Chucknduck
Member
I totally agree. We have ample opportunity but people are lazy and will take anything that they think make it easier
Montana elk (mis)management
- Thread starter BuzzH
- Start date
I totally agree. We have ample opportunity but people are lazy and will take anything that they think make it easier
Chucknduck
Member
What a screwed up system. Politics have no place in wildlife management.
The Hedgehog
Well-known member
How many times have you read the main reason people don't hunt in Montana is the "lack of access"?
Are you kidding me? If you can't find a place to hunt in Montana (along with fifty B-tags) - you need to find a different hobby.
The big problem is actually the hunters. If people would refuse to participate in something as stupid as this "shoulder season" there would be no problems.
Are you kidding me? If you can't find a place to hunt in Montana (along with fifty B-tags) - you need to find a different hobby.
The big problem is actually the hunters. If people would refuse to participate in something as stupid as this "shoulder season" there would be no problems.
Furthermore, FWP's budget has to be approved by the Legislature. That in and of itself has led to more political influence over the agency. Thoughtless policies from the legislature mean we have underpaid staff, major vacancies in the warden corps, mandatory budget cuts each year of 4 % and, as we saw last session, our enemies go after the funding for access rather than just attack access straight on.
If we want this to change, we'd need a constitutional initiative to remove the legislature's authority to oversee the agency's budget, like how they do it in Wyoming (with certain exceptions).
Last edited:
Topgun 30-06
Active member
Ben---Wyoming also has a huge problem with the Legislature wanting to control the G&F and they do a pretty good job of it since they have to pass any increases for license fees, etc. for the Department. The last few years have been a nightmare trying to get any fees increased and that includes even for NRs only. With the way Wyoming is set up even if they do vote an increase in one legislative session it is another year until those fees can take effect. That means that right now the fees that have been in effect for quite a number of years now will be in effect again this year and at least until 2017 even if they pass fee increases in next years session.
Last edited:
Yes, very true.
My point about Wyoming was that their legislature doesn't appropriate funding for the agency when it comes to license dollars, which insulates them from the kind of budget fights we see here. That would be a good step in MT to remove the influence of those who want to steal our resource and hand it to their buddies.
You will never remove politics from wildlife management because legislatures set broad policy in terms of statutory authority, etc. So vote accordingly, and fight when needed.
Straight Arrow
Well-known member
Then when Montana has an appointed FWP Commissioner who later becomes the chairman of the Senate Fish & Game subcommittee, but who seems to consider wildlife as vermin and hunters as subhuman beings ... wildlife management and hunting begin to take an extreme political course that has evolved into this onerous bizarre condition. It has reached a highly critical state
The fight is needed NOW!
The fact that so many people do participate in late hunts shows me that my tolerance for elk numbers is different than a lot of other hunters. Neither is right or wrong. Over the last ten years of elk debates in Montana I have come to learn how many people just want to go shoot an elk, bull or cow. And, how many of them would prefer that it be easier rather than harder. Just a function of the hunting population.
When we had late elk hunts in the Madison, I refused to participate. Just speaking for myself, my "social tolerance" for elk has not yet been exceeded, so I don't partake in late cow hunts, knowing that is the future of the herd. Not that I wouldn't shoot a cow to put meat in my freezer and I don't judge anyone who decides to shoot a cow. Merely a different way I look at it, and from what I have come to learn, my way of looking at it is in the minority.
Having come to the realization that my way of looking at things is in the minority, I need to be more engaged in the discussion to make sure my opinions are represented. As happened on Monday when my area Commissioner, Dan Vermillion, and the Commission Chairman, Gary Wolfe, both were kind enough to spend long amounts of time on the phone listening to Randy's opinions.
When it comes to any discussion of elk, not just shoulder seasons, not just Commission level discussions, not just legislative efforts, but all things related to elk, the number of folks expressing opinions is usually far less than those who are engaging their Commissioner, their legislator, their local rod and gun club, or doing other things that will make sure their opinion is heard. I know the process might seem futile, or it has the impression (right or wrong) as merely going through the motions to justify a pre-determined outcome. Yet, if most of what a Commissioner, Regional Supervisor, legislator hears is about wanting to fill freezers and the easier the better, that is the kind of policy they are going to gravitate toward.
I can say that in my role as an RMEF Board member, when I am stopped by a member or an elk hunter to be provided a perspective, more people want to put an elk in their freezer than want to shoot 330 bulls. That has been an eye-opener for me. By hanging out with the hunters I do; by owning a forum with some serious public land elk hunters providing perspectives, I was of the mindset that most hunters looked at it like I did. I no longer think that is the case. When it comes to public access, public lands, I think most hunters do see it like I do. But, when it comes to wanting a week of hiking the hills with a pack on my back, with no guarantee I will find meat for my freezer, I am in the minority of elk hunters.
When it comes to fee increases or shooting cow elk, I see first hand how many folks look at this different than I do. They have a much easier pitch to policy makers than I do. When someone says a cow elk in their freezer helps them through the winter, policy makers hear "food and finances." That resonates a lot more with a policy maker than Randy Newberg saying he enjoys the challenge of chasing bull elk, as it gives him reason to be in the mountains for more days. The mere fact that one opinion expresses a basic human need, food, makes that point much easier to convey and the point sticks with a policy maker much longer than some long-winded ramble by a guy like me who hunts for many reasons in addition to food.
And whether I like it or not, that other person has as much validity for how they see elk and elk hunting, as I do. Their perspective is every bit as important as mine.
Some would say that other perspective and shooting cows is damaging to the resource. Whether that perspective and shooting cows is damaging the resource is open for debate. What is not open for debate is how that person formed their opinion that they are helping the resource.
That person has been told that elk numbers are over objective. When they hear that, they think they are doing the elk and the landscape a favor, as most of them think over objective means the elk are so populated as to be damaging the range. They do not spend hours in discussions on such topics. They do not read many hundreds of pages in the elk management plan. They hear from people they trust that there are too many elk and they are happy to fill their freezers while helping solve the problem. From their perspective, they are helping solve the problem. And given how they formed their perspective, I don't fault them for seeing it through a different lens than I might.
My point in that long ramble is to affirm Greenhorn's point that a hunter does not have to participate in something they disagree with. Which also leads to the logical point that if a lot of people do participate, they probably did agree with the proposal, or at a minimum, had no objection to the proposal.
If a lot of people do/don't participate in these seasons, it will show where the majority/minority of opinions are on the topic of shoulder seasons. If I had to predict, it will be quite popular.
BuzzH
Well-known member
That may change.
Too bad you live in Michigan and don't keep up to speed on whats happening in Wyoming.
The last TRW committee meeting, there was a serious discussion about giving the WGF Commission authority to set license fees.
The usual band of misfits (SFW) showed and the legislation that the TRW committee was going to introduce, giving the Commission authority to set fees, was headed down the drain.
Thankfully a WYBHA board member stepped up and offered up a solution to proposed legislation, that would allow the Commission to set fees on all special licenses. There would have been NO chance of any upcoming proposed legislation to keep the proposal alive without the input of BHA, and specifically ONE board member.
There is going to be legislation introduced that gives the Commission authority to increase special license fees.
Will it pass? I don't know, but there are currently several State Representatives/Senators that we have talked with that want to give more authority to the GF commission on a number of items, including license fee increases. That will solve a lot of he problems that topgun is talking about, including the year lag between legislative approval of a fee increase and implementation.
We'll see what happens...but no matter what, just getting the TRW committee to introduce legislation like this is a huge departure from the status quo. It also proves they are serious about giving the Commission needed authority.
Not even in the same ballpark as what Montana is going through.
BuzzH
Well-known member
Randy,
While I somewhat agree with what you say, that many are wanting to fill freezers...I have some problems believing that entirely.
I specifically recall extended elk seasons in the Madison, Blackfoot, and Lima Peaks areas where the MFWP left those extended seasons open for ANY elk.
When forced to answer why, they responded that in order to attract hunters to travel to these areas, they had to leave it open for any elk or there would be little to no participation.
Seems to me that, once again, there is some pretty significant information gaps somewhere. Either hunters aren't as worried about freezers as they would lead us to believe, or the MFWP is full of chit.
Either way, somebody isn't being truthful about their motivations/wants/management scheme when it comes to elk.
While I somewhat agree with what you say, that many are wanting to fill freezers...I have some problems believing that entirely.
I specifically recall extended elk seasons in the Madison, Blackfoot, and Lima Peaks areas where the MFWP left those extended seasons open for ANY elk.
When forced to answer why, they responded that in order to attract hunters to travel to these areas, they had to leave it open for any elk or there would be little to no participation.
Seems to me that, once again, there is some pretty significant information gaps somewhere. Either hunters aren't as worried about freezers as they would lead us to believe, or the MFWP is full of chit.
Either way, somebody isn't being truthful about their motivations/wants/management scheme when it comes to elk.
T
tjones
Guest
We are about to find out the killing elk because it's legal and popular isnt what's best for elk.
I have seen 6 years of very popular, very legal elk killing and we still haven't recovered.
I have seen 6 years of very popular, very legal elk killing and we still haven't recovered.
Last edited by a moderator:
I do not recall the late Madison seasons being open for ANY elk. Maybe it was prior to me moving here in 1991.
If FWP said hunters would not participate without the chance to shoot a bull, then they were living under a rock. They gave away 2,200 cow elk tags in Gardiner every year and 50 bull tags. Even the cow tags had more applicants than tags.
And even though the Gardiner area trends showed the elk numbers were coming down; even though the trends showed the cow to calf ratios were dropping, hunters were told the hunts were necessary to get elk numbers to "where they should be." Even though it all got blamed on wolves, the guys who participated in those hunts that resulted in over 10,000 pregnant cow elk getting killed in six seasons all thought they were doing something to help the overall health of the herd. That is what they were being told by the agency.
Any FWP person who said bull tags would be a necessity to get late season cow elk killed was surely employed in a position far beyond their IQ. The Gardiner cow-only elk hunts showed it, the Turner Ranch late cow-only hunts showed it, and at least since I've been here, the Madison Valley late cow-only hunts showed it.
And to me, the popularity of those hunts, even when held in a period of decline and new predation pressures, shows that hunters very much like a late cow elk hunt that has a higher likelihood of success that unfolds on the cardiac-friendly low country where these hunts were held. It also shows that you don't need a super compelling fact pattern, as was the case for the hunts I mentioned above, to get hunters believing that filling their freezers can help the resource.
BuzzH
Well-known member
Randy,
I have a pretty good memory...and your search function rocks:
Thread:
http://onyourownadventures.com/hunt...38906&highlight=Montana+extended+hunts&page=2
Extended Montana Elk Season A Success
December 30, 2008.
From Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks:
Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks has broken new ground in the use of general hunting season extensions. This year’s extension in Region 3 was the longest ever implemented by the department. It was also the first time FWP tracked daily elk harvest via telephone call-in while it was occurring in order to be responsive to concerns about over-harvest.
Based on a preliminary estimate, 1,840 elk were harvested in southwest Montana during the general season extension from Dec. 1-21.
Approximately 1,411 antlerless elk and 424 bulls were harvested across the 18 extended hunting districts. Pre-established harvest quotas were not reached in any extended area. Final harvest estimates will be determined following completion of statewide harvest surveys.
The mix of unseasonably warm and dry weather and public access difficulties prompted the decision to extend the general season in areas where elk numbers were over objective and where elk harvest was much lower than desired.
Harvest quotas for elk, with a particular focus on bulls, were set based on a five-year average harvest as determined by harvest surveys and check station data.
“Pre-established bull harvest quotas were not exceeded in any extended season area,” said Kurt Alt, Regional Wildlife Manager. “Harvest approached the bull quota, first in hunting district 314 and shortly after in the other extended areas. Ultimately, all extended areas were closed to bull hunting in response and in advance of forecasted severe winter weather.”
“FWP was conservative in applying the closures to avoid exceeding the bull quota,” added Alt.
Hunters should expect to see continued elk harvest opportunities in various areas of Region 3 through management seasons and game damage hunts until Feb. 15, 2009, including in hunting districts 360 and 362.
Hunters needed to sign up by July 15 for management season and game damage hunting opportunities through FWP’s game damage roster.
Article here:
http://fwp.mt.gov/news/newsReleases/hunting/nr_1010.html
I have a pretty good memory...and your search function rocks:
Thread:
http://onyourownadventures.com/hunt...38906&highlight=Montana+extended+hunts&page=2
Extended Montana Elk Season A Success
December 30, 2008.
From Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks:
Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks has broken new ground in the use of general hunting season extensions. This year’s extension in Region 3 was the longest ever implemented by the department. It was also the first time FWP tracked daily elk harvest via telephone call-in while it was occurring in order to be responsive to concerns about over-harvest.
Based on a preliminary estimate, 1,840 elk were harvested in southwest Montana during the general season extension from Dec. 1-21.
Approximately 1,411 antlerless elk and 424 bulls were harvested across the 18 extended hunting districts. Pre-established harvest quotas were not reached in any extended area. Final harvest estimates will be determined following completion of statewide harvest surveys.
The mix of unseasonably warm and dry weather and public access difficulties prompted the decision to extend the general season in areas where elk numbers were over objective and where elk harvest was much lower than desired.
Harvest quotas for elk, with a particular focus on bulls, were set based on a five-year average harvest as determined by harvest surveys and check station data.
“Pre-established bull harvest quotas were not exceeded in any extended season area,” said Kurt Alt, Regional Wildlife Manager. “Harvest approached the bull quota, first in hunting district 314 and shortly after in the other extended areas. Ultimately, all extended areas were closed to bull hunting in response and in advance of forecasted severe winter weather.”
“FWP was conservative in applying the closures to avoid exceeding the bull quota,” added Alt.
Hunters should expect to see continued elk harvest opportunities in various areas of Region 3 through management seasons and game damage hunts until Feb. 15, 2009, including in hunting districts 360 and 362.
Hunters needed to sign up by July 15 for management season and game damage hunting opportunities through FWP’s game damage roster.
Article here:
http://fwp.mt.gov/news/newsReleases/hunting/nr_1010.html
Last edited:
BuzzH
Well-known member
I also specifically recall that HD 285, where my brother had a cow permit, was extended to anyone having a cow permit for 2 weeks...and you guessed it open to ANY elk.
A friend of mine had the same tag and killed a spike on the extended hunt.
IIRC, your camera guy killed a whopper bull on one of these extended seasons as well.
A friend of mine had the same tag and killed a spike on the extended hunt.
IIRC, your camera guy killed a whopper bull on one of these extended seasons as well.
belly-deep
Active member
- Joined
- Oct 31, 2009
- Messages
- 3,459
If you think that most of the hunters participating in the shoulder seasons give two shits about what the FWP tells them regarding resource health, you're kidding yourselves. Elk and antelope for some strange reason, drive people over the edge. You could put the last remaining cow in Montana on a rope, infect it with chronic wasting disease, starve it until there wasn't a decent steak left on its body, have a spotted calf suckling its teats, and 95% of the guys that came by would still get in a fist fight over who shoots it.
Most hunters will do what is legal and stop right there. Expecting self sacrifice when the FWP pulls a bad management stunt is wishful thinking to say the least.
Looking at the map, I don't see a whole lot of problems with the pilot shoulder season units right now. They do appear to have a ton of private land. But what is on the books for next year could very well destroy a lot of elk herds.
Most hunters will do what is legal and stop right there. Expecting self sacrifice when the FWP pulls a bad management stunt is wishful thinking to say the least.
Looking at the map, I don't see a whole lot of problems with the pilot shoulder season units right now. They do appear to have a ton of private land. But what is on the books for next year could very well destroy a lot of elk herds.
Last edited:
BuzzH
Well-known member
Randy,
Here is the other thread, crittergetter heard the same thing I did...to attract hunters the MFWP left it open for bulls. Also, theres a pic of the bull that your camera guy shot...
http://onyourownadventures.com/hunttalk/showthread.php?t=239095
Here is the other thread, crittergetter heard the same thing I did...to attract hunters the MFWP left it open for bulls. Also, theres a pic of the bull that your camera guy shot...
http://onyourownadventures.com/hunttalk/showthread.php?t=239095
Hunting Wife
Well-known member
People need to read this again. A lot of frustration on this whole issue seems misplaced to me. I would ask those who are upset with current affairs, how did you vote in the last election? It's easy to vilify Fwp, but the fact of the matter is that anyone in the agency with "balls" to stand up for what is right, as someone suggested earlier, quickly finds themself out of a job. That is a fact of life in the wildlife field these days. An agency and staff held hostage by politicians can not succeed. Keep that in mind next time you find a ballot in front of you.
Randy, thank you for sharing the evolution of your perspective on pubLic viewpoints. What you describe agrees with my personal experience as well.
Also found it ironic that in today's Billings Gazette there was an article about shoulder seasons. One Commissioner was quoted as saying he heard from a ton of landowners on the issue, but not many hunters. I will also restate something else Randy said earlier - complaining doesn't mean s@$t if you aren't complaining to the right people.
Buzz:
These were extended of the regular rifle seasons, not just in the Madison, when the harvest was supposedly too low during the regular season, not a planned management season. I thought you were referring to seasons that had been part of the tentative process, as where the ones I mentioned. This 2008 extended season was never discussed as a tentative, rather a decision by the Commission; a decision I told them I disagreed with.
I had my tag still in tact that year. I chose not to participate in that extended season.
The point I was trying to make is a rebuttal of those who say that their is no support for these kind of seasons. The implication that anyone who mentioned that support does exist for these seasons is somehow influenced by politics or money. There is a lot of support for these kinds of seasons, both historically and currently.
When it is all said and done, we will find out if these seasons have the outcome that is being stated as the need for these seasons. Or, if that outcome is not obtained. I suspect if it has a negative outcome, many hunters will again blame wolves for the lack of elk, as they did in the Gardiner area.
The merits of these seasons can be debated all day long. The outcome we see in a few years will be the final judge on those merits. I doubt we will see much debate on the popularity among the rank and file Montana hunter, if past history is any indicator.
Lawnboy
Well-known member
I have friends who are all excited that they get a chance at an elk again. I'm more inclined to believe that most of them are ignorant to the fact that it may very well hinder their chances in the future by indulging in this endeavor now. They just aren't thinking about anything other than another chance to kill an elk. I think what Randy might be implying in some of his posts is that it is my job to help educate in my small circle. Be more proactive in some way.
I'm not sure whether I can believe the Bitteroot guys on here but if this basic same proposition did indeed happen over there with ill side effects I would hope that the State might look at it as an example. I have no reason to believe it didn't happen nor am I in doubt that they are still trying to recover from it.
I suppose if this thing goes through and lets say we do see adverse effects it will be blamed all on the wolves......and I'm not referring to the two legged ones.
Last edited:
