MT public late hunts going away?

[Rat Fink]

Am I imagining things, or wasn't the big problem of landowners the last few years that the hunting seasons were too long and they didn't want to see expanded seasons because they were sick of hunters bugging them for months on end? Specifically the last few years they had open to the general public late cow hunts, not the game damage hunts. How quickly the landowners forget and do an about face. Can you say hypocrisy anyone?

 

[Deleted member 20812]

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?

They are either : 1) where folks are too lazy to go get them or 2) behind a locked gate where folks can't get to them.

Or, a combination of 1 and 2.

 

[BuzzH]

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.

Should extending the season in Montana be justified by increasing hunter opportunity and not on doing what's best for the resource?

The late hunts are fine where it can be justified biologically and limited to antlerless harvest only...which, BTW, the commission already had the authority to do prior to this BS shoulder season proposal.

Further the shoulder seasons/late hunts don't do anything to address part 2 of your question. I don't think changing the name of a late hunt to a shoulder season, is going to let any more public hunting take place or encourage any more landowners to allow access.

The myth that the elk are in places on public lands that Montana hunters are too lazy to get to is largely that...a myth. If there are elk on public land, someone is there to hunt them...fact.

 

[Deleted member 20812]

Am I imagining things, or wasn't the big problem of landowners the last few years that the hunting seasons were too long and they didn't want to see expanded seasons because they were sick of hunters bugging them for months on end? Specifically the last few years they had open to the general public late cow hunts, not the game damage hunts. How quickly the landowners forget and do an about face. Can you say hypocrisy anyone?

Kind of funny how history repeats itself, albeit in slightly different patterns.

 

[bigskyblueman]

One longtime wildlife manager was so frustrated with this intractable access to harbored elk, he pondered making entire districts cow only for the whole season, some years ago.He opted not to do so, so as not to ruin the public land hunters' bull hunts.

 

[Ben Lamb]

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

Later snow means migratory herds see less harvest. Case in point is the Rocky Mtn Front. Those elk hang in the Sun River Game Preserve where they are off limits until the weather pushes them out. Sure there are a few animals that move between on accessible public & lands but it's a short window for harvest and getting shorter.

On selecting higher protein forage, you see elk select private land over public land not only during the season, but before and after as well. They're two pieces of the puzzle, and not necessarily the same. Montana has diverse elk habitat, as you know and one solution doesn't fit every application.

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?

In a lot of MT, they appear to be selecting land that is protected from hunting and that has bountiful forage. Does that mean there still aren't a lot of elk on public land? No, but not every hunter is willing to log the miles and put in the sweat equity that Hunt Talkers do. traditionally, the greatest harvest comes in the later part of the season when elk had been down low on the flats and easier to get too. We can make a values judgement on those folks who do this, but I don't see that as helpful in managing critters overall.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Should extending the season in Montana be justified by increasing hunter opportunity and not on doing what's best for the resource?

The late hunts are fine where it can be justified biologically and limited to antlerless harvest only...which, BTW, the commission already had the authority to do prior to this BS shoulder season proposal.

Further the shoulder seasons/late hunts don't do anything to address part 2 of your question. I don't think changing the name of a late hunt to a shoulder season, is going to let any more public hunting take place or encourage any more landowners to allow access.

Right, so we're really arguing about semantics. If the landowner community is willing to follow up with their lobbyists rhetoric and open up land previously off limits, does it matter what we call those hunts?

 

[BuzzH]

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.

I do have a problem with it, even if the public is allowed to be "part of the solution" (defined as killing elk). So, you're fine with early and late hunts that are going to decrease elk populations based on politically motivated harvest objectives(nothing to do with biology), as long as its public hunters that are doing the killing?

Excuse me, while I find a barf bag and try to remember that once upon a time, doing what's best for the resource was actually a priority to sportsmen over "gettin' their elk"...:W::W::W:

 

[BuzzH]

Right, so we're really arguing about semantics. If the landowner community is willing to follow up with their lobbyists rhetoric and open up land previously off limits, does it matter what we call those hunts?

That's one big arsed if...and IME, if there isn't some $$$ or sweet-heart deal for landowners/outfitters (being able to shoot bulls early and late as a hypothetical) I don't think anything is going to change.

 

[tjones]

Its really simple and the solution already exists, its just no one wants to use it. Page 55EMP. Simple.

 

[antlerradar]

Rat Fink, It depends on the landowner. Landowners that are not making money off of wildlife are plenty ready for hunting season to end after 5 weeks. If you are selling hunts the longer the season the better.

 

[Deleted member 20812]

Rat Fink, It depends on the landowner. Landowners that are not making money off of wildlife are plenty ready for hunting season to end after 5 weeks. If you are selling hunts the longer the season the better.

You want to add another 5 weeks, right?

 

[Ben Lamb]

That's one big arsed if...and IME, if there isn't some $$$ or sweet-heart deal for landowners/outfitters (being able to shoot bulls early and late as a hypothetical) I don't think anything is going to change.

I agree it's hypothetical. I also wouldn't support allowing harvest of bulls, especially in LE districts.

 

[----]

Later snow means migratory herds see less harvest. Case in point is the Rocky Mtn Front. Those elk hang in the Sun River Game Preserve where they are off limits until the weather pushes them out. Sure there are a few animals that move between on accessible public & lands but it's a short window for harvest and getting shorter.

You really think we need to be removing more elk than we are annually from areas like the Bob Marshall complex?

 

[antlerradar]

JLS. Just what I need. Another five weeks of calling the game warden.
I would argue that the current five week season is a big part of why Eastern Montana has become so commercialized in the last 25 years.

 

[BuzzH]

I agree it's hypothetical. I also wouldn't support allowing harvest of bulls, especially in LE districts.

So, you would support early and late bull harvest in general areas?

For fun, name me a single general hunting unit in Montana that there is a biological reason to justify early and late bull hunting beyond the current 11 week seasons.

What general units have such a high bull-to-cow ratio that there is justification for 7 month seasons on bulls?

While it still doesn't make sense biologically, it makes more common sense to allow LE bull permit holders to hunt early and late. Bull harvest in those units is already being controlled by LE permits.

 

[Ben Lamb]

So, you would support early and late bull harvest in general areas?

For fun, name me a single general hunting unit in Montana that there is a biological reason to justify early and late bull hunting beyond the current 11 week seasons.

What general units have such a high bull-to-cow ratio that there is justification for 7 month seasons on bulls?

While it still doesn't make sense biologically, it makes more common sense to allow LE bull permit holders to hunt early and late. Bull harvest in those units is already being controlled by LE permits.

I"m not advocating bull hunts in the late/early/shoulder hunts. If the goal is to reduce the elk population, then it's clear you focus on cows. I'd prefer that if we institute late hunts/early hunts/shoulder seasons ,etc that we do it based on the district and the landownership/elk distribution within that district rather than blanket approaches.

My comment was more focused around the equity of LE permit holders to ensure they have the opportunity during the general season. I'm happy to be dissuaded of my original point.

 

[RobG]

I do have a problem with it, even if the public is allowed to be "part of the solution" (defined as killing elk). So, you're fine with early and late hunts that are going to decrease elk populations based on politically motivated harvest objectives(nothing to do with biology), as long as its public hunters that are doing the killing?

Excuse me, while I find a barf bag and try to remember that once upon a time, doing what's best for the resource was actually a priority to sportsmen over "gettin' their elk"...:W::W::W:

I understand what you are saying and would agree if managing elk numbers using carrying capacity rather than social tolerance was an option; however, it isn't at this time. I'm trying to find some constructive comments to make the best out of the options we have.

 

[----]

I understand what you are saying and would agree if managing elk numbers using carrying capacity rather than social tolerance was an option; however, it isn't at this time. I'm trying to find some constructive comments to make the best out of the options we have.

To me, it sure seems like fighting tooth and nail to limit damage control (over harvest) until the EMP can be addressed would be a good method of attack. Just my opinion though.

 

[RobG]

To me, it sure seems like fighting tooth and nail to limit damage control (over harvest) until the EMP can be addressed would be a good method of attack. Just my opinion though.

I'm not trying to be argumentative. I'll interpret this as meaning you (and Buzz) want to fight the harvest of cows to meet social tolerances. Why do you think the option would even be considered? I think you will emerge toothless and nail-less and you will have lost the opportunity to make the result tolerable. However, in light of this I will add that FWP must stress that this is about meeting social tolerances, not carrying capacity. They have made a point of this in the past