MT ELK, Changing it up?

[Mountaindewguy]

So, what can we do to help? Is there anything that we can legitimately do to keep this from being implemented?

 

[Gerald Martin]

Bright side! This could reduce the NR elk hunters in other parts of the state....as there will be less stripping off of the elk tags from the combos.

Bright side! Cough, cough...It will reduce the pressure on the public due to a 50% reduction allotted permits via the draw.

I can see this getting passed with ease as it is actually a brilliant plan. I sure as hell didn't see this coming.

Make it antlerless only on private, cut either sex tags 50% on public until “objective” is reached.

Bet “objective” would climb by a bunch.

 

[Mtnhunter1]

Make it antlerless only on private, cut either sex tags 50% on public until “objective” is reached.

Bet “objective” would climb by a bunch.

Well that is science and the "objective" has nothing to do with the science. The "objective" has always been the hammer held by the private/profit group with the public being the nail!

 

[Gerald Martin]

So, what can we do to help? Is there anything that we can legitimately do to keep this from being implemented?

Unless you know a way of influencing the current administration and legislative majority that has been sending clear signals for a long time they are going to do whatever benefits large landowners, no.

 

[Mtnhunter1]

Unless you know a way of influencing the current administration and legislative majority that has been sending clear signals for a long time they are going to do whatever benefits large landowners, no.

Yeah, unfortunately that is now the trend. Other than a "Mostly Peaceful Protest" to occur,,, I don't see the 30 day public comment period doing anything except being ignored and this will pass with ease.

 

[rogerthat]

What would the Initiative say and set? Genuine question.

One idea maybe start with an elected commission that cares about public comment if we are going to make political decisions on wildlife management than they should probably be somewhat popular

 

[antlerradar]

Bright side! Cough, cough...It will reduce the pressure on the public due to a 50% reduction allotted permits via the draw.

After thinking about this, One thing sportsman should insist on is that the licenses good on private land be put on a draw. Even if the draw is first choice is a guaranteed license. If you can hunt private land with a general license, landowners, friends of landowners and clients will all be putting in for public tags so they won't have let an elk go or be sneaky when the elk jumps the fence. This will kill the draw odds for the public tag.

 

[Mtnhunter1]

After thinking about this, One thing sportsman should insist on is that the licenses good on private land be put on a draw. Even if the draw is first choice is a guaranteed license. If you can hunt private land with a general license, landowners, friends of landowners and clients will all be putting in for public tags so they won't have let an elk go or be sneaky when the elk jumps the fence. This will kill the draw odds for the public tag.

I think that you are spot on! If they are going to open it up to general, then a unlimited "Private Land Only" permit would sure be a good idea. If they want to go down this rabbit hole, make the permit unit specific as with the public LE permits.

 

[brocksw]

One idea maybe start with an elected commission that cares about public comment if we are going to make political decisions on wildlife management than they should probably be somewhat popular

#endthefwpcommission

 

[tjones]

At this point the FWP commission has had nothing to do with these proposals. This latest round of nonsense is on Greg and Hank.

 

[sacountry]

I have a constructive idea. Allow for permitted, not general licensed, cow hunts on Type 1 BMA in these proposed districts. Hopefully this would encourage private land owners to put land into the program, in turn, open up public hunting opportunity on private lands. MUST be Type 1 BMA. The landowner can't restrict the sign in process. Try THAT for about 3-4 years to see what the population does. It's an intermediate step to Worsech's ill-advised, radical idea.

Personal frustration, knowing that my region 1 Commissioner is Pat Tabor, a guide and MOGA crony. I don't think calling him will get a lick of support.

 

[Ben Lamb]

At this point the FWP commission has had nothing to do with these proposals. This latest round of nonsense is on Greg and Hank.

And Helena Lobbyists like Denowh & dark money groups like UPOM.

 

[rogerthat]

At this point the FWP commission has had nothing to do with these proposals. This latest round of nonsense is on Greg and Hank.

You are correct but when the public comment comes in overwhelmingly against this proposal and it will, how do you suspect they will vote? Do you have any confidence this won’t be implemented? I personally know one of the commissioners. I plan to shoot my shot but you guys can smash my left nut on YouTube if this isn’t implemented. Shoulder seasons on public lands vote is exhibit 1 for me on this. The bulls are screwed. Public land bull hunting even more screwed in these units

 

[Mtnhunter1]

I have a constructive idea. Allow for permitted, not general licensed, cow hunts on Type 1 BMA in these proposed districts. Hopefully this would encourage private land owners to put land into the program, in turn, open up public hunting opportunity on private lands. MUST be Type 1 BMA. The landowner can't restrict the sign in process. Try THAT for about 3-4 years to see what the population does. It's an intermediate step to Worsech's ill-advised, radical idea.

Personal frustration, knowing that my region 1 Commissioner is Pat Tabor, a guide and MOGA crony. I don't think calling him will get a lick of support.

In reality, I think that opening up the private to general elk would be really tough on the BM program. As stated, elk travel and the outfitters will be out to shore up as much ground as possible. Then there are the private leasing of land by various hunting groups or parties. Lastly, there will be those landowners, family and friends that will now be able to hunt bulls on their own land without going though the limited permit process. Mule deer, whitetail and antelope are one thing but throw elk into the mix and it will be a game changer.

 

[Irrelevant]

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

 

[sacountry]

In reality, I think that opening up the private to general elk would be really tough on the BM program. As stated, elk travel and the outfitters will be out to shore up as much ground as possible. Then there are the private leasing of land by various hunting groups or parties. Lastly, there will be those landowners, family and friends that will now be able to hunt bulls on their own land without going though the limited permit process. Mule deer, whitetail and antelope are one thing but throw elk into the mix and it will be a game changer.

Only reason for outfitters to shore up land would be if this plan included taking bulls on private. My idea would only allow cows to be taken on BMA Type 1 through permitted licensing, not general tags, not all private land in a district. Outfitters vs BMA. We need the deck stacked in favor of BMA, this would do that.

 

[TimeOnTarget]

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

 

[brocksw]

At this point the FWP commission has had nothing to do with these proposals. This latest round of nonsense is on Greg and Hank.

So the FWP Commission will not be responsible for approving these rules/changes by the Department as provided by statute?

 

[Mtnhunter1]

Only reason for outfitters to shore up land would be if this plan included taking bulls on private. My idea would only allow cows to be taken on BMA Type 1 through permitted licensing, not general tags, not all private land in a district. Outfitters vs BMA. We need the deck stacked in favor of BMA, this would do that.

I totally understand and agree with your idea if this was actually about trying to reduce the elk population in these units. Unfortunately this is a wolf in sheep's clothing deal and has very little to do with reducing the elk numbers.

 

[Gerald Martin]

Pro tip- When offering ideas about wildlife management for the director, let’s talk about what will actually work for Montana’s wildlife, hunters and landowners. Ideas about how to make a terrible plan slightly less terrible doesn’t benefit us much.

This isn’t directed towards anyone who has offered suggestions. Just an observation.

This morning across 14 Montana hunting unit, elk are going about being elk doing what God created them to do.

All of the “problems” that need to be “solved” are human management issues created by bad ideas and lack of acceptance of wildlife.

Ideal objective numbers are completely arbitrary and have no connection to the biological carrying capacity of the habitat.

Debbie Barrett was the legislator who introduced the bill that legally requires FWP to set management strategies towards the end of keeping elk at or under the desired “objective”. @shoots-straight or @tjones could probably tell us way more about how that went down than I know.

The common denominator in all units designated “over objective” is private land sanctuary areas that allow either no access or very limited access. Some of these units have a lot of public land but the elk are disproportionately distributed and most elk live on private land. Unit 411 is a classic example of this.
In every “over objective” unit FWP has issued liberal antlerless only tags or allows for general harvest of cows. Many of these units have the legal potential for every single cow to be harvested during the general season. Many of the units also offer “early” and “late” seasons for antlerless harvest.


The “limited either-sex permits is keeping numbers over objective” is a complete straw man argument. The ONLY thing keeping elk numbers over an arbitrary “objective” is the landowners themselves.

They caused an artificial problem by setting low “objectives” and exacerbate the “problem” by not allowing access. Now the “solution” to their “problem” is to give them the tools to monetize a public resource for private gain.


Welcome to the new GG administration’s wildlife management policies!