Montana FWP makes seismic shift in elk permits

neffa3

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 17, 2015
Messages
6,654
Location
Wenatchee
I just submitted my comments.

I was unable to be as diplomatic as Mr. Lamb, Bigfin, or even the HHAA.

But someone had to make their comments sound better, so I'll consider it a job well done.
 

Gerald Martin

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 3, 2009
Messages
6,457
One thing that I am coming to understand better as I listen to the meetings and read other peoples’s feedback is that we need to include as much specific feedback on individual proposals as we can. I am as guilty as anyone at expressing my general frustration and distaste about the proposals given, but I am seeing that there are going to be decisions made on these proposals.
Telling them not to decide yes or no on 100 different proposals isn’t really an option they can and will consider. Telling them specifically that proposal #57 (for example) is something that I adamantly oppose or support and giving my rationale for opposition or support is likely the only opportunity I have to affect that proposal.

Letting FWP leadership and our legislative representatives know our frustrations and dissatisfaction with their management is certainly necessary but that isn’t really actionable for this commission’s decisions.
 

MTelkHuntress

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 20, 2019
Messages
517
Location
Missoula, MT
Telling them specifically that proposal #57 (for example) is something that I adamantly oppose or support and giving my rationale for opposition or support is likely the only opportunity I have to affect that proposal.
I agree with this. I've been getting tripped up trying to come up with solutions though....since I'm not a wildlife biologist, I don't really have the answers or know what a better idea would look like in some cases but I know that a certain proposal being suggested doesn't seem like a solution. It does seem like providing as many details as you can seems like the way to go though.
 

neffa3

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 17, 2015
Messages
6,654
Location
Wenatchee
One thing that I am coming to understand better as I listen to the meetings and read other peoples’s feedback is that we need to include as much specific feedback on individual proposals as we can. I am as guilty as anyone at expressing my general frustration and distaste about the proposals given, but I am seeing that there are going to be decisions made on these proposals.
Telling them not to decide yes or no on 100 different proposals isn’t really an option they can and will consider. Telling them specifically that proposal #57 (for example) is something that I adamantly oppose or support and giving my rationale for opposition or support is likely the only opportunity I have to affect that proposal.

Letting FWP leadership and our legislative representatives know our frustrations and dissatisfaction with their management is certainly necessary but that isn’t really actionable for this commission’s decisions.
Maybe, but I resist that idea that thousands of people need to all write a novel just to keep FWP from nuking the place.

I think a blanket no, with a handful of yes's is appropriate.
 

Gerald Martin

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 3, 2009
Messages
6,457
Maybe, but I resist that idea that thousands of people need to all write a novel just to keep FWP from nuking the place.

I think a blanket no, with a handful of yes's is appropriate.
I don’t know that I disagree, but given the shear volume of changes this commission tasked with approving or rejecting anything that doesn’t include specifics is probably going to be tossed aside without consideration.

They might read it and get a sense of our dissatisfaction but since it doesn’t influence them to make a yes or no decision on X Y or Z, it becomes irrelevant.
 

406LIFE

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 18, 2016
Messages
3,038
I agree with this. I've been getting tripped up trying to come up with solutions though....since I'm not a wildlife biologist, I don't really have the answers or know what a better idea would look like in some cases but I know that a certain proposal being suggested doesn't seem like a solution. It does seem like providing as many details as you can seems like the way to go though.
I'd encourage you to call up Liz Bradley and setup a time with her. She would be more than happy to walk you through the proposals and rationales.
 

Eric Albus

Well-known member
Joined
May 24, 2012
Messages
1,038
Season structure needs changed. For 35 years I have advocated shorter mule deer season, we finally have a director and commission willing to look at change.
In my opinion LE for mule deer is the only real fix there is, but let’s try less restrictive measures first. 3 week buck season and pick your region is a good start.
I quit guiding archery elk in the breaks 20 years ago, on account of over crowding.

If it’s going to be a LE, make it a permit worth drawing. The R draw doesn’t need to be 90+%.
 

Nameless Range

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 6, 2013
Messages
4,193
Location
Western Montana
I agree with this. I've been getting tripped up trying to come up with solutions though....since I'm not a wildlife biologist, I don't really have the answers or know what a better idea would look like in some cases but I know that a certain proposal being suggested doesn't seem like a solution. It does seem like providing as many details as you can seems like the way to go though.

I think @406LIFE is spot on that talking to your biologists is a great thing to do. As I have said before, Montana is a small town. Something alarming from the get-go was how if ya know folks who work at FWP, there may be a large delta between that which they espouse while at work, vs that which they believe when discussing things in private.

One thing I wouldn't get too hung up on is providing solutions, as they could potentially water down your comments. I don't believe this is the time for that.Many of these proposals are hammers in search of nails which have been concocted based on little evidence, when the hammer's true goal is not to fix the deck, but to club Montanans over the head until they are dead or at the very least inert.

FWP made this bed in which we all lie, with a criminal amount of changes being proposed. That alone is a disservice. From me, they will get little in the form of solution-based ideas when it comes to my comments. I will say what I oppose and support, and I will engage in solution based thinking once they put the hammer down.
 

Schaaf

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 14, 2014
Messages
3,530
Location
Fort Peck, MT
Season structure needs changed. For 35 years I have advocated shorter mule deer season, we finally have a director and commission willing to look at change.
Where have they said this besides the usual lip service? There’s been zero movement on that front outside of R2.
 

Greenhorn

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 19, 2000
Messages
8,484
Location
land of smallish to average rams
Season structure needs changed. For 35 years I have advocated shorter mule deer season, we finally have a director and commission willing to look at change.
In my opinion LE for mule deer is the only real fix there is, but let’s try less restrictive measures first. 3 week buck season and pick your region is a good start.
I quit guiding archery elk in the breaks 20 years ago, on account of over crowding.

If it’s going to be a LE, make it a permit worth drawing. The R draw doesn’t need to be 90+%.
After a few years of "general" or "unlimited" archery coming in a stack of eastern MT units, along with a 50% increase in trophy bull elk permits, there will be a lot of other outfitters scratching their heads, outside of the Missouri Breaks.
 

brocksw

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 5, 2018
Messages
513
Season structure needs changed. For 35 years I have advocated shorter mule deer season, we finally have a director and commission willing to look at change.
In my opinion LE for mule deer is the only real fix there is, but let’s try less restrictive measures first. 3 week buck season and pick your region is a good start.
I quit guiding archery elk in the breaks 20 years ago, on account of over crowding.

If it’s going to be a LE, make it a permit worth drawing. The R draw doesn’t need to be 90+%.
We have a 16.5 day season here in ND. During that 16.5 days the orange army is out in full force and hunter density can be pretty intense. Our harvest success rate is nearly identical to MT.

If MT shortens it's season significantly, I have a hard time thinking they'll be able to continue to do OTC tags for residents. They'll likely have to cap all units or deal with a flood of complaints about hunting pressure out on the landscape during a shortened season.
 

shoots-straight

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 6, 2005
Messages
6,396
Location
Bitterroot Valley
LE is where we ended up in the Root in 2 of our HD. That was because the only thing to bring back the bucks was LE and the science supported that move.

Elk on the other hand are not in the same shape that our deer were. LE and choose your HD are not supported by the science. This is throwing poo poo against the wall to see what sticks.

I feel that LE are socially supported by Hunters for larger bulls to live. I support that also. I don't think we need to force hunters to use one HD if they draw a unlimited tag though.
 

shoots-straight

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 6, 2005
Messages
6,396
Location
Bitterroot Valley
Why? That's how unlimited mule deer worked here. Might as well go general. mtmuley
Yea, I know, but that's not right either. I never had that much of a dog in the fight there. Not really a big Mule deer guy.

So HD 270 is a very good example. You draw that tag, then your stuck hunting archery there and rifle. It's got a small population of elk during archery, and most of rifle until snows fly. You're giving up the whole season for an area that has 11 bulls per 100 cows just to wait for snow. Small reward for big investment.

Also, what does it do? I think more bulls will die as a result of forced congregations of hunters. It looks to me like the people that put in for the HD will be forced to hunt there, continuously, until they kill or season runs out. Forcing actually more hunter days than we have now. The idea was to save bulls, keep people from flocking there during a snow event where shootouts occurred, by making them give up any chance at a LE tag.

It's the only good public lands elk area with good access in the Root and possibly a good portion of Western Montana. People will be forced to apply there.
 

mtmuley

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 11, 2009
Messages
9,223
Location
montana
It's the only good public lands elk area with good access in the Root and possibly a good portion of Western Montana. People will be forced to apply there.
No, it isn't the only good public lands area in the Root. And, do you think the unlimited permit, which was supposed to be temporary, has done what it was intended to? mtmuley
 

shoots-straight

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 6, 2005
Messages
6,396
Location
Bitterroot Valley
No, it isn't the only good public lands area in the Root. And, do you think the unlimited permit, which was supposed to be temporary, has done what it was intended to? mtmuley
It's the only public lands area, that has good huntable population of elk ( with snows) that you gives you good access to those elk. yes and no. It has stopped the shootouts, but no it hasn't gotten the Bull/cow rations to where they are suppose to be.
 

Unlucky

Member
Joined
Dec 10, 2021
Messages
80
Eric albus agree with what u have said.

But where do u stand on the private land owners and non resident tags.

I think landowners should get gaurenteed tags based on acres. Don't know the amount issued out, up for debate. But def not be able to sell them.

Non resident should be issued up to 15 percent of tags.

It should go to all draw and 3 diff seasons archery, muzzy, rifle. All 1st choice more than likely. Keep some high quality areas, the LE units we have now and the current otc units a liberal draw.
 

mtmuley

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 11, 2009
Messages
9,223
Location
montana
It's the only public lands area, that has good huntable population of elk ( with snows) that you gives you good access to those elk. yes and no. It has stopped the shootouts, but no it hasn't gotten the Bull/cow rations to where they are suppose to be.
Again, I disagree about access. I don't think the permit to only hunt a drawn area is a bad move. mtmuley
 

shoots-straight

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 6, 2005
Messages
6,396
Location
Bitterroot Valley
Again, I disagree about access. I don't think the permit to only hunt a drawn area is a bad move. mtmuley
My comments weren't just about access, but access to huntable populations of elk.

IF it does the opposite of what's needed for management there it is.

So what do you think management wise, it will help to take options to hunt elsewhere and opportunity away from hunters?
 

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
98,381
Messages
1,516,090
Members
31,008
Latest member
coker737
Top