Draft Elk Management Plan is out

[Elky Welky]

Can we keep the current name and hand out patches?

Haha! I graduated the program in 2019, have nothing bad to say about it, but I still can't (nor will I ever) in good conscience call myself a "Master Hunter." I'm already a lawyer, yet somehow that title is even less savory.

 

[mtmiller]

I looked at course summary, tuition and class dates; no patch for me.

Guess I will just continue to be very good at putting a worm on a hook. You know, a master at it.

 

[Ben Lamb]

You know, a master at it.

I guess we found something Havre doesn't have.

FWP is reinstating the in person field day. After HB 243 died, they committed to it, and they put out a release stating the same. That's positive direction forward. As for an enhanced hunter ed program at the state level, I'm all for it. Since PR funding is eligible for hunter's education, we may as well subsidize the current program and move it over to FWP, eliminate the cost and offer it for anyone who wants to take it.

There should be some patches.

 

[tjones]

Here is an option if the Master Hunter Class is not the right fit.

https://rcfwa.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/Revised-Next-Level-Hunting-2023-2.pdf

 

[mtmiller]

FWP is reinstating the in person field day. After HB 243 died, they committed to it, and they put out a release stating the same. That's positive direction forward. As for an enhanced hunter ed program at the state level, I'm all for it. Since PR funding is eligible for hunter's education, we may as well subsidize the current program and move it over to FWP, eliminate the cost and offer it for anyone who wants to take it.

There should be some patches.

All for it. Hopefully not a weekend deal. Still beating myself up for not helping @Schaaf this weekend doing Gods work with Keep It Public. Getting too old and selfish for my free weekends to chase wildlife. All for grownups hunters ed…aka, know how to be a responsible and thoughtful adult.

 

[Schaaf]

All for it. Hopefully not a weekend deal. Still beating myself up for not helping @Schaaf this weekend doing Gods work with Keep It Public. Getting too old and selfish for my free weekends to chase wildlife. All for grownups hunters ed…aka, know how to be a responsible and thoughtful adult.

I’ll let it slide as long as there’s a beer at Triple Dog in my future

 

[mtmiller]

They just ran out and this road construction is cutting into my wildlife viewing time. Two days off a week blows.

 

[DFS]

Can we keep the current name and hand out patches?

The patch should read “Certified to shoot Cheetos eaters”

 

[Ben Lamb]

The patch should read “Certified to shoot Cheetos eaters”

This is the patch we all chipped in for you buddy:

 

[DFS]

This is the patch we all chipped in for you buddy:
View attachment 283887

1. Wildlife
2. Funding
Just a suggestion going forward. Enjoy your patches.

 

[Ben Lamb]

1. Get on up
2. Get down with your bad self
Just a suggestion going forward. Enjoy your patches.

FIFY

 

[DFS]

I understand that. They are however not required to come up with solutions that make the problem worse meanwhile trashing the hunting on lands accessible to 90% of the hunters. Get smart or keep smashing your nuts off the wall. New EMP appears to continue the nut smashing by not acknowledging the inaccessible elk(including them in the objectives) and implementing general season for not being able to get them at or under objective(which we know they won’t. That’s been proven).

This one needs to get back on track and stay at the top. Here is a good comment everyone should read. Lobbyist aren’t going to fix a damn thing it will take the people of Montana to do it.

 

[Nameless Range]

I'm still neck deep in my own comments, but something I want to bring to the forefront is FWP's mention of local working groups.

On page 61, FWP says that to maximize local input, “Where feasible, existing or new local working groups, including hunters, landowners, oufitters, pertinent wildlife staff, and interested community members are assembled to assist with developing and evaluating objectives, providing comment on season structures, and discuss any other issues with elk management in the area.”

Something I will be including in my own comments, is to include continued involvement of Elkhorn Working Group(EWG) in the management of 380. The EWG already does this, but nothing requires it of FWP. When the EWG commented on the elk population objectives last fall, they wrote a letter in favor of the status quo. I know the Elkhorns have management issues, but aside from those, the elk objective numbers were unanimously supported by the EWG. The Elkhorns have a high objective and elk density, and a good mix of private/public land use by elk. Where else in Montana would a group of diverse stakeholders do the same? It speaks to the success of the EWG as a model for other districts. Of all the potential issues involving elk management in the Elkhorns, I do not believe herd size is one of them.

That said, when I look at the EMP proposal for 380, I see no mention of the Elkhorn Working Group. In my own comments, I am going to ask that the EWG be explicitly mentioned as one of the components of the management of HD 380. This would codify the continued use of the working group model, would be good for the Elkhorns, and would further the future of the Elkhorn Working Group’s existence.

Local Working Groups are not an antidote for everything, but they very powerful tools. They kind of bypass the BS often sourced in Helena, and get local and knowledgeable souls of different perspectives in the same room. All of a sudden the conversations are far more interesting and fruitful, though potentially more difficult, which is a good thing. We need more of them, and frankly, I believe it would be appropriate for every HD in Montana that has elk to have one associated with it.


So, I think it would be good to push local working groups in your comments on the Draft Elk Management Plan. FWP has already opened the door to such comments. Let em know they are on the right track.




Comment here:

https://fwp.mt.gov/aboutfwp/public-...sHRarN_P0z8TgLRcAyXGzbMhp8T6B_f7wJMLWdUz0Bujk

 

[Ben Lamb]

I'm still neck deep in my own comments, but something I want to bring to the forefront is FWP's mention of local working groups.

On page 61, FWP says that to maximize local input, “Where feasible, existing or new local working groups, including hunters, landowners, oufitters, pertinent wildlife staff, and interested community members are assembled to assist with developing and evaluating objectives, providing comment on season structures, and discuss any other issues with elk management in the area.”

Something I will be including in my own comments, is to include continued involvement of Elkhorn Working Group(EWG) in the management of 380. The EWG already does this, but nothing requires it of FWP. When the EWG commented on the elk population objectives last fall, they wrote a letter in favor of the status quo. I know the Elkhorns have management issues, but aside from those, the elk objective numbers were unanimously supported by the EWG. The Elkhorns have a high objective and elk density, and a good mix of private/public land use by elk. Where else in Montana would a group of diverse stakeholders do the same? It speaks to the success of the EWG as a model for other districts. Of all the potential issues involving elk management in the Elkhorns, I do not believe herd size is one of them.

That said, when I look at the EMP proposal for 380, I see no mention of the Elkhorn Working Group. In my own comments, I am going to ask that the EWG be explicitly mentioned as one of the components of the management of HD 380. This would codify the continued use of the working group model, would be good for the Elkhorns, and would further the future of the Elkhorn Working Group’s existence.

Local Working Groups are not an antidote for everything, but they very powerful tools. They kind of bypass the BS often sourced in Helena, and get local and knowledgeable souls of different perspectives in the same room. All of a sudden the conversations are far more interesting and fruitful, though potentially more difficult, which is a good thing. We need more of them, and frankly, I believe it would be appropriate for every HD in Montana that has elk to have one associated with it.


So, I think it would be good to push local working groups in your comments on the Draft Elk Management Plan. FWP has already opened the door to such comments. Let em know they are on the right track.


View attachment 284643

Comment here:

https://fwp.mt.gov/aboutfwp/public-...sHRarN_P0z8TgLRcAyXGzbMhp8T6B_f7wJMLWdUz0Bujk

IIRC, this is part of the Elk Advisory Committee package of concepts that folks like @Carnage2011 & @406LIFE worked up and that got huge support from the public. At the elk coalition symposium last summer, Scott Hibbard spoke glowingly of the Devil's Kitchen working group (his family was a founding member) but he was clear that these groups work only if the right people show up.

These groups are an amazing thing, and real solutions for specific geographies can be had - but you gotta show up and do the work. Thanks for all of your volunteerism, @Nameless Range. I don't know how you do it.

 

[Elky Welky]

Some language to pay attention to, from page 56:

"under circumstances where an HD is chronically and significantly over the stated population size goal and is using limited either-sex permits or limited bull permits, FWP will propose to allow a brow-tined-bull or any bull on a General Elk License regulation type"

The plan goes on to propose what it means for an area to be "chronically" over population goals, but in effect, this would mean that places with special draw tags like the Breaks could be threatened with allowing antlered elk hunting on a general permit, which would substantially reduce bull quality, while not really doing anything to reduce the population. It could also lead to triggering the opposite: hoarding/allowing elk populations to grow substantially over-goals so as to open up bull hunts on a general tag.

This comes with the caveat that an area must be "mid-range above the top-range" for more than 3 consecutive years, and the example being if the range is 100-200, then mid range is 150, and "mid range (150) above the top range (plus 200)" would equal 350+

Of course, places like the Breaks, which have been "chronically over objective/goals" since the last plan, could--and in my opinion--should instead be managed for carrying capacity as opposed to social tolerances. If the goal/objective (I'm using these interchangeably, since we've been using the word "objective" for the last 20 years and the new term is "goal") is increased, then this new language/requirement becomes a non-issue.

Would love to know hunt talkers thoughts on this one.

 

[WanderWoman]

Some language to pay attention to, from page 56:

"under circumstances where an HD is chronically and significantly over the stated population size goal and is using limited either-sex permits or limited bull permits, FWP will propose to allow a brow-tined-bull or any bull on a General Elk License regulation type"

The plan goes on to propose what it means for an area to be "chronically" over population goals, but in effect, this would mean that places with special draw tags like the Breaks could be threatened with allowing antlered elk hunting on a general permit, which would substantially reduce bull quality, while not really doing anything to reduce the population. It could also lead to triggering the opposite: hoarding/allowing elk populations to grow substantially over-goals so as to open up bull hunts on a general tag.

This comes with the caveat that an area must be "mid-range above the top-range" for more than 3 consecutive years, and the example being if the range is 100-200, then mid range is 150, and "mid range (150) above the top range (plus 200)" would equal 350+

Of course, places like the Breaks, which have been "chronically over objective/goals" since the last plan, could--and in my opinion--should instead be managed for carrying capacity as opposed to social tolerances. If the goal/objective (I'm using these interchangeably, since we've been using the word "objective" for the last 20 years and the new term is "goal") is increased, then this new language/requirement becomes a non-issue.

Would love to know hunt talkers thoughts on this one.

I can’t think of a better incentive for those in HDs where elk are chronically over objective to NOT allow populations to get to objective, based on page 56’s language. We all should know this, but using bull harvest to address over-objective elk is flat silly. The metric needs to be cow harvest. Kill enough cows and eventually, over time, even the bull population will see a reduction.

I’m happy to see the higher objectives listed in this revised, draft plan, but I wouldn’t rest easy just because of that. In prairie/breaks environments, pretty much central MT eastward, one can argue that ecological carrying capacity seems almost limitless—elk are not confined to a restricted winter range as they are in western MT. They run low on resources, they’ll just keep expanding. This doesn’t consider density effects like disease but we are seeing it now where more and more elk are popping up in places and ever-increasing in number where they are allowed to. Point being, with enough time and no changes to harvest strategies or success, elk populations will once again be “chronically over objective.” Some elk populations are still or already over the new objectives.

Also, the elk plan isn’t final. Commission or other decision-makers could very well change/lower these proposed objectives and if not much is done about that caveat on page 56, well, we’ll be there before we know it.

 

[Ben Lamb]

I can’t think of a better incentive for those in HDs where elk are chronically over objective to NOT allow populations to get to objective, based on page 56’s language. We all should know this, but using bull harvest to address over-objective elk is flat silly. The metric needs to be cow harvest. Kill enough cows and eventually, over time, even the bull population will see a reduction.

I’m happy to see the higher objectives listed in this revised, draft plan, but I wouldn’t rest easy just because of that. In prairie/breaks environments, pretty much central MT eastward, one can argue that ecological carrying capacity seems almost limitless—elk are not confined to a restricted winter range as they are in western MT. They run low on resources, they’ll just keep expanding. This doesn’t consider density effects like disease but we are seeing it now where more and more elk are popping up in places and ever-increasing in number where they are allowed to. Point being, with enough time and no changes to harvest strategies or success, elk populations will once again be “chronically over objective.” Some elk populations are still or already over the new objectives.

Also, the elk plan isn’t final. Commission or other decision-makers could very well change/lower these proposed objectives and if not much is done about that caveat on page 56, well, we’ll be there before we know it.

100% this.

Page 56 is problematic. Page 55 from the old plan is nowhere to be found. I understand why the agency has included the language of Page 56 in the new EMP, and I would strongly encourage everyone to comment on that piece heavily.

Attached is a recent study out of Idaho that seems to have a lot of parallels across the west relative to bull age structure & breeding (both in terms of populations and calf survivability).

Going to general districts after years of LE means a crush of hunters looking for big bulls, further creating concentration issues on unavailable lands.

 

[406LIFE]

IIRC, this is part of the Elk Advisory Committee package of concepts that folks like @Carnage2011 & @406LIFE worked up and that got huge support from the public. At the elk coalition symposium last summer, Scott Hibbard spoke glowingly of the Devil's Kitchen working group (his family was a founding member) but he was clear that these groups work only if the right people show up.

These groups are an amazing thing, and real solutions for specific geographies can be had - but you gotta show up and do the work. Thanks for all of your volunteerism, @Nameless Range. I don't know how you do it.

Elk Working Groups were part of both initial Strategic Guidance Working Group and the Elk Advisory Committee (of which I opted to not apply for) conversations. I agree they are vital to localized solutions and should be implemented in any areas of the state that the local populace initiates a desire for them. Their voluntary nature both in participation and implementation require strong public involvement. FWP should be required to facilitate one when it is requested by the public, but to require one in every area is not practicable. Devil's Kitchen is the shining example of what can happen.

 

[rogerthat]

I can’t think of a better incentive for those in HDs where elk are chronically over objective to NOT allow populations to get to objective, based on page 56’s language. We all should know this, but using bull harvest to address over-objective elk is flat silly. The metric needs to be cow harvest. Kill enough cows and eventually, over time, even the bull population will see a reduction.

I’m happy to see the higher objectives listed in this revised, draft plan, but I wouldn’t rest easy just because of that. In prairie/breaks environments, pretty much central MT eastward, one can argue that ecological carrying capacity seems almost limitless—elk are not confined to a restricted winter range as they are in western MT. They run low on resources, they’ll just keep expanding. This doesn’t consider density effects like disease but we are seeing it now where more and more elk are popping up in places and ever-increasing in number where they are allowed to. Point being, with enough time and no changes to harvest strategies or success, elk populations will once again be “chronically over objective.” Some elk populations are still or already over the new objectives.

Also, the elk plan isn’t final. Commission or other decision-makers could very well change/lower these proposed objectives and if not much is done about that caveat on page 56, well, we’ll be there before we know it.

Very good comments. What would you recommend for some of these east areas that seasons are dang near as liberal as possible (think cow harvest already allowed on general tag) yet due to private land access issues the herds have continued to expand? That’s a bit of the conundrum. The landowners haven’t shown they actually want to deal with keeping the herds at objective. Definitely bull harvest on a general isn’t going to do anything positive. But not sure how we get even more liberal with cow harvest in some of these areas.

 

[Elky Welky]

Very good comments. What would you recommend for some of these east areas that seasons are dang near as liberal as possible (think cow harvest already allowed on general tag) yet due to private land access issues the herds have continued to expand? That’s a bit of the conundrum. The landowners haven’t shown they actually want to deal with keeping the herds at objective. Definitely bull harvest on a general isn’t going to do anything positive. But not sure how we get even more liberal with cow harvest in some of these areas.

There are a few options, none of which are palatable, and some are downright violations of the North American Model, so there's a good reason we haven't gone there:

The most obvious and (I would actively fight it) "easy": commodify the resource. If landowners could sell elk meat/hunts for a profit, you bet they would do it and the numbers would drop. Give them what they really want: bull tags to sell for profit (but in exchange for public cow hunting). But this requires sacrificing values many of us firmly believe in (for good reason).

Second, increase the objectives. If some landowners are going to continue to create problems for themselves and their neighbors by refusing to participate in damage hunts, allow access for cows, block management, or even the controversial 454 program, then just increase the objectives. Clearly the landscape can hold those elk, and social tolerance seems to be pretty high if they are unwilling to participate in the many, many programs available to them. So just move the goal and the language on page 56 would never be triggered.

Third: don't count inaccessible elk in the objective measurements. More difficult to implement, and abandoned in the last plan almost entirely, but if the elk are inaccessible then they shouldn't be part of the equation. As has already been discussed here, though, many landowners aren't on board.

Your question, then, kinda answers itself already: how do we manage to objective when some landowners refuse to do their part? Remove the problem landowners from the equation. They've made their bed, and they can sleep in it.

However, and with a huge caveat: there are many landowners that are suffering as a consequence of the few that aren't participating in sound management, and I would absolutely support doing anything we can to help them out.