MT Shoulder Hunts

[RobG]

I'm not sure what/who exactly you are referencing, I must have missed it in another thread.

I will say this. Trophy hunters are hard to please. I'm not going to take a guys success on 350 bulls as the end-all analysis of the current state of elk in MT.

I'm not saying it's great hunting for elk right now, but just because one particular hunter didn't tag out, I'm not going to form an opinion.

- I was walking in 4 inches of snow at 9000' on the last weekend of the season. It was the worse conditions I've ever seen... success rate was really poor this year. The elk were scattered in small groups in timber and without snow you couldn't track them or stay silent.

- MT is required by law to get the elk numbers down. This is to reduce rancher's losses, not because the there isn't enough elk habitat. But it is the law so we need to find a way to do it that will best protect our public land elk.

- In general hunting is way better now than when I was a kid here 30-40 years ago, but places changes and some areas have been hit hard. On the other hand, many of these shoulder seasons are in areas that hardly had any elk 30 years ago.

- If we are going to continue to have quality hunting we are going to need good relations with the ranching community. They provide much of our hunting grounds and wintering habitat for most species. If the only thing you can do is throw a crybaby tantrum try to shut up; it is only making things worse.

- The shoulder seasons in some districts in region 4 (e.g. 411) indicate "not valid on National Forests." That may be true in other districts.

 

[tjones]

And it was the ranching community that pushed for Barrett's House Bill to reduce elk numbers regardless of were they live to objective numbers picked to be socially accepted and rancher friendly.

 

[The Hedgehog]

And it was the ranching community that pushed for Barrett's House Bill to reduce elk numbers regardless of were they live to objective numbers picked to be socially accepted and rancher friendly.

Tjones with the win.

Elk hunting in MT on private land is better than ever. Elk hunting on public in western MT is suffering due to the above, and the fact that elk are learning to avoid a constant barrage of being hunted by man and predators, they're best off just staying out of the national forest which is what's happening.

I remember about 6-7 years back Tjones and his buddy Robert, whining about the elk management and changes in the bitterroot - and telling me it was heading my way. I laughed then, but it's not so funny now. Things have changed a ton and there's no good solution even being considered.

If the most acceptable solution is to kill wintering elk to assist the friendly ranching community who helped get us here, count me out.

 

[BuzzH]

Not being a smart ass, as I am genuinely curious as to what you think would improve elk hunting in Montana? If you were the Elk Czar, what would you do?

1. I would manage elk on OBSERVED numbers, no more, "we flew on a bad day, there must have been hiding in the trees" bullchit. No more population estimates.

2. Mandatory harvest reporting, you don't report, you don't get a tag next year...no exceptions.

3. Archery season would be the month of September. Elk need a break so no rifle or archery in the month of October...deal with it.

4. Rifle season would be the month of November. No season extensions, I don't give a shit what the weather was like.

5. All cow permits would only be valid on private land and tightly controlled.

6. The EMP would be revisited and landowner tolerance of elk would be a consideration, but not the driving force for herd numbers.

7. FWP would determine forage potential and carrying capacity for every elk unit in Montana.

8. Any landowner complaining about elk damage would be required to allow public hunting, administered via a drawing and hunter numbers determined by the Dept. and Landowner. If they allow no public hunting...don't waste your time calling. Not interested in your problem.

9. Manage for a minimum of 18 bulls per 100 cows post harvest in all general areas. Limited quota areas, no less than 30 bulls per 100 cows. If that isn't being maintained shorten archery and rifle seasons until that goal is achieved. If that means one week of archery and 3 days of rifle season, so be it.

Those are the things I would start with if the goal is to get some quality elk hunting back. But, there is this misconception that there must be perfect weather and 77 days needed for a Montana elk hunter to find success. The reason for that, is because the elk hunting sucks in Montana, its not the weather. What good is "opportunity" when you spend day after day seeing no elk?

I have never rifle hunted a general unit, not one single day, that I couldn't have killed a legal elk in Wyoming...ever. Rain, snow, fog, hot, cold, windy, calm, etc. etc.

Sure cant say that about elk hunting in Montana....

 

[jlmatthew]

Would sure like to see BuzzH's plan implemented in Colorado. I absolutely hate how hunting is done here. Short crowded seasons is what I tell most folks I meet that ask about hunting Colorado. Sad when they claim we have all these elk, yet guys at work go to states that have less to bag their elk

 

[Carnage2011]

Damn. That's a prettt solid plan.

 

[----]

I saw more bulls in six days of hunting in Wyoming this year than I have the last five years hunting Montana. It's a night and day difference.

 

[kingderek]

I can get behind what BuzzH suggests. Not to drive this way off the rails, but I'd add a #10 to address how the landowner preference deal is administered, particularly in special draw areas.

 

[tjones]

Montana's way to deal with low bull/cow ratio's is to kill more cows.

 

[2ski]

8. Any landowner complaining about elk damage would be required to allow public hunting, administered via a drawing and hunter numbers determined by the Dept. and Landowner. If they allow no public hunting...don't waste your time calling. Not interested in your problem.

This. The shoulder season should be called the "We ranchers want to have our cake and eat it" season. In my opinion, if you charge people to come on your land and shoot bull elk, then you lose the ability to whine about elk damage when the season ends. That's what the shoulder season is. Ranchers want to make money outfitting their land during the season, but then we bring in the shoulder season to negate their crop losses. Make them manage their own property. Open up the last week of the season to cow hunters. I'm good with that. But now they are getting the state to come bail them out because they were treating elk like their own property. So then after the season, all the hunters come out and push the elk off private property back onto FS land. Win win for the landowner....lose lose for the public land hunter.

 

[Deleted member 18333]

3. Archery season would be the month of September. Elk need a break so no rifle or archery in the month of October...deal with it.

4. Rifle season would be the month of November. No season extensions, I don't give a shit what the weather was like.

I agree with all your points above, but I wonder if it would even require that many new management points to change thing's around. As far as I understand Wyoming only follows 2 or 3 of those points in it's management of elk units. Western Wyoming gen areas open for archery Sept 1. Then open for rifle, usually any elk on Sept 25, Oct 1 or Oct 15 depending on the unit. Then many of them stay open for cows only starting on Nov. 1 running through the middle of the month. Then after that the additional cow calf tags continue on for weeks. That's at least 76 days of continuous pressure. We cant seem to kill enough elk on the Western side of Wyoming. Populations are doing great. I hunt general areas and can also pick up additional cow/calf tags for those same areas. We have wolves, grizz, private property sanctuaries, everything Montana hunters have to contend with. I cant help but wonder if you did even a few of those things, like 6, 7 and 9, that Montana could keep the longer season.

While I must admit I have hunted at least one day without seeing an elk in a general unit in Wyoming, I have gotten to the point for the last 5 or so years that I fill my cow tag then only use my gen tag on a mature 6 point bull. I am batting 1.000 on cows and over .500 on bulls in that timeframe. I am a firm believer that if a person did not fill their gen elk tag in Wyoming it was because they really didn't want to and not because the elk weren't there. It amazes me how much difference exists between Wyoming and Montana at this point. It is sad to see. I hunted Montana elk once in 2000, IIRC, in a general area in SW Montana. It took a total of one evening to connect on what was my first 6 point bull. Over the last 10 years hunting gen areas in Western Wyo I pass bulls like that every year looking for something bigger.

 

[Drake4]

Montana's FWP Director just announced his retirement. I officially nominate Buzz. I'll pay your moving expenses.
100% agree with your plan.

 

[300stw]

it appears Buzz would like to see common sense applied to elk management,,,, probably not gonna happen the way game management is looked at in Montana,,,,, sad to say,,,,
I second the motion,,,,

 

[kingderek]

it appears Buzz would like to see common sense applied to elk management,,,, probably not gonna happen the way game management is looked at in Montana,,,,, sad to say,,,,
I second the motion,,,,

I agree with this--my office is one block up from FWP headquarters. Although there are undoubtedly good folks who work there (like with my agency), if the general workforce is anything similar to mine (from the top down), I wouldn't expect positive change. Doesn't mean we don't push for it--just means that when advocating for change, we'll encounter a whole lot more checkers players rather than chess players over there.

 

[HighWildFree]

Thanks for that Buzz,

I guess I'm not clear on what you mean by observed elk. There's no way you can count every elk in a unit, that's why they have population estimates. Now every pop estimate and model is wrong in some way. Are you saying that if they fly over winter range and only see 2 bulls and 20 cows regardless of weather or or limiting conditions that they should assume that there are only 25 elk in that unit with a bull:cow ratio of 10:100?

I think those are all good ideas, but I don't think it addresses the biggest issue and that is the private/public/harboring issue we're facing. Shorter seasons don't really matter if the elk are on private after the first weekend. Basically we need to make private less desirable than public. Only ways I see of doing that are liberalized private land seasons, managing for wildlife on public lands, and limiting public land pressure.

I do believe we are kidding ourselves that we can run the same type of management that we have been. Montana is changing rapidly and there are a lot of heads in the sand. It's not the 1980s anymore.

 

[JLS]

1. I would manage elk on OBSERVED numbers, no more, "we flew on a bad day, there must have been hiding in the trees" bullchit. No more population estimates.

2. Mandatory harvest reporting, you don't report, you don't get a tag next year...no exceptions.

3. Archery season would be the month of September. Elk need a break so no rifle or archery in the month of October...deal with it.

4. Rifle season would be the month of November. No season extensions, I don't give a shit what the weather was like.

5. All cow permits would only be valid on private land and tightly controlled.

6. The EMP would be revisited and landowner tolerance of elk would be a consideration, but not the driving force for herd numbers.

7. FWP would determine forage potential and carrying capacity for every elk unit in Montana.

8. Any landowner complaining about elk damage would be required to allow public hunting, administered via a drawing and hunter numbers determined by the Dept. and Landowner. If they allow no public hunting...don't waste your time calling. Not interested in your problem.

9. Manage for a minimum of 18 bulls per 100 cows post harvest in all general areas. Limited quota areas, no less than 30 bulls per 100 cows. If that isn't being maintained shorten archery and rifle seasons until that goal is achieved. If that means one week of archery and 3 days of rifle season, so be it.

Those are the things I would start with if the goal is to get some quality elk hunting back. But, there is this misconception that there must be perfect weather and 77 days needed for a Montana elk hunter to find success. The reason for that, is because the elk hunting sucks in Montana, its not the weather. What good is "opportunity" when you spend day after day seeing no elk?

I have never rifle hunted a general unit, not one single day, that I couldn't have killed a legal elk in Wyoming...ever. Rain, snow, fog, hot, cold, windy, calm, etc. etc.

Sure cant say that about elk hunting in Montana....

Drops the mic and cartwheels off the stage...

 

[jryoung]

Buzz, making elk hunting in Montana great again.

 

[JLS]

Buzz, making elk hunting in Montana great again.

LOL, order up the red trucker hats.

 

[RobG]

1. I would manage elk on OBSERVED numbers, no more, "we flew on a bad day, there must have been hiding in the trees" bullchit. No more population estimates.

There is a small amount of validity here, but all counts are estimates Buzz. Many districts are 2-3 times objective, and even if you miss half of them you have proven you are over objective so your idea doesn't help at all.

2. Mandatory harvest reporting, you don't report, you don't get a tag next year...no exceptions.

Waste of time unless you just want to make people who don't understand statistics feel better. In addition to not adding accuracy, it isn't the data you need. What you are really interested in is the number of elk and harvest data doesn't include more important things like winter kill and predation.

3. Archery season would be the month of September. Elk need a break so no rifle or archery in the month of October...deal with it.

4. Rifle season would be the month of November. No season extensions, I don't give a shit what the weather was like.

Hello? Hello? Earth to Buzz. That sounds good to people who want to increase the amount of elk on the landscape. Unfortunately that is against the law right now...

5. All cow permits would only be valid on private land and tightly controlled.

Good point, this is done in some areas. We convinced the bio to do it in 393 on the premise that the hunting pressure was just teaching the elk to move to private land where they weren't hunted. With a few exceptions, shoulder hunts are on private land for the same reason.

6. The EMP would be revisited and landowner tolerance of elk would be a consideration, but not the driving force for herd numbers.

You forgot to wave your magic wand first so this would happen. Second magic wand requirement would be to prevent the legislators from making it even worse!

7. FWP would determine forage potential and carrying capacity for every elk unit in Montana.

Again, worthless without the magic wand to manage based on that criteria.

8. Any landowner complaining about elk damage would be required to allow public hunting, administered via a drawing and hunter numbers determined by the Dept. and Landowner. If they allow no public hunting...don't waste your time calling. Not interested in your problem.

Actually, landowners are required by law to allow some public hunting if they want to receive game damage assistance. FWP tried that for a long, long time. Unfortunately, the game damage hunts (and related hunts) aren't working. The hunters don't get enough notice or are assigned lands they don't know. Many can't shoot or are too out of shape. They are expecting a real easy hunt and they give up when they find out it isn't that easy. All it is doing is frustrating the landowners because it isn't doing what it is supposed to be doing. The shoulder seasons were forced on FWP and were basically a message to folks like Buzz: "We've been trying it your way for a decade; it isn't working; f*ck off, we don't need your cooperation."

9. Manage for a minimum of 18 bulls per 100 cows post harvest in all general areas. Limited quota areas, no less than 30 bulls per 100 cows. If that isn't being maintained shorten archery and rifle seasons until that goal is achieved. If that means one week of archery and 3 days of rifle season, so be it.

Sure, but hunters here don't seem to want that... FWP has required permits to hunt some areas such as 310 to lessen the pressure.

Those are the things I would start with if the goal is to get some quality elk hunting back. But, there is this misconception that there must be perfect weather and 77 days needed for a Montana elk hunter to find success. The reason for that, is because the elk hunting sucks in Montana, its not the weather. What good is "opportunity" when you spend day after day seeing no elk?

I have never rifle hunted a general unit, not one single day, that I couldn't have killed a legal elk in Wyoming...ever. Rain, snow, fog, hot, cold, windy, calm, etc. etc.

Sure cant say that about elk hunting in Montana....

Wyoming uses the feed grounds to keep the elk away from ranchers. Shall we start doing that?

The solutions you propose are hardly new, golly gee, lets just stop killing all the elk. But the part of your plan that is missing is how you are going to change the population to make your plans acceptable to the legislature. Until you do that you are just whining because you can't get what you want, i.e. being a crybaby.

 

[tjones]

Actually Rob the current EMP calls for the use of observed numbers for managing elk. Problem is FWP doesn't follow it. The claim is it's just a plan and there is no mandate to HAVE to follow it. One of many places the train leaves the tracks.

Buzz's suggestion of only using observed numbers may not help the over objective HD's but does comes into play in the many under objective HD's where bios go with gut feelings to maintain hunter opportunity.