MT ELK, Changing it up?

Unlucky said:
Just a suggestion. I would stop killing spike bulls in trophy units. After 5 yrs of no spike killing add some bull tags to be issued out to the set quota. Based off of science.
Click to expand...
There is no science to support this. Ken Hamlin looked into this in the 80s and 90s.
 
brockel said:
“But why can’t we kill cow elk on public land for 6 months straight? How is that pushing elk to private?” Good lord it’s not even worth the energy to try and show them. I wasted part of a morning trying to explain it to a guy. I did finally get through to a friend and he’s flipped a 180 on his stance now
Click to expand...
That’s one. Good job.
 
Big Fin said:
I'm still trying to figure out the logic here. Maybe that is an exercise in futility.

This spring, the Department gave us HB 505, where landowners could sponsor up to 10 hunters if their unit was at objective. We were told that the rationale was for landowners to stay at objective, as once they get above objective HB 505 would no longer allow this liberal use of sponsoring hunters. Supposedly, and incentive for landowner to get more elk killed.

Now, we get this proposal that is based on units that are way over objective. It gives every incentive to keep objectives set at artificially low number and gives no incentive to kill cows, as the units being identified for the new plan are those that are over objective. This new idea lets the real money animals, bulls, get served up to private land hunters without restriction.

So, if the department is looking for landowner incentive to get elk numbers down to objective as we were told with HB 505, why are they proposing this plan that gives landowners every financial incentive to keep number higher and above objective so that they can continue with virtually unrestricted bull elk hunting?

Seems punitive to those landowners who have worked to get elk numbers down via hunting and/or those landowners who have a higher tolerance for elk and thus higher objectives in the unit where they operate. Rather, this proposal gives way more benefit to those who have declined efforts to try manage elk by giving them an unlimited stream of bull elk tags.

Maybe that is a rhetorical question I'm trying to answer, but I'm trying to follow what seems to be a bipolar string of logic between the Department proposals and what the stated rationale is for each.

Here are the some of the ideas I've provided to the Commission and the Director in emails, phone calls, and meetings. I've share the same with some legislators who seem to be focused on elk ideas.

1. Where elk are above objective, give Private Land Only cow tags. Don't cap them. Given all cooperative landowners every chance possible to lower elk numbers.​
​
2. Absolutely no cow elk hunting on public lands, as this only places pressure on the "wrong elk" and habituates elk to move to the private land sanctuaries. Kill the elk that are the problem elk, the ones spending most their time under irrigation pivots. Cow elk lead the herds. Drive them to private land sanctuaries and the entire herd follows. Take pressure off public land cow elk and put that pressure on private land cow elk via #1 above.​
​
3. Shorten seasons for all elk, to include taking them out of the new muzzleloader season. This huge period of pressure only serves to condition elk to find private land sanctuaries and keep them there beyond hunting seasons. This would include getting rid of shoulder season.​
​
4. For those landowners trying to keep numbers down and having to deal with neighbors who provide elk sanctuary during hunting season, give them financial reimbursement from the General Fund. I say General Fund as this problem has nothing to do with hunting, rather how people exercise their property rights. Given these working landowners assistance with fencing, hazing, and whatever else can reward those who are trying to solve the problems.​

I could come up with a lot more, but these four, or at least the first 3, seem would be a much better experiment to try.
Click to expand...
Back to Fin's good ideas. I don't do Facebook.
#1 We already can use an A tag on a cow or a spike and get a B tag for a cow. For most people that is more elk than they are going to eat. On the other hand I see no reason why we couldn't give out just as many private land cow tag as we do mule deer doe tags. One problem is it is not as easy to kill an elk as a mule deer doe. Open day we had a big herd of elk and seven hunters after them. One mistake buy some of the hunters and it was a matter of luck that two cow were taken, could have easily been zero. Killing a cow got much tougher after that. I had to walk in close to a mile and set in the dark for more than a half hour to get the one I shot. I could have shot more elk and given them to the neighbors to the northwest. Sadly many hunters are just not up to the task of filling multiple cow tags.

#2 Absolute must. I would much rather have the cow herds stay on the public. Shoot at them for five weeks and it will not be long and they will be habituated to leave for the safety private as soon as the first rifle shots of opening day in a matter of years.

#3 Pretty much the same as #2. One solution may be to have staggered seasons like WYO. More opportunity to kill elk but less extended pressure on individual elk herds.

#4 Not sure I like the getting money from general fund idea, other landowners probably would. Not sure that long term this would be a good thing for landowner/general public relations. Would definitely limit payment only to landowners that are enrolled an access program.
Fencing and other help related to elk damage would be great, not just materials but labor too. I would not limit this to landowners in an access program, One of the best ways to open up hunting on a ranch is positive interaction between landowners and sportsman during a non hunting situation.

A few of my own. As Fin mentioned, Get rid of shoulder seasons after the general season, No guarantee that the elk killed are the ones causing damage unless they are eating in a hay stack. (better addressed with fencing) All after the season shoulder seasons are mostly there to help landowners that want to deal with a cow problem without interfering with the bull hunting. Before general season cow hunts do have some merit. For example we had big herd of elk on opening day. After hitting them with seven hunters only a fracton were back the next day. Every time the elk came back someone was there to greet them with a rifle. By the second week of the season they were gone for good to some place were they were not getting shot. Only a few lone bulls remained. Cows killed 6, Crops saved 0. The reality is we are pissing in the wind. We just can not kill enough elk to make a difference before they leave with out risking a Ringling type disaster. Montana's season is just too late in the year to be of much use to save any crops. Landowners are left with a choice, learn to live with elk and eat the value of the crops lost or learn to live with elk and off set the loses by leasing out the hunting. To prevent crop damage we need to be hitting them with rifles much earlier, early September would be ideal, but even the dead week between archery and rifle would be an improvement. An added bonus is an early hunt might even push some elk back onto Public for General season.

Rework landowner preference, a few suggestions

Increase the landowner portion of the draw in units that are heavily private land and decrease the landowner portion in units that are heavily public land. This would give landowners more say on who draws a tag in units that mostly private and the public a better chance at a tag in mostly public units.

Give the landowner with more elk more chances in the draw. Currently a landowner with a section of land that winters a half dozen bulls is treated the same as the landowner that has 20 sections and 200 elk year round. Under the current symptom both landowners are allowed only one person in the landowner draw. Fix this by allowing more people from the landowners that provide more elk habitat into the landowner draw. I would cap the number at four or five. We could even allow landowners enrolled in an access program an extra person in the draw. This would give landowners with more elk habitat a better chance that they or a family member/employee would be successful in the draw.

Give preference by the tag, not the species. I live in 799-20 for rifle bull and 900-20 for archery. My brother and I have not used landowner preference in years as we both prefer the 900-20 tag. I don't think it would be much of an issue to allow landowner to use landowner preference for both tags in stead of just for elk.
 
Last edited:
JLS i will look into hamlin. How would suggest to elimate spike hunting in LE units
 
antlerradar said:
Back to Fin's good ideas. I don't do Facebook.
#1 We already can use an A tag on a cow or a spike and get a B tag for a cow. For most people that is more elk than they are going to eat. On the other hand I see no reason why we couldn't give out just as many private land cow tag as we do mule deer doe tags. One problem is it is not as easy to kill an elk as a mule deer doe. Open day we had a big herd of elk and seven hunters after them. One mistake buy some of the hunters and it was a matter of luck that two cow were taken, could have easily been zero. Killing a cow got much tougher after that. I had to walk in close to a mile and set in the dark for more than a half hour to get the one I shot. I could have shot more elk and given them to the neighbors to the northwest. Sadly many hunters are just not up to the task of filling multiple cow tags.

#2 Absolute must. I would much rather have the cow herds stay on the public. Shoot at them for five weeks and it will not be long and they will be habituated to leave for the safety private as soon as the first rifle shots of opening day in a matter of years.

#3 Pretty much the same as #2. One solution may be to have staggered seasons like WYO. More opportunity to kill elk but less extended pressure on individual elk herds.

#4 Not sure I like the getting money from general fund idea, other landowners probably would. Not sure that long term this would be a good thing for landowner/general public relations. Would definitely limit payment only to landowners that are enrolled an access program.
Fencing and other help related to elk damage would be great, not just materials but labor too. I would not limit this to landowners in an access program, One of the best ways to open up hunting on a ranch is positive interaction between landowners and sportsman during a non hunting situation.

A few of my own. As Fin mentioned, Get rid of shoulder seasons after the general season, No guarantee that the elk killed are the ones causing damage unless they are eating in a hay stack. (better addressed with fencing) All after the season shoulder seasons are mostly there to help landowners that want to deal with a cow problem without interfering with the bull hunting. Before general season cow hunts do have some merit. For example we had big herd of elk on opening day. After hitting them with seven hunters only a fracton were back the next day. Every time the elk came back someone was there to greet them with a rifle. By the second week of the season they were gone for good to some place were they were not getting shot. Only a few lone bulls remained. Cows killed 6, Crops saved 0. The reality is we are pissing in the wind. We just can not kill enough elk to make a difference before they leave with out risking a Ringling type disaster. Montana's season is just too late in the year to be of much use to save any crops. Landowners are left with a choice, learn to live with elk and eat the value of the crops lost or learn to live with elk and off set the loses by leasing out the hunting. To prevent crop damage we need to be hitting them with rifles much earlier, early September would be ideal, but even the dead week between archery and rifle would be an improvement. An added bonus is an early hunt might even push some elk back onto Public for General season.

Rework landowner preference, a few suggestions

Increase the landowner portion of the draw in units that are heavily private land and decrease the landowner portion in units that are heavily public land. This would give landowners more say on who draws a tag in units that mostly private and the public a better chance at a tag in mostly public units.

Give the landowner with more elk more chances in the draw. Currently a landowner with a section of land that winters a half dozen bulls is treated the same as the landowner that has 20 sections and 200 elk year round. Under the current symptom both landowners are allowed only one person in the landowner draw. Fix this by allowing more people from the landowners that provide more elk habitat into the landowner draw. I would cap the number at four or five. We could even allow landowners enrolled in an access program an extra person in the draw. This would give landowners with more elk habitat a better chance that they or a family member/employee would be successful in the draw.

Give preference by the tag, not the species. I live in 799-20 for rifle bull and 900-20 for archery. My brother and I have not used landowner preference in years as we both prefer the 900-20 tag. I don't think it would be much of an issue to allow landowner to use landowner preference for both tags in stead of just for elk.
Click to expand...
I really hope you testify. Your position as a 799 landowner and your unique ideas deserve to be heard.
 
Unlucky said:
JLS i will look into hamlin. How would suggest to elimate spike hunting in LE units
Click to expand...
As I recall, his study was in the gravelly range and tobacco roots, and done in the early 90s. Cliff Notes version is, they found little to no benefit in mature bull recruitment by making harvest of spikes illegal.
 
After arguing with a few landowners today on the topic I’m to the point of lets let the biologists come up with a map of the elks home range in each district that is over objective. Lets shut down the shoulder seasons. Let's pull all public grazing permits in those areas within the map that biologists come up with until elk are at objective. Add a couple extra dollars onto each hunting license to make up for the lost revenue. Last year there was 45,800,000 licenses sold so shouldn't take a lot to make up for the lost revenue. That should help get elk down to objective or should help get objective numbers raised. Hopefully keeps the elk on the public side of things being that the better feed will be there. Can be done in these eastern over objective units since there’s really not a wintering range for them.

It would never go through but let’s go to the table asking for everything just as they have. Then let’s find some middle ground. Swing for the fences and be happy with the middle ground
 
Last edited:
For those are looking for data, the link on the FWP site is down for the 2021 Elk Population Report. I called FWP and they emailed it to me. It's attached to this post if you need/want it.
 

Attachments

  • 2021 Montana Elk Counts.pdf
    134.3 KB · Views: 45
sacountry said:
For those are looking for data, the link on the FWP site is down for the 2021 Elk Population Report. I called FWP and they emailed it to me. It's attached to this post if you need/want it.
Click to expand...

It is pretty interesting that such a useful and pertinent piece of information is not publicly available. I would encourage all of you to request this data from FWP even though it is available here, so that in the name of efficiency they make available to the public what should be by default.
 
Nameless Range said:
It is pretty interesting that such a useful and pertinent piece of information is not publicly available. I would encourage all of you to request this data from FWP even though it is available here, so that in the name of efficiency they make available to the public what should be by default.
Click to expand...
It showed up when I searched the MFWP site for it. If I tried to find it by clicking on logical links I'm sure I would end up down some rabbit hole and unable to find it. A lot of links on the site are broken and the search function is circa 1997.
 
Ben, if I read this right FWP and the commission can change season dates to what ever suits them-correct?

Alternatives and Analysis: Season dates may be adopted as proposed, with adjustments, with additions, with deletions, or no change from 2021 (status quo). Because of warmer weather trends, there has been some advocacy to shift the five-week general elk and deer seasons at least one week later. That is shown on the Alternative season dates list, and would result in a two-week “dead week” between the archery-only and general deer/elk seasons, with the exception of the youth hunt days, which are tied to the MEA days. Heritage muzzleloader season would also be shifted a week later because it is tied statutorily to the end of the general big game season. The shift in the general season will result in overlap with the beginning of the mountain lion hound season, which currently starts on Dec. 1, after the end of the general big game season. There has also been a public request that the commission consider a later end date to pheasant season to Jan. 31 (currently ends on Jan. 1).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

R.K.
Habitat improved? Kill more cows!
Replies
14
Views
870
Forkyfinder
F
B
Montana Proposed Black Bear Season Changes
2 3
Replies
45
Views
3K
Deats
D
Big Fin
I-193 to exempt MT Landowners from elk/deer/bear regs
2 3
Replies
59
Views
6K
idahohuntr
idahohuntr
atlas
Thank A BMA Landowner.
Replies
0
Views
636
atlas
atlas
Ben Lamb
FWP adjusts mule deer quotas in response to spring surveys
3 4 5
Replies
93
Views
8K
rogerthat
rogerthat
Yeti GOBOX Collection

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
111,158
Messages
1,949,362
Members
35,061
Latest member
htcooke

Share this page

Back
Top