MT shoulder season decision...

[Rat Fink]

Wow that was a serious railroad job. Great representation by the FWP Commission of the privatization interests. Shoulder seasons coming to a district near you.

 

[katqanna]

To say that I am disappointed would be an understatement, I always have hope that people will advocate based on data and hard science, keep providing them with the data to stand up to the biopolitics, but sadly, they would rather capitulate to politics to appear to be doing something, rather than forcing FWP to use tools that are there and not being utilized.

I know that those tools do not help in every situation, like parts of the Devil's Kitchen, but to pass something that will work for a minority across the whole state and has great likelihood of abuse by the privatizers is extremely disconcerting.

There were several retired FWP, two previous FWP commissioners, speaking against, or major parts thereof, the proposal. They even brought up and quoted an even older FWP Commissioner Mulligan, whose statement was very similar to the one I sent to the Commissioners in my public comment, a quote from page 61 of the elk plan,

"Although FWP intends to manage elk within the framework of a 5-week general season, where game damage criteria apply, all EMUs have the option of special early seasons, an extended general season, or special late seasons. However, seasons outside the 5-week general season framework are not intended to be solutions where outfitting, other paid hunting, or land totally closed to hunters or with severely restricted access compromises general public access during the general 5-week season."

FWP cant even keep decent records to justify this, failed audits, there is not going to be proper oversight of this and now they have put the public in the position of having to monitor all their bloody shoulder season projects as they occur, like anyone wants to have to do that constantly for years.

I left before they voted on the elk shoulder season pilot projects, which I am going to assume they will pass, which will begin this year after the general season ends - HD's 312, 390, 391, 392, 393, 445, 446, 449 and 452. The season will run from Nov. 30th - Feb. 15, 2016. 410's will start Jan 1, 2016 to Feb. 15, 2016.

 

[RobG]

Wow that was a serious railroad job. Great representation by the FWP Commission of the privatization interests. Shoulder seasons coming to a district near you.

There will likely be some this fall, HD 393 etc.

 

[Rat Fink]

To say that I am disappointed would be an understatement, I always have hope that people will advocate based on data and hard science, keep providing them with the data to stand up to the biopolitics, but sadly, they would rather capitulate to politics to appear to be doing something, rather than forcing FWP to use tools that are there and not being utilized.

I know that those tools do not help in every situation, like parts of the Devil's Kitchen, but to pass something that will work for a minority across the whole state and has great likelihood of abuse by the privatizers is extremely disconcerting.

There were several retired FWP, two previous FWP commissioners, speaking against, or major parts thereof, the proposal. They even brought up and quoted an even older FWP Commissioner Mulligan, whose statement was very similar to the one I sent to the Commissioners in my public comment, a quote from page 61 of the elk plan,



FWP cant even keep decent records to justify this, failed audits, there is not going to be proper oversight of this and now they have put the public in the position of having to monitor all their bloody shoulder season projects as they occur, like anyone wants to have to do that constantly for years.

I left before they voted on the elk shoulder season pilot projects, which I am going to assume they will pass, which will begin this year after the general season ends - HD's 312, 390, 391, 392, 393, 445, 446, 449 and 452. The season will run from Nov. 30th - Feb. 15, 2016. 410's will start Jan 1, 2016 to Feb. 15, 2016.

The pilot projects did pass. Looking forward to one of my favorite hunting areas to go to shit. Yee haw.

 

[Nameless Range]

What horseshit.

Agreed Fink. One of those pilot areas has been good to me as well. If you follow FWP on Twitter and didn't know any better, you'd think they just solved a serious problem and are real happy with themselves.

Sportsmen have a conundrum. We are told we often don't get our way because we don't participate enough and show we care. But we also have strong evidence that the request for our input is superficial, and the game is rigged, thus reducing the perceived efficacy of participating in a system that is heavy on the pandering and light on the sincerity.

 

[RobG]

What horseshit.

Agreed Fink. One of those pilot areas has been good to me as well. If you follow FWP on Twitter and didn't know any better, you'd think they just solved a serious problem and are real happy with themselves.

Sportsmen have a conundrum. We are told we often don't get our way because we don't participate enough and show we care. But we also have strong evidence that the request for our input is superficial, and the game is rigged, thus reducing the perceived efficacy of participating in a system that is heavy on the pandering and light on the sincerity.

They are doing what the legislature told them to do. Sportsmen need to put some thought into who they vote for - that is where the participation needs to be.

With the criteria at least this is better than SB 245 and the original hunt proposal. It will get worse however if the folks keep voting the bad guys into office.

 

[katqanna]

I think this is a chipping away of ground the privatizers feel they lost in I143 and I161.

 

[----]

Quotes like- "I don't see how this will work, but I'm still voting in favor." And "Honestly, we haven't even considering it not passing" are disheartening to say the least.

Does anyone know who it was that spoke right before they voted, that threw Brenden under the bus and brought up LWCF? He brought up some good points about the legislature more or less forcing them into this situation.

Edit- I should've refreshed before posting. I agree with Rob that it ended up being much better than the first proposal. It is complete dog shit still though, and has the potential to evolve into something even more disgusting.

 

[RobG]

Does anyone know who it was that spoke right before they voted, that threw Brenden under the bus and brought up LWCF? He brought up some good points about the legislature more or less forcing them into this situation.

Do you mean Vermillion? He said something to that effect and mentioned that Brenden called hunters a bunch of hemorrhoids.

Wildlife manager Howard Burt said this was coming with or without the criteria so it is better than it could be.

 

[katqanna]

Brendan made that statement at the EQC on Sept. 9th and 10th after I spoke about access and I143 and I161, that they werent leaving us much choice but ballot initiatives. He grabbed the mic right after I spoke, like a tantrum, spoke about those being takings. In the two days I and others were there, making public comments on a number of subjects, Brendan was grabbing the mic to try and refute our comments and made his hemorrhoid comment.

Vermillion was the one talking about the cut off access on the east side of the Crazies by the landowners. One of those landowners is an outfitter on the board of outfitters. HD 580 listed as being over 200% over objective. I went out to document that area and took pictures of his access signs at the vanity arch at the top of the road. The landowners share keys to the locks at the gates, which is generally open during the summer, but come archery season, it is locked up.

How is this shoulder season going to take care of the intentional harboring issue involved here? It's about like their ignoring the cattle transmission of brucellosis in Paradise Valley. They are pinning it on the elk, to create an answer to their political problem, hard science be damned! When you capitulate to the Mafia shakedown, you are just going to get more of the same, not a better working relationship.

The first gate...

 

[JoeSchmo]

So it looks like right now it is basically a late season hunt (if I'm reading this right).... what is the proposal on an early season before/during archery going forward?

 

[RobG]

So it looks like right now it is basically a late season hunt (if I'm reading this right).... what is the proposal on an early season before/during archery going forward?

The guidance was to focus the early season hunting on private land. This might even encourage the elk to move onto public land where the archery hunters will have access to them so it might not be a bad thing.

Rifle game damage/management hunts are already going on so you can bet early shoulder seasons will be used.

Of course none of this matters if the elk simply move over to safe havens of private land that don't allow public hunting.

 

[JoeSchmo]

The guidance was to focus the early season hunting on private land. This might even encourage the elk to move onto public land where the archery hunters will have access to them so it might not be a bad thing.

Rifle game damage/management hunts are already going on so you can bet early shoulder seasons will be used.

Of course none of this matters if the elk simply move over to safe havens of private land that don't allow public hunting.

Thanks!! How many private land owners are really going to allow people to hunt on their land with this new shoulder season, anyway??? The number won't change..... Unless, yes, they are selling access... just like everyone (myself included) is worried about.

This will not solve the private land, no hunting, where elk are issue... not one bit.

 

[smithrmk]

simple question--give me one good alternative to reducing elk numbers on private land that doesn't involve opening up the private to every tom,dick and harry? Take into consideration all the money, time and resources a private landowners has to agree to if they open to anyone that wants access. I will give you my answer why a shoulder season has to happen, but not before i hear a good alternative.

 

[tjones]

simple question--give me one good alternative to reducing elk numbers on private land that doesn't involve opening up the private to every tom,dick and harry? Take into consideration all the money, time and resources a private landowners has to agree to if they open to anyone that wants access. I will give you my answer why a shoulder season has to happen, but not before i hear a good alternative.

If you have to ask you haven't been paying attention.

 

[The Hedgehog]

Just heard from a good source about a nice 6X6 bull elk that was recently gunned on a "management hunt" in an area open for this, not far from where I took my son archery hunting on a small piece of public land this September. Bull was taken on private land that allows zero public land hunting, and in a place where the elk numbers are damn low, all things considered. Damage? What a crock.

 

[RobG]

simple question--give me one good alternative to reducing elk numbers on private land that doesn't involve opening up the private to every tom,dick and harry? Take into consideration all the money, time and resources a private landowners has to agree to if they open to anyone that wants access. I will give you my answer why a shoulder season has to happen, but not before i hear a good alternative.

rmk - I have a lot of sympathy for the landowners who want more control of how many people are allowed on their land. In my opinion - and I doubt if my opinion is shared by very many people here - access during the general season shouldn't be a requirement as long as the general public is allowed during a late season through a non-discriminating process. Again, not many agree with me (and currently it isn't allowed by MT law). The landowner had pretty good control when hunt rosters or permits were used, but it can't just turn into a hunt where only his buddies or paying clients are allowed on the land (essentially what the shoulder hunt will become). The reason is they are getting a benefit if elk numbers are reduced but it comes at a cost to the general public who have less elk to hunt. In the past the public was compensated by being able to fill the freezer on lands that were essentially not available to him/her during the general season. Now the hunters are just getting the screws with less ability to hunt elk and the landowners have little incentive to increase access.

I will add that the guidelines do have conditions for public access before a shoulder hunt can occur, but they are starting the hunts before the criteria are even measured so I have no faith the guidelines will be followed.

As a practical matter, however, the requirements for help reducing elk damage are pretty loose. One guy simply outfitted all but the last week. Type 2 BMAs also give you good control. An audit found some weren't doing anything at all. Previous to 2006 or so you could get permits to hunt cows on the Flying D or Sun Ranch, etc which were basically off limits to most. I had no problem with that situation so that is my alternative. Now you can tell us why a shoulder season has to happen.

I'm heading out to get my 12 year old an antelope. Think about his future before you get to high on your horse on why we have to ruin our own elk hunting to appease ranchers who won't let us on their land even with limited controlled permits.

 

[BuzzH]

I've bought my last elk tag in Montana...don't like to be one to boycott a State over management concerns, but when there isn't even any elk management happening...there's really nothing left to lose.

I can no longer support the MTFWP when they pass shit like this and continue to wage war on elk.

How can the MTFWP actually look sportsmen in the eye and say "we're managing elk" with a 6 month season on them?

Its now official, the Montana FWP Department is nothing more than the Legislature/landowner/outfitter sock puppet they've been accused of being...they no longer care about wildlife or the average hunter. Written comments and public testimony do NOT matter.

I know it will do no good, but I am going to write one more letter to the Governor, MTFWP Director, and the Commission...and it wont be a nice letter...but will be the last one I ever write regarding wildlife in Montana.

I've defended the MTFWP for wayyy longer than I ever should have.

I've fought for higher fees, including opposed the various NR native licenses, etc. that I've taken advantage of. Frankly, the elk hunting "product" that Montana is producing right now isn't worth the $80 Native license fee. Further, why should I continue to financially support an agency that only gaffs hunters and the States wildlife at every corner...and caters to the whims of the legislature, landowners, and outfitters.

Let those that control the MTFWP, pay for that control.

They can also hand Jeff Hagener and Quentin Kujala their bonus checks for finally getting those grossly "over-objective" elk numbers under control...with a 6 month shoulder season.

Looking forward to the next MTFWP installment of "elk management" when they break out the napalm, poison, and apache attack helicopters...

 

[shoots-straight]

By the actions of this MTFW&P's commission you would get the feeling that we have been getting our asses handed to us at the legislative level. It's been far from that, and sportsman around the state have came forward to battle the bad bills down and very few legislators have decided to submit more of them. Last session it went downto around 50 from over 250 a few sessions ago. With this caving in to politics I actually think you'll see a spike in bills. They smell blood.

Our local club worked for over a year to change the objective numbers and cow/calf and bull/cow ratio's in some of the most popular districts in Ravalli County.

After public comments and several public meeting (that a wildlife division employee requested) we had our numbers and got over-whelming public support for them.

The wildlife division employee tossed out our numbers and all he said at the commission meeting on Thursday was we did not approve his changes but public comments wanted opportunity.

Only a few people all from the same family wanted something else, but still supported the numbers.

Your anger in shared, and we are not sure where we want to go from here. Supporting the Department will be hard to do anymore. Especially with the group that's in there now.

 

[katqanna]

Buzz, your letter to the Governor will get intercepted by Tim Bakers staff, who has been running interference between sportsmen and the Governor. He wont ever see it.

The audio links for this last commission meeting are not up on the webpage yet, but there are some quotes I want to transcribe so that sportsmen can see who is directing all this. My email to the Governors office in May, thanking him for his veto on SB245 received a canned response. It brings up "shoulder seasons" for the first time,

"The Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks (FWP) and the Commission understand the concerns over elk populations that are exceeding established objectives. They are also fully mindful that the current season structure has not been as effective as is necessary. In response to my mandate for improving landowner, agency, and sportsmen relationships, FWP has initiated a comprehensive effort to assess the current elk harvest tools available, to review and apply lessons from management experience and research to date, and to develop new and innovative tools to better address over objective populations. This ongoing constituent and landowner-based effort to identify better options (including “shoulder seasons” where appropriate) is the preferred method for reaching a full understanding of both public and landowner needs and expectations."

When some of the sportsmen and I met with Dir. Hagener after the EQC, he stated he was following the Governors direction. We tried to get a meeting set up with the Governor, but Baker ran interference, suggesting the Hagener meeting first. I am thinking that to make a point, being an election year and all, we start showing up at the Governors meetings, maybe with signs that the media cant ignore and such.

Your boycott is another good idea.