always too soft remains open in spite of my letters to the ranger district and the fact that they know it's a mess! The fact that people use it anyway is proof that you are right in condeming ATV users as idiots. On another trail the FS routed traffic off the existing gravel road across a meadow and then up a steep grass covered hill! (No I'm not BSing here. I wrote a strongly worded letter to the FS main office and actually got the trail back onto the gravel. In 3 years the meadow has just started to show some signs of recovery.) On another trail which provides the only acess to 5 "land-locked" sections of FS land is closed to use during rifle hunting season. The rub here is that the large adjacent landowner, who runs an outfitting operation takes his clients onto the FS land in pickup trucks! Complaints to the FS have resulted in some idiotic answers, chief amoung them that we, the complainants, can't prove that the adjacent landowner actually drove on the land during the season (evidently he leases the land for grazing and so has a "right" to drive there in the summer.) This is in spite of the fact that the only truck tracks come off his posted and patrolled property and horse hunters have seen trucks driving ther during the season! I think these examples give some creadence to the idea that the FS needs to do a hell of a lot better job also.

The Rock Creek ATV trails in 300 provides access over some extremely steep, heavily timbered country. I've hiked those trails and some cases it takes hours to cover less than a mile. At that point you are still several miles from the sheep, and there is no trail for the lazy to abuse. I just find it odd that closing a gravel road to ATV traffic to force anyone without livestock into a 3 hour death march serves any purpose.( Oh yes, the outfitter in this area strongly supports the closures, I wonder why....) Also the lower sections of one and all of the other two trails at this particular point are actually old logging access roads that are packed gravel, due to heavy timber and extremely steep slopes off road travel from these roads probably isn't impossible, but it could be suisidal.

Some solutions that could maintain access:

For hunters, game retrieval only, no guns or bows on board. Yes, even on the gravel roads if that's what it takes to make it work. This will keep the lazy out but allow for ethical quick recovery of game especailly during bow season. If you wanted to move your camp up the trail you could, but the weapons stay in the truck and you have to walk in with them.

No "recreational" use in most areas. Limit access only to hunting season only and under the "walk-in to hunt" provision. Teenagers, fresh from a winter of watching ESPN Extreme Sports, with dirt bikes and ATV's should not be running across meadows in May. By concentrationg use to one time of year it would be far easier to police. If it's still a problem, screw it, close it down.

As regards the environmental groups: I'm not totally paranoid if I can find the article on the co-opting of groups I will post it. I saved it but just moved and it may take quite a while. Keep in mind that there two classes of "conservation" or "environmental" groups out there. This could not be made any clearer than the fact that the RMEF, DU, SCI, TRCA and others that involve hunters were never invited to the Clinton era Whitehouse conclaves of "environmental" groups. However, HSUS, PETA as well as Sierra Club, Audubon Society and others that are more in the "non-comsumptive" catagory were. When groups share directors, when staffers move freely between groups and large contributers to one group suddenly begin contributing to another you've got to wonder. Just because HSUS lost it's efforts to ban access to hunters in court doesn't mean they've given up.

AS far as the original subject of this thread goes: If you are in good enough shape and want to go on a great hunt in some of the most beautiful country on earth try the unlimited hunt in 300. I'll be up there again in a year or so, yes Ivan, even if I have to walk in.

Hunter MT I agree with your pretty much 100%...

I'm not for "locking" the forest off just sensible management of what they have like you. I think they should keep a main road open down the middle of these areas, and if you have to hike 5-6 miles from there then so be it. If you want an easer hunt there are hundreds of thousands of other acres open that are closer to a road. I know this area hits hard to home for you because its "your" honey hole... I know I'm pissed about the Yellowstone club, they sure fugged up some seriously good elk hunting just across the "road" from where you sheep hunt. Makes me sick to hike in 7 miles into the wilderness only to see condos and ski lifts.

I can see where you're coming from with the anti hunters and their advocating of the wilderness. But very few of those org's really have a clue much less any pull with these issues. The sierra club more so, but they have also done a lot more for the hunters than you probably realize.

Like I said the FS only has so much time and money and if closing off trails to keep the fat asses from making it a nightmare for them solves their problem... then thats the way it will be. but like I said unless they totally obliterate the trails they won't read the signs and will continue to ride where ever the fugg they feel like it. I like your idea about no guns with your ATV and only for game retrieval. I think that much like what ID has done in some of their units. From what I understand its worked out well for them too.

You made my argument against ATV's even better by commenting on what you've seen first hand that can be done by ATV's... They really are a sorry bunch. Like I said keep em on the road and there is no problem, but its just to tempting for people to ride where ever they want to...

Is the area you're talking about going to be shut off completely to motorized traffic? Or do you need to bust out that honda trail bike?

I personally believe that outfitters will totally ruin hunting... Hell they just about have IMO. Also MT needs to take a look at what ID has done, I believe that they have some areas that are off limits to outfitters on public land! That would be pretty sweet, but on the other hand they will lease up all the private land. So once again the little man will get hosed!!!

That is totally BS that they lock people out of the public land during hunting season is it 'locked out' or just no motorized vehicles? Can you tell me were that is at exactly? I can't imagine that they can close it off to hikers and horse back riders. If so I know a lot of people that would be willing to stick up for us small guys and look into the issue...

To get back to the topic... The unlimited areas are a tough hunt, but actually an "affordable" sheep hunt for those how want to say they went on a hunt. While I've never been on a dall sheep hunt, I really can't imagine that the unlimited hunts would be any harder, probably better because the weather will most likely be more cooperative.

Good luck if anyone put in for em.

Ivan,
Sorry, I wasn't clear on the "landlocked" area. It is long narrow stretch of land with private land on 3 sides. Anyway, I did not mean public access was totally prohibited, yes you can still get in there via horse, long ride though. Walking is not a realistic option for anyone, you might be able hike in but packing an elk out would be physically impossible for one person or probably even 2 or 3. One trail head is several miles, and a couple of death marches from the elk area and the other trailhead is closer but still a death march. (Death March- Any trail that approaches 1000 vertical feet per mile. My favorite is Pine Creek Lake in the Absaroka-Beartooth Wilderness, 4500 verticle in 3 map miles or 4.5 trail miles.) I rode into this area and it took over two hours on an ATV from the far end trailhead. The outfitter can drive in anytime from the adjoining ranch. Even if the outfitter was prohibited from actually entering the NFS land he would still have a virtual private island of public land for his clients.

Just as a note I really don't care about dirt-bike access since I'm not a recreational rider. I consider the ATV to be a tool, just like a horse or my truck or a game cart. Since I hunt alone most of the time my main interest is game retrieval. I would not object to the FS closing true "dirt" trails, but closing gravel roads?

Look, if you ever get out of MD and back to MT and want to hunt sheep in 300 let me know, I've got a couple of spots that are inaccessable even to horse packers! I put in for a limited goat tag in goat area 314, which includes sheep unit 300, and will hunt in the 300 area if I'm drawn.

That's another point, the odds on goat in many area are not that bad, if yo are considering putting in for a unlimited sheep tag try your luck with a goat tag in the same area. If you get drawn for goat you can still have a hunt even if you don't see legal ram. Plus if you don't get drawn for goat you will get to know the area better for the future if you are there hunting sheep.

Huntermontana sent you a PM...