Bozeman Area Round Table

[KB_]

I'll plan on being there on the 1st, What time?

 

[Gerald Martin]

Let’s say 6:30 pm unless other folks have a preference for a different time.

 

[elkstalker88]

@Big Fin I would like to attend this but either can't figure out how or don't have permission to dm you. Can you provide me with directions for this event?

 

[Horseman]

I have a spare lot next to my house. We can meet there. If it rains, we can move into my shop. It is 30x50, so plenty of space, if need be.

Hey Randy,
I live out in Three Forks, MT and would like to attend this round table y’all are having. My problem is that being a new member I cannot PM you to get an address.
I live in and contribute to the state of MT so that I can hunt public land elk in the mountains with my horses-if that goes away or deteriorates substantially then my family and I are leaving! I am very opposed to most of the proposals FWP is going to discuss at their open house on 9/7 and plan on showing up for that. It seems to me that since Gov. Gianforte was elected, FWP has prioritized agriculture, large landowners and other wealthy business interests over science, NA wildlife management principles and the thousands of us working class that don’t have access to private land hunting like we did a couple of decades ago. I want to get on the same page and understanding as the more knowledgeable people that are going to show up before I show up.
Thanks
Drew

 

[devon deer]

I know his address, I will see if I can get $10 if I advertise it on Craigslist

 

[Eric Albus]

I won’t be able to attend R3 but am planning on attending R6&7. One idea I’d like to throw out is NR general license only good for a limited number of days 5-8(?). Exceptions made if an LE permit is drawn.
Maybe make archery permits in the breaks and some other areas unlimited on private land(more pressure on private should push elk onto accessible land).
Region 7 antelope needs to be managed by district, not by the entire region as it currently is.

The idiocy of having a two week muzzle loader season in December needs addressed.
The last 2 weeks of general season should be turned into the primitive weapon season.
Last thing I want or need is two more weeks of hunting(crippling/maiming) deer. I’m sure this will shock some, as it is a chance to exploit the resource and capitalize for another 14 days.

 

[antlerradar]

I won’t be able to attend R3 but am planning on attending R6&7. One idea I’d like to throw out is NR general license only good for a limited number of days 5-8(?). Exceptions made if an LE permit is drawn.
Maybe make archery permits in the breaks and some other areas unlimited on private land(more pressure on private should push elk onto accessible land).
Region 7 antelope needs to be managed by district, not by the entire region as it currently is.

The idiocy of having a two week muzzle loader season in December needs addressed.
The last 2 weeks of general season should be turned into the primitive weapon season.
Last thing I want or need is two more weeks of hunting(crippling/maiming) deer. I’m sure this will shock some, as it is a chance to exploit the resource and capitalize for another 14 days.

With you 100 % on everything but private land archery, Luke warm on that one. Mostly because I can think of several people that I don't want to see every year and I don't want to be the guy that has to tell others that when they chase the elk up on to the BLM the hunt is over. I can think of hunters where this would be an issue.

 

[Eric Albus]

I don’t know if the private land only license is a good idea or not, but think it may be worth a try….perhaps make it good for only 7 days? Maybe makes more palatable?

 

[MTGomer]

The muzzy season still blows my mind, especially considering how much gated country opens to snowmobiling Dec 1

 

[Gerald Martin]

The muzzy season still blows my mind, especially considering how much gated country opens to snowmobiling Dec 1

And cow shoulder season on public land with rifles….

Killing the wrong elk with maximum efficiency… Winning!

 

[mtnkid85]

So Ill be coming over from Billings, if anyone else from my neighborhood wants to ride with. Ill see you guys 6:30 on the 1st.

 

[MT Bound]

I am fine with interested folks who want to be part of the conversation from anywhere in MT. If any good ideas come out of this, I am hoping our willingness to engage the folks who can make decisions will spread to other regions as well.

Won't be able to make it work with my schedule this week coming from Helena. If there is another go-round then will see how it works out. thanks for putting something together guys, I'm sure some good things will come from it

 

[Gerald Martin]

I am bringing this back up to make sure everyone that is coming knows the particulars. September 1@ 6:30 PM. , at Randy’s house.
I didn’t ask Randy but I am assuming everyone should bring a lawn chair or something to sit on.

It sounds there’s going to be quite a few of us. It’s also going to be pretty informal and not rigidly structured so the more organized each of us has our individual ideas the more likely it will be that we can have a good discussion.

For the sake of productivity if possible please bring along your idea of a solution along with a complaint.
If you don’t actually have either but are interested in the discussion that’s great too. Often there are valuable insights given by people who aren’t emotionally attached to a specific “problem/solution” approach to an issue.

In terms of the actual FWP listening session, I am guessing that a lot of the time that evening will be dedicated to discussing their proposals with simplifying the regs and hunting units.
I was forwarded an email from Region 3 biologist Julie Cunningham with her proposals and recommendations for region 3. As far as I know this is public record and given to provide opportunity for feedback.
I think it would be good if we were familiar with those proposals and spent some time discussing them on Wednesday evening as well.

I highly doubt that with one round table we are going to be able to identify problems, come up with solutions and come to a totally cohesive group consensus that can be presented to FWP by a single spokesperson representing our gathering on September 7.
I am hopeful that this discussion will produce enough ideas that resonate with each of us individually that when we individually speak with FWP personnel on September 7 they will hear common themes and common solutions to the issues that FWP faces.

Sometimes the best ideas in the world are not implemented by decision makers because they aren’t understood or don’t have enough support to be seen as relevant.

I look forward to seeing everyone who responded and is planning to attend. If anyone who responded that they are coming and is still unsure of anything, please PM me.

 

[Gerald Martin]

From: Cunningham, Julie
Sent: Friday, August 20, 2021 1:08 PM
To: Cunningham, Julie <[email protected]>
Subject: Upcoming hunting regulation simplification


All;



Attached, please find several documents detailing a directive sent to MFWP area wildlife biologists to simplify big game hunting regulations statewide during this year’s biennial season setting process. This could result in considerable changes to hunting district boundaries, license types, and season structures beginning in the 2022 hunting season. Our understanding of what changes are to be made and how these will be implemented is evolving.



Generally, biologists have been asked to generate recommendations that will simplify regulations by reducing the numbers of hunting districts and license/permit types (LPTs) through combining existing hunting districts into larger hunting districts with boundaries that are easy to identify in the field and boundaries that are common between species as possible. Maintaining any current districts will require a biological justification. If a simplification of districts is not expected to adversely impact populations, it is expected to go forward for further consideration. Proposals will then be evaluated at higher FWP management levels and then the Fish and Wildlife Commission. Public comment periods are scheduled (see the attached timeline and note I will need to submit drafts by September 1).



Proposals for substantial changes to districts and seasons regionally and across the state are expected. For the Bozeman/Bridger/Gallatin/Madison area, some thoughts for consideration include:

1. Reduce districts by combining mountain goat districts 326 and 327, and perhaps 362 as well.
2. Reduce districts by combining deer and elk districts 312, 393, and 390 which share elk herds, are over objective, and are managed similarly with shoulder seasons.
3. Reduce districts by combining deer and elk districts 360 and HD 362 which share elk herds, have a shared B license, and have similar management goals.
4. To make common boundaries between species and reduce districts, there are places where moose districts could be combined. The overall number of licenses available could remain the same if biologically appropriate, just spread over a larger, redistricted area. We have been doing this for the last several season-setting processes, and the results and outcomes have been good. For example, we recently combined moose HD 361 and moose HD 362 into a moose HD 361 which has the same boundaries as deer and elk HD 361. More proposals like this could occur.
5. To make common boundaries between the species, pronghorn in the Madison Valley could be split so pronghorn district 360 could become the same as deer and elk district 360/362. The pronghorn herd east of the Madison River is largely its own herd, so this has a biological basis. The pronghorn west of the Madison River could become part of the larger Gravelly/Ruby hunting district. The number of licenses could be changed to reflect the management needs/opportunities for the new districts if this moves forward.
6. To reduce numbers of LPTs, districts with low numbers of B licenses (<50) may see these eliminated. This could mean a proposal to eliminate the HD 301 elk B license.
7. I recommend HD 310 remains to protect the below-objective wintering herd. I may propose a small boundary adjustment to include more of the HD 310 elk wintering area south of Big Sky, which could also become a boundary simplification as per guidance.
   1. I recommend retaining the Gallatin Special Management Area for the 5 bull elk tags based on its long history founded in elk security, its rare and special opportunity to allow hunting for older age class bulls, its popularity, and its importance for hunters.
8. I recommend HD 361 remains as is to protect its small number of resident wintering elk.
9. Portions of districts are not to be allowed unless there is strong biological justification. This could influence HD 311. The north half of HD 311 (north of Highway 84) could become its own hunting district and could include portions of land near Sappington Bridge (currently in HD 333) where elk move back and forth across Highway 287. This portion could retain its mule deer B license opportunity and its elk shoulder season structure. The south half of HD 311 could be joined with HD 301 to combine districts for simplicity.
10. Portions of districts are not to be allowed unless there is strong biological justification. The HD 312-50 Bridger mule deer buck is currently managed through a portion, and HD 312 may join 393 and 390 for simplification (point 2 above). To retain the opportunity while removing the portion to follow guidance, mule deer buck hunting could be allowed on USFS lands only with the mule deer buck permit. This could mean some USFS land currently in HD 393 may be brought into the new Bridger buck area and some private lands would leave the Bridger buck area. The proposal could look like this:
    1. General Deer license: either sex mule deer archery only season (not valid on USFS land); antlered buck mule deer rifle season (not valid on USFS land)
    2. Mule deer 312-50 license: antlered buck (valid on USFS land only)

I will continue to pass on information as this effort develops. Nothing is final yet except for the general directives we must do our best to follow. The ideas I listed here are just that, they are not finalized proposals by any stretch. Please involve yourself as much as you have time and interest to do so to be sure your voice is heard. Contact me with questions or concerns, and I will do my best to answer what I can.



Julie

 

[Gerald Martin]

If anyone else has pertinent info that was part of past recent discussion with FWP or info that will potentially be discussed please link it up or post it to the thread.

 

[The Hedgehog]

With you 100 % on everything but private land archery, Luke warm on that one. Mostly because I can think of several people that I don't want to see every year and I don't want to be the guy that has to tell others that when they chase the elk up on to the BLM the hunt is over. I can think of hunters where this would be an issue.

Some landowners and other business folks would love to see several certain ($) people every year. And some of those landowners would not be telling others that the hunt was over when elk went onto public. So how about a big no on that idea for obvious reasons. Unlimited, FUGHK. Come on Eric. I do see stuff like that likely coming our way though, like that, and maybe 5-10 unlimited archery licenses given to landowners with 640 acres or more. The quality on public land in this state going to get the coup de grâce in no time at all.

 

[Gellar]

So it was before breakfast?

you cant drink all day if you don't start in the morning!

 

[The Hedgehog]

I don’t know if the private land only license is a good idea or not, but think it may be worth a try….perhaps make it good for only 7 days? Maybe makes more palatable?

Outfitted hunts typically don't run longer than 7 days right? I don't blame how you think, but it sucks to think the mindset above is going to be the entire basis of MT wildlife management.

 

[MLaird]

Wish I could be there for this. Will someone post the their take-aways?

I am planning on being the the Region 5 mtg next Wednesday.

 

[Gerald Martin]

I just sat down to put some thoughts together in preparation for our discussion. I found some helpful information from the MT FWP website that looks as though it has been updated fairly recently. I know when I tried to find some of this info earlier in the year I wasn't able to find it.

The web page I pulled the following data from can be found here. https://fwp.mt.gov/conservation/species/elk/population-and-distribution

Elk Counts 2008-2020. I have attached only the 2020 counts.
Elk distribution across the state. Interesting that even though we hear how that MT is 2/3 private 1/3 public, the elk distribution is across 22 million acres of public vs. 16,million acres of private. Yet, IMO, the private land elk distribution east of the Rockies drives current elk management policy in Montana.
Elk population objectives maps.