MT Elk Shoulder season legislation

[Talk2elk]

Brian, you said it well. I feel the same.

 

[Big Foot]

The shoulder seasons had vocal support from RMEF in the same hearings a few years back. I would like to think individuals who where in support of the shoulder seasons in the past are now the loudest opposing them. If you are an RMEF member and are opposed to the shoulder seasons, keep in mind RMEF does not mind a quality elk slaughter for the sake of opportunity.

 

[MTGomer]

If you are an RMEF member and are opposed to the shoulder seasons, keep in mind RMEF does not mind a quality elk slaughter for the sake of opportunity.

An uncomfortable fact that doesn’t sit well around here.

 

[Sytes]

The shoulder seasons had vocal support from RMEF in the same hearings a few years back. I would like to think individuals who where in support of the shoulder seasons in the past are now the loudest opposing them. If you are an RMEF member and are opposed to the shoulder seasons, keep in mind RMEF does not mind a quality elk slaughter for the sake of opportunity.

When the original question of RMEF's stance was hitting the media... RMEF supplied this comment. Seems pretty good stuff to me though, to each his/her own.

January 15, 2016

To Chairman Vermillion and FWP Commission and Director Hagener,

Please consider this letter as public comment from the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation (RMEF) relative to the proposed Shoulder Season expansions for 2016 and beyond.

RMEF supported late season cow hunts as a viable elk management tool by Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks (FWP); hence we supported legislation to provide such to the Department of Fish Wildlife and Parks. This legislation was vetoed and in its place a “shoulder season concept” was proposed and is currently being tested by FWP in limited, selected units.

While we have previously stated we generally support the ability of FWP to use such seasons as a tool to address over population issues of elk we do not officially endorse any program for the future without first seeing the results of the pilot programs currently underway. To date we have not been provided any results from this test program.

Based on the comments we have received from our members we continue to support the concept of a late season cow elk hunt for the purpose of helping to address over population of elk in specific areas of the state, especially for those who have tried all existing options. We are concerned about the expansion of such hunts on to public land. Past history shows that extending these efforts to public lands may focus on the wrong elk; those public land elk that our members have access to. We do not support early season hunts allowing special rifle hunts during archery seasons. Since the basis for these seasons is to reduce elk numbers in some areas, we would not support harvest of bulls under these seasons.

RMEF will not get drawn into the no-win debate over established objective numbers for elk versus carrying capacity numbers for elk; a debate that has become highly political. We fully recognize the need to consider both the biological and social aspects of elk and elk population goals but in this highly partisan atmosphere there seems to be little opportunity for flexible or negotiable allowances.

As a starting point for the path forward, we would suggest a review and update of the Elk Management Plan, with representation of all stakeholders. Elk are one of Montana’s most valuable wildlife resources, both culturally and financially. It seems an updated Elk Management Plan would be prudent and hopefully provide a better forum for discussing elk objectives, in consideration of social tolerance and carrying capacity.

RMEF fully subscribes to the principles of the North American Model of Conservation and we staunchly accept and defend the principles of private property rights by American citizens. We fully support the culture of hunting and state based management. A debate over an issue like shoulder seasons will not be solved without a willingness on all sides to compromise and work together.

RMEF again restates our support for late season cow elk hunts, primarily on private lands where additional tools are needed to reduce elk populations. We feel that more pilot programs in specific private lands are needed, along with results from current pilot programs, to justify any statewide expansion of late season hunts.

Thank you for your consideration.

Respectfully submitted.

M. David Allen

 

[Brian in Montana]

I'm afraid that at this point its simply a big source of revenue the FWP feels it can no longer do without, and obviously now wants to expand.

Hunting pregnant cows on their winter range just irks me. I anticipate that in years come, the science will show this to be pretty bad for the overall elk population, but by then the only way to get out of it will be for the FWP to raise the price of licences significantly.

 

[JLS]

I'm afraid that at this point its simply a big source of revenue the FWP feels it can no longer do without, and obviously now wants to expand.

Personally, I believe this has absolutely nothing to do with revenue and everything to do with succumbing to political pressure.

 

[Brian in Montana]

Maybe, but those tags are immensely popular. It's certainly a pile of $ they used to not have.

 

[PaulRevere]

Resolution calling for, among other things, increased B tags and party hunting of elk during shoulder seasons

Allowing party "hunting" during the shoulder season will encourage flock shooting. SAD!

 

[JLS]

Maybe, but those tags are immensely popular. It's certainly a pile of $ they used to not have.

They had B tags long before they had shoulder seasons. They are not integrally linked.

 

[Straight Arrow]

They had B tags long before they had shoulder seasons. They are not integrally linked.

That is true. Furthermore, those B tags were often used during the late season hunts targeting specific areas / ranches, where the hunting on private was a management tool used to mitigate problems for certain private land where elk and/or deer were overpopulated and creating problems for the landowner(s). The late hunts seemed to be an effective management tool, but appear to be a thing of the past with the extreme extent of shoulder seasons.

 

[Big Fin]

The shoulder seasons had vocal support from RMEF in the same hearings a few years back. I would like to think individuals who where in support of the shoulder seasons in the past are now the loudest opposing them. If you are an RMEF member and are opposed to the shoulder seasons, keep in mind RMEF does not mind a quality elk slaughter for the sake of opportunity.

May I suggest you read Posts #34 and #45.

 

[Big Foot]

When the original question of RMEF's stance was hitting the media... RMEF supplied this comment. Seems pretty good stuff to me though, to each his/her own.

I called Mark Lambrecht (RMEF) after the 2016 season setting meeting and was told most MT sportsman supported the additional opportunity offered by the shoulder seasons. RMEF supported the shoulder seasons then and needs to help dig sportsman out of the sh!t filled hole we are wallowing in now.

Shoulder seasons are based on a false premise and will only get worse irregardless of the lies being told.

Legislation dictating allowable elk numbers is sad. We are all suckers in trusting the words of the FWP commission and fwp managers.

For your listening pleasure if you care to hear a bunch of d!ckheads lie and mislead the public in 2016.

http://fwp.mt.gov/doingBusiness/insideFwp/commission/meetings/agenda.html?meetingId=35774001

Carry on with the slaughter and blind support of those who are supposed to lead.

 

[Ben Lamb]

To my understanding, RMEF is opposing these bills.

 

[Big Foot]

May I suggest you read Posts #34 and #45.

RMEF's carefully worded release was ignoring the elephant in the room. The shoulder seasons have been morally and ethically wrong since their inception and incongruent with RMEF's mission statement from the beginning. 6 months of elk hunting in MT is gross and RMEF knows it. Simply put, money and politics ruled the decisions made by RMEF and others back in 2016 regarding the shoulder season program.

 

[Big Fin]

....Simply put, money and politics ruled the decisions made by RMEF and others back in 2016 regarding the shoulder season program.

Think what you want. "Simply put"......you would be uninformed, or worse yet, misinformed.

 

[Big Foot]

To my understanding, RMEF is opposing these bills.

Not supporting shoulder seasons today is easy. The door was cracked open in 2015/2016 with RMEF and others supporting the shoulder seasons. Immediately following the adoption of the shoulder seasons, UPOM, MOGA, FWP managers, politicians and others crashed through the door. Surprise!

 

[GearJunky]

I don't have anything to add, other than saying thanks to the people who stand up and fight for the future of hunting. From those of us who are far removed from the inner workins of all of us, Thank you for your efforts.

 

[Big Foot]

Think what you want. "Simply put"......you would be uninformed, or worse yet, misinformed.

EMP's in the early 2000's and shoulder seasons today are a sign of wildlife management in MT going in one direction. At what point does this change course? Please inform me on how RMEF's and others support of the shoulder seasons in 2015/2016 was a good move? How do you square RMEF's support of the shoulder seasons in 2016 with its mission statement?

 

[Straight Arrow]

... RMEF is opposing these bills.

It's 2019. We get it; you're upset with RMEF. Get over it. Move on.

You have an opportunity to express opposition to a couple of bad bills related to shoulder seasons. Do something constructive.

 

[Big Fin]

EMP's in the early 2000's and shoulder seasons today are a sign of wildlife management in MT going in one direction. At what point does this change course? Please inform me on how RMEF's and others support of the shoulder seasons in 2015/2016 was a good move? How do you square RMEF's support of the shoulder seasons in 2016 with its mission statement?

Mission - To ensure the future of elk, other wildlife, their habitat, and our hunting heritage.

In the effort to help with long-term (read future of) elk and habitat in Montana, FWP asked RMEF to support a "limited experimental" season that would supposedly prevent the legislature from dismantling FWP budgets and legislatively managing elk more than they already were. That was discussed, debated, and the decision was made to support a limited scope experiment. When the experiment was no longer what was represented and the scope was expanded, RMEF came out opposed to the expansion, as Sytes posted in post #45.

Not everyone gets to sit back and lob their volleys with the benefit of hind sight. Some have to actually make decisions with current information, assess what they think will be best in the long-term, and accept the risks that come with doing so. I'm happy to accept those criticisms. And, I will push back when the criticisms are uninformed and have no context to how the decisions were arrived at.

If you think RMEF is somehow swayed in this decision by money or politics, you were in different meetings and discussions than I was. If you think it was done without long consideration, you again would be misinformed or uninformed.

As for the EMP, you're barking up the wrong tree. I, many on this site, and RMEF, have asked FWP to revisit that plan many times. I'm not the Governor or the Director or a legislator. Other than giving comment and requesting such, I can hardly go re-write the plan and tell FWP that this will now be law.

I, many on this site, RMEF, and many RMEF members, were all there in 2002-2004 when the EMP was being crafted and we fought to keep the politicians out of it. I hope you were there, also. If you weren't there, spare me the comments about who has done what regarding the EMP.

Continue your criticisms if that makes you feel better.