MT shoulder season decision...

[Straight Arrow]

Rob, those specific hunts seemed to be very successful in harvesting cow elk to manage numbers as a viable wildlife management tool.
Those hunts were more locally driven by FWP regional decisions, as opposed to the current proposals which seem to be top-down driven by the Director / Legislature and seem to be more politically driven (elk tolerance) than given priority planning based on wildlife management science and proven methods.

 

[antlerradar]

Mtmiller makes some good points. As a landowner I can reply to the crop damage clam. Would an early season help with crop damage. Absolutely!
A few years back the late Mark Hinkle speculated that when crop damage got too bad landowner that had leased there hunting would return to public hunting as the value of crops exceeds the amount received in lease payments. The problem is that the current season is just to late to be a useful tool for landowners to mitigate crop damage.
some examples. A few back about 100 elk showed up on our place in mid September.(It was a dry year and they ate the neighbor that has little hunting out). As soon as they showed up we started hunting them. One to five archery hunters were after them every day to the end of the season. The problem is that archery hunters don't put a good spook on elk. They set in stands or try to target lone callable bulls. When rifle season arrived we the big guns were unleashed. After two days of the big guns the elk were gone. As I remember we took about 10 elk, and fewer than five cows. Hardly a number large enough to reduce the herd. The alfalfa was a complete loss.
About ten years ago when mule deer number were high we decided to try to reduce the numbers. (we had better than 300 mule deer on the alfalfa) Any one that had a doe tag we let hunt. It was a complete zoo. I would never do it again. In the first few days of the season all of the nice bucks had left. Many ended up on the neighbors. A great deal for the outfitters on the neighbors. By the end of the second week most of the does had left and by the end of the season doe hunting was a challenge. I can't remember the number of deer taken but it was over 50. Most in the first two weeks of the season and right on the hay field. Did we save any crop? No, by the time the season started most of the damage was all ready done. The next year after a good fawn crop the number of deer was not reduced.

 

[BuzzH]

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.

Rob,

I question how much more opportunity hunters need in Montana. It does NO good to increase opportunity to 6 months when there isn't the wildlife or access to the wildlife to support an 11 week season.

Hunters are being brain-washed by the MFWP into believing that shoulder seasons will provide more opportunity to them by allowing them to hunt 6 months.

MFWP cares as much about hunters as a whole, as they do the wildlife they are supposed to manage, which is to say, not at all do they care.

MFWP does not care if Rob, Buzz, Randy, and hunters as a whole have more elk to hunt, or even more opportunity. They peddle the snake-oil, called opportunity, as long as a few individuals (ranchers buddies, paying clients, etc.) get more opportunity.

You need to realize that at the end of the day, that these seasons, along with actual management, have nothing to do with helping hunters or helping to create quality elk hunting in Montana.

Its 100% about just killing as many elk as possible. Which is why I believe that the only thing that will make the MFWP, Legislature, and Landowners happy is total elk removal where they are "over-objective" via government hunters with all the tools necessary to eliminate elk.

The sooner we get these elk under control, the sooner that even the dimmest of people that buy an elk tag in Montana will realize that their elk are all but gone. Then maybe they will wake the hell up, realize how poorly their elk were treated, vote in a new Legislature, fire 90% of the MFWP, appoint a real commission, and start managing wildlife based on achievable goals and with biology as a the driving force.

Until then, its kill elk any way you can.

 

[RockyDog]

I just read the news article and FWP manager John Vore was touting shoulder seasons. It gave me a sick gut feeling because several years ago John Vore was our regional biologist and he created 3 years of elk slaughter in our region. Under his short realm, I witnessed the worst slaughtering, wounding and group hunting in 30 years. Elk were vermin. 10 years later this region has not recovered from elk vermination.

Another deja vu moment, RMEF uses a survey worded for "expanded opportunity" to take a questionable stance. This same logic was used when RMEFs leadership supported the roadless area release act. This stance was reversed by rmef after member backlash, but leadership obviously did not view wild areas the way majority of members do. Montana members anyways. To me it looks like a a very similar case now on shoulder seasons.

 

[BuzzH]

What Vore did to the elk in the Bitterroot should disqualify him from ever holding a wildlife biology position again...

But, what does the MFWP do? Promote him...so he can continue the vermination of elk, deer, and pronghorn on a state-wide level.

Smart.

 

[MTborn64]

Can someone answer this for me? Are all of these landowners that are in support of the shoulder seasons basically the same landowners that put their land into block management already? Are they the landowners that currently allow hunting? Are they the landowner that currently participates in the game damage hunts? Because if this is all we are getting the shoulder season will not help anything or anyone. What about the ranches that have not let anyone hunt in years yet have hundreds of elk on their land year round?

 

[JLS]

Its 100% about just killing as many elk as possible. Which is why I believe that the only thing that will make the MFWP, Legislature, and Landowners happy is total elk removal where they are "over-objective" via government hunters with all the tools necessary to eliminate elk.

The sooner we get these elk under control, the sooner that even the dimmest of people that buy an elk tag in Montana will realize that their elk are all but gone. Then maybe they will wake the hell up, realize how poorly their elk were treated, vote in a new Legislature, fire 90% of the MFWP, appoint a real commission, and start managing wildlife based on achievable goals and with biology as a the driving force.

Until then, its kill elk any way you can.

This is the culmination of Debbie Barrett's curse on elk hunters in Montana. I really think that you WILL see elk numbers at or below objective in the near future in many hunt districts. And when you do, folks will really realize how badly the public land hunter is going to get shafted when it comes to elk hunting in Montana.

I believe FWP is operating under a mandate from the governor to achieve what Debbie Barrett instructed them to 12 years ago.

 

[BuzzH]

JLS,

I agree...

 

[shoots-straight]

Just an FYI,

The objective for Elk in Montana is somewhere around 96,000 head. We are sitting at around 154,000 according to MTFW&Ps figures. So you will see a reduction. When landowners can pick and choose who does the hunting in a 6 month period of time there will be less elk.

This might end up being the Alamo for resident hunters to get involved. Or not!

 

[bigskyblueman]

It does appear that the " objective" numbers and the " count" FWP displays amount to killing roughly half the elk they claim are alive today. The remnants would be left to LE only and perhaps no OTC at all, somewhere down the road. The Legislature has a nervous breakdown over our elk and the profiles in courage over at FWP bungle it with this seven month hammer season.

 

[RobG]

Can someone answer this for me? Are all of these landowners that are in support of the shoulder seasons basically the same landowners that put their land into block management already? Are they the landowners that currently allow hunting? Are they the landowner that currently participates in the game damage hunts? Because if this is all we are getting the shoulder season will not help anything or anyone. What about the ranches that have not let anyone hunt in years yet have hundreds of elk on their land year round?

I don't know the makeup of the supporters since they speak through their legislators. Here is a simplified version of what I know. In the recent past a landowner had to provide public access in exchange for assistance in reducing elk depredation. In some cases the access could just be after the general season. This was because hunter dollars wind up being used to assist the agricultural industry.

Removing the requirement for public access makes it a lot easier to kill off the elk.

There was a huge push on several fronts that came to a head this year to remove the requirement for the public to be involved. The proposals would allow the landowner to exclude the public, which will make elk reduction far more easier for them. The shoulder seasons are one such device to avoid the public access requirement. Also, the landowner can now select 25% of the people who participate in game damage hunts, which still require some level of public access. Representative Kelly Flynn is already taking advantage of this by providing this late hunt access to the people who have paid to access his land during the general season. Therefore the outfitters also have a financial incentive to support this.

Therefore I suppose anyone with the goal of reducing the elk population supports it.

Will this increase or decrease access? Commissioner Vermillion said he talked with landowners who would stop providing access if the requirement was removed. Others may open their property in the late season, but it seems to be a stretch that they will provide more access to the public based on the time of year unless they are forced to do so. They'll just let their family and buddies on.

The commission fought to maintain this public access in exchange for the shoulder hunt and adopted guidelines. This year they limited the shoulder hunts to (six?) districts that had potential to meet those guidelines. It is clear they were instructed to abandon those guidelines and create shoulder seasons throughout the state.

The commissioners expressed some pessimism that this would achieve the elk objectives because of people not allowing significant hunting on their ranches as any time. The elk would simply seek refuge there until the shooting stopped. Then they would come back on the properties where they are causing problems.

 

[Straight Arrow]

Without stronger incentive for hunting access that hoarding dynamic will continue as Rob described.
And then some legislator of the Barrett, Brenden, or Vore ilk will introduce a bill mandating that FWP start reducing elk populations by slaughtering herds down to "objective" numbers on properties requesting such.

I am surprised that there has not yet been a capture and brucellosis test program for elk to identify and slaughter those testing positive to bring numbers to "objective".

It occurs to me that this "shoulder season" program which continues hunting pressure on elk for six straight months of the year is a precursor to many really bad ideas which will severely adversely impact Montana elk herds and hunting and the great wildlife sustainment achieved last century as described by BACK FROM THE BRINK.

 

[mtmander]

I believe a lot of people just want to shoot a elk and are not concerned with the long term effects

 

[Nameless Range]

Just an FYI,

The objective for Elk in Montana is somewhere around 96,000 head. We are sitting at around 154,000 according to MTFW&Ps figures. So you will see a reduction. When landowners can pick and choose who does the hunting in a 6 month period of time there will be less elk.

!

That is quite a thing to comprehend. Really eye opening.

So, it is likely that the shoulder season will decrease access and elk. To exacerbate the issue, I feel that hunters and organizations speaking in favor of the shoulder season have given their vote of confidence in our current EMP. Giving it a legitimacy it does not deserve.

Until recently, I was also not aware that carrying capacity is not calculated scientifically. I honestly don't blame hunters for not being aware. Is it too naive to assume science would be the chief consideration in wildlife management? I guess so. As I've said before this has nothing to do with Bulls vs cows, this is an assault on the quality of hunting in Montana.

Hunters need to be educated on how crooked this is. Hunt Talk is a good source, but it would be Nice of some of the larger players stepped up.

 

[JoeSchmo]

So will bow hunters need to start wearing orange on private, BMA, BLM, and state land since there will be rifle cow hunters during archery??

 

[Straight Arrow]

Archers would be wise to stay on National Forest during the traditional archery season.

 

[JoeSchmo]

Archers would be wise to stay on National Forest during the traditional archery season.

That is awful advice. And didn't even answer the question.

 

[RobG]

So will bow hunters need to start wearing orange on private, BMA, BLM, and state land since there will be rifle cow hunters during archery??

I've never seen anything that addresses that. You would think the answer would be no on all lands, but that's actually a really interesting safety question given the fact turkey hunters back east get shot pretending to be a turkey. Based on the shootouts we see on state land I'd say the average state land rifle hunter is at least 10 times as stupid as a turkey hunter. It might not be too safe acting like an elk... so that would interfere with archery hunting on public lands.

Be sure and raise the question with the FWP.

 

[npaden]

I for sure would be careful setting up behind a cow elk decoy!

 

[bigskyblueman]

This creates a real safety hazard in addition to ruining the bow season.