Hunt Talk Radio - Look for it on your favorite Podcast platform

Montana Elk Plan Public Scoping Meetings

There is a trade off between opportunity and access. It is not a question about when, but how much.
This is it.

If we are all going to be honest about this debacle let’s look without a jaundiced eye.

We(the hunting public) have plenty of access and way to much opportunity. This combined had driven elk onto sanctuaries.

Now we have 3 choices:

1. Do the same thing management wise

2. Reduce opportunities by restructuring seasons

3. Incentivize and work with “problem landowners”(who incidentally/accidentally/intentionally/or coincidentally are preserving the quality of elk hunting)

Whining and complaining anonymously on an internet blog isn’t doing much. Show up at FWP meetings(shame friends into attending) and begin to demand change. Remember, they(dept) are supposed to be working for us.
 
2 days left to comment!


I hope every Montana elk hunter can allocate some of their time to commenting. Even if they can invest a small portion of time they spend complaining about Montana elk management on Hunt Talk and other forums and social media.

Having been on the road pretty much since mid-August, I was not able to make the meetings personally. I got home from two weeks in Wyoming late last night and spent three hours providing comments along with another three hours this morning. I provided comment on every unit I hunt, might hunt, or have hunted. I did not realize how many units that would be and how long that would take. I did not comment on units I am unfamiliar with.

I also have a ten-page document that I will be sending to the Commissioners and the Director about elk issues that are not covered in these scoping comments.

Some of the scoping document questions are redundant and really should be left to the biologists and scientists. What expertise do hunters have that they should be answering these two questions?

Current population objectives are expressed as a desired number of elk counted, and typically include a range around that value (+/-20%). The range accounts for anticipated variability in elk counts among years. In this HD, should FWP maintain the current form of objective (point value with fixed range) or should FWP consider alternative population objective forms, like using the long-term average (5 years, 10 years) +/- 20%, or some other approach to establish a population objective?​


I eventually got tired of answering this same question, so I copied and pasted this response:

Counts need to be done every year. The biologists are best qualified to determine what methodology to use for counts. Whatever methodology is chosen, budget and resources need to be allocated to do the counts every year. Additionally, mandatory harvest reporting is a must if Montana is to ever get a handle on true elk numbers, hunter numbers, harvest, and distribution of harvest between public and private.

Elk populations are classified into objective status using annual or biennial survey data. Because there is often variation among surveys, would it be more appropriate to use individual surveys or a 3-year average of surveys to determine objective status for this HD or would you recommend some other approach?​


I eventually got tired of answering this same question, so I copied and pasted this response:

This is a decision best left to qualified professionals. They know how to best count animals accurately. Give them the budget and resources to do that.

All comments I provided were customized to each HD, but could for much of it, my comments could be summarized as follows:

This low level of post-season bull to cows is unacceptable. Montana has the habitat and the potential to improve that bull to cow ratio by a significant amount. This post-season adult bull to cow ratio should be above 20:100.

Elk distribution could/should be improved and can be done with more creative season structures and season dates. Adjust season dates and types to move elk that have been conditioned to private lands because of intense pressure over very long seasons. Designing season dates and types to move elk to public lands addresses landowner concerns and increases availability to hunters. Intense hunting pressure over many months, year after year, has conditioned many elk to become private land residents, complicating the distribution of elk and making it hard to use hunting as a tool for management.
Manage this unit for its own specific needs. The one-size fits all of season types, season dates, is unique to Montana. This unit, like all units, need to be managed with a higher level of customization for what is best for the elk resource. Make female elk hunting by permit only, including during archery season.
For the units in SW Montana that are currently under objective and allow muzzleloader hunting, I added a comment similar to this:

Remove the December muzzleloader season from this HD. Most areas have season motorized travel restrictions that re-open as of December 1. It is not reasonable to add an additional season to elk that are already struggling and allow that season to occur during a time frame when the elk are most vulnerable to hunters using motorized travel.

Whatever your thoughts and ideas, please comment if you have not done so already. Feel free to plagiarize anything I posted above, adding your own tweaks and perspectives.

Last time our EMP was crafted, hunters did not show up. We got our teeth handed to us on a plate. If you do not comment on these scoping documents, don't complain on Hunt Talk threads about elk management in Montana.

Gotta get the final touches put to this other document and send it off to the Director and Commissioners. I suspect it might generate a phone call or email.

Thanks to all who have commented and attended meetings.
 
I went in to comment twice and ended up not commenting either time. I both felt like it was too laborious to comment on every single HD and that as a NR hunter maybe it really doesn't matter what I think.
 
I went in to comment twice and ended up not commenting either time. I both felt like it was too laborious to comment on every single HD and that as a NR hunter maybe it really doesn't matter what I think.
I’m not sure it matters what any of us think. My comments are in.
 
I agree with the above. I commented on the units I hunt but wish there was a "General" category to put comments in on just what BigFin said. There's some broad sweeping changes that need to be made overall and I felt it was difficult to capture those comments in a specific unit.
 
I agree with the above. I commented on the units I hunt but wish there was a "General" category to put comments in on just what BigFin said. There's some broad sweeping changes that need to be made overall and I felt it was difficult to capture those comments in a specific unit.

I think this is a good place to make some of those more broad comments. The due date is ALSO TODAY!

 
I went in to comment twice and ended up not commenting either time. I both felt like it was too laborious to comment on every single HD and that as a NR hunter maybe it really doesn't matter what I think.
I commented anyway. Most of my comments were along the same lines as Big Fin's. I think asking hunters their opinions on the details of how elk should be managed is silly. FWP should just hire trained professionals and give them the freedom to do their job in the areas they manage. FWP only needs to ask one question of residents- Would you accept some moderate restrictions on your "opportunity" in exchange for a higher quality hunt and older age-class of animals?
 
I think asking hunters their opinions on the details of how elk should be managed is silly.
Disagree. If I don't give them my opinion, they will only have someone else's opinion. Possibly from a couple TX brothers and I am pretty sure we don't share the same thoughts.

I wrote a couple pages of comments weeks ago, but sat on them to review if evaluate if I was too abrasive.

Said heck with it last week and sent them in as it.

Didn't like the fillable question format on the web page, so just went them in as "general/additional comment".
 
I commented anyway. Most of my comments were along the same lines as Big Fin's. I think asking hunters their opinions on the details of how elk should be managed is silly. FWP should just hire trained professionals and give them the freedom to do their job in the areas they manage. FWP only needs to ask one question of residents- Would you accept some moderate restrictions on your "opportunity" in exchange for a higher quality hunt and older age-class of animals?
Disagree. An FWP bio came within inches of reducing bull/cow numbers to single digits in the areas he managed. Had it not been for hunters input those units would have been shot out of bulls.
 
Disagree. An FWP bio came within inches of reducing bull/cow numbers to single digits in the areas he managed. Had it not been for hunters input those units would have been shot out of bulls.

I saw comments make a difference during the "simplification" process. Some bios want to do something different, or know they need to, they just need justification. They literally are out there in these scoping meetings saying so.

Comment if ya haven't.


 
One of the main things I stated was, Despite their "war on elk", there's likely more elk on the landscape now than ever before, yet there's likely fewer accessible elk than anytime in the past three decades. How will you reverse that trend? It's hard to comprehend the vast amount of acreage in Western Montana that is essentially void of elk, yet we're to believe there's "too many elk"?
 
I hope every Montana elk hunter can allocate some of their time to commenting. Even if they can invest a small portion of time they spend complaining about Montana elk management on Hunt Talk and other forums and social media.

Having been on the road pretty much since mid-August, I was not able to make the meetings personally. I got home from two weeks in Wyoming late last night and spent three hours providing comments along with another three hours this morning. I provided comment on every unit I hunt, might hunt, or have hunted. I did not realize how many units that would be and how long that would take. I did not comment on units I am unfamiliar with.

I also have a ten-page document that I will be sending to the Commissioners and the Director about elk issues that are not covered in these scoping comments.

Some of the scoping document questions are redundant and really should be left to the biologists and scientists. What expertise do hunters have that they should be answering these two questions?



I eventually got tired of answering this same question, so I copied and pasted this response:

Counts need to be done every year. The biologists are best qualified to determine what methodology to use for counts. Whatever methodology is chosen, budget and resources need to be allocated to do the counts every year. Additionally, mandatory harvest reporting is a must if Montana is to ever get a handle on true elk numbers, hunter numbers, harvest, and distribution of harvest between public and private.



I eventually got tired of answering this same question, so I copied and pasted this response:

This is a decision best left to qualified professionals. They know how to best count animals accurately. Give them the budget and resources to do that.

All comments I provided were customized to each HD, but could for much of it, my comments could be summarized as follows:

This low level of post-season bull to cows is unacceptable. Montana has the habitat and the potential to improve that bull to cow ratio by a significant amount. This post-season adult bull to cow ratio should be above 20:100.

Elk distribution could/should be improved and can be done with more creative season structures and season dates. Adjust season dates and types to move elk that have been conditioned to private lands because of intense pressure over very long seasons. Designing season dates and types to move elk to public lands addresses landowner concerns and increases availability to hunters. Intense hunting pressure over many months, year after year, has conditioned many elk to become private land residents, complicating the distribution of elk and making it hard to use hunting as a tool for management.
Manage this unit for its own specific needs. The one-size fits all of season types, season dates, is unique to Montana. This unit, like all units, need to be managed with a higher level of customization for what is best for the elk resource. Make female elk hunting by permit only, including during archery season.
For the units in SW Montana that are currently under objective and allow muzzleloader hunting, I added a comment similar to this:

Remove the December muzzleloader season from this HD. Most areas have season motorized travel restrictions that re-open as of December 1. It is not reasonable to add an additional season to elk that are already struggling and allow that season to occur during a time frame when the elk are most vulnerable to hunters using motorized travel.

Whatever your thoughts and ideas, please comment if you have not done so already. Feel free to plagiarize anything I posted above, adding your own tweaks and perspectives.

Last time our EMP was crafted, hunters did not show up. We got our teeth handed to us on a plate. If you do not comment on these scoping documents, don't complain on Hunt Talk threads about elk management in Montana.

Gotta get the final touches put to this other document and send it off to the Director and Commissioners. I suspect it might generate a phone call or email.

Thanks to all who have commented and attended meetings.

Thank you for sharing this Randy.
 
I think this is a good place to make some of those more broad comments. The due date is ALSO TODAY!

Thanks Nameless, that was easier. Submitted.
 
Disagree. An FWP bio came within inches of reducing bull/cow numbers to single digits in the areas he managed. Had it not been for hunters input those units would have been shot out of bulls.
Maybe I should have said qualified professionals. That sounds like the plan by someone who shouldn't have had the job. I still stand by my point. What you have now is the curse of the majority and a good % of them don't know the first thing about wildlife management and most just want to be able to hunt as much as possible. Once you get down to the details of actual management, the amount of anecdotal observations and "shared beliefs" heard at the local watering hole will dominate the conversation. There is a ton of knowledge on HT, but even here it is a never-ending battle against BS.
 
Maybe I should have said qualified professionals. That sounds like the plan by someone who shouldn't have had the job. I still stand by my point. What you have now is the curse of the majority and a good % of them don't know the first thing about wildlife management and most just want to be able to hunt as much as possible. Once you get down to the details of actual management, the amount of anecdotal observations and "shared beliefs" heard at the local watering hole will dominate the conversation. There is a ton of knowledge on HT, but even here it is a never-ending battle against BS.
And while it's not elk, public comment is how 3 of the very best mule units in the state went from general to LE and are now the most sought after. These units were single digit buck/doe ratios while they were general.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Gastro Gnome - Eat Better Wherever

Forum statistics

Threads
113,472
Messages
2,022,616
Members
36,185
Latest member
Kurzk987
Back
Top