Montana Elk Management Survey Results

[geewhiz]

You wouldn't. You'd essentially be revenue neutral. You'd also likely not sell out, so you could realistically expect a drop in revenue.

NR Antlerless harvest is the largest growth sector for NR's in elk hunting. Moving antlerless harvest to permit on public land helps greatly in terms of dealing with the mass influx of NR hunters and it has the least amount of revenue hit to it. Similarly, when you look at deer licenses, the biggest growth has been in the orphaned deer license and antlerless. FWP is statutorily mandated to sell the orphaned deer licenses (about 7K new B11 combos come from that) but they have taken steps this year to greatly reduce the NR antlerless harvest (and resident too).

The issue relative to elk management is that we've seen a large increase in hunter days and hunters in general (NR & R hunter numbers for deer & elk have both grown), and a decrease in hunter success, which has led to a lot of policy decisions that have further exacerbated the issue of problematic distribution of elk, making those animals unavailable for harvest.

It's awesome that you find a bull every year and I celebrate your success. But you are one of the few. MT success rates for bull elk are currently about 13% and falling, and that number itself can be deceiving as the average number of days it takes to harvest a bull are increasing. Your success is not common. Meanwhile, we are seeing larger distribution issues across the state when it comes to elk leaving public land during archery seasons and concentrating where they know they are safe. This is leading to the increase in herd size and the problems associated with large concentrations of animals that are unavailable to the public hunter.

You're much more versed in these things than I am so I'm just trying to understand this. I realize I could be way off with my logic so correct me as you see necessary.

So as I understand it, most nonresidents are currently waiting 2-3 years to draw a big game combo right? This tells me that demand is far greater than supply. I also am not up to speed on prices and processes in other western states, but I believe Montana is one of the cheaper if not the cheapest option with the best draw odds to hunt elk in, right? Or no? It seams to me that if montana were to double their non-resident prices from $1kish to $2kish, most non-residents would not even blink an eye at the price hike, and the few that decide to opt out would quickly get their spots filled by the next non-residents in line. What am I missing here? I'd like to understand this better.

 

[Ben Lamb]

You're much more versed in these things than I am so I'm just trying to understand this. I realize I could be way off with my logic so correct me as you see necessary.

So as I understand it, most nonresidents are currently waiting 2-3 years to draw a big game combo right? This tells me that demand is far greater than supply. I also am not up to speed on prices and processes in other western states, but I believe Montana is one of the cheaper if not the cheapest option to hunt elk in, right? Or no? It seams to me that if montana were to double their non-resident prices from $1kish to $2kish, most non-residents would not even blink an eye at the price hike, and the few that decide to opt out would quickly get their spots filled by the next non-residents in line. What am I missing here?

Any fee increase has to be approved by the Legislature. Given the ending fund balance of FWP, the desire to ring in more NR's from some in the Legislature, and the fact that the current pricing structure is really more about I161 and HB 140 from 2015, I'm thinking that a NR fee increase isn't going to fly.

 

[MTelkHuntress]

"Hunters preferred less restrictive elk hunting regulations across the state compared to more restrictive regulations that would limit opportunity in favor of hunting for older age class bulls."
This mentality checks out at a lot of the elk meetings I have gone to. Listening to people fight tooth and nail to keep their junk opportunity. I remember when a biologist suggested getting rid of 5 cow tags in a unit because of population declines and several folks threw an absolute fit about it. Or in another unit where a biologist expressed concern because numbers and bull to cow ratios were down, guys threw a fit about cutting any opportunity. Where does generous amounts of opportunity end? It's just frustrating to see folks not look to the future.

"more restrictive regulations that would limit opportunity in favor of hunting for older age class bulls." Maybe more restrictive regulations would also mean more sustainable elk populations on public land.
I guess my hope would be that the adults step up and point out that a free for all is just not sustainable. While hunter opinions are important, we also need to think about the wildlife and habitat and advocate for those as well.
Also to echo what someone else said above, we cannot treat each region or even unit the same (now they we have some mega units). There's so many factors that it just doesn't work. Elk hunting isn't supposed to be easy, but it shouldn't be impossible when in some areas so few exist on public land. I don't have the ability to take a bunch of consecutive days off to hunt but some of my friends do, and it's just absurd the amount of days they have to be back in some places just to finally see an elk.

 

[bigsky2]

1. nope
2. not that many
3. I realize that. I am not arguing that Montana elk hunting is sub par. I am arguing that montana elk hunting is very good. I guess what I am saying is I am confused why others are not able to find critters to shoot, and from my experience when observing friends and family, it boils down to effort exerted. People think it should be easy and when its not they whine and complain instead of putting forth some more effort.

Just because someone is unsatisfied with MT elk management does not mean they have trouble finding elk. Some of us just realize how good our elk hunting could be. It gets kind of annoying when people don't recognize that and say "just work harder".

 

[geewhiz]

Just because someone is unsatisfied with MT elk management does not mean they have trouble finding elk. Some of us just realize how good our elk hunting could be. It gets kind of annoying when people don't recognize that and say "just work harder".

I'm not here to argue. I asked earlier in this thread but didnt really get a response. Why are you unsatisfied with MT elk management? In What ways do you feel that it could be improved upon?

 

[bigsky2]

You're much more versed in these things than I am so I'm just trying to understand this. I realize I could be way off with my logic so correct me as you see necessary.

So as I understand it, most nonresidents are currently waiting 2-3 years to draw a big game combo right? This tells me that demand is far greater than supply. I also am not up to speed on prices and processes in other western states, but I believe Montana is one of the cheaper if not the cheapest option with the best draw odds to hunt elk in, right? Or no? It seams to me that if montana were to double their non-resident prices from $1kish to $2kish, most non-residents would not even blink an eye at the price hike, and the few that decide to opt out would quickly get their spots filled by the next non-residents in line. What am I missing here? I'd like to understand this better.

Montana has the biggest price disparity between R and NR prices of any other state. They basically rape NR when you consider the quality of the elk hunting compared to other states.

 

[geewhiz]

Montana has the biggest price disparity between R and NR prices of any other state. They basically rape NR when you consider the quality of the elk hunting compared to other states.

View attachment 287454

But for some reason they keep coming back in hoards

 

[bigsky2]

But for some reason they keep coming back in hoards

Thankfully they are capped unlike us residents. Increasing NR prices is not the fix.

 

[TheJason]

It seams to me that if montana were to double their non-resident prices from $1kish to $2kish, most non-residents would not even blink an eye at the price hike, and the few that decide to opt out would quickly get their spots filled by the next non-residents in line.

This is a completely different can of worms, but what you are suggesting will only worsen the drive to lease private land and increase the incentives to hoard elk. Given MTs current approach to elk management, this will lead to more pressure on public land and lead to less available elk.

Be careful what you ask for. Lacing your boots tighter worked for deer hunting, until it didn’t.

Lest you lump me in with whiners, it’s not about me. I don’t give a shit about my success or lack thereof. I care about the resource and have watched this play out over decades. I remember rifle hunting SW MT when elk on public land weren’t such an anomaly.

 

[BuzzH]

I'm not here to argue. I asked earlier in this thread but didnt really get a response. Why are you unsatisfied with MT elk management? In What ways do you feel that it could be improved upon?

Well, I'll throw my 2 cents in since I've been hunting elk since about 1979 in Montana.

Bull to cow ratio's in a lot of areas are total garbage, single digits. Large areas of Western Montana, that used to hold good numbers are biological deserts for elk. Which, tends to force hunters to concentrate in areas where there are still elk. That in turn pushes elk on to private faster, including a lot of elk being pushed onto private by archery hunters.

How can it be improved upon?

Shorten seasons, both archery and rifle. Demand management based on bull to cow ratio's as well as total population. Eliminate most cow tags on public land, don't knock the crap out of the elk that live on public or spend a lot of time on public. Increase pressure on elk on private when possible, antlerless elk limited to private land only.

Areas under minimum bull to cow ratio's and under population objectives either closed to hunting all together or go limited quota.

 

[antlerradar]

You're much more versed in these things than I am so I'm just trying to understand this. I realize I could be way off with my logic so correct me as you see necessary.

So as I understand it, most nonresidents are currently waiting 2-3 years to draw a big game combo right? This tells me that demand is far greater than supply. I also am not up to speed on prices and processes in other western states, but I believe Montana is one of the cheaper if not the cheapest option with the best draw odds to hunt elk in, right? Or no? It seams to me that if montana were to double their non-resident prices from $1kish to $2kish, most non-residents would not even blink an eye at the price hike, and the few that decide to opt out would quickly get their spots filled by the next non-residents in line. What am I missing here? I'd like to understand this better.

It depends on the elasticity of demand if NR tags will sell out. I remember being assured that NR tags would still sell out when I161 passed. I would like to think that you are correct and tags would still sell out if you doubled the price and cut the number in half. I just can not be sure about that. I am sure that the the NR that would remain would be almost entirely those that are paying to hunt private. The ave Joe hunters would go to other states. I 161 turned Montana's NR tags into OTC for almost a decade. This made owning a elk hunting ranch in Montana an attractive option for many wealthy NR hunters. We are still living with the unintended consequences.

 

[geewhiz]

Well, I'll throw my 2 cents in since I've been hunting elk since about 1979 in Montana.

Bull to cow ratio's in a lot of areas are total garbage, single digits. Large areas of Western Montana, that used to hold good numbers are biological deserts for elk. Which, tends to force hunters to concentrate in areas where there are still elk. That in turn pushes elk on to private faster, including a lot of elk being pushed onto private by archery hunters.

How can it be improved upon?

Shorten seasons, both archery and rifle. Demand management based on bull to cow ratio's as well as total population. Eliminate most cow tags on public land, don't knock the crap out of the elk that live on public or spend a lot of time on public. Increase pressure on elk on private when possible, antlerless elk limited to private land only.

Areas under minimum bull to cow ratio's and under population objectives either closed to hunting all together or go limited quota.

So what are we looking at then? Either close units all together or make it like utah where you have to wait 14 years to draw a tag?

I don't understand you guys.

 

[TheJason]

So what are we looking at then? Either close units all together or make it like utah where you have to wait 14 years to draw a tag?

I don't understand you guys.

It’s not an all or nothing deal. There are plenty of middle ground options that couple improve things.

 

[rogerthat]

1. nope
2. not that many
3. I realize that. I am not arguing that Montana elk hunting is sub par. I am arguing that montana elk hunting is very good. I guess what I am saying is I am confused why others are not able to find critters to shoot, and from my experience when observing friends and family, it boils down to effort exerted. People think it should be easy and when its not they whine and complain instead of putting forth some more effort.

1. You should really give Wyoming general a go. There is a reason the nr demand is through the roof. Heck I would take a Colorado otc elk tag over Montana general. That is saying something.
2. Having to hear tighten the boots gets old. I have put over 40 days in since my last archery elk was harvested. I go as hard as anyone I know. I have hunted Montana my whole life. Had lots of success. I know what good elk hunting is (it’s fairly rare on public lately)therefore I know how good montana could be. Just because you found a good spot and are doing great doesn’t mean Montana can’t improve. Every unit has its own unique herd dynamics and challenges.
3. Point one as well as the other posters points hits back at that premise. If Montana is so great why would I take a Colorado otc? How does it compare to Wyoming general? These are the questions you should be asking. I’m glad you’re knocking it out of the park(hope you continue the streak) but Montana is a giant state. Lots of places are in rough shape

 

[BuzzH]

So what are we looking at then? Either close units all together or make it like utah where you have to wait 14 years to draw a tag?

I don't understand you guys.

When the FWP says, "well, we know we don't have many elk in large portions of Western Montana, but with the populations so low, killing a couple of the few left won't matter"...what choice do you have?

Pack a rifle around for 15 years hoping to see one of the few elk still there?

Last I heard on unit 202, when it was flown last, the FWP saw 8 elk. How do you justify 11 weeks of elk hunting in a unit with 8 observed elk? At what point should something be changed? When the herd is cut in half to 4 observed elk?

 

[rogerthat]

So what are we looking at then? Either close units all together or make it like utah where you have to wait 14 years to draw a tag?

I don't understand you guys.

Maybe some of the units should be closed if they have no elk. Obviously we both know there is still pockets of great general season hunting. That can be preserved and expanded but that will take actual management rather than doing the same thing over and over again just because that’s the way it has always been. Definitely no reason to open a can of utardia on the issues at this point.

 

[Sioux33]

Elk distribution and hunter crowding are the two biggest things that need addressing, so that was good to at least see acknowledged. The problem is the commission gets involved down to the nitty gritty of setting quotas, instead of letting the biologists do what they're paid to do.

Take how they broke up the 900 tag and limited elk hunters to only hunt the district they drew. That sounded like a good idea initially and was meant to alleviate pressure, but IMO it backfired and made the hunting pressure much worse, especially with these central/eastern units being majority private. When the commission decided to mandate the quota numbers, they set them way too high and instead of people adjusting to the hunting pressure and moving to other units, they're stuck in that one, which has made the hunter crowding 10X worse and pushed more elk onto private. So, yes I think there are more improvements and changes needed, but we really need to think through the effects they'll have and try and foresee the unintended consequences.

 

[TheJason]

Shorten seasons, both archery and rifle. Demand management based on bull to cow ratio's as well as total population. Eliminate most cow tags on public land, don't knock the crap out of the elk that live on public or spend a lot of time on public. Increase pressure on elk on private when possible, antlerless elk limited to private land only.

Along these lines,

Make hunters choose a HD or EMU so hunter pressure can be measured and managed.

Cap HD/EMU numbers to prevent unit bombing. If necessary, make folks choose between hunting OTC and putting in for LE units.

Tailor seasons based on current measured elk numbers. Maybe a unit can justify a season, but it doesn’t have to be 11 weeks long.

 

[SAJ-99]

1. nope
2. not that many
3. I realize that. I am not arguing that Montana elk hunting is sub par. I am arguing that montana elk hunting is very good. I guess what I am saying is I am confused why others are not able to find critters to shoot, and from my experience when observing friends and family, it boils down to effort exerted. People think it should be easy and when its not they whine and complain instead of putting forth some more effort.

Waypoints please.

The latest survey is being used to measure R hunters attitude toward the season structure. I am annoyed by it in that some of the questions are just stupid and don't result in any meaningful information. FWP seemed to make a point to use the same survey it used in 2011 and then explain how the societal views have changed or not changed since the last survey. Fine. Maybe they should do a survey to see how the economic landscape of the state has changed. ask questions like "Do you primarily hunt public or private land", and "Do you exchange value ($ or services) in exchange for hunting private land?". These questions might give a deeper understanding of why the answers were what they were in the current survey.

Cut the tags by half, raise the price by X2. I'm betting it would still net more than the current revenue.

I can think of a couple of groups that would LOVE your idea MOGA and Wyoming. I believe these kinds of "solutions" are terribly ironic because you are asking free-market capitalism to solve a problem that is largely caused by free-market capitalism. I believe part of the cause of the problem people see today is that money makes the world go round. That wasn't always the case in regards to Montana hunting, but it is getting to be more and more the case every year.

 

[bigsky2]

Elk distribution and hunter crowding are the two biggest things that need addressing, so that was good to at least see acknowledged. The problem is the commission gets involved down to the nitty gritty of setting quotas, instead of letting the biologists do what they're paid to do.

Take how they broke up the 900 tag and limited elk hunters to only hunt the district they drew. That sounded like a good idea initially and was meant to alleviate pressure, but IMO it backfired and made the hunting pressure much worse, especially with these central/eastern units being majority private. When the commission decided to mandate the quota numbers, they set them way too high and instead of people adjusting to the hunting pressure and moving to other units, they're stuck in that one, which has made the hunter crowding 10X worse and pushed more elk onto private. So, yes I think there are more improvements and changes needed, but we really need to think through the effects they'll have and try and foresee the unintended consequences.

Agreed, it definitely backfired in my opinion too. Honestly, the quotas are so high that I wonder if a couple of those districts that have had surplus permits would have been better off if they had went to general. At least then if pressure got too bad hunters would have the option to go hunt a different general unit to try to get away from people.