Montana FWP makes seismic shift in elk permits

[shoots-straight]

We don't have elk in the Root where they never were remember? Picking a unit is not bad thing. mtmuley

It is if it does the opposite of what we need. I feel like a broken record. Picking a unit that's unlimited in permits does nothing but maybe kill more elk there. I know that myself and my son and SIL have only killed one bull in the past decade there. Now we will kill all of our elk there. Where will you hunt? Picking a unit is a ridiculous thing if all it does is Ham strings your attempts to take game in other districts that ease the crowding in that unlimited district.

No we don't have elk where they never were, but we have less access to those elk.

 

[Eric Albus]

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.

There is some merit here. I’ll look at it tomorrow.
We are in a discussion right now forming questions for the mule deer symposium tomorrow at the MOGA convention. Hope a few of you close to Helena can make it. This time it will be very informative. Have biologists from Wyoming coming

 

[Point Creep]

There is some merit here. I’ll look at it tomorrow.
We are in a discussion right now forming questions for the mule deer symposium tomorrow at the MOGA convention. Hope a few of you close to Helena can make it. This time it will be very informative. Have biologists from Wyoming coming

Time to separate deer and elk seasons from being the same. Deer and elk are not the same. Mandatory detailed deer/elk reporting if you want a license in future years - giving professional biologists more concrete data. time to change deer elk seasons statewide to more realistic sustainable durations that don’t crush every living animal on public land. Outfitting industry needs to support overall changes that might not be “convenient” or “simple” for their clients. If that is agreed upon, in the end there will be great improvements.

 

[shoots-straight]

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.

I guess you don't care what the majority of voters in Montana say. They voted that no guaranteed tags should be allocated. You might of missed that for some reason.

Also, Montana is generous in sharing her bounty by giving up too 10% of available tags to NR hunters. Right now though they will give out remaining tags to first come first serve.

The fact that we are at or over objective for elk populations in most districts makes your last paragraph obsolete.

 

[shoots-straight]

Time to separate deer and elk seasons from being the same. Deer and elk are not the same. Mandatory detailed deer/elk reporting if you want a license in future years - giving professional biologists more concrete data. time to change deer elk seasons statewide to more realistic sustainable durations that don’t crush every living animal on public land. Outfitting industry needs to support overall changes that might not be “convenient” or “simple” for their clients. If that is agreed upon, in the end there will be great improvements.

Just an FYI, we already have mandatory reporting. Lions, Bears, Wolves, sheep, Bobcats, Bison, Fisher, Otter, Swift fox, Marten and Paddlefish.


Adding the rest of the available animals in Montana wouldn't take the computer technician very long.

 

[Unlucky]

Has to be some give and take. Meet in the middle. Common ground.

 

[Gerald Martin]

Has to be some give and take. Meet in the middle. Common ground.

I used to think like this. That is until I began to realize that meeting in the middle isn’t necessarily a way to enact good management policies when one side makes unreasonable demands and then wants the other side to come their way.

The more I think about it the less I favor any form of guaranteed landowner tags.

The wildlife of MT is owned equally by the citizens of this state regardless of where it resides on any given day, public or private.

As a principle access to that resource in the form of tags should be allocated according to what is sustainable biologically by the resource and distributed fairly among shareholders.

Private property rights allow landowners to restrict or allow access to public trust resources on their own property as they see fit. Whatever money they can make from access to the resource when it is on their private property is fairly theirs. The burden of bearing the cost of that resource is theirs as well. Should they share access then the cost of that resource should rightfully be shared.

In all the complaints of landowners who want compensation for the cost of wildlife on their property, I have never once heard of an offer to share access fees or money with a neighboring landowner or the public that might have fed a trophy buck or bull on their property or public land before it wandered onto private property and was killed by a paying hunter.

Yet, some of those landowners are asking for compensation for the cost of feeding the public wildlife. That doesn’t make sense to me.

 

[mtmuley]

It is if it does the opposite of what we need. I feel like a broken record. Picking a unit that's unlimited in permits does nothing but maybe kill more elk there. I know that myself and my son and SIL have only killed one bull in the past decade there. Now we will kill all of our elk there. Where will you hunt? Picking a unit is a ridiculous thing if all it does is Ham strings your attempts to take game in other districts that ease the crowding in that unlimited district.

No we don't have elk where they never were, but we have less access to those elk.

The unit I hunt gets pounded pretty hard by guys that hunt further South normally. Especially when weather makes it tough for them in their normal area. mtmuley

 

[antlerradar]

As a principle access to that resource in the form of tags should be allocated according to what is sustainable biologically by the resource and distributed fairly among shareholders.

I can agree with that, But the consequences may be more than many hunters are willing to accept. Take for example my home district of 704. If we are to cut the number of licenses to the point were hunting pressure on the Custer is biologically sustainable, draw odds are not going to be very good. The Custer will receive the apprporate amount of pressure and the private land in the 704 will receive very little. I would love this, but I don't think that this is sustainable politically . Many landowners would be looking for some way to guarantee the odds for there "friends" and many public land hunters will find the draw odds unacceptable. There is going to have to be some way to distribute hunters throughout the unit to improve the draw odds.

 

[Ben Lamb]

There's a race on right now to see who can come up with the first set of suggestions to implement. That's dangerous, folks.

Rather than simply trying solve the problem fast, we need thoughtful & informed debate. We can push all of these ideas out, but without our local biologists helping inform these decisions, I fear we are simply setting ourselves up for more top down, portly informed decisions.

What is needed right now is for folks to take a breath, finish the season setting issue and then focus on the longer term need of reformation.

The agency, NGO's & others are all trying to be the first out of the gate in order to be the predominant voice. That isn't helpful. This isn't a race. It's a conversation that needs time to play out & any product needs to vetted by local biologists, landowners & hunters so we have the best option coming forward.

Otherwise it's just politics as usual.

 

[Unlucky]

Eric albus still u dance around landowner and non resident tags. Best thing to do is be honest and upfront. Everybody should just ask themselves what is the right thing to do. For future hunters, wildlife, pocket book ect. There is a solution. But requires land owners and the public to give up some things and aquire things. Look at it as if it didnt effect u. What is the best thing to do.

 

[Unlucky]

Geral martin agree with u. Landowners take advantage of everythinh. Elk, deer objectives are social tolerance and competition with cattle. Social tolerance being landowners. Landowners that don't allow public hunting in general season. My thought is if they don't allow hunting then no government help. No blm or forest service grazing. No game damage. Nothing. Cant get the milk for free. My opionon fwp and landowners have created this problem along with public hunting pressure. Makes sense they all need to fix it.

 

[Unlucky]

Fwp mismanagement, private greed, and the public kills everything. Maybe some rules which would become laws should be inplace.

 

[Gerald Martin]

I can agree with that, But the consequences may be more than many hunters are willing to accept. Take for example my home district of 704. If we are to cut the number of licenses to the point were hunting pressure on the Custer is biologically sustainable, draw odds are not going to be very good. The Custer will receive the apprporate amount of pressure and the private land in the 704 will receive very little. I would love this, but I don't think that this is sustainable politically . Many landowners would be looking for some way to guarantee the odds for there "friends" and many public land hunters will find the draw odds unacceptable. There is going to have to be some way to distribute hunters throughout the unit to improve the draw odds.

I know my idea is a bit simplistic but I guess when I am speaking of only allowing as many tags as the herd can biologically sustain I am not considering the difference between public and private.

For example, if unit 704 has 3500 deer unit wide and biologists have determined that a 10% harvest of the herd is the maximum that is biologically sustainable then 400 tags would be issued to factor in success rates. Mandatory reporting of harvest would allow for accurate tracking and would allow biologists make more informed decisions to tweak numbers as necessary.

Hunter distribution and pressure is always going to be higher on public land. For most folks it’s the easiest way to access the resource.

Private lands with various levels of restricted access will always tend to attract more wildlife as they seek sanctuary from hunting pressure or are attracted to better food sources.
There are always going to be a segment of hunters who are willing to pay for access to deer and elk on private property. If the landowner is able to negotiate a price for access to his property that allows him to net more profit that that wildlife costs him then good for him. But, he also bears the full cost of bearing the burden for feeding a public resource.

The individual needs or wants of each private landowner are too varied for FWP to ever implement unit wide management strategies that are biologically sound and in harmony with every landowner’s preferences. It is FWP’s responsibility to ensure the health of the herd. It is the individual landowner’s responsibility to navigate between the legal parameters FWP has set, cost of wildlife/benefit of wildlife.

MT’s current strategy of allowing widespread general areas and allowing hunters to self regulate their distribution is no longer sustainable. It may have been before information about more desirable areas was easily accessible and hunters were more mobile in traveling to various areas and more efficient in their harvest.

But now, that model is the equivalent of having a huge pack of wolves in a area that devours itself out of prey and then moves on to another area that still has prey. Once an area falls below the number of deer and elk that can sustain predation and maintain a stable population it can take decades for those herds to rebound.

We are seeing it all across central and eastern MT.

That’s one of the reasons I scoff at the hatred some people have towards wolves and lions. They hate the pressure that other predators put on the resource but can’t see their mentality towards wildlife is even more destructive when the cumulative effects are considered.

If I were king, there would be a three year moratorium on all hunting and a complete restructuring of FWP management strategies.

 

[Gerald Martin]

Geral martin agree with u. Landowners take advantage of everythinh. Elk, deer objectives are social tolerance and competition with cattle. Social tolerance being landowners. Landowners that don't allow public hunting in general season. My thought is if they don't allow hunting then no government help. No blm or forest service grazing. No game damage. Nothing. Cant get the milk for free. My opionon fwp and landowners have created this problem along with public hunting pressure. Makes sense they all need to fix it.

Some landowners take advantage. Some landowners are incredible stewards and their management policies are beneficial to all shareholders even if they don’t allow access.

The biggest problem I see now is that there is a minority of landowners who are incredibly vocal and politically connected who are advancing their strategies for privileged access to public trust resources without consideration of the consequences to other shareholders.

 

[Unlucky]

Yes agree. Kinda like 454 program. U would think some of these things would go to public comment first. Huh

 

[Eric Albus]

I used to think like this. That is until I began to realize that meeting in the middle isn’t necessarily a way to enact good management policies when one side makes unreasonable demands and then wants the other side to come their way.

The more I think about it the less I favor any form of guaranteed landowner tags.

The wildlife of MT is owned equally by the citizens of this state regardless of where it resides on any given day, public or private.

As a principle access to that resource in the form of tags should be allocated according to what is sustainable biologically by the resource and distributed fairly among shareholders.

Private property rights allow landowners to restrict or allow access to public trust resources on their own property as they see fit. Whatever money they can make from access to the resource when it is on their private property is fairly theirs. The burden of bearing the cost of that resource is theirs as well. Should they share access then the cost of that resource should rightfully be shared.

In all the complaints of landowners who want compensation for the cost of wildlife on their property, I have never once heard of an offer to share access fees or money with a neighboring landowner or the public that might have fed a trophy buck or bull on their property or public land before it wandered onto private property and was killed by a paying hunter.

Yet, some of those landowners are asking for compensation for the cost of feeding the public wildlife. That doesn’t make sense to me.

This is the attitude that has kept Montana

There's a race on right now to see who can come up with the first set of suggestions to implement. That's dangerous, folks.

Rather than simply trying solve the problem fast, we need thoughtful & informed debate. We can push all of these ideas out, but without our local biologists helping inform these decisions, I fear we are simply setting ourselves up for more top down, portly informed decisions.

What is needed right now is for folks to take a breath, finish the season setting issue and then focus on the longer term need of reformation.

The agency, NGO's & others are all trying to be the first out of the gate in order to be the predominant voice. That isn't helpful. This isn't a race. It's a conversation that needs time to play out & any product needs to vetted by local biologists, landowners & hunters so we have the best option coming forward.

Otherwise it's just politics as usua

Agree completely. This can be fouled up with the usual knee jerk reaction.

 

[Eric Albus]

Eric albus still u dance around landowner and non resident tags. Best thing to do is be honest and upfront. Everybody should just ask themselves what is the right thing to do. For future hunters, wildlife, pocket book ect. There is a solution. But requires land owners and the public to give up some things and aquire things. Look at it as if it didnt effect u. What is the best thing to do.

I don’t dance.
I don’t like the thought of landowner tags, but it may be the only incentive to open up private land to get elk to objective.
Come up with a better incentive plan to a landowner.

 

[Unlucky]

Bill: More elk tags for hunter-friendly landowners — Montana On The Ground

A bill proposed by the Private Land Public Wildlife council would up the incentive for landowners to allow members of the public to hunt on their land. With landowners pressuring Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks to control elk populations that are over FWP objectives, the agency needs to find

www.montanaotg.com

 

[Unlucky]

Landowners should get elk tags. Up for debate on how many. Elk objective numbers are what landowners influence. If it were uo to the public it wouldnt exist. A better plan is give the public those cards of elk objective numbers. My guess private landowners making a living off of cattle would allow hunting yr round