Montana General Season Structure Proposal

[cgasner1]

I disagree if they find those private lands with better quality forage they aren’t going back to public.

So by your logic this shouldn’t have any effect on rifle elk since they will have been pushed in after 6 weeks of archery. So no I guess it won’t make hunting worse in western mt at all

 

[BuzzH]

Does anyone feel that this will make rifle elk hunting worse in western MT?

Would be just about impossible to make it worse.

 

[golfer]

So by your logic this shouldn’t have any effect on rifle elk since they will have been pushed in after 6 weeks of archery. So no I guess it won’t make hunting worse in western mt at all

I didn’t speak to if the hunting would be worse in western MT. I said elk aren’t going to magically leave better forage and much less pressured private just because the structure is changed up.

 

[cgasner1]

I didn’t speak to if the hunting would be worse in western MT. I said elk aren’t going to magically leave better forage and much less pressured private just because the structure is changed up.

They might move when guns start whacking cows on private. Elk seem to have a way of figuring out where the fence lines are. If a landowner uses that or not who knows.

 

[golfer]

They might move when guns start whacking cows on private. Elk seem to have a way of figuring out where the fence lines are. If a landowner uses that or not who knows.

That will be dependent imo on how much the landowner is tolerant of elk. One or two shots and not really pushing them off their place cause they know they can bring $$$ the next day.

 

[cgasner1]

That will be dependent imo on how much the landowner is tolerant of elk. One or two shots and not really pushing them off their place cause they know they can bring $$$ the next day.

It’s hard to speculate any of it because each herd is different. Also if the neighbor never allowed any hunting and that’s the next stop anyways it never mattered.

 

[WanderWoman]

Both points accurate.

I disagree if they find those private lands with better quality forage they aren’t going back to public.

They might move when guns start whacking cows on private. Elk seem to have a way of figuring out where the fence lines are. If a landowner uses that or not who knows.

From an elk-only standpoint the effect of any change will be largely dependent on what happens on the private. It’s one thing to reduce pressure on public land, but there is undoubtedly going to be something that pressures elk off public—hunters, weather, forage, elk just being elk, etc. Even if you made cow elk hunting only valid on private land, you still have people pursuing bulls in public.

Similarly, it will take pressure on private to move elk back to public, and that depends on how many elk a given landowner wants (or doesn’t) on their land. There’s always variation and “it depends,” but for an animal prepping itself for winter and trying not to move unless it has to, it has to be given a reason to move. Easing pressure off an area elk have already left might not be enough; they need that reason to go.

Nowadays even landowners that want elk killed still take steps to keep elk on their lands during the season to better facilitate harvest and pressure how they see fit—taking hunters out themselves, using suppressors so the elk stay on their lands to be managed, etc. The notion of pushing elk around and across boundaries to facilitate better management, while it should still be effective, is only effective if access is consistent across a broad area of landownerships, and is getting less and less used with the vast diversity of landowners and management styles we see more often today.

 

[Deleted member 56631]

So by your logic this shouldn’t have any effect on rifle elk since they will have been pushed in after 6 weeks of archery. So no I guess it won’t make hunting worse in western mt at all

If only people knew how many elk aren’t on private land. Oh well.

 

[Forkyfinder]

So by your logic this shouldn’t have any effect on rifle elk since they will have been pushed in after 6 weeks of archery. So no I guess it won’t make hunting worse in western mt at all

I think direct/in-direct preasure is different.

Im also sure rifles cause more pressure than archery. At the end of the day - this isnt something im near as passionate about (relative to archery). But theres a lot who are - and - this is the feedback the group should hear. If i was on the committee - to be frank - this wouldnt be something thatd be major priority.

@BuzzH hitting my posts with laugh reacts is a nice bonus.

 

[Forkyfinder]

Similarly, it will take pressure on private to move elk back to public, and that depends on how many elk a given landowner wants (or doesn’t) on their land.

Exactly.

And from what i can observe - the quantity of private land with an "elk problem" that a landowner is trying to solve is meager compared to where they are a means of profit.

To be clear - theres nothing wrong with private landowners profitting from wildlife. The issue i have - pretending the first group is widespread and the second isnt.

 

[mtmuley]

They might move when guns start whacking cows on private.

This does not always happen. mtmuley

 

[Forkyfinder]

Would be just about impossible to make it worse.

Thats a valid point. Theres probably not much worse it could get. Bulls getting indirect rifle pressure while cows have a safe haven during the late part of the rut does seem relevant.

I know if i was a landowner id let the cows stack up in october, sell the bulls off in november, and solve my problems via landtrust or if they were eating forage i needed - open it up to public hunting.

Again - i see pros/cons to the proposal. Im not trying to poop on it. Just wanting to discuss.

 

[BuzzH]

I think direct/in-direct preasure is different.

Im also sure rifles cause more pressure than archery. At the end of the day - this isnt something im near as passionate about (relative to archery). But theres a lot who are - and - this is the feedback the group should hear. If i was on the committee - to be frank - this wouldnt be something thatd be major priority.

@BuzzH hitting my posts with laugh reacts is a nice bonus.

Archery pressure is every bit, if not more impactful than rifle hunting. Elk are moving onto, and staying on private earlier and earlier every year. Been seeing it my whole life.

I can tell you that the 2 week gap between archery and rifle in the general areas I hunt in Wyoming absolutely allows elk to move back onto public. Short rifle seasons also work very well keeping elk on public.

Something Montana will never know with 12 weeks of constant pressure.

 

[Forkyfinder]

Archery pressure is every bit, if not more impactful than rifle hunting. Elk are moving onto, and staying on private earlier and earlier every year. Been seeing it my whole life.

More and more archery pressure, every year, will do that. Doesnt mean its nearly as impactful as rifle pressure.

 

[BuzzH]

Both points accurate.




From an elk-only standpoint the effect of any change will be largely dependent on what happens on the private. It’s one thing to reduce pressure on public land, but there is undoubtedly going to be something that pressures elk off public—hunters, weather, forage, elk just being elk, etc. Even if you made cow elk hunting only valid on private land, you still have people pursuing bulls in public.

Similarly, it will take pressure on private to move elk back to public, and that depends on how many elk a given landowner wants (or doesn’t) on their land. There’s always variation and “it depends,” but for an animal prepping itself for winter and trying not to move unless it has to, it has to be given a reason to move. Easing pressure off an area elk have already left might not be enough; they need that reason to go.

Nowadays even landowners that want elk killed still take steps to keep elk on their lands during the season to better facilitate harvest and pressure how they see fit—taking hunters out themselves, using suppressors so the elk stay on their lands to be managed, etc. The notion of pushing elk around and across boundaries to facilitate better management, while it should still be effective, is only effective if access is consistent across a broad area of landownerships, and is getting less and less used with the vast diversity of landowners and management styles we see more often today.

A lack of pressure on public will keep elk on public.

Its a recent thing to see elk roasting their asses off in a hayfield in September rather than be on a cool north slope in the timber, and its not just because they like to eat alfalfa. Elk hate the sun, just don't hate it as much as having an arrow stuck in them.

 

[BuzzH]

More and more archery pressure, every year, will do that. Doesnt mean its nearly as impactful as rifle pressure.

Yes, it does. In particular if the goal is to kill/control elk numbers.

Number 1, archery hunters very rarely kill cows. 2. They push them off public early and rifle hunting success tanks on public. Tough to kill on public, when bowhunters have them pushed onto private before rifle starts.

In case archery hunters weren't aware, you don't control elk numbers killing bulls.

 

[Forkyfinder]

In case archery hunters weren't aware, you don't control elk numbers killing bulls.

Thered have to be a legitimate issue with population for me to be interested in that. Especially considering i can shoot a cow until the damn superbowl. Why would anyone in the first weapon season, other than limited time, or wanting to get an arrow wet, would be a mystery.

 

[WanderWoman]

A lack of pressure on public will keep elk on public.

Its a recent thing to see elk roasting their asses off in a hayfield in September rather than be on a cool north slope in the timber, and its not just because they like to eat alfalfa. Elk hate the sun, just don't hate it as much as having an arrow stuck in them.

I mean, yes and no. All things being equal when you look at habitat quality, private lands tend to be more productive (better soils, milder topography, lower-elevation). I get that’s a generalization and there are exceptions but even so, say out in the breaks even a lot of the BLM lands are the steep coulees while the bigger, flat benches are predominantly private with more grass or even better (seasonally), crops. Harkens back to the Homestead Acts and where settlers thought the best places to eke out a living were. River bottoms, lowlands, etc. are the best places for humans and critters alike.

And the question of what actually constitutes a lack of pressure—something realistic to set by seasons and land use but measurable in it means a damn to an elk?

Not poo-pooing anyone’s ideas but I think it’s a lot more complicated than just reducing the number of archery hunters or rifle hunters on public lands. It should help but is it enough to get a measurable impact on either management success, hunt quality, or opportunity?

 

[Gerald Martin]

Exactly.

And from what i can observe - the quantity of private land with an "elk problem" that a landowner is trying to solve is meager compared to where they are a means of profit.

To be clear - theres nothing wrong with private landowners profitting from wildlife. The issue i have - pretending the first group is widespread and the second isnt.

I’m not sure who is pretending anything regarding the early antlerless elk portion of our proposal.

That season is not going to be carte blanche general license cow killing on private land across the entire state.

It will be implemented in harmony with the permit/license quotas and elk objectives of each hunt unit. Some units will have more liberal opportunity than others just like under the current structure.

No one is pretending that some landowners won’t monetize access just like they currently do during general and shoulder seasons. Cost of access is a landowner prerogative. Some will use this season as an opportunity to harvest and move unwanted elk from their property with free hunting. Some will use this season as an opportunity to sell access.

The intent of this early season is to provide opportunity/tools to shift cow elk harvest on private land rather than on public land as a means of keeping elk within population objectives. It’s also intended to put that pressure before general season as a way of reducing the need for late post season shoulder seasons.



We believe and hope there will be ancillary benefits to public access to elk during general season as a result of early cow elk hunts moving elk off of the pressure points on private back towards public. This is not going to be spread evenly across the state due to local conditions and private access.

Currently, there are significant areas of the state where 6 weeks of archery pressure moves elk from public to private. Those elk are generally still on private when general rifle opens.

Currently, in the areas where a significant portion elk elk are in relatively inaccessible properties, a significant portion of a units population reduction to meet unit objectives takes place on public rather than private. It results in the “wrong” elk getting harvested and exacerbates the difficulty of keeping units within objective.

Based on the effects of current season structure I see far more potential for positive change for public hunters with our proposed early private antlerless cow harvest than I do negatives. Some folks may not see it that way. If our projections are incorrect then folks can certainly point out the reasons why our proposed structure would be worse than the current structure. However, keep in mind the comparison is between what is currently and our proposed changes. Not between our proposal and what folks want to see in their envisaged perfect scenario.

 

[BuzzH]

I mean, yes and no. All things being equal when you look at habitat quality, private lands tend to be more productive (better soils, milder topography, lower-elevation). I get that’s a generalization and there are exceptions but even so, say out in the breaks even a lot of the BLM lands are the steep coulees while the bigger, flat benches are predominantly private with more grass or even better (seasonally), crops. Harkens back to the Homestead Acts and where settlers thought the best places to eke out a living were. River bottoms, lowlands, etc. are the best places for humans and critters alike.

And the question of what actually constitutes a lack of pressure—something realistic to set by seasons and land use but measurable in it means a damn to an elk?

Not poo-pooing anyone’s ideas but I think it’s a lot more complicated than just reducing the number of archery hunters or rifle hunters on public lands. It should help but is it enough to get a measurable impact on either management success, hunt quality, or opportunity?

It surely makes a significant difference in Wyoming, which, by and large, is no different than the same areas I hunt in Montana.

The major difference is Wyoming only allows 30 days of archery hunting, a 14 day break, and then a 15 day elk rifle season.

Elk stay on public land year round when they aren't pounded flatter than a pancake for 12+ weeks straight...intuitively obvious even to a casual observer.