Draft Elk Management Plan is out

[Ben Lamb]

I find it tempting to comment only on those things I think should be different, but something kind of bold I am seeing in some of the specific district plans is related to habitat, and I think that if you are commenting, it is something worth commenting in support of. For example in 318, for the goal of maintaining elk distribution across landownerships with available habitat throughout the year, the plan says things like:

- Work with public land managers to maintain or improve elk security
- Work with land management agencies to improve habitat conditions for elk on public lands
- Encourage retention of all designated and defacto roadless areas and proposed wilderness areas
-Purse new conservation easements

Those are great explicit goals, and sure they could be fluff, but I have a feeling that, particularly as the Beaverhead Deerlodge finally engages in travel planning, FWP would be bound to provide input to the USFS that aligns with these goals. It's really something that could be political, and controversial, but would be a long terms good as different land management proposals come along for things in our HDs.

I think when it comes to habitat considerations in specific HDs, we should comment in favor of these types of things.

If you dig into the unit specific recommendations, I think the habitat issue is reflected heavily. Talking with folks in R1 and R2, they are eager to implement this, and FWP used to be heavily engaged in land use planning under the Ecological Services division that existed in some form up until at least 2010 (Not sure if it still exists now). They weighed in on all kinds of plans, like transmission lines, renewable projects, O&G plays, FS and BLM planning, etc.

SB 442 certainly would have helped FWP on this.

 

[Elky Welky]

SB 442 certainly would have helped FWP on this.

Still could! I am hopeful we get a ruling soon. Judge Seeley is pretty backed up with multiple big suits. Between the kids climate change case and multiple suits against the gov, I'm sure her poor law clerk is working overtime.

Any update on 442 or do you think the ship has sailed?

 

[Ben Lamb]

Any update on 442 or do you think the ship has sailed?

No real updates that I've heard. I think the case against the veto being final is fairly strong, personally.

 

[Elky Welky]

No real updates that I've heard. I think the case against the veto being final is fairly strong, personally.

Agreed, I don't see how the gov/sec of state wins when there is such clear constitutional language and intent.

I am mostly concerned our legislators aren't going to be as inclined to override once we get a ruling, just given how long this process takes.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Agreed, I don't see how the gov/sec of state wins when there is such clear constitutional language and intent.

I am mostly concerned our legislators aren't going to be as inclined to override once we get a ruling, just given how long this process takes.

There are 56 counties who are ready to ride, along with a large contingent of other interests who want to see this move. Slippage is inevitable. The veto is not.

 

[Ben Lamb]

https://fwp.mt.gov/binaries/content/assets/fwp/news/public-notices/2023/statewide/draft-ea-elk-management-plan_final.pdf

If you are commenting on the EMP, then don't forget to include the EA as well. The link above is only 100 pages long, so an easy read.

 

[Nameless Range]

Today is the last day to comment! Here's a few comments I threw out there for some specific districts.

Draft Elk Plan Public Comments | Montana FWP

FWP began developing a revised statewide Elk Management Plan in 2020. The next step is to gather input on current elk population objectives and other local challenges that could be addressed in the revised Elk Management Plan. 

fwp.mt.gov

318



-I strongly support working with public land managers to maintain or improve elk security and retaining all designated and defacto roadless areas and proposed wilderness areas. I also strongly support pursuing new conservation easements.

-The Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest, has said that they are going to engage in travel planning in the coming years. I hope you comment in favor of a travel management alternative that supports the aforementioned habitat goals. There will be opportunities to endorse keeping roadless areas roadless.

-Hunter days are nearly twice as much now, than they were 15 years ago. I encourage you watch this district very closely. It’s hard to believe that allowing hunter days to again double in the most heavily-roaded portion of the B-D NF will align with your elk distribution objectives. How can you limit those?



335

-Raise the lower aerial survey count amount. I agree with 1,400 as a high end, but there has not been one year in the last 20 where we got as low as 500, and so getting that low would be very concerning. We should shoot for a minimum of 700 elk, so the range should be 700-1400

-I support all the elk distribution strategies related to habitat.In particular, encouraging retention of designated and defacto roadless areas.

350

300-400 is too small a range. This district is very sensitive to over harvest, given that heavy snows push elk to wintering ground that is almost exclusively public land. This district never recovered from the harvest that occurred in 2011. I support raising the high end of the range to 500 – a population number reached twice in the last decade.

-Given this district is almost entirely withing the B-D NF, and they are just starting to spin up travel management, you need to work with public land managers to maintain or improve elk security and retaining all designated and defacto roadless areas and proposed wilderness areas. I’d like to see this explicitly stated. 350 has both large roadless areas as well as formerly proposed Wilderness

- Utilize game damage hunts where applicable. Hunt the "problem elk" in Elk Park in a very acute fashion. Don't liberalize hunting in the district in a way that hunts elk having nothing to do with landowner complaints.

380

-In line with your statewide goals of working with local working groups, I ask that you explicitly mention the Elkhorn Working Group under the goal of maintaining elk distribution. Public Land managers, landowners, etc – cohorts you mention in elk distribution objective for the district - they are all in the working group.

-I believe the Elkhorns have reached a point of saturation when it comes to spike hunters. Not only are the high amount of spike hunters harming hunter experience, they are to a point where they are pushing elk off of accessible lands and onto private, and even out of the district. This does not align with your elk distribution objectives for the district. I believe it is time to limit spike hunters, perhaps through a separate spike hunter quota.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Here's what MWF & some affiliates submitted.

 

[lifeisgoodsteve]

Here's what MWF & some affiliates submitted.

Wow, that's a very thorough, well written commentary. I hope you've got an exceptional relationship with FWP so they'll read through the whole thing.

For next time, a small formatting point to consider would be to put some kind of bullet point summary outline of the recommendations/comments in there so it's as easy as possible for them to "get it", reference the points and work on integrating them.

Clearly a ton of time and thought went into this which I really appreciate. Thank you.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Wow, that's a very thorough, well written commentary. I hope you've got an exceptional relationship with FWP so they'll read through the whole thing.

For next time, a small formatting point to consider would be to put some kind of bullet point summary outline of the recommendations/comments in there so it's as easy as possible for them to "get it", reference the points and work on integrating them.

Clearly a ton of time and thought went into this which I really appreciate. Thank you.

If the folks who drafted the 500 page plan & 100+ page EA can't follow those 12 pages of comments, we're all in deeper trouble than even @BuzzH can imagine.

But a very good point.

 

[bigsky2]

Here's what MWF & some affiliates submitted.

Very well done.

 

[Nameless Range]

Plan was adopted 2 days ago:

Statewide Elk Management Plan | Montana FWP

FWP began developing a revised statewide Elk Management Plan in 2020. The next step is to gather input on current elk population objectives and other local challenges that could be addressed in the revised Elk Management Plan.

fwp.mt.gov

 

[Nameless Range]

No plan is going to be perfect, but I think this plan is actually really well done. The individual they hired to write it clearly put in a lot of effort, wrote it in a format that is easy to understand, and in my interactions with her she genuinely tried to absorb different perspectives. The emphasis on habitat is foundational. The crux will be whether FWP adheres to it, revisits it with the frequency they claim they will, and how much dirty water the legislature/Commission will throw in the soup of Elk hunting in Montana.

Neat to see little changes, whether they matter or not in the long run.

Today is the last day to comment! Here's a few comments I threw out there for some specific districts.

......

380

-In line with your statewide goals of working with local working groups, I ask that you explicitly mention the Elkhorn Working Group under the goal of maintaining elk distribution. Public Land managers, landowners, etc – cohorts you mention in elk distribution objective for the district - they are all in the working group.

-I believe the Elkhorns have reached a point of saturation when it comes to spike hunters. Not only are the high amount of spike hunters harming hunter experience, they are to a point where they are pushing elk off of accessible lands and onto private, and even out of the district. This does not align with your elk distribution objectives for the district. I believe it is time to limit spike hunters, perhaps through a separate spike hunter quota.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Totally agree, @Nameless Range. There are pieces that aren't great, but by & large the new emp is a plan folks can work with.

The people of Montana get a ton of credit in this as well. Having seen the organizing effort that went on behind the scenes to get folks engaged, energized & activated across the spectrum of stakeholders, the public really made a significant impact in terms of engaging with the agency & helping steer the discussion into fruitful areas.

The Elk Advisory Committee, countless meetings with groups and individuals, etc all helped create the emp.

It's not perfect, but it is better than what we had.

 

[Nameless Range]

The use of Goal Ranges was a very wise thing to do.

Here's a stat to consider:Under the old EMP, the Statewide goal for elk was 92,000 elk. Under the newly adopted plan, the Statewide goal for elk is now a range of 96,015 - 151,425. That leaves a lot of wiggle room for managers to avoid the dreaded status of "over-objective".

 

[bigsky2]

I was very pleased to see that they removed the part that said a HD that is over objective for three years would go to general.

 

[MThuntr]

Now I need to read...I missed the update that it was adopted.