FWP Commission to change Gardiner Elk hunting
- Thread starter Big Fin
- Start date
Someone fill me in on some local inside baseball?
How many outfitters are permitted to operate on public land in the proposed area? 2? 4? Not sure how much acreage USFS leases for exclusive outfitting permits, but there isn't a huuuuge amount of public land in the proposed area in the big scheme of things.
Does the Church Universal / Royal Teton lease hunting privileges?
If not, there's what, 2 other sizeable landowners in the proposed area?
Meaning, with this proposal the commission is willing to further decimate the local bull:cow ratio to benefit about 4-6 interested parties for a few years?
How many outfitters are permitted to operate on public land in the proposed area? 2? 4? Not sure how much acreage USFS leases for exclusive outfitting permits, but there isn't a huuuuge amount of public land in the proposed area in the big scheme of things.
Does the Church Universal / Royal Teton lease hunting privileges?
If not, there's what, 2 other sizeable landowners in the proposed area?
Meaning, with this proposal the commission is willing to further decimate the local bull:cow ratio to benefit about 4-6 interested parties for a few years?
FREAK
Well-known member
- Joined
- Sep 29, 2022
- Messages
- 771
I was digging into some studies today and found that the target B:C ratio was 10:100 for observed elk within 313. We're down to 10.4 bulls/100 cows for the Northern Range Total and a 3.6 bulls/100 cows in 313 HD, based on 2022 observation data. The first table is a summary of observation data from 95-2015. Could you imagine hunting when there were 60 mature bulls/100 cow ratios (unbelievable)? I don't think I could lace them up today if I had a taste of that.
This report put out by the Montana Outfitters and Guides Association in 2015 has a lot of interesting information in it and references a lot of studies for anyone interested. I think their recommendation to regulate based on the health of the TNR herd ratios makes sense, but could we at least target 25+ B:C ratios and not be okay with a steady state 15. Also, I agree that the steady state with the wolf re-introduction will change, and expectations will have to be adjusted but I think we can all agree 3.6:100 in 313 is a ridiculous number to allow and propose for amendments that increase opportunity.
How convenient, too, that MOGA wanted FWP to use the bull to cow ratios of the Total Northern Range versus the Bull to Cow ratio observed in Montana. It's the same argument made for more bull permits in units that are "over objective", even though those bulls are untouchable and on private, just like the TNR includes those bulls that don't leave the boundaries of the park.
FREAK
Well-known member
- Joined
- Sep 29, 2022
- Messages
- 771
Yeah, I just heard that as well. Bummer.
I only caught snippets cause work, but I think the bio went beyond pitiful and used “one of the worst in the state” to describe the ratio.
Commission plowed right on with it nevertheless.
FWP considers a bull:cow ratio of 10:100 great. (Of the 10 let’s be honest, they are comprised primarily of spikes and raghorns).
I’d consider 10:100 pathetic.
That status quo of “great” isn’t that at all. Wish it was more surprising that they’ve expanded opportunity in a unit whose ratio is considered bad even by already low standards.
Yeah I think you quoted that 100% correct
mmw194287
Active member
FWP's written comments on the proposal noted that "one result could be a reduction in the current low bull:cow ratios in HD 313 and reduced elk presence in the southern portion of HD 314."
However, this observation from FWP in today's hearing spoke volumes: "The rationale that we've seen on why to make this change seems a little inconsistent with what the boundary change would be."
And no one blinked an eye or asked for further explanation. Full steam ahead.
Just watched that portion again on MPAN. Commissioner Brooke seemed absolutely incredulous when the young man who knows what the population looks like outside the park explained to her how bad bull:cow ratio actually is.
Also, do these folks not get a primer on procedure upon their appointments or what?
406dn
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 12, 2019
- Messages
- 2,036
This is such a travesty. This elk herd is a shared resource. For half of the year, the herd calls YNP home. Whether the commission is bright enough to realize it, that herd should be managed in a way that gives the tourists from across the world a decent chance at seeing mature bull elk.
It never ceases to amaze me the lengths Montana's FWP and the commission carry water for the outfitting industry.
It never ceases to amaze me the lengths Montana's FWP and the commission carry water for the outfitting industry.
Wildabeest
Well-known member
When putting in my MT app recently, I was a bit bewildered that there was no elk B tag option to put in for in 314. Previously, that was a 314-00 draw. I called FWP today and was told that elk B tags in 314 are now OTC and go on sale in August as 397 tag. I guess their solution to the ratio is to kill all the cows. Not that I’ve ever had any issue getting the tag when it was a draw.
The Hedgehog
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2000
- Messages
- 11,620
There's some private land. Somebody will protect them.
The B tag was 97% last year plus your general tag is good in the late season also so I don't see much changing. Late season cows are north of Rock creek only so the new expanded area in 314 won't be affected in the late season. That is how I read it.
Yeah actually 397 B tag is non national forest the whole season now, while before it was only Non national forest late season IIRC. FWP going for the more targeted approach even in the general season, this area + the SW Madisons also going the same way.
Wildabeest
Well-known member
I usually only put in for the B tag if I didn’t draw general.
