Montana elk management plan--Page 55

[tjones]

Dealing with landowner elk would be a lot simpler if FWP would follow the current EMP in full not just the over objective numbers.


“Elk populations in portions of some EMU’s may be almost entirely inaccessible to hunters during the general hunting season or accessible to only a few hunters. To avoid over-harvest of accessible elk on public lands or private lands open to hunting, the inaccessible elk may not be included in objective numbers. Trend count number objectives may include only elk normally accessible to general hunting (if they are a distinct segment), though hunter access negotiations will continue. Elk occupying these “refuges” may be counted separately where practical (if they are a distinct segment) and sub-objectives established that could be operative if access negotiations are successful. If significant harvest of these “refuge” elk is possible with special management at some times and locations, they should be included in objective levels.”

 

[Nameless Range]

This is something I don't know a lot about but wonder about when I hear we need a new EMP.

We have policy in the current EMP, that if utilized could alleviate a fair portion of the "Elk Problem" we have in this state, but it seems to be almost-never utilized. Would that change if a new EMP were constructed? Maybe we are just due because the current one is outdated? Is it reasonable to think our (The public land DIY Hunter's) situation would improve under a new EMP?

 

[Deleted member 20812]

This is something I don't know a lot about but wonder about when I hear we need a new EMP.

We have policy in the current EMP, that if utilized could alleviate a fair portion of the "Elk Problem" we have in this state, but it seems to be almost-never utilized. Would that change if a new EMP were constructed? Maybe we are just due because the current one is outdated? Is it reasonable to think our (The public land DIY Hunter's) situation would improve under a new EMP?

A plan isn't worth a piece of used toilet paper unless you follow it. The current EMP isn't great, but is even more worthless because it's not utilized per the SOP within the plan. What gives people hope a new plan will be followed or any improvement?

 

[Schaaf]

Maybe someone needs to file a lawsuit and require FWP to adhere to that paragraph on page 55.

I don't think the EMP is a bad plan. I do think some areas, specifically Eastern Montana, the objectives are unbelievably low and why I think a new EMP would be able to bump that number up. But I am also aware we might get raked over the coals even more if and when there is a new management plan.

 

[----]

I've asked 4 different biologists why this hasn't been used, and each one has a different excuse. So far I've heard:

-I'm worried they're out-competing mule deer.
-It's unfair to the neighboring landowners.
-It's impossible to know whether or not these elk are always inaccessible.

 

[tjones]

This is something I don't know a lot about but wonder about when I hear we need a new EMP.

We have policy in the current EMP, that if utilized could alleviate a fair portion of the "Elk Problem" we have in this state, but it seems to be almost-never utilized. Would that change if a new EMP were constructed? Maybe we are just due because the current one is outdated? Is it reasonable to think our (The public land DIY Hunter's) situation would improve under a new EMP?

We started the push to use page 55 in HD270 and the CB Ranch elk back in 2008 and took a couple of years to get the dept to use it. One of the ways we helped the dept determine the elk were inaccessibly was our group paid for a survey flight 1-2 weeks after the rifle season opener to determine just how many elk were on the CB. That number was then subtracted from the next years spring count to come up with a total population of huntable elk. It was widely known very little public hunting was done on the CB.

The ranch population was growing, which meant the total HD population would be higher each year and the dept. kept increasing hunter opportunity. This put an incredible amount of pressure on public land elk. Public land elk decreased, private land increased as FWP kept their foot on the gas. We finally got them to accept page 55 and a more restrictive season.

The problem with the current EMP is the objective numbers are completely outdated and were never set using science. Mostly determined by politics and landowner tolerance. The triggers that change season structure is another problem. Bull/cow ratios, cow/calf ratio, age structure through the check stations-etc seems are never followed to trigger more restrictive seasons. Total population to trigger more liberal seasons seem to always be followed.

FWP blames Debbie Barrett's HB42 for the heavy handed management all the while they have page 55 to offset and choose not to use it. Their claim was HB42 is law, the EMP is a guideline. Pick and choose as you please.

My guess is a new EMP would look extremely different than the one we have today and not necessarily better for the public land hunter. My guess also is page 55 would come up missing.

 

[Deleted member 20812]

I've asked 4 different biologists why this hasn't been used, and each one has a different excuse. So far I've heard:

-I'm worried they're out-competing mule deer.
-It's unfair to the neighboring landowners.
-It's impossible to know whether or not these elk are always inaccessible.

Point 1: Dubious. Are elk out competing mule deer, or are habitat changes over the last few decades simply much more favorable to elk? I had a really good conversation with an FWP biologist, who I've known a long time and have a lot of respect for. We talked explicitly to this point, and when I posed this question he directly acknowledged that was a distinct possibility. No one can directly say, but maybe a better solution is to address habitat issues for deer, if that is even possible on a macro level scale.

Point 2: This can readily be addressed via damage hunts, kill permits, or even crop damage payments. In all honesty, I don't necessarily consider it a good thing Montana doesn't utilize these. The money spent might very well provide much more tolerance for elk and in turn, better hunting for the general public.

Point 3: Bullshit. Trail cams and field observations, well documented over time, could be used to easily dispel this. It's certainly not an exact science, but it's doable if it's a priority.

 

[Deleted member 20812]

FWP blames Debbie Barrett's HB42 for the heavy handed management all the while they have page 55 to offset and choose not to use it. Their claim was HB42 is law, the EMP is a guideline. Pick and choose as you please.

If the law mandates you follow the guideline, that does not mean you cannot follow the guideline in its entirety. Ergo, page 55 does not become defunct.

Pick and choose pretty well sums it up.

 

[Trial153]

you don’t have to be Inspector gadget to discern areas that are holding Elk yet not being hunted or hunted so little that it’s inconsequential

 

[Hunting Wife]

-It's impossible to know whether or not these elk are always inaccessible.

That’s what collars are for. Next time ask how they figured out the accessibility of the elk in 621/622 then?

 

[SAJ-99]

Unfortunately, collar cost money. Collecting data costs money, and in the end people will just say they are wrong anyway.

 

[BuzzH]

Unfortunately, collar cost money. Collecting data costs money, and in the end people will just say they are wrong anyway.

I agree on the money part...but I can tell you collar data is pretty tough to refute by the tinfoil hat crowd.

 

[SAJ-99]

I agree on the money part...but I can tell you collar data is pretty tough to refute by the tinfoil hat crowd.

Na. After all, they are wearing TIN FOIL hats! Logic and data have no place in any argument with them. It just becomes a government conspiracy where everything that doesn't agree with them is made up by the government. Don't you read the news anymore

 

[Hunting Wife]

Unfortunately, collar cost money. Collecting data costs money, and in the end people will just say they are wrong anyway.

I’m well aware of the costs. Been doing this for a while now. But when an issue has so many stakeholders with a vested interest in the answers, is highly contentious and is clearly a conundrum for managers, leveraging partnerships to get it funded should be a no-brainer.

 

[tjones]

That’s what collars are for. Next time ask how they figured out the accessibility of the elk in 621/622 then?

I’m using this, thanks!

 

[tjones]

I’m well aware of the costs. Been doing this for a while now. But when an issue has so many stakeholders with a vested interest in the answers, is highly contentious and is clearly a conundrum for managers, leveraging partnerships to get it funded should be a no-brainer.

We have had a few collar projects here in the valley on elk and sheep, funding took a little work but in the end as you said—a no-brainer.

 

[easternmt]

I have no doubt after having talked to a region seven field biologists (Mr. Devore) that all the elk counted outside of the Custer are counted in population totals. Even elk living 100 miles away on the Booth ranch as this was mentioned saying we have a run away elk problem in region 704! There is no way we would have tag numbers set where they are without all the private land inaccessible elk counted too.

 

[easternmt]

I was later told we manage for opportunity and landowner tolerance!

 

[SAJ-99]

I was later told we manage for opportunity and landowner tolerance!

Absolutely. I am sure that your 704 post is the case, but people who hunt those ranches have to apply for the same tags as we do. That is why in the regulation book for 704 it says Note: elk numbers are low and primarily found on private land. Public access may be difficult and limited. I guess they expect public land hunters to understand the situation they are applying into In some extreme cases, the FWP is basically setting rules for private ranches. It is also why Montana rules (different permits, dates, zone boundaries, etc) are so confusing. I can't image an out of state hunter trying to figure it out without help.

 

[easternmt]

My point exactly as far as managing elk. The booth ranch is in 702 but you can not block areas together and expect to manage elk. Also these big ranches do not provide any public access it’s pay to play so where do you think the majority go?