Gerald Martin
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2009
- Messages
- 8,643
Serious question. How can hunters effectively lobby to have our concerns have the same priority as ranchers?
MT Late Season Bulls?
- Thread starter Art Vandeley
- Start date
Art Vandeley
Well-known member
This is a big, big bowl of wrong.
SAJ-99
Well-known member
This is a question that demands its own thread.
In this case, I wonder if you could file a class-action lawsuit (made up of all hunters who applied for a 410/417 ES archery or 417 ES Rifle) to get their attention. There needs to be some group to lead the way, like RMEF, but they probably do not have a standing claim. Hunters need to be more organized, and that isn't going to happen.
In general, I'm not sure. It would require a legislative change and as Montana is a state as red as the day is long, you will get more of the same focus on individual property rights over public good. And all politicians enjoy that power, so why would they give it up? I have said for a long time that the problem is landowners and the solution has to involve landowners. The almighty $ is going to come into play at some point.
BuzzH
Well-known member
Not quite...special management herd are managed to maintain 35-40 bulls per 100 cows post harvest. If B/C ratios drop below that they adjust tags down. Its not uncommon, in the area I typically apply for LQ elk to have 50-60 bulls per 100 cows post harvest.
General elk management (general and herds managed more toward opportunity) have to maintain 18-25 bulls per 100 cows post harvest. If they drop below that b/c ratio spikes are excluded from harvest the next year and/or season length is cut. I've seen bull to cow ratio's in general areas that are near 40-45 bulls per 100 cows post harvest. Not uncommon at all to have them in excess of 25 bulls per 100 cows.
Not pounding on the resource for 11 weeks makes a difference.
Hem
Well-known member
Montana 65% private.
Wyoming/ Idaho 65% public.
This would indicate to me a dire situation for comprehensive management as Buzz suggests. We cant assume the Yellowstone herd will ever regain its glory and everything beyond has diminished. Pockets like the Breaks unfortunately need specific policy to keep them world class. Seems pretty obvious we need to rethink the entire program .
Wyoming/ Idaho 65% public.
This would indicate to me a dire situation for comprehensive management as Buzz suggests. We cant assume the Yellowstone herd will ever regain its glory and everything beyond has diminished. Pockets like the Breaks unfortunately need specific policy to keep them world class. Seems pretty obvious we need to rethink the entire program .
Schaaf
Well-known member
Would be great if there was some kind of organization that worked directly on elk related issues that might take a stand on something like this. Nothing comes to mind.
I don't see this being in BHA's wheelhouse at all. I don't really see them or want them to be in on specific species management decisions.
RMEF on the other hand...
I would argue it's super relevant to public land hunters in Montana (that happen to pursue elk). Agree RMEF makes sense also.
shoots-straight
Well-known member
All of this is so de zavou for me. The Bitterroot Valley largely had B//C ratio's of close to 25/100 in General hunt areas. This was achieved because we had an A-7 cow tag that made those wishing to kill cows excluded from hunting bulls. They usually got a late season elk hunt of a weekend or two when the big Elk herds migrated down. Cow tags were a high success and low effort tag, and it saved bulls. The department hated it because of the paperwork involved with it. Because it was a drawn tag, you had to do some planning, and if there was a deep snow you didn't get the influx of hunters from the whole state looking for easy elk.
Yes is was a type of shoulder season but it worked because it targeted the elk that migrated here and not our local elk. It was also held on public lands. Cow Elk died, but not in the free for all fashion that happens today in Either sex seasons, nor the all season shoulder seasons. I'd like to point out that late seasons can be effective and aren't all bad.
For a decade hunting was really good. Then came the bill that Fin posted and the ELk wars began.. 5900 head of elk were killed in the upper Root in 5 years if memory serves me. Not wolves, not lions, not bears but humans reduced the elk in areas of high Apex predation. Then because of this high predator populations our herds plummeted. We still haven't got the Elk population up in the West Fork of the Root but have been working on it with LE bulls tags and a few cow. The Departments patience is getting thin on returning those populations back to pre slaughter conditions and are pressuring us to reduce the Elk objective on this largely public lands hunting district. I see this same situation playing out East of here now. Not every area will fall like the West Fork, but some will. Then hunting pressure will rise in adjacent hunting areas.
Tjones sent out the information afforded to us from page 55 of the current EMP to all our sportsmen s groups around the state to prepare for HB 42 back in 2005 and never got a single response back. When times are good sportsmen become complacent and don't pay much attention about the cards around them falling down.
I complained on this forum back in in those days and received some criticisms about my whining. I told everyone I could communicate with that this war on Elk was coming to a Hunting district near you in the near future. I wasn't taken very seriously at the time by the group. Sense then I believe many of the old guard figured it out and saw the light. Statewide though it wasn't in many discussions. I personally called our biggest sportsmens advocates to get them on board and most if not all of them met my information with great skepticism. Boy I wish we had been wrong!!!
We Formed Montana Sportsmen's Alliance PAC out of the continual attacks on wildlife and sportsmen coming out of those Helena bills, and for the most part sportsmen responded. We haven't been prefect but we are one of the ways sportsmen can support good legislators in Montana. Other organizations have with full time Execs have responded and are working hard to fix some of this mess. Others not so much. We are a rag tag group of some really great minds, (mine not included), and some really good expertise on most of these subjects.
We reluctantly supported the Shoulder seasons with the conditions of revisiting them before any expansions took place to see if they did what the Department was claiming they would. We also stipulated that they were not to be utilized for the long term.
All I can say is get involved let your voice be as loud as the landowners, and vote accordingly. Look for sportsmen friendly legislators.
Sorry about the long winded rant.
www.montanasportsmenalliance.com
Yes is was a type of shoulder season but it worked because it targeted the elk that migrated here and not our local elk. It was also held on public lands. Cow Elk died, but not in the free for all fashion that happens today in Either sex seasons, nor the all season shoulder seasons. I'd like to point out that late seasons can be effective and aren't all bad.
For a decade hunting was really good. Then came the bill that Fin posted and the ELk wars began.. 5900 head of elk were killed in the upper Root in 5 years if memory serves me. Not wolves, not lions, not bears but humans reduced the elk in areas of high Apex predation. Then because of this high predator populations our herds plummeted. We still haven't got the Elk population up in the West Fork of the Root but have been working on it with LE bulls tags and a few cow. The Departments patience is getting thin on returning those populations back to pre slaughter conditions and are pressuring us to reduce the Elk objective on this largely public lands hunting district. I see this same situation playing out East of here now. Not every area will fall like the West Fork, but some will. Then hunting pressure will rise in adjacent hunting areas.
Tjones sent out the information afforded to us from page 55 of the current EMP to all our sportsmen s groups around the state to prepare for HB 42 back in 2005 and never got a single response back. When times are good sportsmen become complacent and don't pay much attention about the cards around them falling down.
I complained on this forum back in in those days and received some criticisms about my whining. I told everyone I could communicate with that this war on Elk was coming to a Hunting district near you in the near future. I wasn't taken very seriously at the time by the group. Sense then I believe many of the old guard figured it out and saw the light. Statewide though it wasn't in many discussions. I personally called our biggest sportsmens advocates to get them on board and most if not all of them met my information with great skepticism. Boy I wish we had been wrong!!!
We Formed Montana Sportsmen's Alliance PAC out of the continual attacks on wildlife and sportsmen coming out of those Helena bills, and for the most part sportsmen responded. We haven't been prefect but we are one of the ways sportsmen can support good legislators in Montana. Other organizations have with full time Execs have responded and are working hard to fix some of this mess. Others not so much. We are a rag tag group of some really great minds, (mine not included), and some really good expertise on most of these subjects.
We reluctantly supported the Shoulder seasons with the conditions of revisiting them before any expansions took place to see if they did what the Department was claiming they would. We also stipulated that they were not to be utilized for the long term.
All I can say is get involved let your voice be as loud as the landowners, and vote accordingly. Look for sportsmen friendly legislators.
Sorry about the long winded rant.
Montana Sportsmen Alliance
Montana Sportsmen Alliance - A Voice of Reason on Montana Fish and Wildlife Issues
Schaaf
Well-known member
Buy a lot of land?
Gerald Martin
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2009
- Messages
- 8,643
I already own 30 million acres in MT. How much more do I need until my views on our elk are considered?
Badger_55
Active member
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2016
- Messages
- 311
I wouldn't either. Would not feel good about it for one second.
I have been off the forums for little bit and just catching up, holy crap how is this happening in my back yard and didn't know anything about it. I am so frustrated and disappointed in the situation I don't even know where to start. There will certainly be some emails wrote up and also some phone calls made in the near future..... wow, just wow
Those phone calls and emails may bit a bit late...
for this year yes, but they need to hear our voice to make them reconsider making a decision like this again in the future
I’m obviously an outlier on this topic but I’m not really upset about this hunt. Public hunters got to participate in a quality hunt. A lot of people assume they drove up and shot them out of the haystack but nobody really knows that to be true. I spoke with the biologist in question a little this morning and she had some good insight.
She reached out to 80 tag holders about this hunt. 50 had already filled their tag and 70% of those had filled their tag during the general season on the ranchers enrolled in this hunt
2 people were able harvest their first elk and one person was not able to hunt during the general season due to chemo treatments. They quite possibly harvested their last elk on this hunt...
Ranches that did not allow free public access during the general season were not eligle for the damage hunt (I was told that is actually state law)
If one of the ranches involved does not fence their haystack this coming year, they will not be eligle for damage hunts moving forward
The horse ranch has allowed about 100 cows to be taken by public hunters the last three years but that was not enough to be allowed into the damage hunt.
The point of me posting this is make guys take a step back and look at the other side. I would love to see our elk numbers doubled across the state but that’s not always feasible. No doubt things could be done differently but I don’t see this particular issue as the end of the world. I know people see it as a downward trend but I feel like there is a lot of false information spewed across the interwebs. I was sent a video of a herd of bulls crossing the road in the area in question, and it was easily 200 bulls. I tried getting it to post on here but didn’t have any luck. I’m sure I’ll get roasted for this but so be it...
She reached out to 80 tag holders about this hunt. 50 had already filled their tag and 70% of those had filled their tag during the general season on the ranchers enrolled in this hunt
2 people were able harvest their first elk and one person was not able to hunt during the general season due to chemo treatments. They quite possibly harvested their last elk on this hunt...
Ranches that did not allow free public access during the general season were not eligle for the damage hunt (I was told that is actually state law)
If one of the ranches involved does not fence their haystack this coming year, they will not be eligle for damage hunts moving forward
The horse ranch has allowed about 100 cows to be taken by public hunters the last three years but that was not enough to be allowed into the damage hunt.
The point of me posting this is make guys take a step back and look at the other side. I would love to see our elk numbers doubled across the state but that’s not always feasible. No doubt things could be done differently but I don’t see this particular issue as the end of the world. I know people see it as a downward trend but I feel like there is a lot of false information spewed across the interwebs. I was sent a video of a herd of bulls crossing the road in the area in question, and it was easily 200 bulls. I tried getting it to post on here but didn’t have any luck. I’m sure I’ll get roasted for this but so be it...
Last edited:
You are definitely not in the minority with these opinions.
