Montana elk (mis)management
- Thread starter BuzzH
- Start date
Lawnboy
Well-known member
I knew that came out wrong. I love you guys over there. It's why I mow and don't write articles
mtmander
Active member
After reading the threads on this I believe there will be a lot of hunters participating in this hunt. I also think that most hunters will hunt a special (a few years ago you could shoot a cow elk with a bull tag for a few days in the middle of the rifle season , in the 200 units , might have been others too) season and they will think it is ok because it is legal and they want to hunt.
RobG
Well-known member
A couple of things
1) if it weren't for this site I would not have understood that these "objectives" were about landowner tolerances, not habitat. Thanks everyone for making that happen. We need to figure out a way to get the word out to more people (including the RMEF guy who said otherwise on facebook, did I just say that?)
1.a) Here's one way... http://onyourownadventures.com/hunttalk/showthread.php?t=266371 or write your paper, etc. Gardiner is "at objective" and they want to drop to 75 permits! (but it's going to be a waste of time if the legislators have the backing of "big elk").
2) I'm primarily a meat hunter, but I will hold out for a bull if I know someone in my family can take a cow in a late hunt. In the end that is better for the population rather than just shooting the first cow you see. I have no problem helping ranchers. This is because for as long as I can remember (30+ years) the late hunts haven't decimated elk populations because of the way they were structured. (I realize there are exceptions, but generally we wouldn't be having this conversation if the herd was whacked). It was a win-win. The rancher got some relief, bubba got an elk, the population remained viable, even growing in some places.
2.a) The way these proposed shoulder seasons are structured I fear they may finally do some serious damage to the population. Furthermore, of all the ways it could be run, the proposed way is one of the worst for hunter opportunity. I find it hard to see how this will open access to any new properties unless you already have a relationship with a rancher. Lose, lose.
1) if it weren't for this site I would not have understood that these "objectives" were about landowner tolerances, not habitat. Thanks everyone for making that happen. We need to figure out a way to get the word out to more people (including the RMEF guy who said otherwise on facebook, did I just say that?)
1.a) Here's one way... http://onyourownadventures.com/hunttalk/showthread.php?t=266371 or write your paper, etc. Gardiner is "at objective" and they want to drop to 75 permits! (but it's going to be a waste of time if the legislators have the backing of "big elk").
2) I'm primarily a meat hunter, but I will hold out for a bull if I know someone in my family can take a cow in a late hunt. In the end that is better for the population rather than just shooting the first cow you see. I have no problem helping ranchers. This is because for as long as I can remember (30+ years) the late hunts haven't decimated elk populations because of the way they were structured. (I realize there are exceptions, but generally we wouldn't be having this conversation if the herd was whacked). It was a win-win. The rancher got some relief, bubba got an elk, the population remained viable, even growing in some places.
2.a) The way these proposed shoulder seasons are structured I fear they may finally do some serious damage to the population. Furthermore, of all the ways it could be run, the proposed way is one of the worst for hunter opportunity. I find it hard to see how this will open access to any new properties unless you already have a relationship with a rancher. Lose, lose.
I knew that came out wrong. I love you guys over there. It's why I mow and don't write articles
We also have thick skin,.
No worries.
RobG
Well-known member
And that is the absolute truth, and everyone will believe it. It is a brilliant way to cover their tracks.
BuzzH
Well-known member
Randy,
I kind of figured that was the case, but my point is that if given an opportunity, the "freezer filler" types will kill a bull every chance they get over a cow.
Lawnboy,
Trust me, the Bitterroot guys know what they're talking about.
I fail to see how this shoulder season is going to end any differently....the key ingredients are already in the recipe.
1. Hunters that only care about "gettin' their elk" for the freezer.
2. Liberal and long seasons on cows.
3. The master architect of the Bitterroot slaughter and elk genocide master, John Vore, is now leading the charge and a huge supporter of shoulder seasons.
What more do you really need to know about how this is going to end?
There's no stopping it now, so at this point, I hope rock bottom is reached sooner rather than later.
Would be nice to realize the potential Montana has with its elk hunting before I die.
I kind of figured that was the case, but my point is that if given an opportunity, the "freezer filler" types will kill a bull every chance they get over a cow.
Lawnboy,
Trust me, the Bitterroot guys know what they're talking about.
I fail to see how this shoulder season is going to end any differently....the key ingredients are already in the recipe.
1. Hunters that only care about "gettin' their elk" for the freezer.
2. Liberal and long seasons on cows.
3. The master architect of the Bitterroot slaughter and elk genocide master, John Vore, is now leading the charge and a huge supporter of shoulder seasons.
What more do you really need to know about how this is going to end?
There's no stopping it now, so at this point, I hope rock bottom is reached sooner rather than later.
Would be nice to realize the potential Montana has with its elk hunting before I die.
I doubt anyone would argue that fact; it is a fact.
Chucknduck
Member
Previouse game damage hunts did not last from August till feb. When every hunter with a tag left is knocking on ranchers doors all day long I feel access will be denied. Then fwp will decide they are not killing enough elk and pretty soon they will be district wide and not just private property
Gerald Martin
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2009
- Messages
- 8,302
So how do we go about changing the Elk Management plan?
One step IMO to getting real numbers about how many elk are harvested is to go to a mandatory harvest reporting. If you want a license the following year, you must complete a harvest survey and receive a code or number to enter before you buy a license the following year. Harvest estimates are only that and are only as accurate as the one giving the estimate.
One step IMO to getting real numbers about how many elk are harvested is to go to a mandatory harvest reporting. If you want a license the following year, you must complete a harvest survey and receive a code or number to enter before you buy a license the following year. Harvest estimates are only that and are only as accurate as the one giving the estimate.
Straight Arrow
Well-known member
And then some legislator of the Barrett, Brenden, or Vore ilk will introduce a bill mandating that FWP start reducing elk populations by slaughtering herds down to "objective" numbers.
I am surprised that there has not yet been a capture and brucellosis test program for elk to identify and slaughter those testing positive to bring number to "objective".
It occurs to me that this "shoulder season" program is a precursor to many really bad ideas which will severely adversely impact Montana elk hunting and the great wildlife sustainment described by BACK FROM THE BRINK.
BuzzH
Well-known member
I don't know about changing the EMP.
But as far as management goes.
I think the first big step would be trying to force the MFWP to manage on OBSERVED elk, not some lame model where they over-estimate elk #'s by 20%+ of reality.
I think understanding how many elk the various herd units could biologically sustain would be another big key.
Some understanding of the available elk habitat and how many elk can be supported on public VS private lands.
Establishing minimum bull to cow ratio's similar to WY's and having more than 1 type of elk management (trophy areas, opportunity areas, etc.) would be a good step.
Demanding that the MFWP be proactive in management...the schizophrenic, crisis management they have been doing for the last 40 years needs to change. I often wonder why the WGF, and the WGF Commission adjust things like quotas, season length, spike elk harvest, etc. etc. yearly...while the MFWP and their commission never do?
Finally, I agree 100% with the mandatory harvest reporting.
A good place to start would be with real data, across the board.
Good luck with that...
I think Buzz has listed a lot of good points. I'm with you guys on mandatory reporting. We are the only state that spends gobs of money for people to call you in the winter and get very imprecise data, rather than spend "less than gobs" of money to get precise data. That is a no brainer for better data. Better data is the very foundation of better management.
As for getting the EMP re-written, that will only happen if hunters demand it of FWP. Right now, they have been able to deflect that. If you were a business, would you still be using a 12 year-old plan to manage your most valuable asset? Not a chance.
The Director's office and Commission can demand this. Until hunters demand it, it won't happen.
I provide caution below in making that request.
Last time it happened, hunters were too busy. Not many hunters showed up at the open houses intended for gathering public comment. Fewer showed up or bothered to write/call/email when the final negotiations were in process. The past EMP process was the biggest steam-rolling I've seen hunters get in my 20 years of being involved. If FWP did enter into a new re-write of the EMP, I worry hunters would not get involved and the current EMP would look like a great deal compared to a new EMP.
Also, any EMP is going to be of limited value without a better protocol for decision making when it comes to MT wildlife issues. FWP needs to become a more proactive agency, not reactive.
There are a lot of folks wanting a say in MT wildlife. All of us should have a say reflective to our contribution to wildlife. Determination of what reflects the contribution of each party will be a healthy debate.
FWP needs well defined protocols/methodologies as to how they arrive at decisions heavily influenced by social, cultural, and financial interests. Establishing, and making it well known, what methodology will be applied to make these decision and making sure they involve all contributing parties, will result in better outcomes. No group will be happy with all outcomes. But, when the Director gets called into the Governor's office, or called before a legislative committee, or grilled at an open house with hunters, they can point to the methodology and protocols that guide how decisions are arrived at.
Such methodology/protocol, if consistently followed, will be a very good rebuttal when folks are upset. It will allow the Department to be assertive in what they are doing, rather than feeling the need to follow political, social, financial pressures from the many directions the originate.
Yeah, I know that is a bit of a dream in a state where we have lost control of the wheel by being inconsistent in so many aspects of our wildlife management. Inconsistency fosters even more finagling by outside interests. More finagling results in even more inconsistency. Pretty soon, it ends up where none of the contributing groups can understand where decisions come from or predict what outcomes will occur.
To accomplish this, at least one, maybe two, Directors will get replaced by PO'd politicians who claim they are voicing frustration of one of the contributing stakeholders. And the Commission will turn over at least twice to get it done, for the same reason of mad politicians seeing a change that will make it harder for them to meddle in the affairs of wildlife.
But, sooner or later, stakeholders will have no option.
elkslayer100
Member
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2009
- Messages
- 48
Its a crazy state, i think the wolves going unchecked for so many years before having plan to manage them didnt help them, and now we find out that supposedly the lions are killing more elk than wolves but yet the tag quota around the bitteroot remains the same, and on top of that were going to shoot cows up until January and possibly beyond? i think the main culprit on the elk demise is the FWP.
RobG
Well-known member
Idaho was pushing for mandatory reporting but I don't know if it was implemented or helped. At any rate, I wonder if it won't be a diversion for the real issues. 1) It may not even be more accurate... (e.g. I nearly forgot to report my son's elk) and sampling/polling theory is really an understood and proven science... 2) Elk counts are really the important metric as they include other effects such as winter kill. 3) Under the current Legislature the only data FWP can use to change policy is cash flow.
Chucknduck
Member
Well I'm not sure if they even count the elk or when they do it. The phone surveys are a joke. I think fwp has know idea how many elk are in many districts. I know with antelope they haven't had it done before apps are due.I would think that reports and observations should be used together. But when you have no budget it's hard o do things right
RobG
Well-known member
Chuck - I'm not defending them because I don't know, but why do you say the phone surveys are a joke? I get called the majority of years.
Topgun 30-06
Active member
Phone surveys are way too slow and expensive for what they get out of them. They could go to an online survey like Wyoming does and there is a ton of information you give them that only takes several minutes and a computer compiles most of the information, other than the comments section that a person has to read if you fill that part out.
BuzzH
Well-known member
RobG,
How can you properly manage an elk herd when you don't even know how many you're killing...or how many you have?
Want a good reason to be "suspect" of the MFWP elk populations?
What do you suppose the odds are of having the EXACT number of observed elk in 2013 and 2015 in the same hunting unit?
As to the phone surveys, yes, they're a joke. I get called every other year or so, and one time they asked if I had shot any upland birds. Its a tack on license to the deer/elk combo tag. I told them no. "OK well, have a good evening"...never asked about anything else. I guess wondering if I killed a ruffed grouse was more important than the 6 point bull and mule deer buck.
Also, in the day and age of computers, how cost effective is paying a herd of clowns, that likely don't even hunt, to make phone calls?
In true MFWP fashion, the phone calls are another great idea in the long list of cluster shags that is everything MFWP. MFWP is like a burned out old hippy trying to stay stuck in the 60's, same season length, same phone surveys, same chitty EMP, etc. etc. etc.
"We've always done it this way"....yeah, wrong for 40+ years.
How can you properly manage an elk herd when you don't even know how many you're killing...or how many you have?
Want a good reason to be "suspect" of the MFWP elk populations?
What do you suppose the odds are of having the EXACT number of observed elk in 2013 and 2015 in the same hunting unit?
As to the phone surveys, yes, they're a joke. I get called every other year or so, and one time they asked if I had shot any upland birds. Its a tack on license to the deer/elk combo tag. I told them no. "OK well, have a good evening"...never asked about anything else. I guess wondering if I killed a ruffed grouse was more important than the 6 point bull and mule deer buck.
Also, in the day and age of computers, how cost effective is paying a herd of clowns, that likely don't even hunt, to make phone calls?
In true MFWP fashion, the phone calls are another great idea in the long list of cluster shags that is everything MFWP. MFWP is like a burned out old hippy trying to stay stuck in the 60's, same season length, same phone surveys, same chitty EMP, etc. etc. etc.
"We've always done it this way"....yeah, wrong for 40+ years.
