FWP Sidestepping Public Comment Period?

[MTGomer]

We’ll FOIA the comments and see how many people asked for bull harvest to increase decrease or stay the same.


I’m guessing the number of individual comments to the elk proposals that asked for that regarding these districts is less than 5%. (As you would expect from something that was not on the table for discussion. )

 

[SAJ-99]

And it should have been ignored for being out of scope.

If I need an addition to my patio and your proposal is about repaving my driveway, I’m throwing it away, maybe even laughing at you.

Well maybe your driveway is such a mess I can’t even get to your patio.

back to the subject, why does it bother you so much? In my view the quota should change with the population. Some asked earlier if any other state managed their elk this way- yes Arizona, and Big Fin applauded its approach in the podcast. I would be disappointed if they didn’t increase and decrease the number of tags with the population. There are legit complaints about FWP not deceasing in other zones, but that isn’t the problem here. There are other problems in 410 that aren’t going to be fixed, like herd concentration on private land.

For entertainment, and for some scope, go read the comments posted on decreasing the Wolf quota in a couple of zones. They probably thought my comment on the elk proposals was AMAZING.

 

[MTGomer]

Some asked earlier if any other state managed their elk this way- yes Arizona,

Since sarcasm doesn’t translate well on here, I just want to clarify that this is a joke, right?

 

[SAJ-99]

Since sarcasm doesn’t translate well on here, I just want to clarify that this is a joke, right?

Not really. Read again.its a bit of a stretch and of course you have to ignore some of FWP past actions but Changing tag numbers in response to population is exactly what FWP is doing here. Now you have a complaint if they don’t reduce them and I will be right there with you.

 

[Fsmith]

Well maybe your driveway is such a mess I can’t even get to your patio.

back to the subject, why does it bother you so much? In my view the quota should change with the population. Some asked earlier if any other state managed their elk this way- yes Arizona, and Big Fin applauded its approach in the podcast. I would be disappointed if they didn’t increase and decrease the number of tags with the population. There are legit complaints about FWP not deceasing in other zones, but that isn’t the problem here. There are other problems in 410 that aren’t going to be fixed, like herd concentration on private land.

For entertainment, and for some scope, go read the comments posted on decreasing the Wolf quota in a couple of zones. They probably thought my comment on the elk proposals was AMAZING.

Quota range should then change in both directions. Seems to me this is a one way street.

 

[golfer]

Well, that was exactly my comment, and there is no indication that the number is tags is being increased, just the range. Elk are over objective and the goal is to get them to objective quickly. Call me idealistic, but I would rather they do that with public hunter involvement than shooting them from a helicopter. You and I may not think the objectives matter, but landowners do and they have a loud voice with the commission. We all need to work toward reasonable solutions rather complaining to each other in this board. There may be things you can criticize the FWP for (the debacle of shoulder seasons for example) but I think every complaint should be accompanied with a new idea. FWP didn't "side step" the public comment period at all, most people ignored it. As has been pointed out, you still have a chance to let your comments be heard. Go to Lewistown and give them an earful, because I can tell who will be there - ranchers. And if you think you can complain, what until you hear them.

But are those objectives that they are claiming objectives outlined in their Elk Management Plan? I highly doubt it, if those elk primarily reside on unaccessible property those elk should not be counted towards objective. I would assume their population objective would be drastically different if they followe

 

[Carnage2011]

I’d be curious what the threshold is for when the FWP actually listens to public comment. Correct me if I’m wrong, but the majority of comments regarding the shoulder seasons a couple years ago were against them, and they still moved forward with them. Now they claim that their reason for these changes are due to public comment? I’m beginning to believe that the only comments they are “hearing” are the landowners...

 

[Oak]

I’d be curious what the threshold is for when the FWP actually listens to public comment.

How politically connected the commenter is?

 

[Carnage2011]

How politically connected the commenter is?

Ya that’s what I was getting at. The everyday sportsman is basically wasting their time commenting on these proposals. Which is unfortunate.

 

[timmy]

We are handcuffed here. Hunt talk people are different hunters than most of montanans. I honestly don’t see a way out of this. Things will continue to get worse and worse and as long as people can shoot something the general public will be happy. I hunt other states but not every one can do that.

 

[Sioux33]

This is wildlife mismanagement at it's finest. If the FWP would follow the EMP, the population counts would be under objective, thus leading to no shoulder seasons, no doubling tag quotas, and no shooting bulls in February. The area biologist says they don't exclude harbored elk from the population counts because they might head to neighboring properties outside of hunting season. If you read page 55, paragraph 5 of the EMP, it specifically calls for excluding these elk to avoid over harvest on public land. It also has no mention of elk location outside of season, it only says inaccessible during the general hunting season, which is the case in most of the shoulder season units. Then she says hopefully the new EMP will address this, but what good is a new EMP if they refuse to follow the current one?

I'm fine with cow damage hunts on properties they say suffer next door to the inaccessible elk, so long as they're in block management and allow access. To me, all this is a cop out because they're too afraid to stand up to the big money landowners and the politicians they have in their pocket.

 

[SAJ-99]

But are those objectives that they are claiming objectives outlined in their Elk Management Plan? I highly doubt it, if those elk primarily reside on unaccessible property those elk should not be counted towards objective. I would assume their population objective would be drastically different if they followe

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.

 

[SAJ-99]

Ya that’s what I was getting at. The everyday sportsman is basically wasting their time commenting on these proposals. Which is unfortunate.

Again, go read the public comments they posted on the Wolf quota and then tell me if you want the job of reading those?

Not commenting is not an option, IMO. I think if your comment comes with an understanding of the problem it will be taken given more weight than something that follows the local conspiracy theory heard at the local bar. The problem in this case is that elk are far over objective. As elk hunters, we doubt there can ever be too many elk, but to landowners there can never be too few. That is what the FWP has to deal with. Yes, I would rather FWP be more independent from the legislature because it limits the pull of a one or two members with friends in high places, but that isn't on the ballot, yet.

The other thread had a some ideas. If the BLM would enforce some of the road restrictions in the bow season, the elk wouldn't be pressured so much. I am amazed at how lazy hunters have become. They drive right through land that would hold elk to get to the spot they marked on Onx. Signs that say "no further vehicle traffic" would go a long way. I would volunteer to put some up. Also, some suggested making public land more attractive. There might be difficulty getting BLM to close off some areas to grazing every other year but elk are going to areas with food so why not give them better food on public? The land is grazed heavily by cattle and then the ranchers are made when 500 elk show up to their hay fields when snow comes? It is laughable.

 

[brockel]

Might help if the blm between the CMR and the private wasn’t so overgrazed

 

[Carnage2011]

Again, go read the public comments they posted on the Wolf quota and then tell me if you want the job of reading those?

Not commenting is not an option, IMO. I think if your comment comes with an understanding of the problem it will be taken given more weight than something that follows the local conspiracy theory heard at the local bar. The problem in this case is that elk are far over objective. As elk hunters, we doubt there can ever be too many elk, but to landowners there can never be too few. That is what the FWP has to deal with. Yes, I would rather FWP be more independent from the legislature because it limits the pull of a one or two members with friends in high places, but that isn't on the ballot, yet.

The accessible elk in that unit are over objective? They aren’t sitting on a ranch that is leased out and only shoots 10-12 elk a year? The FWP has a tough job with balancing landowners and sportsmen, but if the landowner doesn’t allow elk to be shot during the general season then we don’t need to bail them out in the winter. That’s their own problem.

As far as the grazing goes. If it’s getting hammered then it needs to be reported to the appropriate agency. If they don’t do anything about it then move up the chain and report it again.

 

[tjones]

You have to count them toward objective when they will move and disperse in the spring during green up.

Except this is not what the EMP says.

If Debbie Barrett would have never came up with HB42 and if the legislature would have never passed it the whole objective situation would look quite different.

 

[SAJ-99]

You are arguing over what an accessible elk is. How much time do they have to spend on private land to be inaccessible? 50%, 80%, 30%. I really don't know the answer. What I can tell you for sure is that when you flood 410 with 1900 bow hunters in pickups and ATVs, the elk learn really quick where safe harbor is. You can look at the doc I posted in the original post on the comment period. The mid-winter counts on that map show the elk straddling public/private. I would like FWP to acknowledge that their actions have unintended consequences and cut the number of bow permits. But that won't happen because people will complain about the cuts in a unit that is over objective.

Montana Hunting season Comment period open

Not a fan. FWP is proposing to open public land during shoulder season. Now is time to speak up. http://fwp.mt.gov/hunting/publicComments/2019/biennialSeasonSetting.html

www.hunttalk.com

 

[tjones]

You are arguing over what an accessible elk is. How much time do they have to spend on private land to be inaccessible? 50%, 80%, 30%. I really don't know the answer. What I can tell you for sure is that when you flood 410 with 1900 bow hunters in pickups and ATVs, the elk learn really quick where safe harbor is. You can look at the doc I posted in the original post on the comment period. The mid-winter counts on that map show the elk straddling public/private. I would like FWP to acknowledge that their actions have unintended consequences and cut the number of bow permits. But that won't happen because people will complain about the cuts in a unit that is over objective.

Montana Hunting season Comment period open

Not a fan. FWP is proposing to open public land during shoulder season. Now is time to speak up. http://fwp.mt.gov/hunting/publicComments/2019/biennialSeasonSetting.html

www.hunttalk.com

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.

 

[Sioux33]

You are arguing over what an accessible elk is. How much time do they have to spend on private land to be inaccessible? 50%, 80%, 30%. I really don't know the answer. What I can tell you for sure is that when you flood 410 with 1900 bow hunters in pickups and ATVs, the elk learn really quick where safe harbor is. You can look at the doc I posted in the original post on the comment period. The mid-winter counts on that map show the elk straddling public/private. I would like FWP to acknowledge that their actions have unintended consequences and cut the number of bow permits. But that won't happen because people will complain about the cuts in a unit that is over objective.

Montana Hunting season Comment period open

Not a fan. FWP is proposing to open public land during shoulder season. Now is time to speak up. http://fwp.mt.gov/hunting/publicComments/2019/biennialSeasonSetting.html

www.hunttalk.com

EMP speaks to inaccessible elk during hunting season, not spring green up. If you hunt 417, you'll find out these 2,000 some elk they based tag numbers off are no where near accessible.

 

[Sytes]

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.

According to the EMP, elk need to be excluded from the count if they're inaccessible during the hunting season, it doesn't say anything about elk location outside of hunting season.

It seems the issue rotates not merely during "hunting season"... How effective is an EMP when evaluating damage to private landowner's crops?