Montana FWP makes seismic shift in elk permits

[mmw194287]

I exclusively hunt elk in HD 314 South of big creek. It's been brow tine only for years. I wonder how many elk will be around in 2023 now that FWP will permit hunters to take cows on a general in this area.

Same here...especially now that the B tag is good down there as well.

 

[rmyoung1]

Same here...especially now that the B tag is good down there as well.

Yeah, that’s insane. So 1,000 folks could theoretically take 2 cows south of Big Creek next year. Seriously?

 

[Carnage2011]

Yeah, that’s insane. So 1,000 folks could theoretically take 2 cows south of Big Creek next year. Seriously?

Hell ya! Next year I’m buying every elk tag available and have full intention of filling every one of them. If we are headed to the bottom, we may as well do it in a hurry! Timing is critical here….if we can kill them all before the next election, just maybe ol Greg will get canned.

 

[Nameless Range]

I exclusively hunt elk in HD 314 South of big creek. It's been brow tine only for years. I wonder how many elk will be around in 2023 now that FWP will permit hunters to take cows on a general in this area.

These decisions aren't done yet so I hope everyone speaks up.

It is incredibly risky to allow cows on a general, even in a district significantly "over objective", particularly when the elk in the district are migratory. HD 350 is a perfect example of this.

In 2017 a big snow brought the elk down into the Whitetail, and nearly 300 elk were killed. In 2020 67 were harvested, the lowest amount as far back as the bio's data goes to 2004, and only 130-some elk were counted last spring. Basically, it decimated the herd and here we are 4 years later and things aren't improving that fast.

 

[Eric Albus]

why not make the cow tags work just like the unlimited big horn sheep tags, call in when you harvest a cow and when the target number is reached season ends 24 hrs later?

 

[TheJason]

why not make the cow tags work just like the unlimited big horn sheep tags, call in when you harvest a cow and when the target number is reached season ends 24 hrs later?

Haha, you’re asking this question for a population who can’t differentiate between A tags, B tags, and permits?

 

[Irrelevant]

why not make the cow tags work just like the unlimited big horn sheep tags, call in when you harvest a cow and when the target number is reached season ends 24 hrs later?

Why would they ever want to limit harvest. There's a war on elk here, they're running those poor farmers out of house and home. If anything FWP should probably do away with elk tags all together and treat them more like coyotes. Year-round, no limits, spotlights at night? Elk trapping? #winthewar

 

[brockel]

Why would they ever want to limit harvest. There's a war on elk here, they're running those poor farmers out of house and home. If anything FWP should probably do away with elk tags all together and treat them more like coyotes. Year-round, no limits, spotlights at night? Elk trapping? #winthewar

No money in that.

 

[Eric Albus]

Haha, you’re asking this question for a population who can’t differentiate between A tags, B tags, and permits?

Good point

 

[Eric Albus]

Why would they ever want to limit harvest. There's a war on elk here, they're running those poor farmers out of house and home. If anything FWP should probably do away with elk tags all together and treat them more like coyotes. Year-round, no limits, spotlights at night? Elk trapping? #winthewar

If you view elk only from a recreational point of view it may seem this way.

IF your livelihood was in conflict with over objective numbers you’d have a different view.

 

[The Hedgehog]

If you view elk only from a recreational point of view it may seem this way.

IF your livelihood was in conflict with over objective numbers you’d have a different view.

Hey Eric. Who’s livelyhood is in conflict with bull elk numbers that you know personally. I mean “livelihood” .. seriously.

List names. And best bring them to the meetings for comments regarding the proposed regs to establish any shred of credibility these ideas have..

 

[300stw]

If you view elk only from a recreational point of view it may seem this way.

IF your livelihood was in conflict with over objective numbers you’d have a different view.

are you saying there are landowners being financially harmed due to elk, and the landowner has no way at all to capitalize on those elk, how about a list of said landowners. hell of a bunch of people right now, that would pay 500.00 acces to shoot a cow, not 500 to walk around a ranch that had elk problems last summer,,,
u can pm me the landowners list

 

[Montana_Wanderer]

It is truly hard to believe many of these proposals. I didn't see this one mentioned, but lots of post so may have missed it. In unit 204, which is on the outskirts of Missoula, they are proposing allowing brow-tined bulls OR antlerless elk to be harvested with a general tag. This is very uncommon for our area of the state. The unit will explode with hunters pushing more elk onto the private ranches especially on the western portion of the unit. Good luck finding elk on public after this.

HD 204: Remove Antlerless Elk Permit 204-00 (current quota of 150). Add over the counter Elk B License opportunity 262-01 valid general season through Jan. 08. Allow brow-tined bull or antlerless harvest on general license during general season (excluding Threemile WMA).

 

[Gerald Martin]

why not make the cow tags work just like the unlimited big horn sheep tags, call in when you harvest a cow and when the target number is reached season ends 24 hrs later?

Because that would actually work. It would also require an agreement on target number and require hunters to be responsible for monitoring the quota status. Which as JLS pointed out is apparently too complex and why we need to simplify the regs.

 

[MTelkHuntress]

It is truly hard to believe many of these proposals. I didn't see this one mentioned, but lots of post so may have missed it. In unit 204, which is on the outskirts of Missoula, they are proposing allowing brow-tined bulls OR antlerless elk to be harvested with a general tag. This is very uncommon for our area of the state. The unit will explode with hunters pushing more elk onto the private ranches especially on the western portion of the unit. Good luck finding elk on public after this.

HD 204: Remove Antlerless Elk Permit 204-00 (current quota of 150). Add over the counter Elk B License opportunity 262-01 valid general season through Jan. 08. Allow brow-tined bull or antlerless harvest on general license during general season (excluding Threemile WMA).

It's heartbreaking how bad that unit has gotten for elk and allowing for antlerless harvest like that will make it even worse. It already gets an insane amount of pressure. I remember the biologist talking about that unit and all she could talk about was how important it was to get to objective.
Mule deer buck will also be going general there. I'm assuming that was an attempt to spread out pressure but I haven't seen bucks like I used to in there for years.
I didn't realize that elk B tag got added, thanks for pointing it out.
What a mess.

 

[Eric Albus]

Because that would actually work. It would also require an agreement on target number and require hunters to be responsible for monitoring the quota status. Which as JLS pointed out is apparently too complex and why we need to simplify the regs.

Well, at least one of you gets it

 

[406truth]

Hey Eric. Who’s livelyhood is in conflict with bull elk numbers that you know personally. I mean “livelihood” .. seriously.

List names. And best bring them to the meetings for comments regarding the proposed regs to establish any shred of credibility these ideas have..

The tools to address elkover population are already in place. This is all about the privatization of our elk.

 

[Eric Albus]

Hey Eric. Who’s livelyhood is in conflict with bull elk numbers that you know personally. I mean “livelihood” .. seriously.

List names. And best bring them to the meetings for comments regarding the proposed regs to establish any shred of credibility these ideas have..

Not talking about bull elk.
If the only way to get numbers in line is 3-4 weeks cow only on a quota, call in just like unlimited sheep area, so be it.

 

[mtmuley]

Because that would actually work. It would also require an agreement on target number and require hunters to be responsible for monitoring the quota status. Which as JLS pointed out is apparently too complex and why we need to simplify the regs.

I pointed this out earlier when it was brought up that hunters could self report on harvest. Someone said their Grandma could use a cell phone, so no problem. Yeah, no problem. mtmuley

 

[Gerald Martin]

Not talking about bull elk.
If the only way to get numbers in line is 3-4 weeks cow only on a quota, call in just like unlimited sheep area, so be it.

Eric, something like this would work if reducing elk was the real goal and adequate access was given by private landowners.
The problem is that the landowners who are harboring elk and causing the problems for their neighbors are the same ones using “overpopulation” as a lever to gain access to more bull tags.

Those landowners don’t actually care about the effects of their personal management policies on their neighbors. Those neighbors include working ranchers who suffer crop depredations when elk come off of sanctuary areas and hunters who are seeing a dramatic decline in the quality of their hunting because of management strategies FWP enacts to provide “relief”.

This is the epitome of what Hank Worsech calls “ doing the same old thing expecting a different result”. These new proposals are a doubling down of the same policies. New packaging with the word “science” thrown in to convey the illusion of legitimacy but it’s not going to provide any significant relief to landowners who truly have an elk problem.