MT Shoulder Season Public Comment

[BuzzH]

Oh yeah, they really care alright...while tripping all over themselves to the race to get elk under 90K.

There isn't a full set of balls between the entire upper echelon of the MFWP...and proper management isn't even a distant memory.

They just cash pay checks at the expense of the hunting public and wildlife resources they're supposed to care about.

Simply unmanned drones at this point...

 

[tjones]

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.

Remember THEY set the objectives the legislature is mandating them to manage too.

 

[BrowningBLR]

Remember THEY set the objectives the legislature is mandating them to manage too.

When did FWP set these objectives? Did FWP set these objectives, once, and then they will be set forever? These objectives should be constant moving target coinciding with harvest/success ratio, calf ratio, bull/cow ratio, and overall health of a herd/ in an area. I could be wrong but it seems like they set the objectives and then out of sight, out of mind. Why can’t they reassess those objectives numbers, seems very nearsighted to set a number and never look at it again…

Did FWP set the objective number artificially low? It seems like the elk objective(s) hypothesis theory really came on strong and into effect at the same time as the wolf population increased and the Yellowstone herd plummeted. Did FWP set the objective numbers so low that we would all see GREEN on the map in a lot of HDs, in hopes this would somehow make us believe that a lot of the areas still hold a significant number of elk AND the elk (especially the Yellowstone herd) were over populated?

 

[tjones]

2004 adopted in the EMP 2005, except for boundary changes and such have not been looked at since.

 

[MTGomer]

When they called me for my survey, they didn't' ask about elk either.
They did ask about wolves and grizzly bears.
I saw (and shot) a wolf, while sheep hunting. They told me they were only documenting wolves that were seen while deer/elk hunting. Of course they already knew about the wolf as I had to report it after harvest, so its a moot point.
A buddy I helped pack a mountain goat out for, saw 3 griz the day before he got his goat. They told him the same thing... only documenting griz seen while deer/elk hunting.
Any ideas why?

 

[BrowningBLR]

2004 adopted in the EMP 2005, except for boundary changes and such have not been looked at since.

Outdated, prehistoric "statistical research" is a huge issue. Besides technological research, biological research is about the quickest that becomes outdated if not updated... but no one ever accused FWP of doing their job effectively and efficiently.

 

[RobG]

When did FWP set these objectives? Did FWP set these objectives, once, and then they will be set forever? These objectives should be constant moving target coinciding with harvest/success ratio, calf ratio, bull/cow ratio, and overall health of a herd/ in an area. I could be wrong but it seems like they set the objectives and then out of sight, out of mind. Why can’t they reassess those objectives numbers, seems very nearsighted to set a number and never look at it again…

They were set for rancher tolerance, not for the parameters you cite.

 

[tjones]

Outdated, prehistoric "statistical research" is a huge issue. Besides technological research, biological research is about the quickest that becomes outdated if not updated... but no one ever accused FWP of doing their job effectively and efficiently.

Did you ever ask for a review of the objectives or the EMP?

 

[mtmander]

I guess the 'landowners' donate more money to the politicians than I do , so the politicians seem to do more to benefit the landowners than they do foe me.

 

[Bugle 'Em In]

There isn't a full set of balls between the entire upper echelon of the MFWP...and proper management isn't even a distant memory.

Not that you were trying to be funny, but you reminded me of this....https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SMzXe84VoLs

 

[BrowningBLR]

They were set for rancher tolerance, not for the parameters you cite.

Therein lies issue Numero Uno.

 

[BrowningBLR]

Did you ever ask for a review of the objectives or the EMP?

Management goals, habitat management strategies, population management strategies, population monitoring, and population objectives.... glad we're still looking at a document 12 years old... come on.... this is pathetic. Because nothing ever changes. On the flip side though, FWP is probably afraid to go through it again because rancher tolerance has probably gone WAY down in the last 12 years, forcing FWP to lower the elk objectives again if they went through the process again.

 

[----]

. Did FWP set the objective numbers so low that we would all see GREEN on the map in a lot of HDs, in hopes this would somehow make us believe that a lot of the areas still hold a significant number of elk AND the elk (especially the Yellowstone herd) were over populated?

Green would imply good. Elk are bad, therefore FWP displays units with too many elk as Red.

 

[BrowningBLR]

Green would imply good. Elk are bad, therefore FWP displays units with too many elk as Red.

Thanks Randy, I had my colors mixed up.... but this helps my point even more. WOW.

 

[Big Fin]

Management goals, habitat management strategies, population management strategies, population monitoring, and population objectives.... glad we're still looking at a document 12 years old... come on.... this is pathetic.

From a common sense standpoint, think of this as though you are a shareholder of a company, the same as we are quasi-shareholders of our respective states. The question I would ask is this:

If the most valuable asset to your business model is being managed under a plan written 12 years ago and not adjust since then, how long would you wait before making changes: changes to the plan, changes to the governance institutions that got you to this point, and other changes needed to catch up with the world you are dealing in today?

When you think about it from that perspective, it is laughable that we are working from this old EMP. It is ridiculous that we are not taking steps to update it.

 

[Big Foot]

Not that you were trying to be funny, but you reminded me of this....https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SMzXe84VoLs

You made my night with this clip.

 

[tjones]

Management goals, habitat management strategies, population management strategies, population monitoring, and population objectives.... glad we're still looking at a document 12 years old... come on.... this is pathetic. Because nothing ever changes. On the flip side though, FWP is probably afraid to go through it again because rancher tolerance has probably gone WAY down in the last 12 years, forcing FWP to lower the elk objectives again if they went through the process again.

Great,but did YOU participate?

 

[ingomar]

The EMP states that those elk that live primarily on private land during the general season then those elk are NOT to be counted in the objective number. FWP has perpetuated the myth of over objective for many years in most of those units in the eastern half of the state. Check pages 55, 61-62 of the EMP for the exact wording.

 

[BrowningBLR]

Great,but did YOU participate?

Did I participate 12 years ago, in an elk management plan, when I was 18 years old... I did not. I'm guessing you did. I would love to hear more specifics from someone who did... and not in smart-ass or argumentative fashion. Just to try to understand the thought process of everyone involved (legislature, FWP, and hunters) 12 years ago. Because looking at things now and reading the rhetoric of the EMP of 12 years old - it's hard to see why/how things happened and have escalated to this point.

 

[BrowningBLR]

From a common sense standpoint, think of this as though you are a shareholder of a company, the same as we are quasi-shareholders of our respective states. The question I would ask is this:

If the most valuable asset to your business model is being managed under a plan written 12 years ago and not adjust since then, how long would you wait before making changes: changes to the plan, changes to the governance institutions that got you to this point, and other changes needed to catch up with the world you are dealing in today?

When you think about it from that perspective, it is laughable that we are working from this old EMP. It is ridiculous that we are not taking steps to update it.

+1!!

My business wouldn't be around if I used the same business plan for even the last 4 years.