Montana elk (mis)management

[tjones]

Not everything in the EMP is junk. Much of the over objective/private land issues could be handle if someone would choose to follow this:

. Elk populations in portions of some EMUs may be almost entirely inaccessible to
hunters during the general hunting season or accessible to only a few hunters. To avoid over-harvest of accessible elk on public lands or private lands open to hunting, the inaccessible elk may not be included in objective numbers. Trend count number objectives may include only elk normally accessible to general hunting (if they are a distinct segment), though hunter access negotiations will continue. Elk occupying these “refuges” may be counted separately where practical (if they are a distinct segment) and sub-objectives established that could be operative if access negotiations are successful. If significant harvest of these “refuge” elk is possible with special management at some times and locations, they should be included in objective levels.

 

[Straight Arrow]

Oak, thank-you for your reply. I was aware of some of the price for "tolerance", but did not realize concessions were so extensive in Colorado. It appears to have worked out well for the elk, but not so sure about for resident hunters.

 

[RobG]

I agree, that harvest reporting isn't going to change policy. But, before you can make recommendations to change policy, its a pretty good idea to have as much solid data as you can.

So is this website being proposed going to have places where wolves, bears, and old man winter can report their harvest? Seriously, I'm not sure having super high accuracy hunter harvest numbers is going to help because there are so many other factors that have far more uncertainties than hunter harvest.

I'm going to extrapolate from engineering to biology here and say the absolute number is probably not all that important (and impossible to obtain accurately) as long as you are consistent in your measuring methods. What is important is the trends. Elk are managed for a particular effect, for example game damage, bull-cow ratios, hunter satisfaction, etc. If we want less game damage we might manage for 30% smaller herd size. Once we reach the 30% goal you can evaluate the game damage and adjust up/down. The actual value doesn't matter as long as your measuring methods are consistent.

Now imagine how it would complicate things if a bunch of hunters made you change your methods to self reporting. Suddenly the consistency is gone and it will take years to correlate your new data with your results.

Honestly, do you believe there are 160K elk in Montana right now? I don't.

I haven't a clue. What I do know is that the methods used by biologists to sample species are going to be far more accurate than a group of hunters griping about not seeing enough elk. That and you can never believe bitterrooters.

 

[RobertR]

BuzzH Honestly do you believe there are 160K elk in Montana right now? I don't.

That's a good question. That would be about 588 elk per acre or .91 elk per square mile. In a given area elk density will be higher in some areas and that's where aerial counts need to be more accurate. Not sure about my math but,
Montana = 147046 square miles = 94109440 acres.

 

[BuzzH]

RobG,

You must of read the "Managing wildlife in a vacuum" book.

Doing things consistently wrong for 40 years is still, ultimately, wrong.

Methods, models, techniques, animal movement, patterns, distribution, habitat, etc. etc. etc. all change over time.

What worked in 1960 may not work in 2015...damn good chance it wont.

Adapt or die.

Its funny to watch the MFWP continue down the same path of destruction, while watching the WGF make annual adjustments and have 40%+ success rates on general elk.

Its just all luck, that in the last 15 years, that I've NEVER had a single day of rifle elk hunting with a Wyoming general tag, that I couldn't have killed a legal animal on public land. I mean in range, safety off, only need to pull the trigger...

Its also funny to watch MFWP try to "market" their NR antlered deer and elk tags because they don't sell out anymore. Meanwhile, in Wyoming its taking nearly 2 preference points to draw a general elk tag.

Its even more amazing when WY sells 822 leftover COW permits in a hunting unit within 25 minutes of them going on sale...while Montana is struggling to sell their general licenses.

I wonder if it has anything to do with proper management, and "good chit selling itself"???

Naaa, its probably just due to marketing, the economy, and every other lame excuse the MFWP uses.

 

[RobG]

RobG,

You must of read the "Managing wildlife in a vacuum" book.

Yeah, it was right next to your dog-eared copy of "Feel Better by Fooling Yourself" on your coffee table.

"Measure with a laser, mark with chalk, cut with an axe..." You probably have no idea what I'm talking about and never will so I'll let you win.:W:

Carry on...

 

[BuzzH]

The MFWP is doing a great job with the laser, chalk, and axe, in particular the axe...just ask them.

The great part is, most MT hunters agree.

Don't hold the Agency charged with managing your wildlife responsible, give them more excuses.

Sorry if I find it ridiculous that you think elk should be managed for "effect"...what happened to doing what's best for wildlife?

For the record, its not about anyone winning, I don't care about your feelings...its about MT's wildlife losing, and losing big.

 

[Chucknduck]

Not everything in the EMP is junk. Much of the over objective/private land issues could be handle if someone would choose to follow this:

. Elk populations in portions of some EMUs may be almost entirely inaccessible to
hunters during the general hunting season or accessible to only a few hunters. To avoid over-harvest of accessible elk on public lands or private lands open to hunting, the inaccessible elk may not be included in objective numbers. Trend count number objectives may include only elk normally accessible to general hunting (if they are a distinct segment), though hunter access negotiations will continue. Elk occupying these “refuges” may be counted separately where practical (if they are a distinct segment) and sub-objectives established that could be operative if access negotiations are successful. If significant harvest of these “refuge” elk is possible with special management at some times and locations, they should be included in objective levels.

Tjones. I'm not sure if fwp even follows this rule. There are many units with very little public land. One I'm thinking about has zero accessible public land with a elk turd on it. It's a huge area and has an objective of like 50 elk if someone has access they can shoot any elk they see. Access is very difficult and many places don't even let friends and relatives hunt. Seems as though they are counting all these elk that are not accessible

The other prob is in many units the elk may spend much of the year off the private and once winter comes they flood to the private. Then ranchers who allow no hunting want all these elk killed. They wine to the fwp and want use tax payers to come to the rescue. Most ranchers would want all the elk in Montana exterminated.

 

[tjones]

Tjones. I'm not sure if fwp even follows this rule. There are many units with very little public land. One I'm thinking about has zero accessible public land with a elk turd on it. It's a huge area and has an objective of like 50 elk if someone has access they can shoot any elk they see. Access is very difficult and many places don't even let friends and relatives hunt. Seems as though they are counting all these elk that are not accessible

The other prob is in many units the elk may spend much of the year off the private and once winter comes they flood to the private. Then ranchers who allow no hunting want all these elk killed. They wine to the fwp and want use tax payers to come to the rescue. Most ranchers would want all the elk in Montana exterminated.

They do in HD270