Montana FWP makes seismic shift in elk permits

Trial153

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 4, 2016
Messages
2,869
Location
New York
When most of the pie is already on your plate and your already are getting the lions share, there is no reason to increase the size of of the pie because your getting your fill already.
Transferable LO tags without changes in population objectives and without increasing access will allow Landowner have their cake and eat it too. Say goodbye to the little leverage you had.
 

antlerradar

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 23, 2012
Messages
2,556
Location
SE Montana
As an agricultural landowner, tell me what your opinion is on this idea. Currently in units like 621 in the Breaks, they offer permits that are valid for the entire district, and permits that are only valid off the CMR. We could use this same model in units that are primarily private land like the former 900 districts (which average 75% private). Offer some permits that are valid for the entire district (both public and private) and offer some that are only valid on private land (Not landowner or transferrable tags, they would have to be drawn the same as every other permit). This would help to put more hunting pressure on private land, where most of the elk are. This could help displace elk to public land. It would also lessen pressure on public land so public hunters would have a better hunting experience. The reduced pressure on public could make public land more desirable to elk. People who have access to private would likely apply for the private land only permit because they would have better odds to draw. The percentages of each permit type could be adjusted based on amount of private and public, and also by how far over objective the elk population is. In the current system when elk are over objective, we just throw more permits at the problem and it results in the public being more crowded and often less elk being killed. Our local biologist pointed out that when rifle permits were increased in 417, the hunter success actually went down. I think a structure like this could result in more elk being harvested while making a more quality hunt for everyone.
I think that this could work, but I think that the draw odd on the public portion would be dismal. Most people would put in for the public tag first and the ones with access to private would likely be able to draw the private tag second choice. This is what I would do.
I think that a better solution is rework the unit boundaries so that land owner ship in the unit is more consistent. Kind of like how politicians draw voting districts. Some units would be heavily public and others would be heavily private and only a few would be a mix of both. There is always going to be some private land that fits into the public units and some isolated public land in the private units. For example, Why is FWP including unit 702 with 704?The is very little accessible public in 702 and the Custer is in 704. Combining the two all but guarantees that some people that have access to land in 702 will not have a tag and that the Custer is going to be over hunted. For that matter why is 704 so big? The northern part of 704 has relatively little accessible public and the southern part which contains the Custer has quite a bit of accessible public. @Gerald Martin is getting at the root of the problem when he talks about FWP relying on hunters to distribute pressure themselves. Maybe that worked in the 70's but it doesn't work today. As long as FWP continues to rely on the law of diminishing returns to regulate hunting pressure there is going to be issues.
I understand that by drawing up units like this, the odds on the mostly public units would not be good, but unlike were you have just a public and a private unit the public hunter would not be out of luck if they did not draw. My bet is that the public hunter could pick up a mostly private unit second or third choice. Granted they would have to hunt a small isolated bit of public or get in line on some BM ranch but you would still get to hunt most years, just not your first choice unit.
 
Last edited:

SAJ-99

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 5, 2019
Messages
2,408
Location
E Washington
I have brought that up to FWP manager and received a bullshit answer. We are friends, so I let it go.
Seems like that is the person you can call “bullshit” on. You can pull justifications from previous years and see the bio’s descriptions of where the elk live. This paragraph is completely ignored by FWP leadership. I would love to hear an explanation on why we are not thinking about it correctly.
 

MTelkHuntress

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 20, 2019
Messages
568
Location
Montana
I've also asked about that inaccessible elk objective question. I've gotten 3 different answers.

"How do we know those elk are inaccessible?"

"When I'm counting, it's really hard to determine land boundaries and I don't know if those elk are on private land. "

"Well, there was actually an amendment to that plan so now we just count all elk towards the objective because it's easier."

Interesting stuff. I mean I understand parts of Montana are heavily forested and in some units, the elk have no choice but to winter on private land since the fields available on public are so small (and are over grazed) but there has to some different solutions regarding objectives.
 

Irishman

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 27, 2017
Messages
167
Location
Kalispell, Montana
This is poking at the Big Elephant in the room that nobody wishes to wake.

With our current political leadership in place, does anyone think our Elk Objectives will be better for sportsmen, or rigged more towards the privatizers wanting control of our resources?
We all know, or at least should, that it will be more in favor of the privatizers, than the Sportsman. However, we are stuck with this leadership now. I'm guessing that if there is a huge public uproar, that the blame will get deflected onto FWP, and not the governor and his appointed commission who are actually steering the ship. I'm weary of the whole public comment period, and figure that the only comments that have any influence, will be the ones in line with their agenda.
 

SAJ-99

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 5, 2019
Messages
2,408
Location
E Washington
"How do we know those elk are inaccessible?"
Because they are on private land.
"When I'm counting, it's really hard to determine land boundaries and I don't know if those elk are on private land. "
So youre in a plane without GPS capabilities? Seriously? I am skeptical. Sure, I will accept that we have to guess a little. But can we agree that the elk tend to run to areas of less pressure (private)? I mean, just because the herd lost its bearings and drifted 40yrs onto public does not mean they should be counted. If your assumption is they spend equal amounts on public and private (not an assumption anyone would agree to) then I can see how you got there. Not to mention flights are done outside of hunting season, so who the hell knows how or where to count them.
"Well, there was actually an amendment to that plan so now we just count all elk towards the objective because it's easier."
Completely agrees with my previous point that it is hard. Is there actually an amendment? That seems like BS , but I saw enough MT politics to know they may have snuck that in somewhere.

Good stuff @MTelkHuntress. Not responding to you as much as to the arguements. I have heard some of the same. No one wants to defend their arguments.
 

Treeshark

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 14, 2014
Messages
571
Location
Wisconsin
"When I'm counting, it's really hard to determine land boundaries and I don't know if those elk are on private land. "

This is another area where manditory reporting would help. It could just be a simple question in the survey: “Did you shoot your elk on public or private?”

I am aware that some people will always lie in these surveys, but it would serve its purpose on a macro level.

It doesn’t really matter how many/where the elk are counted during their flyovers unless they are done during the hunting season. This is a cheap and easy way to obtain that data.
 
Last edited:

Ben Lamb

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 6, 2010
Messages
16,805
Location
Cedar, MI
I think that this could work, but I think that the draw odd on the public portion would be dismal. Most people would put in for the public tag first and the ones with access to private would likely be able to draw the private tag second choice. This is what I would do.
I think that a better solution is rework the unit boundaries so that land owner ship in the unit is more consistent. Kind of like how politicians draw voting districts. Some units would be heavily public and others would be heavily private and only a few would be a mix of both. There is always going to be some private land that fits into the public units and some isolated public land in the private units. For example, Why is FWP including unit 702 with 704?The is very little accessible public in 702 and the Custer is in 704. Combining the two all but guarantees that some people that have access to land in 702 will not have a tag and that the Custer is going to be over hunted. For that matter why is 704 so big? The northern part of 704 has relatively little accessible public and the southern part which contains the Custer has quite a bit of accessible public. @Gerald Martin is getting at the root of the problem when he talks about FWP relying on hunters to distribute pressure themselves. Maybe that worked in the 70's but it doesn't work today. As long as FWP continues to rely on the law of diminishing returns to regulate hunting pressure there is going to be issues.
I understand that by drawing up units like this, the odds on the mostly public units would not be good, but unlike were you have just a public and a private unit the public hunter would not be out of luck if they did not draw. My bet is that the public hunter could pick up a mostly private unit second or third choice. Granted they would have to hunt a small isolated bit of public or get in line on some BM ranch but you would still get to hunt most years, just not your first choice unit.

Lots to agree with here. 70 % of the state is private land, however & my concern would be whether or not the elk would follow those district lines and how allocation remains equitable for all.
 

Eric Albus

Well-known member
Joined
May 24, 2012
Messages
1,201
Eric albus my thought on u and moga bringing a wy bio for mule deer in mt is this. There is a man named, will call him james cox kennedy and a few others that own ranches in central mt. What i hear is they managing for mule deer. Dont be so dumb. My friends are right about u.
I do not hide behind an anonymous internet moniker.

You choose to do so.

You make it sound as if”your friends” know me, since you don’t /won’t identify yourself perhaps you’ll identify them? A simple phone call will do, I am easy to find.
 

Unlucky

Active member
Joined
Dec 10, 2021
Messages
163
I was told by a senior member on this forum that unanimty is a real plus on this forum. Ya not gonna happen identifying some guides, outfitters, fwp personnel.
 

rogerthat

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 29, 2015
Messages
646
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+%.
Willing to change? The only change I am seeing on the table is screwing up elk hunting. I personally can’t wait for this director and administration to be a distant memory. Frankly they suck
 

Eric Albus

Well-known member
Joined
May 24, 2012
Messages
1,201
Come up with solutions rather than complaints.

My best guess is that the drastic changes suggested to elk hunting was just a way to get people to start thinking about what changes are needed.

If we leave seasons status quo that are not working, expecting them to suddenly start, is by definition insanity.
 

neffa3

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 17, 2015
Messages
7,430
Location
Wenatchee
Eric, you've said a lot of thoughtful things on this topic. But those three comments are not any of them.
Come up with solutions rather than complaints.
There have been pages and pages of them.
My best guess is that the drastic changes suggested to elk hunting was just a way to get people to start thinking about what changes are needed.
WTF kind of logic is that? Hold a gun to the head of sportsman so they talk about changes?
If we leave seasons status quo that are not working, expecting them to suddenly start, is by definition insanity.
They are certainly working better than what is being proposed, that's not insanity, the real. There's not hardly a single damn thing being proposed that would make anything better.

“But are there not many fascists in your country?"
"There are many who do not know they are fascists [large, wealthy, Montana land owners] but will find it out when the times comes [for new wildlife management proposals].” - Hemingway

 

406LIFE

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 18, 2016
Messages
3,068
Come up with solutions rather than complaints.

My best guess is that the drastic changes suggested to elk hunting was just a way to get people to start thinking about what changes are needed.

If we leave seasons status quo that are not working, expecting them to suddenly start, is by definition insanity.
Agree with all the above. My conversations with the Director are very much in this line. With the exception of a few (including @Big Fin ) my conversations with sportsmen have been almost all in the complaint side and strikingly little in the solutions side. The result is one side frustrated with the direction taken and the other pushing ahead with ideas offered (if mostly theirs). Region 2 season setting comments are a good example of this. Prior to Mike Thompson's retirement, I asked him if there were more or less comments thus far in relation to past season setting periods. He said it was up, but just barely.

It is important for all sides to be involved, collaborating, and genuinely working towards solutions. Nearly all the meetings I attend with FWP and public comment is asked for, there isn't any. You don't have to be in appointed position to have impact. You do need to know who is sitting at the table and how to communicate effectively with them.
 

tjones

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 9, 2009
Messages
4,199
Eric, you've said a lot of thoughtful things on this topic. But those three comments are not any of them.

There have been pages and pages of them.

WTF kind of logic is that? Hold a gun to the head of sportsman so they talk about changes?

They are certainly working better than what is being proposed, that's not insanity, the real. There's not hardly a single damn thing being proposed that would make anything better.

“But are there not many fascists in your country?"

"There are many who do not know they are fascists [large, wealthy, Montana land owners] but will find it out when the times comes [for new wildlife management proposals].” - Hemingway

This hits the nail on the head. Blaming hunters for not coming up with solutions to problems created by the directors office is just silly.
 

rogerthat

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 29, 2015
Messages
646
Agree with all the above. My conversations with the Director are very much in this line. With the exception of a few (including @Big Fin ) my conversations with sportsmen have been almost all in the complaint side and strikingly little in the solutions side. The result is one side frustrated with the direction taken and the other pushing ahead with ideas offered (if mostly theirs). Region 2 season setting comments are a good example of this. Prior to Mike Thompson's retirement, I asked him if there were more or less comments thus far in relation to past season setting periods. He said it was up, but just barely.

It is important for all sides to be involved, collaborating, and genuinely working towards solutions. Nearly all the meetings I attend with FWP and public comment is asked for, there isn't any. You don't have to be in appointed position to have impact. You do need to know who is sitting at the table and how to communicate effectively with them.
I have come up with boatloads of solutions and submitted them in comments. So have a whole slew of other people. That line is getting old. The fact that the proposals being advanced are so out of touch, propose solutions to problems that don’t even exist, actually have innuendos and agendas that are not being verbalized. That is the problem and not how you solve problems. This whole process has been garbage and we are going to get a garbage result from this. These are facts
 

rogerthat

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 29, 2015
Messages
646
Agree with all the above. My conversations with the Director are very much in this line. With the exception of a few (including @Big Fin ) my conversations with sportsmen have been almost all in the complaint side and strikingly little in the solutions side. The result is one side frustrated with the direction taken and the other pushing ahead with ideas offered (if mostly theirs). Region 2 season setting comments are a good example of this. Prior to Mike Thompson's retirement, I asked him if there were more or less comments thus far in relation to past season setting periods. He said it was up, but just barely.

It is important for all sides to be involved, collaborating, and genuinely working towards solutions. Nearly all the meetings I attend with FWP and public comment is asked for, there isn't any. You don't have to be in appointed position to have impact. You do need to know who is sitting at the table and how to communicate effectively with them.
Also if you talk to the director tell the dumb bastard to listen to his biologists and quit pulling crap out of his ass.
 

Forum statistics

Threads
100,406
Messages
1,587,486
Members
31,513
Latest member
Bluetix
Top