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.
