Montana FWP makes seismic shift in elk permits

Carnage2011 · Dec 28, 2021

Jbaldwin40 said:
Sounds like they are afraid of lawsuits

I wish. If they were afraid of lawsuits they wouldn’t have passed some of the predator bills this last session. They just like that excuse…

Eric Albus · Dec 29, 2021

Greenhorn said:
Okay, let me change my post:
Who’s livelyhoods are in conflict with elk numbers that you know personally. List names.

I've yet to meet a landowner in south eastern MT that thinks there are just too many elk, and that they are "conflicting with their livelihood". Nor any that don't have the means to change it with current seasons/permits/regulations we have in place.

This is 100% entirely about bull elk and you know that.

WTF is up with you anyway? I never stated I was for unlimited bull tags in permit areas. I would protest loud and long against unlimited rifle tags.

I am not going to list names of ranchers I know in the breaks who deal to many elk. If you think it does not affect their livelihood by feeding "our" elk think again. If I remember correctly it takes about 2 elk to consume as much as one bovine, and unlike mule deer who browse, elk graze and compete with cattle.

Archery different story. I could see letting "X" number of archery permits good only on private land, the added pressure might help displace elk to where the public can access them.

The Hedgehog · Dec 29, 2021

No need for me to be a dick..

The Hedgehog · Dec 29, 2021

Poor landowners getting eaten out of house and home who deserve …
MORE rifle bull permits & Unlimited archery either sex permits.

Nameless Range · Dec 29, 2021

If one thing could not be more obvious, it’s that Hank’s bullshit proposals will not do much good for landowner - hunter relations.

The Hedgehog · Dec 29, 2021

We wanna help these poor struggling ranchers who are getting eaten out of house and home and cannot do anything about it, and we also want to push some of these elk out to the public where they can now access them….

All it takes is more bull permits right.

Sioux33 · Dec 29, 2021

Eric Albus said:
Archery different story. I could see letting "X" number of archery permits good only on private land, the added pressure might help displace elk to where the public can access them.

But how are these ranch owners going to advertise their elk herd when they want to sell their ranch and make a few million bucks? The Wilks just did exactly that this year trying to sell their ranch in the Bull Mountains, bragging about how amazing of a hunting ranch it is with hundreds of elk roaming it. This is a 2-way street and asking the public to give in when the other side won't is never going to get us anywhere.

Along with that, I'd like to know exactly how many crop damage complaints are received each year due to over objective elk, because in unit 700, where we're 200% over objective, there have been 3 since 2018. But hey, let's ignore that and use a bunch of anecdotal stories to make it sound like we're in dire straits.

If MOGA could see past the over-objective issue and call it for what it is, it'd be a good first step into compromising somewhere. Because if this all goes through, it's not only going to be a gut punch to the public land hunters, but MOGA too. You guys have it pretty good right now, but be careful what you wish for when land prices explode, MT becomes the next Texas, and hunting clubs become the new norm.

The Hedgehog · Dec 29, 2021

Eric Albus said:
WTF is up with you anyway? I never stated I was for unlimited bull tags in permit areas. I would protest loud and long against unlimited rifle tags.

I am not going to list names of ranchers I know in the breaks who deal to many elk. If you think it does not affect their livelihood by feeding "our" elk think again. If I remember correctly it takes about 2 elk to consume as much as one bovine, and unlike mule deer who browse, elk graze and compete with cattle.

Archery different story. I could see letting "X" number of archery permits good only on private land, the added pressure might help displace elk to where the public can access them.

As a rancher/landowner/outfitter you know wildlife is valuable, but it comes with a price. You may often be forced to feed animals and deal with other damages and headaches. You also have the ability to recognize more of that value either for financial gain, personal satisfaction, or other altruistic reasons.

Unlike other difficulties that come with the ranching (weather, economy, etc) that you cannot control, there are tools out there to help offset those costs of having wildlife. As a landowner and outfitter, you know that.

I don't know jack shit about the breaks. I do know it used to be know as one of the premium places to hunt elk in the world - up until maybe a decade or two ago. Question for you - what happened?

Also, since you cannot share the breaks folks who have these elk in conflict of their livelihood, can you just share the hunting unit they are in? I'd love to peek at the regs, just to see what tools were out there in 2021 to help them out. There's obviously more moving parts to that equation about how elk are conflicting with their livelihood. Such as size of property, amount of public land surrounding and if that's grazed by them, the condition of the public/private land, access to the public land, what their neighbors are doing, etc.

I can guarantee you there are solutions out there to this "elk problem" which do not include a single additional bull (either sex) permit being allocated to anyone anywhere. Also, the "unlimited" archery elk permit, opening up a huge client base for guided non-resident elk hunters, will do the exact OPPOSITE with the "elk problem" some are seemingly trying to solve..

Eric Albus · Dec 29, 2021

Th

Greenhorn said:
As a rancher/landowner/outfitter you know wildlife is valuable, but it comes with a price. You may often be forced to feed animals and deal with other damages and headaches. You also have the ability to recognize more of that value either for financial gain, personal satisfaction, or other altruistic reasons.

Unlike other difficulties that come with the ranching (weather, economy, etc) that you cannot control, there are tools out there to help offset those costs of having wildlife. As a landowner and outfitter, you know that.

I don't know jack shit about the breaks. I do know it used to be know as one of the premium places to hunt elk in the world - up until maybe a decade or two ago. Question for you - what happened?

Also, since you cannot share the breaks folks who have these elk in conflict of their livelihood, can you just share the hunting unit they are in? I'd love to peek at the regs, just to see what tools were out there in 2021 to help them out. There's obviously more moving parts to that equation about how elk are conflicting with their livelihood. Such as size of property, amount of public land surrounding and if that's grazed by them, the condition of the public/private land, access to the public land, what their neighbors are doing, etc.

I can guarantee you there are solutions out there to this "elk problem" which do not include a single additional bull (either sex) permit being allocated to anyone anywhere. Also, the "unlimited" archery elk permit, opening up a huge client base for guided non-resident elk hunters, will do the exact OPPOSITE with the "elk problem" some are seemingly trying to solve.

TheTone · Dec 29, 2021

Bulls may be bigger than cows, thus they eat more grass, thus they need killed so bovines don’t starve. Simple science

Eric Albus · Dec 29, 2021

I hit a wrong key….

What happened in the breaks is two fold. To many archery hunters successfully killing bulls and way, way to many either sex permits.

Archery permits for private land may not work, but could be tried for a year or two to see if it disperses any elk. If it doesn’t work then do away with it.

622, Timber Creek west is the unit(s) that had to many elk. From what I’m hearing it may be improving.

Irrelevant · Dec 29, 2021

Eric Albus said:
What happened in the breaks is two fold. To many archery hunters successfully killing bulls and way, way to many either sex permits.

Isn't that exactly what's being proposed in the SE now?

Eric Albus said:
Archery permits for private land may not work, but could be tried for a year or two to see if it disperses any elk. If it doesn’t work then do away with it.

If those extra private land archery tags are antlerless only I think everyone could get on board with that.

300stw · Dec 29, 2021

from timber creek to the west , when those elk are on public they are very accesible, killed numerous cows and 2 bulls there last 8 years, when they go farther west, few landowners, land is guided, no public acces, ive called or emailed or sent a letter to virtually every landowner within 30 miles of timber creek in the last 8 years, never could get on private at all,,,,, so if those guys are complaining i would like to know why, an outfitter wanted 3000.00 for my 14yr old son to harvest a cow,,,,, get that price to 500.00 cows are gonna get killed,,,,,

huntin24/7 · Dec 29, 2021

I started bowhunting 621/622 in 2007 and have bowhunted or rifle hunted the occasional cow tag since then. The reduction in herd numbers and especially bull quality is very noticeable. I can’t fathom how their herd objectives are even lower still and how there haven’t been any archery or rifle permit reductions yet. But I know better than to expect different by now though

Spahr · Dec 29, 2021

I've been following along with the proposed changes by FWP and there are several items and recommendations that are concerning. One of the biggest, which was discussed at the Great Falls meeting, was that the proposals we're being given are very different than the proposals submitted by the regional biologists. When asked what the process looks like, it was explained that the proposals are written and submitted to Helena, Helena then makes changes as they see fit, and submit them to the FWP commission, who also makes changes as they see fit. So, while the boundaries changes were left pretty much as given, anything relating to cow harvest, quotas etc. are up for changing depending on whose hand the proposal is in.

The 900 tags being unbundled from what I've heard as a member of the Region 4 CAC has for the most part gotten some support, but most would like to see it go as a first choice only choice instead of an unlimited option that you could draw as second choice. I think we can all agree that access is a major issue with over-crowding and maybe having to pick your Archery HD for special draws can help lower that somewhat, but only time will tell, I think we can all agree that additional bull tags are almost certainly not the answer we're looking for. When talking about access, it's also been brought to me that some of the boundary changes could impact access. I only have one example that was given to me, and I haven't had the time to verify but a Region 4 resident called me to discuss adding the Whitetail Prairie portion of 445 into 455 (to simplify the Beartooth WMA boundary) would potentially reduce public access in HD 445 by as much as 20%. Again, I haven't verified that but it's something to think about.

I don't have any answers, but I want to encourage everyone to think of some viable solutions and make sure you're reaching out to your commissioners, as well as your local CAC representatives so they can also advocate for you. I've added the links to your regional CAC's below.

Region 1 Citizen Advisory Committee | Montana FWP

Citizen Advisory Councils (CAC) in each region will help Fish, Wildlife & Parks to be responsive and responsible public-resource managers. Citizen advisors can help the department operate efficiently and effectively within the constraints of state law, Fish & Wildlife Commission rules and...

fwp.mt.gov