MT - Changes in Hunting Regs/Units/Seasons coming this month

[Gerald Martin]

Here’s the PDF file of the whole elk count.

 

[The Hedgehog]

That last page is gonna make a lot of outfitters and landowners salivate.

 

[antlerradar]

We need a header when it comes to objectives. Lets call it elk on public land Dec first.

 

[Gerald Martin]

That last page is gonna make a lot of outfitters and landowners salivate.

I hope there are a lot of people who study those counts and understand the difference between what FWP is trying to accomplish and what we could have in MT.

As hunters we have been far too passive in advocating for our interests and holding accountable the people who give lip service to our concerns and then enact policies that harm our interests.

 

[brocksw]

I hope there are a lot of people who study those counts and understand the difference between what FWP is trying to accomplish and what we could have in MT.

As hunters we have been far too passive in advocating for our interests and holding accountable the people who give lip service to our concerns and then enact policies that harm our interests.

To save some time Gerald, do you have a FWP explanation on how they arrive at those objections?

*gets popcorn

 

[Sytes]

Let's see if these come through... Here's some helpful data to consider for those interested in trying to read the tea leaves of what effects the proposed changes will have.View attachment 191823

Why... WHY the flying leaping flip... is Whitefish so far flung out of step with their counts??? 2005??? yet, the vast majority are 2019+...

Sorry, back to the story - current FWP political crap show.

And the counts... ridiculous means of counting in R1 where a copter is far from par for the course, etc... check point counts are so far off from the alleged counts, etc. but hey, it's current fwp crap show...

 

[Sioux33]

Case study on why this is a horrible idea is unit 411. 6k elk, 99% of them on the Wilkes Ranch, 99% of hunting pressure is off the Wilkes Ranch. Elk aren't stupid, they know where to go. Yet, FWP keeps basing tag numbers off all 6k elk. Tried to help my dad there last year with his cow tag and saw a herd of over 1,000 on private and not a single one on public, but we did see tons of hunters. If they expand zones, all the hunting pressure's going to drive elk into inaccessible areas, right into outfitters hands. But hey, at least the regs are easier to read...

 

[Mallardsx2]

So much for the CMR herd if they move forward with their objective idea. Lord help us.

 

[Schaaf]

So much for the CMR herd if they move forward with their objective idea. Lord help us.

Can't speak for R4 or R7 but that is not on the table in R6.

Some bad **** is going down in R4, where the majority of this is coming from.

 

[Gerald Martin]

To save some time Gerald, do you have a FWP explanation on how they arrive at those objections?

*gets popcorn

Are you asking how FWP arrives at objective numbers?

If that’s the question, the answer is #science.
Optimal objective numbers are set by considering social tolerance for elk as well as suitable habitat.

Plain speak. If the ranchers say there’s too many elk, there’s too many elk.

Worsech did tell me he could show me areas in Montana where elk were above biological carrying capacity but I call B.S. on that. (There may be areas of private land that have very limited access due to landowner preference that have isolated pockets of habitat degradation due to too many elk. That’s a human problem, not an elk overpopulation problem)

Hank, if you read this, I would love to see your example of where elk are exceeding biological carrying capacity. Preferably in early Nov. when I can help take care of a problem elk.

 

[Gerald Martin]

#Summary
If hunters want to be heard they better show up and be #loud, #pissedandvocal.

 

[brocksw]

Can't speak for R4 or R7 but that is not on the table in R6.

Some bad **** is going down in R4, where the majority of this is coming from.

I hope you're wrong.

 

[Ben Lamb]

@Randy11, get ahold of Willis Curdy. He's a legislator from Missoula who is on EQC, which has oversight of FWP. Raise this issue with him and ask that he help find a way for folks to participate remotely.

- Montana State Legislature

leg.mt.gov

For everyone: Tomorrow is a big commission day. Participate anyway you can.

Then: attend these "meetings" and voice your concerns. There's a ton of solid advocacy on these pages to use.

Furthermore: Reach out to your local elected official and raise hell.

Lastly: prepare for a fun fall of hunting & season setting comments.

In order to properly impress FWP, the legislature and those in charge, a big outpouring is necessary.

 

[Gerald Martin]

To save some time Gerald, do you have a FWP explanation on how they arrive at those objections?

*gets popcorn

I found a video of the process. PG-13 warning. #sciencebasedobjectives

 

[MTelkHuntress]

For everyone: Tomorrow is a big commission day. Participate anyway you can.

Link:

Montana Legislature

sg001-harmony.sliq.net

 

[Sytes]

0830-1900?
When does this really begin? There a meeting table of contents to understand approx time for "x" topic & guest speakers, etc?

I'm free as I sit on my keister from surgery though trying to catch the agenda gist.
BTW, Thanks MTelkhuntress.

 

[Schaaf]

 

[rmyoung1]

Plain speak. If the ranchers say there’s too many elk, there’s too many elk.

Worsech did tell me he could show me areas in Montana where elk were above biological carrying capacity but I call B.S. on that. (There may be areas of private land that have very limited access due to landowner preference that have isolated pockets of habitat degradation due to too many elk. That’s a human problem, not an elk overpopulation problem)

Hank, if you read this, I would love to see your example of where elk are exceeding biological carrying capacity. Preferably in early Nov. when I can help take care of a problem elk.

Yeah, those objective numbers are head-scratchers at best. Four thousand for 313. Huh? And there’s not a single beef cow south of Yankee Jim Canyon to my knowledge. Makes no sense

 

[BuzzH]

Are you asking how FWP arrives at objective numbers?

If that’s the question, the answer is #science.
Optimal objective numbers are set by considering social tolerance for elk as well as suitable habitat.

Plain speak. If the ranchers say there’s too many elk, there’s too many elk.

Worsech did tell me he could show me areas in Montana where elk were above biological carrying capacity but I call B.S. on that. (There may be areas of private land that have very limited access due to landowner preference that have isolated pockets of habitat degradation due to too many elk. That’s a human problem, not an elk overpopulation problem)

Hank, if you read this, I would love to see your example of where elk are exceeding biological carrying capacity. Preferably in early Nov. when I can help take care of a problem elk.

Does anyone know if Worsech even has a degree in Wildlife Biology?

He has the MTFWP required advanced degrees in bullshitting the public, and I just follow orders, for sure. Just curious if he just likes to use big words like biological carrying capacity, or actually knows what they mean?

 

[Ben Lamb]

Hank was the licensing bureau chief for over 10 years. Before that, he was the Chief Executive Officer of the Board of Outfitters.

He's not from the wildlife side.