MT shoulder season decision...
- Thread starter RobG
- Start date
Chucknduck
Member
I see they are planning on slaughtering most of the mule deer in the state along with the elk.
Chucknduck
Member
Comments sent and will be attending the public meeting. Who puts these public meeting on?? Are there members of the commission there?
Kneetopia
Active member
Done, thanks for the link.:W:
RobG
Well-known member
The comment link had a link to the meeting schedule. Here it is.
Nameless Range
Well-known member
Someone made facebook comment on one of the Montana newspapers that I thought was a good point, and I will pursue researching it.
It needs to be made clear what the success rate in the HDs where shoulder seasons will occur has been in the past few years, if that data is available. Because where shoulder seasons are going to occur, we may initially see success rates be comparable or higher due to the fact that the hunting season will be twice as long, but ultimately, once those districts are at "objective", we can expect success rates in those HDs to plummet compared to what they have been the past few years. I anticipate that to be eye opening.
It needs to be made clear what the success rate in the HDs where shoulder seasons will occur has been in the past few years, if that data is available. Because where shoulder seasons are going to occur, we may initially see success rates be comparable or higher due to the fact that the hunting season will be twice as long, but ultimately, once those districts are at "objective", we can expect success rates in those HDs to plummet compared to what they have been the past few years. I anticipate that to be eye opening.
I called Region 3 to get more clarification on the dates and shoulder season of a specific HD to voice my opinion... they didn't offer any info, they just gave me the number of the area biologist, Karen Lovelace. She is on vacation until January 4th.... isn't that nice.
RobG
Well-known member
Another way to say that is to note that the intent of these seasons is to reduce the elk populations by a factor of 2 or 3 to bring elk to "objective." It must be stressed that these objectives are based on LANDOWNER tolerance of elk, not habitat or carrying capacity. Furthermore, any additional opportunity will be short term as the season will stop when objectives are met, not to mention that elk populations will be significantly reduced.
In addition, this replaces the existing game damage hunt that provides significant hunter opportunity in a fairer way to the general public and a clear incentive for landowners to provide access. Thus, in addition to it being short term, the increase in opportunity is going to be incremental at best and could be less fair to the general public depending on how well the hunt coordinators work.
The only way this could benefit hunters is if it doesn't work, but I also recognize the fact that we need to support ranchers to some extent. There may be benefits that outweigh these losses such as landowner/law maker relations.
FWP will be limited in their ability to get that truth out so it will be up to the wildlife groups. If hunters belonging to those groups still support the program after knowing this I can accept it. However, those groups need to be more up front with their members. They seem to be afraid of telling their members these things.
BuzzH
Well-known member
But, keep in mind the "numbers" aren't important...its all about "trends"...
I say again, if you don't have a handle on good data from the start, you're franked.
Beings how harvest numbers aren't important...I wonder how MFWP and hunters are going to know when they've shot 60,000 elk to get them within objective?
I wonder if MT really is 60K elk over objective?
I wonder if there really are 160K elk in Montana?
I would want to answer those questions, and expect my FWP department to know these things, before starting the discussion of whacking 60k elk.
Expect the "trend' of less elk to continue...because there is no stopping these shoulder seasons. The reason is because the MFWP is going to beat you up with their absolute chit data on both harvest and total elk population.
But, always remember, the numbers aren't important...its all about the trends.
Last edited:
BuzzH
Well-known member
Not true more than likely.
Shoulder seasons are being recommended in the Blackfoot and Eureka areas where elk are UNDER or AT objective.
There are several different criteria (that IMO, the public had NO input on and/or were ignored) that can trigger a shoulder season other than total elk populations.
Get used to being manipulated by the MFWP on where, when, why and how shoulder seasons are implemented...its already started.
RobG
Well-known member
Well, this isn't about numbers that hunters report on a website or a phone call. Rather it is about how many elk the ranchers see in the field and their relation to FWP counts. If FWP counts go down and ranchers still see the same amount of elk then we need to change which elk we are hunting if we are solve the problem. Go find half a brain cell and maybe you'll be able to figure that out although it should take that much.
BuzzH
Well-known member
I disagree, if the numbers aren't important, then why does the FWP bother to post and make a half-assed attempt to collect that data? Why are they using that data, if it doesn't matter, to justify shoulder seasons?
Think about the MFWP hitting someone over a thick head, with that data that doesn't matter...because that's exactly what they're going to do.
Its pretty obvious you've never had to justify a reason for a management decision or to refute one. Facts trump emotion...every single time.
Last edited:
RobG
Well-known member
Yes, and 292, parts of 411 and 511 are AT objective if I read the map correctly. I expect those hunts are aimed at elk dispersal not significant population reductions.
BuzzH
Well-known member
Strange, I thought the idea of all shoulder seasons was elk dispersal?
What those hunts are "aimed" at doing means one thing, and one thing only....less elk, even in areas that are at or under objective.
Marvelous...
The Hedgehog
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2000
- Messages
- 11,647
Did any other Bozeman locals wonder how much info was gathered by that empty trailer that was parked at the mouth of the Gallatin for 6 weeks? I noticed it was open 2 out of around 50 times I went by it, while hunting.
On the annual survey call, was asked about turkeys, deer, antelope hunting, and wolf, moose, cat track sightings, but not a single question about elk.
On the annual survey call, was asked about turkeys, deer, antelope hunting, and wolf, moose, cat track sightings, but not a single question about elk.
RobG
Well-known member
The numbers are important, but I already tried to explain all that in the other thread and I don't think you will ever understand so I'll just ask that you stick to the topic at hand rather than get stuck on if we report harvest on a website or via a random sampling of hunters.
BuzzH
Well-known member
Rob,
I think your heart is in the right spot, you're just naïve in how the MFWP works and what it really takes to change or stop a poor management decision.
I've went through this numerous times with the FWP, and to the letter, I've had my ass handed to me by THEIR DATA. The data that they collect on a few random phone calls. The data they collect on populations, conducting flights that tjones described (predetermined GPS coordinates with the assumption that habitat, elk distribution, etc. etc. etc. is static), population models that are who knows how old...or even if they're appropriate in 2015?
That's the DATA that they use to justify their season setting, shoulder seasons, etc. etc. etc.
That will not change, until people demand better data...you WILL NOT stop a decision they make using that data.
I did all I could but PLEAD to Bob Henderson, the region 2 biologist to stop killing doe mule deer in the area I hunt. Take a guess what he told me, every single time as I watched mule deer decline from seeing 80-100 a day to maybe 10-15. "Well, you must not be looking in the right spot, our trend and population data says we still have enough mule deer to have a 7 day doe season".
Yeah, great trend there Bob...I haven't seen a mule deer in the area I hunt since 2009...they're extinct in that area.
I guess I'm just not looking in the right spots or don't understand "trends"...
Same thing when I begged the FWP to stop issuing over-the counter WT doe permits. "Well our trend data shows that we have too many". Same exact thing, THEIR DATA, showed that WT were over objective and 5 years later, they finally stopped the blood-bath. Even after restrictive harvest for the last 9 years, and slashing most all antlerless WT harvest, deer numbers are still lower than they were in 1985, according to MY numbers. Not even close to what they were in the mid-90's to 2006...probably not even 50% of what they were.
Yet, they're "trend" data of the last 7-8 years is showing them that those WT are getting out of hand, so they're upping doe permits again. In reality, there shouldn't be a single doe tag issued there, but how do I refute that when they beat the chit out of me with their "data"?
The only answer is to FORCE the MFWP to collect more data, and better quality data.
If not, you're going to get your ass handed to you by the Commission, Legislature, Governor, and anyone else that supports a shoulder season. Just the way it works, BTDT wayyyy too many times.
Good luck and I hope you can tell me I was wrong and that these shoulder seasons are shut down on emotional pleas from hunters that know where this all ends up...way less elk to hunt in MT.
I think your heart is in the right spot, you're just naïve in how the MFWP works and what it really takes to change or stop a poor management decision.
I've went through this numerous times with the FWP, and to the letter, I've had my ass handed to me by THEIR DATA. The data that they collect on a few random phone calls. The data they collect on populations, conducting flights that tjones described (predetermined GPS coordinates with the assumption that habitat, elk distribution, etc. etc. etc. is static), population models that are who knows how old...or even if they're appropriate in 2015?
That's the DATA that they use to justify their season setting, shoulder seasons, etc. etc. etc.
That will not change, until people demand better data...you WILL NOT stop a decision they make using that data.
I did all I could but PLEAD to Bob Henderson, the region 2 biologist to stop killing doe mule deer in the area I hunt. Take a guess what he told me, every single time as I watched mule deer decline from seeing 80-100 a day to maybe 10-15. "Well, you must not be looking in the right spot, our trend and population data says we still have enough mule deer to have a 7 day doe season".
Yeah, great trend there Bob...I haven't seen a mule deer in the area I hunt since 2009...they're extinct in that area.
I guess I'm just not looking in the right spots or don't understand "trends"...
Same thing when I begged the FWP to stop issuing over-the counter WT doe permits. "Well our trend data shows that we have too many". Same exact thing, THEIR DATA, showed that WT were over objective and 5 years later, they finally stopped the blood-bath. Even after restrictive harvest for the last 9 years, and slashing most all antlerless WT harvest, deer numbers are still lower than they were in 1985, according to MY numbers. Not even close to what they were in the mid-90's to 2006...probably not even 50% of what they were.
Yet, they're "trend" data of the last 7-8 years is showing them that those WT are getting out of hand, so they're upping doe permits again. In reality, there shouldn't be a single doe tag issued there, but how do I refute that when they beat the chit out of me with their "data"?
The only answer is to FORCE the MFWP to collect more data, and better quality data.
If not, you're going to get your ass handed to you by the Commission, Legislature, Governor, and anyone else that supports a shoulder season. Just the way it works, BTDT wayyyy too many times.
Good luck and I hope you can tell me I was wrong and that these shoulder seasons are shut down on emotional pleas from hunters that know where this all ends up...way less elk to hunt in MT.
RobG
Well-known member
Buzz, if you think the legislators ramming this down our throat will stop if we just change the numbers on a spread sheet knock yourself out.
BuzzH
Well-known member
Any lesson worth learning is worth learning the hard way....and you will.
Straight Arrow
Well-known member
No, Rob; its failure will trigger some legislator to introduce the bill to capture, test for brucellosis, and slaughter elk .... all at the expense of hunters' and other sportsmen's dollars which support FWP.
Then they can get those numbers down to the "objectives" of those elk-hating, brucellosis-paranoid Montana "business" folks who consider wildlife either a commodity or a vermin ... depending on antler size.
Last edited:
