SAJ-99
Well-known member
I agree, someone should tell the NR applicants.
Montana Elk Management Plan Citizens Advisory Committee
- Thread starter HighWildFree
- Start date
Birddog916
Well-known member
I would hope an advocacy organization would want to advocate on behalf of hunters chasing elk in backcountry...no? Seems to me it would be right up their alley.
The state chapter will be heavily involved. I can't imagine them taking a walk on this.
BuzzH
Well-known member
I'm sure all the groups will be involved, each using their platforms and memberships in the way that works best for them. Some do it very publicly. Some do it quietly via established relationships. Some do it at the grassroots level. Some do it at the staff level. I am sure all the groups mentioned in this thread will engage.
BuzzH
Well-known member
Every state offers the opportunity to harvest an animal. They do not guarantee that you will kill a bull or a cow. They simply provide the license that allows you put an arrow or a bullet in one. That is the product that FWP offers, not the quality of herd or dispersal thereof.
Outfitters that offer a percentage of clients who harvest in their offers are skirting this by saying simply "you're more than likely to shoot something, just like 90% of our clients."
Landowners who charge access are selling access, not a guarantee to kill something.
It's important we keep those distinctions clear when we compare to other services.
If we want FWP to offer a percentage guarantee for harvest, then we should look at bringing back high fences.
If we want better herd management to ensure a more equitable allocation of the resource in the form of higher harvest percentages on public land, then we need to be very specific in what we ask for.
It's nice to see Eric & Buzz on the same page. Gives a guy hope for the future of elk mgt.
I think you're missing Gerald's point, that I agree with.
If you're going to sell "opportunity", then you need to provide that. When you have single digit bull to cow ratio's, very, very, low elk populations on public lands...are you REALLY selling opportunity?
Lets use fishing as an example. The FWP could retenone Flathead lake, and then stock ONE fish and still claim to be selling fishing "opportunity"...but are they really? Legally, maybe, ethically...doubtful.
I think a lot of public lands in Montana are like that with elk. I don't expect anything as a guarantee, but it shouldn't be unreasonable to expect management that offers up a much better chance than a vast majority of hunters currently have in Montana to at least be among elk during their hunts.
I'll use my spot that I've hunted over 40 years as an example. I killed elk about every year there hunting weekends and maybe one week a year. During a 7-10 hunt, I would see elk tracks, find beds, and see them at least 50% of those days. In that same 7-10 hunt these days, I might cut elk tracks 2-3 days, might see them maybe 1-2 times.
I'm not seeing those few elk now, BECAUSE of anything the FWP is doing, but in SPITE of what they're doing.
As such, they are selling a pack of lies to NR hunters, even as far as opportunity is concerned. They're selling the elk opportunity of the past, not the reality of the present...and its borderline false advertising, IMO/E.
MTLabrador
Well-known member
I really agree with Buzz and Gerald, the opportunity for the average nonresident that doesn’t have a lifetime of local knowledge and experience is absolutely minimal. I’m just young enough that by the time I was out hunting elk on my own the elk in the country I liked to hunt (Absarokas, Gallatin, Madison, etc) were in a serious downhill spiral.
Moving to Wyoming was an eye opening experience for me, and finding general unit bulls here is almost laughably easy compared to the elk I killed in Montana. I really hope this new push can change Montana elk management for the better, but I’m not feeling optimistic yet.
Moving to Wyoming was an eye opening experience for me, and finding general unit bulls here is almost laughably easy compared to the elk I killed in Montana. I really hope this new push can change Montana elk management for the better, but I’m not feeling optimistic yet.
Thank you for your comment. We have received it and counted it.
Carnage2011
Well-known member
Exactly Buzz. That’s what everyone was saying when they wouldn’t take a stance of wolves. HUNTERS is in their name...I hope they do get involved in the EMP. However, according to Land they are an access organization that doesn’t weigh in on management decisions.
My question was kind of tongue in cheek. I know why they would get involved, but if they do then I believe they are talking out both sides of their mouth depending on the species involved.
Gerald Martin
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2009
- Messages
- 8,356
Buzz hit the nail on the head in interpreting the intent of my statement.
In this conversation, how much money FWP has is irrelevant. I am pointing out a priority of management that is completely disregarding the interests of the primary funders.
This isn’t a resident vs NR issue either. Nor is it guided vs guided. It is that the MT legislature has FWP bent to the wishes of the Ag lobby and the “solutions” aren’t solving their problems
but they are devastating elk hunting for anyone without connections to hunt private sanctuary properties.
In this conversation, how much money FWP has is irrelevant. I am pointing out a priority of management that is completely disregarding the interests of the primary funders.
This isn’t a resident vs NR issue either. Nor is it guided vs guided. It is that the MT legislature has FWP bent to the wishes of the Ag lobby and the “solutions” aren’t solving their problems
but they are devastating elk hunting for anyone without connections to hunt private sanctuary properties.
And my point is we're using a different language than what FWP is using, and until we have a clear & specific ask, we're going to have our comments noted & counted.
Gerald Martin
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2009
- Messages
- 8,356
Well... I reckon we need some folks to agree what the definition of is, is.
Does it matter?
Does it matter?
Exactly.
If this is true, I'm struggling with why BHA needs to be involved. mtmuley
State chapters have the ability to work on anything they'd like. MTBHA has been active in season setting in the past, and on wildlife specific bills in the legislature. The National Org doesn't generally go in for this stuff, leaving it to the chapters.
This is the model that NWF & TU follow as well. It's pretty Standard Operating Procedure.
SAJ-99
Well-known member
Did I miss the ads selling MT as a place to come and kill an elk?
Part of the problem is you assume that every hunter is a public land hunter. The public land versus private land hunter are in completely different situations.
And revenue for FWP is part of the equation whether you want it to be or not. They have to pay their bills/salaries.
Similar threads
