Bozeman Area Round Table

[Nameless Range]

I think there is a lot of wisdom in what Shoots Straight wrote above, but I think the next tool will be a further commercialization of wildlife in the form of landowner tags, due to claims that the reason things are so abysmal is that wildlife chiefly occupy private land and we need to incentivize landowners.

In the HD I frequent the most, that also happens to be over objective, there were nearly 100 hunter days per elk killed.

Yes, work within the system, show up to the meetings, provide substantive comments, etc. Just know it ain't rain running down your back. This is year 1 of at least 3 more.

Hard not be an absolute cynic with this junkshow. I am struggling with it.

 

[tjones]

To quote the director… “How do you know which elk are the wrong elk?…”

I think we need to keep hammering the concept that unit wide reduction of elk on accessible lands doesn’t do anything to alleviate localized problems related to elk distribution.

Page 55 of FWP's own elk management plan deals with this. They choose not to use it.

 

[Ben Lamb]

“The administration has changed, the Legislature has changed, all of this has changed. Yes, there’s going to be a pendulum swing on this. That’s the reality of what it is.”

Montana FWP director talks hunting regs, other changes at Bozeman meeting

The director of Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks said in front of a fiery crowd in Bozeman that he is focused on simplifying deer and elk hunting regulations going into

www.bozemandailychronicle.com

The hope you have today will be gone when decisions have to be made. The director is telling you that the legislature and the governor's office are in charge.

it's time to follow @shoots-straight lead and suit up. This is a long game, and we're in the first quarter.

 

[mtnkid85]

The R5 meeting went similar.

Overall tone was change is here, get used to it. Things won't be the same. Longer seasons, more "opportunity", less limited entry permits, more simplification. All 400s will open to general, no more 900 archery tags.

Senator Kary was there droning on about how public hunters are too lazy to ask for permission and thats why landowners won't let folks on, conservation groups send too many form letters during comment periods, conservation groups aren't bring forward solutions to the problems etc etc.

Jack Ballard stood up and spoke in favor of public wildlife, ethics and public perception of ridiculously long season lengths.

We need to engage with our legislators and commissioners if we want to have any hope of stemming the tide.

 

[brocksw]

All 400s will open to general, no more 900 archery tags.

I believe it was Schaaf's comment that made it sound like this wasn't necessarily the case? Or maybe I'm misremembering... I thought he said that Worsech stated that wasn't necessarily the plan to convert all/a bunch of LE units to general.

Did I miss something?

 

[mtnkid85]

Brock, Im not sure what comment you are referencing but at the Billings meeting last night that was certainly what I got out of it.
The 900 permit was specifically asked about, and they talked about the desire to simplify the tag allocations and how having a tag valid in so many separate units is not supported by biological data.
Senator Kary was the one who flat out said "We need to stop managing the 400 units as trophy units", then in conversation Worsech made a statement along the lines of imagine how good the hunting would be in those units if they where not limited entry...

 

[Schaaf]

I believe it was Schaaf's comment that made it sound like this wasn't necessarily the case? Or maybe I'm misremembering... I thought he said that Worsech stated that wasn't necessarily the plan to convert all/a bunch of LE units to general.

Did I miss something?

No, they definitely plan on converting a bunch of R4 units to OTC, against the wishes of the local biologist. I’m not sure which units are included in that right now.

 

[brocksw]

Brock, Im not sure what comment you are referencing but at the Billings meeting last night that was certainly what I got out of it.
The 900 permit was specifically asked about, and they talked about the desire to simplify the tag allocations and how having a tag valid in so many separate units is not supported by biological data.
Senator Kary was the one who flat out said "We need to stop managing the 400 units as trophy units", then in conversation Worsech made a statement along the lines of imagine how good the hunting would be in those units if they where not limited entry...

Thank you. I Agree the 900 tag as it is currently formatted should go away.

As far as his 400 units comment..... *Face palm

 

[Spartan_Eric]

The R5 meeting went similar.

Overall tone was change is here, get used to it. Things won't be the same. Longer seasons, more "opportunity", less limited entry permits, more simplification. All 400s will open to general, no more 900 archery tags.

Senator Kary was there droning on about how public hunters are too lazy to ask for permission and thats why landowners won't let folks on, conservation groups send too many form letters during comment periods, conservation groups aren't bring forward solutions to the problems etc etc.

Jack Ballard stood up and spoke in favor of public wildlife, ethics and public perception of ridiculously long season lengths.

We need to engage with our legislators and commissioners if we want to have any hope of stemming the tide.

This is definitely an accurate synopsis of the Region 5 meeting. I asked about the future of the 900 archery-only elk permits and I received a response back like why should we keep them (after I expressed my support for them continuing). Also, it sounded like the 400 elk HDs going to a general season (from a limited permit) was basically a done deal according to Worsech. One of the few positives was a landowner enrolled in the Block Management Program directly refuted Senator Kary’s ignorant stereotypical comments by saying most all of her hunters were very helpful, respectful and courteous.

 

[brocksw]

Just so its clear to readers, 401, 403, 410, 411, 412, 417, 425, 426, 441, 445, 447, 450, 455 are the special permit units in Region 4

 

[Schaaf]

The 900 permit is Gonezo even in the biologists proposals.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Just so its clear to readers, 401, 403, 410, 411, 412, 417, 425, 426, 441, 445, 447, 450, 455 are the special permit units in Region 4

Increased leasing, more elk harboring & returning to NR's taking the lion's share of bull elk.

Nice work.

 

[bigsky2]

Brock, Im not sure what comment you are referencing but at the Billings meeting last night that was certainly what I got out of it.
The 900 permit was specifically asked about, and they talked about the desire to simplify the tag allocations and how having a tag valid in so many separate units is not supported by biological data.
Senator Kary was the one who flat out said "We need to stop managing the 400 units as trophy units", then in conversation Worsech made a statement along the lines of imagine how good the hunting would be in those units if they where not limited entry...

For who? The private landowners? The public hunting in those units is going to be a zoo.

 

[BRI]

To quote the director… “How do you know which elk are the wrong elk?…”

I think we need to keep hammering the concept that unit wide reduction of elk on accessible lands doesn’t do anything to alleviate localized problems related to elk distribution. Killing an elk on the other side of the unit that has never stepped foot on the property of a rancher that is complaining about too many elk doesn’t solve the problem for the rancher who has too many elk in his hay field.

It does give FWP the ability to demonstrate to the legislature that they are “doing something about elk depredation” but it only works on paper.

In the field it actually causes more problems than it solves when you factor in the increased pressure to public land elk and landowner fatigue from hunters seeking access from Sept.-February.

Private landowners are the cause of the problems for other private landowners. The public land resident hunter is doing a phenomenal job of keeping public land elk at a low population.

If landowners want the problem of over objective elk solved then they need to be working with their neighbors, not complaining about hunters or FWP.

In many of the "over objective" units I'm familiar with, they could kill every single elk on public land and the unit would still be "over objective". To quote a well known member, anyone with 2 firing brain cells should be able to see that. It is unfathomable anyone could disagree with that.

 

[Ben Lamb]

In many of the "over objective" units I'm familiar with, they could kill every single elk on public land and the unit would still be "over objective". To quote a well known member, anyone with 2 firing brain cells should be able to see that. It is unfathomable anyone could disagree with that.

They're counting on people being casual observers and hunters rather than dedicated practitioners. "More opportunity, and more elk!" is the rallying cry to keep people happy without examining what this means for the longer term. Most folks will be pleased during the first year or two, until the elk are back on private or reduced by 30% (again, that's the goal - kill over 40,000 elk as fast as possible).

It's demagoguery at it's finest, rather than an honest approach to resource management. It's like celebrating opening wildlife refuges to skunk hunting by simply saying "we've expanded access!" 99% of the public won't look beyond that line, which is why there has to be a better alternative put out for the public to look at.

 

[brocksw]

They're counting on people being casual observers and hunters rather than dedicated practitioners. "More opportunity, and more elk!" is the rallying cry to keep people happy without examining what this means for the longer term. Most folks will be pleased during the first year or two, until the elk are back on private or reduced by 30% (again, that's the goal - kill over 40,000 elk as fast as possible).

It's demagoguery at it's finest, rather than an honest approach to resource management. It's like celebrating opening wildlife refuges to skunk hunting by simply saying "we've expanded access!" 99% of the public won't look beyond that line, which is why there has to be a better alternative put out for the public to look at.

Ben, or anyone here, do we have a sense for which units are under the microscope for region 4 beyond units that are "over objective"? That region covers a pretty diverse landscape and demographic. Are the complaints from landowners coming from further west in the region or the breaks units?

 

[Ben Lamb]

Ben do we have a sense for which units are under the microscope for region 4? That region covers a pretty diverse landscape and demographic. Are the complaints from landowners coming from further west in the region or the breaks units?

No idea first hand. If they go after the Breaks, I'd not be surprised in the least. Some outfitters are still plenty pissed at not having their kingdoms where NR's take the majority of antlered animals. If it's the Front or around the Devil's Kitchen area, I think landowners will come unglued as they have to deal with a crush of resident hunters calling, trespassing, pounding public, etc.

 

[Carnage2011]

Has anyone heard what the proposals look like for regions 5 and 7? I’ve seen a fair amount on 1,3,4, and 6.

 

[bigsky2]

Ben, or anyone here, do we have a sense for which units are under the microscope for region 4 beyond units that are "over objective"? That region covers a pretty diverse landscape and demographic. Are the complaints from landowners coming from further west in the region or the breaks units?

It sounds like it is all units that are over objective in Region 4. I am getting the impression that it's being driven more by landowners wanting tags than it is traditional ranchers wanting to get elk populations down. Not surprising at all considering how many million dollar ranches that have been sold around here for hunting purposes in the past couple years.

 

[Carnage2011]

It sounds like it is all units that are over objective in Region 4. I am getting the impression that it's being driven more by landowners wanting tags than it is traditional ranchers wanting to get elk populations down. Not surprising at all considering how many million dollar ranches that have been sold around here for hunting purposes in the past couple years.

The only positive I see out of this fiasco is I may not have to look at Chuck Denowh next legislative session….but I’d rather deal with him than see this pass.