Took me forever to find that list again the other day, thanks for the link!
I'm not even sure what to say for comments because I feel like I'll end up writing several pages.
Like you said though, this program could morph in the future. Something tells me not in a very positive way for hunters in the long term. Hopefully some of the commissioners will listen to some very valid concerns.
I don’t think there would be much utility in challenging the 454 program as it currently is, but we could give input to mitigate. Here’s my position:
Dear Commissioners,
My name is Xxx, and I live in Xxx I grew up in Xxx and have hunted the Elkhorns for 30 years. I still live and play in them. 3 years ago I had the coveted 380-20 permit, successfully poking a bull in the heart with an arrow, on private land I gained permission on via an earnest question and a handshake. I am very concerned about this year’s proposed Elk Hunting Access Agreements (454 Program), and I would like to lay out some facts for your consideration before you move forward with your decisions regarding them.
Bull counts in the Elkhorns have dropped 30% in the last 4 years
This winter’s aerial survey, which was performed under good conditions, counted 171 BTBs (Brow Tined Bulls). The last good aerial survey in 2018, there were 246 BTBs counted. That is a 30% drop in BTBs in just 5 years. The amount of 380-20 permits available as a whole were already reduced by 25% this year as opposed to previous ones due to this bothersome trend.Now is not a time to add additional permits to the mix.
The Elkhorns are barely within objective.
The biologist had what was classified as a good count in the Elkhorns on flights flown on February 25,26 and March 9, and 10th. Elk totals amounted to 1,794. The objective for HD 380 is 1700 – 2300. We are more than 500 elk from being over objective.
Landowners already have an enormously greater chance than the public
In the 2022 drawings, there were 15 Landowner Preference Permits available in 380, and a total of 26 applicants. That is draw odds of 58%. Conversely, of the 85 remaining permits, 84 of which went to residents, had a permits/applicants ratio of .86%. Landowners already have nearly 70X the opportunity at this permit, and I should add in addition, get a chance at the regular pool if they are unsuccessful in the landowner draw. A once in a lifetime tag to most, is already likely drawn every two or three years by landowners. The most sought after elk tag in the state every few years seems a good deal.
Some of these landowners don’t qualify for landowner preference, or only have elk seasonally, or already have accessible land.
The Hahn Ranch is either enrolled in Block Management or has an FWP Conservation Easement that already allows public access. This is not gaining the public much and they are giving up a fair amount.
The Staubach Creek Ranch chiefly only has elk during archery season, and FWP already engages in preseason damage hunts. One of the most coveted permits in the state for a place that elk mostly leave after October?
The Dunn Canyon Ranch is already enrolled in Block Management, and also typically has game damage hunts.
The Radley Ranch isn’t even a section of land. It’s not eligible for Landowner Preference, which is telling.
This would be a disservice to a tenuous resource, and a poor exchange for the public.
Ultimately, we are talking about 5 additional 380-20 permits – 30% more than what is already available to landowners who already have a superb chance at what is a once-in-a-lifetime tag for most, in a district with plummeting bull numbers and a barely acceptable amount of elk as a whole. These agreements are poor and unnecessary. The public would gain very little, andgive up a lot. Being a member of the public, I ask that you deny these agreements.
I appreciate your time and service.
Thank you,
fwp.mt.gov
