I think hunters getting involved here is key, as Fin said. But, after reading the article in the link provided, it's obvious hunters are going to gladly participate in these hunts. Lots of hunters. And I'm betting most of them are ignorant to the negative effects, or really just don't give a damn. An unused elk tag will do that to some people. mtmuley
MT Shoulder Season Public Comment
- Thread starter Randy11
- Start date
mtmander
Active member
I think it is hard for hunters to know what the 'facts' are in this shoulder season. You have the FWP saying there are too many Elk and the herd has to be reduced , they quote herd numbers and land quotas. That is very positive for most hunters. I have a few neighbors who do not own computers or ever look at web sites so when there are seasons they think that is a good think.
How does one get 'accurate' herd numbers, land carrying capacity , including private vs public ??
This is a difficult topic that seems to me to be too political.
How does one get 'accurate' herd numbers, land carrying capacity , including private vs public ??
This is a difficult topic that seems to me to be too political.
T
tjones
Guest
Most hunters don't realize current EMP objectives have absolutely nothing to do with carrying capacity.
katqanna
Well-known member
Exactly! Who gives a rip that elk are harbored and we have tools in the EMP to address this, when you can issue a political directive from the Governor's office to bypass all the science and planning that went into the EMP.
Sorry, forgot what day this was, and there seems to be an obese, elderly, bearded white man that while trespassing on private property, appears to have gotten his ass lodged in my chimney last night (probably a lazy road hunter, I can see his off road vehicle on the roof), while additionally introducing a larger non-native, game farmed, northern ungulate species onto my roof, putting our ungulate quota over objective now.
Last edited:
I am confused Randy. You mentioned earlier that some people were denying this would be supported by the public. I didn't see where anyone posted that. In my opinion, most folks uneducated on the proposal; and asked if they want to hunt elk in August, December, January or February would stand up and cheer. Pretty sure if I went to my local church (watering hole) and asked if anyone would support killing elk in June or not allowing NR to kill our elk I would get support as well. These people don't scare me.
When RMEF steps up, apparently unsolicited, and supports this issue (shoulder season), I am concerned.
I am naive to the politics of this issue, but based on the face value of the RMEF mission and "best professional judgement", this is a head scratcher for me.
antlerradar
Well-known member
The reliance on the blanket approach is one of MT FWP biggest problems. Montana is a big and diverse state. It is unrealistic to think that a one size fits all approach will work well in all the state.
RobG
Well-known member
This is from RMEF's facebook page and is extremely disturbing Randy. I'm hoping they know something I don't. If true, sign my tail up in big bold letters, but a few years ago even the biologists were saying elk objectives are all about social tolerance, not habitat or carrying capacity. That also seems to be the consensus on this site.
RMEF has some explaining to do and I hope you can get an answer from them.
As I've said, I'm not against helping ranchers and making some sacrifice with reduced numbers, but there is a huge amount of risk with this. The popularity will also mean it will be hard to reign in when the numbers get down. There will be a lot of economic impacts in stopping this (like HD 313). In addition to what you mentioned about the migratory herds possibly getting smoked, we will be training the elk to reside on the lands where they are tolerated or outfitted in a manner that won't chase them off.
Or maybe all these people trying it out will will find it harder than they can handle and it won't have any more impact than what we have now... I don't know, but there is a huge amount of risk and the important measure is not how many phone calls the hunt coordinator is getting, but how many elk are harvested.
RMEF has some explaining to do and I hope you can get an answer from them.
As I've said, I'm not against helping ranchers and making some sacrifice with reduced numbers, but there is a huge amount of risk with this. The popularity will also mean it will be hard to reign in when the numbers get down. There will be a lot of economic impacts in stopping this (like HD 313). In addition to what you mentioned about the migratory herds possibly getting smoked, we will be training the elk to reside on the lands where they are tolerated or outfitted in a manner that won't chase them off.
Or maybe all these people trying it out will will find it harder than they can handle and it won't have any more impact than what we have now... I don't know, but there is a huge amount of risk and the important measure is not how many phone calls the hunt coordinator is getting, but how many elk are harvested.
Last edited:
shoots-straight
Well-known member
This is a certainty. There will be less Elk in Montana in the future. The guys running the show are very good at getting elk hunters to kill elk.
Will this make better elk hunting in the future? I doubt it, there will be areas with far less elk, and those hunters will head to other spots.
How far below the number of 154,000 head of elk in Montana will we get? I doubt we will see 90,000 but less for sure.
Even though I support some form of "Shoulder Seasons" in Montana, I do so only using a plan to guide the agency. Fairness to all hunters accessing the game.
I too was stumped why RMEF would come out and support this. That's why I made assumptions based without facts. Guessing was all I had, and so I blindly threw it out there.
What good does it do us to protect more lands for elk when we aren't going to allow more elk to utilize those lands. I'm a strong supporter of all the good RMEF has done for elk and their habitat, but this is a head scratcher to me as well. We need to fix this mess before there's long term damage to the elk herds takes place.
In 10 years you fellas will be looking West again to hunt, not because it's getting better but because your Eastern HD's are headed south.
I threw it out there 10 years ago that what was happening in the Bitterroot would be coming to a hunting district near you. It just took longer than I thought.
We have a very controlled "Shoulder Season" taking place in the Bitterroot right now. Happened last year as well. It's on private lands only, and cow only. No bull hunting in that area at all, not even during the rifle season. I wish these harbored areas would use our whole framework, not just a liberal version of it.
Will this make better elk hunting in the future? I doubt it, there will be areas with far less elk, and those hunters will head to other spots.
How far below the number of 154,000 head of elk in Montana will we get? I doubt we will see 90,000 but less for sure.
Even though I support some form of "Shoulder Seasons" in Montana, I do so only using a plan to guide the agency. Fairness to all hunters accessing the game.
I too was stumped why RMEF would come out and support this. That's why I made assumptions based without facts. Guessing was all I had, and so I blindly threw it out there.
What good does it do us to protect more lands for elk when we aren't going to allow more elk to utilize those lands. I'm a strong supporter of all the good RMEF has done for elk and their habitat, but this is a head scratcher to me as well. We need to fix this mess before there's long term damage to the elk herds takes place.
In 10 years you fellas will be looking West again to hunt, not because it's getting better but because your Eastern HD's are headed south.
I threw it out there 10 years ago that what was happening in the Bitterroot would be coming to a hunting district near you. It just took longer than I thought.
We have a very controlled "Shoulder Season" taking place in the Bitterroot right now. Happened last year as well. It's on private lands only, and cow only. No bull hunting in that area at all, not even during the rifle season. I wish these harbored areas would use our whole framework, not just a liberal version of it.
In that post, I mentioned that in other threads on this topic, many people had commented that nobody was in favor of these seasons. I posted the link earlier in this thread as evidence to show, that contrary to what some feel, there is a lot of support for these seasons among hunters. That was my purpose for posting that.
Do not assume that RMEF goes unsolicited on any of these policy matters. Almost always RMEF's support is solicited on topics related to hunting, elk, predators, access, public lands, you name it. I do not know if RMEF's support was solicited by FWP on this topic of shoulder seasons.
One thing that most people do not see is how many solicitations RMEF receives that do not get any support from RMEF. I have been on the Policy and Governmental Affairs Committee for four years. The number of topics that come before RMEF is amazing. Senior Staff has a process for handling most of these requests. At times, some topics will be brought to the Policy Committee for guidance. We routinely vote on positions, often times upsetting people/groups that are soliciting our support.
I have not heard or read the testimony that RMEF provided on this topic, as I was on the road that day. The comments were crafted by our senior staff who are very qualified to follow our procedures related to forming positions. I have talked to some involved. They supported the Department/Commission putting new ideas forward to get public comment and feedback on those tentative ideas.
The position to support FWP in proposing new tentative ideas was not formed by tossing some darts. There are two folks trained with Masters Degrees+ who weigh much of the scientific evidence that is provided when topics are brought to the table. They use their background and training to weigh what evidence an agency or organization has provided as evidence to support the objectives of any proposed actions.
The information the Department is providing and using as support for this does have scientific basis that can be argued either way. We may not like what is being proposed, but in stating their objective to lower elk numbers in these units FWP can roll out a lot of data to support what they are saying and they have trained people willing to argue that their proposed actions will have the intended outcome of reducing elk numbers. At times, some want to wave the flag of "no scientific data' as a way to express that they don't like the proposal. I may not like the proposal either, but I have spoke to enough FWP people to see how much data they have for the proposal I might disagree with.
The Department feels they are following the EMP, whether we think they are or not. The Department feels elk numbers are over objective in these units, whether we agree, or not. The Department feels they have data to support all they are proposing. And that is where we are in the process now; proposals the Department feels will meet their stated objectives that they feel are supported by their data.
I have voiced my comments to the Commissioners. I hope all of you will do the same. If the overwhelming comments are not in alignment with what gets adopted in February, the Commission will have to answer some questions.
I suspect RMEF will be providing FWP and the Commission RMEF's own comments about these Department proposals, now that they have had time to consider all that the Department has put out there. For RMEF to support the effort of FWP to add new ideas for tentative consideration is obviously something some people feel strongly about. On Hunt Talk, most feel strongly against. In many comments RMEF has receive elsewhere, it is something many feel strongly in favor of.
What RMEF ends up supporting/opposing will be done according to the processes we have in place. Two very qualified people will examine what is being provided by the Department as support for these tentative proposals. They will determine what they feel is best for elk, other wildlife, their habitat, and our hunting heritage and they will include other senior staff in that decision before finalizing. I'm not the guy who will be making that decision, so I cannot tell you what parts of these proposals RMEF will eventually support and what parts these proposals RMEF will not support. I can tell you that I am very confident in the processes in place and I have a lot more trust in the training and background of the people involved at RMEF than I have in my own professional training on scientific topics such as this.
I suspect until RMEF provides its final comments on these tentative proposals, many will continue to be upset with RMEF. And even when those final comments are provided, there will be people who are upset, no matter what RMEF supports or opposes. It just comes with the territory.
Personally, I've been surprised how many people give me their opinions about what RMEF does/doesn't do that the person thinks RMEF should/shouldn't do. Maybe it is because I have a higher profile than most the other board members. Maybe it is because I own a forum that allows me tons of feedback from people. The process of receiving all of those comments has shown me a few things.
First; The best place to be is standing on a position that you think is the right action according to your mission.
Second; You are going to have some people pissed, no matter what you do, making my first point even more important.
Third; There are a lot of passionate elk hunters in this country, each holding different opinions of what they think RMEF's mission equates to. And very often, the differences expressed are based on where they live and how the topic plays out in their back yard.
Fourth; To lead, you need to be willing to take risks. Taking risks is an invitation to criticism. I would rather lead and be assertive, even if it comes with some criticisms, than to be passive and not accomplish the ambitious strategic objectives the RMEF Board has put out there as expectations of our organization.
I'll close with my final thought from the prior thread. It is obvious that hunters do not feel that elk are "over objective" when measured by the tolerance hunters have for elk. With that,
Is this event of shoulder season proposals going to be enough to get hunters to take assertive action to get the Elk Management Plan re-written and done in a manner that hunters don't get steam rolled again?
Or, are we going to be pissed for a few week in January and February, then go back to doing what we've always done, leaving a few overworked activists (not including myself in that overworked group) to fight our causes in the legislature and before the Commission?
Or, are we going to be pissed for a few week in January and February, then go back to doing what we've always done, leaving a few overworked activists (not including myself in that overworked group) to fight our causes in the legislature and before the Commission?
It is really up to us to decide. Unfortunately, experience of the last dozen years has shown that when an elk issue blows up, the later of those two scenarios has been the course of action by Montana hunters.
RobG
Well-known member
I know you don't want a back and forth, but you are sidestepping the issue... RMEF saying that this is about habitat, and carrying capacity and calling opponents pseudo-sportsmen doesn't accurately convey the issue so of course many members support this. As a member only exposed to their public statements on it I've never seen where RMEF has been up front with their members about this season (or what the objectives mean) so why would a member oppose getting an elk while helping elk habitat? As I said, if that's the case sign me up...
Dinkshooter
Well-known member
I've not the patience to read most of this, but I'm not sure why any elk hunter or RMEF would support season structures that reduce total elk numbers in a state that can very obviously harbor more elk than it currently has.
Signed ........Colorado hunter who has purchased many cow leftover cow tags just to purposely eat the tag, save an elk and screw a bovine out of its cheap summer eats.
Signed ........Colorado hunter who has purchased many cow leftover cow tags just to purposely eat the tag, save an elk and screw a bovine out of its cheap summer eats.
Dinkshooter
Well-known member
I agree.
I'm not side stepping anything.
Are you asking whether or not the social media employee who wrote the FB post is one of the trained specialist involved in forming the positions RMEF will eventually take when they provide final comments? No, that person is not involved and possibly confuses objectives with carrying capacity.
To that point, I doubt you are saying that if you are over objective, you cannot have an impact on long-term carrying capacity. If you are making that claim, we will disagree. You can be over objective to the point that it can impact carrying capacity. In other words, you can so far over objective that you are also over long-term carrying capacity and what is good for the range/habitat. I'm not saying that is the case. From your comments it seems that you feel that mentioning those two terms in the same sentence makes someone ignorant of the two terms; two different terms.
You can also be over objective, a non-scientific measurement, and still be under the scientifically measure criteria of carrying capacity, agreed?
Not sure what is being made of the Facebook post you have posted. I can assure you that the social media person at RMEF is not the person making this final decision of where RMEF will comment on these seasons.
If I am sidestepping something, please ask the question you are looking to have answered and I will do my best to give you an answer.
RobG
Well-known member
I think we would all like to see the data and analysis that has led RMEF to support this.
the issue I was referring to was that membership desire for this season is meaningless because those people have been listening to the "Facebook quality" public comments put out by them.
the issue I was referring to was that membership desire for this season is meaningless because those people have been listening to the "Facebook quality" public comments put out by them.
shoots-straight
Well-known member
It was stated that the RMEF supported the "New Tools" that this "Shoulder Season" adds.
I would point out that they "MTFW&Ps" already had those tools, just not in a commissioned season. I think local groups working on a local issue was the way to go.
We (In the Root) are living proof of that, with what we have happening with the on going "Shoulder" type season that has been in place now for 2 years.
We created a new Hunting district out of one that was below objective to save those elk, and we gave that new area a 0 objective level.
If the main reason was "new tools" then I missed what those are.
I would point out that they "MTFW&Ps" already had those tools, just not in a commissioned season. I think local groups working on a local issue was the way to go.
We (In the Root) are living proof of that, with what we have happening with the on going "Shoulder" type season that has been in place now for 2 years.
We created a new Hunting district out of one that was below objective to save those elk, and we gave that new area a 0 objective level.
If the main reason was "new tools" then I missed what those are.
I know we are only two years in, but was has been done in the area shoots speaks of seems to be working. It may not be the right solution for every area in the state, but worth a look when setting up shoulder seasons elsewhere. mtmuley
Straight Arrow
Well-known member
I agree with Rob and further would like to see the analysis of FWP, not just regarding objective numbers, but also how current numbers of elk are adversely effecting the habitat and how objective numbers fit better with the range / habitat landscape. So far it seems only an "elk tolerance" and political concern that supports the proposed six-month elk hunts and drastic reduction in elk numbers across most of Montana, perhaps to a tenuous level. The wildlife management criteria and rationale to support such a wildlife reduction program should include a better balance of factors, in my opinion. Although I recognize the strong influence of landowners and of the agricultural community, both of which are important, I also recognize that the State of Montana, through the FWP agency and its commission, is entrusted with safe-guarding and nurturing wildlife on behalf of all Montanans.
Furthermore, it still remains unclear to me how a smaller state with apparently less viable elk habitat, such as Colorado, can sustain such a significantly much larger population of elk. Perhaps RMEF can answer that question, since RMEF has been involved in habitat acquisition and enhancement and nurturing of elk and other wildlife in both states.
Nameless Range
Well-known member
It seems that we already have tools in the current EMP that are being ignored, though I would still be hopeful that a new one could make some of the differences most (educated) hunters would desire. I'm all for a rewrite of the EMP, and perhaps that's the topic of another thread, and it would be a welcome intervention (solicited or not) that I would be happy to see the RMEF get behind. Maybe the risk of a worse EMP being created is too great, but it would be nice to see hunters and their organizations stand for a fair and science-based EMP, and put those endorsing the opposite on blast.
I don't buy the habitat-based arguments much at all. And I feel perfectly justified in saying so. Here's a quote from Quentin Kajula, FWP Wildlife Management Section Chief:
"Most of those objectives are below habitat capacity. Clearly, elk can persist at numbers over the objective."
The State has been pretty clear that for the most part,this isn't about science - the 7th Principle of the NAM. For me then, the burden of proof for support is greater than an appeal to majority opinion, and maybe that will be cleared up as time goes on.
I don't buy the habitat-based arguments much at all. And I feel perfectly justified in saying so. Here's a quote from Quentin Kajula, FWP Wildlife Management Section Chief:
"Most of those objectives are below habitat capacity. Clearly, elk can persist at numbers over the objective."
The State has been pretty clear that for the most part,this isn't about science - the 7th Principle of the NAM. For me then, the burden of proof for support is greater than an appeal to majority opinion, and maybe that will be cleared up as time goes on.
I think you point out a very good point, Shoots. In the 'Root, you guys have a local rod and gun club, a club that you and Tjones are a part of, that is organized and active. And as such, FWP takes notice. You guys invest a lot of time, effort, and money in staying informed.
I wish FWP would handle everyone of these issues on a local basis, not a "one size fits all" approach. The outcomes would be supported at a greater level and the action plans could be much more adaptive/responsive. Unfortunately, your experience in the 'Root is the exception, not the norm. I don't think it is merely coincidence that management actions in the 'Root mirror much of what is advocated by your local club.
In our valley we have two clubs. One seems to spend most of their time focused on bison and other T&E species. The other is heavily engaged in the political struggles facing us. Both are being led by great folks who invest a crazy amount of time in these organizations. Yet, when groups start focusing on the political issues that need to be taken on, members start losing interest. I've seen it first hand. In our valley, we have tons of avid elk hunters. The challenge is to keep them engaged in elk/wildlife issues, even when the hatch is on or there is two feet for fresh powder on the slopes. So far, I've not been smart enough to figure out how to do that.
The final result I hope comes of this entire discussion is that elk hunters in the state become as active and involved as your guys are when these topics need their advocacy. In that past, we've seen this same level of disagreement among hunters, only to head out to the ski slopes, fire up their ice augers, and let the debate drift away following the final decision by an agency.
As for management tools, FWP has more tools than they can implement. Lack of tools has seldom been the issue. I think FWP is the only group calling for these seasons under the premise as "new tools" they need.
Is there a link to the streaming feed of testimony given at the December 10th meeting? I would like to watch it for myself, since I was out of town that day.
Call FWP. They will give that data to you by the truckload, if they think you are questioning their data. I can give you the abbreviated version; maps of elk objectives overlayed with maps of their estimated elk populations. We hunters can argue with them all day long, but they have the data that they feel is valid. Given how much time they spend accumulating and studying such, I suspect CPAs and engineers are not going to have much influence in them changing their data to what we might think it is.
Which gets to the point, are people upset with the data provided by FWP, if they have even discussed the data with FWP? Or are they upset with the management objectives for these seasons as stated by FWP? Or are they upset with how the data is being interpreted? Or are they upset with how low the objectives are in the Elk Management Plan?
Seems we would be better off in deciding which one of those problems is at the core of this discussion and try to implement some good changes that start from that point. Merely one guy's opinion.
You are incorrect that members have supported these seasons because they have been listening to "Facebook quality public comments put out by them."
I get the feeling that you struggle to see that other people might support these seasons. Why, I am not sure, but the link I added below shows a lot of people are supporting these seasons and I suspect some of them supporting these seasons probably couldn't find the RMEF FB page if a half-rack of PBR was the prize for finding it. RMEF received plenty of supportive comments well before that FB post that seems to have you hung up.
I can't say for sure, but the two guys who stopped me the other day didn't look to be heavy FB users and they somehow had come to support the idea of these seasons. If you find it useful in this discussion to continue focusing on that FB post as evidence that somehow RMEF has driven all of these hunters to the conclusion that these seasons are the best thing in the world then I guess that is where we are left in this discussion.
