Shoulder Seasons on Public Land

[SAJ-99]

Please enlighten me as an ignorant Alaskan with no dog in this hunt.
Is the problem with late season hunts using muzzleloaders?
If so, what is this "bad"?
Thanks

This is creating rifle shoulder seasons for 18 districts that are over objective, extending the end dates to Feb 15, and allowing hunting to take place on public land (they are currently restricted to private land). It does nothing to address the cause of over-objective elk populations, which is principally some private landowners sheltering elk during the regular hunting season because they either don't like hunting or sell hunting rights to outfitters.

 

[The Hedgehog]

When you click on the blue "DONE" box - your comments vanish into thin air, only providing the submitter a feeling of "wow I got that off my chest, hopefully they'll listen..."

It's the only FWP web application that works exactly as designed.

 

[AlaskaHunter]

This is creating rifle shoulder seasons for 18 districts that are over objective, extending the end dates to Feb 15, and allowing hunting to take place on public land (they are currently restricted to private land). It does nothing to address the cause of over-objective elk populations, which is principally some private landowners sheltering elk during the regular hunting season because they either don't like hunting or sell hunting rights to outfitters.

Thank you for explaining this to someone not familiar with Montana elk hunting regs.

 

[Walkalot]

At this point, i think they want to limit the elk population on public land. Thinking there is a bigger picture we are not seeing. Talked to a elk guide 2 days ago. He wants all out of staters to go with a outfitter. I mentioned why not only give out cow elk tags that are good for private land only. No cow elk hunting on public. He said $ to be made. But dont worry the residents will have the public to themselves soon enough?

 

[Ben Lamb]

Please enlighten me as an ignorant Alaskan with no dog in this hunt.
Is the problem with late season hunts using muzzleloaders?
If so, what is this "bad"?
Thanks

MT currently enjoys 6 months of OTC elk hunting with shoulder seasons & damage hunts starting in August and running through February 15th. That includes the 5 week archery season & 6 week rifle season. Adding the muzzle loader season into this structure does offer more opportunity, but it's not going to be good opportunity and it simply keeps the harassment of elk ongoing when there could be a break to allow animals to go back onto public land. Furthermore, it sets seasons in statute, meaning that regardless of what the wildlife managers think in terms of overall herd health, population dynamics, etc, they have to hold that season and canceling it will prove to be tricky. The Fish & Wildlife Commission already had the authority to create a separate muzzleloader season, so the bill was really unnecessary as well from a perspective of simple gov't efficiency.

NSSF lobbied hard for this, because they feel it will sell more guns. That's another strike against it. Out of state interest groups are dictating significant shifts in policy in states where the locals are working to change the dynamic around elk hunting, leading to even more conflict.

 

[Ben Lamb]

When you click on the blue "DONE" box - your comments vanish into thin air, only providing the submitter a feeling of "wow I got that off my chest, hopefully they'll listen..."

It's the only FWP web application that works exactly as designed.

The Montana Environmental Policy Act was pretty severely gutted in 09. That law had previously made public comment in MT one of the strongest forms of citizen involvement in the US. The change made it so every state agency still has to accept comments, and recognize that they received them, but not necessarily place any weight on them for decision making.

 

[Nameless Range]

At this point, i think they want to limit the elk population on public land. Thinking there is a bigger picture we are not seeing.

I am not the first one to say this, but when you look at the moves that are being made, or those that were proposed and failed by the skin of our teeth, you see that controlling elk populations is just an exclaimed impetus, and the real driver is not necessarily the reduction of elk, but instead is greater control of the resource of elk itself. This is a game of control. They (some landowners, donors, outfitters, politicians) want to call the shots, and to hell with those who burn boot leather on accessible ground. We are a real pain in the ass to them.

Edit: Rereading what I just wrote, it may be fair to say I am too cynical, and giving too much credit to the commercializers. I think the truth is somewhere in between.

 

[Ben Lamb]

I am not the first one to say this, but when you look at the moves that are being made, or those that were proposed and failed by the skin of our teeth, you see that controlling elk populations is just an exclaimed impetus, and the real driver is not necessarily the reduction of elk, but instead is greater control of the resource itself. They (some landowners, donors, outfitters, politicians) want to call the shots, and to hell with those who burn boot leather on accessible ground. We are a real pain in the ass to them.

Edit: Rereading what I just wrote, it may be fair to say I am too cynical, and giving too much credit to the commercializers. I think the truth is somewhere in between.

I don't think you're wrong.

For 16 years, there was a perception that DIY hunters who primarily hunted public land and accessible private were getting their way with FWP relative to season settings, etc. The bundled archery permits in 2008 remain the rallying cry against resident DIY hunters for some. On top of that, legislative malfeasance and the increasing political power of fringe elements have shifted the power dynamic significantly towards the desires of landowners in eastern MT who have helped create the issue, but haven't been part of the solutions.

They've got a lot of pent up frustrations, and they're going to make significantly dumber decisions than if they'd simply do the work they should be doing relative to the new EMP & listening to the Elk Council.

But elk need to die to satisfy the politicians and the new lords of the manner.

 

[AlaskaHunter]

MT currently enjoys 6 months of OTC elk hunting with shoulder seasons & damage hunts starting in August and running through February 15th. That includes the 5 week archery season & 6 week rifle season. Adding the muzzle loader season into this structure does offer more opportunity, but it's not going to be good opportunity and it simply keeps the harassment of elk ongoing when there could be a break to allow animals to go back onto public land. Furthermore, it sets seasons in statute, meaning that regardless of what the wildlife managers think in terms of overall herd health, population dynamics, etc, they have to hold that season and canceling it will prove to be tricky. The Fish & Wildlife Commission already had the authority to create a separate muzzleloader season, so the bill was really unnecessary as well from a perspective of simple gov't efficiency.

NSSF lobbied hard for this, because they feel it will sell more guns. That's another strike against it. Out of state interest groups are dictating significant shifts in policy in states where the locals are working to change the dynamic around elk hunting, leading to even more conflict.

THANK YOU!

 

[MTelkHuntress]

I'm not sure if anyone knows the answer to this but in the email from MWF they are encouraging people to email the Commission directly with comments...is a comment a comment and they all end up in the same place whether you use the site or just email them?

 

[Ben Lamb]

I'm not sure if anyone knows the answer to this but in the email from MWF they are encouraging people to email the Commission directly with comments...is a comment a comment and they all end up in the same place whether you use the site or just email them?

The comments that go to the FWP website can sometimes be lost in the shuffle, or they won't be presented to the commission in their entirety, just a summation based on the number of support, oppose and other comments. Emailing directly to the commission ensures they see all of the range of comments, rather than a curated list.

 

[SAJ-99]

Edit: Rereading what I just wrote, it may be fair to say I am too cynical, and giving too much credit to the commercializers. I think the truth is somewhere in between.

Not at all. Your comment was spot on. Looking at the numbers, the Legislature would need to reduce elk populations by a full one-third to reach objectives, while I'm sure keeping the number of permits constant because that is where the $ is made. MOGA can't want that. NR landowners who hunt elk can't want that. A lot of resident LOs don't want that. The only way for commercializers to get what they want is to chip away at the margins on these rules, which ends up helping them to meet their own needs at the cost of the DIY hunter.

That said, DIY hunters don't do themselves any favors by indiscriminately shooting into herds of elk in a shoulder season. Topic for a different thread.

 

[BRI]

Sent my comments in but unfortunately it's likely a predetermined outcome as FWP is already recommending approval.

 

[mtmuley]

Sent my comments in but unfortunately it's likely a predetermined outcome as FWP is already recommending approval.

Opportunity man. mtmuley

 

[The Hedgehog]

Opportunity man. mtmuley

There will always be lots of opportunity to get licenses and go hunting to your heart's content. Regardless of your comments to FWP, that will never change.

 

[mtmuley]

There will always be lots of opportunity to get licenses and go hunting to your heart's content. Regardless of your comments to FWP, that will never change.

Understood. Too many people want to kill an elk at any cost, anytime. And Montana provides that "opportunity ". mtmuley

 

[Big Foot]

Comments made to the commission and the hole keeps getting deeper.

 

[bigsky2]

Anyone hear RMEF's stance on this? I know they reluctantly supported shoulder seasons originally on the conditions that they were temporary and were to be held only on private land.

 

[BWALKER77]

Anyone hear RMEF's stance on this? I know they reluctantly supported shoulder seasons originally on the conditions that they were temporary and were to be held only on public land.

I'm beginning to think RMEF is about useless on elk issues in MT.

 

[TheTone]

Anyone hear RMEF's stance on this? I know they reluctantly supported shoulder seasons originally on the conditions that they were temporary and were to be held only on public land.

It’s elk hunting, what issue would you expect them to have with it? What an exciting new opportunity