Elk Advisory Committee Recomendations

[MLaird]

Elk advisory committee finalizes management recommendations.

The 14 recommendations from the Elk Management Citizen Advisory Group will now undergo legal and fiscal analysis before going out to the public for comment.

helenair.com

 

[Straight Arrow]

Elk advisory committee finalizes management recommendations.

The 14 recommendations from the Elk Management Citizen Advisory Group will now undergo legal and fiscal analysis before going out to the public for comment.

helenair.com

No subscription; no can read.

 

[Irrelevant]

Two post in a day that mention this hellish WARGO idea.

 

[Sytes]

“Unless you saw how good elk and deer hunting was, it’s pretty tough to envision the change,” in northwest Montana, he said.
Wargo does not say there are too many predators, but argues that ratios of predators to prey have become an “unhealthy balance.” Higher prey numbers could support higher predator numbers, he notes.

The recommendation calls for better counting of both ungulates and predators, noting that some elk counts have not occurred for years. It also pushes for more habitat work, including potential efforts to move work onto federal lands.

There's truth to his comment. Cougars and bears have always been present. The wolves added and unchecked mixed with the other issues we've discussed is nothing new to the blinders of others

 

[Ben Lamb]

Ian's a good man. He's trying to find a way to have elk restored in western MT and the press doesn't necessarily convey the complexity of what he's thinking.

I don't agree with the aggressiveness of the predator control, but his concept of managing for elk where they aren't is 100% needed. Druska Kinke's admonitions are from someone who lives in ground zero, just north of Yellowstone and deals with all wildlife issues in a thoughtful and wise manner. If she's saying it's too much, people should take her at her word.

 

[tjones]

Wolves are also to blame for climate change.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Wolves are also to blame for climate change.

and my pancreatitis.

 

[Gerald Martin]

Regardless of what anyone thinks of Ian’s proposals, he highlights the reality that in terms of FWP’s MT elk management strategy, attention and priority, NW MT has been the red headed, bastard,stepchild among the 7 regions.

If there is any region in the state where high predator numbers determine elk populations it’s here. Predators certainly include human harvest as well as expanding populations of grizzly and wolf numbers that have been at carrying capacity for over a decade in the area.

IMO, lion and black bear populations are not expanding, if anything, I think they are lower than at times in the past due to increased interest in spring bear hunting and more competition from wolves for lions.

Grizzly DNA sample sites that used barbed wire to collect hair samples identified over 700 grizzlies in the Bob Marshall/Glacier Complex. Extrapolation to include bears that didn’t donate hair to the sample sites gives an estimate of over 1000 grizzlies in the area. That has had to have a huge impact on calf survival and recruitment in the Bob Marshall.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Regardless of what anyone thinks of Ian’s proposals, he highlights the reality that in terms of FWP’s MT elk management strategy, attention and priority, NW MT has been the red headed, bastard,stepchild among the 7 regions.

If there is any region in the state where high predator numbers determine elk populations it’s here. Predators certainly include human harvest as well as expanding populations of grizzly and wolf numbers that have been at carrying capacity for over a decade in the area.

IMO, lion and black bear populations are not expanding, if anything, I think they are lower than at times in the past due to increased interest in spring bear hunting and more competition from wolves for lions.

Grizzly DNA sample sites that used barbed wire to collect hair samples identified over 700 grizzlies in the Bob Marshall/Glacier Complex. Extrapolation to include bears that didn’t donate hair to the sample sites gives an estimate of over 1000 grizzlies in the area. That has had to have a huge impact on calf survival and recruitment in the Bob Marshall.

And I think that until we actually look at the habitat conditions on the ground and see what that means for overwinter survival for all ungulates, we're still speculating a great deal.

Totally agree it's time to put more elk in R1. The recent fires can create better habitat, and we know that hunter pressure can drive a lot of elk distribution issues, especially in places with limited winter range. Carnivores remain only 1 part of the equation and there has been significant movement on that end. Letting that play out a bit and focusing on habitat is the best foot forward, IMO.

I'm glad Ian had the guts to bring this forward. It's an important conversation.

 

[Rack Daniels]

If anybody’s ever seen, “night of the living dead” I was gonna find a meme of the “SEND MORE COOPPPPSS” but make it exclaim, “send more ellllk”
Turns out I’m not as savvy as I thought…

Oh well. The solution for your problems are simple….

 

[sacountry]

Regardless of what anyone thinks of Ian’s proposals, he highlights the reality that in terms of FWP’s MT elk management strategy, attention and priority, NW MT has been the red headed, bastard,stepchild among the 7 regions.

If there is any region in the state where high predator numbers determine elk populations it’s here. Predators certainly include human harvest as well as expanding populations of grizzly and wolf numbers that have been at carrying capacity for over a decade in the area.

IMO, lion and black bear populations are not expanding, if anything, I think they are lower than at times in the past due to increased interest in spring bear hunting and more competition from wolves for lions.

Grizzly DNA sample sites that used barbed wire to collect hair samples identified over 700 grizzlies in the Bob Marshall/Glacier Complex. Extrapolation to include bears that didn’t donate hair to the sample sites gives an estimate of over 1000 grizzlies in the area. That has had to have a huge impact on calf survival and recruitment in the Bob Marshall.

Agreed. There was a time when I wanted to do the Backcountry Bob hunt in September, but from what friends in the area have said elk encounters are getting less and less frequent. When you look at the Bob, you remove factors like human population growth and significant shifts in hunter numbers one way or the other. Predation and disease are about the only two variables I can think of that impact places like that.

Can't you come up with a better analogy than redheaded, bastard, step child? It's my home ya know.

 

[Gerald Martin]

Agreed. There was a time when I wanted to do the Backcountry Bob hunt in September, but from what friends in the area have said elk encounters are getting less and less frequent. When you look at the Bob, you remove factors like human population growth and significant shifts in hunter numbers one way or the other. Predation and disease are about the only two variables I can think of that impact places like that.

Can't you come up with a better analogy than redheaded, bastard, step child? It's my home ya know.

I spent 18 years getting slapped around in that country…. It takes more than a couple years in Bozeangeles to get the huckleberry stains out of my soul.

 

[Eric Albus]

Ian's a good man. He's trying to find a way to have elk restored in western MT and the press doesn't necessarily convey the complexity of what he's thinking.

I don't agree with the aggressiveness of the predator control, but his concept of managing for elk where they aren't is 100% needed. Druska Kinke's admonitions are from someone who lives in ground zero, just north of Yellowstone and deals with all wildlife issues in a thoughtful and wise manner. If she's saying it's too much, people should take her at her word.

Why do you not agree with aggressive predator control?

 

[Ben Lamb]

Why do you not agree with aggressive predator control?

I don't think it gets to the heart of the issue, especially in R1, which is habitat and the need for better season structure as well as a more strategic look at how lions are managed.

In general, predator control is held out as the big fix for every issue, but the research I've seen in the west is that predation impacts are primarily a cause of low habitat functionality. Most of the latest research is showing that predator control has limited and only short term bumps in numbers of ungulates. The political class wants to use it as a panacea for their inaction on habitat management while some segments of the hunting community seem to think that it helps them not worry about development impacts and things like habitat fragmentation & loss of resiliency in drought, etc.

I am not opposed to liberal bag limits, long seasons, trapping, etc of wolves by any stretch, and I think that in some very limited applications it does make sense to provide some breathing space for populations to increase to healthier numbers, but it has to be done in conjunction with habitat work and reduction in hunters in the field to make any meaningful impact. The more I think about it - the more I'm inclined to be supportive of agency action to remove carnivores based on science and not the approach that MT & ID are taking with bounties, etc. That way lies relisting, versus the recognition that sport hunting & trapping don't necessarily impact overall numbers, especially in areas where access is difficult. I'd be willing to talk about trading the bounty program, snaring, etc for gov't action so long as it's based on actual biology and not barroom theatrics.

Secondly, what Ian is calling for leads to even more lawsuits relative to wolves & grizzly bears, with the end goal of having wolves relisted & grizzlies never coming off the list. If the states continue to adopt overly aggressive tactics without any real biology to back them up then there is a serious issue relative to the adequate regulatory mechanism clauses within the ESA.

Habitat first, that's the best way to deal with elk in R1, followed by season structure & working on better objectives. The current suite of tools for carnivore management are already aggressive enough to cause lawsuits & the serial litigants to try and kill MT & ID's PR funding. One of the best rules of war is to not give your enemy ammunition. We need to stop doing that.

The issue will be covered during the symposium with one of the lead researchers from Idaho, Jon Horne coming in to talk about their work - there's no agenda on that other than getting the science out for folks to chew on, btw. That panel is going to cause a lack of comfort for a lot of folks in MT, especially when the predation & the social science side are presented. Both of those folks have certainly help change my thoughts relative to their fields of expertise.

 

[Wind Gypsy]

I don't think it gets to the heart of the issue, especially in R1, which is habitat and the need for better season structure as well as a more strategic look at how lions are managed.

In general, predator control is held out as the big fix for every issue, but the research I've seen in the west is that predation impacts are primarily a cause of low habitat functionality. Most of the latest research is showing that predator control has limited and only short term bumps in numbers of ungulates. The political class wants to use it as a panacea for their inaction on habitat management while some segments of the hunting community seem to think that it helps them not worry about development impacts and things like habitat fragmentation & loss of resiliency in drought, etc.

I am not opposed to liberal bag limits, long seasons, trapping, etc of wolves by any stretch, and I think that in some very limited applications it does make sense to provide some breathing space for populations to increase to healthier numbers, but it has to be done in conjunction with habitat work and reduction in hunters in the field to make any meaningful impact. The more I think about it - the more I'm inclined to be supportive of agency action to remove carnivores based on science and not the approach that MT & ID are taking with bounties, etc. That way lies relisting, versus the recognition that sport hunting & trapping don't necessarily impact overall numbers, especially in areas where access is difficult. I'd be willing to talk about trading the bounty program, snaring, etc for gov't action so long as it's based on actual biology and not barroom theatrics.

Secondly, what Ian is calling for leads to even more lawsuits relative to wolves & grizzly bears, with the end goal of having wolves relisted & grizzlies never coming off the list. If the states continue to adopt overly aggressive tactics without any real biology to back them up then there is a serious issue relative to the adequate regulatory mechanism clauses within the ESA.

Habitat first, that's the best way to deal with elk in R1, followed by season structure & working on better objectives. The current suite of tools for carnivore management are already aggressive enough to cause lawsuits & the serial litigants to try and kill MT & ID's PR funding. One of the best rules of war is to not give your enemy ammunition. We need to stop doing that.

The issue will be covered during the symposium with one of the lead researchers from Idaho, Jon Horne coming in to talk about their work - there's no agenda on that other than getting the science out for folks to chew on, btw. That panel is going to cause a lack of comfort for a lot of folks in MT, especially when the predation & the social science side are presented. Both of those folks have certainly help change my thoughts relative to their fields of expertise.

I spent a 7 or 8 weeks hunting around Libby in 2015-18 and have a number of friends from the area. I know where their biases are so i'm curious to hear from others - what has changed with habitat over the past 20 years out there? Same question about the Bob and surrounding area?

 

[Ben Lamb]

I spent a 7 or 8 weeks hunting around Libby in 2015-18 and have a number of friends from the area. I know where their biases are so i'm curious to hear from others - what has changed with habitat over the past 20 years out there? Same question about the Bob and surrounding area?

20 years is a blip in time.
The bug burn of 1910 created massive elk habitat by burning over 1 million acres. That, coupled with aggressive logging through the 1980's led to a lot of good elk habitat in what is historically not great elk habitat. With the shutting down of the mills, increased development of winter range in the lowlands, fragmentation of habitat, etc you have some pretty severe habitat issues, especially when you couple extended precipitation decline and noxious weeds on the old logging lands, seeping into the NF.

The Bob is different - absolutely, but those fires from 1910 did open up a ton of country and that's changing with conifer encroachment beating out aspen & other forage for elk.

I think you have to look at hunting season pressure as well as low objectives based on what biologists think is available habitat. As Ian mentioned before, the early season Bob hunt isn't helping things either, so maybe a combination of season restrictions, habitat improvement & selective carnivore removal based on cow/calf recruitment issues & overall habitat quality quantification could be a way to go.

The habitat has changed. Annual precipitation has decreased, weeds have increased, more conifers, less aspen, etc.

 

[Wind Gypsy]

So basically to improve habitat, they need to log more, establish more aspen, and address weeds? Are those even viable options? Seems they've been trying to log more and run into lots of road blocks. The corp timberland in the areas I spent time seemed to get cut as soon as it was ready to and the checkerboard boundaries were typically very visually obvious because of that.

Hunter hours have been steadily decreasing out there if I understand it right.

 

[Irrelevant]

So basically to improve habitat, they need to log more, establish more aspen, and address weeds? Are those even viable options? Seems they've been trying to log more and run into lots of road blocks. The corp timberland in the areas I spent time seemed to get cut as soon as it was ready to and the checkerboard boundaries were typically very visually obvious because of that.

Hunter hours have been steadily decreasing out there if I understand it right.

It's called "Wildfire Prevention" and "Habitat Improvements" not logging.

 

[Sytes]

Speaking of... R1 would benefit greatly if TNC managed our NF's. Not a chance in hell though. BTW: Proper lingo: "Expanded Forest Restoration".

New Study: Broad-scale Forest Restoration Decreases Tree Mortality

A new study from The Nature Conservancy reveals expanded forest restoration decreases tree drought vulnerability in the face of warmer, drier temperatures.

www.nature.org

 

[Irishman]

In my opinion, the biggest issue here in NW Montana is the number of humans hunting. There are way more people hunting, and they all seem to have unlimited time to hunt. Where 30 years ago most people were lucky to have a weekday off. However, I've put out several game cameras this year, targeting elk. So far, 2 bull elk, 3 wolves, 4 mountain lions, 8 black bears, lots of deer.. Maybe I'm just not good at figuring where elk are. The predator to elk ratio is similar to what I found last year, and not good.