FWP Sidestepping Public Comment Period?

Probably not, but the EMP is old and needs reworked. My thought is that if the population in the zone doubled since the EMP, the quota and range should be expanded. I want to give FWP the flexibility they need to do their job. I have seen nothing here so far that is convincing me otherwise.
In 410 and 417, the problem with your idea is that elk group up in the late fall and winter and head to the best feeding areas to survive the winter. The best feeding areas are on a few ranches. You have to count them toward objective when they will move and disperse in the spring during green up. Note- this is not necessarily the problem on the Wilkes ranch in 411. They just have all around better elk habitat because they want elk. And if you are an elk, why would you leave? So maybe your idea would have some merit there, but FWP would have to run a separate draw for the Willets ranch. That is a slippery slope in a direction I don't like.

Your right the EMP is old and really needs reworked, but that is what they have. So they need to stick to what their own document says they will do. Not do as they please and accomodate landowners who think they rule all the elk. As stated before all they are doing is making the public suffer and their only response is to issue more tags, which will only make the current situation worse.
 
Last edited:
Good reading of the various opinions and experiences. Informative. Much more complex than a simple yes / no answer. Glad this is not a sarcastic, shit show argument, rather reasonable reading.


It seems the issue rotates not merely during "hunting season"... How effective is an EMP when evaluating damage to private landowner's crops?
I don't think an EMP is going to help prevent crop damage if the ranch shuts off access. Doesn't matter if there are 10 tags or 1,000 tags, the result will be the same for that landowner.

The EMP should however, prevent the accessible areas from being overrun by hunting pressure and void of elk. That's the part FWP is failing to manage in most of these shoulder season units.
 
I was involved in getting page 55 of the EMP put to use in HD270. Its was real simple on what accessible elk were. FWP flew the CB Ranch 1-2 weeks after general season opened. The elk counted were then deducted from the next spring green up spring count. That was the population that was used for the objective during season setting. This unit is mostly public and gets tons of pressure. Up to 1/3 of the total unit population was not availabe to hunters 2 weeks into general.

FWP picks and chooses what parts of the EMP they choose to follow. They love to use objective numbers in the plan to increase opportunity but then largely ignore other parts of the plan that could be used for management.
Every district is different and what an accessible elk is in one zone may be different than in another.
That is valid argument of FWP A new EMP will be drawn up at some point. Hunters need to be involved.
 
Good reading of the various opinions and experiences. Informative. Much more complex than a simple yes / no answer. Glad this is not a sarcastic, shit show argument, rather reasonable reading.
But still devoid of workable ideas. I guess that is what the internet is for. Just a platform for people to complain about complex issues when they don’t get everything they want. If hunters and organizations they support don’t unify, they will end up with a new EMP that is just as bad as the old one.
 
How would it sound to Eliminate bull hunting on private land and make private land antlerless tags otc.

That gives landowners with elk issues the tools they need without their neighbors having the ability to commercialize the resource.
Well I’d like to eat my cake too.
 

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
113,556
Messages
2,024,982
Members
36,228
Latest member
PNWeekender
Back
Top