MT Shoulder Season Public Comment

[Gerald Martin]

I pointed out that the outfitters were going to the focus to the archery, knowing the first week of rifle would be hard as well.

I think Stucker was the only one advocating for the biological concerns, but none of the others would second his amendments. He asked a question about getting the check station going, but Vore didnt explain the right information. I asked Howard Burt to explain why that wouldnt work, he said he had to be asked. so on one of my public comments I asked that they ask him, Vermillion dismissed it.

The check station would have to be manned and kept open 24/7 to record what is coming out. Even though RMEF said they would help contribute, the check station would not record all the kills because the outfitters process their own hunts for their clients - before the check station.

Mandatory reporting of kills would eliminate the need to have manned check stations to determine how many elk are being killed. It's way past time....

 

[Gerald Martin]

I wonder if "Gird Up Your Loins Dude" ever had chapped inner thighs...

 

[Ben Lamb]

 

[katqanna]

I get it Ben, you are playing FWP at the moment. First you supply an action that is going to cause an adverse reaction that was not pre-existing; then you supply a solution for the resulting adverse reaction.

 

[RobG]

Mandatory reporting of kills would eliminate the need to have manned check stations to determine how many elk are being killed. It's way past time....

I'm guessing people aren't going to report their kill if they know it will be used to show too many bulls are being taken. I missed the part about the game check station. Are they not going to use that at all?

 

[katqanna]

I'm guessing people aren't going to report their kill if they know it will be used to show too many bulls are being taken. I missed the part about the game check station. Are they not going to use that at all?

The check station wasnt in the language for the proposal handed out yesterday, a couple of the public brought it up in comments, mentioning that would remove anecdotal numbers and Stucker brought it up to add to his amendment, which no one would second.

 

[BuzzH]

I'm guessing people aren't going to report their kill if they know it will be used to show too many bulls are being taken. I missed the part about the game check station. Are they not going to use that at all?

The post season bull to cow ratios will tell the story...no reason to lie.

 

[RobG]

The post season bull to cow ratios will tell the story...no reason to lie.

Or report...

[edit - I better add that in this case I think it would be very helpful to have accurate harvest numbers because it is necessary to prove to the people where the mortality is coming from. That said, the biologists are dropping mandatory reporting in the Madison because it was costly and gave the same result as the phone surveys. The permit requirement would have made it a lot easier to poll the hunters there.]

 

[Gerald Martin]

I thought we were talking about having the information that would allow emergency closures???? If not, no need to report.

 

[bigskyblueman]

HD313 is at " objective ", so the agency creates a distraction to divert attention and focus away from the mass killing of half the elk. An honest manager would close the district, but this process has been dishonest from the start. An unnaturally low number of elk in every district create disputes in every district, as divided interests fight over a dwindling resource. Hunting at " objective".

 

[Nameless Range]

In the age of the internet, with databases that already exist, mandatory reporting would neither be more costly nor less accurate than a phone call asking me to estimate how many days I spent hunting what and where 4 months ago. It's kind of ridiculous.

 

[tjones]

FWP puts zero faith in check station numbers, and have said so. They base everything on flight numbers and phone harvest survey. In the near future check stations will go away.

 

[Gerald Martin]

FWP puts zero faith in check station numbers, and have said so. They base everything on flight numbers and phone harvest survey. In the near future check stations will go away.

As well they should from a harvest data perspective. I've only been through one check station in my life when I had an animal. The biggest thing check stations do is ensure that animals are properly tagged with proof of sex still attached.

 

[----]

The biggest thing check stations do is ensure that animals are properly tagged with proof of sex still attached.

They get things like age classification trends that they wouldn't otherwise. There is value outside of law enforcement.

 

[Nunyacreek]

The other two states where I've hunted a lot, Idaho and Alaska both require mandatory mail in or online reporting. At least in Idaho If you forget they call and remind you and if you fail then you can't participate in the draw the following year. (Perhaps other sanctions, also, I don't know). Is there any reason that we don't have a similar system?

 

[tjones]

They get things like age classification trends that they wouldn't otherwise. There is value outside of law enforcement.

BUT do they value this?

 

[BuzzH]

BUT do they value this?

I doubt they do. Even if some in the FWP value it, there is little that can be done to use that data to guide the total mismanagement of wildlife that is happening.

But, when that data is collected, there will come a day of reckoning down the road that hunters can use that data to beat the hell out of the MFWP with it. The FWP needs to be taken to the woodshed, they haven't cared about wildlife for 10+ years.

The thing about trying to make change at the level needed to right the sinking ship the FWP calls "management", will have to be done with data.

Even though the current FWP leadership is ignorant to what the data is pointing to, showing, and proving, it doesn't mean hunters should allow them to quit collecting it.

 

[tjones]

When the longest running check station in be state is now only open on weekends the answer is obvious.

 

[katqanna]

After seeing Nameless post about the FWP hunt survey NOT asking about elk, I began asking all the hunters that I have spoken with and none of them were asked about elk either. Yesterday, at the meeting, I asked Burt about this. He said they are going to make calls again after the elk shoulder season ends, to ask just about elk. I asked if they were going to ask if the hunter got their elk during general season or if it was during a shoulder season hunt? He said yes.

I also asked, with limited personnel and funding, why didnt FWP wait till after shoulder season to do the polling, so they werent duplicating effort and having it cost more? He said they didnt want to hold up the other data for the elk information.

 

[Gerald Martin]

From what little I listened to the live feed yesterday it sounds to me like FWP does care about elk management but knows that their hands are tied because of legislative mandate.