Montana contemplates shooting more cows, less bulls

[JEL]

https://helenair.com/lifestyles/recreation/as-montana-elk-populations-grow-fwp-proposes-increasing-cow-hunt/article_73c161e9-eeb2-56e7-97d1-5484965eea03.html

Some interesting comments in this article. As we all know elk objectives in MT are set by landowner legislatures and have no basis in science or biological capacity. Many units are well over objective. FWP is proposing increasing cow permit numbers while limiting opportunity on bulls in some districts. Honestly FWP is in a tough spot here. Statutorily mandated to keep elk numbers at ridicules levels and no way to accomplish it.

 

[MTHunter1321]

Nothing they do will change the fact that the elk go to private land that doesn’t allow hunting in the unit I hunt. They could give an unlimited number of free tags out for cows and it wouldn’t make any more of an impact than what the hunting season currently does.

 

[mtmuley]

No surprise the guy that was interviewed thought limited bull harvest slighted landowners. mtmuley

 

[bigsky2]

Maybe they should just stop managing based on landowner tolerance and instead manage based on carrying capacity of the landscape.

 

[Gerald Martin]

Maybe they should just stop managing based on landowner tolerance and instead manage based on carrying capacity of the landscape.

Mic drop. It won’t happen till we make sure the hunter’s lobby is as influential as the rancher lobby.

 

[Straight Arrow]

Maybe they should just stop managing based on landowner tolerance and instead manage based on carrying capacity of the landscape.

That is a "should" statement asserted time and again by many, many since the inception of the Elk Management Plan. With ideological make-up of the current legislative majority, you won't see such rational wildlife management plans for at least three more years. But don't merely sit by as it's highly probable that even worse "management" plans may be proposed.

To support your assertion, note that the carrying capacity of Colorado's landscape is roughly two thirds of Montana's, yet Colorado supports an elk population thirty to fifty percent higher. That is a comparison that FWP and legislative powers have yet to explain.

 

[belly-deep]

"Under the proposals, FWP would make an unlimited number of antlerless elk B licenses available for purchase over the counter in the hunting districts, rather than through a drawing that has limited the number of licenses."


The 004 B tags don't get completely drawn and go on sale as surplus tags. Eventually they sell out, but I think they are more of a revenue machine for FWP than an elk-reduction method.

 

[TheTone]

What a mess managing elk numbers through legislation. We deal with some similar things in ID where elk populations are way more influenced by a few farmers and ranchers wants, needs and complaints than on what the land will support; the general hunting public truly needs to figure that out and get even half as organized in support of wildlife as those groups are against wildlife. Also I thought the wolves had ate all of MT's elk?

 

[Deleted member 28227]

That is a comparison that FWP and legislative powers have yet to explain.

I would imagine if they could honestly speak their mind they would say it's due to the fact that CO has way more public land (proportionately) than MT... 45% compared with 35%, and public land owners tend to be more tolerant of elk than private landowners.

 

[BuzzH]

Here's the bottom line, the landowners have the option of opening their land to reduce elk numbers...no schemes, no pounding elk on public that only makes the problem worse, no ridiculous tag options.

If the landowners don't want public hunting, and the legislature wants to keep elk at objective: Then hire a helicopter and gun the elk from the air with rifles until theirs no elk left on the ranches that are complaining...bulls get shot first.

Montana is the biggest disappointment to elk, and elk hunting, out of all the Western States...by a landslide. The potential is staggering, home of the RMEF, and yet...proper management hasn't happened in at least 2 decades.

I sent a shitty-gram to the Governor of Montana and FWP Director, along with a copy of my last MT elk tag, explaining how the elk hunting has collapsed in Montana on public lands, a few years back. I also explained until they take elk management seriously, I'll not participate in their war on elk and be used as the tool to legislatively manage elk.

The MTFWP is also complicit, they just go along for the ride, citing some 30+ year old hunter survey that claims Montana hunters want "opportunity". And opportunity they provide, to the detriment of every species under their control, this just isn't an elk issue.

Its pretty tough to f-up whitetail deer management, the MTFWP has pulled that off with staggering success in large portions of NW and Western Montana. Mountain goats, totally frickin' blew it with the native herds...opportunity has them on the brink and IMO, will NEVER recover. Less sheep tags all across the State, less moose tags...mule deer hunting sucks major ass, pronghorn hunting is literally a shell of what it used to be.

To ice the cake, the dumbchits that have created this problem through their lack of giving a rats ass about the resources their charged with managing, have been promoted to Wildlife Bureau Chief (John Vore)...or lead Regional biologists like Mike Thompson. I heard from a good friend, that asked an esteemed FWP Biologist why they were still having 11 week seasons in some of the areas that were under objective on elk...drum roll...."We know what to do when we have too many elk, but not when we have too few". That's just awesome.

Their entire careers have been spent doing absolutely nothing to manage based on science. If anyone thinks they do, then ask them how they justify elk seasons for 11 weeks-6 months, where they fly and observe 8 (EIGHT) elk in a hunting unit. Or how they fly the Middle Fork of the Flathead in 1989 and count 1465 elk and fly it in 2017 and see 3 (THREE). Or ask them why they fly the South Fork and see 208 elk, with bull to cow ratios in the single digits and calf/cow ratio's also single digits...yet no change in the season! Ask them why they're shooting more bulls in a hunting district than they say exist (according to THEIR numbers). Ask them why they were issuing 75 goat tags on the West side of the Bitterroot in the early 80's and issued 1 (ONE) last year.

I'll give their time honored bullchit answer "Hunters want opportunity"...yep, they now have an opportunity to hunt 8 elk here, 3 elk there, and apply for one goat tag in the 'root. Oh, and they can have the opportunity to look at a herd of elk behind a no hunting sign or beg a landowner to shoot a cow. I'm of the opinion the first question when they interview for a MTFWP biologist is if they took "advanced BSing the public", and "fuzzy math 101-402".

Not my idea of management, and frankly its tragic in a State with so much wasted potential.

 

[406LIFE]

No surprise the guy that was interviewed thought limited bull harvest slighted landowners. mtmuley

I don't think FWP has been coy on this part. LO need to be part of the solution.

 

[MTGomer]

I might be wrong but wasn’t Vore the manager of region 2 when HD 270 collapsed and went from cows on an A tag to limited entry for brow tined bulls?

 

[Irrelevant]

Wow Buzz, tell us how you really feel. I guess if you come from WY, Montana may be bad, but coming from WA, Montana is so much better. I have seen legal elk quarry on public land during season. That's a pretty difficult thing to say in WA.

 

[mtmuley]

I might be wrong but wasn’t Vore the manager of region 2 when HD 270 collapsed and went from cows on an A tag to limited entry for brow tined bulls?

He has been gone awhile, but sure did like killing cows. mtmuley

 

[belly-deep]

Wow Buzz, tell us how you really feel. I guess if you come from WY, Montana may be bad, but coming from WA, Montana is so much better. I have seen legal elk quarry on public land during season. That's a pretty difficult thing to say in WA.

Yeah, well WA is not the yardstick we want to measure things by.

 

[pointingdogsrule]

Welcome, we all have these issues. Here in Iowa the deer number were too high in the early 2000's. The Farmers and the automobile insurance complained..... incredible numbers of does tags were sold at cheap prices. The hunters bought and the herd numbers over the years were really scaled back. Now, numbers are low in my area. The DNR didn't manage for the deer they managed for the farmers and the insurance companies. Just my thoughts.


good luck to all
the dog

 

[Straight Arrow]

I would imagine if they could honestly speak their mind they would say it's due to the fact that CO has way more public land (proportionately) than MT... 45% compared with 35%, and public land owners tend to be more tolerant of elk than private landowners.

"Proportionately" perhaps. but (correct me if I'm off) the number of acres of public land in Colorado is roughly seventy-five percent of public acres in Montana. Granted not all public acres may be viable elk habitat, but still the elk population analysis is disproportionate. That comparison aside, my assertion is that Montana could sustain many more elk ... if properly managed both for hunters and landowners. Montana elk objective numbers are significantly skewed away from proper wildlife management toward social and political management, IMO.

 

[Addicting]

Recently, the ID Game and Fish Director was on the Meat Eater Podcast and talked for quite a while in depth about what’s going on in ID and with funding/PR Act/ and pending federal amendments to fund wildlife. I wonder how that would change MT stance on Elk with additional 20 Million to offset what they get in tags. Plus up thier hunter access programs, maybe they should get the MT Director on a podcast.

 

[BuzzH]

I don't think FWP has been coy on this part. LO need to be part of the solution.

They haven't been part of the solution ever...only the problem. The idiotic FWP for decades didn't limit cow permits to private land only, but pounded the living hell out of the elk on public land.

Then, every biologist in Montana wanders around the State, many that caused this problem, with a dumb/confused look on their face wondering how they're going to "fix" it. They have NO options because they did the worse thing they ever could have...longer seasons, more cow permits, more and more and more pressure on public lands. You don't fix an elk overpopulation problem by concentrating elk harvest on primarily the public land, while creating nice sanctuaries on the private. Has never worked, isn't working now, and never will work.

Fire up the helicopter and get on with the slaughter...bulls first.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

"Proportionately" perhaps. but (correct me if I'm off) the number of acres of public land in Colorado is roughly seventy-five percent of public acres in Montana. Granted not all public acres may be viable elk habitat, but still the elk population analysis is disproportionate. That comparison aside, my assertion is that Montana could sustain many more elk ... if properly managed both for hunters and landowners. Montana elk objective numbers are significantly skewed away from proper wildlife management toward social and political management, IMO.

Straight public to public it's 28 million acres CO to 33 million acres MT, but like you said getting an apples to apples comparison is impossible. Not only would you have to quantify viable habitat but how do you deal with state land in the two states, county lands, refuges, etc.
That all being said, I think there is a fair argument to be made that since Colorado has 5 times the population with proportionately more public land your average Coloradan owns a heck of a lot less land than your average Montanan, therefore more people that need public land to recreate.

Also agg practices in the two states are very different and I bet if you did a study would find that in MT there is way more agg going on in current elk range than in Colorado, therefore less negative landowner elk interactions.

Wyoming is somewhere north of 50% public...