As much as I wish the entire world of wildlife management was based on science, it is not. In fact, very little of the management actions provided for in the Montana Elk Management Plan is science-based. Yes, the science was provided by the biologists, but the politicians and policy leaders had the final say in what became the final outcome of this seldom-followed plan.
Anyone who thinks Montana, and probably other states, is allowed to manage strictly based on science has not been paying attention to the meddling of legislatures over the last two decades. Some will argue that political science and social science are "true science" and thus using those as considerations in wildlife decisions does make it a science-based solution.
I wish we did have biologists and a Commission insulated from the political and social pressures, but we do not. When Commissions and agencies were changed from stand-alone agencies not led by appointed leaders, it was possible to have that type of situation. Since that system was dismantled in most agencies by the mid-1980's, the entire dynamic of politics and social concerns has become the greater influence on wildlife decisions.
My personal opinion is that biologists should come up with the science and data. That is what has happened here. I doubt anyone is going to argue with the information FWP is presenting as support for their recommendaiton.
I do not think the biologist should be the only person provide suggested solutions to meet a stated biological objective. Inherently, a biologist will suggest the most direct, easiest manner by which to achieve the objective. I get that and I would expect that.
In our new world of the last few decades, to prevent huge political ramifications of a change in management, it seems the best way is for an agency to consider all possible options. Use the biologists and their professional training to predict, to the best of their ability, the likely outcome of all the proposed solutions.
I would argue that if FWP considered other options, they would be getting a lot less heat on this issue and some of those other options may achieve the same objective. I will also say that if FWP goes forward with blinders on, implementing their own organic solution, the fertilizer will hit the ventilator in the legislative session of 2017.
Nobody has answered if some of the other ideas would increase mature bull numbers; an increase in such being what I understand to be the stated objective for any changes made in Unit 313. There are considerations out there that would not require limited entry tags and have a history in other locations of increasing mature bull ratios. Maybe FWP has considered those other options. If so, I have not heard their response to such.
How many bulls would get killed with a limited entry permit system of 75 tags? Not sure, but I would guess in a harsh/early winter, it would be a very high success.
How many bulls would get killed in a 6-point only rule, giving an unlimited number of tags where you must apply as your first-choice only? Not sure and I'm not sure FWP knows.
Maybe you change it as explained above and you put a buffer around the roads outside of Gardiner. A huge number of these bulls are getting killed in years like this, right near roads. Causes on to ask, why is nobody willing to address the ugly scene that occurs down there when a big herd of elk push out of the park. Not only is it ugly, it results in a lot of "opportunistic" kill of the bulls FWP is worried about.
Maybe you do all the above and you get the Commission to get off their social concerns of wolf quotas in units around YNP. There is no biological reason for quotas around YNP. If it is a concern of collared wolves, reach an agreement with YNP as to how many collared wolves they need, keep it at that number of collared wolves and make collared wolves off-limits in those areas.
When the Commissions bends for non-biological reasons to any side, in this case to the side of wolf advocates, they better expect that other groups will expect the Commission to bend for other non-biological reasons. Once you start down that road, a road the Schweitzer administration traveled with great regularity, you better expect that every aggrieved group will expect the same treatment.
How many bull calves are getting killed by lions and black bears? I suspect nobody knows. If the objective is to increase bull numbers and a good number of bull calves are taken by lions and black bears, why do we have such low lion quotas and not liberalize bear seasons?
There is no biological data I am aware of for the extremely low lion quotas, other than the social pressures of houndsmen wanting more lions to chase.
There is no biological data I am aware of for the restrictive black bear seasons in those areas. I've heard, "that's how we've always done it."
Point is, there are a lot of non-biological issues that are impacting bull elk numbers in this unit. As is often the case, elk hunters are being asked to shoulder the burden of their opportunity while not addressing the other contributing factors.
Me, I'm not willing to just jump in that boat and start rowing just because it might be the easiest path FWP sees. I don't support this recommendation without consideration of other management alternatives. I don't support this recommendation without consideration/change of other factors impact bull elk survival in these units.
I get the ideas of FWP wanting to support their biologist. Yet, when some of the units in MT biologically supported mule deer doe harvest, FWP in Helena made a unilateral decision that kicked their biologists in the crotch by making it no mule deer doe harvest statewide. You cannot have a policy of "science-based" only when it is convenient. Either you have that policy or you don't.
If I was Director of FWP, I would have no choice but to consider the political environment in which I operate. Doesn't mean I would come to a different conclusion, but a lot of political venom can be tempered in the "HOW" you got to the solution. I would be listening to as many recommendations as possible and I would have my Region 3 Supervisor, Region 3 Big Game Manager, and my local biologist comparing the outcomes of every possibly alternative. Then, I could go to all affected with a strong case that all ideas were considered and the chosen outcome is the best opportunity to meet the stated objective with the least amount of impact to those affected. Failure to do otherwise, in a hotbed of political blowhards, is asking for a big blowup in the 2017 legislature; just a reality you cannot ignore.
At this point, I'm not sold on FWP's recommendation or their process for getting to their solutions. Too much data available from other states and provinces to look at when they faced this same problem.
