Montana FWP Seeking Applicants For Elk Advisory Group

[Gerald Martin]

Tough crowd when it comes to golf on here. Everyone has their hobbies, lots of business can be conducted on the course. Relatively cheap when compared to a walleye boat, pickup, fancy rods, 5th wheel, and tackle. Same could be said for goose hunting. But back to the topic.

You say that like it’s a personal identity or something…

 

[Ben Lamb]

Tough crowd when it comes to golf on here. Everyone has their hobbies, lots of business can be conducted on the course. Relatively cheap when compared to a walleye boat, pickup, fancy rods, 5th wheel, and tackle. Same could be said for goose hunting. But back to the topic.

You ain't just whistling Dixie here. Unless you dirt bag it the whole way.

 

[SAJ-99]

You can be in support of both, and start to work on one.

There's a growth in the outfitted cow hunt side of the business because it's an otc opportunity for residents & NR's alike. That type of structure plays into the hands of thosed who would rather profit off of the conflict rather than solve the issue. For sure, it's every landowner's right to lease to a hunt club or an outfitter, but to then turn around and complain about elk populations after being selective in harvest as to keep elk where someone wants them long enough to cash in, while ignoring the needs of their neighbors is entirely the same thing as what the Wilkes' are doing, but with a profit motive.

I understand the need to make the money, but it's a self-defeating circle of cashing in while keeping the problem at the same level.

The board's recommendations for shoulder seasons help get to a better place, IMO, but we need to think far more strategically on cow elk hunting and pressure than we have in the past. Throwing the doors wide open to an Oklahoma land rush style hunt makes the problem worse. So I'm all for limiting cow hunting & going back to the actual management of the species as opposed to what's been in place since 2015. Unlimited OTC elk tags takes us in the wrong direction, resident or not.

They should start by looking at the total number of tags issued. Cut that number. Then determine what % allocation goes to R vs. NR. See WY as an example. That is the only way to reduce pressure. But it creates a fight over the pie. Rs can’t argue, convincingly at least, that as residents the game should be managed for them because Eventually that argument turns into large private MT landowners vs public land MT hunters, as it already has. And unless the tag cut solves the problem everyone is back to square one with less revenue from the cut to NR tags.

Pressure needs to be reduced. The best way to keep some opportunity is to divide up some of the tags so they have multiple seasons. Not sure it fixes where elk end up but it might make hunting a more pleasant experience. I have always said Elk end up on private land because it has what they need when they need it. They don’t eat pine cones.

 

[8andcounting]

Bottom line is this … we can bitch and complain but nothing significant will change FWP isn’t going to cut opportunities. $ .

 

[Ben Lamb]

They should start by looking at the total number of tags issued. Cut that number. Then determine what % allocation goes to R vs. NR. See WY as an example. That is the only way to reduce pressure. But it creates a fight over the pie. Rs can’t argue, convincingly at least, that as residents the game should be managed for them because Eventually that argument turns into large private MT landowners vs public land MT hunters, as it already has. And unless the tag cut solves the problem everyone is back to square one with less revenue from the cut to NR tags.

Pressure needs to be reduced. The best way to keep some opportunity is to divide up some of the tags so they have multiple seasons. Not sure it fixes where elk end up but it might make hunting a more pleasant experience. I have always said Elk end up on private land because it has what they need when they need it. They don’t eat pine cones.

I like the idea of a cow only season in December with more LE districts for bulls until bull:cow ratios are higher. Season structure really does need to be addressed, and that comes up again in 2023 with the next round of season setting. Statute is clear that the commission has the authority to structure seasons as they wish, with the exception of the muzzleloader season that was foisted on people in 21.

The advisory board's recommendations on the damage roster changes & shoulder season changes help get us there as well. Damage hunts serve a purpose to move elk off of private land where they are causing damage, yet we've abandoned that in favor of the shotgun approach the agency has taken on shoulder seasons.

The idea of a 1st, 2nd & 3rd archery & rifle aren't necessarily bad either, especially if you can hunt both seasons, like so many do. I love the opportunity that MT provides through abundant days in the field but the reality is it does become a self-defeating effort in terms of harvest success. MT currently boast a 13% success rate on bulls on public land. I think total harvest is around 28% on public. Changing how hunters are spread out throughout the seasons does just as much in terms of increasing harvest success (IMO) as some of the other concepts posted, but unless we deal with habitat issues on public land as well, we're only addressing a small part of the equation.

Noxious weeds, conifer stand replacement of aspen, etc means less groceries on the public while elk select the easiest feed - irrigated fields.

Pressure + good habitat = success

Pressure + poor habitat = 13% success rate

Wyoming has been doing this for 15 years through their Wildlife Trust (now at $175 million). UT, CO, etc all do this currently. MT could be doing similarly through existing programs but we're stuck arguing over the allocation issue rather than looking at ways to improv public land habitat.

It is not lost on many that Wyoming's sudden explosion of elk conflict matches closely to the push to privatize wildlife in MT. These two things are inexorably linked.

Post Script: I've had some great conversations with folks on the south side of the breaks and I think we need to be thinking how to help those family farmers & ranchers who are still struggling to stay on the land. Between the big buys from billionaires & groups like American Prairie (which I support), it is getting tougher to pull together a new ranch purchase, and often times the cost of transferring the ranch to the next generation doesn't pencil out due to retirement needs of the current. I don't completely understand the business model of family ag, but I'm trying. Talking with guys like Matt Wickens, it is clear that landowners and outfitters have the same concerns relative to elk distribution and concentrations, and there's no real love for the new class of non-resident owner who is trying to buy their way to the front of the line. To me, that means we need to be listening thoughtfully on how to keep those rural communities strong, rather than continue to fight for the piece of the pie we think we deserve. That doesn't mean we give in on privatization, but I think there's a willingness from a lot of folks who ranch & outfit to find those better solutions. @Eric Albus has been leading on that front, and while we still disagree on some specifics, I think he's coming from the same place.

 

[BWALKER77]

Tag reductions will be far easier to sell and accept if residents and non residents share in the haircut.

Montana is so far past the day that every resident can buy an elk tag etc and hunt bull elk in the vast majority of units. It might have worked forty years ago, when I first moved here, it stopped working a good while ago.

IMO, archery seasons need a significant haircut. The generous season predates the dawn of compound bows. Using a bow with a mechanical release, with over 50% let off from the draw weight, after ranging the elk to an exact yardage is so far from using a primitive weapon. The elk should be left alone during the peak of the rut.

It won't happen, the status quo is well entrenched. The makers of archery equipment exist to sell equipment. The impetus is to make the equipment ever easier to use.

In respect to your comments on archery season. I completely agree in not only cutting the season length, but also the number of tags. Archers wound elk at much higher rates than gun hunters and as such shouldn't get preferential treatment.

 

[Wind Gypsy]

The more I see people bitch about the idea of losing their 11 weeks of opportunity and posts like MT BHA's saying the solution is increasing access to inaccessible elk, the more making a portion of the tags private land only makes sense to me. FWP can only manage the elk where they are. If people cant give up their endless opportunity which in turn results in there being few accessible elk, tough shit when more opportunity goes to where the elk actually are (private).

 

[BWALKER77]

Your hunting would actually be better by limiting opportunity.

And that fact flies over the heads of the folks clinging to long seasons.

 

[406dn]

And that fact flies over the heads of the folks clinging to long seasons.

Some while ago I was visiting with a young man at the gym. I floated the thought that the hunting experience for everyone would improve if we went to some sort of limited draw for elk and mule deer. He could not see that losing some number of years where he could not hunt elk or mule deer, that during the years he did draw a tag, the overall experience would be much improved.

Partly, I base that on the experiences I have had when I had a limited draw tag in my pocket. Both the mountain goat tag and the moose tags I have drawn resulted in very rewarding hunts. Using your imagination just a bit you'd think you had the whole mountain to yourself. Now, elk and mule deer buck tags would not be nearly restrictive as those, but giving hunters more elbow room would greatly enhance the hunting experience.

 

[Wind Gypsy]

That’s a loaded question. success dictates the overall perspective, the “impression” of opportunity, or lack thereof. I’ve never had any private land access or money to travel abroad, hire a guide service or anything. Yet I’ve found success every year on most tags and the ones I didn’t i solely blame MYSELF. I know that’s a hard thing to do for the general public these days. Blame yourself? there is endless wilderness here. I have a hard time believing there is lack of opportunity to harvest quality game in this state on a general resident tag. Don’t get me wrong, I wish they’d get rid of some of the NR tags. NO ARGUMENT THERE PAL

If it's so simple, why do you need 11 weeks to get it done?

 

[8andcounting]

If it's so simple, why do you need 11 weeks to get it done?

Cuz he’s looking for 30” tall mule deer bucks

 

[Wind Gypsy]

Cuz he’s looking for 30” tall mule deer bucks

Thanks, I forgot about that being what joe schmoe who's just scraping by really needs to be self sustaining with game meat.

 

[Flatbrimmer]

Thanks, I forgot about that being what joe schmoe who's just scraping by really needs to be self sustaining with game meat.

I don’t write the book I just turn the pages alright if I had less than 11 weeks I’d be out whatever time I was allotted.. and now I’m the ugly duckling for setting my sights high all season too? But if you shoot a dink and don’t let ‘em grow your a bag of garbage too? Jeeze you guys would cry and complain no matter what I think..

 

[Ben Lamb]

The more I see people bitch about the idea of losing their 11 weeks of opportunity and posts like MT BHA's saying the solution is increasing access to inaccessible elk, the more making a portion of the tags private land only makes sense to me. FWP can only manage the elk where they are. If people are too selfish to give up their endless opportunity which in turn results in there being few accessible elk, tough shit when more opportunity goes to where the elk actually are (private).

There are ways to increase access to elk but it needs to be done with an eye towards how elk use the land, rather than where they are during archery & rifle. FWP can manage for elk where they are not by working with the Forest Service & BLM to improve habitat and create better forage on public land as well as reducing hunter pressure through season structure.

December cow seasons on private land only would be a good start. If a landowner decides that charging access for those hunts is more important than population control, or leases that hunt to a hunt club, etc, then they shouldn't be eligible for damage help or programs like 454. The idea that we should simply cede management to private land owners because they refuse to be part of the solution is anathema to the North American Model, and it's highly unpopular among hunters.

 

[Wind Gypsy]

There are ways to increase access to elk but it needs to be done with an eye towards how elk use the land, rather than where they are during archery & rifle. FWP can manage for elk where they are not by working with the Forest Service & BLM to improve habitat and create better forage on public land as well as reducing hunter pressure through season structure.

December cow seasons on private land only would be a good start. If a landowner decides that charging access for those hunts is more important than population control, or leases that hunt to a hunt club, etc, then they shouldn't be eligible for damage help or programs like 454. The idea that we should simply cede management to private land owners because they refuse to be part of the solution is anathema to the North American Model, and it's highly unpopular among hunters.

Ben, I'm with you with the exception of parts of the last sentence. I'm not advocating "ceding management" to private land owners but managing the elk where they are. If the problem is accessible elk, the solution should come from the main source of the problem - the unwillingness of public land hunters to give an ounce of opportunity, allow/demand the FWP manage them, or refuse ideas like killing shoulder season elk on public. Of course the UPOM and MOGA folks contribute to this but if the general public wasn't happy to constantly accept more opportunity there wouldn't be a problem.

I'm not even convinced pick your weapon would make a big difference but until people get over the entitlement attitude and desire for endless opportunity I can only see decline in the quality of public land hunting in MT no matter how elk are managed on private lands.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Couching hunting as entitlement is part of the issue as well.

Our politicians have told us how we should have a constitutional right to hunt & fish, how more seasons are great and that more time in the field is the real opportunity.

Until we start talking about opportunity to harvest, we just continue the rhetoric game.

 

[rogerthat]

Archers wound elk at much higher rates than gun hunters

I have had out with you on this topic on another thread and don’t wish to derail but Just cause you keep repeating this doesn’t make it true. Actual studies documenting this are hard to come by. I can’t find any. What percentage of the wounded elk actually die with each weapon? So many questions you don’t have the answers to but carry on.

 

[mtmuley]

Actual studies documenting this are hard to come by.

There are no "actual" studies. It's one side complaining about the other. mtmuley

 

[DFS]

Golf is probably the best direction this thread will go.

I knew I was right.

 

[mtmuley]

I knew I was right.

Do guys that play golf drive a truck? mtmuley