BuzzH
Well-known member
Good luck with that.
I've tried for a long time and I'm to the point if you can't beat em, join em.
Vision for Montana in 20 years
- Thread starter DFS
- Start date
I've tried for a long time and I'm to the point if you can't beat em, join em.
You told me to come with my pitchfork! Newberg and Rinella certainly aren’t fixing anything. I’m tired of being the toilet bowl of the west. 100’s of ways to make things better.
Gerald Martin
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2009
- Messages
- 8,643
The “forcing access on private land” position is a false narrative or a straw man that doesn’t exist.
No one is attempting to force access anywhere. The context I have most often heard that phrase used in is by people complaining against limited either-sex permits on areas over objective.
FWP’s position has historically been that if landowners want a reduction in the population in an area they will need to allow access to accommodate hunters to harvest. That is not “forcing access on private land”.
It is an acknowledgment that the wildlife of this state belong to all residents of this state regardless of where that wildlife resides. Licensed hunters are the main tool that FWP utilizes to control populations. Without adequate access being granted willingly by private landowners to the wildlife present on their property it will be impossible for licensed hunters to harvest enough elk to keep them within population objectives. That is reality.
FWP refusing to grant additional permits, licenses or preferences to reward landowners who have chosen not to grant access in the past but will grant access in the future if FWP “sweetens the pot” isn’t punitive or “forcing access”.
Last edited:
Gerald Martin
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2009
- Messages
- 8,643
42% of what. Either sex tags or cow tags? What are we trying to accomplish? Hunter distribution or meeting population objectives?
Hunter distribution. I’m not saying it’s right it just makes sense. 42% of the elk reside on private. Those elk should be hunted. 95% of the tags are hunted on public right now. It’s sad you would have less opportunity but that’s what needs to happen.
Gerald Martin
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2009
- Messages
- 8,643
Here’s some numbers to chew on. @150-175,000 elk hunters in any given year. 140,000 total elk and @ 22,000 bulls post season.
Something like @12-15,000 bulls and @ 15-18,000 cows are killed every year.
Seems like there’s a lot of work that can be done to change the herd structure that would greatly increase quality without raising total numbers of elk.
Something like @12-15,000 bulls and @ 15-18,000 cows are killed every year.
Seems like there’s a lot of work that can be done to change the herd structure that would greatly increase quality without raising total numbers of elk.
Gerald Martin
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2009
- Messages
- 8,643
I am fine with less opportunity. The only way quality can increase is to decrease the total amount of hunting pressure, either by changing season structure or limiting tags. Probably both.
Gerald Martin
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2009
- Messages
- 8,643
Not necessarily 42% of the elk are on private. 42% of the areas inhabited by elk in MT are private land.
The total amount of elk on private vs public isn’t a known quantity.
Correct. I don’t know the stats people on here are much smarter than me. My point is the wildlife belong to the public but we can’t continue to put all the pressure on the public and hope things to get better. We have to distribute pressure or change season structure. I don’t care which.
Gerald Martin
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2009
- Messages
- 8,643
Something else to consider is that FWP doesn’t manage with hunter distribution or quality of the hunt experience in mind.
They are legally mandated by the legislature to manage to keep elk populations in any given unit to within “objective” regardless of whether the elk in the unit live on accessible properties or inaccessible property. That’s why you see units with as many or more tags given out than there are elk in the area and herds that are continuing to increase. Landowners in parts of the unit don’t want elk managed according to an “objective” or don’t want to deal with hunters. They don’t care to help FWP accomplish their mandate.
Often times, these same landowners do attempt to capitalize on the ensuing conflict by asking for or demanding additional bull tags.
They are legally mandated by the legislature to manage to keep elk populations in any given unit to within “objective” regardless of whether the elk in the unit live on accessible properties or inaccessible property. That’s why you see units with as many or more tags given out than there are elk in the area and herds that are continuing to increase. Landowners in parts of the unit don’t want elk managed according to an “objective” or don’t want to deal with hunters. They don’t care to help FWP accomplish their mandate.
Often times, these same landowners do attempt to capitalize on the ensuing conflict by asking for or demanding additional bull tags.
BuzzH
Well-known member
Right, and good luck getting a group of 5 people that can agree on a single one of your 100's of ways to make things better.
People like to complain but very few are willing to do much about it, or give up anything to do it.
Ask them to adopt Wyoming's general elk management...make sure to have your flame resistant suit handy.
Gerald Martin
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2009
- Messages
- 8,643
I agree. Both redistribution of pressure and season structure are probably going to have to be implemented.
Because much of FWP’s mandate is for herd reduction, and herd reduction is accomplished by shooting cows, I would be in full support of making all cow licenses in over objective units be private land only. No cow harvest on public land to allow elk to select public over private for sanctuary.
Either sex tags need to be allocated on a percentage of how many total bulls are in any given unit and valid for public and private. Making either sex tags private land only will ensure increased leasing by outfitters or private hunt clubs and lead to more of the same harboring of elk in hopes of killing more bulls for clients or landowners’ acquaintances.
We have to manage the lands available to us. You can keep the same amount of bull tags but they will be hunted on the lands available to us. Not where some of them need to be hunted.
The way things have declined in the last decade I’d rather not picture Montana in 20 years if we continue the same shit show we’ve been doing
First I would like to see Montana go to mandatory harvest reporting right down to township and range just like when reporting bobcats and such. If not reported then you won’t be able to purchase your base licenses the following year.
I would like to see animals managed per district vs by region. Would like to see each district looked at down to the percentage of public and private and where most most animals are being killed. This is reason for township and range reporting.
Once that data is collected then let the biologists do their jobs in figuring out what a sustainable number of animals being harvested from each district is. Might as well face reality and accept that massive amounts of mule deer doe tags aren’t going anywhere with CWD being around but at least we can break these up into private and public land Mule deer and whitetail doe tags per biologists harvest data of public vs private.
Deer and elk goes to September archery general, October rifle draw, November muzzleloader draw. Obviously your general elk archery couldn’t be state wide but could basically keep our same archery districts setup for elk we have now.
Would like to see shoulder seasons disappear and problems be handle by damage hunts only and private land only doe/cow permits.
I’m sure there’s more that pisses me off that I’ve forgotten.
First I would like to see Montana go to mandatory harvest reporting right down to township and range just like when reporting bobcats and such. If not reported then you won’t be able to purchase your base licenses the following year.
I would like to see animals managed per district vs by region. Would like to see each district looked at down to the percentage of public and private and where most most animals are being killed. This is reason for township and range reporting.
Once that data is collected then let the biologists do their jobs in figuring out what a sustainable number of animals being harvested from each district is. Might as well face reality and accept that massive amounts of mule deer doe tags aren’t going anywhere with CWD being around but at least we can break these up into private and public land Mule deer and whitetail doe tags per biologists harvest data of public vs private.
Deer and elk goes to September archery general, October rifle draw, November muzzleloader draw. Obviously your general elk archery couldn’t be state wide but could basically keep our same archery districts setup for elk we have now.
Would like to see shoulder seasons disappear and problems be handle by damage hunts only and private land only doe/cow permits.
I’m sure there’s more that pisses me off that I’ve forgotten.
I’m on board!
SAJ-99
Well-known member
You want an out-of-the-box idea. Create a Hunters Helping Landowners program where hunters can sign up to help mend fences and gates, spray for invasive weeds, or whatever needs to the done in the Spring and Summer. Building a relationship with the landowner is what is generally lacking these days. It is hard work and many need help.
Gerald Martin
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2009
- Messages
- 8,643
Quite frankly, bulls don’t really “need to be hunted.”
They are hunted because they can be. Population control is always a function of shooting females.
Notwithstanding Director Worsech’s cherry picked example of unit 426 as an area with a bull to cow ratio of 120/100 as being typical of the permit areas across central and eastern MT.
I think unit 426 has something like 350 total elk in the whole unit.
Great idea we’ve had hunters shoot a hole in one of our water tanks. Be good to see the other side that doesn’t trespass and take dumps all over the approaches during November.
Good idea but never would work. To much of a liability and honestly most people probably can’t even run a simple fence stretcher. Why waste the ranchers time in showing someone for them just to Screw it up so it has to be redone anyways taking twice as long as before? Would be a bigger headache than the phone calls in the fall
