That's true, yet NR still keep buying tags. So the market will bear the price. The model of selling more for less with a finite resource never struck me as smart.
Montana Elk Management Plan Citizens Advisory Committee
- Thread starter HighWildFree
- Start date
BuzzH
Well-known member
Not according to the FWP...they don't differentiate at all between how they manage elk on private or public and ignore page 55 of the EMP all the time.
If they wanted to sell reality, why do they use pictures of hunters with 6 point elk racks on their backs then?
What they should show, if they want to start dealing and advertising in reality, is a picture of an unused elk tag on a pack frame in over 80% of the cases in Montana...probably over 90% if you're a public land elk hunter.
BuzzH
Well-known member
Yeah, its unfortunate that NR's keep buying tags when they are being purposefully mislead by the MTFWP. Plus, the options to be able to hunt elk as a NR are drying up if you want to hunt every year. So, as a NR that doesn't have elk to hunt in their state, or very limited opportunities, you count the odds and figure a 1-10% chance of killing an elk on an over-priced tag in Montana is better than not going at all.
Some, like me, have realized that the lack of proper management in Montana isn't worth even the extra $200 a year it would cost me to have an elk tag to go along with my deer A tag.
Its an even easier pass if I had to pay full boat NR fees...
El Jason
Well-known member
Maybe a photo of thousands of elk on the Sun Ranch or Galt Ranch?
SAJ-99
Well-known member
I agree, but given my understanding, this committee is not going to solve the poor success rate of public land hunters in Montana. This committee, and FWP in general, has a goal to manage the herds to zone objectives. You are not going to change MT into WY or AZ overnight. I am a realist. Any incremental step in the right direction would be nice.
MO Betta
Well-known member
I've just been reading the discussion to try and understand the challenges sportsmen are facing in Montana and how those of you involved, at least geographically, would like or are working to improve them.
Have to say it's a little disheartening to see attitudes of just "stick it to the NRs", slashing their opportunity of purchasing a tag and proposing increases up to double of what they are now - at least in regards to elk. Unless I'm reading the 2018 data from MFWP incorrectly, 16.8 percent of your elk hunters were nonresidents and it's been mentioned that these same people are responsible for 66 percent of funding.
If it were more about concerns for the health of the herds and improving quality in the future, yet still be a draw for a large resource of funding, I would think advocating for an equal reduction in tags for both residents and nonresidents (with a little more help from an increase in resident tag prices to help cover the shortfalls or even increase funding) would be a logical approach. Currently your cost for a resident elk tag in Montana is less than half of what I pay for a resident whitetail tag in Kansas, and we have close to a million of those creatures running around everywhere. Way less finite than your elk herds.
For an ever decreasing number of hunters and what seems to be a smaller voice represented at the table, I'd think residents and nonresidents would want to band together for a beneficial relationship in achieving our goals - instead of choosing to be at odds.
Have to say it's a little disheartening to see attitudes of just "stick it to the NRs", slashing their opportunity of purchasing a tag and proposing increases up to double of what they are now - at least in regards to elk. Unless I'm reading the 2018 data from MFWP incorrectly, 16.8 percent of your elk hunters were nonresidents and it's been mentioned that these same people are responsible for 66 percent of funding.
If it were more about concerns for the health of the herds and improving quality in the future, yet still be a draw for a large resource of funding, I would think advocating for an equal reduction in tags for both residents and nonresidents (with a little more help from an increase in resident tag prices to help cover the shortfalls or even increase funding) would be a logical approach. Currently your cost for a resident elk tag in Montana is less than half of what I pay for a resident whitetail tag in Kansas, and we have close to a million of those creatures running around everywhere. Way less finite than your elk herds.
For an ever decreasing number of hunters and what seems to be a smaller voice represented at the table, I'd think residents and nonresidents would want to band together for a beneficial relationship in achieving our goals - instead of choosing to be at odds.
Nameless Range
Well-known member
I hope FWP is inundated with applications from HuntTalkers. If you can swing those 4 days, do it!
The application packet is here:
The application packet is here:
El Jason
Well-known member
You can use me as a reference
BuzzH
Well-known member
Its not about solving poor public land hunter success rates, its about managing elk. Proper ELK management solves the issue of low elk numbers, low bull to cow ratio's, and how elk use the landscape, including public lands. Successfully do that, and the success rates take care of themselves.
This isn't rocket science, its not like the MTFWP has to reinvent the wheel to see significant changes for the better.
Figure I may as well throw my name in the hat to be on that committee...I'm sure it will get a chuckle when its received.
Dougfirtree
Well-known member
Buzz,
I won't pretend to have an educated opinion on the overall matter. I haven't lived in Montana in over 20 years and wasn't hunting elk when I was there anyway. But, I get the sense that the hunting has suffered and I can attest to the fact that the elk hunting in Wyoming is impressive! I'd be curious to hear your opinion on why the two states differ so much on their strategies/management? It's easy for me to imagine that the Montana legislature has catered too much to the ag lobbyists, but it's also easy for me to imagine the Wyoming legislature doing the same thing... What's the big difference as you see it? Where did these two states diverge?
The resource is suffering and Buzz is right that opportunity needs to be decreased. In addition to cutting the seasons back, there is nothing wrong with decreasing NR's in a revenue neutral way. Most other states have done this already(cut back NR opportunity). Montana needs to get with the times. Same story for deer and antelope too. If a NR doesnt like that they always have the option of moving here.
BuzzH
Well-known member
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.
Last edited:
El Jason
Well-known member
Based on my anecdotal observations, limiting NR is missing the forest for the trees. Your state, do what you want, but you’re missing the bigger picture.
edit. Not to mention you are dealing with a statutory license allotment issue, not a departmental policy and management plan issue.
Last edited by a moderator:
T
timmy
Guest
I say we put Buzz in charge of Montana elk management. Well said and true.
El Jason
Well-known member
It’ll be even harder when people go down rabbit holes like NR numbers, trophy size, etc. Based on what I’ve seen in other states, you manage for appropriate bull cow ratios and reasonable objective numbers and the rest becomes rather irrelevant.
Gerald Martin
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2009
- Messages
- 9,643
If anyone with ties to FWP reads this thread, read Buzz’s post multiple times until you understand it.
For too long Montanans have allowed elk management to be adversarial in nature and that has only ensured everyone’s interests are neglected and biological elk management suffers.
Every rancher understands that if you want to move a herd of cattle you put pressure on them where you want them to move from and put some other cattle where you want them to move to. Yet, no one in charge of elk management seems to correlate how similar elk and cattle are in terms of moving them around on the landscape. We have herds of elk in sanctuary areas attracting other elk and hunters killing elk for several months anywhere they can access pushing the survivors to those sanctuary areas.
HighWildFree
Well-known member
I guess I see it like this:
The current guiding principle of elk management is one of minimums. The current EMP is basically what is the fewest elk we can get away with. Additionally, the FWP mantra of hunters regulating themselves (shifting hunting pressure from units where elk numbers are declining, to units with high elk numbers) would passively allow for elk numbers to increase/decrease in those respective units. So we have a management strategy where we shoot for the fewest number of elk that landowners will tolerate and if the hunting sucks, hunters will go else where. It's pretty obvious that this philosophy isn't working. Landowners screaming that there are too many elk, and hunters that there are not enough or that they can't access them.
I think approaching this new EMP with a different philosophy of multiple criteria targets. I doubt that we will get away from population objectives, but arguing that different bull:cow ratios or harvest numbers or whatever need to have equal weight. And in much in the same way that over objective numbers trigger shoulder seasons, low bull:cow ratios should trigger shorter seasons or whatever. This changes management in a way that isn't focused on driving numbers down (currently the only option if elk numbers get too low is either browtine only or limited entry).
I know I'm missing a ton a nuance, but...
The current guiding principle of elk management is one of minimums. The current EMP is basically what is the fewest elk we can get away with. Additionally, the FWP mantra of hunters regulating themselves (shifting hunting pressure from units where elk numbers are declining, to units with high elk numbers) would passively allow for elk numbers to increase/decrease in those respective units. So we have a management strategy where we shoot for the fewest number of elk that landowners will tolerate and if the hunting sucks, hunters will go else where. It's pretty obvious that this philosophy isn't working. Landowners screaming that there are too many elk, and hunters that there are not enough or that they can't access them.
I think approaching this new EMP with a different philosophy of multiple criteria targets. I doubt that we will get away from population objectives, but arguing that different bull:cow ratios or harvest numbers or whatever need to have equal weight. And in much in the same way that over objective numbers trigger shoulder seasons, low bull:cow ratios should trigger shorter seasons or whatever. This changes management in a way that isn't focused on driving numbers down (currently the only option if elk numbers get too low is either browtine only or limited entry).
I know I'm missing a ton a nuance, but...
El Jason
Well-known member
Actually, by law it’s the maximum number you can have.
antlerradar
Well-known member
Buzz, The legislature changed when term limits were implemented. Lamb could probably explain it far better than I.
