It's a cabinet level appointment, so it's at the Governor's discretion.
MT - Changes in Hunting Regs/Units/Seasons coming this month
- Thread starter Big Fin
- Start date
It's a cabinet level appointment, so it's at the Governor's discretion.
SAJ-99
Well-known member
Doing what you are told and trying to BS your way through it.
Bambistew
Well-known member
Are private land elk included in the population objectives? I thought they were excluded for some reason, maybe I'm misremembering.
What is stopping a private group from doing an aerial spot check on populations? I think it would be very interesting to see the difference in totals. Make it transparent, and use a proven method. Do the feds do counts in the CMR for instance?
There is no way that harvest rates can be as low as they've become and there be as many elk as claimed, can there? I would think that the very first thing that needs to be verified before any sort of management is done
What is stopping a private group from doing an aerial spot check on populations? I think it would be very interesting to see the difference in totals. Make it transparent, and use a proven method. Do the feds do counts in the CMR for instance?
There is no way that harvest rates can be as low as they've become and there be as many elk as claimed, can there? I would think that the very first thing that needs to be verified before any sort of management is done
rogerthat
Well-known member
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2015
- Messages
- 2,652
That looks just like Kujala at the meeting last night. LMAO
Wind Gypsy
Well-known member
- Joined
- Mar 12, 2017
- Messages
- 1,821
It's more about being "accessible" than public vs private. Applicable language from the Elk Management Plan:
4. Elk populations in portions of some EMUs may be almost entirely inaccessible to
hunters during the general hunting season or accessible to only a few hunters. To
avoid over-harvest of accessible elk on public lands or private lands open to
hunting, the inaccessible elk may not be included in objective numbers. Trend
count number objectives may include only elk normally accessible to general
hunting (if they are a distinct segment), though hunter access negotiations will
continue. Elk occupying these “refuges” may be counted separately where
practical (if they are a distinct segment) and sub-objectives established that could
be operative if access negotiations are successful. If significant harvest of these
“refuge” elk is possible with special management at some times and locations,
they should be included in objective levels.
But FWP doesn't implement this.
Only in HD270
Wind Gypsy
Well-known member
- Joined
- Mar 12, 2017
- Messages
- 1,821
Of course not. They aren't mandated to manage towards objective so strictly that it could risk upsetting political allies.
lifeisgoodsteve
Well-known member
Wow, State Senator Brad dropped the big bomb!!
Wind Gypsy
Well-known member
- Joined
- Mar 12, 2017
- Messages
- 1,821
Ha, Verbal testimony?
LopeHunter
Well-known member
NM at one time had an arrangement where a landowner could qualify for X tags to use as wanted including selling but Y tags were then issued through the draw. Shenanigans arose where public draw hunters were sent to less desirable parts of the private land mass with crappy hand-drawn maps though access to the private land mass was required. NM F&G would sometimes re-locate a public hunter if animals were not being located on the assigned private land. I do not support special tags including landowner tags, auction tags, raffle tags, outfitter tags, etc. though NM was getting public hunters onto otherwise closed private lands with $0 paid in trespass or outfitter fees.
MTHunter1321
Well-known member
Just pissed they didn’t approve his crossbow BS
lifeisgoodsteve
Well-known member
Of that, and many things, I am ignorant. I've seen this before though, that it takes such a tidal wave of almost unanimous testimony to simply slow or curb political decisions. People can rally a certain number of times until serious fatigue sets in.
I guarantee that we can not sustain such efforts without some real shifts in strategy.
We know the debate is not the surface reasons quoted and thankfully some folks called it out.
Is there a realistic path to taking politics out of these decisions?
If a citizen initiative could be drafted to make a difference, it seems that while so many are fired up, now would be the time to hustle up and get it going. Just my very non-expert .02
Yep
Carnage2011
Well-known member
So what did they decide after the comments? I’m stuck in meetings and can’t listen.
Nope. Politics, contrary to some "tiresome" players, it's the created reliance for one side's fix of another side's f-ups.
Sad... pretty darn extreme swing of events at the expense of Montana's supposed conservation efforts.
Worsech has really placed his head on a platter and will insulate Jersey G.
Ugly scene. It didn't become this setting over one administration. However, this one has swung the extremes a new distance.
Bambistew
Well-known member
How do you mean?
Do they include private land elk in their management goals?
I just don't see a fix to MT elk management in my lifetime. Its been on-going for 30+ years. Too many landowners hate them and too many want to make money off them, and too many want to keep them all for themselves. Since they don't reside on private/public land 100% of the time, there will never be a working solution that makes everyone happy.
I just find it extremely odd that 30 years ago we had 140-150,000 elk and had success rates in the 25-30% range. Today we're at 15-20%, but supposedly have 140,000-150,000 elk... longer seasons, more liberal bag limit (spike/cow on A tag, etc.) I just wasted 10 minutes trying to find historic population counts for MT with no luck, and dead end links to FWPs web page.
I'm just way too skeptical of population counts and have been forever. MT just thumb-sucks the population and harvest, then uses that to base management decisions. If you have basically the same number of hunters and the success is half... Pretty sure this is the guy in charge of population counts.
