MT Shoulder Season Public Comment

[shoots-straight]

Say what? Tjones speaketh the truth I just saw. Send in your comments NOW before you have a chance to learn anything else, like how the current season is going or why RMEF supports it. Now! Now! Now! Minds aren't going to change anyway and an informed substantive comment will can only bring peril.

I can't believe you guys are even objecting to holding off for the purpose of gathering information... but whatever, I have a long day in front of me so enjoy yours.

Rob do you always leap first. Then understand second. The "shoulder season"was a forgone conclusion from the beginning. I don't think anyone's saying not to wait, but understand that this thing is going to happen. To what extent might be where your comments come in at.

 

[RobG]

Well good and bad news... roads are too crappy to get my dad so I have to stick around... I'm done with what I thought was a rather innocuous suggestion that there is more information forthcoming... Whatever.

 

[Big Foot]

Hey, lets take the bitchiness level down a couple notches. No one said anything about not waiting, just that there's no harm in sending in comments now if you feel confident in your opinion.

I agree, infighting only hurts "our" cause.

shoots-straight Rob, Tjones speaks the truth. Unfortunately this program (or something like it) was foreshadowed in a meeting our local club had with Jeff Hagener when he got reappointed by the Governor. He basically came in and told us we were going to be good soldiers and fall in line on this. This things been in the works for some time, and nothings going to change it. You might twink some things though.

With that said, having a record of comments is very important and we need to weigh in on those things that will cause the biggest discomfort.

Did members of this forum gain information regarding the shoulder seasons during a period when public input was more valuable? Did this information get out to the greater public via this forum or other means? If not, why? I have attended all the meetings on this issue since learning of the shoulder season proposal three months ago. How do I and others keep from "missing the bus" on these issues if the information is circulated amongst a closed loop and only accessible after it is too late to weigh in?

 

[shoots-straight]

I agree, infighting only hurts "our" cause.



Did members of this forum gain information regarding the shoulder seasons during a period when public input was more valuable? Did this information get out to the greater public via this forum or other means? If not, why? I have attended all the meetings on this issue since learning of the shoulder season proposal three months ago. How do I and others keep from "missing the bus" on these issues if the information is circulated amongst a closed loop and only accessible after it is too late to weigh in?

The process is kinda set up, for excuse my french "A hand job" to the public. Most of the meaningful dialog is over IMO. If enough people chimed in, there could be some changes. If there are some changes then our comments gain traction.

 

[Big Fin]

Let's try this......

Merry Christmas. Send/provide your comments to the agency. Keep it civil here. And yes, crank down the level of "bitchiness."

Happy New Year. Toast of 'nog to all of you.

 

[----]

Back to what I had intended this thread to be-

One major concern of mine is the proposal of HD 217. This unit is a new unit that is the northern part of the existing district 212.

Roughly one third of this unit is heavily roaded National Forest that is good elk habitat. Traditionally, this national forest was very productive elk hunting.

For some time now, there has been one very large ranch that has provided complete refuge to a ridiculous amount of elk. There are more elk on this one ranch at any given time than the rest of the mountain range.

Because of this ranch's management choice, unit 212 is roughly three times over it's objective limit.

Two years ago they came up with the idea of making the northern part of 212 (not identical to the 217 unit proposal, but close) into limited entry for bulls. The thought was that by not having it open for bulls the roaded NF area would get much less pressure, giving the elk an opportunity to filter off of the refuge ranch. I've heard there are bachelor herds now using this NF area with more regularity, but it hasn't brought the big herds of cows back up.

Last winter FWP flew this area in March, in the new district 217 they counted 1353 elk, 1332 of these elk were on the one ranch that provides refuge.

In my very amateur opinion, I would think that this would be a perfect time to implement rule 5 of page 55 of the EMP-

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.

FWP however, has chosen to implement a shoulder season in ALL of this proposed unit 217, including the National Forest. The season as proposed would run from August 15-January 15 on National Forest, open for anyone to buy an OTC cow tag and hunt with a rifle. The rifle cow hunt would be running along side the limited entry archery bull hunt, on National Forest. From the talks I've had, it sounds hopeful that they will move the shoulder season on National Forest back to open on the traditional rifle opener, but public comment against will help make sure that happens.

Basically, FWP has given up on trying to have elk using this chunk of National Forest. I can not for the life of me figure out why they need to have the season open on National Forest, but that is evidently what the ranchers of the valley want so that is what's going to happen. As far as I can tell, this is the only shoulder season proposed on NF, and I don't think it's right.

They're changing the brakes on a car with a broken muffler. None of these proposals will do anything to solve the harboring issue, and will actually compound it by having an open season for so long on the areas bordering the area of refuge.

I attached the PDF that FWP is using to justify their proposal.

 

[Topgun 30-06]

I'm left shaking my head after reading the link that Randy11 posted. How in the world is anything they have proposed going to resolve the harboring issue when over 99.9% of the elk appear to be on one private ranch already. It would seem that with people being able to buy unlimited OTC cow tags and hunt for as long as proposed on the NF that nothing positive has been gained or resolved to reduce that herd. Also, Wyoming has some rifle cow seasons that are open during the archery season in some areas and it isn't popular to the point where the G&F is starting to listen to the public and not open them until rifle season starts unless you gain access onto private property to use them. It would seem logical to do that in Montana and especially in this particular unit. What am I missing here?

 

[RobG]

Thanks Randy11 - that's what I'm talking about.

Here's some more info on what the current situation is. I'm on the hunt roster and JUST got a call from FWP because a rancher has some elk in the field eating his hay alongside his cows. He wanted some hunters there in one hour to chase them off and the hunt coordinator was scrambling to find some. As someone said, firearms encourage the elk to stay off the land longer that simple hazing.

So, first, if you are interested in helping ranchers, the system we got now is really screwed up for that situation. I can understand the need for a system that gives the ranchers more flexibility and it is certain that they are going to get one.

Second, I don't mind helping ranchers, but there are several reasons I personally don't want to participate in that kind of "hunt" so the current system is screwed up on the hunter's end too. I'd be happy with a different system as long as it isn't a slaughter and that's why I think it is important to look at how the current seasons progress before forming too strong an opinion.

To speak to Topgun's point, I wonder if all this harboring is going to keep the elk populations high in most areas even with an all-out assault. If that happens we will, for once, be able to tell the ranchers that hunters have done their part, the objectives are only lowering public land elk, and it is time for them to stop blaming the FWP for problems caused by their neighbors. It is a step toward a solution.

But if it is simply a slaughter I want no part in it.

 

[Big Fin]

For anyone doubting the popularity of late cow elk seasons, see the link below.

http://billingsgazette.com/lifestyl...cle_2d0234c3-61f1-5118-9b02-da401843c084.html

 

[mtmander]

The article says it all , this is very popular and I can only see it expanding

 

[----]

For anyone doubting the popularity of late cow elk seasons, see the link below.

http://billingsgazette.com/lifestyl...cle_2d0234c3-61f1-5118-9b02-da401843c084.html

There'd be strong interest in over the counter breaks ram tags also.

 

[tjones]

For anyone doubting the popularity of late cow elk seasons, see the link below.

http://billingsgazette.com/lifestyl...cle_2d0234c3-61f1-5118-9b02-da401843c084.html

Popular and legal isn't always what's best for the resource. I watched 6 years of a popular elk season all but destroy an elk population.

 

[mtmiller]

There'd be strong interest in over the counter breaks ram tags also.

Yep. Well played.

 

[Big Fin]

There'd be strong interest in over the counter breaks ram tags also.

Agreed.

Reason I posted that was in other threads on this topic, many stated or implied that no hunters were in favor of these kind of seasons.

I personally have a lot of concerns about them and have voiced the concerns to our Commissioners, while also stating I understand the idea to try something different. My two biggest worries are below.

First, I worry that hunters would shoot the last cow elk in a unit if they were told by FWP that things are over objective. Some would do so, thinking they are doing something favorable for wildlife. A few would do it, under the "someone else will kill them if I don't" theory that results in some rather questionable behavior/outcomes.

My second concern is the institutional inertia of agencies. By their very nature, any agency has a hard time changing course on a decision and almost never retreats from a decision. If these seasons turn out to be as damaging as they could be, rather than as helpful as the Department is predicting, it will be hard to get them changed, lessened, or removed all together. Just a function of agency inertia; not just state agencies and not just wildlife agencies.

I voiced concern that a lot of these elk getting smoked are the migratory elk, most of which are the elk accessible to hunters during season, even though they are being killed on private land during these late seasons. I had considered that issue some, based on the Department explanation of the big mistake they made in the Madison in the early 2000's that still has the migratory Upper Gallatin herd in a bad state. After talking to some outfitters last week, I am now much more concerned from what they told me of the dynamics of the elk in those areas. Concerns I also shared with Commissioners.

Two outfitters called and asked if they could meet with me while in town. Hmmm. Do I need to bring security? I had no idea what they wanted to talk about, but it was a very good hour spent. It gave me some insight of what is going on in the macro sense in these units.

It goes like this.

They lease big ranches owned by people with very high elk tolerance. They are not participating in the late seasons, as their landowners do not want to be part of this. The landowners view elk as being a very valuable asset to their property and they want more elk around, not less. They do have herds of elk that have become acclimated to the protection of these private lands and great forage that exists there, given cattle have been reduced under new ownership. As a result much of those elk herds never leave these private lands at any time during the year.

There is another segment of the elk population that spends most of summer and fall on public land, coming to private lands in winter. Those elk are not familiar with what properties are sanctuaries from hunting pressure and as such they have a tendency to move around a lot, crossing on to many different ranches over the course of the winter. Sooner or later, they end up on a ranch participating in the late hunts and they get smoked.

These outfitters already feel pressure that many public hunters do not like them or their landowners, as they provide excellent year-round habitat for elk. As such, elk populations on these ranches have grown greatly over the last ten years and many of the elk tend to stay on/close to private lands most the year. Their landowners are happy with that and do not make any claims for game damage, etc.

It was explained that if the wrong elk are getting smoked in these late seasons, the impact on the private lands they operate on will be a lot less than the impact on the public land elk, as the greatest proportion of harvest will be taken from the herds that migrate from the public lands. End result they predict is that the disparity of elk abundance on public, compared to the ranches they operate on, will become even greater. Public hunters shoot plenty of elk on the public land periphery of their ranches, especially in archery season as bulls search for cows. They are fine with that. They do worry that they will get the blame for "harboring" elk when public land elk get more scarce if, as they predict, many of the cows taken in late seasons are the migratory elk that are on public during general hunting season.

Listening to them, it made a lot of sense, if that is the dynamic of elk herds within a unit; a migratory herd that is vulnerable in late seasons, and a resident herd that seldom leaves big ranches in any season.

I had not given their points as much prior consideration, as I think we have a tendency to view all the elk in a unit as being somewhat of the same herd and behaving somewhat in the same way. Yet, having the example of the Madison cow hunts that smoked the cows (pregnant with the future bull crop) and how that has been a debacle for the Upper Gallatin herd that migrated to the Madison, it is not hard for me to see the potential of their point.

They also told me of how many outfitters and landowners who are not supporting these seasons. The politics of that results in outfitters who will be shown the door by the legislators who have grown to be the loud mouths who hate wildlife. Not directly by those legislators, but by the influence they supposedly have with the groups representing ag interests in the legislature and Commission issues. As such, I had to vow that I would not mention their names, or names of other outfitters they used as examples who are not supporting these late seasons.

I asked them for some ideas. They didn't have many, other than to proceed with caution. They understand the idea of wanting to kill a cow elk in the easiest situation possible. They understand the frustration of a working landowner who is being hammered by elk in hard winters. They understand public hunters wanting access to elk on their client's ranches. They also understand that some landowners, such as those they represent, enjoy elk and are happy to have the elk on their lands, fully expecting the elk on their lands would be excluded from the population objectives as called for in the elk management plan.

This meeting was helpful to better understand some of the complications of the few units being used in this "test phase" and how it could amplify as the number of late season units increases. They asked me to share their points with the Commission and with other groups I am associated with. They left the meeting wanting to impress the point that they think these seasons can provide some help to some, but if they are used as a blanket approach to every elk issue in the state, public land elk are going to take it on the chin in a far worse way than the elk habituated to private land. And if that happens, they are going to get the blame for supposedly harboring what elk did not get shot in late seasons. even though they did not participate in the hunts that made the predicament worse.

 

[Big Fin]

Popular and legal isn't always what's best for the resource. I watched 6 years of a popular elk season all but destroy an elk population.

I'm not saying it is best for the resource. But, if people deny the reality of where support is coming from and refuse to accept that hunters themselves can be the driving force behind some of this, then we are further away from solutions than we think. The other threads on this topic state/implied that this is all landowners and outfitters driving this request, or that this is FWP making something up that no hunters want any part of. Some of that is surely true, but there are a lot of hunters supporting this idea, including two who stopped me in the grocery store to give me an earful of how these late seasons need to be extended to Unit ....... where they hunt.

 

[Nameless Range]

Good perspective Fin.

I think your last paragraph contains one of the primary reasons why these shoulder season proposals seem like such a negative effect on the resource to me. Looking at next year's management plans, the "blanket approach" seems to already be in the works.

 

[Big Fin]

.... Looking at next year's management plans, the "blanket approach" seems to already be in the works.

I would agree, based on what is out there in the tentative proposals. From talks I have been involved with, I think the Commission is taking note of the many concerns that have been voiced and is realizing that support for "trying something new" should not be mistaken as complete agreement to proceed without caution. I think the Department and Commission will be hearing a lot more about this topic and these concerns, both behind the scenes and publicly, before they make a final decision in February.

 

[----]

Thanks Randy. I appreciate that perspective.

I feel sympathetic for the landowners in your post, and the one in my post above. It's well within their right to manage their property that way. It's the Montana dream to own your own property with abundant wildlife on it.

It's not fair to anyone- hunters, landowners or outfitters, the way FWP uses these objectives.

 

[Gerald Martin]

Interesting to hear the perspective of the outfitters you talked to. On one hand they stand to gain elk numbers on their land as they provide a year round sanctuary with limited hunting. Migratory elk will tend to stay and habituate both from the draw of elk that already live there and and the reduced pressure from being hunted everywhere else. On the other hand, they realize that they and those ranches will become the red herring that get the blame when there are very few elk on public and lots of eye candy off limits on private lands under their control.

In my eyes, outfitters and ranches like these are actually our allies in this fight, not the opposition. The public hunter is never going to gain access to those elk and I'm fine with that. I'm more than happy to navigate around their boundaries to access elk on public when they reside there.


The people who are going to be the most destructive to our public lands elk populations are those ranchers who view any elk as competition and whose social tolerance is very low. Ranking right up there are those hunters who become their willing fools and only want to kill elk regardless of whether it is beneficial to overall populations or not. Neither group can ever be satisfied with their expectations and demands. As such, I say the demands of both should be ignored and elk be managed with a mandated objective slanted in favor of what the habitat can support and social tolerance a minor influence. Social tolerances can be adjusted and changed if elk become an asset and not a liability. When elk become more valuable than sheep or cattle to the rancher, you can bet they will want them around. As long as elk are just a nuisance and seen as competition, the ranchers who are currently intolerant, will remain intolerant until the last one is gone from their ranch.



I say this as someone who grew up on a farm and am still very pro ranching and agriculture in my attitudes. I also say this as someone who doesn't expect or desire access to private lands to hunt. In my mind those areas are places that I'd rather not access for the most part since I don't like to be limited in where I can go and what I can do. I would rather hunt public land. I'd like to see most ranches in Montana remain in traditional working family ownership. But, if those who are intolerant of elk become too influential in the management of elk on public lands to the point that it virtually eliminates my ability to access elk on public lands, I'm pretty sure that my attitude towards who I prefer own those ranches will change. I'd rather see an amenity ranch with plenty of elk that I'll not be able to hunt, and elk on public lands than the same ranch in family ownership with no elk that I'm not able to hunt and no elk on public lands.

 

[teamhoyt]

Last week I was in the white sulpher area hunting lions. On the way to camp we decided to drop our trailer along the county road so we could find our spot first and not get in a bind with a trailer and deep snow. A vehicle pulled over and was making sure all was ok, he asked if we were elk hunting and told him about lions were our primary target. My brother still had an elk tag though which we shared with this fellow who turned out to be the landowner. He said if we see an elk on his land to have at it. He proceeds to tell me that he owns 2 sections and all season has 1000 elk in his alfalfa but he has it leased out during the regular season and that he hasn't had a second cutting of alfalfa in 3 years. He Also mentioned how dumb it was that the national forest was off limits to the shoulder season because the elk are smart and were now hanging just inside the forest boundaries and off limits and we need to get some elk killed. Well in our lion hunting adventures up in the forest we did run across several herds of elk on the very top of the mountian in 30" of snow, anyway the following afternoon we headed out to get service to check the quota and see if there were any elk on this fellows land. We did indeed find a handful of elk and were just getting out of the truck to pursue them when a vehicle pulled up. Again it was the landowner who proceeded to ask us to hold off on the elk hunting now because he only had 19 elk in his meadow that morning and his son was coming home to hunt them the following day. I Just had to chuckle about the whole double standard that some of these guys go by. There are certainly those that want to complain about the number of elk and lack of hay but will lease the land and then use the shoulder hunt to manage the animals when it's convenient. The Other interesting thing is i called a huge landowner in the area that had land going to the Top of the mountian where we had run into a bunch of elk, he told me he was participating but that the hunt coordinator has to give the permission. I called the coordinator who was off work that day and called the other coordinator who was listed on his voicemail. That coordinator did know anything about what the other guy had lined up and said we were out of luck until the other guy got back to work. This was on a Tuesday so I ask this guy if there was anything available in his area and he said all those landowners administered their own permission but we're all booked until the middle of February.