Elk, wolves, and landowner tolerance.

[Big Fin]

Here are some results of the most popular limited entry elk hunting areas in Montana, both for resident applications and non-resident applications. How this gets set will affect both resident and non-resident hunters, as many non-residents love the Breaks for archery elk.

I wonder if the population objective numbers quoted in the elk management plan are biologically set, or socially set?

At a time when elk numbers are getting hammered in the SW and Western part of the state by wolves, over-harvest on public land, etc., it would be nice if other areas of the state were allowed to have higher populations to help in hunter opportunity.

But, that might be a pipe dream.

MTMiller - this is up in your neck of the woods. Even though the numbers are supposedly over objective under the EMP, do you see any habitat degradation? (Don't say anything that will get you in trouble.)

And, without access, I wonder how those antlerless elk tags are going to result in harvest of elk hunters cannot get to? Or, will they be used to hammer those already hammered elk on public land?

Seems like Montana, and many states, want to manage elk based on large populations and not look at the dynamics of whether or not the elk are accessible. Whether or not issuing antlerless tags results in much success when access is an issue? And, whether or not the numbers set in management plans should stay set in stone, as though the other factors of hunter opportunity, access, landowner tolerance, and such will static.

At at time when I see elk hunting opportunity shrinking in many areas of the state, it would be nice to see something new being considered. But, I am probably ...............

Breaks & Bear’s Paw Elk Results

Recent aerial surveys of elk populations in the Region 6 portions of the Missouri River Breaks and the Bear Paw Mountains south of Havre indicate a slight decrease in the Breaks and a sizable increase in animals in the mountain section.

The surveys are conducted by managers in Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks’ Region 6. According to Glasgow-based biologist Kelvin Johnson, more than 2,900 elk were counted in the Breaks section this year. That represents a 5 percent decrease since the last complete survey took place in 2008 — where more than 3,100 animals were documented — and a 30 percent decrease since the highest count on record – more than 4,200 animals — was observed in 2006. Johnson said the count total in the Breaks is still almost 50 percent higher than the management objective of 2,000 that was set for this unit in the current Montana Elk Management Plan. The 2010 survey results show elk bull-cow ratios are 36:100 in the Breaks, which is above the management objective of 30:100. Calf-cow ratios are 46:100.

“Elevated numbers of cow permits and liberalized seasons appear to have been successful in bringing elk numbers on the north side of the Breaks down closer to objectives,” Johnson said. “Because the strategy seems to be working, FWP plans to continue managing elk this way in the area.”

In the Bear’s Paw Mountains, nearly 700 elk were counted this year, which represents a 40 percent increase from the last survey, when 500 animals were spotted from the air. Bull-cow ratios in the Bear’s Paw are 26:100, which is above the management of objective of 10:100. Calf-cow ratios are 51:100.

“Elevated elk numbers have occurred in the Bear’s Paw Mountains since 2006, when more than 400 were counted, and it appears the permit packages put in place since 2006 have not been able to keep elk numbers at objective,” said Havre-based Warden Sgt. Shane Reno. “FWP plans to increase antlerless elk license quotas in 2010 in order to reduce elk numbers here, but access is tight. Hunters will need access to elk during the big game season in order to reduce numbers. There’s really no way around that.”

 

[elk_hunter]

I'm all about allowing the appropriate number of tags but I have always been highly skeptical of animal surveys. I apologize if this derails this thread, but I think it's very applicable...I don't know if MT is the same as other states but I've talked to officials in NV and CO and they use a computer program that models the statistical number of animals in a given area, based on the environment variables you feed the program (e.g. in a square mile, how much sagebrush, pinion, juniper, etc). This seems like a nice exercise in theory and may give an idea, but shouldn't be used so heavily (as is done in CO) to publish herd sizes, etc.

Even if you look at the "survey" the biologists perform, how do you have an apples-to-apples comparison year over year? Same day? Same conditions? How in the world can this be accurate? What if half the herd was held up in a ravine and the survey takers never made it to the ravines that were holding the elk? Could migration/movement change each year which causes increases/decreases in animal count? And then come season the animals are or are not in the unit because they change positions? I know mathematics/statistics can help with surveying and trends and whatnot else but I just don't think these surveys are done with much accuracy. I am very, very skeptical and don't believe actual numbers are provided all around to paint the proper picture.

 

[BuzzH]

Another really perplexing thing for me is...MT has no idea how many elk are really being killed by hunters. They do the same thing...call a random few people and ask them about how they did. Typically, you're not asked about deer, elk, bear, lion, etc....just one or two.

Or, in the case of a phone call I got several years ago..."Did you do any bird hunting?" Yeah, I bought a $650 NR combo license to hunt birds. I said no, but I did take an elk and deer. The reply, "oh, your name came up only for birds"....great.

Some awesome harvest data there...

 

[drahthaar]

I haven't recv'd even a phone call from them in probably 5 years. My buddy got a call last year and they only asked him if he SAW any lions. Huh?

Check stations have disappeared coming out of the n fork and the south fork(which takes in traffic coming back from the east side. And where there are check stations they are only open on the weekends from about noon til dark.

Cripes, you are right they have no idea how many animals are getting whacked, that is why this "youth"(daddy's other "B" tag) hunt has my panties in such a wad. Nobody will convince me there isn't a literal crap-pile of cows and does getting shot to heck, all under the radar.

Getting back on subject, I think as long as we have a commission made up of politicians, herd sizes will always set to social levels. Biologic levels--- what is that?

 

[shoots-straight]

In the Bear’s Paw Mountains, nearly 700 elk were counted this year, which represents a 40 percent increase from the last survey, when 500 animals were spotted from the air. Bull-cow ratios in the Bear’s Paw are 26:100, which is above the management of objective of 10:100. Calf-cow ratios are 51:100.

They actually wrote this in the EMP, that a 10:100 bull to cow ratio was the goal for the area? That goes to show how flawed this plan is. I realize that's post season count, but still, in areas like that I would like to see double that number. I loved how they picked a target of half of what lived in the breaks at the time this came out.

The elk herd was reduced by 30% and no one is screaming because its was hunters that are killing them. If wolves had reduced the herd by that much, the rednecks would be screaming for their extermination. When is the hunting community going to raise up? After they loose opportunity.

 

[1_pointer]

eh- A model, of some sort, as to be used as there is no way to count every individual. You have pointed out some of the drawbacks to modelling populatons, but I can't think of any way to get by some of those. There are reams of papers researching populations measurement methods that will give you more/better info than I can. One good thing about studying plants is that they don't move!

 

[BuzzH]

I agree with pointer, you have to use models to get population estimates...but, that said, you can still find a pretty hard number for the number you kill.

Thats not even being done. In the case of MT its even worse, because tags, both elk and deer A tags are good for about 90% of the hunting units (general units). They have no idea how hard the elk in say, district 216 are getting hit...havent a single clue. There could be 2 elk killed a year in that unit or 2000 and they'd never know the difference.

There is so much wrong with the elk management in MT its tough to even know where to start when discussing it. I will say that its fundamentally flawed starting with the EMP...no question of that.

 

[elk_hunter]

1p, I've taken my fair share of math...calculus, statistics, etc. I realize value in modeling, but it's the old saying "trust but verify" that must be executed. I can write software that could make some glorious calculations about animal density/population but those numbers would need to be qualified in some fashion. I think accurate animal count comes from doing both modeling and verifying with wet eyeballs (along with the number of animals killed). Solely basing on computer models is scary and not smart. As Buzz mentioned, the lack of accurate harvest data is the other BIG kicker for the equation. I was never asked if I hunted MT last year, nor CO for that matter. I took a buck out of MT but that wasn't included in any analysis. NV has a hybrid approach...you are required to submit (truthfully -- and that's the "iffy" part for our system because people could lie and get away with it) whether you harvested animals along with point counts, gender, etc. Those that fail to submit get fined and if you're audited and found to have lied, you get in bigger trouble. I wonder if going one more step and requiring hunters to mail in their punched tags would go further toward accurate data...

 

[drahthaar]

What if you had to send in your tag regardless. If its punched, you get a phone call, for the what when where how. Get rid of the random crap shoot with the phone calls.

And when you get someone on the phone, how much time would it take to check off some boxes on a form sitting in front of you, just ask, did you shoot a deer, elk, bear, etc.

 

[Big Fin]

We pushed to make reporting mandatory in Montana, for elk, deer, and antelope. The department squealed about the proposal. The commission thought it was a waste of money.

Being the CPA I am, I asked them if they knew what it cost to do the phone surveys versus a mandatory web or mail in system. Nobody had any data, but they were convinced that it would cost too much money. Nothing like the old "Gut feeling" when it comes to spending money and managing wildlife.

And then the kicker. Mandatory reporting would change the baseline data that they were using to build their harvest models. I read from that to mean they want to keep using very sketchy data, so at least they could be consistently sketchy.

I am not a biologist, so I am not one to speak on building models for harvest, populations, etc.

The two firing brain cells still working in my head tell me that collecting accurate and inexpensive data is a step forward from expensive imprecise data. As Buzz would type, "Just saying..........."

I don't mean to pick on the MTFWP biologists. I know most of them, and they are some great guys. But, the leadership of the department in Helena is something akin to the French military in 1939. Until that changes, I have very little hope for the good people in the department.

The leadership in FWP will not make any recommendation to the commission that rocks the boat. They will not make any recommendations or requests to the legislature that is going to be even slightly controversial. And if any of the department personnel do anything bold, they may as well pack their bags for Alzada, as the Helena leadership will not stand for such bold thinking.

Wonder if other state wildlife departments are suffering from similar problems of inept leadership and political/legislative/gubernatorial meddling?

 

[shoots-straight]

drahthaar, lions, bears, wolverine, wolves, and others are a mandatory check. Why not just make it a simple phone in system where you have a mandatory check for all species. You would have the science on the kill. You really would save money, because you wouldn't need check stations anymore.

Our game flights in the Root, are done every year, as the green up occurs. They fly the same routes and count the same ways. I think its a pretty accurate count of what's out there, but even if it wasn't it would give us, what they call a trend count. They can compare it to historic records that we have. It gives us a good understanding of the TRENDS are.

The EMP, is a joke, and was written at the request of, by, and for, the livestock community.

 

[shoots-straight]

Thanks Fin, I type too slow.

[We pushed to make reporting mandatory in Montana, for elk, deer, and antelope. The department squealed about the proposal. The commission thought it was a waste of money/QUOTE]

 

[1_pointer]

eh- In UT, they do flights to get the numbers to plug into the models. Then in the spring, they go out and do a classification. So in that instance they are using wet eyeballs at least twice. That said, in one area specifically I have a very, very hard time believing their pronghorn numbers...

 

[elk_hunter]

LOL, I hear ya. I think there's some consensus that numbers/data is still jacked regardless of their methods. Of course we know that even if they claim to do wet eyeball checks, there's nothing preventing them from duplicate counts, etc. that no one will ever know about unless they are attached to the survey takers 24/7. Unethical and a damn shame.

Fin, as for the sketchy numbers, you bet your CPAce it's a sketchy operation and that having "real" or "accurate" data throws off their basis. Sadly I think a lot of it comes down to money -- if they pump up numbers and sell more tags, they'll generate more revenue.

As for the reporting system, down with the phones. That's way more costly than an electronic submission on a website or mailing and perhaps having an intern or volunteer enter data. Hell, I'd volunteer to do that and help the division out. I say require hunters to mail in their tags (punched and not) -- as well as a checkbox or something indicating whether they hunted or not. Again, not saying this data is going to be 100% accurate but it will be a lot more accurate than what current division of wildlife offices get. Then maybe follow up with some sort of audit to see if guys were truthful (if this is even possible). As discussed prior, in NV if you don't submit your card, NV fines you and granted hunters can simply pay the fine and reapply but maybe something more meaningful should be done for non-respondents. The kicker is I don't know how to prevent lying...for example, a guy says he shoots a doe when in reality he shot a 3x3; sure you know the unit/area that he shot something but then you've got skewed doe:buck ratios and animal kills.

 

[sweetnectar]

It is my understanding that if elk numbers in the northern breaks are down then look at the southern breaks because the elk walk across the lake ice and swim it in the warm season. I hear guys in planes often see bulls swimming across. These kinds of things make it harder on FWP to get it right. All I can say is good luck.

 

[----]

That's great FWP.
We lose one of maybe a half dozen true trophy elk hunts this year, and they try to figure out a way to f**k up the other ones. Next year they're going to announce an over the counter elkhorns archery bull tag.

 

[drahthaar]

drahthaar, lions, bears, wolverine, wolves, and others are a mandatory check.

Yeah, I was just saying. In this day and age of the internet, the ease at which people can gather information, I just don't think there should be any excuse for not being able to gather this kind of hard data, and getting it accurately. Unless of course, like Fin said, they just don't want to rock the boat, it may be easier to just be consistently sketchy.

 

[Bambistew]

Personally I think it would be pretty easy to get everyone to comply. You fill out your survey or you don't get a tag. Works pretty well up here. The accuracy is probably suspect in a high percentage of cases. Ya know everyone is 'hush hush' about where they hunt. AK is a funny place.