Montana elk (mis)management

[Brittany Chukarman]

Oregon has mandatory reporting. It's all on the hunter to report. Failure to report results in a $25 fine when purchasing the next years license. They did have a 1 or 2 year grace period before putting it into effect.

 

[shoots-straight]

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.

We (RCF&W ass.) asked that very question over a year ago. Our regional Wildlife manager told us "To just do it". Then submit it to the commission. So we sat down with Forest Service Bio, local businessmen, ranchers, and others that represented local concerns and came up with new objective numbers, cow/calf, and bull/cow ratios with the new science, or best science we have for the areas in the Root. We submitted those proposals to the department to move forward to the commission, and our acting wildlife division manager did away with most of it. There were some changes on hunting districts, for better management, and number changes because of the district changes.

We felt that at a minimum our submission should have gotten a fair look and proposed as written, a discussion to take place. Most of the time that's all one could ask for. Is to have the discussion at the commission level.

As TJones has said several times: "Do we want the people in charge now to write the new EMP? It could really end up worse.

 

[MTborn64]

Phone surveys are a joke.Last year I got a survey call that went to voicemail. They said they would call back. They never did. Two years ago I got a call and I had a lot of information to share. Harvested deer and elk, wolf and lion sightings, numbers of elk observed... but this was a call about grouse. They only wanted to know about what species of grouse had I shot and nothing else (even though I tried to share that information). Last year I went to a region 2 open house. I mentioned this as a problem and they agreed. I suggested that adding a harvest reporting selection to the drawing results part of the website. I shoot and elk, I report it on the website. I see a pack of wolves I can report it on the website. They all agreed and said that FWP has been looking into that for awhile now.

 

[shoots-straight]

Mandatory reporting could be done, but is met with stiff resistance in Helena. We go through this conversation every year.

We have to report Wolves, Lions, Bobcats, Fisher, Otter and others within a 24 hr. Usually have to have Township,/Range and Section for the report as well.

I have always found it hypocritical that we have mandatory report for predators, but nothing on the prey.

I have been told several times that MTFW&Ps does not own the their website and it would be to costly to get mandatory reporting on that web done.

Unbelievable but true!
Maybe the only way to get this done would be by using the legislature. What' good for the goose!

 

[tjones]

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

FWP does flight surveys here in the Bitterroot every spring. The date they start varies each year due to weather. They are trying to hit spring green up on the winter range when the elk are out in the open.

They are not trying to count every elk. It's suppose to be a trend count. Post season, post winter so you have a trend on what survived. Also according to the EMP it suppose to be observed elk. Not "I think we missed some" or " I know there was some bulls we missed". Both those have happened in past counts.

Here they follow GPS routes that have been flown for decades. Constancy on method should yield accurate trends.

Problem is it doest always work that way.

 

[BuzzH]

tjones,

More of the same, "we've always done it that way"...because we all know that nothing has changed elk distribution over the last 20 years.:W::W::W:

MFWP's new book, required reading for anyone seeking employment: "Wildlife management in a vacuum: a history in how we've always done it"...

 

[tjones]

tjones,

More of the same, "we've always done it that way"...because we all know that nothing has changed elk distribution over the last 20 years.:W::W::W:

MFWP's new book, required reading for anyone seeking employment: "Wildlife management in a vacuum: a history in how we've always done it"...

Yes sir.

 

[RobG]

I will believe that hunters entering data on a website will be more cost effective, but it will probably WORSE quality than a random sample. The term "mandatory" is a joke for that type of data collection. $25 fine, that's a joke. I know a fair amount about collecting data and you don't have to sample every hunter to get an accurate estimate and it is more controlled than self reporting.

Now if EVERY hunter had to report which tags they filled in order to get another license that would be better.

 

[BuzzH]

Ok, $1000 fine and no license until you report.

Its high time that hunters start being active participants in the wildlife, and its management, they supposedly care so deeply about.

If a person cant take the time to properly fill out a harvest survey, then they shouldn't be allowed to participate in hunting.

Time for some hard lines if we want to understand what's happening with our wildlife.

The first step in proper management decisions starts with quality data...without it, you're guessing, which is exactly what the MFWP is doing now...guessing.

 

[RobertR]

Be thankful we don't have a mandatory reporting of ungulates like Maine because FWP would go broke.. Not enough wardens or budget and I would bet sport shops would not want the hassle or who ever had. A check in place to record animals. The logistics of a state like Montana would be overwhelming.

 

[Gr8bawana]

Wow! A lot of you guys don't like the way your elk are being managed yet you scoff at the ideas being brought up that might help.
We have had madatory reporting in NV since who knows when. You can look at the info for years prior for all the big game animals and see how many bulls or cows or calves were taken in every hunting area.
How many points the bulls had in every area. Percent of hunter success in each area. How many hunter days for successful hunters. How may bonus points hunters had when they drew the tag. Lastly how many animals were actually taken. It takes maybe 5 minutes to do the survey online and if you prefer to do it the old fashioned way they even provide a postage paid envelope.
That being said, I envy you guys that live in states that harvest a bazillion more elk than we even have in NV.
You have to start somewhere if you want changes made.

 

[Topgun 30-06]

Be thankful we don't have a mandatory reporting of ungulates like Maine because FWP would go broke.. Not enough wardens or budget and I would bet sport shops would not want the hassle or who ever had. A check in place to record animals. The logistics of a state like Montana would be overwhelming.

I don't believe anyone has suggested any such system like you're talking about. What we are talking about is a relatively inexpensive online survey either for random selected hunters or everyone as a mandatory requirement. It would not be done like you're stating and wouldn't require more GWs, etc. The random online survey Wyoming does for all it's game animals along with it's actual biologist surveys on the ground and by aircraft is a big part of what BuzzH mentioned the way the G&F is able to go up or down with tag numbers in the various units, rather than by playing a big guessing game the way it sounds like FWP is doing.

 

[mtmiller]

topgun responded before my slow fingers

 

[Straight Arrow]

Question for those Colorado Hunttalkers:

With Colorado being a state 70% the size of Montana and including public land comprising only about 75% of that held by Montana, then why is it that Colorado can sustain an elk population almost 75% greater than Montana?

Could it be that Colorado elk "tolerance" is that much greater?

 

[Chucknduck]

Question for those Colorado Hunttalkers:

With Colorado being a state 70% the size of Montana and including public land comprising only about 75% of that held by Montana, then why is it that Colorado can sustain an elk population almost 75% greater than Montana?

Could it be that Colorado elk "tolerance" is that much greater?

I would bet tolerance is higher. And am very interested in the responses. They do have shorter seasons if I think I'm right

 

[RobG]

Buzz - I just remember when the issue was being pushed by hunters in Idaho it was the biologists that were saying it wasn't the issue that needed fixing. It seemed to me another case where the hunting crowd thought they knew more than the bios, and the group of hunters complaining about it were notorious bozos.

The bigger issue is that the true number of elk harvested just changes a number in a power point slide; it does not change policy,

 

[Oak]

Question for those Colorado Hunttalkers:

With Colorado being a state 70% the size of Montana and including public land comprising only about 75% of that held by Montana, then why is it that Colorado can sustain an elk population almost 75% greater than Montana?

Could it be that Colorado elk "tolerance" is that much greater?

Tolerance may well be higher. But the devil is in the details. Here is a list of what we have given landowners in order to maintain "tolerance":

• 20% of all limited deer, elk and pronghorn licenses as transferable vouchers
• Non-resident quotas of 20-35% of the remaining limited licenses after the landowner cut is removed
• Ranching for Wildlife transferable license vouchers valid for 3 months
• A game damage program that costs sportsmen over $2 million a year (probably north of $3 million if the true costs were calculated)
• Thousands of Private Land Only licenses issued in the draw, which essentially creates a separate pool of licenses for those who can pay to play
• 5% of all big game license revenue goes to the Habitat Partnership Program, the purpose of which is to reduce landowner conflicts, primarily related to fencing and forage

I'm probably forgetting something, but that's what I can think of off the top of my head.

 

[Bambistew]

Question for those Colorado Hunttalkers:

With Colorado being a state 70% the size of Montana and including public land comprising only about 75% of that held by Montana, then why is it that Colorado can sustain an elk population almost 75% greater than Montana?

Could it be that Colorado elk "tolerance" is that much greater?

I'm not sure on the tolerance, but I would suspect its because there is less conflict. The agriculture/ranching in CO is quite a bit different than much of Montana. Just going off my experience of growing up in a ranching/ag family and living in CO for a couple years and hunting for many years in both. For instance CO ranchers rely on range grass more in the winter and feed less and put up less hay. They also calve later and thus again rely much less on hay/feed.

Pretty sure CO has similar amounts of public land as Montana, and IMO has much larger tracks of unbroken pubic lands with great elk habitat from summer to winter range. When most of the winter range in on public land conflict between landowners decreases.

Also, I think if you were to compare quality elk habitat you'd see why there are more elk there. Pretty much half of Colorado is high quality elk habitat, and IMO only about 1/4 of Montana is comparable. I could be totally wrong, just my experience hunting and traveling around both places.

Mandatory reporting would be helpful, but it won't solve all your problems. You'll have to figure out how many people lie about where they hunted, and what they killed... or if they killed. Don't want other people knowing where I hunt or what I shot, they might change the quota ya know.

 

[Oak]

Bambistew makes a good point. There are many fewer places in Colorado where substantial herds of elk reside on private lands year around. In most places herds spend the summer on public lands.

 

[BuzzH]

Buzz - I just remember when the issue was being pushed by hunters in Idaho it was the biologists that were saying it wasn't the issue that needed fixing. It seemed to me another case where the hunting crowd thought they knew more than the bios, and the group of hunters complaining about it were notorious bozos.

The bigger issue is that the true number of elk harvested just changes a number in a power point slide; it does not change policy,

I agree, that harvest reporting isn't going to change policy. But, before you can make recommendations to change policy, its a pretty good idea to have as much solid data as you can.

If I go the MFWP and tell a biologist that, "I think you're killing too many elk, deer, antelope etc." I better have something to back up the claim. Not just an observation or the fact that I didn't kill an elk this year.

IMO, the MFWP does NOT want anyone to know what is being killed and what the actual populations are.

They skew numbers all the time to paint a picture of abundant wildlife in Montana. Just read any article, one time harvest is up from the 3 year average, last year, 5 year average, long-term average...all things I've read in articles. Its all a smoke-screen to hide the truth, I don't give a rats ass about comparing harvest to a 3,5, 7 year average...I want actual numbers.

This is why you have to start at the start, and that is to collect good population data, cow to calf ratios, bull to cow ratios, harvest data, forage production data, etc. etc. etc.

Its much easier to demand and/or guide management when the numbers aren't pulled out of thin air.

Honestly, do you believe there are 160K elk in Montana right now? I don't.