MT shoulder season decision...

[The Hedgehog]

It seems MT is steering wildlife "management" to cater to the needs of the privileged, completely at the expense of the minions who enjoy hunting on public land. It's surprising to me that so many people are happy to eat a turd sandwich.

I guess we're expected to be thankful to be granted the possible "opportunity" to kill antlerless animals, a good deed in the name of "management" and taking care of these "over-objective" elk herds, and flourishing scads of mule deer does that are eating ranchers out of house and home.

 

[antlerradar]

I don't think we should over look the effect this could have on deer. Hunters can now spend the entire 5 week season hunting deer and fill the freezer with a cow early or late during the shoulder season. There will be more pressure on deer during the general season. I can hope that additional pressure on deer will be limited but the deer herd can't take any more.

 

[Rat Fink]

I guess my FB post about the RMEF extolling the virtues of a wholesale slaughter of our elk herds touched a nerve. Thanks to all of you that are concerned for the resource and letting them know it. I know I couldn't just let it go.

 

[Big Foot]

Keep it up Rat Fink! I called RMEF today and had a pleasant conversation with Mark L. I get the bind RMEF is in, but still do not see how this will benefit elk or sportsman in the long run.

My only take away from the last few days is that the "squeaky wheel" gets the grease. So keep up the squeaking and maybe we can get a little grease.

 

[Big Foot]

Get used to seeing photos like this if these seasons continue as proposed:

http://nextbukoutdoors.com/cms/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/2014-12-06-09.53.46.jpg

I see this as anti hunter bait to beat sportsman over the head with not to mention the shitty feeling one must have while field dressing a cow.

 

[mtmiller]

Keep it up Rat Fink! I called RMEF today and had a pleasant conversation with Mark L. I get the bind RMEF is in, but still do not see how this will benefit elk or sportsman in the long run.

Why the "bind". Were they required to participate in the commision hearing?

 

[Big Fin]

Why the "bind". Were they required to participate in the commision hearing?

Not sure if "bind" is the right word. RMEF is often drawn into topics that have some divisiveness. Comes with the territory of trying to advocate for 210,000 different members from different places, all of whom love elk.

No, RMEF is not required to participate in Commission hearings. Does the Department, and often individual Commissioners, ask RMEF for input? Yes.

The other option is to stand on the sidelines, which sometimes is warranted. Yet, standing on the sidelines, however safe from a public criticism standpoint, is not leading. My vote is to lead, even if leading sometimes puts a target on one's back.

I can say that RMEF has some of the best staff I know. They make decisions on these topics based on their best professional judgement, what is inline with our mission, and reflects the huge cross-section of our membership, from trophy hunters to meat hunters to backpack hunters to ........

 

[TheTone]

Welcome to parts of Idaho; where I live we start hunting elk on August 1 and don't stop until the end of January. All to appease a few farmers that think growing legumes around forests with elk in them is a good idea. It stinks and you guys are pretty much nailing it with what to expect.

 

[Big Foot]

Sorry, the term "Bind" is my own inference. However, I believe the pro shoulder season members of RMEF sounded off louder than those in opposition. I hope this will light a fire under those in opposition and change this stance.

 

[Nameless Range]

It seems MT is steering wildlife "management" to cater to the needs of the privileged, completely at the expense of the minions who enjoy hunting on public land. It's surprising to me that so many people are happy to eat a turd sandwich.

I guess we're expected to be thankful to be granted the possible "opportunity" to kill antlerless animals, a good deed in the name of "management" and taking care of these "over-objective" elk herds, and flourishing scads of mule deer does that are eating ranchers out of house and home.

This sums it up

 

[RobG]

Does anyone know where to get a copy of the testimony that was given?

 

[mtmiller]

No, RMEF is not required to participate in Commission hearings. Does the Department, and often individual Commissioners, ask RMEF for input? Yes.

The other option is to stand on the sidelines, which sometimes is warranted. Yet, standing on the sidelines, however safe from a public criticism standpoint, is not leading. My vote is to lead, even if leading sometimes puts a target on one's back.

I can say that RMEF has some of the best staff I know. They make decisions on these topics based on their best professional judgement, what is inline with our mission, and reflects the huge cross-section of our membership, from trophy hunters to meat hunters to backpack hunters to ........

Randy, I agree, great to have an organization that does not play it safe and sit on the sidelines. Do you know, in this case, was RMEF invited to participate in the Commision hearings? By whom?

I had to go back and read the RMEF mission statement.
The mission of the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation is to ensure the future of elk, other wildlife, their habitat and our hunting heritage.

In support of our mission, the RMEF is committed to: conserving, restoring and enhancing natural habitats; promoting the sound management of wild elk, which may be hunted or otherwise enjoyed; restoring elk to their native ranges; and educating members and the public about habitat conservation and our hunting heritage.

In my opinion, RMEF endorsing a widespread shoulder seasons does not match the mission statement. I am sure some will disagree, but that is my opinion.

I am in a small box. Most everyone I am hearing from is not in favor of the shoulder seasons as currently porposed. Apparently that is not the case and not what RMEF is hearing?

Anyway, I have the highest respect for you Randy. Just throwing out my opinions and I also understand we won't always get "all of " Randy's opinion.

 

[Big Foot]

I must be in the same small box as mtmiller as I have spoken with few who support the shoulder seasons.

By the way Randy, I have the utmost respect for you and credit you and this site for much of what I know about hunting and wildlife management so Thank You!

 

[MT_elk]

I encourage everyone to submit their comments.
See this thread:
http://onyourownadventures.com/hunttalk/showthread.php?t=266371

 

[Big Foot]

^^ Agree^^

Headed to a dinner party but will post a response later. Here is a chance to make a difference.

Also write FWP Commissioners, RMEF, MSA and others.

 

[Big Fin]

Randy, I agree, great to have an organization that does not play it safe and sit on the sidelines. Do you know, in this case, was RMEF invited to participate in the Commision hearings? By whom?

I do not know.

I had to go back and read the RMEF mission statement.
The mission of the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation is to ensure the future of elk, other wildlife, their habitat and our hunting heritage.

In support of our mission, the RMEF is committed to: conserving, restoring and enhancing natural habitats; promoting the sound management of wild elk, which may be hunted or otherwise enjoyed; restoring elk to their native ranges; and educating members and the public about habitat conservation and our hunting heritage.

In my opinion, RMEF endorsing a widespread shoulder seasons does not match the mission statement. I am sure some will disagree, but that is my opinion.

I am sure if a sliding scale was provided that ranged from "strongly agree" to "strongly disagree" there would be opinions that are all along that spectrum, with the normal bell curve pattern peaking smewhere. Where that bell curve of support/disagreement would peak, I don't know.

But, going all the way back to when some of this was proposed in the 2015 legislature, the feedback from RMEF members and volunteers WHO TOOK THE TIME TO CONTACT HQ was far more in favor of expanded seasons and expanded opportunity.

Yet, it is not merely member/volunteer feedback that forms RMEF positions. We have trained biologists on staff who interact with agency personnel from all the state agencies. We have people who are involved in the policy side. We have key volunteers who are involved in the policy side. All that is weighed in the context of what these very experienced and professional minds decide is within our mission, best for elk, other wildlife, their habitat, and our hunting heritage.

With most any point of argument I have read, there is a counter point that can be made on herd health, habitat health, and hunting opportunity. An agency sending out such a proposal is going to advocate the reasons they feel it is a better alternative than the status quo. The job of RMEF staff is to consider all of that and guide policy.

I can say that for anyone to imply that these decisions are made for financial purposes is way off base. I have sat in and watched some of these higher-level policy positions be formed, with this issue not being what I would term a high policy decision that the Board policy committee will weigh in on. I've been on the policy committee since early 2012. I've never seen/heard finances enter the conversations in any of the position statements that involve the Board policy committee. And I am confident and comfortable that the position statements formed by senior staff do not place any emphasis on financial considerations.

When folks do make the implication that we on the RMEF Board worry about the financial outcomes of our policies we give to staff for our guiding principles, they lose a lot of respect with me. To me, those making such claims look to be grasping for straws to make a dramatic claim that further divides the discussion among those with supposed honorable motives and those who are somehow tainted in their motives. And, they do so to make sure they look honorable and anyone with a slightly different opinion is somehow tainted. I've seen become very pervasive in the attack strategy used in MT political/policy discussions. Maybe that just comes with the territory of being on the inside and getting to watch some of the bigger policy discussions occur.

I am in a small box. Most everyone I am hearing from is not in favor of the shoulder seasons as currently porposed. Apparently that is not the case and not what RMEF is hearing?

That is not what RMEF staff is hearing/has heard from members and volunteers, though some did contact RMEF as being opposed. Probably answered some of that above.

 

[Nameless Range]

Thanks for the explanation Randy. I appreciate all that you do and understand no decision will make every one happy.

Aside from RMEF member feedback and landowner/legislative relations, I am looking forward to reading the other arguments RMEF accepts in support of hunting elk 6 months out of the year. Specifically the biological ones that take into consideration a long term look at hunting elk in Montana.

Will they be releasing a position statement including these?. I think it is warranted, because from my admittedly limited point of view, the opposition to shoulder seasons here on HuntTalk seems to be fair and make a lot of sense. A lot of sense.

 

[Big Fin]

Thanks for the explanation Randy. I appreciate all that you do and understand no decision will make every one happy.

Aside from RMEF member feedback and landowner/legislative relations, I am looking forward to reading the other arguments RMEF accepts in support of hunting elk 6 months out of the year. Specifically the biological ones that take into consideration a long term look at hunting elk in Montana.

Will they be releasing a position statement including these?. I think it is warranted, because from my admittedly limited point of view, the opposition to shoulder seasons here on HuntTalk seems to be fair and make a lot of sense. A lot of sense.

I can give you plenty of reasons that have been thrown out there for why you hunt elk before our current season and why you would hunt them after season until February 28th. I provide these not as any support for/against, but to illustrate that the Department can provide a lot of reasons for an action.

I'm not saying I agree with any/some/all of them, but here are some that can be made.

Early seasons, as Nevada has, result in a more efficient rut. No sense in bulls going through the hassle of breeding cows that are going to get shot in post-rut cow seasons.

Early seasons can result in better dispersal of elk. Dispersal helping relieve premature grazing pressure on elk habituated to stay near winter range year-round. Dispersal can move elk to areas where they are more accessible to hunters.

Early season can have a bigger impact on reducing crop damage, given crops are often not yet harvested.

Late seasons result in more effectiveness in harvest. Success rates are higher in late seasons.

Late seasons can help with dispersal in areas where brucellosis is a concern.

Late seasons can help landowners who allow public hunting, but have no elk during the regular season when elk take refuge on a closed non-hunted neighbor. His open property provides no help during the regular season and the closed season provides him no relief when the elk flood him in winter.​

Those are just a few of the many reasons that are given to support expanded seasons. Like I said, none of those are necessarily something I would go to bat for. And some I might buy into. Point I am trying to make is that this issue has a lot of "biological" arguments that people will roll out as valid reasoning for their position; a position we may/may not agree with.

And whether we agree or not, there is a segment of the hunting public that loves extended seasons for the additional hunting opportunity it provides. Not all elk hunters share the elk hunting view of the average dude on Hunt Talk.

I have no idea if RMEF will issue a statement on any of this. That will be up to senior staff.

 

[mtmiller]

My thoughts.

Early seasons, as Nevada has, result in a more efficient rut. No sense in bulls going through the hassle of breeding cows that are going to get shot in post-rut cow seasons.
The same argument can be made that cows successfully bred will be killed in February.

Early seasons can result in better dispersal of elk. Dispersal helping relieve premature grazing pressure on elk habituated to stay near winter range year-round. Dispersal can move elk to areas where they are more accessible to hunters.
If there is a crop damage issue and public hunting is allowed on these lands, the response is/was already in place.

Early season can have a bigger impact on reducing crop damage, given crops are often not yet harvested.
There are many ways to remove elk from from damaging crops early season, one would be allowing public hunting during a legal season to reduce numbers. Spending money to deter elk during this time is also an option, as well as a very limit hunter opportunity decided by random hunters and not those selected by the landowner.

Late seasons result in more effectiveness in harvest. Success rates are higher in late seasons.
Agreed, killing/harassing wildlife on winter range is very effective. To continuously "move" large numbers of elk on winter habitat is not "sound management" in my opinion.

Late seasons can help with dispersal in areas where brucellosis is a concern.
I do believe brucellosis may be an issue in the future due to feeding grounds hundreds of miles from most of these proposed HD's. This proposal has nothing to do with brucellosis.

Late seasons can help landowners who allow public hunting, but have no elk during the regular season when elk take refuge on a closed non-hunted neighbor. His open property provides no help during the regular season and the closed season provides him no relief when the elk flood him in winter.​

This opportunity is already in the tool bag.


Like I said, none of those are necessarily something I would go to bat for. And some I might buy into. Point I am trying to make is that this issue has a lot of "biological" arguments that people will roll out as valid reasoning for their position; a position we may/may not agree with.

 

[RobG]

Randy - Like those people who contacted RMEF I support more opportunity but, as structured, the shoulder seasons will probably decrease opportunity since the hunt roster will be thrown out and the landowners' incentive to provide access has also been removed. (Plus in the long term it is designed to eliminate opportunity.)

If done properly it could have brought into play the ranchers who are willing to allow hunters on their place after the general season. A while back it was a legitimate opportunity for the average hunter to draw a tag on the flying D or the Sun Ranch. However, as far as I can tell there are no tags limited to specific ranches and the landowner isn't suddenly going to allow the general public on his land simply because the general season is over.