FWP Proposed Changes - 2021 Season Setting

[Nameless Range]

A big question I struggle with when it comes to actually proposing solutions - where do we come up with data to present that isn't the stuff FWP already has? Aren't we kind-of stuck with their elk counts? And I'm not even sure if they do biological carrying capacity calculations, but is there anyone that has better data? It's great to tell them to scientifically manage game, but we need more than just pointing out there's nothing scientific about their "management."

I don't think so. Though I do believe very sound arguments that they have been doing a poor job, and can do a better job, can be made using their data.

 

[Ben Lamb]

A big question I struggle with when it comes to actually proposing solutions - where do we come up with data to present that isn't the stuff FWP already has? Aren't we kind-of stuck with their elk counts? And I'm not even sure if they do biological carrying capacity calculations, but is there anyone that has better data? It's great to tell them to scientifically manage game, but we need more than just pointing out there's nothing scientific about their "management."

FWP's data is public record. You can request it. Draw odds, harvest rates bydistrict, etc can be had by companies like GoHUNT, etc. That's literally what they do. We can extrapolate based on the existing data for specific districts on who is taking what animal, when, and how.

But again, this fine-scale thinking isn't the end all of where chit needs to be. There has to be a reckoning on management in general, as well as what's in front of you.

All of the decisions relative to shoulder seasons, season setting, etc are temporary. By focusing just on those, you focus on the immediate rather than the long term. You essentially are playing the politician's game, rather than making any meaningful change. Let the small chit go ( near term seasons setting) and get to work on changing the game.

 

[brocksw]

FWP's data is public record. You can request it. Draw odds, harvest rates bydistrict, etc can be had by companies like GoHUNT, etc. That's literally what they do. We can extrapolate based on the existing data for specific districts on who is taking what animal, when, and how.

But again, this fine-scale thinking isn't the end all of where chit needs to be. There has to be a reckoning on management in general, as well as what's in front of you.

All of the decisions relative to shoulder seasons, season setting, etc are temporary. By focusing just on those, you focus on the immediate rather than the long term. You essentially are playing the politician's game, rather than making any meaningful change. Let the small chit go ( near term seasons setting) and get to work on changing the game.

Listening from next door, to all the conversations that have been taking place in the last few months over in MT. Your take brings a couple bigger issues and questions to the forefront, that I would say are beyond immediate and "small chit".

1. FWP commission - Am I alone in thinking this commission has outlived its useful life? I am sure when the commission was created it did some good and it may have kept some balance or served as a useful management tool for the FWP. But to me, it should have been obvious that this commission would undoubtedly turn into a political cluster and now it's just a bad idea. Excluding Mckeon from sitting on that commission was the nail in the coffin for me. But regardless, this commission is still the governing body for all things wildlife and hunting in the state of MT, a responsibility that should fall solely on the FWP and it's staff of trained and educated professionals, whose job it is to weigh public comment and mix the social with the biological. This commission has done nothing in recent memory that I've seen except confuse politics with wildlife and hunting management. IMO MT sportsmen should be working to end the commission. 1 less politically corrupt body to deal with.

2. WY vs MT I know Buzz has commented on this many times. But I find it odd Wyoming seems to deal with far less landowner/elk conflict and still play host to world class elk hunting and elk populations. From a management standpoint, Wyoming got something right and MT got that same thing wrong, and it has led to decades of conflict about elk populations, elk distribution, access to elk, and predators. What are these issues specifically that Wy handled better than MT? This source of conflict is leading to political battles that will just cause management to swing from one extreme to another with changing regimes. There has to be something to what Wy has done to avoid this, or is it more of an issue in Wy than I am aware of?

3. Objectives - This is broader than just elk population and district objectives, as it seems theres a disconnect and distrust in MT with the FWP and the public when it comes to any data. But from the comments in this forum, the objectives are Bull****....with a capital B. How can Montanans sit down with the FWP and get this foundational step in elk management figured out? These objectives should not be in question as often as they are. They should make sense and be transparent. Some of the unit objectives are neither. Population objectives in the breaks that are in the 200-300 total elk is MAD! The FWP needs to address those specific units. How much money is being spent on depredation/restitution in those units? What steps are being taken to "protect" the landowners in those units? What are potential solutions on a small scale (individual landowners in those units that are the source of the complaints) that could get that ship headed in the right direction? Has the FWP ever established data for biological carrying capacity for each unit?

 

[406dn]

2. WY vs MT I know Buzz has commented on this many times. But I find it odd Wyoming seems to deal with far less landowner/elk conflict and still play host to world class elk hunting and elk populations. From a management standpoint, Wyoming got something right and MT got that same thing wrong, and it has led to decades of conflict about elk populations, elk distribution, access to elk, and predators. What are these issues specifically that Wy handled better than MT? This source of conflict is leading to political battles that will just cause management to swing from one extreme to another with changing regimes. There has to be something to what Wy has done to avoid this, or is it more of an issue in Wy than I am aware of?

Off the top of my head, historically Wyoming has fed elk in the winter in several areas. Montana has gone with winter game ranges and recently now...wait for it...shoulder seasons.

Feeding elk has a different set of plusses and minuses.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Off the top of my head, historically Wyoming has fed elk in the winter in several areas. Montana has gone with winter game ranges and recently now...wait for it...shoulder seasons.

Feeding elk has a different set of plusses and minuses.

That's part of it.

Wyoming never allowed game farms either, which helped.maintsin a culture of enjoying wildlife rather just seeing them as profit or loss.

Add in game damage payments which were around $500k a year when I left in 2007 and are somewhere between $3 & 4 million a year now, IIRC.

Plus, WY's season structure doesn't create a significant pulse of people for 11 weeks straight. They manage hunter distribution far better than MT does.

Plus, you've got professional political operatives pushing the privatization issue (Chuck Denowh, UPOM) and term limits have robbed the legislature of any institutional wisdom so it's a constant free for all.

Then there's the desire from outfitters for their welfare tags, coupled with changing land ownership away from generational farms and ranches.

 

[MTLabrador]

That's part of it.

Wyoming never allowed game farms either, which helped.maintsin a culture of enjoying wildlife rather just seeing them as profit or loss.

Add in game damage payments which were around $500k a year when I left in 2007 and are somewhere between $3 & 4 million a year now, IIRC.

Plus, WY's season structure doesn't create a significant pulse of people for 11 weeks straight. They manage hunter distribution far better than MT does.

Plus, you've got professional political operatives pushing the privatization issue (Chuck Denowh, UPOM) and term limits have robbed the legislature of any institutional wisdom so it's a constant free for all.

Then there's the desire from outfitters for their welfare tags, coupled with changing land ownership away from generational farms and ranches.

Qualifying landowners in Wyoming get 2 (non transferable outside of the family or corporation) tags per species as well. That’s another part of it.

There is one high fence operation in Wyoming that still sells hunts.

 

[timmy]

Management of hunter distribution which means less opportunity. That is where people are too dumb to figure out that yes you won’t be able to hunt 11 weeks but your opportunity of harvest will actually increase. Until we start cutting the “opportunity” of long seasons the problem won’t get fixed.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Management of hunter distribution which means less opportunity. That is where people are too dumb to figure out that yes you won’t be able to hunt 11 weeks but your opportunity of harvest will actually increase. Until we start cutting the “opportunity” of long seasons the problem won’t get fixed.

And this is why messaging is so important.

WY enjoys a roughly 40% success rate on elk. Hunter distribution means much higher harvest rates. Wyoming residents have just as much opportunity as Montanans, they also have better success rates.

There is no loss of opportunity by better distributing hunters. There is loss of opportunity when elk live anywhere but where hunters can get to them, which is where Mt is headed.

 

[Big Foot]

I recall reading the same. Something along the lines of they supported the original implementation of shoulder seasons on private land but were in opposition of public lands being included then and they are opposed to public land being included now.
( This is my paraphrase, not actual quotes.)

True, I attended meeting. They showed up for that meeting but must have been busy for this one?

 

[brocksw]

And this is why messaging is so important.

WY enjoys a roughly 40% success rate on elk. Hunter distribution means much higher harvest rates. Wyoming residents have just as much opportunity as Montanans, they also have better success rates.

There is no loss of opportunity by better distributing hunters. There is loss of opportunity when elk live anywhere but where hunters can get to them, which is where Mt is headed.

How specifically has Wyoming done that during hunting season? The elk feeding is a winter thing and becoming more and more controversial the way I understand it. There has to be something else besides feeding elk?

 

[timmy]

How specifically has Wyoming done that during hunting season? The elk feeding is a winter thing and becoming more and more controversial the way I understand it. There has to be something else besides feeding elk?

They adjust season structure so that everyone is not in the field at the same time. It’s night and day different. They distribute hunters it’s not a hard concept. Reasonable season dates as well.

 

[brocksw]

They adjust season structure so that everyone is not in the field at the same time. It’s night and day different. They distribute hunters it’s not a hard concept. Reasonable season dates as well.

And there's no issues with elk hanging out on private away from hunters all fall? Is that a different dynamic in Wy?

 

[timmy]

And there's no issues with elk hanging out on private away from hunters all fall? Is that a different dynamic in Wy?

That’s a good question but as of right now elk or deer for that matter seek security and we don’t even give them a chance on public. It’s 11 weeks of pressure pushing them away from public. Private land is always going to hammer on animals believe me I know both sides. But 11 weeks of harassment will push them off public for sure.

 

[BuzzH]

That’s a good question but as of right now elk or deer for that matter seek security and we don’t even give them a chance on public. It’s 11 weeks of pressure pushing them away from public. Private land is always going to hammer on animals believe me I know both sides. But 11 weeks of harassment will push them off public for sure.

Here's what I think needs to happen in Montana.

Its always best to start at the start and I would say the single most important thing is to establish REAL herd objectives based on science rather than social tolerance of elk. Without that piece, the rest really doesn't matter.

After that I would then fire about 90%, if not all, of the MTFWP leadership. Quentin Kujala, Mike Thompson, obviously the Director, etc...all given a road map and their last pay checks. These guys have sat back on their collective duff's and allowed this crap to advance without so much as a whimper. Even worse, they've taken aggressive actions against any of the field biologists that actually DO care about wildlife. Even worse than that, they've also perpetuated a whole new crop of "just follow orders, don't question anything" type field biologists as well. I think some of the field bio's may be salvageable, some are just too far gone...get rid of those that don't make a 180 degree turn to actual management.

After that, I would set seasons as follows:

1. Sept. 1-30 archery season, no more archery season in October.

2. Rifle general elk from Oct 15-Oct 31 in most of the state for bulls, maybe some adjustments over time to ensure elk harvest in some areas.

3. Any elk seasons past that time, cow only with some tags good for private land only, some unit wide depending on your objectives.

4. Total re-do the hunter access program. No more BS saying you're all filled up 5 minutes after they start taking calls. The Access program needs to be run through the FWP, just like Wyoming's random draw for areas that are in high demand. Actually MANAGE the program to keep elk hunt-able rather than a mob every day running elk on to private.

5. For the most part no brown its down seasons with deer and elk both open at the same time. Force people to make a decision and prioritize what they want to hunt. No over-lapping deer/elk hunts any more.

6. Much shorter mule deer seasons, maybe just prior to elk seasons, so Oct. 1-7 or at most October 1-14.

7. Whitetail seasons from Nov 1-20.

Manage all the above on bull to cow/buck to doe ratio's post harvest, adjust seasons to reflect 18-20 bulls/bucks per 100 cows post harvest minimum or shorten seasons to keep those numbers.

Cow tags issued on two criteria: 1. over-all herd unit objectives 2. minimum cow to calf ratio's. Majority of the tags issued private land only or areas at least 20% over objective.

Its not complicated, elk will stay on public if you don't pound on them for 11 weeks. If you have good bull to cow ratio's, solid herd objectives, you don't need 11 weeks to find and kill elk. Its a rare bird when I can't kill an elk any day I hunt in Wyoming...it happens, but most days I could kill a legal elk when I rifle hunt. I don't recall not at least seeing elk every single day I've hunted in Wyoming.

Montana should make Wyoming look like poor hunting...but that sure isn't reality.

 

[BuzzH]

And there's no issues with elk hanging out on private away from hunters all fall? Is that a different dynamic in Wy?

No, there isn't an issue with them hanging on private all fall...because they don't get pounded for 11 weeks straight on public.

Only so many elk can be killed in 10-14 days and then even the ones that are driven on to private, drift back onto public when the shooting stops.

 

[timmy]

Here's what I think needs to happen in Montana.

Its always best to start at the start and I would say the single most important thing is to establish REAL herd objectives based on science rather than social tolerance of elk. Without that piece, the rest really doesn't matter.

After that I would then fire about 90%, if not all, of the MTFWP leadership. Quentin Kujala, Mike Thompson, obviously the Director, etc...all given a road map and their last pay checks. These guys have sat back on their collective duff's and allowed this crap to advance without so much as a whimper. Even worse, they've taken aggressive actions against any of the field biologists that actually DO care about wildlife. Even worse than that, they've also perpetuated a whole new crop of "just follow orders, don't question anything" type field biologists as well. I think some of the field bio's may be salvageable, some are just too far gone...get rid of those that don't make a 180 degree turn to actual management.

After that, I would set seasons as follows:

1. Sept. 1-30 archery season, no more archery season in October.

2. Rifle general elk from Oct 15-Oct 31 in most of the state for bulls, maybe some adjustments over time to ensure elk harvest in some areas.

3. Any elk seasons past that time, cow only with some tags good for private land only, some unit wide depending on your objectives.

4. Total re-do the hunter access program. No more BS saying you're all filled up 5 minutes after they start taking calls. The Access program needs to be run through the FWP, just like Wyoming's random draw for areas that are in high demand. Actually MANAGE the program to keep elk hunt-able rather than a mob every day running elk on to private.

5. For the most part no brown its down seasons with deer and elk both open at the same time. Force people to make a decision and prioritize what they want to hunt. No over-lapping deer/elk hunts any more.

6. Much shorter mule deer seasons, maybe just prior to elk seasons, so Oct. 1-7 or at most October 1-14.

7. Whitetail seasons from Nov 1-20.

Manage all the above on bull to cow/buck to doe ratio's post harvest, adjust seasons to reflect 18-20 bulls/bucks per 100 cows post harvest minimum or shorten seasons to keep those numbers.

Cow tags issued on two criteria: 1. over-all herd unit objectives 2. minimum cow to calf ratio's. Majority of the tags issued private land only or areas at least 20% over objective.

Its not complicated, elk will stay on public if you don't pound on them for 11 weeks. If you have good bull to cow ratio's, solid herd objectives, you don't need 11 weeks to find and kill elk. Its a rare bird when I can't kill an elk any day I hunt in Wyoming...it happens, but most days I could kill a legal elk when I rifle hunt. I don't recall not at least seeing elk every single day I've hunted in Wyoming.

Montana should make Wyoming look like poor hunting...but that sure isn't reality.

Biologists would tell you they are at the bull:cow ratio right now in a lot of districts so no reason to change.
CWD management won’t allow this management plan.
I agree with everything you said but that is what we are up against. It’s a pipe dream to change anything for the better and I’m not one of the public land hunters that is allowing this to happen. Just realistic.

 

[timmy]

Opportunity lost isn’t worth the opportunity gained… I could go on with the bs I’ve been told.

 

[timmy]

And then you have the hunter personalities Newberg Rinella and the likes and the army of idiots they have created that exploit it from the public side. Their just isn’t a lot of hope for making it better.

 

[Ben Lamb]

And there's no issues with elk hanging out on private away from hunters all fall? Is that a different dynamic in Wy?

I'm sure there are spots that have those issues, but the combination of feedgrounds unnaturally concentrating animals away from private land on the western side of the state & damage payments make it less of an issue, as does season structure.

There's a significant factor in landownership as well. Wyoming is a split state, 50% public, 50% private. MT is at 70% private and 30% public.

And again and most importantly, elk as a political weapon wasn't a thing until around 2008 & the 23 limited entry permit bundled districts in the Breaks. That took away a massive cash cow from landowners & outfitters who had control, in some districts, of 90% of the bull harvest. Only then did the objectives become an issue for some and that's when we saw the rise of groups like UPOM who spend their time, money and energy working to eliminate public hunting opportunities in favor of landowner/outfitters owning it all.

Wyoming never had that happen.

Perhaps the biggest reason is that WGFD isn't held hostage by the legislature for their budget. The department crafts the budget and the Commission approves, modifies or disapproves it. The Legislature only has oversight of the general fund dollars that are going to the agency. That level of political isolation helps ensure better, more equitable outcomes.

As to the issue of dissolving the commission, I would disagree. Commissions are still viable tools to ensure the best management oversight. Some Governors will be political in whom they appoint. Gianforte virtue signaled his politics loud & clear with Robinson (UPOM supporter), Cebull (oil and gas industry) & Tabor (Outfitters). I still think KC Walsh is a good person and can become a solid commissioner, but folks will need to work with him to help him understand the issues at play, and what honest solutions look like.

This isn't to say that Bullock or Schweitzer were nonpartsian peaches, as I long felt the commission was not a priority until it was time to fill a seat and then there was a mad scramble to find someone "appropriate" to ensure the Governor got what he wanted. But as far as commissions being appropriate oversight, it worked well for darned near 100 years, and if we hold our elected officials accountable for these decisions, then it can work again. Balance is never easy to make happen, and this commission is tilted against the DIY hunter who doesn't own a few sections to be sure, but it's not a reason to abandon a successful model.

 

[brocksw]

And again and most importantly, elk as a political weapon wasn't a thing until around 2008 & the 23 limited entry permit bundled districts in the Breaks. That took away a massive cash cow from landowners & outfitters who had control, in some districts, of 90% of the bull harvest. Only then did the objectives become an issue for some and that's when we saw the rise of groups like UPOM who spend their time, money and energy working to eliminate public hunting opportunities in favor of landowner/outfitters owning it all.

As to the issue of dissolving the commission, I would disagree. Commissions are still viable tools to ensure the best management oversight. Some Governors will be political in whom they appoint. Gianforte virtue signaled his politics loud & clear with Robinson (UPOM supporter), Cebull (oil and gas industry) & Tabor (Outfitters). I still think KC Walsh is a good person and can become a solid commissioner, but folks will need to work with him to help him understand the issues at play, and what honest solutions look like.

This isn't to say that Bullock or Schweitzer were nonpartsian peaches, as I long felt the commission was not a priority until it was time to fill a seat and then there was a mad scramble to find someone "appropriate" to ensure the Governor got what he wanted. But as far as commissions being appropriate oversight, it worked well for darned near 100 years, and if we hold our elected officials accountable for these decisions, then it can work again. Balance is never easy to make happen, and this commission is tilted against the DIY hunter who doesn't own a few sections to be sure, but it's not a reason to abandon a successful model.

But elk are a political weapon, and in these hyper partisan times I don't see that changing unless more equitable or balanced, bipartisan solutions are presented and used. Even then....
But all it takes is another organized landowner movement, the right Governor with the appropriate timing, and a controlling portion of those commission seats are flipped, add in another Worsech type appointment and all that potentially great work could be undone. We already know that the side that wants to exploit, monetize, exterminate elk are willing to say or do whatever they can to get what they want, only to come back a little while later and move the goal posts again (see shoulder seasons). Why make it easy? That commission is the easiest body for them to control and they can actually get on the commission if they know the right people. Chuck and the likes have very little chance of becoming an influential bio for big game management within the FWP....and that's where the decision making should rest.

At another time, with a different political environment I'd say there might be hope for that commission. I just don't see it now. Even if they next Governor doesn't turn it into a political arm, the one after him/her can do so easily. Montana can't afford to keep chasing its tail on these issues. A political body with self-interest and industry interest on a contentious and popular public resource is a recipe for disaster.