MT public late hunts going away?

[antlerradar]

RobG, Good explanation of how Mt got to this point and what the issues are. I add one more factor into the mix. In recent years there has been a big increase in wealthy out of state interests buying up large ranches. Many of these owners could care less about wild life management. This makes it very difficult for FWP to meet population adjectives. An extended season will do little to mitigate this.

I can support an extended season to remove problem cows. I can even support giving participating landowners the ability pick a small percentage of the cow hunters. Some landowners likely have family and friends that like elk steaks. An extended season for bulls is just a way for landowner to make money off of elk that likely spend much of there life on public and winter on private. I can not support this.

 

[mtmander]

The FWP has to 'manage' the elk populations , public and private land has to be included in their plans. If a landowner does not want to be included in the FWP plans then that landowner should not receive any public assistance.

 

[BuzzH]

The FWP has to 'manage' the elk populations , public and private land has to be included in their plans. If a landowner does not want to be included in the FWP plans then that landowner should not receive any public assistance.

The FWP can choose to exclude harbored elk in their management recommendations according to the EMP.

They rarely do this, and IMO, that's one of the main reasons for the following problems:

1. The MTFWP looks a the population of elk in a given unit and bases desired cow harvest on a total population of elk, including elk that very few, if any hunters have access to. That puts a lot of pressure on accessible elk and IME, those elk are over-harvested.

2. The harbored elk are never hunted.

3. Over-issuing antlerless permits also puts so much pressure on accessible elk that they are pushed onto private where the harboring problem is made even worse.

What the MTFWP should do, instead of proposing 7 month long elk seasons, is to mange elk in every hunting unit as 2 distinct herds. The elk that reside primarily on public land and the elk that reside primarily on private. Antlerless elk tags should be either valid for private land or public, but not both. Management and antlerless elk tags should be based on the huntable population of elk on both private and public land.

For a classic example of what happens when unfettered/high antlerless tags are good unit wide, look no further than the Bitterroot. The elk on public land took an absolute ass-kicking, while the harbored elk were rarely, if ever hunted.

This shoulder season proposal is an absolute joke. How the MTFWP can look sportsmen in the eye, and make the claim that there is a need to harvest bull elk in MT for 7 months via this shoulder season, is astounding. Further its a slap in the face to sportsmen and the wildlife they are charged with managing. If I were in charge of wildlife in Montana, there would be some last paychecks and road maps distributed to the brain trust that thinks the shoulder seasons are a good idea.

 

[kansasdad]

Morgan and I agree ^^^^

 

[onpoint]

Insightful thoughts Buzz, thanks. Although the wording may express too much confidence in knowledge of subject matter for some............

 

[Lawnboy]

For a classic example of what happens when unfettered/high antlerless tags are good unit wide, look no further than the Bitterroot. The elk on public land took an absolute ass-kicking, while the harbored elk were rarely, if ever hunted.

Same thing in the Madison Valley.

 

[antlerradar]

BuzzH makes way too much sense. His idea will never be considered

 

[Nameless Range]

Thanks Rob and Buzz. This idea seems worse the more it is discussed.

 

[Straight Arrow]

This idea seems worse the more it is discussed.

That is why many of us continued to send messages to legislators during the recent session expressing our opposition. Unfortunately, many others seemed to say, "What's the harm? Let them have one bill passed."

 

[RobG]

Comments by BHA
http://backcountryhunters.org/index...-to-fish-wildlife-commission-shoulder-seasons

Fish and Wildlife Commission
1420 East 6th Ave
Helena, Montana 59620


Dan Vermillion, Chairman, and Commissioners:


We are commenting on the proposal to establish shoulder seasons for big game hunting prior to and after the general hunting season, in an attempt to reduce elk populations to elk number objectives established in the 2005 Elk Management Plan. Our organization is concerned how changes in the current season structure affect Montana hunters on our public lands. Most of our members do not have privileged hunting on private lands, outside of those lands enrolled in Block Management.


A shoulder season proposal has many issues, as follows:



Elk Management Objective numbers were established a decade ago. These numbers were not based primarily on habitat capability to sustain specified numbers of elk, but rather based largely on landowner’s tolerance for elk on their property. In addition, these numbers were established before it became profitable and widespread to harbor elk on private properties . The trend is more elk protected on private lands with limited hunting. Free public access to hunt elk on private land has substantially diminished. Restricted private land elk hunting either through trespass fees or though outfitted hunting skews elk distribution toward private lands. It is appropriate that the current elk management plan be revised segregate that portion of elk living largely on private land from elk living largely on public lands.



Establishment of any shoulder seasons that includes public lands puts additional pressure and harvest on those often diminished elk populations remaining on public land. Through such skewed public land harvest, we are reinforcing elk behavior to select for the relative security of private lands. Therefore we object to harvest of elk during shoulder seasons that will adversely affect future elk populations on public lands unless the habitat capability on public land in that EMU is exceeded. From page 55 of the 2005 Elk Management Plan: “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.”



We believe shoulder seasons could conflict with existing seasons, particularly archery elk season on public lands. For this reason, we object to elk shoulder seasons allowing rifle hunting during the 5 week archery season on public lands.



We object to any shoulder seasons that might occur in August, as elk calves are very strongly attached to their mothers. One of our members attest that a calf will stay at its mother’s gut pile for several days when killed in August. Hunters certainly should not be part of a scenario where elk calves remain at a gutpile or dead elk.



Any shoulder season designed to reduce elk populations must be limited to antlerless harvest only. Antlerless harvest is, of course, the most direct way to reduce elk populations. In addition, many EMUs already are near or below desired bull-cow ratios. Any additional bull harvest not only adversely affects this ratio, but also creates a situation where landowners or outfitters have further reason to manipulate the fairness or democratic process in the general public having a fair and equal opportunity to hunt.



Any shoulder season must be confined to private lands that have been generally accessible to all hunters during the general season. There needs to be an improved definition of “reasonable access" to assure the selection of hunters in a shoulder season is democratic, and not favoring a select few. Some of our members have found that too many landowners are claiming they allow the public to hunt, but it is rather just limited to their friends or family.



We believe the proposal to create shoulder seasons has many issues as discussed above. Any shoulder season should incorporate the above sideboards. In almost all EMUs where numbers are above objectives, the real issue is insufficient hunting access to private lands. The shoulder season concept should be blended with achieving long term public access to elk residing on private lands, while assuring public land elk and public land elk hunting opportunities are not compromised.

Sincerely,

Greg L Munther
Co-chairman, Montana Backcountry Hunters and Anglers

 

[DAVIDKERR]

keep an eye on the farm bureau.they probably have their mitts into this. mn. hunting is a mess from what understand. waterfowl hunting down big time.

 

[Deleted member 20812]

How the MTFWP can look sportsmen in the eye, and make the claim that there is a need to harvest bull elk in MT for 7 months via this shoulder season, is astounding. Further its a slap in the face to sportsmen and the wildlife they are charged with managing. If I were in charge of wildlife in Montana, there would be some last paychecks and road maps distributed to the brain trust that thinks the shoulder seasons are a good idea.

The EMP also provides for the utilization of cow only on a general tag, and bulls via limited permit in a unit that is/has been over objective and antlerless elk harvest is consistently inadequate.

To my knowledge, no one has had the stones to implement this yet.

 

[Ben Lamb]

The EMP also provides for the utilization of cow only on a general tag, and bulls via limited permit in a unit that is/has been over objective and antlerless elk harvest is consistently inadequate.

To my knowledge, no one has had the stones to implement this yet.

While it's in the plan, the political backlash would be immediate and severe if they did this.

Landowners and outfitters would come unglued and we'd eventually see more bills to erode commission authority since our legislature fancies themselves game managers instead of policy crafters.

 

[1_pointer]

While it's in the plan, the political backlash would be immediate and severe if they did this.

Landowners and outfitters would come unglued and we'd eventually see more bills to erode commission authority since our legislature fancies themselves game managers instead of policy crafters.

Maybe do it and use that at the excuse/catalyst to re-write the EMP. Silly to have something in a plan that you never plan on using.

 

[Nameless Range]

Landowners and outfitters would come unglued and we'd eventually see more bills to erode commission authority since our legislature fancies themselves game managers instead of policy crafters.

Part of me has problem with the idea that we need to tread lightly for fear of backlash and ill will. The ill will is already there, and will come regardless. The legislature isn't acting out because they didn't get their way.Certain players act out because it is inherent in who they are and what they belive. Do we have any reason to think otherwise?

 

[Deleted member 20812]

While it's in the plan, the political backlash would be immediate and severe if they did this.

Landowners and outfitters would come unglued and we'd eventually see more bills to erode commission authority since our legislature fancies themselves game managers instead of policy crafters.

Sure it would, and it only serves to further illustrate the hypocrisy by which some folks operate. The "objective numbers" in the plan are great to try and leverage FWP to cater to special seasons. They are not good enough though, to justify going to a cow only season with bulls by special permit only.

Some people want it both ways, let's use part of the plan to our benefit, but ignore the rest. If the alternative season structures aren't an option, scrap the whole damned plan and let's use some real numbers that are based upon habitat and carrying capacity.

It's horseshit no matter how you paint it.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Part of me has problem with the idea that we need to tread lightly for fear of backlash and ill will. The ill will is already there, and will come regardless. The legislature isn't acting out because they didn't get their way.Certain players act out because it is inherent in who they are and what they belive. Do we have any reason to think otherwise?

Maybe. We went from over 200 bad critter bills in 2013 to less than 60 in 2015. A lot of that has to do with the power of the sportsmen's lobby, the agency's outreach but it also has to do with a more concentrated effort by the "bad guys" to go after specific line items in budgets that accomplish their goal - starve the agency, defund access and create a situation where privatization is viewed more favorably since the agency isn't operating as needed. So yes, there will always be some people who don't like public hunters, access and wildlife as a public resource. I don't think that's our goal though - to remove any bad guys or bad bills - but to improve elk management. Focusing on revamping the elk plan has been talked about since it was implemented, yet it's not happening. So let's focus on what we can achieve today while working towards making FWP more comfortable with a new elk plan.

While we were mostly successful in beating back the bad budget items and bills, I don't know that next session won't see the return of the massive influx of negative bills. We, as a community, have an opportunity to present a vision of what shoulder seasons could look like, including a prohibition on use on public lands (like the 004-00 tag) and making it focused on private lands where there is an actual over-abundance of elk, and try to get landowners to open up their lands to public hunting as required by administrative rules and statute if they want to receive the benefit of the state's help in managing those critters.

 

[Oak]

We, as a community, have an opportunity to present a vision of what shoulder seasons could look like, including a prohibition on use on public lands (like the 004-00 tag) and making it focused on private lands where there is an actual over-abundance of elk, and try to get landowners to open up their lands to public hunting as required by administrative rules and statute if they want to receive the benefit of the state's help in managing those critters.

Eliminating bull harvest from the proposal.....

 

[Ben Lamb]

Sure it would, and it only serves to further illustrate the hypocrisy by which some folks operate. The "objective numbers" in the plan are great to try and leverage FWP to cater to special seasons. They are not good enough though, to justify going to a cow only season with bulls by special permit only.

Some people want it both ways, let's use part of the plan to our benefit, but ignore the rest. If the alternative season structures aren't an option, scrap the whole damned plan and let's use some real numbers that are based upon habitat and carrying capacity.

It's horseshit no matter how you paint it.

It's human nature, especially in politics and wildlife management. Everyone is looking out for their own interest. Luckily, we have an agency that's pretty open in terms of planning and seeks input from a wide variety of user groups and citizens.

I'm all for redoing the EMP. If you want to see that, then you need to be talking to your commissioner as well as the agency folks. That doesn't help increase harvest in districts that are severely over objective now, though. Does it?

 

[RobG]

While it's in the plan, the political backlash would be immediate and severe if they did this.

Landowners and outfitters would come unglued and we'd eventually see more bills to erode commission authority since our legislature fancies themselves game managers instead of policy crafters.

I may not understand what you are saying, but think they may be already doing it. 393 is cow only the last week and the southern crazies have been cow only except by permit for several years. Both are tough to find access and I wonder if that is to discourage outfitting... don't know. But the way FWP is switching directions I wonder how that will last.

I'm up for a CI to outlaw outfitting beyond the general season .