Montana FWP makes seismic shift in elk permits

[Wind Gypsy]

I get the position of the host through. I mean you'd lose tons of trust if you blindsided someone. I didn't like the Bishop podcast, but I think Steve pushed about as hard as he could. I think Randy has more to lose with his MT centric podcasts than Steve did with Bishop so I understand him having to keep it pretty damn tame. But I talked to people who listened to both, and came away agreeing with the guest. IMO that shouldn't be the outcome.

Exactly my thoughts. By not calling all the BS the casual listener who doesn't know better is prone to think "Hey, Randy/Steve didn't even argue with that point on their own show so maybe there's merit to it". Because Randy calls it like it is when these folks aren't on the podcast, it makes me wonder if having them on and letting nonsense go unchallenged gives their message more legitimacy. Of course the engaged folks of hunttalk can see through it but they weren't the ones that needed to be shown the light.

I've said too much without having heard it and I hope Randy doesn't take this as me thinking I know better or could do better because I sure as hell don't and couldn't. Just venting.

 

[The Hedgehog]

I had Director Worsech on my podcast yesterday. An hour and forty-five minutes.

The idea was to give him and open mic to explain the rationale behind the process, behind the new proposals we have, the way in which social science is balanced with wildlife science, and answer a set of questions I had prepared and sent to his Communications Director.

We are working hard to get that turned around by Monday.

The important take away I think most will hear is that the Department views this as the Commissions purview. The Departments feels there are so many elk in some of these places that there is a rather wide swath of options that will still fall within the "based on science" boundaries and as such, the Commission is the final arbiter of where this will go.

We can agree/disagree with that, but I have come away with the distinct impression that the Department is laying this on the lap of the Commission and they are the folks who will carry the responsibility for the outcome, whether positive or negative.

So with that, please, take the time to email the Commissioners at the emails listed below. There is no deadline on comments to the Commissioners. The deadline you heard of as January 21 was for comments to the Department for accumulation and presentation to the Commissioners.

[email protected]​

[email protected]​

[email protected]​

[email protected]​

[email protected]​

[email protected]​

[email protected]​

I have met with two Commissioners and a phone call with a third Commissioner. They are getting inundated, which is great to hear. Between now the their vote on February 4th is the time to give even more comments. Please do that. Right now, our only option is the Commission. We need to comment to them. Apathy is not an option at that time.

Anyone who knows a Commissioner personally needs to call or try to get time in front of them. You will make a huge difference by making the case.

When will this be able to be listened to? Thanks for putting that together, and I've no doubt you did a great job.

I sent another email to the commissioners today. Just can't fathom how this could go through, but I've got a really bad feeling about it.

 

[Irrelevant]

I would assume there are already groups ready to submit a public records request for the comments should the commission vote in support of these changes.

 

[Wind Gypsy]

FWP to draft elk plan after elk season changes

FWP administrator Ken McDonald said the department was still developing an elk plan, and he anticipated a draft plan would be out by this fall. The previous elk plan was published in 2005 and uses elk population objectives – manmade numbers based on habitat and public tolerance - to guide what...

missoulacurrent.com

A quote from this article is something you will hear the Director repeat a few times on the podcast.

“The role of the department is wildlife manager. Our role is to provide the best scientific information to the decision-makers and the decision-makers are the trustees. They are voted in by the public. The public then brings the social issues forward,” Worsech told the EQC. “The commission makes the decisions, not the department, to decide the social issues. It is the commission. That’s the way I see it and that’s what we’re doing under this plan.”

“The role of the department is wildlife manager. Our role is to provide the best scientific information to the decision-makers and the decision-makers are the trustees. They are voted in by the public. The public then brings the social issues forward,” Worsech told the EQC. “The commission makes the decisions, not the department, to decide the social issues. It is the commission. That’s the way I see it and that’s what we’re doing under this plan.”

Further related from the article, emphasis on the bolded - if their role is to provide the best scientific information to the commission, it sure seems like they are doing the freaking opposite.

 

[Sioux33]

Further related from the article, emphasis on the bolded - if their role is to provide the best scientific information to the commission, it sure seems like they are doing the freaking opposite.

Apparently his version of "the best scientific information" is whatever he pulls outta his ass the night before the commission meeting.

 

[hearteater]

Montana needs to get their shit together on so many accounts. Their nonresident draw is a total crock with the preference point bonus point bs. Pick one type of point and like Wyoming have them burned no matter what you draw. Their season dates are ridiculous. They literally manage their elk like they are wild hogs or coyotes it’s pathetic.

 

[antlerradar]

Our landowners are different here in Wyoming as well.

They don't lose their minds if elk are over-objective, are very tolerant of wildlife, and in general supportive of the GF. The GF Director just a couple days ago made a public comment that he has instructed his biologists to manage based on science and that is exactly what they do. Is there differences in opinion on some things? Yes. Are decisions always perfect? No. Is there still some level of disagreement at times? Yes. However, at least there is management of elk via bull to cow ratio's, cow/calf recruitment, reasonable season lengths to accomplish goals and keep elk on public, reasonable population objectives, recreational VS Special management, etc.

Also, our AccessYes program blows the doors off MT's Block Management by a huge margin.

Truly feel blessed to have the level of involvement and cooperation with Wyoming Landowners, GF, and Sportsmen here. Tough to find much to complain about.

Its pretty amazing the difference a border makes in elk management...total 180 from Montana and it shows in success rates, access, and herd quality and quantity.

WY landowners have not been able to cash in on the opportunity of 11 weeks of season and nearly unlimited tags. I suspect that if WY landowners had been given that opportunity for the last 40 years they would look just like MT's. If Montana's landowners had been under WY management the last 40 years they would likely be similar to those in WY.

 

[bigsky2]

Does anyone have any ideas why the people of Montana (not all, but most) don't care at all about quality elk hunting and an older age class, and many of the other states do? If these proposals were in AZ, NV, or UT there would be a riot. I'm not saying UT has the best model, but their residents do want to see older age class bulls/bucks around. AZ does a damn good job of having quality hunts and still provides good opportunity with late season hunts and OTC archery tags. I guess I just don't understand why MT seems to have such a different feel to it. Is it just due to the fact that it's always been about opportunity and long seasons?

A good example of this is the fact that you hardly hear anyone complaining about the proposed 50% increase in rifle permits. Even if you threw out all the other garbage proposals, that proposal alone should be enough to piss off anyone that cares about quality.

 

[BuzzH]

A good example of this is the fact that you hardly hear anyone complaining about the proposed 50% increase in rifle permits. Even if you threw out all the other garbage proposals, that proposal alone should be enough to piss off anyone that cares about quality.

...or unlimited archery permits?

...or the 1200 breaks archery permits?

Seems maybe you're cherry picking your outrage on what's wrong with elk hunting in Montana.

 

[Wind Gypsy]

Does anyone have any ideas why the people of Montana (not all, but most) don't care at all about quality elk hunting and an older age class, and many of the other states do? If these proposals were in AZ, NV, or UT there would be a riot. I'm not saying UT has the best model, but their residents do want to see older age class bulls/bucks around. AZ does a damn good job of having quality hunts and still provides good opportunity with late season hunts and OTC archery tags. I guess I just don't understand why MT seems to have such a different feel to it. Is it just due to the fact that it's always been about opportunity and long seasons?

Has to be the fact that there has been basically unlimited opportunity forever so people don't even think about what's going on and the impacts. Cant see beyond their own desire to do what they want.

 

[The Hedgehog]

A good example of this is the fact that you hardly hear anyone complaining about the proposed 50% increase in rifle permits. Even if you threw out all the other garbage proposals, that proposal alone should be enough to piss off anyone that cares about quality.

I complained about that multiple times..in my FWP online comments, emails to commissioners, and here starting when I asked @Eric Albus why the hunting in the breaks is no longer what it used to be..

 

[bigsky2]

...or unlimited archery permits?

...or the 1200 breaks archery permits?

Seems maybe you're cherry picking your outrage on what's wrong with elk hunting in Montana.

I think you’re misunderstanding my point. My point is, everyone seems to be so focused on the unlimited archery permits increasing crowding and removing the 10% NR cap that they seem to ignore the 50% increase in rifle permits. Obviously unlimited archery permits are going to have a huge effect on quality. I’ll admit I’m personally more concerned about unlimited archery permits too, but from a quality aspect I think increasing rifle permits by 50% is going to have a big effect too. It’s also likely to decrease rifle success rates in those units.

 

[rogerthat]

I think you’re misunderstanding my point. My point is, everyone seems to be so focused on the unlimited archery permits increasing crowding and removing the 10% NR cap that they seem to ignore the 50% increase in rifle permits. Obviously unlimited archery permits are going to have a huge effect on quality. I’ll admit I’m personally more concerned about unlimited archery permits too, but from a quality aspect I think increasing rifle permits by 50% is going to have a big effect too. It’s also likely to decrease rifle success rates in those units.

I would like to think they will be receiving a bunch of comments on the 50% increase to the quotas as well. I commented on it as well as my wife and brother. To me it was an equal concern to the archery permit increases. Main issue being bull to cow ratios are within range and no scientific reason to increase bull harvest per their own biologists

 

[bigsky2]

I complained about that multiple times..in my FWP online comments, emails to commissioners, and here starting when I asked @Eric Albus why the hunting in the breaks is no longer what it used to be..

There are probably too many rifle permits. I think a bigger reason is too many archery permits. My dad and his buddies hunted 410 for years and they would find several 360+ bulls every trip. I know a lot of people that hunt 410 and I only know of two big bulls taken out of there in the past ten years. One of those being an outfitted client on private. Even the outfitter I know that operates in that unit says a 330 is a damn nice bull for that unit anymore.

My dad drew a unit 10 archery permit in AZ a couple years ago and I had the pleasure of going along for the hunt. It was the most amazing elk hunting I’ve ever experienced. They give out 100 archery permits for unit 10. By contrast, FWP gives out 1900 archery permits for 410. Pretty ridiculous for a unit that’s traditionally known for being one of the best units in the state.

 

[PsRpOiGrRiAtM]

Exactly my thoughts. By not calling all the BS the casual listener who doesn't know better is prone to think "Hey, Randy/Steve didn't even argue with that point on their own show so maybe there's merit to it". Because Randy calls it like it is when these folks aren't on the podcast, it makes me wonder if having them on and letting nonsense go unchallenged gives their message more legitimacy. Of course the engaged folks of hunttalk can see through it but they weren't the ones that needed to be shown the light.

I've said too much without having heard it and I hope Randy doesn't take this as me thinking I know better or could do better because I sure as hell don't and couldn't. Just venting.

That would be my concern, too. Too many people are spoon-fed information on their favorite media, and if the host doesn't challenge them, or present the other side of the argument, it's automatically assumed as "favorable."

 

[MTelkHuntress]

So there's some new changes put together now for the Commissioners to vote on. What about the public comment?
Thanks to BHA for getting the information out.

 

[Ben Lamb]

The net effect of round 3 or 4 of the changes is that:

1.) There will be more hunters in the field searching for elk that have been pushed onto inacessible private land where they will remain until they are no longer being threatened.

2.) The quality of the hunt will erode further.

3.) None of the changes actually deal with elk distribution or effective elk management, yet continue to ensure that guided dudes, their outfitters and wealthy landowners have priority over everyone else.

4.) FWP hasn't listened to the myriad of concerns that have been presented, nor have they acted upon any solutions that were offered.

5.) Keep contacting your commissioner, be polite, be kind and state that it's time for FWP to stop trying to eat a rotten apple, and simply go back to the 2020-2021 season structure rather than have to come back god knows how many times to fix mistakes that will be made by rushing to make changes that even the agency doesn't have an understanding of.

 

[bigsky2]

So there's some new changes put together now for the Commissioners to vote on. What about the public comment?
Thanks to BHA for getting the information out.

View attachment 210396

View attachment 210397

View attachment 210398

View attachment 210399

Just like I feared, quotas so high that it might as well be unlimited.

 

[Irrelevant]

Those are crazy.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Those are crazy.