MT shoulder season decision...

[bigskyblueman]

Based on phony, made up elk objective numbers, the too many elk hoax continues. Not that it will do any good, FWP may want to read the Rathbone decision of 1940 for themselves, and then explain it to landowners constantly sobbing about our elk. Living in Montana means living with wildlife, not living free of wildlife, the Court established 75 years ago. http://www.emwh.org/pdf/conservation/Montana State v. Rathbone 1940.pdf

 

[katqanna]

It's really interesting, as I told the commission on the elk brucellosis portion of the meeting, that I had to delay that lawsuit because of the accident I had and not being able to remember/linear time/processing, but now that my head was pretty much fixed, I was getting back up on that horse. I have been reading back through documents and the lawsuit and noticed a number of things that I think are applicable to the elk shoulder season bs, for the same reasons that I pointed out to the attorneys before. Since I need to have the suit amended and include all the case history I found, especially pertaining to the commission, I am wondering if I can just roll this into it, since it is the same frickin thing, and an action has just been taken, on a statewide scale. Now would be the time to get this done before another wildlife hating legislature can muck with any other laws.

 

[Bugle 'Em In]

Not sure if anyone cares of what we have to say, but here is a link to comment on the shoulder season. Deadline is Nov 6th.

http://fwp.mt.gov/hunting/publicComments/2015/2015elkShoulderPilotProjects.html

 

[RobG]

Not sure if anyone cares of what we have to say, but here is a link to comment on the shoulder season. Deadline is Nov 6th.

http://fwp.mt.gov/hunting/publicComments/2015/2015elkShoulderPilotProjects.html

I'm not sure what to add to the 1000 comments already submitted. Maybe suggest that when bulls absolutely have to be hunted they have to be 5 points or less so it isn't an outfitting opportunity. I haven't heard anything like that suggested.

 

[katqanna]

Not sure if anyone cares of what we have to say, but here is a link to comment on the shoulder season. Deadline is Nov 6th.

http://fwp.mt.gov/hunting/publicComments/2015/2015elkShoulderPilotProjects.html

Bugle, that is to comment on the pilot project they introduced at this last commission meeting, the first of the Hunt Districts they will begin doing the shoulder seasons at, not the whole of the elk shoulder season program.

I dont think they care either. FWP says the Governor wants them to do this. The Commission says the same. Funny, but I dont recall a Montana Code Annotated that directs elk management based on what a governor wants, based on politics, rather than "viable elk, deer, and antelope populations based on habitat acreage." Neither did I see under the FWP Commission section directing decisions to be made based on what the Governor wants for season setting or rulemaking, on the contrary, hard science is advocated.

I was reading an article on why more scientists are needed in the public square -

The public dialogue about science is perhaps the most vital and most fraught national conversation not taking place in our country, and the ramifications are profound.

Ultimately, the way we address science and innovation will determine what our children learn in school, what college graduates bring to the larger world, how public lands and natural resources are cared for and whether people receive adequate health care. And the list goes on.

When the science is being ignored and those in positions of authority are ignoring it and the public addressing it, they are forcing us to litigation, sometimes creatively, like the Bighorn Sheep pneumonia issue with the poached bear and the elk brucellosis.

Like FWP Chris Smith wrote in 2011 (before he retired), The Role of State Wildlife Professionals Under the Public Trust Doctrine,

The judicial branch also plays a critical role with respect to the PTD. Not only was the court the origin of the PTD in American law (Bean and Rowland 1997), the judiciary is the people’s source of redress if the legislative or executive branches of government fail to perform their duties under the PTD (Sax 1970, Horner 2000).

 

[Rat Fink]

There are 900+ region 4 cow tags available as surplus. Buy them now to save a late season cow.

 

[Rat Fink]

Here is the agenda for next Thursday's meeting. The Shoulder season pilot project will be voted on.

http://fwp.mt.gov/doingBusiness/insideFwp/commission/meetings/agenda.html?meetingId=37179043

The landowners in 391 and 392 are revolting and do NOT want this shoved down their throats. They are organizing and plan on addressing the commission about this pilot project. I think they can get those districts removed as they will not open up their lands and participate.

Please everyone. Work your connections, talk to people, get the word out. One phone call I made last night has paid off immensely to hopefully make it known to the commission that this will not work.

 

[RobG]

The landowners in 391 and 392 are revolting and do NOT want this shoved down their throats. They are organizing and plan on addressing the commission about this pilot project. I think they can get those districts removed as they will not open up their lands and participate.

This is interesting. What are the landowner arguments?

 

[huntin24/7]

Maybe I'm ignorant on this since I hunt a lot more for deer and antelope. From what I hear out west and what I've seen hunting the breaks, I have a hard time understanding how so many areas can be classified as over objective.

 

[katqanna]

This may be part of the landowner argument in HD 390-391 (map corrected thanks to Rat, showing 390-392). Everything in salmon are private lands leased to outfitters. There is no data on private landowners that outfit themselves. So everything in white and salmon are private lands.

 

[Rat Fink]

The landowners simply do not want to be burdened with hunter requests for 6 months out of the year. They are already burned out with the "Management Hunt" that started in August, and the General Season. They are sick of hunters, phone calls, door knocks, road hunting, trespassing, and lots of unethical behavior.

Last weeks slaughter of the herd in the flats again like last year, pissed many of them off even more. Guys are still using vehicles to herd elk and run them to lands they can slaughter them. This years incident had guys herding elk INTO Canyon Ferry reservoir where some drowned and those that didn't were assassinated as soon as they swam to a spot where they could stand again after swimming for miles. 8 cows and spikes left dead in the fields from flock shooting and trying to peel the bulls out. These are the things that have the landowners turned against hunters and the shoulder season in 391/392.

If the FWP Commission approves the shoulder season in 391/392 this year we the hunters are going to lose thousands of acres of access permanently. The landowners are shutting it ALL down. No more public access in the general season, pulling out of BMA, and certainly no access during the shoulder seasons. We will lose big time if this proposal goes forward.

 

[Rat Fink]

This may be part of the landowner argument in HD 390-391. Everything in salmon are private lands leased to outfitters. There is no data on private landowners that outfit themselves. So everything in white and salmon are private lands.

Kat - The proposal is for 392/391. 390 is not part of the proposal, for this year at least.

 

[RobG]

Thanks Rat, I hadn't heard of any of that. These slaughters were one of my big concerns with having OTC cow hunts and it can only get worse in the late season.

huntin24/7 - thanks to a law that passed in 2003 the objectives are determined by rancher tolerance. It has nothing to do with science and is artificially low. The Gardiner district is AT objective but numbers are so low that you will have to draw a permit to hunt there next year. Legislators seem fine with that.

 

[katqanna]

Kat - The proposal is for 392/391. 390 is not part of the proposal, for this year at least.

Rat, thanks, my mistake, I was thinking of the Oct, which included 390. I corrected the map to show the overview of all three, also showing 446, included in the pilot project and abutting 392. I think it is important to point out that the majority of lands in HD 392 are Forest Service public lands. Just eyeballing it, about half or a wee bit less, of the private lands are leased to outfitters, again, since no data on landowners is provided, we dont know what percentage of the rest of the private lands may be landowner outfitted.

 

[BuzzH]

Thanks Rat, I hadn't heard of any of that. These slaughters were one of my big concerns with having OTC cow hunts and it can only get worse in the late season.

huntin24/7 - thanks to a law that passed in 2003 the objectives are determined by rancher tolerance. It has nothing to do with science and is artificially low. The Gardiner district is AT objective but numbers are so low that you will have to draw a permit to hunt there next year. Legislators/Montana FWP, resident hunters, non resident hunter, landowners, wildlife groups, hunting organizations, outfitters, public at large, etc. etc. etc seem fine with that.

Fixed it for you Rob...one would like to believe that living under this absolute nightmare of an EMP for what, going on 20 years, that somebody would step up and do something.

Apparently everyone must be happy...:W::W::W:

 

[RobG]

Fixed it for you Rob...one would like to believe that living under this absolute nightmare of an EMP for what, going on 20 years, that somebody would step up and do something.

Apparently everyone must be happy...:W::W::W:

Thanks for the fix. I was talking my elk hunting buddy who is active in river conservation. He had no clue the legislators role in the elk objectives.

 

[Pinecricker]

I'm not super familiar with this issue, but from what I have read, the supposed impetus behind it is that elk numbers in Montana are exceeding objectives, and are causing conflict on private lands, so the number of cow elk need to be reduced, to bring numbers in line with objectives.

Are elk numbers really exceeding objectives? I know that if you asked wolf advocates they would say yes, and land owners who want to make money from the shoulder season might say yes, but what do the actual data say?

Are elk numbers really up that much or is this really about a different agenda?

 

[JLS]

I'm not super familiar with this issue, but from what I have read, the supposed impetus behind it is that elk numbers in Montana are exceeding objectives, and are causing conflict on private lands, so the number of cow elk need to be reduced, to bring numbers in line with objectives.

Are elk numbers really exceeding objectives? I know that if you asked wolf advocates they would say yes, and land owners who want to make money from the shoulder season might say yes, but what do the actual data say?

Are elk numbers really up that much or is this really about a different agenda?

Elk numbers are up, yes.

Elk numbers are in fact exceeding objectives in a large share of hunting districts (has nothing to with pro-wolf/anti-wolf).

Objectives are not necessarily calculated based on range carrying capacity. In many districts, social tolerance is a very significant factor in determining the objective population.

Observed elk populations are not supposed to include elk that are harbored on private land and unavailable to the public. However, it is very rare that these elk are actually excluded from the observed population data.

FWP is legally mandated to manage elk numbers at or below the population objective for that hunt district, regardless of how ridiculous the population objective is.

 

[BuzzH]

I'm highly suspect of the elk population estimates in Montana conducted by the MTFWP.

IMO, elk should be managed on OBSERVED numbers, not some population model. Its pretty typical of the MTFWP to say they "flew on a bad day" or "there wasn't enough snow" and determine that there "must have been more elk that we didn't see hiding in the trees"...and any other excuse to over-estimate the population.

After reading some of the crap that was in the shoulder season proposal...I don't put much faith in the MTFWP's ability to manage field mice.

 

[antlerradar]

Rat, I think you are pretty much putting the hammer right on the top the nail when assessing landowners. I might add landowners that already allow some amount of public hunting.
The only real winners I see with this shoulder season are landowners that need to get rid of some problem cows and don't want it interfering with their general season hunters or should I say customores.