MT public late hunts going away?

[Ben Lamb]

Eliminating bull harvest from the proposal.....

I'm ok with that. Most of the districts this would be implemented in are LE districts anyway.

I'd also be ok with using MCA 87-2-513 as a template for season setting outside of the general rifle season: http://leg.mt.gov/bills/mca/87/2/87-2-513.htm

 

[Ben Lamb]

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 .

If the state discourages a licensed, commercial activity, I think you'd see not only legislation, but lawsuits related to discrimination. And I think the state might lose if the outfitters can paint the picture that licensing is punitive.

There are several districts that have this kind of hybridized season, but they still allow some bull harvest.

 

[----]

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.

Not exactly what you are talking about, but look at unit 212 to see something similar, mainly in response to an elk harboring issue. From what I hear, the first year looks like it had very promising results.

 

[----]

I'm ok with that. Most of the districts this would be implemented in are LE districts anyway.

I'd also be ok with using MCA 87-2-513 as a template for season setting outside of the general rifle season: http://leg.mt.gov/bills/mca/87/2/87-2-513.htm

Curious how you know what units this would be implemented in? Are you just thinking units that are above objective? If so there's a lot of general units that fall into this group.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Curious how you know what units this would be implemented in? Are you just thinking units that are above objective? If so there's a lot of general units that fall into this group.

It's an educated guess based on the proponents of the shoulder seasons and those who have shown up on the issue both at the commission and at the legislature. The majority of those are the folks in the LE Archery permit bundled districts.

 

[1_pointer]

. 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.

Does the community not also have an opportunity to present a vision of no shoulder season?

 

[bigskyblueman]

The objective numbers are the highest number of elk the landowners are willing to live with, nothing more.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Does the community not also have an opportunity to present a vision of no shoulder season?

Of course. Just as certain segments have the opportunity to bring forward privatization schemes.

Do either of those presentations do anything to bring sportsmen and landowners together or better elk management?

 

[1_pointer]

Of course. Just as certain segments have the opportunity to bring forward privatization schemes.

Do either of those presentations do anything to bring sportsmen and landowners together or better elk management?

You appear to be hinting that this is a foregone conclusion and the best way forward is to make shoulder season as palatable as possible. I personally don't think a shoulder season is needed. Seems to be plenty of tools in the box to manage elk.

 

[Ben Lamb]

You appear to be hinting that this is a foregone conclusion and the best way forward is to make shoulder season as palatable as possible. I personally don't think a shoulder season is needed. Seems to be plenty of tools in the box to manage elk.

Not my intent. Just talking out loud about how it could be structured. There are a lot of folks on both sides of this issue in the hunting community and I think there is value in looking at extending the season or instituting shoulder seasons if folks can find the path forward.

As we've seen in recent years, we're not getting the overall harvest we'd like in some areas. That leads to a lot of perceived and real issues with elk numbers overall.

Personally, I don't have a problem with extending a season or calling it a shoulder season or whatever. So long as it's done how I want it.

 

[BuzzH]

The objective numbers are the highest number of elk the landowners are willing to live with, nothing more.

Exactly right.

Its ridiculous to discuss ways to meet unrealistic harvest objectives, with elk objective numbers defined with no science or biological reason behind them,...to fulfill an obligation to a plan that's been severely flawed from day one.

We're using that kind of logic to "justify" a shoulder season...sorry, but I ain't buying.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Exactly right.

Its ridiculous to discuss ways to meet unrealistic harvest objectives, with elk objective numbers defined with no science or biological reason behind them,...to fulfill an obligation to a plan that's been severely flawed from day one.

We're using that kind of logic to "justify" a shoulder season...sorry, but I ain't buying.

Is it the name that makes it difficult? What if we framed in the light of expanding hunter opportunity beyond the 5 week season?

Like it not, climate change is affecting how we manage wildlife. Extending the season could help with that.

 

[----]

Is it the name that makes it difficult? What if we framed in the light of expanding hunter opportunity beyond the 5 week season?

Like it not, climate change is affecting how we manage wildlife. Extending the season could help with that.

Just curious, who is the we you mention?

Extending the season doesn't move elk on to public land. I'd love to find the place where elk are actually, scientifically a nuisance on public land in Montana.

 

[Oak]

Like it not, climate change is affecting how we manage wildlife. Extending the season could help with that.

Can you expound on this piece of bait you have thrown out twice now, and how it specifically affects the shoulder season proposal?

 

[Ben Lamb]

Just curious, who is the we you mention?

Extending the season doesn't move elk on to public land. I'd love to find the place where elk are actually, scientifically a nuisance on public land in Montana.

we as in everyone.

Not working this for anyone in any shape, form or fashion. I'm mostly just an interested party having been subjected to the elk archery fight for the last 8 years.

 

[RobG]

Exactly right.

Its ridiculous to discuss ways to meet unrealistic harvest objectives, with elk objective numbers defined with no science or biological reason behind them,...to fulfill an obligation to a plan that's been severely flawed from day one.

We're using that kind of logic to "justify" a shoulder season...sorry, but I ain't buying.

I agree, but it is unrealistic to think that is going to change in the near future. I don't have a problem with the concept of early/late hunts as long as the general public has an equal chance to be part of the solution. Otherwise it is just taking opportunity from the public and giving it to the folks who want to privatize our wildlife.

 

[The Hedgehog]

Climate change?

 

[Nameless Range]

. I'd love to find the place where elk are actually, scientifically a nuisance on public land in Montana.

...

 

[Ben Lamb]

Can you expound on this piece of bait you have thrown out twice now, and how it specifically affects the shoulder season proposal?

Sure. We've seen traditional weather patterns become erratic, primarily as it relates to snow in the late season. We also are understanding better why elk are selecting irrigated fields down low over public lands up high (hint, it's about the protein). Combined, we're looking at new situations where the traditional 5 week season might need to be looked at and expanded based on the harvest, or lack thereof. That, in many districts isn't leading to the harvest that the game managers are either shooting for, or legislatively mandated for.

While I absolutely agree we need a new elk management plan, that's a 4-5 year effort and doesn't do much to bring FWP inline with current statutes. I'm also thinking it's time we end the mess that HB42 created, but we can only do that in 2017 when the legislature meets next.

Until then, how do we as a hunting community respond to the concerns of landowners (real or imagined) while ensuring that public hunting remains the primary tool for wildlife management?

 

[Oak]

We've seen traditional weather patterns become erratic, primarily as it relates to snow in the late season.

We also are understanding better why elk are selecting irrigated fields down low over public lands up high (hint, it's about the protein).

How do the two items above work in concert to create low elk harvest?

Combined, we're looking at new situations where the traditional 5 week season might need to be looked at and expanded based on the harvest, or lack thereof.

The elk surely must be someplace during the 5 week season where they can be harvested. They don't leave the state or go to a park, do they?