Gardner shutdown

[PatrickK]

The unit in question in the original post is an early rifle unit. Early rifle backcountry units like in the Bob and Beartooths have been way too popular for there own good. 16-17 years ago one of the main trailheads had stock trailers parked along the road for quarter mile from the parking lot. Using high powered rifles during the rut with unlimited tags is not sustainable, today. Maybe we should do away with the early rifle season and go to a general season. I understand much of the country would be hard to access do to snow and weather, during the rifle season, but I think that would be way more preferable then limited tags.

I am pretty sure that the unit in question is 313 which is NOT the backcountry early rifle hunt. I think that the FWP bull to cow ratio cited above is probably pretty accurate. I spend most of the season in 313 and bulls with a brow tine are getting hard to find. I think the previous posts were correct on two accounts - 1) once it goes to limited entry it will stay that way 2) the limited entry will creep into the southern half of 314.
At a minimum the pressure on 314 will increase drastically.

Patrick

 

[Oak]

Evidence in other states shows that point restrictions do not work for mule deer; at least not in the long term. BC is the only place I know that has tried it for elk. That seemed to work for them on elk.

Just a point of clarification...CO has had a 4-point elk restriction since the late 80's. It immediately changed bull harvest from being primarily spikes to primarily raghorns. However, over the long term there has definitely been an increase in quality bulls throughout the state. CO also implemented a mule deer point restriction at about the same time, but scrapped it a few years later because it didn't work.

 

[katqanna]

FWP to explain proposed changes to Gardiner elk hunts

 

[katqanna]

Elk hunting changes worry people in Gardiner

Also -

Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks will host an informational meeting in Livingston on Dec. 3 to discuss a possible change to hunting regulations that would establish limited-draw permits for bull elk in hunting district 313.

The informational meeting will be held on Thursday, Dec. 3 in Livingston, at the Pioneer Lodge, 1515 West Park St. The meeting will begin at 7 p.m.

The regulation change is proposed in response to low numbers of mature bull elk in this Gardiner area hunting district.

At the meeting, FWP will explain the proposed change, provide background information, answer questions, and take comments. It will be formally proposed at the Dec. 10 Fish & Wildlife Commission meeting in Helena.

Official public comment on forthcoming Montana hunting season regulations for 2016 and 2017 will begin in January. That season-setting process will be explained at the meeting as well.

 

[Montanakid]

I would hate to see them lower in that much! Not too mention the Hells a roarin outfitter guys are top knotch and really great guys! They are always willing to help if you need it! Hope fwp does not go through with this

 

[Lawnboy]

Not too mention the Hells a roarin outfitter guys are top knotch and really great guys! They are always willing to help if you need it!

There's a few on here that have not had the same interaction apparently as you have. Some crazy stories

 

[thecrittergitter]

I would hate to see them lower in that much! Not too mention the Hells a roarin outfitter guys are top knotch and really great guys! They are always willing to help if you need it! Hope fwp does not go through with this

Holy crap! I just about threw up in my mouth reading that. Sounds like someone working for them up for throwing them a bone. I personally have had some of the most BULL#&^# things happen to me and other buddies I know by those guys that I hope this puts them out of business. I don't typically wish that upon anybody but I have first hand experience with that outfit and can assure you, top notch is about the last thing I'd use to describe it. Especially with a recent incident in the last two weeks that just makes my blood boil There are some great outfitters out there, but the ones that feel THEY should have all the right and joe public should take a backseat can kiss my arse. Guy takes 130+ hunters per year....talk about butchering the resource.

I hope they cut the tags.......all of em

Sorry for the rant, I do hope they come up with a good plan for the area, and I hope the wolf quota increasing is part of it.........

 

[BuzzH]

Get used to it...the way Montana "manages" elk, this is going to happen more and more.

 

[WapitiBob]

...

 

[Chucknduck]

Get used to it...the way Montana "manages" elk, this is going to happen more and more.

Exactly this is just the tip of the ice berg. Another ten years and there won't be a general tag in the whole state

 

[Lawnboy]

The outfitter mentioned not only states on their website 130 hunters a year but also in the 28 years of business they've taken almost 2,000 bull elk. Well the math says that's 70+ bull elk a year.
The resource can't sustain the pressure they, the public, and the wolves are putting on it. Maybe back in the day

 

[BuzzH]

The MTFWP and legislature probably really like that outfitter,

The MTFWP, which reacts at the speed of a glacier to all things wildlife, are poised to strike like a sloth since finding out the elk numbers are low and the bull to cow ratios are in the tank. Beings how this situation happened over-night and all, surely they cant be held accountable. Further, their solution will be to do what they always do...nothing. Cant shorten a season and take away any opportunity. The MT season structure is chiseled in stone...and why its not changed since my Dad passed his hunter safety class, and obtained his first hunting license, in 1957.

Just going out on the ragged edge, but things have changed in Montana since 1957 in regard to population of both people/animals, habitat, etc. But, the 11 week pounding that big-game take...yeah, that's not changed at all. Matter of fact, its gotten even worse with the adoption of shoulder seasons, damage hunts, etc.

I wonder at times, why MT hunters, via the MTFWP, even bother wasting money to hire a biologist??? With ZERO authority to recommend shorter seasons. permit only, etc....their management tool box is pretty much down to bailing wire, bubble gum, and a half roll of cheap duct tape.

The fact is, the game in Montana that lives there, and the animals taken by hunters, are not because of anything that the MTFWP does, its in SPITE of the MTFWP.

As for the legislature, well, they like these kinds of outfitters too. The elk in Montana, via statute, need to be kept at objective, this guy is a hero, just doing his part to keep the numbers where they should be.

I don't see a problem here...just business as usual.

 

[Lawnboy]

Cant shorten a season and take away any opportunity..

BINGO

That's exactly what I was told when I questioned the number of buck and doe tags being issued on the Bridger Range. The only problem it was the biologist that told me that in 2008. Unfortunately I the think the average hunter in Montana feels entitled to the long seasons and an opportunity to shoot everything that moves.

 

[katqanna]

Shoulder seasons wasnt biological, it was political and from the Governors office.

I know sportsmen who have hired scientists to come to FWP Commission meetings to make sure the science was presented, didnt matter, Helena has an agenda and hard science wildlife management is not it.

I got a call from a retired wildlife scientist last night, who is no longer in the employ of an agency. He is getting back into the conservation game, after a wee break and he very much loves refuting fake science promoted by agencies to push their political agendas. Thankfully, not a timid soul, even when employed, paid for standing up for the science dearly. If the Governor wants FWP managed by politics, then they should say so, admit to the public that the Public Trust Doctrine and North American Model of Wildlife Conservation is dead here in Montana. But to hold public meetings and participate in a public process that doesnt even matter, when the public is having to bring the bloody science to the table that Helena FWP refuses to do, then the whole thing is a pretense, a sham.

The Emperor has no clothes!

 

[Big Fin]

As much as I wish the entire world of wildlife management was based on science, it is not. In fact, very little of the management actions provided for in the Montana Elk Management Plan is science-based. Yes, the science was provided by the biologists, but the politicians and policy leaders had the final say in what became the final outcome of this seldom-followed plan.

Anyone who thinks Montana, and probably other states, is allowed to manage strictly based on science has not been paying attention to the meddling of legislatures over the last two decades. Some will argue that political science and social science are "true science" and thus using those as considerations in wildlife decisions does make it a science-based solution.

I wish we did have biologists and a Commission insulated from the political and social pressures, but we do not. When Commissions and agencies were changed from stand-alone agencies not led by appointed leaders, it was possible to have that type of situation. Since that system was dismantled in most agencies by the mid-1980's, the entire dynamic of politics and social concerns has become the greater influence on wildlife decisions.

My personal opinion is that biologists should come up with the science and data. That is what has happened here. I doubt anyone is going to argue with the information FWP is presenting as support for their recommendaiton.

I do not think the biologist should be the only person provide suggested solutions to meet a stated biological objective. Inherently, a biologist will suggest the most direct, easiest manner by which to achieve the objective. I get that and I would expect that.

In our new world of the last few decades, to prevent huge political ramifications of a change in management, it seems the best way is for an agency to consider all possible options. Use the biologists and their professional training to predict, to the best of their ability, the likely outcome of all the proposed solutions.

I would argue that if FWP considered other options, they would be getting a lot less heat on this issue and some of those other options may achieve the same objective. I will also say that if FWP goes forward with blinders on, implementing their own organic solution, the fertilizer will hit the ventilator in the legislative session of 2017.

Nobody has answered if some of the other ideas would increase mature bull numbers; an increase in such being what I understand to be the stated objective for any changes made in Unit 313. There are considerations out there that would not require limited entry tags and have a history in other locations of increasing mature bull ratios. Maybe FWP has considered those other options. If so, I have not heard their response to such.

How many bulls would get killed with a limited entry permit system of 75 tags? Not sure, but I would guess in a harsh/early winter, it would be a very high success.

How many bulls would get killed in a 6-point only rule, giving an unlimited number of tags where you must apply as your first-choice only? Not sure and I'm not sure FWP knows.

Maybe you change it as explained above and you put a buffer around the roads outside of Gardiner. A huge number of these bulls are getting killed in years like this, right near roads. Causes on to ask, why is nobody willing to address the ugly scene that occurs down there when a big herd of elk push out of the park. Not only is it ugly, it results in a lot of "opportunistic" kill of the bulls FWP is worried about.

Maybe you do all the above and you get the Commission to get off their social concerns of wolf quotas in units around YNP. There is no biological reason for quotas around YNP. If it is a concern of collared wolves, reach an agreement with YNP as to how many collared wolves they need, keep it at that number of collared wolves and make collared wolves off-limits in those areas.

When the Commissions bends for non-biological reasons to any side, in this case to the side of wolf advocates, they better expect that other groups will expect the Commission to bend for other non-biological reasons. Once you start down that road, a road the Schweitzer administration traveled with great regularity, you better expect that every aggrieved group will expect the same treatment.

How many bull calves are getting killed by lions and black bears? I suspect nobody knows. If the objective is to increase bull numbers and a good number of bull calves are taken by lions and black bears, why do we have such low lion quotas and not liberalize bear seasons?

There is no biological data I am aware of for the extremely low lion quotas, other than the social pressures of houndsmen wanting more lions to chase.

There is no biological data I am aware of for the restrictive black bear seasons in those areas. I've heard, "that's how we've always done it."

Point is, there are a lot of non-biological issues that are impacting bull elk numbers in this unit. As is often the case, elk hunters are being asked to shoulder the burden of their opportunity while not addressing the other contributing factors.

Me, I'm not willing to just jump in that boat and start rowing just because it might be the easiest path FWP sees. I don't support this recommendation without consideration of other management alternatives. I don't support this recommendation without consideration/change of other factors impact bull elk survival in these units.

I get the ideas of FWP wanting to support their biologist. Yet, when some of the units in MT biologically supported mule deer doe harvest, FWP in Helena made a unilateral decision that kicked their biologists in the crotch by making it no mule deer doe harvest statewide. You cannot have a policy of "science-based" only when it is convenient. Either you have that policy or you don't.

If I was Director of FWP, I would have no choice but to consider the political environment in which I operate. Doesn't mean I would come to a different conclusion, but a lot of political venom can be tempered in the "HOW" you got to the solution. I would be listening to as many recommendations as possible and I would have my Region 3 Supervisor, Region 3 Big Game Manager, and my local biologist comparing the outcomes of every possibly alternative. Then, I could go to all affected with a strong case that all ideas were considered and the chosen outcome is the best opportunity to meet the stated objective with the least amount of impact to those affected. Failure to do otherwise, in a hotbed of political blowhards, is asking for a big blowup in the 2017 legislature; just a reality you cannot ignore.

At this point, I'm not sold on FWP's recommendation or their process for getting to their solutions. Too much data available from other states and provinces to look at when they faced this same problem.

 

[Montanakid]

I personally have not had any bad experiences with the Hellsaroarin guys and no I have never worked for them. I would love to see them lower it from unlimited but all the way to 75? No way

 

[Montanakid]

I can't stand the road hunting guys down there though, I know a lot get slaughtered from right off the road. When I hunt down there I am out walking and trying to use those guys as advantage for me. It has worked for me

 

[shoots-straight]

In the now infamous HD 250 (West fork of the Bitterroot) we had to do some sort of management to get the bull cow ratio up. Our herds were doing the same thing HD 313 is. We went to Limited entry in 2010. Our club supported this change and a local outfitter from the area also supported it.

Sense then the herds have increased, more hunter opportunity has been opened up, but a portion of the district still has limited entry in place. This is the same area that I had a moose tag this year in. Moose are very scarce and there probably shouldn't be any tags. Predation is very high by lions, bears, and wolves. We did the science and had a 3 years study to look over what's going on there. Also a lion density study to see how many of them might be lurking around. The study showed that lions were the biggest predator of elk, and elk calves, with bull calves being a larger part of the prey by a 3 to 1 margin.

The department was suppose to increase the lion take but at the hearing in Helena, the houndsmen went to great lengths to discredit the study. It worked and we barely got an increase in take there. We have extended the bear season on both the spring and fall seasons by 2 weeks each. That translated into more black bear harvests. If we are to get back to where we were I feel that increasing lion harvests, and wolves are a must. The area has also went to limited entry on mule deer for the last 2 years.

bull ratio's have increase significantly in past years and the department is looking to increase opportunity some more because of it.

 

[Carnage2011]

Holy crap! I just about threw up in my mouth reading that. Sounds like someone working for them up for throwing them a bone. I personally have had some of the most BULL#&^# things happen to me and other buddies I know by those guys that I hope this puts them out of business. I don't typically wish that upon anybody but I have first hand experience with that outfit and can assure you, top notch is about the last thing I'd use to describe it. Especially with a recent incident in the last two weeks that just makes my blood boil There are some great outfitters out there, but the ones that feel THEY should have all the right and joe public should take a backseat can kiss my arse. Guy takes 130+ hunters per year....talk about butchering the resource.

I hope they cut the tags.......all of em

Sorry for the rant, I do hope they come up with a good plan for the area, and I hope the wolf quota increasing is part of it.........

The incident that I believe you are talking about was absolutely ridiculous! I never wish ill will on anyone, but those guys are worthless and need to be reprimanded. I don't know how they can claim elk that they don't kill and get away with it. It's too bad that a true hunter lost out on a great bull due to an unethical guide.

 

[----]

The incident that I believe you are talking about was absolutely ridiculous! I never wish ill will on anyone, but those guys are worthless and need to be reprimanded. I don't know how they can claim elk that they don't kill and get away with it. It's too bad that a true hunter lost out on a great bull due to an unethical guide.

You guys have definitely piqued our interest.