Elk Management CAG

[SAJ-99]

Hank's email was so warm and fuzzy just want to give him a hug and say thanks (for doing nothing). The link is attached. The item I was most focused on was pick a season/weapon. The comments are pure gold, but explain a lot of the headwinds facing the CAG. Hat-tip to the group for trying.

Side note, I found it interesting that MT published the emails of the commentors. I'm sure this isn't new, but i just noticed it...or maybe I'm wrong and it is new? My email must be all over FWP database.

Elk Management Citizen Advisory Group | Montana FWP

As elk populations continue to be a concern across the state, Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks is convening a citizens advisory group to address the future of elk management. The 12-member group will be tasked with developing new and creative ideas and recommendations and helping build new...

fwp.mt.gov

 

[Gerald Martin]

“All proposals and recommendations are being taken into consideration. Stuff might happen in the future. Or not. Thx for your support.”

 

[DFS]

I appreciate your interest and concern for Montana. We are not in a good place for wildlife. How are things going in your state?

 

[SAJ-99]

I appreciate your interest and concern for Montana. We are not in a good place for wildlife. How are things going in your state?

Populations have struggled due to natural factors here. Not lead poisoning. I try to be realistic on what changes can be made. Here they have cut some tags. Doesn’t appear that method is acceptable in MT. Don’t worry, you wont get any more support from me.

 

[Nameless Range]

Thanks for sharing SAJ.

I actually enjoy reading through public comments - they range from wacky, to stupid, to insightful. Often though too, it shows that the folks out there who get involved and do comment largely see the same issues on the landscape.

Whether or not the citizen advisory groups work results in concrete changes based on their recommendations and the public’s input, I think one of the greatest values of these groups lie in the fact that they can get statewide conversations started.

If I am going to be optimistic - and I am - there are so many common narratives about the state of elk hunting, important ones, floating around Montana today that barely even existed five years ago.

 

[SAJ-99]

Thanks for sharing SAJ.

I actually enjoy reading through public comments - they range from wacky, to stupid, to insightful. Often though too, it shows that the folks out there who get involved and do comment largely see the same issues on the landscape.

Whether or not the citizen advisory groups work results in concrete changes based on their recommendations and the public’s input, I think one of the greatest values of these groups lie in the fact that they can get statewide conversations started.

If I am going to be optimistic - and I am - there are so many common narratives about the state of elk hunting, important ones, floating around Montana today that barely even existed five years ago.

Agree. I think those that get involved see the issues, and certainly there are issues. But the comments show where the work needs to be done. The comments against usually went into 1) its ok for NRs to be limited but don't limit me (I argue that the vast majority of NR already limit on themselves weapon or days) 2) this is another stupid idea from FWP (it wasn't FWPs idea, it was the CAG's) or 3) I need 11 weeks of opportunity to be successful (which is a tacit admission the issues are real, but it would be easier to argue with a light pole than those people).

It seems the issues can't be fixed without working from the ground up, hunter by hunter. Maybe it will be easier with Mule Deer where the situation is more obvious? The CAG is looked at as a branch of FWP which is viewed with low confidence by a lot of hunters(voters). While a lot of BS "constituent bills" get through the legislature, there is no way changes can be made without a backing of the majority of the R hunters. And the comments show that ain't gonna happen.

 

[sclancy27]

Man, people REALLY don't want to pick between archery and rifle...

 

[Nameless Range]

Agree. I think those that get involved see the issues, and certainly there are issues. But the comments show where the work needs to be done. The comments against usually went into 1) its ok for NRs to be limited but don't limit me (I argue that the vast majority of NR already limit on themselves weapon or days) 2) this is another stupid idea from FWP (it wasn't FWPs idea, it was the CAG's) or 3) I need 11 weeks of opportunity to be successful (which is a tacit admission the issues are real, but it would be easier to argue with a light pole than those people).

It seems the issues can't be fixed without working from the ground up, hunter by hunter. Maybe it will be easier with Mule Deer where the situation is more obvious? The CAG is looked at as a branch of FWP which is viewed with low confidence by a lot of hunters(voters). While a lot of BS "constituent bills" get through the legislature, there is no way changes can be made without a backing of the majority of the R hunters. And the comments show that ain't gonna happen.

I think one of the methods in which we can improve things "from the ground up" is by utilizing one of the topics the CAG put out for public comment - the creation of local working groups.

I am a member of a local working group with a 30 year history, that through hard work and collaboration has helped develop the management of one of the few chunks of Montana where, though not perfect, elk management is generally regarded as successful.

There's a power in local involvement that's difficult to achieve on a statewide level. Whether we like it or not - the implementation of ideas, some of which may be big changes - will be fueled not only by logic or arguments, but by relationships. It doesn't come easy and it isn't guaranteed, but the truth seems to be more likely to be dealt with when people intimately familiar with landscapes and the wildlife on them, come together regardless of whether they are landowners, hunters, etc.

 

[Schaaf]

I think one of the methods in which we can improve things "from the ground up" is by utilizing one of the topics the CAG put out for public comment - the creation of local working groups.

I am a member of a local working group with a 30 year history, that through hard work and collaboration has helped develop the management of one of the few chunks of Montana where, though not perfect, elk management is generally regarded as successful.

There's a power in local involvement that's difficult to achieve on a statewide level. Whether we like it or not - the implementation of ideas, some of which may be big changes - will be fueled not only by logic or arguments, but by relationships. It doesn't come easy and it isn't guaranteed, but the truth seems to be more likely to be dealt with when people intimately familiar with landscapes and the wildlife on them, come together regardless of whether they are landowners, hunters, etc.

Agreed. I've said before that groups like Hells Kitchen, the Elkhorns, and the Breaks Working group have tackled a lot of these same issues 20 years ago. The state could easily justify another 8 working groups scattered around the state.