Ollin Magnetic Digiscoping System

Draft Elk Management Plan is out

I finalized my statewide comments. I've distilled the many pages of notes into nine main points below:

1. Restrict antlerless harvest primarily to problem areas on private land. For any Hunting District (HD) that is over objective, I would ask that any antlerless tags be restricted to “Private Land Only” (PLO). If there is need for antlerless harvest on public land, those cow elk permits be part of a limited entry draw.​
2. Clarify that Private Land Only excludes all public lands, not just Forest Service Lands. In some Hunting Districts antlerless tags are stated as “Not Valid on National Forest.” The HDs that are over objective by the greatest amount have very little National Forest land, sometimes none. These antlerless tags should NOT be valid on BLM or State lands. To allow them to be valid on BLM and State lands results in extremely high hunting pressure on the small amount of public land, thus moving elk to private lands.​
3. Do not limit the amount of PLO antlerless tags in units chronically over objective. Give willing landowners the tools needed to solve this problem. Access to tags could be a confining element for willing landowners. Give enough tags that those interested in solving the problem can do so.​
4. Align incentives with desired outcomes. This elk management plan should not give further incentives or additional leverage to those who do not want to manage elk. For many non-working ranches, their decision to opt out as a participant in elk management comes at a cost to their working neighbor. The last paragraph on Page 56 speaks to the possibility of making some HDs general elk units if they are chronically over objective. This language provides the wrong incentives to accomplish any of the goals stated in the seven objectives outlined in this plan. That language gives some landowners large incentives to keep numbers over objective, as they are interested in hunting bulls every year, not keeping elk numbers at or below objectives.​
5. Manage for more elk where we currently have public access. Many parts of the state have a lot of public access, yet elk numbers are at all-time lows. Do not lower objectives in those units to meet the currently low population numbers. Set higher objectives and work with land management agencies to increase habitat productivity that will grow elk numbers. This complies with Goal #2 in the plan to improve habitat on public land.​
6. Consider changing the season dates for the muzzleloader season. This likely requires a change in statute. In Region 3, the current muzzleloader season focuses pressure on public land bulls during their most vulnerable times. It also happens during a period with most motorized travel restrictions are removed on public lands, making these bulls even more vulnerable to hunters using motorized access.​
7. Adopt herd objectives on the higher side of the proposed ranges. Much has changed in Montana since the last EMP and the tolerance for elk in many places is higher today. Objective ranges, and where elk numbers lie within that range, are the triggering mechanisms for the prescribed season types. Too low of objective creates unrealistic expectations of what can reasonably be accomplished with the constraints of access to elk, thereby making the plan and management prescriptions of little value. Be reasonable in the objective ranges and give more latitude to managers in addressing the problems that might arise.​
8. Be realistic in what problems FWP can solve with an Elk Management Plan and do not waste resources where FWP cannot influence elk population issues. It would be easier to manage if all landowners viewed “too many elk” through the same lens. That is not the case. Many newer landowners who do not make their living from agricultural production view elk far differently than their working ranch neighbors. Those problems will be solved by “good neighbor” principles, not by this Elk Management Plan.​
9. Adopt Mandatory Reporting for all elk harvested, antlered and antlerless. Much of the debate around too many or too few elk is aligned between public and private lands, with many private lands not accessible. Use Mandatory Reporting to get better harvest data and include information as to whether the harvest is on public land or private land.​


I am now copying and pasting my comments for each Hunting District and submitting those through the portal. I will also copy my statewide comments to each Commissioner and the Director, via email.

I hope we get a huge portion of hunters to submit comments. We've asked for this new EMP for over a decade. Now is our time to be heard.
 
I am now copying and pasting my comments for each Hunting District
Do you mind sharing a HD worth of comments? Trying to format/visualize how much information should be included in the comments.


Reminder to everyone the deadline is July 31st!
 
We need to remember that UPOM was created because FWP went LE on Breaks bull elk permits. This is all just an end-around to get rid of that. The landowners don’t want to lower elk pops to objective (the new or the old). They want to increase the value of leases. If they are “suffering” some cost, I would like to see them quantify it.
 
Also, prior to 2002 IIRC non residents were not limited to 10% in the breaks. NR hunters comprised about half of the archery hunters. I think it was 2002ish when NR hunters were limited in number. That started a pretty big pushback from landowners in the breaks.
 
I feel like I’m having a conversation in the Twilight Zone. Sorry I answered your question.
 
You know more than I do about the Breaks. mtmuley
In December, 2007, the Montana FWP Commission took an unprecedented step by passing a tentative proposal to limit archery elk permits in the Missouri River Breaks Elk Management Unit and 24 other hunting districts. In spite of overwhelming public opposition from landowners, businesses, and industry leaders, the Commission voted unanimously to adopt it.

FWP saw greater attendance at the public meetings and received more written and emailed comments than for any other issue in recent history; they received 319 comments Against the proposal, 179 For, and 62 were unclassified. The FWP wrote in their Public Comment Summary, “In nearly unanimous fashion, commenting outfitters, landowners, businesses, commerce, local governments and non-resident hunters adamantly opposed limited permits…Among resident hunters, strong support was articulated for limited permits in the Breaks (but) unlike limited permits in the Breaks, resident hunters expressed only limited support for this proposal from a statewide perspective.” Staff recognized a “geographic boundary” to the comments, noting that the further away from the affected area the greater the support for the limits.

My bad. Is was 2007, not 2002-03. I was at the commission meeting in Helena when the Robbins testified. Sorry I couldn’t be more accurate.

When the Commission voted to adopt the limited permits and ignore public comment, the seeds for the formation of a united group of property owners were planted. In attendance at this meeting were Toby Dahl of Roundup and Mark and Deanna Robbins of Roy, landowners, ranchers, and outfitters. They saw the majority of the public’s efforts ignored by the Commission in favor of appeasing special interest groups and were no longer willing to sit back and allow a state agency to ride roughshod over private property rights—thus, United Property Owners of Montana was born.
 
What year did this happen? mtmuley
You’re the MT elk expert, you tell me. I just read the UPOM website. I know your just playing “gotcha”, so tell me what word is wrong. I might have mistyped something and gave an incorrect impression, but as I said, it’s on the UPOM website.

Why dont you share with us the comments you sent in? I’m sure they are verbose, but we can handle it.

Yes, I already regret even replying to your question.
 
I can’t think of a better incentive for those in HDs where elk are chronically over objective to NOT allow populations to get to objective, based on page 56’s language. We all should know this, but using bull harvest to address over-objective elk is flat silly. The metric needs to be cow harvest. Kill enough cows and eventually, over time, even the bull population will see a reduction.

I’m happy to see the higher objectives listed in this revised, draft plan, but I wouldn’t rest easy just because of that. In prairie/breaks environments, pretty much central MT eastward, one can argue that ecological carrying capacity seems almost limitless—elk are not confined to a restricted winter range as they are in western MT. They run low on resources, they’ll just keep expanding. This doesn’t consider density effects like disease but we are seeing it now where more and more elk are popping up in places and ever-increasing in number where they are allowed to. Point being, with enough time and no changes to harvest strategies or success, elk populations will once again be “chronically over objective.” Some elk populations are still or already over the new objectives.

Also, the elk plan isn’t final. Commission or other decision-makers could very well change/lower these proposed objectives and if not much is done about that caveat on page 56, well, we’ll be there before we know it.
There is a lot of truth and wisdom in this post.

Allowing a HD to go to general bull if it is chronically over objective is not only counterproductive to basic biology in terms of population management, but it also directly incentivizes elk hoarding by landowners.

Can’t draw a bull tag? No worries. After the elk skyrocket we’ll go to general bull and then we’ve got it made in the shade.

This caveat basically eliminates any motivation (albeit punitive motivation) for landowners to collectively work to maintain elk numbers at or below objective.
 
MTNTOUGH - Use promo code RANDY for 30 days free

Forum statistics

Threads
113,564
Messages
2,025,243
Members
36,231
Latest member
ChasinDoes
Back
Top