Montana FWP makes seismic shift in elk permits

[TheJason]

Man, reading that, I really feel like a manager might have a pretty good claim if they were fired for implementing policies that are actually based on science and the resource.

View attachment 208197

The fall back would be the statutory requirement to manage at or below objective.

 

[Irrelevant]

The fall back would be the statutory requirement to manage at or below objective.

Double fall back could be non-accessible populations.

 

[TheJason]

Double fall back could be non-accessible populations.

Yes, but hard to utilize for a termination case I would think.

 

[Ben Lamb]

You and shoots-straight act like an old married couple...funny stuff.

Well, I do love him something fierce.

 

[shoots-straight]

So did you not read my entire post?

Well, I do love him something fierce.

There was that time out by the fire, moonlight night. Lips are sealed.

 

[mtmiller]

Having met both of you, I am starting to get a visual. Knock it off.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Having met both of you, I am starting to get a visual. Knock it off.

I can't quit him.

 

[WIbiggame]

Yea, and NR licenses would be limited to no more than 10% of the resident hunters in any given season or type.

That would be fair.

Would be interesting to see if it would eliminate crowding in say region 3 and 2 which has the majority of your local population.

To also eliminate the, maybe unforseen problem this could create, people listening to the "you don't like it move here", cap resident tags at the average of the last 3 years.

Or if the resource is truly what residents want to protect, cut resident licenses by 20% (% is irrelevant just some cut in licenses) of the last 3 year average of course while keeping NR licenses to 10% of this average?

2 points I should've added:

1) Manage deer and elk separately, heck probably should manage whitetail and mule deer separately.

2) What I see as a big one is manage the animals regionally. Your state is huge and ecologically very diverse. Habitat in the SW is different than the NW which is different than the SE. MT is 3x the size of WI, and WI deer and turkey are managed at regional level so I would think a larger state with a more diverse landscape should do the same.

 

[WIbiggame]

Ultimately for this 2022-2023 season setting, my letter to the commission was summarized:

The people that need to be having a conversation are and some good ideas both ways have been brought up. Let's pump the breaks on these massive changes that have been thrown together haphazardly and keep things the status quo this season. And starting March 1 let's sit down with all the players and come to a logical well thought decision.

As a NR I know that has no pull but feel I am passionate about it enough and LOVE YOUR STATE enough I needed to write something.

 

[Eric Albus]

That would be fair.

Would be interesting to see if it would eliminate crowding in say region 3 and 2 which has the majority of your local population.

To also eliminate the, maybe unforseen problem this could create, people listening to the "you don't like it move here", cap resident tags at the average of the last 3 years.

Or if the resource is truly what residents want to protect, cut resident licenses by 20% (% is irrelevant just some cut in licenses) of the last 3 year average of course while keeping NR licenses to 10% of this average?

2 points I should've added:

1) Manage deer and elk separately, heck probably should manage whitetail and mule deer separately.

2) What I see as a big one is manage the animals regionally. Your state is huge and ecologically very diverse. Habitat in the SW is different than the NW which is different than the SE. MT is 3x the size of WI, and WI deer and turkey are managed at regional level so I would think a larger state with a more diverse landscape should do the same.

I have advocated for each region/species being managed separately. If I managed my cattle the same as a rancher in Billings or Butte I’d out of the cow business.

 

[Unlucky]

Why not manage accordingly to populations and healthy herds. Saying manage separately could mean to manage public diff from private. Interpretation could mean eric albus sells deer hunts and the public suffers.

I think make it draw on huntable populations based off public herds. Maybe u get better cooperation from outfitters ranchers. Basically over last 20 yrs the public been destroyed forcing alot of herds to private. And now they just trying to capitalize on it. Draw makes sense meets every requirement on the board. Pressure, harvest, management.

Pick your region pick your unit does not work. Too many hunters. Mandatory reporting will not work. Iam not saying where i killed my elk or seen them. Neither is 75 percent if the people. A otc draw works for everything. But the rich and landowners dont want that. They wont hunt every yr. Along with some public hunters. Everybody wants what is best for them but not willing to give up anything

 

[Irrelevant]

Mandatory reporting will not work. Iam not saying where i killed my elk or seen them. Neither is 75 percent if the people.

It works everywhere it's been implemented. Why would MT be different?

 

[TheJason]

Everybody wants what is best for them but not willing to give up anything

You mean like not providing harvest data for the unit you hunted in?

 

[mtmiller]

It works everywhere it's been implemented. Why would MT be different?

'cause people are not allowed to lie when the survey is taken via Montana phone conversation.

 

[huntandfly]

'cause people are not allowed to lie when the survey is taken via Montana phone conversation.

Make it like NM reporting: if you drew a tag you have to complete a hunter report in order to be eligible for the next years draw.

WA imposes a $10 fine for not completing hunter reports for the previous year.

 

[Irrelevant]

'cause people are not allowed to lie when the survey is taken via Montana phone conversation.

exactly.

 

[Wind Gypsy]

The whole "harvest reporting doesn't work" claim is ridiculous.

Somehow it has been a requirement in MN since before I was born and it works. Hell, I'm pretty sure they've had to register deer back at least to the 60s.

Concerned people will lie about locations? Make location part of validating your tag. Problem (mostly) solved. Seems pretty obvious that MT FWP doesn't want real data to back decisions though.

 

[Unlucky]

The data should be there counts on elk, deer herds. Tags based off of science.

Realistically not many people going to tell u where they killed there elk. Just being realistic. Iam going to tell them didnt c much in my fav unit and there were alot of predators.

 

[TheJason]

The data should be there counts on elk, deer herds. Tags based off of science.

Realistically not many people going to tell u where they killed there elk. Just being realistic. Iam going to tell them didnt c much in my fav unit and there were alot of predators.

And that is CHOOSING to be a part of the problem. You want FWP to base stuff on science, but then it’s okay for hunters to be a bunch of ignorant bastards and lie about their harvest and where they hunted. Got it.

 

[Unlucky]

Iam just telling u what will happen. Poking holes in your reporting bull chit. Its fwps job to do counts and keep track.