UPOM suing FWP over elk regulations

[Eric Albus]

Next to zero is about the ballpark of some of the objectives MOGA and UPOM insist we need to manage towards.. So I don't think permits would need to be cut in many areas where elk populations are such a "problem".

MOGA has said nothing about managing towards “near zero” objective numbers.

If we are going to only manage accessible lands and accessible elk, permit numbers (aka opportunity) for the public on public lands would need be cut to near ZERO, if you were paying attention elk numbers in ACCESSIBLE acres are abysmal according to many on here.

 

[Eric Albus]

That's untrue bar talk someone made up to support a false narrative. You would be hard pressed to substantiate that with any credible documentation, other than some "bar talk" vague remembrances, likely from UPOM predecessors.

It is true. FWP and landowners came up with the number of 2400 on the north side of Ft. Peck, dam to Fred Robinson bridge as the number of elk.(of memory serves correct)

 

[tjones]

. You would be hard pressed to substantiate that with any credible documentation, other than some "bar talk" vague remembrances,

It is true. FWP and landowners came up with the number of 2400 on the north side of Ft. Peck, dam to Fred Robinson bridge as the number of elk.(of memory serves correct)

Lobbing softballs.

So no "credible documentation"?

 

[DFS]

MOGA has said nothing about managing towards “near zero” objective numbers.

If we are going to only manage accessible lands and accessible elk, permit numbers (aka opportunity) for the public on public lands would need be cut to near ZERO, if you were paying attention elk numbers in ACCESSIBLE acres are abysmal according to many on here.

Key word is manage accessible lands. That is currently not happening we are throwing as many tags out as we can which only makes the problem worse. Elk would gladly be on public if we truly managed for that. The scare tactic of saying opportunity would be gone is simply bullshit.

 

[The Hedgehog]

NONE of these "insert your industry/landowner group 4 letter acronym here" folks could care anything about actually managing the elk. They just want to get their hands on the bull permits, and they're using the objectives and poor ranchers as a ruse. There's really nothing more to type about.

 

[Straight Arrow]

No, they weren’t.
Neither am I when I say elk were re-introduced(foisted is another term could be used) upon the landowners of eastern Montana in the 40’s.

"Foisted"? Yet another false notion. Landowners, ranchers, and farmers assisted with the reintroduction.

It is true. FWP and landowners came up with the number of 2400 on the north side of Ft. Peck, dam to Fred Robinson bridge as the number of elk.(of memory serves correct)

'Don't know how old you are, but I don't think you were even around when the reintroduction occurred. Your "recollection" certainly deviates from the accurately described, factual, well-documented BACK FROM THE BRINK narrative published as the success story of Montana wildlife management which included reintroduction of elk and other species into areas where they had previously existed. As pointed to before ... limiting wildlife populations by "objective" numbers was not even a thing back then.

 

[sacountry]

Key word is manage accessible lands. That is currently not happening we are throwing as many tags out as we can which only makes the problem worse. Elk would gladly be on public if we truly managed for that. The scare tactic of saying opportunity would be gone is simply bullshit.

It's sort of an interesting concept to process. Manage the population based solely on the population that's on public. Effectively reducing the number of tags issued in HDs where there are lots of elk sanctuaries. I would think MOGA would hire helicopters to push the elk to the public as a tag preservation strategy. UPOM would scream bloody murder. Guys like @antlerradar, whom I have utmost respect, would get caught in the crossfire unfortunately.

I still argue that Hank's "we have to do things differently" is true, just woefully misguided by special interest groups. I would use the Block program coupled with an FWP app that pushes notifications to hunters when a private landowner wants elk pushed off his/her property (very similar to the damage hunts of a few years back, but available to use during the season and at the landowners discretion). This way guys like antler can select a small handful of days out of the season when they need elk pushed without having to police their property for 3 whole months of the year. Pay him Block rates for signatures collected and toss in a single transferable bull tag to additionally compensate him for damages and his time.

 

[DFS]

It's sort of an interesting concept to process. Manage the population based solely on the population that's on public. Effectively reducing the number of tags issued in HDs where there are lots of elk sanctuaries. I would think MOGA would hire helicopters to push the elk to the public as a tag preservation strategy. UPOM would scream bloody murder. Guys like @antlerradar, whom I have utmost respect, would get caught in the crossfire unfortunately.

I still argue that Hank's "we have to do things differently" is true, just woefully misguided by special interest groups. I would use the Block program coupled with an FWP app that pushes notifications to hunters when a private landowner wants elk pushed off his/her property (very similar to the damage hunts of a few years back, but available to use during the season and at the landowners discretion). This way guys like antler can select a small handful of days out of the season when they need elk pushed without having to police their property for 3 whole months of the year. Pay him Block rates for signatures collected and toss in a single transferable bull tag to additionally compensate him for damages and his time.

As long as Montana keeps it’s current season structure you won’t fix anything. Seasons need to be shortened, deer and elk can’t overlap, choose your weapon etc etc etc. If we truly wanted to fix the “problem” it could be easily done. The stakeholders don’t want to fix the problem and are conveniently using it to get what they want. Bull tags.

 

[sacountry]

As long as Montana keeps it’s current season structure you won’t fix anything. Seasons need to be shortened, deer and elk can’t overlap, choose your weapon etc etc etc. If we truly wanted to fix the “problem” it could be easily done. The stakeholders don’t want to fix the problem and are conveniently using it to get what they want. Bull tags.

Each species has its own issues. Mule deer need a shortened season with no hunting during the rut. Whitetail would benefit from archery only during their rut. Moving elk onto public is a different beast that requires properly applied pressure in certain HDs. I'm not opposed to what you're suggesting, just has to be on a species and phase basis.

 

[antlerradar]

It's sort of an interesting concept to process. Manage the population based solely on the population that's on public. Effectively reducing the number of tags issued in HDs where there are lots of elk sanctuaries. I would think MOGA would hire helicopters to push the elk to the public as a tag preservation strategy. UPOM would scream bloody murder. Guys like @antlerradar, whom I have utmost respect, would get caught in the crossfire unfortunately.

I still argue that Hank's "we have to do things differently" is true, just woefully misguided by special interest groups. I would use the Block program coupled with an FWP app that pushes notifications to hunters when a private landowner wants elk pushed off his/her property (very similar to the damage hunts of a few years back, but available to use during the season and at the landowners discretion). This way guys like antler can select a small handful of days out of the season when they need elk pushed without having to police their property for 3 whole months of the year. Pay him Block rates for signatures collected and toss in a single transferable bull tag to additionally compensate him for damages and his time.

I have no issue with reducing Bull and public land cow tags with the goal of keeping elk on public.
Would much rather the elk be in the hills than in the hay fields.
If hunting is good on public there are less conflicts between landowners and hunters.

As for needing an app or other ways to connect with hunters. Finding people with tags to shoot elk has never been an issue.

 

[DFS]

I have no issue with reducing Bull and public land cow tags with the goal of keeping elk on public.
Would much rather the elk be in the hills than in the hay fields.
If hunting is good on public there are less conflicts between landowners and hunters.

As for needing an app or other ways to connect with hunters. Finding people with tags to shoot elk has never been an issue.

I suspect you aren’t charging enough.

 

[DFS]

Shorten the bull season and pour the cow tags to the private early and late and that is the solution to this problem. You would find very quickly that there isn’t that big of a problem and the landowners that are actually hurting from the elk will take care of their problem that’s what ranchers do.

 

[brockel]

Shorten the bull season and pour the cow tags to the private early and late and that is the solution to this problem. You would find very quickly that there isn’t that big of a problem and the landowners that are actually hurting from the elk will take care of their problem that’s what ranchers do.

September archery. October rifle. Private land cow only tags any weapon September through November.

Run the deer season the same dates minus the private land only tag any weapon

 

[sacountry]

I have no issue with reducing Bull and public land cow tags with the goal of keeping elk on public.
Would much rather the elk be in the hills than in the hay fields.
If hunting is good on public there are less conflicts between landowners and hunters.

As for needing an app or other ways to connect with hunters. Finding people with tags to shoot elk has never been an issue.

I get that finding people to hunt isn't an issue for you Antler.....I was just hearing your concerns about the current Block program with regard to 3 months of policing. I would think 3-4 days of policing when you know there's elk on your land is way more palatable vs a season long commitment.

 

[brockel]

I get that finding people to hunt isn't an issue for you Antler.....I was just hearing your concerns about the current Block program with regard to 3 months of policing. I would think 3-4 days of policing when you know there's elk on your land is way more palatable vs a season long commitment.

I think landowner/hunter relations would improve a lot if seasons were shortened like I suggested above. Landowners wouldn’t have their phones ringing for 4 months straight or their doors constantly knocked on

 

[sacountry]

I think landowner/hunter relations would improve a lot if seasons were shortened like I suggested above. Landowners wouldn’t have their phones ringing for 4 months straight or their doors constantly knocked on

Shortened seasons are a good response to the human population growth in Montana and as well as managing downturns in herd populations like Mule deer. My feeling is that revamping the FWP tools already in place can create a second competitive option for landowners with problem elk. If leasing remains the most lucrative option, then the problem with elk on private will only continue to perpetuate itself. Empowering landowners with a couple of compelling options, including one transferable bull tag if participating in public access programs, could do more to educate elk than just shortening seasons. Sanctuary landownership is an unsolvable problem.

 

[brockel]

Shortened seasons are a good response to the human population growth in Montana and as well as managing downturns in herd populations like Mule deer. My feeling is that revamping the FWP tools already in place can create a second competitive option for landowners with problem elk. If leasing remains the most lucrative option, then the problem with elk on private will only continue to perpetuate itself. Empowering landowners with a couple of compelling options, including one transferable bull tag if participating in public access programs, could do more to educate elk than just shortening seasons. Sanctuary landownership is an unsolvable problem.

Having their hay ate and the effects to their bottom line isn’t compelling enough?

 

[DFS]

Having their hay ate and the effects to their bottom line isn’t compelling enough?

Having that bull tag will give them just enough motivation to try to save the ranch.

 

[sacountry]

Having their hay ate and the effects to their bottom line isn’t compelling enough?

That drives the decision to act, yes. Equipping them with multiple, palatable options on how to respond is my point.

 

[brockel]

That drives the decision to act, yes. Equipping them with multiple, palatable options on how to respond is my point.

We have VERY generous cow tags and 6month long seasons. If those aren’t good enough tools or tools that aren’t being used to lower the elk populations I suspect that controlling the population isn’t really what they are shooting for