teamhoyt
Well-known member
I've commented. Have you? it only takes a few minutes and if they don't hear from us we are heading for a CO style of management! IMO
Elk Shoulder Season
- Thread starter JMG
- Start date
katqanna
Well-known member
I contacted a number of other hunting groups yesterday to send in requests for a 30 day extension on the elk shoulder season public comments, since the commissioners were not going to address this until the Oct meeting, since so many public hunters hadnt heard about it yet and since FWP did not provide my requested GIS data on the private lands leased to outfitters until July 31st, that I requested over a month ago to put this landownership map together. I went to the commission meeting to request it in person as well and they granted us an 18 day extension, until the 28th of August. They stated that as of yesterday they had received about 550 comments. Considering the ag network published the news right after the commission approved the tentative in June and I have seen it at a number of their social networks, I am willing to bet a good number of those 550 are from that stakeholder direction.
If you havent already commented on the elk shoulder seasons, please take time to submit a public comment.
Here is the map I created with ArcGIS that overlays the public/private landownership, elk distribution and hunt districts, and the private land leased to outfitters. It is high resolution so you can zoom in because of all the detail and there is an 11x17 PDF.
And the page with connecting documentation like the game damage audit overview and the hearings coming up on Aug. 11th & 12th, where FWP is trying to legitimize what the audit found illegal or unregulated.
If you havent already commented on the elk shoulder seasons, please take time to submit a public comment.
Here is the map I created with ArcGIS that overlays the public/private landownership, elk distribution and hunt districts, and the private land leased to outfitters. It is high resolution so you can zoom in because of all the detail and there is an 11x17 PDF.
And the page with connecting documentation like the game damage audit overview and the hearings coming up on Aug. 11th & 12th, where FWP is trying to legitimize what the audit found illegal or unregulated.
dcestnik
Member
Comments submitted and thank you for your work
huntin24/7
Well-known member
Comments submitted. It's amazing to me in my area that almost no one that hunts has any idea about the different proposals that affect hunters/game management. I guess maybe I should do a better job of trying to inform others. Big thanks to those of you that keep us informed about all the issues!
shoots-straight
Well-known member
Maybe a short LTE to your local paper's in order?
huntin24/7
Well-known member
Good point.
RobG
Well-known member
A little late, but also guilty of not doing that. I bitched here, does that count?
My main concern boils down to hunters having their elk numbers reduced further while at the same time losing opportunity. That is not fair to us. On the other hand, the outfitters will be able to profit big time from these hunts. Keeping all shoulder hunts permit only (obtained from a drawing) will help this somewhat.
katqanna
Well-known member
As soon as I get back home later this afternoon, I will begin posting the inconnected special interest outfitter documentation to that page that affects the objectives and such in areas. I know there are some outfitters here, so let me state for the record, again, I know there is not a one size fits all, broad brush perspective of outfitters, just as you cant judge all hunters by the slob road hunters.
But when I was in Park County offices get a giant ass map of public/private roads for documentation, I stopped at the gas station and right by the register was a farm and ranch magazine that caught my eye because it had large pictures of elk in the rut. That is what they were using to advertise their ranch. A ranch that also had an outfitter logo on it and coincidentally just happend to be right in the HD that Commissioner Vermillion asked at the June meeting introducing elk shoulder seasons, what the objective for that area was (that area was color coded as being way over objective). Kujula couldnt answer. I had my data with me and told him that HD 700 and 701 were run together, their objective was 200-300 and their 2014 winter count was 1192 for all that large landmass. Vermillion asked Kujula why the objective was so low for that land mass and Kujula had to admit landowner intolerance. But landowner intolerance is not the whole picture.
When I got home and looked that ranch up, guess what hunt district it was? 700. And that landowner outfitted land was surrounded by public BLM land. I began looking at the other nearby landowners, a number outfitted or leased to outfitters according to the maps and the public lands were leased to outfitters. Well this became an ever spreading research project that is showing the same pattern in another of other areas that are "over objective" with sufficient "habitat" to support more elk than the artificially low objectives.
This is a part of the elk management conversation that has been missing.
But when I was in Park County offices get a giant ass map of public/private roads for documentation, I stopped at the gas station and right by the register was a farm and ranch magazine that caught my eye because it had large pictures of elk in the rut. That is what they were using to advertise their ranch. A ranch that also had an outfitter logo on it and coincidentally just happend to be right in the HD that Commissioner Vermillion asked at the June meeting introducing elk shoulder seasons, what the objective for that area was (that area was color coded as being way over objective). Kujula couldnt answer. I had my data with me and told him that HD 700 and 701 were run together, their objective was 200-300 and their 2014 winter count was 1192 for all that large landmass. Vermillion asked Kujula why the objective was so low for that land mass and Kujula had to admit landowner intolerance. But landowner intolerance is not the whole picture.
When I got home and looked that ranch up, guess what hunt district it was? 700. And that landowner outfitted land was surrounded by public BLM land. I began looking at the other nearby landowners, a number outfitted or leased to outfitters according to the maps and the public lands were leased to outfitters. Well this became an ever spreading research project that is showing the same pattern in another of other areas that are "over objective" with sufficient "habitat" to support more elk than the artificially low objectives.
This is a part of the elk management conversation that has been missing.
Just a small point, but an outfitter/guide having a permit to guide hunters on BLM lands, AFAIK, does not keep the public from hunting there. Big difference between leased private lands and "public lands were leased to outfitters".
Straight Arrow
Well-known member
'Valid point, 1-pointer; but once the pressure on public lands results in the "hoarding" dynamic and then the outfitter moves hunting to the nearby private lands ... the opportunity is not available to the public.
Also, it's not uncommon for some of those tracts of BLM to be landlocked by the outfitted ranch.
BRI
Well-known member
Anyone know why FWP is so reluctant to use the conditions on p. 55 of the EMP? I know several people who have requested it numerous times during the public comment period, both verbally in the meetings and written submission. I've also heard several folks here request it. But, to my knowledge, they've only implemented it once in region 2.
TRS_Montana
Well-known member
Kat, thanks for the additional info. I have read the guidelines and the interested persons letter multiple times and I have had a really hard time picking out the explicit wording that everybody on here is says so blatantly obviously gives landowners so much control. I am certainly not disagreeing with anyone on Hunt Talk, probably just highlighting my ignorance.
If the opinions that I have read by most posters on this thread are even slightly correct, it is sad how disconnected FWP is from meeting healthy, science-based objectives.
If the opinions that I have read by most posters on this thread are even slightly correct, it is sad how disconnected FWP is from meeting healthy, science-based objectives.
BuzzH
Well-known member
I think a lot of it is politically motivated from people like Debby Barrett. The MTFWP lacks both the spine, and the support of hunters, to manage elk in any given herd excluding harbored elk.
How any biologist could base cow tag numbers and harvest, including elk that are never hunted as part of their recommendations, is a complete mystery...and a joke.
I would fire them on the spot...and I'd start at the top with QK....
katqanna
Well-known member
I didnt point this out in relation to access, that is another issue and I know that there is public access to some of these areas. I stated, "special interest outfitter documentation to that page that affects the objectives."
And yes there is a wildlife pressure/herding factor in some cases, as well as some of the public land not just being BLM, but DNRC and some of those leases are exclusive. For example on the next door HD 410, some of the parcels are not only leased at ridiculously low prices ( and these were just raised, other areas are very low, one outfitter gets 48 - mostly 640 acre parcels in a bundle for $125 - not each parcel, but for all 48, thats about 30,720 acres for $125), in my opinion, but Montana Big Game Pursuits has an exclusive lease on 3-640 acre DNRC parcels, at .30 an acre = 1920 acres for $576.00. Most of these 3 parcels have a significant amount of BLM around them.
Their website states,
Dont get me wrong, these may be really nice people, but I am talking about the intentionally limited hunting to provide a high success rate for clients, affecting population numbers that affect objectives, which are sometimes set lower to aid this private/commercial interest. Their basic archery elk hunt is listed as $5500. With public access pressure to the BLM, where do you think these elk are going to go?
I dont know how to use that part of the arcGIS yet, to be able to tell you how many acres are in HD 410 (edit: 1,020,519), so I put a call in to FWP, they might get back to me, I also asked what percent was public vs private there. But looking at the map I made, there is a lot of that private land leased to outfitters salmon red there.
The second sentence in the elk shoulder season is, "... and specifically in response to criticism that FWP was not meeting elk objectives." This is brought up a number of times, yet, consistently I am finding data, not being addressed in this discussion, that I feel is extremely valid to the elk objectives and that "criticism" of not meeting them.
Last edited:
katqanna
Well-known member
I finally got some of that documentation up on the Outfitter Connection page.
The Outfitted Leased lands map, FWP's over objective percent map, the outfitted leased DNRC parcels in the HD 700, 701, 410 and 530 areas (since Vermillion asked about the 700/701 area, thats where I focused more of my research), the BLM outfitter permitted map of 410, 530 (the other office in Billings is getting 700/701 to me), the breakdown of the Block Management in HD 700 and the outfitter pages/sources that show quotes like Rep. Harris', "Without baiting or fences, HUNDREDS of elk freely rut on the Harris Ranch. Although public land is very close, almost no bull elk have ever been killed on the neighboring public lands. Elk know where they feel safe and are not harassed."
This all needs to be addressed in the elk objective, counts, harboring and game damage issue, IMO.
The Outfitted Leased lands map, FWP's over objective percent map, the outfitted leased DNRC parcels in the HD 700, 701, 410 and 530 areas (since Vermillion asked about the 700/701 area, thats where I focused more of my research), the BLM outfitter permitted map of 410, 530 (the other office in Billings is getting 700/701 to me), the breakdown of the Block Management in HD 700 and the outfitter pages/sources that show quotes like Rep. Harris', "Without baiting or fences, HUNDREDS of elk freely rut on the Harris Ranch. Although public land is very close, almost no bull elk have ever been killed on the neighboring public lands. Elk know where they feel safe and are not harassed."
This all needs to be addressed in the elk objective, counts, harboring and game damage issue, IMO.
