Sb 245

[Eric Albus]

If 245 is such a bad plan, why does RMEF support it?

 

[Straight Arrow]

If 245 is such a bad plan, why does RMEF support it?

It's not that there's doubt you believe that, it's just that some of your info is skewed somewhat.
(ie; "... the legislature is to manage wildlife, according the Public Trust Doctrine." quote)
So, please verify and cite source of information asserting RMEF's support of SB 245.

 

[shoots-straight]

It's not that there's doubt you believe that, it's just that some of your info is skewed somewhat.
(ie; "... the legislature is to manage wildlife, according the Public Trust Doctrine." quote)
So, please verify and cite source of information asserting RMEF's support of SB 245.

Actually we're trying to figure out why they testified in favor right now.

 

[Straight Arrow]

Thanks, Shoots. Like Kat, I gave up on the audio stream of the hearing when it would not function.

 

[ingomar]

I was at the hearing for SB 154, the hunter orange bill, so did not actually sit in on SB 245 yesterday. Was told as I left, by a Dept. official, that they were going to support SB 245. Trying to verify if they did so. If true, it opens up a whole new set of questions. Will post when I find out.

Vito

 

[shoots-straight]

Most of the folks I talk w/ seem to think access to cow elk is better than no access at all. Perhaps a better way of conducting the hunt would be during the 5 week season, make it "antlerless only" for the last 2 weeks of season in areas over objective??

There's actually some merit with Eric's idea here. In areas that are "Over" objective and mostly private I could see where the last 2 weeks are just antlerless only. Where the large ranches would have no reason to lease out to outfitters because there's no bull hunts. So the public might have better access and reduce those elk.

 

[shoots-straight]

I was at the hearing for SB 154, the hunter orange bill, so did not actually sit in on SB 245 yesterday. Was told as I left, by a Dept. official, that they were going to support SB 245. Trying to verify if they did so. If true, it opens up a whole new set of questions. Will post when I find out.

Vito

They did support SB 245. I have no problem with the term "May" have late hunts, but to manage to "sustainable" numbers will hurt public land elk herds.

 

[Oak]

This seems like a pretty "weedy" issue for RMEF to concern themselves with. Since when do they get involved in season dates, license allocation, etc.?

 

[1_pointer]

This seems like a pretty "weedy" issue for RMEF to concern themselves with. Since when do they get involved in season dates, license allocation, etc.?

Agreed!

 

[Eric Albus]

shoots, finally someone catches on, and I did not have to elaborate every miniscule detail. And, there is merit to all of my ideas....were I only King!....

all of a sudden I am vetted on account of RMEF supporting 245.....


greenhorn, how about 2 areas I am most familiar w/, 622 and 630? Both are over objective. IMO the most effective tool we had to control numbers was the late season hunt. As to what other areas? most of the elk hunting districts in Reg,'s 3-4-5-6-7 are over objective....email me if you want the data from FWP. ...I have it.

 

[shoots-straight]

shoots, finally someone catches on, and I did not have to elaborate every miniscule detail. And, there is merit to all of my ideas....were I only King!....

all of a sudden I am vetted on account of RMEF supporting 245.....


greenhorn, how about 2 areas I am most familiar w/, 622 and 630? Both are over objective. IMO the most effective tool we had to control numbers was the late season hunt. As to what other areas? most of the elk hunting districts in Reg,'s 3-4-5-6-7 are over objective....email me if you want the data from FWP. ...I have it.

There was merit, and then you fumbled it. Those districts you just complained about are permit only. Very limited number of bull tags and they have no impact on the antlerless season. Your not going to kill more because you stop bull hunts there.

Those elk have been on a steady decline for years. IMO the Elk Objective is very skewed.

 

[The Hedgehog]

Is it this secret info?;
http://fwp.mt.gov/fwpDoc.html?id=66735

I think there was a discussion about it once here:
http://onyourownadventures.com/hunttalk/showthread.php?t=250136&page=4

From the looks of it that objectives map, Montana is getting overrun by elk. You must be right, we need to get these elk under control.

What were the RMEF's comments on this? I'm surprised.

 

[Eric Albus]

never said it was "secret info"....I just don't know how to put a link up....guess I don't spend enough time on a computer....so why be such a condescending ??

shoots....my guess is that there would be more access to the cows, either after the general season, or make the last 2 weeks cow only in the permit areas.....is it a perfect solution, no it is not, in a perfect world we would all be equal and all would have equal access the elk....but this is what we have, and I can't help it if there are landowners who do not want the bulls on their private land shot, but why penalize folks who want to take a cow and fill a freezer? Make the cow tags valid only for Montana Residents for all I care.

Perhaps all we really need are more predators? As one persons testimony on 245 stated:" I know for a fact predators move elk. Mountain lions move them, wolves move them".

Is this the purveying attitude? Better a lion or wolf kills an elk ?

 

[The Hedgehog]

Eric, Not being condescending - You'd know more about the Glasgow area than I would. Question though, do you think there's too many elk in those units?

My guess is the opposition (potentially knee-jerk) to bills like this come from the fear that catering to private landowner's problems can result in public land animals being shit-hammered.

 

[BuzzH]

I've hunted 622 and the surrounding units quite a bit, and what I see on the ground, there are not too many elk in those units. There are a couple places they harbor up, but again, those landowners are making a choice to not allow access during an 11 week hunting season. Making the last 2 weeks cows only is a dumb idea as well, there's not enough bull tags given in those units to warrant that. I will say that if MT chooses that route, then they better chop 3 weeks off the archery bull hunt as well.

The area could support a lot more elk and the objective numbers should be raised if anything.

 

[Straight Arrow]

The area could support a lot more elk and the objective numbers should be raised if anything.

Buzz's observation is likely based on habitat and wildlife distribution factors which should be most important.
Again a problem with SB 245 is the emphasis on "social tolerance" of elk on private property. (It has been pointed out how the consideration of herds remaining on private property should not be part of the count equation as spelled out in the EMP.)
The hunts suggested in this thread are options available now to FWP without a new law on the books.
As I read it, what's proposed is a new $10 fee, the requirement to commence the hunt within two weeks of the general season, and what appears to be rewording of the Elk Management Plan in legislation outside of the EMP.
Eric, although I think your suggestions are valid, they are not new ideas, have been previously tried, and the antlerless elk in last week of the general season is now the case in some HD's.
Again, this bill is unnecessary IMO, but I certainly would like to know why RMEF and the "dept" would support it. What am I missing?

 

[shoots-straight]

My guess is the opposition (potentially knee-jerk) to bills like this come from the fear that catering to private landowner's problems can result in public land animals being shit-hammered.

Makes it easier to manage. No animals, no problems.

 

[ingomar]

A big part of the problem is that the dept has chosen to toss out the 2004 Elk Management plan. To my knowledge, there is no effort being made to put together a new elk management plan. How can the agency make intelligent decisions or manage our wildlife without a plan to follow??

Eric-I have no problem with taking part of the general rifle/archery season and making them cow only in those areas that are truly over objective. As someone mentioned earlier, if you tell the lie often enough, it becomes perceived as the truth. That is what the dept has done with their "over objective" statements in the eastern half of the state.

I would encourage everyone to actually read the bill to determine what it actually does and does not do. It does give the dept authority to have late season anterless hunts but it states MAY, not shall. It does mandate they report numbers to EQC each year. The "sustainable population numbers" verbiage is consistent with the underlying statutes 87-1-323 & 87-1-324, so nothing has really changed with that wording.

Below is a link to the actual bill as it is today:

http://leg.mt.gov/bills/2015/billpdf/SB0245.pdf

 

[Ben Lamb]

I would encourage everyone to actually read the bill to determine what it actually does and does not do. It does give the dept authority to have late season anterless hunts but it states MAY, not shall. It does mandate they report numbers to EQC each year. The "sustainable population numbers" verbiage is consistent with the underlying statutes 87-1-323 & 87-1-324, so nothing has really changed with that wording.

Below is a link to the actual bill as it is today:

http://leg.mt.gov/bills/2015/billpdf/SB0245.pdf

I agree with this. The bill only seems to codify current commission authority to establish late season hunts. Not to force them to have them. I can certainly see both sides of this issue and think both have merit.

 

[BuzzH]

Seems to me that the department and commission already have the authority to hold late hunts...they've extended general seasons in the not-to-distant past as well.

What is this legislation attempting to "fix"?