Fwp December commission meeting

[bigsky2]

Dangerous game with that one

I get what you’re saying, but there’s a difference between landowner permits and permits that are only valid on private land. It’s not a terrible idea. You make one permit type that’s good for both public and private, and one that’s only valid on private. The permit that is valid for both would obviously be the more coveted permit and there would be less of them. You draw that and you’re going to have a quality hunt. There would be a much higher percentage of private land only permits. Anyone can draw them, but you’d be wise not to apply for that permit unless you’ve got access to private. Drawing odds for that permit would be much better. This puts the majority of the hunting pressure on private land and permit numbers could actually be pretty high as long as the majority were private land only. It would likely spread elk out more and we’d probably kill more elk in these problem areas than we are currently. I wish we could try it in a unit or two to see how it would work. Seems like it could be better than the current system of giving out a shit load of permits because a district is 800% over objective even though only about 20% of it is publicly accessible.

 

[rogerthat]

I get what you’re saying, but there’s a difference between landowner permits and permits that are only valid on private land. It’s not a terrible idea. You make one permit type that’s good for both public and private, and one that’s only valid on private. The permit that is valid for both would obviously be the more coveted permit and there would be less of them. You draw that and you’re going to have a quality hunt. There would be a much higher percentage of private land only permits. Anyone can draw them, but you’d be wise not to apply for that permit unless you’ve got access to private. Drawing odds for that permit would be much better. This puts the majority of the hunting pressure on private land and permit numbers could actually be pretty high as long as the majority were private land only. It would likely spread elk out more and we’d probably kill more elk in these problem areas than we are currently. I wish we could try it in a unit or two to see how it would work. Seems like it could be better than the current system of giving out a shit load of permits because a district is 800% over objective even though only about 20% of it is publicly accessible.

This is exactly what I was thinking not landowner tags.

 

[Sioux33]

I get what you’re saying, but there’s a difference between landowner permits and permits that are only valid on private land. It’s not a terrible idea. You make one permit type that’s good for both public and private, and one that’s only valid on private. The permit that is valid for both would obviously be the more coveted permit and there would be less of them. You draw that and you’re going to have a quality hunt. There would be a much higher percentage of private land only permits. Anyone can draw them, but you’d be wise not to apply for that permit unless you’ve got access to private. Drawing odds for that permit would be much better. This puts the majority of the hunting pressure on private land and permit numbers could actually be pretty high as long as the majority were private land only. It would likely spread elk out more and we’d probably kill more elk in these problem areas than we are currently. I wish we could try it in a unit or two to see how it would work. Seems like it could be better than the current system of giving out a shit load of permits because a district is 800% over objective even though only about 20% of it is publicly accessible.

100% agree with this. Current system only exacerbates the distribution problems. Take the Highwoods, you have 400 archery permits and 3 public access points - 1 on the west end, one on the east end, and a FS road down the middle. You couldn’t ruin a unit faster if you tried.

 

[WanderWoman]

I get what you’re saying, but there’s a difference between landowner permits and permits that are only valid on private land. It’s not a terrible idea. You make one permit type that’s good for both public and private, and one that’s only valid on private. The permit that is valid for both would obviously be the more coveted permit and there would be less of them. You draw that and you’re going to have a quality hunt. There would be a much higher percentage of private land only permits. Anyone can draw them, but you’d be wise not to apply for that permit unless you’ve got access to private. Drawing odds for that permit would be much better. This puts the majority of the hunting pressure on private land and permit numbers could actually be pretty high as long as the majority were private land only. It would likely spread elk out more and we’d probably kill more elk in these problem areas than we are currently. I wish we could try it in a unit or two to see how it would work. Seems like it could be better than the current system of giving out a shit load of permits because a district is 800% over objective even though only about 20% of it is publicly accessible.

I can see this working in some areas and possibly backfiring in others. There are merits to it; and the theory behind it makes sense. If it worked like we hope it would it would work beautifully.

But, there could also be significant consequences depending on what actually goes on with the private land. Example: In an area with more traditional landowners, this may work out, because a lot of those landowners tend to legitimately want to manage elk. On the other hand, in an area with a lot more ‘amenity’ properties, a release of sorts of opportunity may just encourage more property purchases and an exacerbation of what we already have. And where I live, it just doesn’t feel like many of the recreational/amenity landowners want to engage much in management (I realize that’s a generalization and probably not fair to everyone, but it’s also “generally” true).

Case in point: 454/EHA program. Some landowners already have a means of providing elk access and getting a permit in exchange for that, but some still go to great lengths to ensure the elk still stay on that property. There are examples of landowners providing decent cow opportunities via their hands/employees ‘guiding’ hunters. They do that in part to make sure the elk stick around vs. getting blown off. Then, there’s the “I drew a permit” or “my son drew a permit” so “I’m not letting anyone on until I/they get one,” too. Maybe the latter would relax if these landowners drew permits more often, but this is happening even with landowner preference draw odds being pretty dang high.

But then there’s another example of the opposite happening. There’s a large landowner in 535 I guess that has started allowing cow harvest, and all of his neighbors are on board with that, and so a large conglomeration of properties are working together and they’re moving the elk around among properties and they’re killing elk. Granted this is the shoulder season and not the general season, but hey, it can work, if what I’ve heard from a few folks and the rumor mill is true.

Another thing to consider is, would this be something that we’d want applied statewide, in all our permit districts, or just a few? If just a few, what if landowners in another district looked over the fence and thought, “hey this sounds mighty nice, why can’t we do this?” Think 380, 410, etc. How would we then say, “oh, you guys already do great helping the state manage elk so you’re basically being ‘punished’ for already having been good about access for umpteen years..”? Do we want high private land quotas everywhere, which may well happen if we do it in a few places?

Finally, if this didn’t work, could we take it back? Can we get that buffalo or whatever back in the barn if after a few years, we don’t want him running around out there any more tearing up fences? Shoulder seasons were supposed to have a sunset if the criteria weren’t being met, but we have a different F&W Commission now that doesn’t necessarily recognize what previous commissions have done or intended.

 

[John B. Sullivan III]

I disagree we should not be basing our wildlife management off who is elected for governor too many other issues on the table. Each region should know what they are getting and pick qualified individuals or at least have a say in it.

You do have a say in it now when you vote for governor.

The Governor has the privilege to appoint many positions. Do we make each elected by the people every time we’re unhappy with the Governors appointment? No, that would be a political nightmare.

Your vote for Governor is your vote for their agenda across the state.

 

[John B. Sullivan III]

Breaking up the 900 was good for your part of the state, but it sure as hell didn’t help the central MT units. They are a perfect example of what’s wrong with letting the commission set quotas. If they would have let the biologists set the quotas, those units would likely be a lot more enjoyable to hunt. It’s pretty obvious that the permit numbers were set too high when there were 400-500 surplus permits the first year. Remember, that was when they were proposing to make those units general. When quotas are that high, they might as well be general. At least if they were general, people could move to other general units when they get fed up with the crowding. The commission did outfitters a big favor by setting those permit numbers so high, but it didn’t benefit the average hunter out there on public land.

Nailed it.

 

[Sioux33]

I can see this working in some areas and possibly backfiring in others. There are merits to it; and the theory behind it makes sense. If it worked like we hope it would it would work beautifully.

But, there could also be significant consequences depending on what actually goes on with the private land. Example: In an area with more traditional landowners, this may work out, because a lot of those landowners tend to legitimately want to manage elk. On the other hand, in an area with a lot more ‘amenity’ properties, a release of sorts of opportunity may just encourage more property purchases and an exacerbation of what we already have. And where I live, it just doesn’t feel like many of the recreational/amenity landowners want to engage much in management (I realize that’s a generalization and probably not fair to everyone, but it’s also “generally” true).

Case in point: 454/EHA program. Some landowners already have a means of providing elk access and getting a permit in exchange for that, but some still go to great lengths to ensure the elk still stay on that property. There are examples of landowners providing decent cow opportunities via their hands/employees ‘guiding’ hunters. They do that in part to make sure the elk stick around vs. getting blown off. Then, there’s the “I drew a permit” or “my son drew a permit” so “I’m not letting anyone on until I/they get one,” too. Maybe the latter would relax if these landowners drew permits more often, but this is happening even with landowner preference draw odds being pretty dang high.

But then there’s another example of the opposite happening. There’s a large landowner in 535 I guess that has started allowing cow harvest, and all of his neighbors are on board with that, and so a large conglomeration of properties are working together and they’re moving the elk around among properties and they’re killing elk. Granted this is the shoulder season and not the general season, but hey, it can work, if what I’ve heard from a few folks and the rumor mill is true.

Another thing to consider is, would this be something that we’d want applied statewide, in all our permit districts, or just a few? If just a few, what if landowners in another district looked over the fence and thought, “hey this sounds mighty nice, why can’t we do this?” Think 380, 410, etc. How would we then say, “oh, you guys already do great helping the state manage elk so you’re basically being ‘punished’ for already having been good about access for umpteen years..”? Do we want high private land quotas everywhere, which may well happen if we do it in a few places?

Finally, if this didn’t work, could we take it back? Can we get that buffalo or whatever back in the barn if after a few years, we don’t want him running around out there any more tearing up fences? Shoulder seasons were supposed to have a sunset if the criteria weren’t being met, but we have a different F&W Commission now that doesn’t necessarily recognize what previous commissions have done or intended.

This is a really good point, it would be a very slippery slope going this route. Ideally, the biologists would put together a justification for the tag quota, but that would mean the commission would actually have to let them do their jobs.

You could base it on total acres of public, develop an acceptable benchmark of public acres/hunter, and know that anything exceeding that number is a point of diminishing returns that will result in more elk getting pushed to private. You could then give out OTC private land only cow tags to help out problem areas.

I’ve never seen a hunter density analysis like that, would be a good place to start.

 

[cgasner1]

You do have a say in it now when you vote for governor.

The Governor has the privilege to appoint many positions. Do we make each elected by the people every time we’re unhappy with the Governors appointment? No, that would be a political nightmare.

Your vote for Governor is your vote for their agenda across the state.

Curious to as which governor we should have voted for that was 100% for the wildlife? This doesn’t seem to be a single government issue from the current governor. It could have been address along time ago and hasn’t been.

 

[rogerthat]

Yeah I’m warming up to the idea of an elected commission. Do we really want a governor stacking the commission to push an agenda? That can go both ways and very badly for sportsman, case in point Colorado. An elected commission would hopefully resist any agenda pushing. Honestly anymore, I love split government that gets absolutely nothing done. That’s my favorite.

 

[John B. Sullivan III]

Yeah I’m warming up to the idea of an elected commission. Do we really want a governor stacking the commission to push an agenda? That can go both ways and very badly for sportsman, case in point Colorado. An elected commission would hopefully resist any agenda pushing. Honestly anymore, I love split government that gets absolutely nothing done. That’s my favorite.

If I recall, 10% - 12% of Montana’s population purchased hunting licenses last year. 100% of the population gets a vote, including the non-hunters and anti-hunters. Imagine the nightmare of dealing with that in a politically charged election of a F&W Commissioner. Cities like Missoula would always carry R2 and Bozeman would always carry R3, etc. I believe it’s best to keep them appointed and politics as far removed from the F&W Commission as possible.

 

[John B. Sullivan III]

Curious to as which governor we should have voted for that was 100% for the wildlife? This doesn’t seem to be a single government issue from the current governor. It could have been address along time ago and hasn’t been.

I’m sorry, I’m not sure I understand your question. I don’t think you or I will ever agree 100% with a politician but need to make a choice about values when we vote. I recall Tim Fox proposing a damn fine promise to Montana sportsman. Wish I coupe find a copy of it.

 

[SAJ-99]

I believe it’s best to keep them appointed and politics as far removed from the F&W Commission as possible.

How's that worked out so far?

 

[cgasner1]

I’m sorry, I’m not sure I understand your question. I don’t think you or I will ever agree 100% with a politician but need to make a choice about values when we vote. I recall Tim Fox proposing a damn fine promise to Montana sportsman. Wish I coupe find a copy of it.

The issue isn’t blue or red. It won’t be fixed by blue or red. If it could be it would have been fixed long before our current governor. So unless Tim has that in his purposal I highly doubt he will do anything about it.

 

[wtrfwlhunter]

It seems there is so much going on with Montana’s wildlife that it is difficult for many hunters with a baseline interest in the resource to digest all the information and develop an opinion on the subject. In Montana this is vastly different species specific problems that are an informational overload.

In my opinion, that’s where organizations like Mule Deer Foundation, RMEF, etc. can add outsized value. Particularly in the case of mule deer, do Montana’s MDF chapters submit comments, communicate with members to mobilize them during public comment Meetings, arm members with information needed to communicate at these meetings?

 

[John B. Sullivan III]

The issue isn’t blue or red. It won’t be fixed by blue or red. If it could be it would have been fixed long before our current governor. So unless Tim has that in his purposal I highly doubt he will do anything about it.

As far a Im aware Tim Fox is not running for Governor again. He did have a full document I think he called his Promise to Montana Sportsman. It was really good in my opinion.

 

[WanderWoman]

Particularly in the case of mule deer, do Montana’s MDF chapters submit comments, communicate with members to mobilize them during public comment Meetings, arm members with information needed to communicate at these meetings?

No.

 

[John B. Sullivan III]

How's that worked out so far?

I think in the long term it’s been pretty good… that is why Montana was considered world class in terms of wildlife management… maybe there is a better way to further remove politics but I don’t think making F&W commissioner a politically elected position is the answer.

 

[wtrfwlhunter]

No.

That is interesting and concerning.

Is there any organization providing this type of information to mule deer advocates?

 

[antlerradar]

I get what you’re saying, but there’s a difference between landowner permits and permits that are only valid on private land. It’s not a terrible idea. You make one permit type that’s good for both public and private, and one that’s only valid on private. The permit that is valid for both would obviously be the more coveted permit and there would be less of them. You draw that and you’re going to have a quality hunt. There would be a much higher percentage of private land only permits. Anyone can draw them, but you’d be wise not to apply for that permit unless you’ve got access to private. Drawing odds for that permit would be much better. This puts the majority of the hunting pressure on private land and permit numbers could actually be pretty high as long as the majority were private land only. It would likely spread elk out more and we’d probably kill more elk in these problem areas than we are currently. I wish we could try it in a unit or two to see how it would work. Seems like it could be better than the current system of giving out a shit load of permits because a district is 800% over objective even though only about 20% of it is publicly accessible.

I think the way to do this would be private land tags for less desired animals, say three point or less for mule deer and five point or less for elk. I agree with @WanderWoman, give out private land tags for trophies and there are going to be lot of unintended results.

 

[cgasner1]

I think the way to do this would be private land tags for less desired animals, say three point or less for mule deer and five point or less for elk. I agree with @WanderWoman, give out private land tags for trophies and there are going to be lot of unintended results.

Wyoming started doing this a few years ago. It has had little effect. I do know one ranch that has used it as an opportunity to let youth kill bulls which is neat.