MT ELK, Changing it up?

[Irrelevant]

Everything We Thought We Knew About Snow Geese Was Wrong

What's going on with snow goose populations? Are they up or down? And what effect are snow goose numbers having on the health of other birds?

www.outdoorlife.com

When the spring conservation order was passed and implemented in 1999, the Pacific Flyway was left out because light goose numbers were low. Well, since then, Pacific Flyway geese have increased exponentially with birds breeding on Wrangel Island (Russia) and Western Arctic birds that breed from Banks Island (part of the Northwest Territories) to the north slope of Alaska. They went from virtually none to 2.5 million birds strong.

Certainly seems like the pacific flyway may see a spring season at some point.

 

[The Hedgehog]

Back to elk..

South eastern MT: MONTANA FWP PROPOSAL on elk in SE MT

What in the absolute F?

Can somebody explain the rationale behind it?

Let's go unlimited bowhunters, but only on public land, then pump up the rifle permits an extra 50%.

The public land where elk are already just piss-pounded by bowhunters. Let's make sure we push every last one of them to some sanctuaries that are not being hunted until rifle season, then let's throw some more bull permits out there, since we can't just let the private guys kill them on their general license.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Sure, make a season. But don’t pretend there’s actually going to be something to hunt.

This is actually FWP's new mission statement.

 

[Irrelevant]

Back to elk..

South eastern MT: MONTANA FWP PROPOSAL on elk in SE MT

What in the absolute F?

Can somebody explain the rationale behind it?

Let's go unlimited bowhunters, but only on public land, then pump up the rifle permits an extra 50%.

The public land where elk are already just piss-pounded by bowhunters. Let's make sure we push every last one of them to some sanctuaries that are not being hunted until rifle season, then let's throw some more bull permits out there, since we can't just let the private guys kill them on their general license.

They need to eliminate those first two points. That's ridiculous.

 

[The Hedgehog]

Back to the Region 7 changes with archery.. How is that going to be even enforceable, with all the small tiny mixed up pieces of public within private, etc.? They know it's not and it's a planned concession to the original proposal - giving the public the false impression that they are listening and changing their original idea. Original idea from day one, months ago, is unlimited archery permits, removing the 90-10 nonresident restriction and more bull tags for landowners/clients on private.

 

[Nameless Range]

Back to the Region 7 changes with archery.. How is that going to be even enforceable, with all the small tiny mixed up pieces of public within private, etc.? They know it's not and it's a planned concession to the original proposal - giving the public the false impression that they are listening and changing their original idea. Original idea from day one, months ago, is unlimited archery permits, removing the 90-10 nonresident restriction and more bull tags for landowners/clients on private.

It may be fruitless, but comment. I essentially said this exact thing to a commissioner via email and received a response that made me a bit hopeful.

 

[The Hedgehog]

Comments to commissioners need to explain that the absolute worst idea for the reduction of elk "objectives" is to make the archery permit "unlimited" removing the 90-10 restrictionto non-residents. What that does is it will continue to incentivize landowners to harbor elk, directly or indirectly due to the availability of bull permits to outfitters and bull hunting on private land. Nobody will be killing cows, when they are trying to kill trophy bulls that are drawn to the cows during archery season.

 

[Sioux33]

Back to elk..

South eastern MT: MONTANA FWP PROPOSAL on elk in SE MT

What in the absolute F?

Can somebody explain the rationale behind it?

Let's go unlimited bowhunters, but only on public land, then pump up the rifle permits an extra 50%.

The public land where elk are already just piss-pounded by bowhunters. Let's make sure we push every last one of them to some sanctuaries that are not being hunted until rifle season, then let's throw some more bull permits out there, since we can't just let the private guys kill them on their general license.

And lets not forget how this got here. If you watched the pre-commission meeting on the 13th, or whatever it was, you heard Tabor, who's an outfitter, say he can't vote for the general archery proposal, but would like to see MOGA's idea of a "pick your unit unlimited archery tag", then Worsech was all over it and had this in writing overnight.

No biologist input or public vetting, just one commissioner and the director coming up with this shit on the fly and we're stuck, again, trying to educate everyone why it's another horrible idea. Tabor also said "we need to do something because a lot of folks have been waiting 16 years to get changes made". Go figure this is what they came up with.

I'm afraid the public outcry is only going to be a fraction of what it was the first time around and the commissioners aren't gonna feel the same heat to vote this down. I hope I'm wrong, but the word needs to spread fast that this is just as bad as the original piece of garbage that was out there.

 

[Schaaf]

Comments to commissioners need to explain that the absolute worst idea for the reduction of elk "objectives" is to make the archery permit "unlimited" removing the 90-10 restrictionto non-residents. What that does is it will continue to incentivize landowners to harbor elk, directly or indirectly due to the availability of bull permits to outfitters and bull hunting on private land. Nobody will be killing cows, when they are trying to kill trophy bulls that are drawn to the cows during archery season.

You can use Quentin Kujalas quote from 2012 in your email about what increased numbers did to hunting and elk populations.


“According to Quentin Kujala, a Wildlife Bureau official for Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks, increased archery hunter numbers caused ripple effects that splashed beyond conflicts over individual animals. Growing hunting pressure on public land pushed elk onto private property. That made the animals off-limits for many archers. It also made them harder to reach during the general rifle season, when, unlike the archery season, tags were limited.”

 

[The Hedgehog]

Worsche is cancer. It's really that simple. The guy is very smart and he's crafting these proposals with the end in mind, as he knows what people are going to whimper about, will change that, and still get exactly what he wants.

He's 100% focused on doling out trophy bull elk permits to a select few, a short term gain for some, and zero chance to address objectives at all, ruining high quality public land hunting as fast as possible, which will happen on private as well in short order.

 

[BrentD]

Worsche is cancer. It's really that simple. The guy is very smart and he's crafting these proposals with the end in mind, as he knows what people are going to whimper about, will change that, and still get exactly what he wants.

He's 100% focused on doling out trophy bull elk permits to a select few, a short term gain for some, and zero chance to address objectives at all, ruining high quality public land hunting as fast as possible, which will happen
on private as well in short order.

So, why? Not arguing with your analysis, just wondering what his motivation is in this, and if that could be demonstrated (as COI, for example).

 

[TheJason]

So, why? Not arguing with your analysis, just wondering what his motivation is in this, and if that could be demonstrated (as COI, for example).

Because it’s in line with what Jersey Greg wants. Hank isn’t thinking this shit agenda up on his own.

 

[Straight Arrow]

Because it’s in line with what Jersey Greg wants. Hank isn’t thinking this shit agenda up on his own.

It's part of the Jersey G ideology and retribution to FWP for past issues and to the sportsmen supporting FWP fishing access lawsuit, finally settled but leaving animosity with GG.

It's also part and parcel to my rhetorical question as a lifelong Montana hunter, fisherman, outdoor recreationist ... "Where the hell did my Montana go?"

 

[Gerald Martin]

It's part of the Jersey G ideology and retribution to FWP for past issues and to the sportsmen supporting FWP fishing access lawsuit, finally settled but leaving animosity with GG.

It's also part and parcel to my rhetorical question as a lifelong Montana hunter, fisherman, outdoor recreationist ... "Where the hell did my Montana go?"

It’s going straight into the pockets and freezers of the folks who figure it’s their right to exploit public trust resources without regard for how it affects the resource or other share holders.

 

[The Hedgehog]

So, why? Not arguing with your analysis, just wondering what his motivation is in this, and if that could be demonstrated (as COI, for example).

Money. Doesn't help that MT FWP has a history of failed success with public land wildlife management. Some of the most influencing landowners have a excellent track record of management of wildlife on private land. Director catering to specific groups who have the ear of his boss, PERC, UPOM, etc. Hopefully the MOGA folks will recognize the long term results of the short term gains and fight some of this crap also.

 

[rogerthat]

Back to elk..

South eastern MT: MONTANA FWP PROPOSAL on elk in SE MT

What in the absolute F?

Can somebody explain the rationale behind it?

Let's go unlimited bowhunters, but only on public land, then pump up the rifle permits an extra 50%.

The public land where elk are already just piss-pounded by bowhunters. Let's make sure we push every last one of them to some sanctuaries that are not being hunted until rifle season, then let's throw some more bull permits out there, since we can't just let the private guys kill them on their general license.

Spot on as usual Greenhorn.

 

[rogerthat]

So, why? Not arguing with your analysis, just wondering what his motivation is in this, and if that could be demonstrated (as COI, for example).

Bull tags for some of Jersey Greg's biggest campaign contributors. I actually had heard this was all coming 6 months before the proposal even floated by a source I would consider dubious but with connections. I was told the fix was in. Nothing we could do, the new "guy" wanted this and it was happening. General season for Region 7 elk. I got wound up called the local office. Called the biologist. After talking to them, calmed down, dismissed it all as a rumor. But here we are and I am still scratching my head thinking about all this and how we got here.

 

[antlerradar]

Back to elk..

South eastern MT: MONTANA FWP PROPOSAL on elk in SE MT

What in the absolute F?

Can somebody explain the rationale behind it?

Let's go unlimited bowhunters, but only on public land, then pump up the rifle permits an extra 50%.

The public land where elk are already just piss-pounded by bowhunters. Let's make sure we push every last one of them to some sanctuaries that are not being hunted until rifle season, then let's throw some more bull permits out there, since we can't just let the private guys kill them on their general license.

I am just shaking my head, What a FUBAR

 

[rogerthat]

You can use Quentin Kujalas quote from 2012 in your email about what increased numbers did to hunting and elk populations.


“According to Quentin Kujala, a Wildlife Bureau official for Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks, increased archery hunter numbers caused ripple effects that splashed beyond conflicts over individual animals. Growing hunting pressure on public land pushed elk onto private property. That made the animals off-limits for many archers. It also made them harder to reach during the general rifle season, when, unlike the archery season, tags were limited.”

Was that quote about a specific unit?

 

[Schaaf]

Was that quote about a specific unit?

It was about the breaks units (12 or so?) being unlimited over the counter archery hunting.