Montana FWP makes seismic shift in elk permits

[Big Fin]

When we get the final proposals issued, we will start a new thread. That will be a time to stay focused.

I've made the mistake in the past of feeling I had to comment on every single idea, which diluted the focus on certain topics that were paramount. The process of throwing out so much junk at one time is part of the strategy to get some of the worst of the worst to have less opposition.

We know where the opposition is willing to die on their sword - more bull tags for billionaire landowners, all pitched under the guise of too many elk. No matter how it is proposed, that is the end goal. Ignore the smoke screens of too many elk, etc. It is about a small handful of mostly non-resident landowners and some of the MOGA members wanting to have unrestricted access to bull elk tags for their lands/clients.

The history of this debate has always been the intellectual dishonesty of what is the stated problem (supposedly too many elk) contradicted by the true motivation (more bull tags). Until we smoke out the BS and get to the true motivations driving these requests, expect more of the same.

What was proposed this week was the most blatantly contradictory proposal since this debate started a decade ago. And now, rather than trying the legislative route, the Department has decided it is OK to carry the water for this small handful of folks wanting unhindered access to bull tags.

If it is too many cow elk, which it is for some of the small guys trying to make a living on the land, we can help solve that. That's were we can make a difference and we should try our best.

But, too many elk is not the problem the "Hedge Fund Ranchers" have. They have a problem of too few bull tags (at least in their mind). Let's focus on helping the landowner trying to make a living and be his ally when the complications cast upon all of us are mostly traceable to the billionaire who brings his land ethos and lack of neighbor consideration with him when he buys an elk ranch in Montana.

Watch for a new thread when these final proposals get posted. Then, let's stay focused and bring the same pressure that was mustered the last week.

 

[JLS]

Mandatory reporting is a good thing, but don’t put the cart before the horse. Until you address the big pink elephant in the room, any data from harvest reporting is as valuable as one of @Greenhorn empties. I would tell Commissioner Waller, great, glad you’re concerned, but let’s pull the stick out our ass before we worry about band aids.

 

[The Hedgehog]

Ignore the smoke screens of too many elk, etc. It is about a small handful of mostly non-resident landowners and some of the MOGA members wanting to have unrestricted access to bull elk tags for their lands/clients.

All the great ideas on how to "reduce elk numbers" do not matter, because that's really not a concern so long as the director can say "we're trying this" to accomplish that".

Hank knows that. Every commissioner knows that. And anybody with a double digit IQ knows that.

It's 100% about Randy's quote above. The FWP leadership is completely disingenuous with goals that are at the expense of the lion's share of MT elk hunters, and some pretty great elk.

 

[Irrelevant]

Mandatory reporting is a good thing, but don’t put the cart before the horse. Until you address the big pink elephant in the room, any data from harvest reporting is as valuable as one of @Greenhorn empties. I would tell Commissioner Waller, great, glad you’re concerned, but let’s pull the stick out our ass before we worry about band aids.

To play devil's advocate, if they collect good data but don't use it, at least that good data exists, data that could be obtained by the public and used against the current or future poor management decisions. I think it's harder to combat bad ideas when you don't have the data to back it (because the data simply doesn't exist).

I would strongly consider making thorough mandatory harvest reporting a hill to die on, if for no other reason than the long game of good data.

 

[JLS]

To play devil's advocate, if they collect good data but don't use it, at least that good data exists, data that could be obtained by the public and used against the current or future poor management decisions. I think it's harder to combat bad ideas when you don't have the data to back it (because the data simply doesn't exist).

I would strongly consider making thorough mandatory harvest reporting a hill to die on, if for no other reason than the long game of good data.

The issue right now revolves around population objectives and statutory requirements to manage at or below those. It makes no difference in the big picture how many elk you kill, if the narrative is continually pushed that MT is not killing enough elk based on current population counts.

As long as FWP is including inaccessible elk into its population counts, they’ll continue the status quo of “must kill more elk” and absolutely nothing will be done to shorten seasons and adjust structures to promote more and better public land elk opportunities.

 

[Straight Arrow]

To play devil's advocate, if they collect good data but don't use it, at least that good data exists, data that could be obtained by the public and used against the current or future poor management decisions. I think it's harder to combat bad ideas when you don't have the data to back it (because the data simply doesn't exist).

I would strongly consider making thorough mandatory harvest reporting a hill to die on, if for no other reason than the long game of good data.

Accurate data means nothing if decisions are purely politically motivated.

 

[sacountry]

I hear you @Big Fin, there is a lot of smoke to filter. I do also want to recognize that this forum is a terrific means for iron to sharpen iron. Statewide mandatory reporting is a tool I had not contemplated until I realized I wanted to know where the most productive BMAs are and what makes them productive. I also realized that the concept of district consolidation would blur the value of mandatory state wide harvest reporting. Granular data is way more important than some conjured up need for districting consolidation / simplification which is smoke that isn't even in the "need ballpark".

I greatly appreciate this forum and it's ability to elevate my conservation IQ.....pretty sure my wife is going to start a forum in hopes of achieving similar results in other areas of my life.

 

[shoots-straight]

Accurate data means nothing if decisions are purely politically motivated.

And so we circle back around to politics. If we keep putting people in office, that do the bidding of the Rich, famous and commercial interests WE ARE TO BLAME.

Nothing will change until we do.

 

[JLS]

I also realized that the concept of district consolidation would blur the value of mandatory state wide harvest reporting.

There is value in smaller hunt districts for data analysis, even if you group them as Idaho does. The Selway and Middle Fork elk zones are enormous, and are each comprised of multiple hunt districts.

 

[shoots-straight]

On that political note: I've been fighting to awaken Montanan's to vote for those that are in our court to very little avail. Maybe, just maybe their will be a bitter awakening now. One can only hope. Many conservation groups are now doing score cards on legislators. You can look over how they voted on important bills. The information is there if you wish to see it. Might not be what you want to hear, but hopefully you will at least wonder why they vote that way.

 

[Irrelevant]

The issue right now revolves around population objectives and statutory requirements to manage at or below those. It makes no difference in the big picture how many elk you kill, if the narrative is continually pushed that MT is not killing enough elk based on current population counts.

As long as FWP is including inaccessible elk into its population counts, they’ll continue the status quo of “must kill more elk” and absolutely nothing will be done to shorten seasons and adjust structures to promote more and better public land elk opportunities.

Simply being able to say, to FWP, to the Commission, to Helena, and most importantly to the public, "Your own data doesn't support that." is a powerful weapon.

As opposed to making whatever case you're trying to make, but not having the data.

 

[JLS]

Simply being able to say, to FWP, to the Commission, to Helena, and most importantly to the public, "Your own data doesn't support that." is a powerful weapon.

As opposed to making whatever case you're trying to make, but not having the data.

The data needed isn’t how many dead elk are on the ground. It’s how many live ones are in the hunt district and are actually accessible to the public.

 

[Brad W]

When we get the final proposals issued, we will start a new thread. That will be a time to stay focused.

…patience grasshopper.

 

[sacountry]

The data needed isn’t how many dead elk are on the ground. It’s how many live ones are in the hunt district and are actually accessible to the public.

Correct. But dead elk do show hunter success. Hunter success relative to hunter pressure which includes tag availability, days hunted, and percentage of public access, all paint a story of strategy effectiveness. That's light years better than "we're going to try this for 2 years and reassess" biology and legislation.

 

[ShootsManyBullets]

Clean up the harvest data with mandatory reporting then move on to making them count accurately. Keep chipping away just like gov't chips away at our freedoms - a little at a time.

 

[JLS]

Correct. But dead elk do show hunter success. Hunter success relative to hunter pressure which includes tag availability, days hunted, and percentage of public access, all paint a story of strategy effectiveness. That's light years better than "we're going to try this for 2 years and reassess" biology and legislation.

I certainly agree with this, and I love data as much as the next guy. If you guys get hung up on this instead of the bigger picture you’ll get taken to the cleaners. This is a completely secondary issue.

 

[lifeisgoodsteve]

...more bull tags for billionaire landowners, all pitched under the guise of too many elk. No matter how it is proposed, that is the end goal.

Hallelujah!! The hearing felt like a magic show when public looks one at one flashy, waving hand while the magician does his big switcharoo on the other. Hard to root out the core problem if we're focussed on a distraction.

Happy to wait until next thread, but when the time is right...

What are some strategies to highlight this truth in a way that effects change in policymaking, at least in this round we're facing?

 

[sacountry]

I certainly agree with this, and I love data as much as the next guy. If you guys get hung up on this instead of the bigger picture you’ll get taken to the cleaners. This is a completely secondary issue.

I agree. Certainly not hanging my hat on it. Just one more piece to the puzzle that I hadn't contemplated.

 

[Irrelevant]

The data needed isn’t how many dead elk are on the ground. It’s how many live ones are in the hunt district and are actually accessible to the public.

They the collected location data on those dead elk, public vs private, you could at least see if they are becoming more of less accessible.

But yes, I get your general point. I just won't turn away from an offer from a commissioner to push mandatory reporting.

 

[JLS]

But yes, I get your general point. I just won't turn away from an offer from a commissioner to push mandatory reporting.

My worry would be the time and effort spent on it instead of what really matters.

They the collected location data on those dead elk, public vs private, you could at least see if they are becoming more of less accessible.

All this tells you is where they were when they died. It doesn’t tell you anything about their movements and use of refuge.