Montana Game Management History

[SAJ-99]

They can however structure their management to take into account land administration and its affect on management objectives vs burying their heads in the sand which is what to their dislike the commission had to do for them.

I think that is bending to social pressures too. Can private deer vs public deer be made for 80% of the state? Animals don’t know boundaries. The elk management plan stated that only “accessible” elk would be counted toward objectives, but they never did that because elk move, just like deer move. Making the determination on counts via land administration at a snapshot in time is pointless.

I like the changes on BTags for private only, but I doubt it changes much. I hope I’m wrong. I think dropping pressure would do more to keep animals on public (and alive) than creating some scenario in our heads that deer will magically start choosing public land over the corn or alfalfa pivot. But again, it comes back to the same place - cutting pressure needs social acceptance.

It’s easy to bash FWP, but it won’t get you anywhere. We certainly should have learned that by now.

 

[rogerthat]

I think that is bending to social pressures too. Can private deer vs public deer be made for 80% of the state? Animals don’t know boundaries. The elk management plan stated that only “accessible” elk would be counted toward objectives, but they never did that because elk move, just like deer move. Making the determination on counts via land administration at a snapshot in time is pointless.

I like the changes on BTags for private only, but I doubt it changes much. I hope I’m wrong. I think dropping pressure would do more to keep animals on public (and alive) than creating some scenario in our heads that deer will magically start choosing public land over the corn or alfalfa pivot. But again, it comes back to the same place - cutting pressure needs social acceptance.

It’s easy to bash FWP, but it won’t get you anywhere. We certainly should have learned that by now.

No argument from me on the social aspects of many game management prescriptions. It needs to be a consideration.

Regarding dropping bombs on the moms and land admin, there is some burgeoning science that backs it up for mule deer with Wyomings Montieths rose petal theory. That matches my anecdotal observations as well over 40 years of watching some doe herds be completely wiped out on public lands.

I’m going to continue to call out public servants not doing there job and it does work. Public outcry was the only reason we got private land only md b tags in 6 or 7. I have sat through a public meeting with these game managers telling me there is no landowner support for an elk herd in a unit that is 80% public land. Does that seem right to you?

 

[Stifler]

It's a ton of data to go through, and kids ruin everything so, sorry about that.

Don't forget the B11 combo as well. That's another 6600 deer licenses.

Those are just for antlered animals. Antlerless will be smaller in number for both resident & NR's.

Haha they don't ruin it, they just make it particularly hard for any time management that doesn't belong to them.

I'll try and recruit the wife, she like numbers. Do what I can to get it going these next few nights when the kids are sleeping. Not really sure how long it will take, probably awhile... but get after it a bit in the evenings.

 

[SAJ-99]

No argument from me on the social aspects of many game management prescriptions. It needs to be a consideration.

Regarding dropping bombs on the moms and land admin, there is some burgeoning science that backs it up for mule deer with Wyomings Montieths rose petal theory. That matches my anecdotal observations as well over 40 years of watching some doe herds be completely wiped out on public lands.

I’m going to continue to call out public servants not doing there job and it does work. Public outcry was the only reason we got private land only md b tags in 6 or 7. I have sat through a public meeting with these game managers telling me there is no landowner support for an elk herd in a unit that is 80% public land. Does that seem right to you?

I agree you should continue to pressure FWP for action. You are their constituent and your voice matters as much as the landowner. But I will say that the cut in B tags was a result of the formula of MD AHM plan as much as "public outcry". Look at the formula they use (note: I have accused them of being too "formulaic" in their management). If you want to take credit I guess that is fine, but beware that trap of confirmation bias. The shift of the tags to private land only was due to complaints (real or expected?) from landowners. The change is absolutely a positive, but it is best to remember the complexity of managing to multiple constituents with different goals and ideas. You aren't going to get everything you want and compromise is necessary.

Regarding the question on "no landowner support for an elk herd in a unit that is 80% public land', I can agree that sounds questionable. But my view also depends a lot on which area we are talking about. If the elk spend 90% of their time on the 20% that is private, should every constituent opinion have the same weight? This is the case in some units in the Eastern half of the state, so I'm guessing that is probably your example.

 

[Ben Lamb]

I agree you should continue to pressure FWP for action. You are their constituent and your voice matters as much as the landowner. But I will say that the cut in B tags was a result of the formula of MD AHM plan as much as "public outcry". Look at the formula they use (note: I have accused them of being too "formulaic" in their management). If you want to take credit I guess that is fine, but beware that trap of confirmation bias. The shift of the tags to private land only was due to complaints (real or expected?) from landowners. The change is absolutely a positive, but it is best to remember the complexity of managing to multiple constituents with different goals and ideas. You aren't going to get everything you want and compromise is necessary.

Regarding the question on "no landowner support for an elk herd in a unit that is 80% public land', I can agree that sounds questionable. But my view also depends a lot on which area we are talking about. If the elk spend 90% of their time on the 20% that is private, should every constituent opinion have the same weight? This is the case in some units in the Eastern half of the state, so I'm guessing that is probably your example.

Respectfully, AHM wasn't employed in the decision to remove antlerless harvest from public land in 6 & 7. That was entirely a public pressure issue, along with some handy footwork from MOGA ahead of the commission.

 

[The Hedgehog]

Can you imagine the Montana resident hunter response to something resembling this? Those poor Wyoming residents and thier lack of opportunity.

https://wgfd.wyo.gov/media/29982/download?inline

 

[rogerthat]

Can you imagine the Montana resident hunter response to something resembling this? Those poor Wyoming residents and thier lack of opportunity.

https://wgfd.wyo.gov/media/29982/download?inline

I’m thinking about starting a go fund me for them to see if we can gets some “real” montana opportunities sent their way. Poor bastards

 

[Nameless Range]

Can you imagine the Montana resident hunter response to something resembling this? Those poor Wyoming residents and thier lack of opportunity.

https://wgfd.wyo.gov/media/29982/download?inline

Anytime The Hedgehog posts a link:

 

[Elktrack]

Can you imagine the Montana resident hunter response to something resembling this? Those poor Wyoming residents and thier lack of opportunity.

https://wgfd.wyo.gov/media/29982/download?inline

@ The Hedgehog nailed it.
FWP has a working model right next door. Little bit of whiteout to change unit numbers they could damn near adopt it as their own.

 

[SAJ-99]

Respectfully, AHM wasn't employed in the decision to remove antlerless harvest from public land in 6 & 7. That was entirely a public pressure issue, along with some handy footwork from MOGA ahead of the commission.

I'll take your word for it, but that is not what I remember from the press releases. I think there were some tables in a presentation from FWP that tried to justify the change as fitting AHM. And looking at the AHM model (docs on FWP website, granted, made in 2001) they obviously should have been cut given numbers are well below LTAs. The model says they should have been further in 2011-2012, but weren't, and pops still rebounded which gives credence to the claim it was public pressure this time. Makes me wonder if they would ever publicly say they did something to cut opportunity because of public pressure because that could be a can of worms.

Maybe the real problem FWP has is no one trusts them because they can't get their messaging straight. They have reps and bios telling different stories for the same area. One person says "they are in good shape" the other person says "pops have been hit hard, so we are cutting..." or "...going LE". The models say they should do X or Y, but it is never seems to be followed. I get the frustration people have.