Montana Elk Management Plan Citizens Advisory Committee

[HighWildFree]

Actually, by law it’s the maximum number you can have.

You're right. I guess I meant it as in 3 pints is the maximum that they can sell you at the brewery, but there's a heck of a lot more behind the counter

 

[Dougfirtree]

That's a legitimate question...I'll do my best, and I've thought a lot about the why are they so different as well.

The first thing is that the WY legislature just isn't as heavy handed as the MT legislature is. I don't know exactly when the MT legislature went off the rails, but around the time the tea party movement really ramped up. Maybe even before that.

As far as management goes, IMO/E, the Wyoming GF leadership seems to have the backs of the field level biologists on management decisions. WY also manages elk for specific bull to cow ratio's as well as over-all numbers. There's general and special management. General management requires 18-25 bulls per 100 cows post harvest. To achieve and maintain that, general elk seasons are relatively short for bull hunting...you cant pound on elk for 11+ weeks with general tags and maintain that kind of b/c ratio. If the numbers drop below that, the biologists shorten the season and/or eliminate spike harvest until the b/c ratio's are back to 18-25 per 100. For special management 35+ bulls per 100 cows post harvest. These are all LQ areas with up to 1500+ tags issued in some of the areas for bulls. These seasons are usually a bit longer than general seasons, some significantly longer. Easy to allow that since the total number of tags are limited. Some of these units exceed 50 bulls per 100 cows post harvest. What the WYGF doesn't do, is greenlight a huge increase in tags, but rather keeps things conservative. Also, cow seasons are much longer as well. Elk stay on public land, as they're only harassed for a couple weeks on general hunts, and the number of hunters are limited in the LQ areas, so longer seasons aren't a big deal. Its all about controlling pressure.

In a nutshell, short general bull seasons, maintaining solid bull to cow ratio's, longer seasons on LQ tags, long cow seasons to control numbers.

Montana is 11+weeks of non-stop pressure on bull elk. They get pounded flat on public land, quit using public land. There's too much pressure on them for too long. The FWP doesn't give a rip if a unit has single digit bull to cow ratio's. Total elk numbers can tank all they want, they still don't care. The season length doesn't change, the number of tags issued don't change, and nothing is changed to improve it.

I cant ever understand how a field biologist justifies this. They either: 1. Don't care. 2. Are afraid if they recommend change they'll be fired. 3. get over-ridden by Senior Level biologists who have totally given up and just do what they're told by the FWP leadership and Legislature. But, whatever the reason, its not practicing biology...its letting status quo diminish elk to about nothing on public land.

It also seems to me that in Montana the Ag community, for the most part seems only to be happy when elk are dead. Here in Wyoming, landowners are wayyyy more tolerant of elk. Even in areas where they are over objective, landowners are very aware and active that allowing too many tags could be counter-productive. They also just seem to not go bat chit crazy when elk are over-objective. Many allow access to help control the numbers, enter into the WIA/HMA programs and work great with the WYGF. The biologists, work closely with landowners, but they don't allow LO's to just run rough-shod over them either. They act like adults and solve the issues of too many elk. Its impressive on both sides when things work correctly.

The GF also works very closely with a bunch of the Sportsmen's organizations here as well. They do listen to the concerns of the people that choose to get involved. I never, one time, found the level of success dealing with the MTFWP than what I've found with the WYGF Department. You get smart-assed answers from biologists in Montana when you question them on poor management, poor decisions, their phony numbers, and they make excuses and blame sportsmen when we complain. I have biologists call me all the time from WY and just check in for any concerns and let me know if they need help on things. I've had NO biologist from Montana ever do that, not once. Most of the time, they don't call back when I have a question.

I think the MTFWP has flat given up, they simply don't care anymore. Sportsmen are not seen as an asset, but rather a pain in their ass they would rather not deal with. The few that I've known that do care, they leave or get fired...likely more disillusioned than I am.

Wyoming biologists actively manage, change seasons, talk to hunters, talk to fishermen, they do great work. They get support from GF leadership, not fired for doing what's right. Montana manages the same way they always have, very few if any changes to season length, etc. etc. Same old same old.

The differences in quality, quantity, and access to wildlife is so much better in Wyoming its really not even fair to compare it, in any way, with Montana.

It seems to just come down to more appreciation for wildlife, more support of proper wildlife management, and adjusting for and managing for more than a level of wildlife tolerance from everyone involved. Landowners, hunters, and the WYGF.

As much as I'll always call Montana home...I wake up everyday glad I don't live there anymore from a hunting and fishing standpoint. Its just depressing to see the potential that Montana squanders...really sad.

Thanks, I appreciate the answer!

 

[BRI]

It is going to be a tough road ahead and there'll need to be some tough choices made. I'm kinda pessimistic because there'll need to be compromises made and there's a general unwillingness for compromise. It seems to me that many landowners don't want to work with FWP when they know they can go to straight to the legislature and get the ear they want. I think hunters don't get listened to much because no matter how bad it gets we'll still line up to buy tags.

 

[Pucky Freak]

A ton of discussion on this thread has to do with strategy, but keep in mind this is not the topic of the committee. Neither is the topic what the problems are, or what the goals are. The committee chair will have the very difficult task of keeping the discussions steered away from these things, since this is what everyone wants to talk about, and are very passionate about.

From the news release link in the OP: “The group is not responsible for recommendations on specific strategies or population targets, but rather offering initial guidance on what principles should drive elk management in the state.”

Examples of principles that could be identified by the committee to drive MT elk management:
-Herd health, as defined by ecological carrying capacity, and post-hunt age/sex ratios
-Local economic stability and growth across multiple sectors, including hospitality, tourism, and ranching/ag
-Growth of hunting opportunity on public and private land, for resident and nonresident hunters, for guided and self-guided hunters
-Private property rights, such as freedom from trespassers, fence and feed/forage I damage, and habitat destruction and disease transmission from wild elk
-Growth of public access to public lands.
-Adequate access of elk to wintering grounds and adequate usage of those grounds by elk.
-Promotion of ecological diversity and health concurrent with elk management (i.e. manage invasives, healthier age structure of mule deer, etc.).

MT has all the necessary ingredients to become a world-class elk hunting destination that could put both CO and WY to shame. There are a ton of entrenched issues and problems, but they are not static determinants of a bleak future.

Think big, and consider putting your name in the hat. Yes, FWP Director Martha Williams might pick some dubious committee members, and exclude the most helpful and visionary persons, the committee meetings themselves might turn out to be a dog and pony show, and the principles settled on might never translate to bringing MT elk hunting out of the gutter. Nevertheless, we don’t know if we don’t try.

 

[Pucky Freak]

The application link in the article is dead. Here’s the page:

Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks :: Montana Statewide Elk Management

History of Montana Elk Management and background information on plan creation process.

fwp.mt.gov

And the PDF application

https://myfwp.mt.gov/getRepositoryFile?objectID=96108

 

[Ben Lamb]

A ton of discussion on this thread has to do with strategy, but keep in mind this is not the topic of the committee. Neither is the topic what the problems are, or what the goals are. The committee chair will have the very difficult task of keeping the discussions steered away from these things, since this is what everyone wants to talk about, and are very passionate about.

From the news release link in the OP: “The group is not responsible for recommendations on specific strategies or population targets, but rather offering initial guidance on what principles should drive elk management in the state.”

Examples of principles that could be identified by the committee to drive MT elk management:
-Herd health, as defined by ecological carrying capacity, and post-hunt age/sex ratios
-Local economic stability and growth across multiple sectors, including hospitality, tourism, and ranching/ag
-Growth of hunting opportunity on public and private land, for resident and nonresident hunters, for guided and self-guided hunters
-Private property rights, such as freedom from trespassers, fence and feed/forage I damage, and habitat destruction and disease transmission from wild elk
-Growth of public access to public lands.
-Adequate access of elk to wintering grounds and adequate usage of those grounds by elk.
-Promotion of ecological diversity and health concurrent with elk management (i.e. manage invasives, healthier age structure of mule deer, etc.).

MT has all the necessary ingredients to become a world-class elk hunting destination that could put both CO and WY to shame. There are a ton of entrenched issues and problems, but they are not static determinants of a bleak future.

Think big, and consider putting your name in the hat. Yes, FWP Director Martha Williams might pick some dubious committee members, and exclude the most helpful and visionary persons, the committee meetings themselves might turn out to be a dog and pony show, and the principles settled on might never translate to bringing MT elk hunting out of the gutter. Nevertheless, we don’t know if we don’t try.

I don't think Martha will pick people who aren't genuine in solving the issues, but I agree the role of this committee could be larger. That's why having a well organized hunting community is vital to this being a worthwhile endeavor.

As for the legislative side of things - yes, the Legislature has been a driving force in how FWP manages animals. Term limits have a lot to do with the lack of institutional understanding of the agency, how funding works & why policies are adopted, but there is a large & vocal segment of the Legislature that loves to attack the agency. It's been their stock & trade for over 30 years. My first session was 2009, after working in Wyoming from 2003-2007. It was a massive eye opener. Wyoming didn't have the same kind of animosity towards the G&F, but there were still remnants of the old guard fights that were still in place. Having legislators who have been there for 30 years helped a lot, as did how Wyoming's legislature works in the interim. Allowing committees to meet & actually work with the agency ,rather than having a process that calls for grandstanding & political chicanery helped dissolve a lot of issues before they came to the session.

In 2011, there were over 200 wildlife, conservation ,public land & water bills. The vast majority of those were not good bills. In 2019, there were only about 80 bills introduced. One of those, HJ18, was going to be law, rather than a resolution. The individual responsible for that is likely to be the next Speaker of the House. If someone in charge wants bills that call for party hunting, 10 tags per hunter & an actual slaughter of elk, and we don't have the backstop of the Governor's office to stop it, then MT is likely to go even farther down the wrong path for elk.

So sportsman have two options: Do nothing or fight for what you want.

 

[Straight Arrow]

MT has all the necessary ingredients to become a world-class elk hunting destination that could put both CO and WY to shame.

Agreed. Consider Colorado being a state seventy percent the size of Montana and including public land comprising only about seventy-five percent of that held by Montana, yet Colorado sustains an elk population almost seventy-five percent greater than Montana. Montana has potential to sustain more elk … not fewer. The "ingredients" do comprise a potential for much improved elk management.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Agreed. Consider Colorado being a state seventy percent the size of Montana and including public land comprising only about seventy-five percent of that held by Montana, yet Colorado sustains an elk population almost seventy-five percent greater than Montana. Montana has potential to sustain more elk … not fewer. The "ingredients" do comprise a potential for much improved elk management.

Colorado also provides financial incentives for landowners that Montanans have steadfastly opposed. Do we want to adopt Ranching for Wildlife?

 

[timmy]

I will start this by saying I come from a ranching family and I have private land I could hunt. I wouldn’t give the landowners a dime including block management. If they let people hunt great, if not let the elk eat them out of house and home. It’s their problem and it could be solved by access during the general season not shoulder seasons. I’ve hunted deer in Colorado tons of hunters tons of elk, every year I saw decent 6 points in general areas on public.

 

[SAJ-99]

I will start this by saying I come from a ranching family and I have private land I could hunt. I wouldn’t give the landowners a dime including block management. If they let people hunt great, if not let the elk eat them out of house and home. It’s their problem and it could be solved by access during the general season not shoulder seasons. I’ve hunted deer in Colorado tons of hunters tons of elk, every year I saw decent 6 points in general areas on public.

The elk "problems" are largely a red herring. Any landowner losing that much money just needs to harvest the grass and put it behind a fence. Most of the large landowners either 1) lease to hunting outfits/individuals (so they will get $ another way if you don't pay for BM), 2) would rather have elk problems than hunter problems, or 3) are the minority of signing up for block management but still having to endure the problems elk cause because there are so many hunters the elk disappear only to return a few weeks after the season ends. You can't solve all of these problems, but they are all linked. Any landowner that has elk knows the elk have $ value. If they complain that there are too many elk, FWP might issue more permits. More permits increase the demand for those elk, more demand increases the price. I'm not saying money can fix all problems, but it can fix the broken incentive structure we currently have.

 

[timmy]

The elk "problems" are largely a red herring. Any landowner losing that much money just needs to harvest the grass and put it behind a fence. Most of the large landowners either 1) lease to hunting outfits/individuals (so they will get $ another way if you don't pay for BM), 2) would rather have elk problems than hunter problems, or 3) are the minority of signing up for block management but still having to endure the problems elk cause because there are so many hunters the elk disappear only to return a few weeks after the season ends. You can't solve all of these problems, but they are all linked. Any landowner that has elk knows the elk have $ value. If they complain that there are too many elk, FWP might issue more permits. More permits increase the demand for those elk, more demand increases the price. I'm not saying money can fix all problems, but it can fix the broken incentive structure we currently have.

The money would be better spent on long term access such as easements to inaccessible public land. The sooner people get it out of their head they are going to get access to private the better. For a lot of the reasons you listed above.

 

[BWALKER77]

The money would be better spent on long term access such as easements to inaccessible public land. The sooner people get it out of their head they are going to get access to private the better. For a lot of the reasons you listed above.

Is there enough inaccessible public to make a difference?

 

[Eric Albus]

Buzz that plan looks very similar to what I have suggested many times, for both elk and Mule deer. Until the hunting public of Montana is fed up enough with the "opportunity" to go on armed hikes and horseback rides, some call it elk/mule deer hunting, we will enjoy an accessible landscape void of elk/deer. There is one word for why accessible lands are void of wildlife, PRESSURE. Reduce pressure increase game numbers. Not rocket science.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Is there enough inaccessible public to make BBC a difference?

Montana has 3.5 million acres of landlocked public land.

 

[tjones]

I have mixed feeling on a new EMP. Yes we all hate the current on and yes we need a new one. But as the old saying goes 'be careful what you wish for"

Given the current makeup of the agency and legislature (which won't be any better come Nov.) I don't have much hope for a good product. I have sat in on plenty of elk objective setting meeting and was part of a local elk working group and always left with a gut punch.

My bet is you think you hate the EMP we have now wait till you see the new one.

Doing nothing is not an option, but,,,,,,,,,

 

[Deleted member 20812]

I'll attempt to somewhat briefly summarize my anecdotal observations of how Montana arrived at its current state of elk management (term used somewhat loosely). Anyone is free to disagree with me, or offer supplemental or alternative opinions.

I don't have historical perspective prior to the mid 90's. In the mid to late 90's elk numbers in the Gallatin and Yellowstone valleys were through the roof. There was public land opportunity galore, in the form of archery, general season, and late hunts. Hunters shot pregnant cows by the hundreds in the Gallatin and thousands in the Paradise Valley during the months of January and February. The Missouri Breaks were approaching its heyday, and burgeoning elk populations were springing up in eastern Montana.

Outfitting was becoming much more prevalent, but (at least in SE Montana), many landowners didn't want elk around and offered free access should you draw the limited permits. At this time, as Ben noted, term limits in the MT legislature were in place. Civility and partisan collaboration seemed to dwindle. Legislative bills became much more frequent attempts to remedy grinding an axe with FWP.

Localized late hunts were a common occurrence in late 90's and early 2000's. It wasn't uncommon to have a permit late hunt in a specific district to address elk populations. Examples of this would be the HD360 (Sun Ranch), the Birdtail Hills in HD 421/422 to name a couple. FWP and the commission did away with these in the middle 2000's in an attempt to remedy public access to private elk. The line of thought was forcing landowners to use the five week season to accommodate both their outfitted hunts and any management take of cow elk. Second cow tags were also implemented.

In my mind, it didn't accomplish what it was intended to do. Damage hunt rosters came next. Then shoulder seasons, while the EMP was selectively applied either due to limited research data, selective indifference, or not wanting the political repercussions (IMO). This was the same period of time when FWP attempted to address hunter crowding issues during archery season in the Missouri Breaks by implementing limited entry permits. All the while during this period, there were numerous attempts to institute a Ranching for Wildlife paradigm, and equal efforts by FWP to shoot them down.

Some of my details may be suspect, my memory is occupied by other things and I'll admit I'm too lazy to go back and research certain details and dates. The bottom line is this. Both Montana and Wyoming witnessed similar explosions in elk populations during the early to mid 2000s, but have taken markedly different approaches to addressing it. In my layman's perspective, Wyoming has embraced it. Montana has made it a continuous point of contention between the ag community and sportsmen.

Competition for ranchers is real. I'm guessing an elk cow/calf pair is probably equivalent to about 0.6 AUM for a beef cow/calf pair. It doesn't take long to realize 1000 head of elk can have an impact on your ranching operation. There are pillars within the ag community that model and epitomize a cooperative approach to ranching and wildlife management. The Devil's Kitchen working group is one of these. It's not perfect (nothing is), but it certainly could be used as a template for elk management across the state if folks truly wanted to try and reach an amicable solution.

On my last hunt in Wyoming, we had Type 6 cow tags. Had I been bull hunting, I could have killed bulls on 4 out of 4 days. One day, we saw 28 bulls on public land, every single one within easy rifle range. Over half were six points. In fairness, this is a limited entry bull unit, and I don't have any current comparisons for general units.

 

[Deleted member 20812]

I have mixed feeling on a new EMP. Yes we all hate the current on and yes we need a new one. But as the old saying goes 'be careful what you wish for"

I completely agree. The entire system is broken.

 

[MTLabrador]

I have mixed feeling on a new EMP. Yes we all hate the current on and yes we need a new one. But as the old saying goes 'be careful what you wish for"

Given the current makeup of the agency and legislature (which won't be any better come Nov.) I don't have much hope for a good product. I have sat in on plenty of elk objective setting meeting and was part of a local elk working group and always left with a gut punch.

My bet is you think you hate the EMP we have now wait till you see the new one.

Doing nothing is not an option, but,,,,,,,,,

If I remember correctly, when Hagener was still director he warned that revisiting the population objectives will likely cause the objectives for some EMUs to be lowered even further. I believed him, and I think that’s even more true today.

 

[MTLabrador]

In fairness, this is a limited entry bull unit, and I don't have any current comparisons for general units.

I hunted a day and an evening last year on my general tag and between those two days passed up 5 bulls before I shot a 270ish six point. I spent one more day in a different unit helping a coworker look for a cow elk she had wounded in heavy timber, and I could have shot two bulls as well that day just while following the blood trail.

 

[BWALKER77]

Is the EMP legally binding?