Draft Elk Management Plan is out

[Ben Lamb]

Draft Elk Plan Public Comments | Montana FWP

FWP began developing a revised statewide Elk Management Plan in 2020. The next step is to gather input on current elk population objectives and other local challenges that could be addressed in the revised Elk Management Plan. 

fwp.mt.gov

Deadline for comment is July 31st, 2023.

 

[antlerradar]

I am almost scared to read it.

 

[Nameless Range]

I like the way it is broken down and designed, and in a quick look, they literally proposed an objective population range for the district in which I live that is double the current objective goal. Maybe that is a good sign.

I'll dig in. Thanks for sharing.

 

[Ben Lamb]

I am almost scared to read it.

I mean, it's only about 500 pages.

 

[rogerthat]

I am almost scared to read it.

I think you will be pleasantly surprised

 

[Schaaf]

I mean, it's only about 500 pages.

 

[Ben Lamb]

View attachment 281606

Your book report is due tomorrow.

 

[MThuntr]

Your book report is due tomorrow.

Where's Cliff and his notes?!

 

[Ben Lamb]

Where's Cliff and his notes?!

 

[rogerthat]

So far everything I have seen looks solid. The details of how it’s implemented will be sticky wicket. Definitely some room to game the system for Moga and upom.

 

[BackofBeyond]

View attachment 281610

Too soon.

 

[tjones]

When going through the slide show, the question was asked why it said “N/A” for the buck and bull quota ranges. It was explained that the department is planning to go away from quota ranges. This means that biologists would have to go to the commission for approval to change permit numbers, and the data to support their justification would have to be submitted in January. This would be before the biologists even do their winter counts. That was very alarming to me. It seems it would handcuff the biologists and lead to a management style that is even more reactive than the current one.

I have only glanced at the draft, but I poached this from the MD thread.

When going through the slide show, the question was asked why it said “N/A” for the buck and bull quota ranges. It was explained that the department is planning to go away from quota ranges. This means that biologists would have to go to the commission for approval to change permit numbers, and the data to support their justification would have to be submitted in January. This would be before the biologists even do their winter counts. That was very alarming to me. It seems it would handcuff the biologists and lead to a management style that is even more reactive than the current one.

The EMP can look good on the surface but things like this undermine the good work the bios do on their flights. Setting permit levels, seasons and quotas before they get flight data on numbers that are on the grounds is just plain bad management. Wondering if the long game is to end flight surveys.

 

[rogerthat]

I have only glanced at the draft, but I poached this from the MD thread.




The EMP can look good on the surface but things like this undermine the good work the bios do on their flights. Setting permit levels, seasons and quotas before they get flight data on numbers that are on the grounds is just plain bad management. Wondering if the long game is to end flight surveys.

I agree. at least the plan doesn’t look bad on the surface which is what I expected.

 

[tjones]

I agree. at least the plan doesn’t look bad on the surface which is what I expected.

The problem is it puts most of the harvest levels in the hands of the commission. Tabor has shown that this is not a good idea. The bios use to be able to propose adjustments inside the quota ranges without commission approval. That will be all in the hands of the commission now.

 

[el unit]

Thanks Ben.

 

[sclancy27]

The problem is it puts most of the harvest levels in the hands of the commission. Tabor has shown that this is not a good idea. The bios use to be able to propose adjustments inside the quota ranges without commission approval. That will be all in the hands of the commission now.

"Management decisions consider concerns about agricultural damage Van Tassell et al. 1999. Conflicts surrounding elk can result in decreased social tolerance, which may influence lower elk population size goals more so than biological factors. In fact, Montana statute states, "landowner tolerance" means the written or documented verbal opinion of an affected landowner regarding the impact upon the landowner's property…”( MCA § 87-1-301). Also, Montana statute (MCA § 87-1-323) states the Commission, “shall determine the appropriate elk…numbers that can be viably sustained. The department shall consider the specific concerns of private landowners when determining sustainable numbers pursuant to this section.” Therefore, the Montana Fish and Wildlife Commission is obligated by statute to consider social tolerance of elk when determining appropriate or target number of elk."

That is the quote from the new EMP you are referencing correct?

 

[tjones]

"Management decisions consider concerns about agricultural damage Van Tassell et al. 1999. Conflicts surrounding elk can result in decreased social tolerance, which may influence lower elk population size goals more so than biological factors. In fact, Montana statute states, "landowner tolerance" means the written or documented verbal opinion of an affected landowner regarding the impact upon the landowner's property…”( MCA § 87-1-301). Also, Montana statute (MCA § 87-1-323) states the Commission, “shall determine the appropriate elk…numbers that can be viably sustained. The department shall consider the specific concerns of private landowners when determining sustainable numbers pursuant to this section.” Therefore, the Montana Fish and Wildlife Commission is obligated by statute to consider social tolerance of elk when determining appropriate or target number of elk."

That is the quote from the new EMP you are referencing correct?

No

This


bigsky2 said:
When going through the slide show, the question was asked why it said “N/A” for the buck and bull quota ranges. It was explained that the department is planning to go away from quota ranges. This means that biologists would have to go to the commission for approval to change permit numbers, and the data to support their justification would have to be submitted in January. This would be before the biologists even do their winter counts. That was very alarming to me. It seems it would handcuff the biologists and lead to a management style that is even more reactive than the current one.

 

[WanderWoman]

Bottom of page 56:

"Under circumstances where an HD is chronically and significantly over the stated population size goal and is using limited either-sex permits or limited bull permits, FWP will propose to allow a brow-tined-bull or any bull on a General Elk License regulation type. This may be in addition to antlerless opportunity on the General Elk License. Chronically and significantly over population size goal is defined as being the mid-range of population goal above the top of the goal range (i.e., if the goal range is 100-200, then mid-range is 150 and mid-range above the top would be 350) for 3 or more consecutive years without a demonstrable change in population trajectory."

 

[sclancy27]

Bottom of page 56:

"Under circumstances where an HD is chronically and significantly over the stated population size goal and is using limited either-sex permits or limited bull permits, FWP will propose to allow a brow-tined-bull or any bull on a General Elk License regulation type. This may be in addition to antlerless opportunity on the General Elk License. Chronically and significantly over population size goal is defined as being the mid-range of population goal above the top of the goal range (i.e., if the goal range is 100-200, then mid-range is 150 and mid-range above the top would be 350) for 3 or more consecutive years without a demonstrable change in population trajectory."

I guess they are just codifying what they couldn't pass through the commission as part of the EMP now? So, it will be a battle every year with some of these districts with huge private land sanctuary.

 

[DFS]

Shooting more bulls to reduce population totally makes sense biologically. Sarcasm font