MT ELK, Changing it up?

[Big Fin]

I'm still trying to figure out the logic here. Maybe that is an exercise in futility.

This spring, the Department gave us HB 505, where landowners could sponsor up to 10 hunters if their unit was at objective. We were told that the rationale was for landowners to stay at objective, as once they get above objective HB 505 would no longer allow this liberal use of sponsoring hunters. Supposedly, and incentive for landowner to get more elk killed.

Now, we get this proposal that is based on units that are way over objective. It gives every incentive to keep objectives set at artificially low number and gives no incentive to kill cows, as the units being identified for the new plan are those that are over objective. This new idea lets the real money animals, bulls, get served up to private land hunters without restriction.

So, if the department is looking for landowner incentive to get elk numbers down to objective as we were told with HB 505, why are they proposing this plan that gives landowners every financial incentive to keep number higher and above objective so that they can continue with virtually unrestricted bull elk hunting?

Seems punitive to those landowners who have worked to get elk numbers down via hunting and/or those landowners who have a higher tolerance for elk and thus higher objectives in the unit where they operate. Rather, this proposal gives way more benefit to those who have declined efforts to try manage elk by giving them an unlimited stream of bull elk tags.

Maybe that is a rhetorical question I'm trying to answer, but I'm trying to follow what seems to be a bipolar string of logic between the Department proposals and what the stated rationale is for each.

Here are the some of the ideas I've provided to the Commission and the Director in emails, phone calls, and meetings. I've share the same with some legislators who seem to be focused on elk ideas.

1. Where elk are above objective, give Private Land Only cow tags. Don't cap them. Given all cooperative landowners every chance possible to lower elk numbers.​

​

2. Absolutely no cow elk hunting on public lands, as this only places pressure on the "wrong elk" and habituates elk to move to the private land sanctuaries. Kill the elk that are the problem elk, the ones spending most their time under irrigation pivots. Cow elk lead the herds. Drive them to private land sanctuaries and the entire herd follows. Take pressure off public land cow elk and put that pressure on private land cow elk via #1 above.​

​

3. Shorten seasons for all elk, to include taking them out of the new muzzleloader season. This huge period of pressure only serves to condition elk to find private land sanctuaries and keep them there beyond hunting seasons. This would include getting rid of shoulder season.​

​

4. For those landowners trying to keep numbers down and having to deal with neighbors who provide elk sanctuary during hunting season, give them financial reimbursement from the General Fund. I say General Fund as this problem has nothing to do with hunting, rather how people exercise their property rights. Given these working landowners assistance with fencing, hazing, and whatever else can reward those who are trying to solve the problems.​

I could come up with a lot more, but these four, or at least the first 3, seem would be a much better experiment to try.

 

[texwest44]

Someone put this in layman's terms for me. I'm completely unfamiliar with MT and how the system works...Or apparently doesn't.

To oversimplify it: MT government is planning to institute changes that will allow increased (bull) elk harvest in places that in no way, shape, or form need increased (bull) elk harvest. And the government is claiming this to be a wildlife management policy, when really it's just a crooked move to benefit wealthy trophy hunters, as well as big land owners in the eastern part of the state. And son of a gun, wouldn't ya know it, they just so happen to make up an influential chunk of the legislative body. And also the governor himself. For some reason it's paired with an attitude like these people are from outer space, and weren't voted into power by gullible doofuses. It's actually kinda odd if you've spent enough time in other places.

Anyways, elk herds will suffer, public hunters will get yet another shaft, and things will get better for the feudal lords who run this state.

 

[sacountry]

I'm still trying to figure out the logic here. Maybe that is an exercise in futility.

This spring, the Department gave us HB 505, where landowners could sponsor up to 10 hunters if their unit was at objective. We were told that the rationale was for landowners to stay at objective, as once they get above objective HB 505 would no longer allow this liberal use of sponsoring hunters. Supposedly, and incentive for landowner to get more elk killed.

Now, we get this proposal that is based on units that are way over objective. It gives every incentive to keep objectives set at artificially low number and gives no incentive to kill cows, as the units being identified for the new plan are those that are over objective. This new idea lets the real money animals, bulls, get served up to private land hunters without restriction.

So, if the department is looking for landowner incentive to get elk numbers down to objective as we were told with HB 505, why are they proposing this plan that gives landowners every financial incentive to keep number higher and above objective so that they can continue with virtually unrestricted bull elk hunting?

Seems punitive to those landowners who have worked to get elk numbers down via hunting and/or those landowners who have a higher tolerance for elk and thus higher objectives in the unit where they operate. Rather, this proposal gives way more benefit to those who have declined efforts to try manage elk by giving them an unlimited stream of bull elk tags.

Maybe that is a rhetorical question I'm trying to answer, but I'm trying to follow what seems to be a bipolar string of logic between the Department proposals and what the stated rationale is for each.

Here are the some of the ideas I've provided to the Commission and the Director in emails, phone calls, and meetings. I've share the same with some legislators who seem to be focused on elk ideas.

1. Where elk are above objective, give Private Land Only cow tags. Don't cap them. Given all cooperative landowners every chance possible to lower elk numbers.​

​

2. Absolutely no cow elk hunting on public lands, as this only places pressure on the "wrong elk" and habituates elk to move to the private land sanctuaries. Kill the elk that are the problem elk, the ones spending most their time under irrigation pivots. Cow elk lead the herds. Drive them to private land sanctuaries and the entire herd follows. Take pressure off public land cow elk and put that pressure on private land cow elk via #1 above.​

​

3. Shorten seasons for all elk, to include taking them out of the new muzzleloader season. This huge period of pressure only serves to condition elk to find private land sanctuaries and keep them there beyond hunting seasons. This would include getting rid of shoulder season.​

​

4. For those landowners trying to keep numbers down and having to deal with neighbors who provide elk sanctuary during hunting season, give them financial reimbursement from the General Fund. I say General Fund as this problem has nothing to do with hunting, rather how people exercise their property rights. Given these working landowners assistance with fencing, hazing, and whatever else can reward those who are trying to solve the problems.​

I could come up with a lot more, but these four, or at least the first 3, seem would be a much better experiment to try.

Amen. Well said.

 

[sacountry]

I’ve been busy running around this morning. Does anyone have links or info where and when the commission meets and what we need to do to testify in person?

https://fwp.mt.gov/about-fwp/news/commissionagendas/2021/december-14-2021-commission-meeting

States that public comments can be made in person or via zoom.

 

[Gerald Martin]

https://fwp.mt.gov/about-fwp/news/commissionagendas/2021/december-14-2021-commission-meeting

States that public comments can be made in person or via zoom.

Thanks! That’s exactly what I was looking for.

 

[brownbear932008]

So who else is going to be testing out that new Crazy Mts trail in Sept.

There went my plan just like that.

 

[Ben Lamb]

https://fwp.mt.gov/about-fwp/news/commissionagendas/2021/december-14-2021-commission-meeting

States that public comments can be made in person or via zoom.

You can also go to one of the 7 regional headquarters: Missoula, Kalispell, Bozeman, Glasgow, Billings, Great Falls or Miles City as well as attend in person.

Showing up in person, or at the regional HQ's tends to have more impact.

 

[The Hedgehog]

Showing up in person, or at the regional HQ's tends to have more impact.

Can you describe how it has “more of an impact”?

 

[SAJ-99]

I'm still trying to figure out the logic here. Maybe that is an exercise in futility.

This spring, the Department gave us HB 505, where landowners could sponsor up to 10 hunters if their unit was at objective. We were told that the rationale was for landowners to stay at objective, as once they get above objective HB 505 would no longer allow this liberal use of sponsoring hunters. Supposedly, and incentive for landowner to get more elk killed.

Now, we get this proposal that is based on units that are way over objective. It gives every incentive to keep objectives set at artificially low number and gives no incentive to kill cows, as the units being identified for the new plan are those that are over objective. This new idea lets the real money animals, bulls, get served up to private land hunters without restriction.

So, if the department is looking for landowner incentive to get elk numbers down to objective as we were told with HB 505, why are they proposing this plan that gives landowners every financial incentive to keep number higher and above objective so that they can continue with virtually unrestricted bull elk hunting?

Seems punitive to those landowners who have worked to get elk numbers down via hunting and/or those landowners who have a higher tolerance for elk and thus higher objectives in the unit where they operate. Rather, this proposal gives way more benefit to those who have declined efforts to try manage elk by giving them an unlimited stream of bull elk tags.

Maybe that is a rhetorical question I'm trying to answer, but I'm trying to follow what seems to be a bipolar string of logic between the Department proposals and what the stated rationale is for each.

Here are the some of the ideas I've provided to the Commission and the Director in emails, phone calls, and meetings. I've share the same with some legislators who seem to be focused on elk ideas.

1. Where elk are above objective, give Private Land Only cow tags. Don't cap them. Given all cooperative landowners every chance possible to lower elk numbers.​

​

2. Absolutely no cow elk hunting on public lands, as this only places pressure on the "wrong elk" and habituates elk to move to the private land sanctuaries. Kill the elk that are the problem elk, the ones spending most their time under irrigation pivots. Cow elk lead the herds. Drive them to private land sanctuaries and the entire herd follows. Take pressure off public land cow elk and put that pressure on private land cow elk via #1 above.​

​

3. Shorten seasons for all elk, to include taking them out of the new muzzleloader season. This huge period of pressure only serves to condition elk to find private land sanctuaries and keep them there beyond hunting seasons. This would include getting rid of shoulder season.​

​

4. For those landowners trying to keep numbers down and having to deal with neighbors who provide elk sanctuary during hunting season, give them financial reimbursement from the General Fund. I say General Fund as this problem has nothing to do with hunting, rather how people exercise their property rights. Given these working landowners assistance with fencing, hazing, and whatever else can reward those who are trying to solve the problems.​

I could come up with a lot more, but these four, or at least the first 3, seem would be a much better experiment to try.

The reason the proposal makes no sense is that it is a paradox. They say it is to reduce elk numbers to objective, but it is really set to improve guys like the Wilks and deep-pocketed outfitter clients the ability to get a bull without going through the LE system. Almost any solution that we, the public, can propose will be shot down as not reducing elk numbers (yes, even though that is not the intent of the change). It almost becomes an unsolvable problem. The only real solution is to follow your suggestion and make it cow-only on private (but again, the Wilks have no interest in reducing elk numbers and are already allowing cow-hunts to "friends and family"). Your ideas should be the repeated response of all of us. That is the only way to paint the commission into a box where they either have to admit the real intent, kill it, or go ahead anyway and make legislators answer to the public.

Eventually we might have to accept that some form of landowner tags will be necessary to kill the continued assault on the idea of public wildlife. Any solution has to compensate landowners for tolerating elk as much as they get for selling the landowner tag. That is the only way BM survives for any landowner that is profit driven or not sentimental about hunting.

 

[brockel]

Maybe we limit the cattle grazing on public land so the feed on the public side is better than the private hopefully keeping elk on the public side?

 

[sapperJ24]

FWP wildlife biologists are fully aware that this proposal is not the way to reduce elk numbers.

From the the "Briefs for [elk] Hunting Districts that are Over Objective and Have Limited Either-Sex Permits" in the FWP Commission agenda, regarding liberalized bull harvest in 410 (which to my understanding is not included in this proposal, but to illustrate the biologist's understanding of the issue):

"Proponents of increasing the number of ES [either-sex] permits claim doing so will help reduce elk numbers of objective, however harvesting cow elk, not bull elk, is the only effective way to manage elk populations.

Much public input has been gathered over the years concerning archery and rifle hunting in this HD; a sweeping change to season-structure or increased permits beyond what are already available will likely elicit extensive public pushback."


Later in the brief, regarding HD 411, emphasis mine:


"What would the consequences be if you removed the ES permit or liberalized bull harvest (biological, social, equitable allocation, access, crowding)?

Liberalizing either-sex elk permits in these habitats would leave elk, particularly bulls, more vulnerable to harvest (especially on public lands) because given habitat conditions they are more visible and easier to find. Harvest data indicates that increasing permits without any significant increase in public hunting access stagnates hunter success; relatively few additional bull elk are harvested compared to numbers of permits available or hunters on the ground.

Specific to the Snowy Mountains, HDs 411 and 535 contain a total of 2,524,342 acres. Of that acreage, 457,513 acres are considered elk fall/winter range (18%). However, those acreages overlapped by legally accessible public lands or Block Management Areas (BMAs) amount to just 64,229 acres or 2.5% of the HDs, and over half of that primarily represents archery/early season hunting. Thus, only 2.5% of the entire Snowy Mountain HDs provide guaranteed public elk hunting opportunity, and not usually during the rifle/shoulder seasons when elk hunting for “management” occurs. Further liberalizing/generalizing the ES seasons for elk in this area will substantially increase crowding issues on public lands/BMAs that are already maxed out in regard to hunting pressure. Despite an already very liberal license structure for antlerless elk (the most effective tool for managing elk populations), elk populations are well over-objective due to a lack of free public hunting where the largest concentrations of elk exist. This is not a season-type or quota issue; it is an access issue. With an increase in archery permits valid in the Snowies via 900-20, more lands were leased/outfitted, and this trend would continue with extensive liberalization of rifle permits. Older age class bulls will always exist on inaccessible private lands, however increasing the opportunity to harvest bull elk district-wide with no concomitant increase in public hunting opportunity where the majority of elk reside (private land), will do no more than exacerbate the extirpation of elk on publicly-accessible lands during hunting season."

 

[Treeshark]

Eventually we might have to accept that some form of landowner tags will be necessary to kill the continued assault on the idea of public wildlife.

I’ve had this same thought for a while now. Seems inevitable that Montana will eventually go that route.

 

[texwest44]

Maybe we limit the cattle grazing on public land so the feed on the public side is better than the private hopefully keeping elk on the public side?

This is way at the top of a lot of people's "ideas that are obviously good but are never bothered with because they have exactly 0% chance of appeasing western feudal lords" list. We can't even get public land agencies to address the ubiquity of illegal grazing occurring on public lands with efficacy. I got shouted down at a work party a few weeks ago for suggesting putting local pressure on known, local unscrupulous grazers - it's "part of how things work here", I'm told. In that conversation I was also informed that it's heritage to ride ATVs on closed roads and snowmobile trails to get to Whitetail Reservoir. The more you know.

When in Rome, illegally use your ATV to watch your cattle illegally graze.

 

[Straight Arrow]

Showing up in person, or at the regional HQ's tends to have more impact.

Can you cite a recent example?

 

[Ben Lamb]

Can you describe how it has “more of an impact”?

It shows that people care enough to take time out of their lives to show up to a meeting. That tends to relax folks on the other side of the podium & see you in a human light, versus "commenter 1544."

It gives you the chance to talk directly with the agency personnel, commissioners and press that will be covering the issue.

It forces them to look you in the eye.

The mountain always gives way to the smallest drops of water. Over time and with enough passion, we can erode this mountain.

 

[lifeisgoodsteve]

@BigFin I expect you've been slammed with a full hunting season, but wonder if by chance there's any progress on putting together a pro-active political organization as discussed before in the "Defense to Offense" thread?

This beating we're taking seems like it's only getting worse without our own full time team. With yet another brutal political situation I have to imagine that more folks would rally to the cause with donations and time, or so I would hope.

 

[Hunt West]

I’m not advocating for “ranching for wildlife” but it’d be better than this.

 

[The Hedgehog]

I’m not advocating for “ranching for wildlife” but it’d be better than this.

This is exactly what they’re hoping happens.. they are not dumb.

 

[flyingvmt]

It was obviously only a matter of time before the FWP could wreck the last remaining glimmer of quality Montana had for elk hunters.

Bro, this isn’t the FWP, this is the dictatorship of gianforte and Worsech.

 

[SAJ-99]

@BigFin I expect you've been slammed with a full hunting season, but wonder if by chance there's any progress on putting together a pro-active political organization as discussed before in the "Defense to Offense" thread?

This beating we're taking seems like it's only getting worse without our own full time team. With yet another brutal political situation I have to imagine that more folks would rally to the cause with donations and time, or so I would hope.

Received an email today that Montana Wildlife Fed is having meetings this December. There are a lot of other groups that can grab the ear of legislators.