MTelkHuntress
Well-known member
I'm still reading the plan but how does a possible implementation of shooting spikes help diversify bull age class?
Draft Elk Management Plan is out
- Thread starter Ben Lamb
- Start date
Carnage2011
Well-known member
It would allow MT to have zero bulls left on general units! In all seriousness…I’d love to hear the reasoning for that one as well.
Nameless Range
Well-known member
What part of the plan are you referencing?
MTelkHuntress
Well-known member
It's under one of the strategies for one of the units. I haven't had near as much time as I would like to read the whole thing so I've been bouncing around and that kind of caught my eye. I know this plan could still change but I do worry in which direction that change is going to be.
Nameless Range
Well-known member
Gotcha.
I could see them proposing a place that is currently BTB on a general tag, to go to spike on a general tag,with a limited amount of either sex permits being allocated - similar to the Elkhorns - in the name of improving age class. Not sure if that is what they are up to in the unit in question.
cgasner1
Well-known member
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2016
- Messages
- 2,938
Some of the western states have season structures like that where it’s spike season then branch bull seems ridiculous to me and doesn’t appear to help in any way
Flatbrimmer
Well-known member
All I’ve ever shot is cows so business as usual. I’d say, If it’ll help my kids and theirs to fill antlered tags on public in the future I’ll go with cows only for another 5 years.
However I can still see it being cows for us joe shmoes and bulls for the landowners and their family and friends, though.. As is business as usual.
Then I have a hard time seeing the benefit, and an even harder time seeing fixing legislation that continues to allow the privatization and monetization of wildlife. The cow-only in a district will not make the herd come off the private. Even if there’s 10 bulls to every cow… don’t diss me just school me. I’m learning here.
Flatbrimmer
Well-known member
Why you hating on the weed so much dude? Parents taught you it’s the same as crack and heroin or what? Don’t hate the player hate the game…
Wind Gypsy
Well-known member
- Joined
- Mar 12, 2017
- Messages
- 2,044
I noted in most of the units I've been hunting they have a goal for bull:cow ratio of equal to or greater than 10:100. Am I off base in thinking that is a pretty piss poor goal? Curious on thoughts in regards to this before I submit comments.
Interested in what others have submitted for comments thus far for thoughts to chew on.
Interested in what others have submitted for comments thus far for thoughts to chew on.
Last edited:
I think that's a pretty low bar, but that's just my opinion.
Wind Gypsy
Well-known member
- Joined
- Mar 12, 2017
- Messages
- 2,044
Well, I just looked at the goals for where I used to hunt in region 1 and 10:100 bull:cow ratio in R3 is a better goal than not having a ratio goal at all but instead a goal to "maintain or increase bull harvest trend" in R1. Maybe that is just because of their inability to do aerial surveys in heavily forested parts of R1 though?
Last edited:
It's about balancing opportunity and age structure for bulls with the idea being that shooting spikes allows raghorns time to mature. Some research points to better cow fertilization with older age bulls versus younger bulls that are less fertile, but copulate more.
As for the 10:100 bull:cow ratio, that's the FWP accepted ratio for herd management, not antler size management.
I do think that most MT resident hunters want to see higher bull:cow ratios and an increase in LE permits where it makes sense and liberalized cow harvest on the A tag on private land versus liberalized licenses for cows on public.
Moving over to a regulation that allows for harvest of cows on only private land and only permit on public is a good way to keep the 90:10 split while also not increasing NR license opportunity above what is out there (and there has been an incredible increase in NR opportunity in Montana, so rather than think of this as a war on NR's, think about it as a way to restore balance for the resource while maintaining a lot of opportunity).
After diving in to the plan in depth, I'm pretty positive on it overall. There are some inconsistencies relative to page 56 and the overall document (It kinda feels like it was stuck in there w/o much consideration of the rest of the document) and it would seem that the research they are relying relative to summer range disturbance from recreation is pretty dated (early 2000's rather than the newer work out of CO).
Their movement towards a more broadly scaled hunting scenarios for districts at the global level is good and it expands beyond the 3 types that they had in the last plan. The increased use of Habitat research and the recognition that hunter pressure is a massive factor in elk distribution is also welcome.
Overall, I'm fairly impressed with what FWP has pulled together, and I think we all owe it to them to comment, and then follow through on the next round, and the next until this thing is finalized. They we keep accountability going so they follow the plan while helping bring stakeholders together, outside of the agency's authority.
America & Montana are a government of the people, by the people and for the people. In the last 18-24 months, I've seen the public advocacy help bring a document like this forward. I see a ton of ideas and inputs from members of this forum, and the groups that turned out in force for the scoping meetings last year.
No plan will be perfect, but I think with a few modifications, this one will be a step in the right direction.
Elky Welky
Well-known member
Today's op-ed from Doug Krings (of Lewistown) and Thomas Baumeister (Helena):
https://helenair.com/opinion/column...cle_b6959526-2bcd-11ee-b7f1-8ba51ebeff56.html
We're getting down to the wire folks, get those comments in!
https://helenair.com/opinion/column...cle_b6959526-2bcd-11ee-b7f1-8ba51ebeff56.html
We're getting down to the wire folks, get those comments in!
MTelkHuntress
Well-known member
Interesting article on the plan.
montanafreepress.org
"The primary author of the plan said that lack of prescriptive details is designed to give FWP discretion to tailor its approach in a dynamic and complex system. Plan author and FWP Deer and Elk Coordinator Lindsey Parsons likens elk management to working a marionette.
“You pull one string and you don’t know what else it might affect,” she said. “Not everybody has the foresight to see it coming, including us sometimes.”"
How stakeholders view the 2023 Montana Elk Management Plan
Elk counts have increased 42% since the state adopted its current Elk Management Plan in 2005.
montanafreepress.org
"The primary author of the plan said that lack of prescriptive details is designed to give FWP discretion to tailor its approach in a dynamic and complex system. Plan author and FWP Deer and Elk Coordinator Lindsey Parsons likens elk management to working a marionette.
“You pull one string and you don’t know what else it might affect,” she said. “Not everybody has the foresight to see it coming, including us sometimes.”"
Nameless Range
Well-known member
Interesting article on the plan.
How stakeholders view the 2023 Montana Elk Management Plan
Elk counts have increased 42% since the state adopted its current Elk Management Plan in 2005.
"The primary author of the plan said that lack of prescriptive details is designed to give FWP discretion to tailor its approach in a dynamic and complex system. Plan author and FWP Deer and Elk Coordinator Lindsey Parsons likens elk management to working a marionette.
“You pull one string and you don’t know what else it might affect,” she said. “Not everybody has the foresight to see it coming, including us sometimes.”"
“How about this idea of ramping up effort on private land and ramping down effort on public land to provide better public hunting experiences?” he said. “That is completely ass-backwards from what was happening for 16 years under the Bullock and Schweitzer administrations, [which were] consistently punitive toward landowners that weren’t allowing public access. The end result was we lost acres open to public hunting on private land.” - Mac Minard
I'm old enough to remember only a couple years ago, when Mac lobbied for shoulder season expansion to public land. What a doofus.
Elky Welky
Well-known member
Yup. "Punitive" is a buzzword amongst those that don't want to participate in the myriad options available to help reduce elk populations on private land, be it hunt rosters, damage hunts, shoulder seasons, etc. "Oh woah is me! I don't get bull tags I can sell and therefore all the other options are "punitive."" I've lost my patience with that kind of thinking.
You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink.
I think if we want to go down the road of remembering bad ideas, we end up back in a stalemate. If MOGA is willing to advocate for pushing elk off of private land and on to public, then we should celebrate that position change and lean in to get that change made.
Mac and I had a conversation a few weeks ago about some language in the ARM for block management that we both had different interpretations of. The statement relative to outfitting not being conducive to department goals when it comes to Block Management struck us both quite differently. Mac uses language that triggers us. We use language that triggers outfitters. Until we give each other enough grace to say triggering things without thoughtlessly reacting, we're just going to have the same kind of outcomes we've had since 2005.
Everybody makes mistakes. The key to growth is learning from them.
Nameless Range
Well-known member
I am cautiously with you on this.
доверяй, но проверяй
Nameless Range
Well-known member
I find it tempting to comment only on those things I think should be different, but something kind of bold I am seeing in some of the specific district plans is related to habitat, and I think that if you are commenting, it is something worth commenting in support of. For example in 318, for the goal of maintaining elk distribution across landownerships with available habitat throughout the year, the plan says things like:
- Work with public land managers to maintain or improve elk security
- Work with land management agencies to improve habitat conditions for elk on public lands
- Encourage retention of all designated and defacto roadless areas and proposed wilderness areas
-Purse new conservation easements
Those are great explicit goals, and sure they could be fluff, but I have a feeling that, particularly as the Beaverhead Deerlodge finally engages in travel planning, FWP would be bound to provide input to the USFS that aligns with these goals. It's really something that could be political, and controversial, but would be a long terms good as different land management proposals come along for things in our HDs.
I think when it comes to habitat considerations in specific HDs, we should comment in favor of these types of things.
- Work with public land managers to maintain or improve elk security
- Work with land management agencies to improve habitat conditions for elk on public lands
- Encourage retention of all designated and defacto roadless areas and proposed wilderness areas
-Purse new conservation easements
Those are great explicit goals, and sure they could be fluff, but I have a feeling that, particularly as the Beaverhead Deerlodge finally engages in travel planning, FWP would be bound to provide input to the USFS that aligns with these goals. It's really something that could be political, and controversial, but would be a long terms good as different land management proposals come along for things in our HDs.
I think when it comes to habitat considerations in specific HDs, we should comment in favor of these types of things.
