Montana May Extend 08 Elk Season

[BuzzH]

elk hunter,

The biologists obtain "objective" information from the Fish and Game Commission that is comprised of landowners, outfitters, and real-estate agents. Its politics 101, pure and simple.

Theres not even a "dash" of biology in most of it.

You are correct, its like that over most of the West. Wildlife management is controlled by lobbyists...landowners, outfitters, SFW, etc. etc. etc.

Makes me sick.

 

[elk_hunter]

Makes me sick.

+1

Incredibly frustrating when many of us know what the problems are, and we have potential solutions to offer, yet discouraging because there isn't any real progress toward a reasonable solution.

 

[shoots-straight]

Don't forget Buzz, that after the mashem-up season's leave Montana opportunist hunters scratching their large uninformed head, as to what happened to the elk populations. Those responsible for the lack of elk will then blame everything conveniently on the wolf. I wish I could run my business this way.

 

[ELKCHSR]

One word to any of the whiners here....

Get a job at the game department and make a difference, or show up to the Game Management meetings and voice your opinion, they are always looking at the general populace to help volunteer (unless of course your an out of stater, then you really don't have any say in what transpires)...

A hunting forum isn't going to help...

Of course, most people would rather complain about their plights than actually stand up and do some thing about it...

Kinda like wetting your self in a movie theater...

You get that warm feeling, and still, no one notices...

Besides, what’s the difference when or how a great bull (or buck for that matter) is pulled out of the gene pool, especially year after year after year into eternity...

Gone is gone...

 

[Big Fin]

Elk:

I can tell you that a lot of guys do show up. They do try to make a difference. They do come to websites and talk about what is going on, hoping to encourage others to do something about it. They are not just here "whining," as you imply.

If you are one of those who goes to meetings, good for you. If you go to the legislature to fight the futile battle against political forces that have it in for FWP and the resident hunters, I commend you.

What Buzz has stated about politics of game management in MT is correct. I wish it was as easy as changing a biologist who will standup. That is not the case.

I know most of these biologists. They are guys just like us. You couldn't give me their job for all the money in the world.

Unfortunately, they have no leadership in Helena. The director, assistant director, and person in charge of conservation education, are more interested in the path of least resistance. To their defense, the pressure from the legislature are extreme.

A little history from MT, that mirrors a lot of what has happened in other western states.

In the 1970's, the director was removed from being an employee and position appointed by the Commission, to an appointee of the governor and accountable to the governor. Additionally, the commission responsibilities and authority were nuetered to little more than season settings.

Anything of significance in wildlife management and hunting opportunity allocation was stripped from the commission and vested in the legistlature. As such, all the issues of real substance now require legislative approval.

And now we wonder why, as Buzz says, politics rules the day in wildlife management in Montana, and in many other states. The biologist, trained in management, can make all the great recommendations he wants, but by the time it gets to Helena, and the fearful leaders dampen it down, then it goes to the commission, whatever bold thinking the biologist had is now relegated to one more bland, ineffective idea.

Every once in a while, the biologist sneaks one through the process, and all hell breaks out. The governor calls the director and the commissioners, all of whom he appointed, and he demands answers. If the FWP employees don't cave, they are transferred to some obscure division, never to see the field again.

Commissioners who tell the legislature or governor to kiss off, don't get reappointed, or re-confirmed. It is for this reason that I spend more of my energy trying to influence politicians about wildlife issues, than I spend at commission and public meetings.

The Montana elk plan is built around the political frameworks of landowner tolerance (or as I say, intolerance) and outfitter commerce. Within those pre-defined boundaries, a biologist must craft a management plan (or something that resembles a plan), knowing full well his leadership in Helena will contort the plan into something the biologist hardly recognizes.

It is easy to say the biologist should stand up and fight. Yeah, if he didn't have a mortgage, dentist bills, kids in school, and the other realities of life, he could disregard the examples of his friends whose careers were destroyed by fighting the establishment, and tell his supervisors and commissioners to stick it.

Until the Montana hunter decides he is willing to get involved in the ugly and messy, almost corrupt game of politics, he is going to get a stick in the eye. Unfortunately, hunting is their pasttime, not their livelihood, so very few of them are afforded the luxury of dropping what they are doing and racing to Helena at a moments notice. Where as the privateers have econcomic incentive to be there, be organized, and lobby the hell out of those who can divest a public resource of wildlife to the benefit of a few.

And with that dissertation, I am now pissed enough to go to Helena and make a damn fool of myself, once again. I hope you are there doing the same.

 

[ELKCHSR]

Thanks Fin...

Well stated...

I really mean that...

Those who know me understand some of what was in the post was tongue in cheek as I am fully aware of how these are meetings are run...

I've been to many meetings and watch what goes on...

I know for a fact, some times, some things are mentioned in these meetings and do impact those in front and are taken into account

I will say those who come in and are overly impassioned in their statements are usually dismissed, maybe not outright, but reading the body language of those sitting at the tables in the front, this is how it is

I have seen people stand voicing a well thought out opinion "AND" a possible mitigation the issue and the people sitting at the front are far more attentive

I haven’t been to many of the recent meetings, but I can say (from past experience) the meetings which took place and had public comment on this topic were probably just as emotional as the wolf issue

I'm not sure what Buzz stated as I have him on ignore and have no reason in removing him, I haven't seen much in the last number of years worth reading (maybe this is a rare exception)

I will assume his next post probably won't be quite so thoughtful or insightful as he has a long history of short term good will with his information and the rest of the time is spent chasing people he doesn't like away from this board...

 

[JoseCuervo]

Big Fin,

You could do a "search and replace" and remove the "MT" and replace it with "ID" except we don't have the luxury of a legislature overriding the Fish and Game, we have a Governor and his appointed commissioners. Same corrupt result when you have a Governor who fancies himself as a "rancher", competes in Tight Wrangler contests, and tries to claim he was not DUI, but merely soaks his Copenhagen in whisky.

I am thinking the hunters of Montana will be better served by your trips to Helena than if you were to have the company of The Cheese.

If you need letter writing back-ups, please provide the email addresses and some sample text and I am willing to email a bunch of legislators. And trust me, when I write stuff on the Internet I can make it sound like I am a pretty important person....

 

[ELKCHSR]

Fin...

I will add one side note to this thread and what I stated above...

Sportsmen have far more say in this whole process than any one's giving them credit for...

It wasn't long ago we had game farms, now we don't...

The power is more than what we hunters can do by ourselves, these individuals who are complaining the hardest about this topic do as those did who rallied against the game farms and get the general populace involved...

Instead of sitting around hunting forums across the net seeing who they can try ruining, belittle, run down, or what ever other form of harassment they feel the need to use against those who've never did any thing to deserve it...

Put those energies into some thing constructive they feel strongly about...

I doubt very strongly this will happen, as these individuals don't have what it takes to stand up for some thing that is actually important to what they purport to believe in...

 

[shoots-straight]

Sportsmen have far more say in this whole process than any one's giving them credit for...

It wasn't long ago we had game farms, now we don't...

That was achieved by the referendum process of which right after it was voted in by the people the legislature tried to take away that democratic tool.

I've been to Helena testifying, also, and there's a lot of corruption at that level.
The livestock industry is redying itself for a takings of our wildlife. That's why the low objective numbers that are unrealistic to achieve.

Biologists can slide plenty through. They're tools at their disposal to twink the process in the favor of the sportsman. Our last Biologist chose to play company lines and kill off the elk. After He achieved mass slaughter (2700 out of 270 in 4 years under his rule) he conveniently moved to Whitefish.

Fin looks you have a good grasp for what's going on. I'd still like to bring up the fact that on page 55 of the EMP (elk management plan) it states something to the order of taking refuge elk numbers (elk that are mostly inaccessible to hunters) out of the total post season counts. If hunters across Montana would stand up in their districts and demand that these elk be removed from the counts we could stave off some of the slaughter. These elk may be some of the only elk left if we don't.

Cheese if we beat the drums of war enough maybe we can rally one or two others to get involved. I'm hopeful for a army of sportsman to infest the legislature.

 

[Big Fin]

...... I'd still like to bring up the fact that on page 55 of the EMP (elk management plan) it states something to the order of taking refuge elk numbers (elk that are mostly inaccessible to hunters) out of the total post season counts. If hunters across Montana would stand up in their districts and demand that these elk be removed from the counts we could stave off some of the slaughter. These elk may be some of the only elk left if we don't.

Shoots:

Funny you should mention that. The "Barrett Bill" - I think Senate Bill 27 from the 2003 session (? - have to look through my files to be sure of the Bill # and session in with it passed) legislated that FWP had to count all elk in their surveys, whether accessible or not, whether on public, private, etc. Also put some really stupid requirements about what must be done if objectives are not met.

We protested loudly, but the Republican legislators told us that this was a "much ado about nothing" bill, and inspite of our protests, they passed it. This bill has probably done more to mess up the ability of FWP to manage elk, than any legislation I can think of in the last fifteen years.

A classic example of how legislatures don't give a flying fugg about wildlife. They view this public resource as one of the spoils of victory, to be handed out and given as favors like a Senate seat from South Chicago.

I singled out the Republicans here, as they have been the biggest offenders in MT for the last twenty years, but there have been abuses on both sides that causes one to wonder how the hell these people come up with this chit.

Our upcoming session has a bill that requires FWP to remove wolf management from the Feds via whatever means possible. Come again? Since when can a state legislature override the ESA?

So, now we are going to spend a few million dollars of hunter license money to fight something that we have no chance of winning. We could easily petition the Feds to consider each state individually, rather than lumping ID, MT, and WY as one big plan, and probably have a much better chance to prevail, with hardly any legal cost.

Unfortunately, the legislator who cooked up this idea as strong ties to Friends of the Northern Yellowstone Elk Herd gang. He has spent a lot of time convincing the world that he knows what is wrong and loves the WY approach, which is probably the biggest reason why the three state plans lost in court.

This is only one of many that will come up this winter. The ones that scare me are the bills that go through commerce or ag committees and get some last minute wildlife crap attached. A guy would have to make it his full time job to follow all the chit these fools in Helena cook up, that is most often detrimental to wildlife and resident hunting opportunity. Good thing they only convene for three months, every two years. Can't imagine what it would be like if they met every year.

Look forward to possibly bumping into you at one of these sessions.

 

[ELKCHSR]

SS...

You had me convinced until your last sentence...

Since you can't seem to keep name calling out of your posts, your just blowing smoke with the rest of ‘em, no matter how well stated the rest of your post is... tsk... tsk...

Fin...

I singled out the Republicans here, as they have been the biggest offenders in MT for the last twenty years, but there have been abuses on both sides that causes one to wonder how the hell these people come up with this chit

It's very simple, these people have only had schooling and no living, so can be led by the nose to what ever end by those who put in the most money to get them put into the seats of power and have no real or deeper understanding on those topics they vote on...

I don't know you, but why don't you run, you're up to date and knowledgeable enough on these topics to take a well informed stand...

You would have to run as a Democrat, dressed as an outdoorsy Republican to garner the Union vote, but could go independent after the fact...

 

[Oak]

Interesting to hear you guys talk about "refuge" elk and the concept of not counting them. In Colorado, they've always estimated the total number of elk and used those numbers in their management plans. However, we have large refuges of private property where the elk run to as soon as the first pumpkin pops a cap opening morning. There are some areas where you can drive around and see hundreds of elk on private property. In other areas, that private land is not easily observed from the public access areas and hunters don't even see those elk.

I think that these elk refuges are the primary reason that hunters are annually skeptical about the DOW's elk count numbers. They spend 4-5 days tromping in the pumpkin patch on National Forest land and don't see a thing, then start bitching and moaning about how the DOW is inflating count numbers just to sell tags. In reality, they should be bitching about the lack of access to thousands of elk that are holed up on private land from mid-September until snow melt in the spring. I wonder why we have so many game damage claims?

The DOW here has gotten themselves into a real mess with the number of tags they have issued in the past in an attempt to manage herds of elk which are largely inaccessible to the non-paying public land hunters. They can't force landowners to allow access. So instead, they have given the landowners an additional pool of licenses in the regular draw in the form of Private Land Only licenses. Essentially what this has done is create a separate draw with generally better odds for those who can "pay to play." These tags are often either-sex tags, which is an attempt by the DOW to get more elk killed any way they can. PLO tags are in addition to the landowner vouchers that they can apply for, and which are transferrable at any price the landowner can get on the market. Every year thousands of PLO licenses go unsold, which represents lost hunting opportunity to hunters.

Ranchers like to bitch about the number of elk eating up the range, haystacks, etc, but expect the DOW to control the population by killing cows on public lands only. They want unlimited bull licenses so that they can sell access, but will work with the DOW very little to get cows killed. Generally, cow hunts in December are the only way to get a good cow harvest on private property.

Now the DOW has gotten used to the revenue levels they have generated with the large number of elk licenses they have issued in an attempt to reduce over-objective elk populations. In some areas, those populations are getting close to objectives, requiring a reduction in tag numbers. The public land hunters are even more upset, as there are even fewer elk remaining on public lands during the season. Also, I actually heard of a rancher going to a DOW area manager this fall and (sheepishly) saying that the DOW needs to reduce cow tags, because they didn't have nearly as many elk on their place this fall (unhappy paying hunters).

 

[shoots-straight]

SS...

You had me convinced until your last sentence...

Since you can't seem to keep name calling out of your posts, your just blowing smoke with the rest of ‘em, no matter how well stated the rest of your post is... tsk... tsk...

Sorry ELKCHSR I'm so use to everyone else calling you cheese it slipped out My BAD!

Oak, I don't care if private property owners have and hold elk populations, just so the public lands hunter isn't punished because of it. If landowners warehouse elk they should be liable for damages done to properties next to them. They should not be able to get tags to sell. There should be no ranching for wildlife. It's a public resource and should be treated as such.

 

[elk_hunter]

Interesting to hear you guys talk about "refuge" elk and the concept of not counting them. In Colorado, they've always estimated the total number of elk and used those numbers in their management plans. However, we have large refuges of private property where the elk run to as soon as the first pumpkin pops a cap opening morning. There are some areas where you can drive around and see hundreds of elk on private property. In other areas, that private land is not easily observed from the public access areas and hunters don't even see those elk.

I think that these elk refuges are the primary reason that hunters are annually skeptical about the DOW's elk count numbers. They spend 4-5 days tromping in the pumpkin patch on National Forest land and don't see a thing, then start bitching and moaning about how the DOW is inflating count numbers just to sell tags. In reality, they should be bitching about the lack of access to thousands of elk that are holed up on private land from mid-September until snow melt in the spring. I wonder why we have so many game damage claims?

The DOW here has gotten themselves into a real mess with the number of tags they have issued in the past in an attempt to manage herds of elk which are largely inaccessible to the non-paying public land hunters. They can't force landowners to allow access. So instead, they have given the landowners an additional pool of licenses in the regular draw in the form of Private Land Only licenses. Essentially what this has done is create a separate draw with generally better odds for those who can "pay to play." These tags are often either-sex tags, which is an attempt by the DOW to get more elk killed any way they can. PLO tags are in addition to the landowner vouchers that they can apply for, and which are transferrable at any price the landowner can get on the market. Every year thousands of PLO licenses go unsold, which represents lost hunting opportunity to hunters.

Ranchers like to bitch about the number of elk eating up the range, haystacks, etc, but expect the DOW to control the population by killing cows on public lands only. They want unlimited bull licenses so that they can sell access, but will work with the DOW very little to get cows killed. Generally, cow hunts in December are the only way to get a good cow harvest on private property.

Now the DOW has gotten used to the revenue levels they have generated with the large number of elk licenses they have issued in an attempt to reduce over-objective elk populations. In some areas, those populations are getting close to objectives, requiring a reduction in tag numbers. The public land hunters are even more upset, as there are even fewer elk remaining on public lands during the season. Also, I actually heard of a rancher going to a DOW area manager this fall and (sheepishly) saying that the DOW needs to reduce cow tags, because they didn't have nearly as many elk on their place this fall (unhappy paying hunters).

+1

 

[ELKCHSR]

Sorry ELKCHSR I'm so use to everyone else calling you cheese it slipped out My BAD!

 

[BuzzH]

Oak, that is pretty much whats happening in Montana...and also parts of Wyoming. The only exception and the ONLY reason it isnt quite as bad is because neither MT or WY allow transferable landowner tags.

That being said, SFW Wyoming made a strong run at getting transferable landowner and also outfitter sponsored licenses. If that would have passed, the level of corruption and greed would be currently through the roof.

MT has the outfitter sponsored licenses still, which IMO, is one of the main reasons that elk management is tougher in MT than WY.

Any time you have a seperation of tags/permits based on a "fair" market system where a landowner or outfitter can profit, its almost assured that management will then be driven toward that special interest.

The DIY public land hunters???? Well...here, have the scraps that are left.

Oh, and SS...dont worry about the cheese, he doesnt have enough gas money to get to Helena from Anaconda. Plus, you wouldnt someone like that representing average hunters.

 

[noharleyyet]

Interesting to hear you guys talk about "refuge" elk and the concept of not counting them. In Colorado, they've always estimated the total number of elk and used those numbers in their management plans. However, we have large refuges of private property where the elk run to as soon as the first pumpkin pops a cap opening morning. There are some areas where you can drive around and see hundreds of elk on private property. In other areas, that private land is not easily observed from the public access areas and hunters don't even see those elk.

I think that these elk refuges are the primary reason that hunters are annually skeptical about the DOW's elk count numbers. They spend 4-5 days tromping in the pumpkin patch on National Forest land and don't see a thing, then start bitching and moaning about how the DOW is inflating count numbers just to sell tags. In reality, they should be bitching about the lack of access to thousands of elk that are holed up on private land from mid-September until snow melt in the spring. I wonder why we have so many game damage claims?

The DOW here has gotten themselves into a real mess with the number of tags they have issued in the past in an attempt to manage herds of elk which are largely inaccessible to the non-paying public land hunters. They can't force landowners to allow access. So instead, they have given the landowners an additional pool of licenses in the regular draw in the form of Private Land Only licenses. Essentially what this has done is create a separate draw with generally better odds for those who can "pay to play." These tags are often either-sex tags, which is an attempt by the DOW to get more elk killed any way they can. PLO tags are in addition to the landowner vouchers that they can apply for, and which are transferrable at any price the landowner can get on the market. Every year thousands of PLO licenses go unsold, which represents lost hunting opportunity to hunters.

Ranchers like to bitch about the number of elk eating up the range, haystacks, etc, but expect the DOW to control the population by killing cows on public lands only. They want unlimited bull licenses so that they can sell access, but will work with the DOW very little to get cows killed. Generally, cow hunts in December are the only way to get a good cow harvest on private property.

Now the DOW has gotten used to the revenue levels they have generated with the large number of elk licenses they have issued in an attempt to reduce over-objective elk populations. In some areas, those populations are getting close to objectives, requiring a reduction in tag numbers. The public land hunters are even more upset, as there are even fewer elk remaining on public lands during the season. Also, I actually heard of a rancher going to a DOW area manager this fall and (sheepishly) saying that the DOW needs to reduce cow tags, because they didn't have nearly as many elk on their place this fall (unhappy paying hunters).

...damn good read Oak.

 

[ELKCHSR]

Also, I actually heard of a rancher going to a DOW area manager this fall and (sheepishly) saying that the DOW needs to reduce cow tags, because they didn't have nearly as many elk on their place this fall (unhappy paying hunters)

This is probably the best part of the quote (poor guy )...

I would note if game farms can't make money selling game, selling game off your property should be abolished...

The biggest problem I've ran into while talking to ranchers is the general hunting group who used to populate their grounds while hunting (many years ago, and they still hold to this argument, probably for good reason). They would cut fences, drive vehicles any where and every where, leave gates open, shoot livestock, litter, set up camps and cut down or injure healthy trees...

While I don't condone any one selling "Wild Game" for profit (and I really doubt any one on this board desires this either)

I do understand most of their reluctance to let "outsiders" on their property for much of any reason accept for charge...

I also understand that ranching is supposed to be a tough business and like it or not, they are business men, so will do what ever it takes to making a "legitimate" buck...

I will say again, but re-word a little:

If some or most of you don't like this sort of selling off of wildlife, get your butts out from in front of your computers, and make a stand...

The Constitutions of the State and Nation give any citizen the right...

Heck, if New Yorkers and Californians seem to have more say in Montana, I would guess even Buzz could make a difference if he actually had a real care or desire to...

Other wise, you’re just blowing hot air on a hunting board which those who make the decisions don't have much if any interest in...

 

[Horn Seeker]

Hey Buzz...have you heard anything about the Ranching for Wildlife push thats about to happen in MT? Gonna make things funner yet... Its mostly rumors so far, but from what I've heard, I think there is some credibility...

 

[Horn Seeker]

"I'd still like to bring up the fact that on page 55 of the EMP (elk management plan) it states something to the order of taking refuge elk numbers (elk that are mostly inaccessible to hunters) out of the total post season counts."

THAT would be golden!!!