Gardner shutdown

[RobG]

[edit... Shoot's link shows that the area is at objective for 2015, but it wasn't for 2012. My mistake for suggesting otherwise so I deleted the question. ]

I think the only way to get any changes is to start influencing the Republican primaries for state legislature seats.

I hunted the Gardiner area in 1991 (before the elk peak) and I would not call it the glory days in terms of a display of hunter ethics, but I would appreciate more elk in the area. Wolf numbers are down so maybe the elk will make a comeback. Generally these things are cyclical when you throw in a new predator.

 

[Big Fin]

The bull numbers in Gardiner are pretty dismal when you look at the data. I doubt many people will argue that fact. Bull to cow ratios under 8:100 are pretty hard to justify.

My thoughts below will show how much I dislike the idea of limited permits. Or, how I look at them as a last resort solution.

This is very similar to the issue Southeast British Columbia faced 10+ years ago. Rather than go to limited tags, they went to a 6-point or better rule. It reduced harvest the first few years, but allowed a lot of younger bulls to live, eventually raising the bull to cow ratios back to what they had targeted.

I talked to a friend who outfits out of Cranbrook this week. He said it was a bit of a bump to start with, as harvest rates went down. But, now they have better harvest rates than before and they are shooting mature bulls. It is his opinion that both residents and outfitters are happier with the outcome. even if they had to withstand some periods of lower harvest. The point they were trying to accomplish was to keep opportunity at existing levels, yet increase bull to cow ratios. It worked for them and they have the full mix of predators we do; wolves, grizz, black bears, etc.

Evidence in other states shows that point restrictions do not work for mule deer; at least not in the long term. BC is the only place I know that has tried it for elk. That seemed to work for them on elk. I would be way more willing to try a six-point or better rule and keep opportunity higher, even if it reduced the likelihood for harvest for the first four or five years.

A couple realities that must be dealt with in the Montana hunting equation. First, we want opportunity, even if it means a lower likelihood of success. Second, we are going to have some early winters that push elk out of the park and make mature bulls very vulnerable in the Gardiner area. How do you keep opportunity high and protect the entire bull segment from getting creamed? The only way I can think of is a point restriction.

Additionally, I agree that the EMP needs to be re-done. We've asked for that many times. I don't see it happening. FWP picks and chooses when they do or do not follow the EMP. That being what it is, I am not a big fan of limited permits being the suggested solution every time there is a population issue with the elk.

My experience in most states is that when something goes on limited permits, it stays as limited permits forever. And the limited permit approach has a tendency to creep into adjacent units.

I think there are plenty of potential solutions without instantly going to limited permits. If other solutions don't work, then maybe look at limited permits. If FWP would go to mandatory reporting that included date of harvest, we would have evidence to tell us if these bulls are disproportionately vulnerable that last week of season (my gut tells me so) and maybe we close that area the last week of season, even if we had a six-point or better rule.

Lots of options, short of limited permits.

 

[Big Fin]

As to the wolf issue, the quota in those areas next to YNP is a joke. The Commission lost a lot of credibility,at least with me, when they put those areas on a quota. it was supposedly to reduce the likelihood of killing collared wolves. Even with the combined quota of three wolves, it is still possible the collared wolves get killed in filling that quota.

If it was really about protecting the scientific value of collared wolves, there is an easy solution - Make collared wolves off limits and drop the quota. It's that easy.

Rather, what the Commission did ended up expanding the YNP wolf protections further north.

The impact wolves have on this bull to cow situation exists, but is not nearly as impactful as human harvest. Probably not even as big of an impact as bears eating bull calves in June. Yet, some are going to blame the wolves no matter what, so I would prefer the Commission get rid of the quota, protect collared wolves, and take the wolf quota issue off the table as another distraction to getting a true solution to the issue on the bull to cow ratios.

 

[katqanna]

I wanted to get these up earlier but was having such a great time catching up on various biological at YNP that I lost track of time.

Here is the YNP's Northern Range Elk Count Report of 2014-2015. I had talked with them about this in early February as a result of a news article quoting FWP wildlife biologist Karen Loveless talking about an increase in the Northern Yellowstone Elk herd, which had been in a decline for the last 10 years.

Here is FWP's 2015 Late Winter Classification of Northern Yellowstone Elk by Karen Loveless, the FWP Livingston wildlife biologist

This situation with the elk tags has been a longtime coming, it is not a sudden thing, they had already planned on it from the papers produced in Jan. 2015.

Pg. 2 of the FWP report states Bull ratios ranged from a low of 12.1 bulls per 100 cows within Montana, and The observed ratio of 15.2 total bulls per 100 cows is very similar to results of 15.8 bulls per 100 cows observed in 2013, and lower than the 21 - year average of 29.1 bulls per 100 cows. The observed ratio of 6.5 brow - tined bulls per 100 cows is the lowest observed since surveys began, however the observed ratio of 8.7 yearling bulls per 100 cows is above recent and longterm averages (Table 2, Figure 4).

"The 2015 results of 8.7 yearling bulls per 100 cows indicate increased yearling survival as compared to surveys conducted during 2008 - 2013 which resulted in ratios ranging between 2 – 5 yearling bulls per 100 cows. In spite of this observed increase in yearling bull ratios, mature bull ratios for the entire herd declined this year to an all time low of 6.5 brow-tined bulls per 100 cows. Mature bull ratios within the Montana portion have remained stable at 2.7 – 3.1 brow-tined bulls per 100 cows for 3 years, having increased slightly from the low of 0.8 brow-tined bull per 100 cows observed in 2012. Harvest of brow-tined bulls has increased in recent years in spite of the long-term decline in elk numbers; the most recent 10-year average is higher than the long term average, and the 2014 harvest of 315 brow-tined bulls is the highest harvest since 2006 and the second highest harvest since 1994. The increased bull harvest corresponding with reduced overall elk numbers results in an increasingly greater proportion of the bull population being harvested annually (Figures 5 & 6)."

Page 3, "In response to declining bull ratios and increased vulnerability to harvest, MFWP instituted an unlimited permit season structure in HD 313 beginning in 2012, and further restricted the structure in 2014 by designating the permits as “first-choice only” for applicants. In spite of the increasingly restrictive season structure, brow-tined bull harvest has continued to increase. During fall of 2015 MFWP will be developing proposals for season structure changes for the 2016-2017 seasons."

In the YNP report, page 2, "Predation by wolves and other large carnivores (i.e. grizzly bears, black bears, cougars), past human harvests of antler-less elk during the Gardiner Late Hunt, and drought effects on maternal condition and recruitment were indicated as the primary factors contributing to the decreasing trend during 1995-2005. To reduce hunter mortality on female elk, Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks reduced the number of antler-less permits for the Gardiner Late Elk Hunt from 1,102 in 2005 to 100 per season during 2006-2010, and eliminated this hunt beginning in 2011. Although lag effects from harvests may continue for some time, these reductions should increase the survival of prime-aged females with their high reproductive value and recruitment of calves into the breeding population into the future. Also, a substantial decrease from 94 to 42 (~47% decrease) wolves occurred on the portion of the winter range for northern Yellowstone elk inside the park during 2007-2014 due to intra-specific strife, food stress, and disease. This decrease suggests the wolf population may be beginning to respond numerically to decreased elk availability...

The winter distribution of northern Yellowstone elk has changed since 2008, with more than one-half of the counted elk being observed north of Yellowstone National Park. Possible reasons for a high proportion of elk migrating to this lower elevation winter range include milder environmental conditions (e.g., less snow) and better forage availability. Wolf densities and the cessation of the late hunt may also be factors influencing the winter distribution of elk."

 

[belly-deep]

I like Randy's idea.

As he said, LE units are about like gov't programs - once they start they rarely go away.

 

[NKQualtieri]

This study throws in another hat to the ring and I'm always kind of surprised that more people don't know about it.

Another way to help more elk reach maturity might be delisting the grizzly. With the shift in whitebark pine availability and the lack of cutthroat spawns due to the invasive lake trout, the grizzly's diet has shown a really big increase in ungulate consumption. An individual bear is estimated to be eat about 19 calves per year: http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/280/1762/20130870

I also think that it's important to note that having thousands and thousands of elk in a relatively small ecosystem is also an imbalance, but now that the balance has shifted to the other extreme, it'll be interesting to see how the other species balance as well, as Kat noted with the wolf decrease in the second to last paragraph.

 

[thecrittergitter]

I would certainly support a point restriction........I'd like them to do that with Mule Deer too so we could actually have a deer or two hit maturity in Montana

I also agree 100% the EMP is in dire need of a revamp!

 

[shoots-straight]

I'm not sure how the Department can cherry pick what portions of the EMP they use. They wrote the thing with tax payer dollars, and the Commission at the time approved it. I think they should be held accountable for not following it.

If the Bull:cow ratio's are lower than the plan says then get after the bio in your region.

 

[RobG]

This study throws in another hat to the ring and I'm always kind of surprised that more people don't know about it.

Another way to help more elk reach maturity might be delisting the grizzly. With the shift in whitebark pine availability and the lack of cutthroat spawns due to the invasive lake trout, the grizzly's diet has shown a really big increase in ungulate consumption. An individual bear is estimated to be eat about 19 calves per year: http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/280/1762/20130870

I also think that it's important to note that having thousands and thousands of elk in a relatively small ecosystem is also an imbalance, but now that the balance has shifted to the other extreme, it'll be interesting to see how the other species balance as well, as Kat noted with the wolf decrease in the second to last paragraph.

I think people also believe that the grizzly population has benefited from the wolves. The wolves kill the elk but the grizzly chases them away from the kill. Like wolves, I'm not anticipating a high quota of g-bears around the Gardiner area because the world is watching the area given the link to Yellowstone.

 

[Ben Lamb]

I'm not sure how the Department can cherry pick what portions of the EMP they use. They wrote the thing with tax payer dollars, and the Commission at the time approved it. I think they should be held accountable for not following it.

If the Bull:cow ratio's are lower than the plan says then get after the bio in your region.

With sportsmen's dollars. Not taxpayer.

 

[tjones]

6 weeks of archery followed by 5 weeks of rifle and keep quality animals in the hills is a tall order to fill.

Look for changes in future. IMO

 

[belly-deep]

I think people also believe that the grizzly population has benefited from the wolves. The wolves kill the elk but the grizzly chases them away from the kill. Like wolves, I'm not anticipating a high quota of g-bears around the Gardiner area because the world is watching the area given the link to Yellowstone.

Yeah, the bear issue around Yellowstone isn't going to be any easier than the wolf one.

 

[katqanna]

I agree that there is a serious problem with FWP not utilizing the EMP. When you have the Director telling us that he is doing what the Governor wants and the FWP Commissioners repeating the same, with hard science being thrown out the window for soft science politics of a bullying minority, there is a clear breakdown in how a Fish, Wildlife & Parks is supposed to be managed.

I keep hearing guys talking about what is driving this direction from the Governors office, some complaining that if he is giving in to a right wing republican group, it is pointless because they are not going to vote for him anyway, wondering why sportsmen and FWP issues are being thrown under the bus? I dont think Tourtlotte and Vermillion wanted to vote the way they did on Shoulder seasons, hence Vermillions comment about doing what the boss wanted.

I kept asking the Commission, concerning the elk brucellosis issue to direct FWP to do the legally required thing - update the bloody EMP. Now add on shoulder seasons. They refuse. Something is driving these bigger picture elk issues and it is coming from the Governor's office.

As to HD 313, while I was at the elk brucellosis work group meetings in Livingston, several of those members had been working with FWP Karen Loveless on elk tag numbers, dividing HD 314 to harvest more of the population, this was in the winter of 2013. I remember Commissioner Durgan stating publicly that you should be able to shoot elk anytime and he was one of those working with Loveless in the row behind me. So I looked back at the Commission meeting minutes and agendas to see what they passed that the brucellosis work group was promoting for HD313 and 314. [URL="http://fwp.mt.gov/doingBusiness/insideFwp/commission/meetings/agenda.html?minutes&meetingId=32716694"]The final got passed Feb 13, 2014. [/URL]

"HD 313: Adjust unlimited bull permits to first-choice only and extend permits to include archery season. ***313 bull elk permits will be available to resident and nonresident hunters in two ways: 1) as a first choice in the March 15 drawing, and 2) for those individuals who did not apply for a bull permit, permits may be purchased as surplus licenses until September 5th." "HD 314: Divide the hunting district so that north of Big Creek brow-tined bulls and antlerless elk may be harvested with a general license, and south of Big Creek will be restricted to brow-tined bulls only on the general license. Antlerless B licenses valid throughout the district will be maintained but the quota would be reduced from 400 to 25 and the quota range would be adjusted from 200 – 2000 to 25 – 2000."

This is where some of the changes to HD313 started showing because of the population concerns. That NY EMU (HD 313, 314 southern portion and 316), at the time of the 2004 EMP listed the migratory elk population at 9,000-19,000, occupying about 1.5 million acres, wintering on 380,000 acres. Now we are looking at 2015 counts of HD313 - 3714, all of HD314 - 3381 and HD316 - NA - no wintering elk.

 

[mtmuley]

6 weeks of archery followed by 5 weeks of rifle and keep quality animals in the hills is a tall order to fill.

Look for changes in future. IMO

Bet season dates are gonna change before anything else. mtmuley

 

[Montanakid]

Does anyone think that they should close the season earlier like they do with muley bucks up there?

 

[onpoint]

"People just want to see pictures of dead critters, and stories"

Pretty much sums it all up.

 

[bobbydean]

Dead critters pictures.

Unfortunataly, a lot of truth in that statement.

 

[shoots-straight]

I know it's easy to get sidetracked on the issue. I do it all the time, then slap myself in the face and return to reality.

For those of you whom wish to find a smoking gun predator and label him responsible for the decrease in elk in the Gardner area, or any of the other areas where game has declined drastically take this thought to bed with you tonight.

In all but a few hunting districts that are like the Gardner area, you could vaporize every lion, Grizzly, and black bears, wolves, coyotes, eagles, etc. and it would not change a thing. The Elk management plan, along with House bill 42 passed in 2003 and the objectives that they came up with, will not let us raise anymore elk in those largely public areas. The only areas of the state where we can grow elk above the objectives is in areas where private landowners allow harboring of wildlife and very little public access.

 

[bigskyblueman]

This is the inevitable result of the ginned- up elk objective numbers, where we go from " too many elk", to hardly any elk. I suspect the elk numbers are far lower than their dubious airborne count shows, so the LE is the substitute for closing the area altogether to elk hunting, which would be an admission of failure. The Northern Yellowstone Elk Herd, the premier elk herd of North America, mismanaged and neglected into oblivion. We seem to have reached the objective number, and tag numbers might as well be zero. Clearly, the elk objective numbers translate into a non-huntable elk herd for the general public. Just what the landowners want.

 

[Hunting Wife]

I think Fin should consult on a new EMP. Good ideas. And Ben as well - legislation is killing wildlife management.

On another point, I think something that is evidenced by the griz paper, and many others over the last few decades is that we really don't have a good understanding yet of the impacts to game populations given the irreversible changes we (people) have wrought on the landscape. We have severely disrupted water and fire regimes, food web interactions, ecological function, plant communities, the list goes on, yet expect (insert charismatic megafauna species name here) populations to remain what they were back in Grandpa's day. It isn't going to happen. Even places like Yellowstone, which people tend to view as "pristine", are far from it.

The science to help us understand what these changes mean and our ability to adaptively manage effectively is lagging, and that is by design. As wildlife have become economically valuable in some places (it's good for property values when you can advertise wildlife and exclusive access to them), and economically threatening in others (brucellosis, game damage) game management decisions are based less on biology and more on politics. And, conveniently, the budgets for both science and management keep shrinking, so those pesky scientifically based arguments can be eliminated completely and we have no other "choice" but to manage legislatively. Until that larger underlying issue is addressed, I'm afraid even undertaking a new EMP might be an exercise in futility? I hope not, but I fear so.

Maybe some of you who have been in the game longer than I can tell me - am I overly pessimistic, or have things felt this gloomy before?