MT public late hunts going away?

[Deleted member 20812]

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.

FWP has a legal obligation to keep elk numbers within population objectives. They don't legally have an obligation to count elk that are harbored on private land. They can legally completely restrict the hunting of bulls in order to focus hunting pressure on antlerless elk.

They should either work within the friggin' EMP, or else just shitcan it right now. As I said earlier it's BS to try and pick and choose which parts of the plan to use.

Bull hunters have plenty of time to hunt, they don't need more. I don't care if it's a LE hunt or not. Lengthening the season just means you'll end up issuing fewer permits in the future. That's stupid.

 

[RobG]

JLS - I agree with the last sentence and I think it will be important for EVERYONE to write in and at least demand that any hunt be limited to cows.

As for the rest I guess I'm a pragmatic. We could, for example, demand that harbored animals not be counted toward the objective; however since the objectives are based on tolerance they will just be lowered by the amount of harbored animals. Don't you think so? I freely admit I don't know much about the details of the EMP.

 

[tjones]

Montana Elk Management Plan 2005
page 55


5. 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.

 

[RobG]

Montana Elk Management Plan 2005
page 55


5. 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.

OK, it is there in black and white, but if you don't include them wouldn't they just lower the objective by that amount? As a practical matter it doesn't seem important but I might not understand something.

 

[BuzzH]

Under what authority would "they" lower the herd objectives defined in the EMP?

 

[Deleted member 20812]

OK, it is there in black and white, but if you don't include them wouldn't they just lower the objective by that amount? As a practical matter it doesn't seem important but I might not understand something.

It's entirely important. If your objective is 1k elk, and you are at 2k in the district, you are 1k elk over objective and Debbie Barrett mandates you must fix that. If you have 1k of the elk on private ranches, inaccessible to the unwashed public, then by the plan you may exclude those from your counts. i.e. instead of the district having 2k elk, it officially has 1k elk for management purposes. You would then revert to the season structure that is appropriate for being at objective.

In a nutshell, the 1k elk that aren't accessible don't get piss pounded for 5 weeks while the other 1k elk live the entire rifle season in their refuge.

 

[BuzzH]

Come on JLS, RobG would just say, as long as public hunters kill the entire 1K elk that are accessible to the pubic...we're fine. Hunters would have solved the problem with those pesky public land elk, and now the landowners (who haven't seen a drop in their harbored herd), will suddenly not whine about those elk. After all, those elk are now at objective.

As sarcastic as I'm being...that's is EXACTLY what has happened in a lot of hunting units already. The MTFWP sets quotas based on the total population, rather than the accessible/huntable population. The accessible elk are either already dead or forced onto private within a couple days of the opener. Harbored elk numbers either increase or remain unchanged.

Hunters that forsake everything for opportunity, are their own worse enemy.

While I somewhat agree with Ben Lamb that habitat changes have caused some of the harboring problem, I believe a bigger piece of that problem is a direct result of Debby Barrett and the EMP. The main reason the EMP is failing is because, just like you and others have stated, there is a massive amount of cherry-picking going on to how its being applied. The MTFWP screwed up big-time by choosing to include harbored elk in population objectives...bad move. By not utilizing the tools found in the EMP to their advantage, they sold Montana's elk, as well as their own ability/authority to manage huntable elk...right down the river.

 

[RobG]

Come on JLS, RobG would just say, as long as public hunters kill the entire 1K elk that are accessible to the pubic...we're fine. Hunters would have solved the problem with those pesky public land elk, and now the landowners (who haven't seen a drop in their harbored herd), will suddenly not whine about those elk. After all, those elk are now at objective.

Buzz, in as much as it is possible, could you quit being such a dumbass jerk for once? That is not at all my line of thought.

JLS - I think I'm getting the jist of why. Thanks.

 

[RobG]

Montana Elk Management Plan 2005
page 55


5. 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.

I'm going to also bump this up since the comments are due Monday as noted in the other shoulder hunt thread.

Regarding tjones's quote, it does say "may" not "shall" but it seems like a good idea to request that those animals be removed from the objective.

Also, request that the comment period be extended again.

I'll be in the sticks until Sunday night so see you then.

 

[bigskyblueman]

FWP does not have the staff or budget to administer a 7 month, rolling elk season. That is one of the reasons FWP abandoned late hunts and the A-7 previously. As such, ranch staff would end up controlling these hunts. While randomness and fairness to the public hunter is certainly relevant, pummeling the elk herds based on ginned -up objective numbers for that length of time is the worst potential result. The fiction that there are too many elk is just that, fiction.

 

[shoots-straight]

I'm going to also bump this up since the comments are due Monday as noted in the other shoulder hunt thread.

Regarding tjones's quote, it does say "may" not "shall" but it seems like a good idea to request that those animals be removed from the objective.

Also, request that the comment period be extended again.

I'll be in the sticks until Sunday night so see you then.

Your right Rob, but if you hold their feet to the fire, you can take away the" may", portion and demand they keep elk on the public lands.

We did and were going public with the information which would have been somewhat embarrassing.

Some Sportsman are already working this. http://www.montanaotg.com/blog-nati...r-bitterroot-swan-and-flathead-fork-districts

 

[RobG]

Getting ready to hit the road, but have time for a question. If you had only one comment what would it be?

I think requiring the public to have equal chance at participating in any shoulder hunts is a priority. It is the only fair way to accomplish the stated goals as it is not in the best interest of hunters to reduce elk numbers, especially to levels based on social tolerance of a few, not biological carrying capacity. Not giving the public an equal chance will only encourage more privatizing for profit of wildlife.

Looking forward to the comments when I get back.

 

[Straight Arrow]

In my opinion, the most disconcerting aspect of this proposal is the strong potential of the program evolving into the precursor to "Ranching for Wildlife".
However it may be implemented, I think it will serve only to exacerbate the issues between hunters and landowners, something FWP initiatives are supposedly attempting to resolve.There is a likelihood that it will diminish the support of me and other hunters who have heretofore strongly supported FWP.
If it does include trophy bull elk hunting on private land to extend the seasons for commercial outfitters, then FWP will have clearly crossed the "line in the sand" with respect to viable wildlife management.

 

[Nameless Range]

I think the biggest issue is the option allowing for the public to not have the equal opportunity of management. Allowing landowners to "choose" who is involved in management hunts feels like an ugly cousin of landowner tags - something we sure as hell do not want in Montana.

Also, why they hell would bull elk be included in management hunts? Especially if the landowner is choosing the hunters.

 

[BuzzH]

Several big problems with shoulder seasons. Seven months of hunting is out of line. Allowing landowners to pick ANY of the hunters is out of line. Allowing bull elk hunting prior to or after the 11 week general seasons in out of line. Its allowing the Legislature to control hunting seasons. Its creating essentially a RFW program in Montana. It has the potential to reduce bull-to-cow ratios in many areas that absolutely do not have an over-abundance of bulls.

No upside that I can see, unless your goal is to reduce elk herds even more, that are already well below the biological carrying capacity of the land.

 

[RobG]

Hi Folks, comments for the hunt roster changes are due today. Please tell MFWP that the landowner should not be able to bypass the hunt roster to supply his own list of hunters. There is nothing to prevent him from charging to be on this list, and this is the another step towards privatizing our elk.

Here is what I wrote:

Regarding the proposed amendment of ARM 12.9.804, 12.9.804A, 12.9.805 and 12.9.1101:

1) I agree in principle that the ARMs can be improved to make elk reduction hunts more effective, however the language enabling the hunt roster to be summarily BYPASSED in favor of several other options, including a list supplied by the landowner, is unacceptable.

These hunts are provided as a service to agricultural interests to reduce elk populations. Thus it is a win for agricultural interests and a loss for elk hunters who would prefer abundant elk. In the past the hunters have been compensated for this loss by being offered an opportunity to participate in these hunts. This change in language would take from the hunters and give to a comparatively few select large landowners. That is not fair to the people who provide the majority of the funding to MFWP.

2) I understand the reason for bypassing the roster is because many of the hunters aren’t successful for a variety of reasons including not being able to show up quickly and not being prepared for a difficult hunt. In these cases it may be desirable to allow 25% of the participants to be obtained from sources other than the hunt roster (e.g. those described in proposed 12.9.804A (3)) provided:
a. Certain criteria for lack of success using the hunt roster enrollees are met. For example, a success rate of less than 33%. These criteria must be CLEARLY SPELLED OUT in the ARMs.
b. The 25% needs to be defined clearly in the ARMs. It should mean that for every 3 hunters drawn from the hunt roster, one can come from the landowner supplied list.
c. Under no circumstances can the landowner list include people who have provided payment to the landowner to hunt on his land. This includes paying to hunt the land during the general season. If paying clients want to hunt the land they can put their names on the hunt roster.
d. Only when the hunt roster is exhausted can the landowner provide a complete list.

3) Landowner supplied lists are a step in the road to privatizing our wildlife. The landowner provided lists are effectively landowner tags. At the public hearing Alan Charles said that there is nothing to prevent the landowner from choosing the list participants based on how much they pay. In other states “Ranching for Wildlife,” where access is provided for a fee out of reach for most sportsman, is a problem. Currently tags for Colorado, Nevada, Utah, New Mexico, Arizona, and Oregon can be found on Ebay and other sites, many with starting bids over $2000.

There was an attempt in Idaho to allow the sale of landowner tags the last legislative session and it won’t be long before the Montana Legislature attempts the same thing. These changes will lay down the groundwork for selling landowner tags.

Furthermore, landowner tags are not conducive to reducing elk populations. We must not open the door to these by allowing the landowner to choose who can hunt while operating under the guise of supporting agriculture with late season hunts.

4) Under no circumstances should bull hunting be allowed. This is counter to the mission of reducing elk populations.

5) MFWP needs to do more to educate the public on which hunts are difficult, and also where more applicants are needed.

6) These comments apply to the proposed changes for both the game damage hunts and the game management hunts.

 

[bigskyblueman]

41 elk and deer damage and management hunts ongoing , Aug 24th. Looks like the 7 month hammer season has already begun.

 

[RobG]

Today (Aug 28th) is the last day to comment on the proposed shoulder season. At least mention no bull hunting. Also not including elk in the management objective if they are harbored on private land as allowed by page 55 of the elk management plan. Non-residents should comment too as these are your elk and this plan will teach elk that public land is unsafe, causing them to stay on private lands that don't allow hunting, or are outfitted.

The BHA comments have some good points to use.

 

[katqanna]

I sent my comments in yesterday afternoon, WITH the documentation to back up the reasons why. I never use the form, no paper trail or guarantee it got there. After seeing examples of comment intercepts and missing comments from people that had blind carbon copied me or forwarded their comments, I dont trust the system, so I email the fwpcomm@ mt.gov address for the public record part, but I email each commissioner my comments to make sure they get them.

My comment made it to each commissioner, but bounced back from FWP, saying it was too large. I separated the map, sent that separately and the mail pdf comment still came back. So I split it in two and one of the sections came back again. I called Helena and asked for an email that could handle some data. Since they have to receive academic papers, maps, charts, photos, etc. from agencies and other biologists, surely they have to have emails that will handle more megabytes than they are allowing the commissioner comments to receive? THe woman who answered the phone asked Kujula, who told her I could burn it to a CD and mail it, they would accept it even though it would arrive after the comment deadline. Not willing to risk the snail mail and such, I broke it down again, so I had to send my comment in 4 parts to get the maps, charts, science, etc to the commissioners on this complex subject - including the documents for the process that HD 270 had to go through to utilize pg. 55 of the EMP to not count harbored elk.

This begs the question, if FWP is not providing this type of data to the commissioners, and the public is having to step in the gap to make sure this kind of information is on the public record and in the commissioners hands, they are further limiting/capping the public's ability to advocate by limiting the electronic process. Good thing I did not wait to the very last minute and after business hours.

Someone brought up a very good question last night. They were asking me about the elk brucellosis lawsuit, which is still on file. They asked if that lawsuit basis was applicable to "shoulder seasons" because of the elk brucellosis program not being in the elk management plan, which MCA states Title 87 -1-301 (J) FWP Commissioners requirements shall comply with, adopt policies that comply with, and ensure the department implements in each region the provisions of state wildlife management plans adopted following an environmental review conducted pursuant to Title 75, chapter 1, parts 1 through 3. (Last Statewide Elk Management Plan 2004).

PG. 56 of the EMP states:
1) FWP will complete strategic and six-year plans for fish, wildlife and parks programs to clarify public expectations, allocate resources and define a common direction for FWP and our partners.

I called Helena to find out when the last time the Game Damage and Block Management programs last had that done. They are looking that up for me.

Also, on pg. 61 it states,

"Although FWP intends to manage elk within the framework of a 5-week general season, where game damage criteria apply, all EMUs have the option of special early seasons, an extended general season, or special late seasons. However, seasons outside the 5-week general season framework are not intended to be solutions where outfitting, other paid hunting, or land totally closed to hunters or with severely restricted access compromises general public access during the general 5-week season."

This paragraph is exactly what this elk shoulder season is all about.

 

[RobG]

Kat - maybe things have changed. When I submitted my comments on the ARM changes via the website I got an email back right away confirming they got my comments. It also included my comments. I wish the legislature comment page would do the same thing.

However, the website doesn't appear to have a way to send attachments.

I create my comments using Microsoft Word and copy/paste them into the website submission window.

[edit... never got a confirmation on my comments submitted via the website so I sent them to [email protected], which bounced]