Montana Elk Management Plan Citizens Advisory Committee

[JLS]

Is the EMP legally binding?

The EMP is not, but the senate bill introduced by Debbie Barrett and passed, that mandates FWP comply with objective numbers in the EMP is legally binding.

 

[Sytes]

objectives will likely cause the objectives for some EMUs to be lowered even further. I believed him, and I think that’s even more true today.

Can you explain this further?
Objectives in some EMUs lowered even further. His concern based on a new EMP with worse objectivity than the original?
Not stated as a criticism, trying to understand his perspective.

 

[tjones]

If I remember correctly, when Hagener was still director he warned that revisiting the population objectives will likely cause the objectives for some EMUs to be lowered even further. I believed him, and I think that’s even more true today.

This.
There will be less elk to hunt for 11 weeks 6 months.

 

[MTLabrador]

Can you explain this further?
Objectives in some EMUs lowered even further. His concern based on a new EMP with worse objectivity than the original?
Not stated as a criticism, trying to understand his perspective.

I found the article I was referencing, looks like the quote was actually from John Vore who was speaking for Hagener.

“He also echoed a warning made by former FWP Director Jeff Hagener.
‘Director Hagener said if we open up revisiting the population objectives, some could also go down,’ Vore said.”

FWP commission questions antiquated elk-population goals — Montana On The Ground

As Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks tries to plan the next two years of elk hunting, the biggest problem appears to be antiquated population goals that were carved out 14 years ago. That was what the FWP commission struggled with on Thursday as it tried to figure out whether proposed hunting

www.montanaotg.com

 

[Sytes]

I guess what I'm asking is, why would this be bad? Some areas might need reviewed objectives, up or down? Is the concern based on less objectivity now vs then?

I did empathize with this comment;

“Frustratingly I hear the enthusiasm for the shoulder seasons from the department as being this great fix. It is working, but I’m still stymied by the idea that we’re hunting elk for seven months in Montana. Who’d have thought that was a reasonable approach?” Colton said. “I also struggle with the idea that one week, this animal is worth anywhere from $6,000 to $13,000 and the next week, it’s treated like a rodent. We’ve lost, I fear.”

 

[tjones]

The EMP is not, but the senate bill introduced by Debbie Barrett and passed, that mandates FWP comply with objective numbers in the EMP is legally binding.

This and CWD will be why there will not be any increased objectives.

 

[MTLabrador]

I guess what I'm asking is, why would this be bad? Some areas might need reviewed objectives, up or down? Is the concern based on less objectivity now vs then?

I did empathize with this comment;

That quote really says a lot. I agree that some areas do need population objectives updated (I would argue that most need to be adjusted up). With the current FWP leadership and the anti-elk attitude in the legislature, I think it’s concerning that they will have the opportunity to even further reduce population objectives.

For the record, I’m not at all opposed to late cow hunts under certain circumstances, IF the elk population can actually support it. I will most likely be helping my sister attempt to kill a stray N-Bar cow elk over Christmas.

 

[JLS]

For the record, I’m not at all opposed to late cow hunts under certain circumstances, IF the elk population can actually support it.

Completely agreed.

On a side note, I remember when there were over 4000 elk in HD410. The elk hunting in the south breaks was phenomenal. The objective for this herd is 2000 elk.

 

[MTGomer]

I believe that the majority of Montanans believe wolves and non residents are their biggest issue. Don’t get me wrong, it’s undeniable that wolves have played a big role in decimating some elk herds, but management is the root of the problem.

it’s just simpler to say ‘damn woofs and Washingtonians’ than it is to have the conversation that’s happened on these six pages.
Until large numbers of hunters face the truth and demand better, there will be more of the same.

 

[JLS]

I believe that the majority of Montanans believe wolves and non residents are their biggest issue.

Despite the reality NR tag numbers are only about 20% of what resident tag numbers are. Harvest estimates show a similar trend, 80% Resident and 20% Non-resident.

Just don't take away the 11 week season. Opportunity is key (said tongue in cheek).

 

[Eric Albus]

Ben, where did you get the figure of 3.5 million landlocked acres? From my research, talking with controlling agencies (FS,BLM,CMR) there are 36 million acres pubic lands, and approx. 6 million without adequate access(adequate being key word, subject to interpretation).

 

[Irrelevant]

Man, I appreciate the conversation that is occurring here. I wish I had something to add other than an appreciation for open and honest discussions about what's wrong with the system.

 

[BWALKER77]

Bump

 

[wyoelkfan15]

That's a legitimate question...I'll do my best, and I've thought a lot about the why are they so different as well.

The first thing is that the WY legislature just isn't as heavy handed as the MT legislature is. I don't know exactly when the MT legislature went off the rails, but around the time the tea party movement really ramped up. Maybe even before that.

As far as management goes, IMO/E, the Wyoming GF leadership seems to have the backs of the field level biologists on management decisions. WY also manages elk for specific bull to cow ratio's as well as over-all numbers. There's general and special management. General management requires 18-25 bulls per 100 cows post harvest. To achieve and maintain that, general elk seasons are relatively short for bull hunting...you cant pound on elk for 11+ weeks with general tags and maintain that kind of b/c ratio. If the numbers drop below that, the biologists shorten the season and/or eliminate spike harvest until the b/c ratio's are back to 18-25 per 100. For special management 35+ bulls per 100 cows post harvest. These are all LQ areas with up to 1500+ tags issued in some of the areas for bulls. These seasons are usually a bit longer than general seasons, some significantly longer. Easy to allow that since the total number of tags are limited. Some of these units exceed 50 bulls per 100 cows post harvest. What the WYGF doesn't do, is greenlight a huge increase in tags, but rather keeps things conservative. Also, cow seasons are much longer as well. Elk stay on public land, as they're only harassed for a couple weeks on general hunts, and the number of hunters are limited in the LQ areas, so longer seasons aren't a big deal. Its all about controlling pressure.

In a nutshell, short general bull seasons, maintaining solid bull to cow ratio's, longer seasons on LQ tags, long cow seasons to control numbers.

Montana is 11+weeks of non-stop pressure on bull elk. They get pounded flat on public land, quit using public land. There's too much pressure on them for too long. The FWP doesn't give a rip if a unit has single digit bull to cow ratio's. Total elk numbers can tank all they want, they still don't care. The season length doesn't change, the number of tags issued don't change, and nothing is changed to improve it.

I cant ever understand how a field biologist justifies this. They either: 1. Don't care. 2. Are afraid if they recommend change they'll be fired. 3. get over-ridden by Senior Level biologists who have totally given up and just do what they're told by the FWP leadership and Legislature. But, whatever the reason, its not practicing biology...its letting status quo diminish elk to about nothing on public land.

It also seems to me that in Montana the Ag community, for the most part seems only to be happy when elk are dead. Here in Wyoming, landowners are wayyyy more tolerant of elk. Even in areas where they are over objective, landowners are very aware and active that allowing too many tags could be counter-productive. They also just seem to not go bat chit crazy when elk are over-objective. Many allow access to help control the numbers, enter into the WIA/HMA programs and work great with the WYGF. The biologists, work closely with landowners, but they don't allow LO's to just run rough-shod over them either. They act like adults and solve the issues of too many elk. Its impressive on both sides when things work correctly.

The GF also works very closely with a bunch of the Sportsmen's organizations here as well. They do listen to the concerns of the people that choose to get involved. I never, one time, found the level of success dealing with the MTFWP than what I've found with the WYGF Department. You get smart-assed answers from biologists in Montana when you question them on poor management, poor decisions, their phony numbers, and they make excuses and blame sportsmen when we complain. I have biologists call me all the time from WY and just check in for any concerns and let me know if they need help on things. I've had NO biologist from Montana ever do that, not once. Most of the time, they don't call back when I have a question.

I think the MTFWP has flat given up, they simply don't care anymore. Sportsmen are not seen as an asset, but rather a pain in their ass they would rather not deal with. The few that I've known that do care, they leave or get fired...likely more disillusioned than I am.

Wyoming biologists actively manage, change seasons, talk to hunters, talk to fishermen, they do great work. They get support from GF leadership, not fired for doing what's right. Montana manages the same way they always have, very few if any changes to season length, etc. etc. Same old same old.

The differences in quality, quantity, and access to wildlife is so much better in Wyoming its really not even fair to compare it, in any way, with Montana.

It seems to just come down to more appreciation for wildlife, more support of proper wildlife management, and adjusting for and managing for more than a level of wildlife tolerance from everyone involved. Landowners, hunters, and the WYGF.

As much as I'll always call Montana home...I wake up everyday glad I don't live there anymore from a hunting and fishing standpoint. Its just depressing to see the potential that Montana squanders...really sad.

Correct me if I'm wrong buzz, but it's also my understanding landowners in WYO do not get compensation for wildlife damages to their property (elk getting into hay as an example) unless they allow hunting access on their place?
Which incentivizes landowners to provide access.

 

[antlerradar]

That quote really says a lot. I agree that some areas do need population objectives updated (I would argue that most need to be adjusted up). With the current FWP leadership and the anti-elk attitude in the legislature, I think it’s concerning that they will have the opportunity to even further reduce population objectives.

For the record, I’m not at all opposed to late cow hunts under certain circumstances, IF the elk population can actually support it. I will most likely be helping my sister attempt to kill a stray N-Bar cow elk over Christmas.

Population objectives need to be adjusted so that they take into account the number of elk that are accessible to the public. I am just going to venture a guess that elk numbers on much of the the states Public land are well below what the majority of the stake holders want. Just increasing objectives will do little if the increases happen on big private landholdings with little access.

 

[MTLabrador]

Population objectives need to be adjusted so that they take into account the number of elk that are accessible to the public. I am just going to venture a guess that elk numbers on much of the the states Public land are well below what the majority of the stake holders want. Just increasing objectives will do little if the increases happen on big private landholdings with little access.

I agree completely, there’s a lot more problems than just the low objectives.

 

[BWALKER77]

Population objectives need to be adjusted so that they take into account the number of elk that are accessible to the public. I am just going to venture a guess that elk numbers on much of the the states Public land are well below what the majority of the stake holders want. Just increasing objectives will do little if the increases happen on big private landholdings with little access.

That's part of the current EMP. It's not followed. Someone should have filed a law suit on this long ago.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Ben, where did you get the figure of 3.5 million landlocked acres? From my research, talking with controlling agencies (FS,BLM,CMR) there are 36 million acres pubic lands, and approx. 6 million without adequate access(adequate being key word, subject to interpretation).

1.5 million acres is landlocked state land, per OnX & TRCP: https://missoulacurrent.com/outdoors/2019/08/landlocked-public-land/

2 million is he figure I remember on BLM/USFS/COE/USFWS lands that are landlocked.

Landlocked for this purpose means lands that are completely isolated and inaccessible for the public. That doesn't mean they can't be accessed by extreme measures (helo's, boats) or that they aren't being grazed or outfitted.

Adequate access is fairly more subjective, IMO. To some it means there's less than 1 road per section., For others it means there's only 1 road per township. Not sure how the Fed defines it, to be honest, though.

 

[MT Bound]

I haven't read all the comments, but I also find it hard to believe that the new committee will be able to come up with a viable solution.

I just can't wrap my head around why MT elk management and deer management is so out of whack.... it's almost like the biologists are so busy doing their day-to-day tasks that they don't have time to make the proper recommendations or decisions, and the decisions are being controlled by LO's and legislature, it's just mind boggling for a state with so much to offer

 

[TrumpkinTheDwarf]

Every time I get to missing my home state I come on here and read about just how awfully MT has screwed things up. Makes me sick to my stomach, but Texas isn't quite so bad afterwards. I really appreciate you guys who have a more active voice than I can, being a non resident now. I call and email whenever I see action items, but you local guys have a much bigger voice than me.