FWP Public Scoping Meeting in Miles City tonight 6 PM

[antlerradar]

Very good commets on the addition of 300 elk tags in districts 702, 704, and 705. The FWP had very lame excuses on this proposal and were caught flat footed. About 8 comments were directed in opposition to this proposal and I didn't feel the FWP had any justification other than trying to appease landowners/outfitters and wealthy nonresident hunters. Certainly not from their 2023 elk management plan. We need to contact the FWP commissioners. I wish there was a senate bill requiring commissioners to be an elected position with a 4 year term limit. The guys from the Colstrip Sportsmen’s Club gave excellent comments and one rancher too, Antlerradat was that you?

Nope, I was digging up a water line, that I broke.
I will be sending in comments in opposition when work slows down next week.

 

[BourbonSnowCone]

Loved the comment that a good faith effort would be to allow access and then add more bull tags. Or reassess if they’re even needed. Every person in this forum knows this is just outfitter handouts. The local FWP staff seems to be getting this rammed down there throats too and were quick to bring up the stats on bull to cow ratios this would cause. Once again, politicians meddling in wildlife. Pretty sure at this point the only reason we have biologists is to be the person to yell at about all of the bad ideas. Anybody looking at a ballot initiative addressing outfitting? Pretty much over them driving decisions for the majority of us when it comes to wildlife.

 

[golfer]

Loved the comment that a good faith effort would be to allow access and then add more bull tags. Or reassess if they’re even needed. Every person in this forum knows this is just outfitter handouts. The local FWP staff seems to be getting this rammed down there throats too and were quick to bring up the stats on bull to cow ratios this would cause. Once again, politicians meddling in wildlife. Pretty sure at this point the only reason we have biologists is to be the person to yell at about all of the bad ideas. Anybody looking at a ballot initiative addressing outfitting? Pretty much over them driving decisions for the majority of us when it comes to wildlife.

Can you post more info on the ballot initiative?

 

[MTGomer]

My comment;

This comment is regarding R5 mule deer, HD250 elk and R7 elk proposals.

The theme that is consistent among these proposals is that it is to expand and liberalize 'opportunity' and it is stated in the proposals that the driving factor is input from hunters/the public. I recognize that it is unrealistic to not acknowledge the human factor, but I am concerned that a hard science such as biology consistently takes a back seat to social science. Additionally, if the department does value the social aspect as much as it appears they do, it is only fair that the department also value the social desire of those that want to hunt a few higher quality, trophy managed units, while still leaving most of the state as managed for maximum hunter opportunity.

Region 5 mule deer:

I reside in R5. Looking at the condition of the mule deer herds near me, I find it shocking that we are proposing to expand antlerless harvest, instead of eliminating it and restrict antlered harvest as well. Currently, Montana mule deer management is the most liberal, with no close second place, of every state and province surrounding us. It is not a coincidence that we also have the worst hunting of said states and provinces.



HD250 elk:

Elk hunting of post-rut bulls is challenging. It always has been and always will be, especially in the big mountains and heavily timbered backcountry of the Bitterroot and Selway divide. The limited permit system that is currently in place is partially responsible for the recovery of the area's elk herd and for the higher percentage of older age/6 point bull harvest that is seen. Of course, this creates desire by the local population to "open it up" as the proposal says, but the folks that live there are surrounded by areas that are "opened up". How's the hunting in 204, 261 and 240? Does the quality of hunting that currently exists in 250 need to be depleted to appease people that could just go hunt 204,261 and 240, if the 'opportunity' to take their rifle for a walk with a low likelihood of success is what they desire? The proposal also mentions that moving 250 to an unlimited tag would likely take pressure off 270. If taking pressure off 270 is a desire of the department's, 270 could become a limited entry unit with a capped amount of licenses, which would increase the age class and success rates of the hunters that draw the tags, while limiting pressure in the unit as is apparently desired.



R7 Elk:
In Region 7, as residents of Montana, we currently have the unique 'opportunity' to hunt some of the largest bull elk to ever exist, nearly every year with our bows if we choose to. The rifle hunt, with its currently 280 permits is more challenging to draw, but when compared to hunts of similar trophy bull quality in other states, such as NV 221 or 231, AZ units 9, 10, 23, or the Beaver Unit of Utah, the tag is still very obtainable, with resident bonus point holders with 10 points having a near 50/50 shot at drawing the permit. I question the need to nearly double the number of licenses in pursuit of again, the same thing;'opportunity'.

What I do like about the proposal is that it appears to acknowledge that elk on private lands near Colstrip may have different management needs than elk on public lands on the Custer and further east. I would encourage the department to continue down the path of managing the SE MT elk on a more local/herd specific basis, instead of as a region.

I remain concerned about what a doubling of harvest opportunity will do to the age class and size of the bull elk.

We've seen what the pursuit of endless opportunity has done to the elk hunting in the Missouri River Breaks. It would truly be a shame to destroy what is the greatest elk hunt in Montana and arguably one of the greatest elk hunts in the world, so that more people have the 'opportunity'. Again, if the social desires of Montanans so strongly outweigh biological science-basedwildlife management, then the department is obligated to weigh the considerations of those that want the 'opportunity' to have a quality hunt, that has low hunter numbers, less disturbed elk and deer, with more natural behaviors, that have the ability to grow older and larger. For everybody else, the opportunity to hunt elk across most of the state is not going away. For $20 a person can acquire an elk license and hunt from the first Saturday in September, through the Sunday after Thanksgiving, across most of the state. There is not a lack of opportunities to hunt elk in Montana. I am concerned that the endless pursuit of maximum opportunity will further deplete the quality of hunting in Montana, and continue to pressure elk onto private lands where they are inaccessible to the general public. This lack of accessibility then drives the desire for more opportunity, while also increasing landowner complaints due to crop and fence damage, which results in the department being further pressured to increase hunter opportunity. It is a never-ending cycle that is a downward spiral of quality public land elk hunting. In my view, it is time to take some pressure off of the wildlife, which will take pressure off the landowners, which will take pressure off of the department and will result in more of the kinds of opportunity that many of us desire, which is the opportunity to go on a quality hunt, as opposed to the opportunity to maximize the number of dates and places we can go walking with our rifles.

 

[PoleX]

My comment;

This comment is regarding R5 mule deer, HD250 elk and R7 elk proposals.

The theme that is consistent among these proposals is that it is to expand and liberalize 'opportunity' and it is stated in the proposals that the driving factor is input from hunters/the public. I recognize that it is unrealistic to not acknowledge the human factor, but I am concerned that a hard science such as biology consistently takes a back seat to social science. Additionally, if the department does value the social aspect as much as it appears they do, it is only fair that the department also value the social desire of those that want to hunt a few higher quality, trophy managed units, while still leaving most of the state as managed for maximum hunter opportunity.

Region 5 mule deer:

I reside in R5. Looking at the condition of the mule deer herds near me, I find it shocking that we are proposing to expand antlerless harvest, instead of eliminating it and restrict antlered harvest as well. Currently, Montana mule deer management is the most liberal, with no close second place, of every state and province surrounding us. It is not a coincidence that we also have the worst hunting of said states and provinces.



HD250 elk:

Elk hunting of post-rut bulls is challenging. It always has been and always will be, especially in the big mountains and heavily timbered backcountry of the Bitterroot and Selway divide. The limited permit system that is currently in place is partially responsible for the recovery of the area's elk herd and for the higher percentage of older age/6 point bull harvest that is seen. Of course, this creates desire by the local population to "open it up" as the proposal says, but the folks that live there are surrounded by areas that are "opened up". How's the hunting in 204, 261 and 240? Does the quality of hunting that currently exists in 250 need to be depleted to appease people that could just go hunt 204,261 and 240, if the 'opportunity' to take their rifle for a walk with a low likelihood of success is what they desire? The proposal also mentions that moving 250 to an unlimited tag would likely take pressure off 270. If taking pressure off 270 is a desire of the department's, 270 could become a limited entry unit with a capped amount of licenses, which would increase the age class and success rates of the hunters that draw the tags, while limiting pressure in the unit as is apparently desired.



R7 Elk:
In Region 7, as residents of Montana, we currently have the unique 'opportunity' to hunt some of the largest bull elk to ever exist, nearly every year with our bows if we choose to. The rifle hunt, with its currently 280 permits is more challenging to draw, but when compared to hunts of similar trophy bull quality in other states, such as NV 221 or 231, AZ units 9, 10, 23, or the Beaver Unit of Utah, the tag is still very obtainable, with resident bonus point holders with 10 points having a near 50/50 shot at drawing the permit. I question the need to nearly double the number of licenses in pursuit of again, the same thing;'opportunity'.

What I do like about the proposal is that it appears to acknowledge that elk on private lands near Colstrip may have different management needs than elk on public lands on the Custer and further east. I would encourage the department to continue down the path of managing the SE MT elk on a more local/herd specific basis, instead of as a region.

I remain concerned about what a doubling of harvest opportunity will do to the age class and size of the bull elk.

We've seen what the pursuit of endless opportunity has done to the elk hunting in the Missouri River Breaks. It would truly be a shame to destroy what is the greatest elk hunt in Montana and arguably one of the greatest elk hunts in the world, so that more people have the 'opportunity'. Again, if the social desires of Montanans so strongly outweigh biological science-basedwildlife management, then the department is obligated to weigh the considerations of those that want the 'opportunity' to have a quality hunt, that has low hunter numbers, less disturbed elk and deer, with more natural behaviors, that have the ability to grow older and larger. For everybody else, the opportunity to hunt elk across most of the state is not going away. For $20 a person can acquire an elk license and hunt from the first Saturday in September, through the Sunday after Thanksgiving, across most of the state. There is not a lack of opportunities to hunt elk in Montana. I am concerned that the endless pursuit of maximum opportunity will further deplete the quality of hunting in Montana, and continue to pressure elk onto private lands where they are inaccessible to the general public. This lack of accessibility then drives the desire for more opportunity, while also increasing landowner complaints due to crop and fence damage, which results in the department being further pressured to increase hunter opportunity. It is a never-ending cycle that is a downward spiral of quality public land elk hunting. In my view, it is time to take some pressure off of the wildlife, which will take pressure off the landowners, which will take pressure off of the department and will result in more of the kinds of opportunity that many of us desire, which is the opportunity to go on a quality hunt, as opposed to the opportunity to maximize the number of dates and places we can go walking with our rifles.

Well said Gomer, everything seems spot on!

 

[bigsky2]

My comment;

This comment is regarding R5 mule deer, HD250 elk and R7 elk proposals.

The theme that is consistent among these proposals is that it is to expand and liberalize 'opportunity' and it is stated in the proposals that the driving factor is input from hunters/the public. I recognize that it is unrealistic to not acknowledge the human factor, but I am concerned that a hard science such as biology consistently takes a back seat to social science. Additionally, if the department does value the social aspect as much as it appears they do, it is only fair that the department also value the social desire of those that want to hunt a few higher quality, trophy managed units, while still leaving most of the state as managed for maximum hunter opportunity.

Region 5 mule deer:

I reside in R5. Looking at the condition of the mule deer herds near me, I find it shocking that we are proposing to expand antlerless harvest, instead of eliminating it and restrict antlered harvest as well. Currently, Montana mule deer management is the most liberal, with no close second place, of every state and province surrounding us. It is not a coincidence that we also have the worst hunting of said states and provinces.



HD250 elk:

Elk hunting of post-rut bulls is challenging. It always has been and always will be, especially in the big mountains and heavily timbered backcountry of the Bitterroot and Selway divide. The limited permit system that is currently in place is partially responsible for the recovery of the area's elk herd and for the higher percentage of older age/6 point bull harvest that is seen. Of course, this creates desire by the local population to "open it up" as the proposal says, but the folks that live there are surrounded by areas that are "opened up". How's the hunting in 204, 261 and 240? Does the quality of hunting that currently exists in 250 need to be depleted to appease people that could just go hunt 204,261 and 240, if the 'opportunity' to take their rifle for a walk with a low likelihood of success is what they desire? The proposal also mentions that moving 250 to an unlimited tag would likely take pressure off 270. If taking pressure off 270 is a desire of the department's, 270 could become a limited entry unit with a capped amount of licenses, which would increase the age class and success rates of the hunters that draw the tags, while limiting pressure in the unit as is apparently desired.



R7 Elk:
In Region 7, as residents of Montana, we currently have the unique 'opportunity' to hunt some of the largest bull elk to ever exist, nearly every year with our bows if we choose to. The rifle hunt, with its currently 280 permits is more challenging to draw, but when compared to hunts of similar trophy bull quality in other states, such as NV 221 or 231, AZ units 9, 10, 23, or the Beaver Unit of Utah, the tag is still very obtainable, with resident bonus point holders with 10 points having a near 50/50 shot at drawing the permit. I question the need to nearly double the number of licenses in pursuit of again, the same thing;'opportunity'.

What I do like about the proposal is that it appears to acknowledge that elk on private lands near Colstrip may have different management needs than elk on public lands on the Custer and further east. I would encourage the department to continue down the path of managing the SE MT elk on a more local/herd specific basis, instead of as a region.

I remain concerned about what a doubling of harvest opportunity will do to the age class and size of the bull elk.

We've seen what the pursuit of endless opportunity has done to the elk hunting in the Missouri River Breaks. It would truly be a shame to destroy what is the greatest elk hunt in Montana and arguably one of the greatest elk hunts in the world, so that more people have the 'opportunity'. Again, if the social desires of Montanans so strongly outweigh biological science-basedwildlife management, then the department is obligated to weigh the considerations of those that want the 'opportunity' to have a quality hunt, that has low hunter numbers, less disturbed elk and deer, with more natural behaviors, that have the ability to grow older and larger. For everybody else, the opportunity to hunt elk across most of the state is not going away. For $20 a person can acquire an elk license and hunt from the first Saturday in September, through the Sunday after Thanksgiving, across most of the state. There is not a lack of opportunities to hunt elk in Montana. I am concerned that the endless pursuit of maximum opportunity will further deplete the quality of hunting in Montana, and continue to pressure elk onto private lands where they are inaccessible to the general public. This lack of accessibility then drives the desire for more opportunity, while also increasing landowner complaints due to crop and fence damage, which results in the department being further pressured to increase hunter opportunity. It is a never-ending cycle that is a downward spiral of quality public land elk hunting. In my view, it is time to take some pressure off of the wildlife, which will take pressure off the landowners, which will take pressure off of the department and will result in more of the kinds of opportunity that many of us desire, which is the opportunity to go on a quality hunt, as opposed to the opportunity to maximize the number of dates and places we can go walking with our rifles.

Very well said!