FWP Sidestepping Public Comment Period?
- Thread starter Schaaf
- Start date
huntin24/7
Well-known member
This is kinda mind boggling. Do any other western states manage their elk/mule deer remotely similar to MT?
The scary part is that this is being done under a supposed pro hunter, pro public land, Democrat governor and his FWP director and commission appointees.
Greg Gianforte has already said if elected governor that he will clean house at FWP. That sounds great, until you see his social media posts about how FWP should not be shortening shoulder seasons. I think things have potential to get much worse for elk after November depending how things go.
Greg Gianforte has already said if elected governor that he will clean house at FWP. That sounds great, until you see his social media posts about how FWP should not be shortening shoulder seasons. I think things have potential to get much worse for elk after November depending how things go.
Art Vandeley
Well-known member
She is about as useful as tits on a bull
Gerald Martin
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2009
- Messages
- 8,333
I think he meant all semblances of pretending to care about the interests of public land hunters will be done away with.
assuming it’s the bio I think it is I’m actually fairly good friends with her and knew her before she ever worked for FWP. She does post a lot of pictures of wintering bulls on Facebook so maybe the large bull herds do exist, but as I said earlier haystacks are simple to protect. My guess is her hands are largely tied by those above
Whether there are large groups of bulls or not, I disagree with blindsiding the public about something hopefully quiet a few people actually may have an opinion on. I chatted with her at a meeting last month and not a word was said during any of the 2 presentations I sat through or during the discussions I had with her about the rifle tag quota range being moved. As Schaaf said earlier how is the public supposed to agree or disagree with something that we know nothing about. What is happening over there is they will continue to dwindle down what used to be world class elk hunting by issuing more tags, pushing those elk onto private property with little to zero access and in the public with be left with the short end of the stick once again by piss pounding the public ground in hopes to find the last public land breaks elk whether it’s a bull or cow.
Last edited:
I fully get it. I’ve sat through enough meetings in Idaho where things were presented that never happened or changes popped up in the regs that no one saw or got a chance to comment on. I remember sitting in a meeting 20 years ago and getting told things were on the rebound for Clearwater elk herds; I’m still waiting and truly don’t think we will ever see great elk hunting here again in my lifetime
BuzzH
Well-known member
Just business as usual with the FWP, elk are the enemy.
The FWP treats elk like knapweed or leafy spurge, and trust me if they find the herbicide equivalent that works on elk, they'll use it by the gallon.
This really shouldn't surprise anyone, its been like this for a long time, and why I threw in the towel on elk hunting in Montana several years ago. I wrote letters, called, and drove 800 miles one way to attend meetings. Its pointless, they don't listen, they don't care, they don't practice anything close to biology. Their elk data, both harvest and population data is pure bullshit...to the point a 3rd grader can see the flaws in it. Very common data is bull to cow ratio's in the 5-6 per 100, herd estimates of 500...meaning 30 bulls, then claiming 125 bulls are killed during hunting season. You confront them on it, they get all pissed off and tell you how dumb your are, all the while defending their numbers that make NO sense. If you're going to just pull numbers out of your ass, at least make them believable.
Its absolute insanity...and nobody holds them accountable.
The FWP treats elk like knapweed or leafy spurge, and trust me if they find the herbicide equivalent that works on elk, they'll use it by the gallon.
This really shouldn't surprise anyone, its been like this for a long time, and why I threw in the towel on elk hunting in Montana several years ago. I wrote letters, called, and drove 800 miles one way to attend meetings. Its pointless, they don't listen, they don't care, they don't practice anything close to biology. Their elk data, both harvest and population data is pure bullshit...to the point a 3rd grader can see the flaws in it. Very common data is bull to cow ratio's in the 5-6 per 100, herd estimates of 500...meaning 30 bulls, then claiming 125 bulls are killed during hunting season. You confront them on it, they get all pissed off and tell you how dumb your are, all the while defending their numbers that make NO sense. If you're going to just pull numbers out of your ass, at least make them believable.
Its absolute insanity...and nobody holds them accountable.
SAJ-99
Well-known member
I believe the changes were made after the public comment period on the original proposal. If they keep coming back for public comments, everyone that is against the new changes and for the old changes will complain. That would be an endless circle with nothing accomplished. As FWP pointed out in the original, they want to push those elk north back to the CMR. The entire area is super complicated. 90% of the elk in 411 are on the Wilkes ranch. 417 is practically inaccessible after the outfitter won the claim on shutting the road form the south, so everyone and their brothers piles into 410 and force the elk to group up and live on the margins of private land from the second day of the season on. The private landowners are getting upset because of the number of elk and hunting in the CMR or BLM around it has been tough for years given the number of permits and movement of elk to the south.
So by raising number of tags to the south and increasing from 200 to 900, what in the world will they do or how will they explain when those elk get involved in a shoot out and head east? It’s elk habitat they won’t come back west that’s for sure. If those landowners are so worried about it maybe letting people in during hunting season to hunt and push them off instead of locking their gates to create a safety zone for the elk or just letting two or three close family members come out which does nothing other than makes the landowners think they did something.
BuzzH
Well-known member
I got a solution, aerial gun the elk on the private property where landowners complain...bulls die first. Then polish off the cows.
The FWP can claim victory, farmer Brown doesn't have anything to bitch about anymore, and we can get those elk under control. Everyone's property rights are secured and all is grand in Montana.
BuzzH
Well-known member
Aint happening...private property rights stand above everything else in Montana. You're pissing in the wind if you think you'll have any luck compelling those LO's to allow access.
Fire up the helicopter and get after those pesky elk...its the only solution.
SAJ-99
Well-known member
Completely agree. Landowners want their cake and to eat it too. Im not 100% on board with the changes, but I don’t ever expect to agree 100% with anyone on anything. As I said in the other post, I would rather they open the zones to a B tag on a general license and keep the shoulder season debacle away. IMO, and I posted as much in my comments, there are too many bow tags and too few rifle if the goal to reduce numbers. But I also don’t want FWP running a friends and family plan for the Wilkes ranch. I’m sure they have had conversations on that topic because the ranch has shot quite a few cows this shoulder season. Of course, not open to the general public though.
So they're going to double the amount of bull permits to be used on the CMR?
This is blatantly false.
SAJ-99
Well-known member
I don't see where they are changing the bull permits on the CMR. point me in the right direction.
On your second point, I typed a little fast on that and regretted it right after I hit post. Access got worse but there is still access. That access sucks. it is unusable if it rains and in a lot of places you have to walk 5 miles to get where the elk are. That is why 417 is lumped with the 410 bow tag. If you have a spot that you have public access and have elk, don't tell anyone.
This link, which was in the first post of this thread- http://fwp.mt.gov/doingBusiness/ins...WbEW7dD-Y77ymjU5uUHrP845AG3DDf2X5Zuve3CxdzvXs
They are going to give out 200 permits in 2020, with the ability to go up to 400 in the future, rather than the 100 that has traditionally been given out.
And Fargo Coulee is such a small amount of the overall public access in that unit.
SAJ-99
Well-known member
Thanks. i see 417-20 (either sex) going from 100 to 200. I’m sure that was done to appease the outfitters. Not a big deal to me, again if the goal is to reduce the population. Would have preferred B tag increase only, but I have to be realistic.
Not going to get into a pissing match with you over the quality or use of roads in that district. If you hunt there consistently I would take your word over mine own, and I am happy to tell everyone to hit Knox Ridge and two Calf to shoot their big bulls.
I disagree with it being open to a general elk license. You think it’s crowded now wait til that happens. Again if that were to happen not a single elk will soon be found on public ground because the hunters will flock to there to get their breaks experience.
BuzzH
Well-known member
Bottom line is everything that is being proposed with this is only going to make the situation worse (more pressure on accessible elk and increased harboring). The FWP is playing RIGHT into the hands of the landowners and outfitters. They sold out to those 2 groups a longgggg time ago.
The only answer is to kill the elk that are harbored on private...and if they don't want people hunting that leaves few options.
The rest is just mental gymnastics by frustrated hunters who find themselves on an Island with no backing from the Department, Legislature, Landowners, etc.
You aren't getting to those elk on private as an average member of the public, get over it and move on.
The only answer is to kill the elk that are harbored on private...and if they don't want people hunting that leaves few options.
The rest is just mental gymnastics by frustrated hunters who find themselves on an Island with no backing from the Department, Legislature, Landowners, etc.
You aren't getting to those elk on private as an average member of the public, get over it and move on.
