MT Shoulder Season Public Comment

[Straight Arrow]

Two primary concerns of hunters are OPPORTUNITY and ACCESS. It's natural that many hunters would support the shoulder seasons proposal which promises to enhance both. The article describing the inquiries surrounding the White Sulphur Springs area hunts illustrates that.
The "hoarding" dynamic is real as is elk damage to crops, fences, haystacks, and are other wildlife damage problems also. Shoulder seasons ostensibly promise some relief there as well.

But one doesn't have to look too far back to remember the Northern Yellowstone elk herd of twenty thousand elk or thereabouts. The science supported reduction of that herd due to adverse conditions on the habitat / range environment, especially in Yellowstone Park. But it wasn't just the thousands of late season elk tags that were filled; it was also a number of other influences on the elk population that have now resulted in a proposal for such a small number of hunting opportunities that Gardiner's economy is seen as potentially in peril during the winter. It's the "pendulum" effect that is the concern.

A drastic program such as the widespread, lengthy shoulder seasons has the potential for unintended adverse effects. The point is that it is prudent to thoroughly analyse and consider the goals, dynamics, and potential outcomes ... with a more balanced perspective. Fin is right to point to and commend Ravalli County sportsmen, who saw problems long before they came to be. Fortunately, they now have established credence and are influencing good decisions for wildlife. That is a constructive and viable model to follow in order to look at each and every proposed shoulder season area from a local perspective.

 

[RobG]

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.

Julie and Karen are out of the office....

I've got the maps and understand that all but 2-3 HDs are over objective, but we know over objective doesn't necessarily mean habitat or carrying capacity problems. Furthermore, I've seen nothing that suggests elk are harming habitat or over carrying capacity. In all the meetings when Vermillion kept saying rancher tolerance was driving this nobody suggested it was habitat or carrying capacity. If it was really an issue I'm confident someone would have corrected him so it seems safe to rule out habitat issues (although I'm sure there are isolated exceptions).

What I am asking for is the data that formed RMEF's position - and I hope it is far more than a map that shows elk are over objective. Yes, we are over objective, but I've seen nothing that suggests this is anything other than a rancher tolerance issue. If that is the case and RMEF still wants to support this then they should be crystal clear with their members. From a political standpoint, it may be the best option we have.

Regarding hunter support - I don't think anyone here meant to imply there wasn't strong hunter support. However, I think the hunters don't understand what they are supporting. The only explanation I saw for RMEF's support came in a nasty email from David Allen and that facebook post. Based on those things, and the continued implication by them and FWP that this is a habitat/carrying capacity issue first and social tolerance issue second, I can't blame hunters for supporting this. I would too. But that information does not accurately describe the whole situation.

Is there anyone at RMEF that would be willing to post here the in-depth reasons for supporting this? Their lack of explanation of their stance is a bit disturbing too.

 

[RobG]

Let me add, regarding objectives, FWP is obligated to reach those objectives and they can't be too vocal in opposing them no matter what the science says because they will have to answer to the Legislature. RMEF is under no such obligation, in fact, I would say it is their obligation to clarify what is really going on.

 

[Straight Arrow]

I agree with your perspective, Rob. If any organization should come forward and advocate for a thorough analysis and complete vetting of this issue with open and transparent rationale, I would expect it to be RMEF. The absence of such concern and the apparent support to rush into this dramatic increase in hunting season lengths and potential significant reduction of elk population across Montana is troubling to me.

 

[bigskyblueman]

No information or projections on what the elk hunting will look like in the districts and regions once the so-called objectives are reached. The agencies and groups that support killing this number of elk should tell the public what to expect. How many tags will be available for each district. If they will not, or cannot, tell us, they have no business supporting this plan.

 

[Deleted member 20812]

that reduce total elk numbers in a state that can very obviously harbor more elk than it currently has.

Unfortunately, the state is shackled by piss poor elk population objectives, unwillingness to NOT count harbored elk, and a legislation that Senator Barrett was able to get through that has made FWP in violation of state law for the last 11 years.

 

[Dinkshooter]

Unfortunately, the state is shackled by piss poor elk population objectives, unwillingness to NOT count harbored elk, and a legislation that Senator Barrett was able to get through that has made FWP in violation of state law for the last 11 years.

I understand the population objective problems in MT due to special interest, happens in many varying degrees in every western state. I just don't like the flavor of a conservation group taking chicken chit and calling it chicken salad. I've never felt over run by elk whenever in MT, but real happy that some MT folks are going to get to go out and bag a calf elk on the winter range in the name of management. Real happy about that. retrads.

 

[Big Fin]

Let me add, regarding objectives, FWP is obligated to reach those objectives and they can't be too vocal in opposing them no matter what the science says because they will have to answer to the Legislature. RMEF is under no such obligation, in fact, I would say it is their obligation to clarify what is really going on.

Rob, I'm on the road right now and only have a phone to type on, so replies will be a challenge for me. Since you are holding RMEF most accountable for what you say happened, then I'll ask this first question of you .

Where is the link, quote, or whatever that says RMEF has thrown full support behind the all of these tentative proposals, as you and others state?

I was on the road that day and did not have opportunity to listen to the comments by RMEF. I've looked for the link and cannot find it.

The reason I ask is that I am being told RMEF stated they support for giving the public some new ideas for consideration, as part of these tentative proposals, to address some of these issues.

I suspect when RMEF provides there comments to the Commission, some folks will be rather silent on this thread, compared to how much accusation they are tossing around related to what are TENTATIVE PROPOSALS put for public comment.

As for an RMEF person coming here and making in depth posts as you suggest, they would be fools to do so. No matter what they stated, how they arrived at what they stated, there would be hundreds of folks disagreeing and critiquing every detail. Nothing but liability for them and no benefit. I haven't talked to anyone at RMEF, but folks shouldn't stand by their computers waiting for such. If you think that is an effective way to run a large organization, we would differ on opinions.

As for Julie and Karen, tell them Hello from me, when you talk to them. Very good folks. I doubt RMEF has called every biologist in MT as they have started their analysis of what they will decide to support /oppose in comments they might provide.

 

[Straight Arrow]

..when RMEF provides there comments to the Commission, some folks will be rather silent on this thread...

Hopefully RMEF comments on the "Tentatives" will reflect a solid analysis of the proposal(s) and will reflect not only a position supporting the RMEF mission, but also a position supporting the North American Wildlife Conservation Model. If so, then I will not be silent but will commend RMEF and express my pride as a longtime member, as I have done many times before.

 

[mtmiller]

Hopefully RMEF comments on the "Tentatives" will reflect a solid analysis of the proposal(s) and will reflect not only a position supporting the RMEF mission, but also a position supporting the North American Wildlife Conservation Model. If so, then I will not be silent but will commend RMEF and express my pride as a longtime member, as I have done many times before.

yes....

 

[----]

Where is the link, quote, or whatever that says RMEF has thrown full support behind the all of these tentative proposals, as you and others state?

I was on the road that day and did not have opportunity to listen to the comments by RMEF. I've looked for the link and cannot find it.

http://fwp.mt.gov/doingBusiness/insideFwp/commission/meetings/agenda.html?meetingId=37238843

Click the red button next to "2016-2017 Elk Hunting Season, Quota Ranges and HD Boundaries - Proposed"

I don't have time to sit through it a second time and transcribe it.

 

[RobG]

Where is the link, quote, or whatever that says RMEF has thrown full support behind the all of these tentative proposals, as you and others state?

Come on Randy, I never said anything like full support. I've been asking for their comments because their actions seem to be supporting this season. I sure wish you'd read my stuff closer on this and hunters supporting this, etc.

As for an RMEF person coming here and making in depth posts as you suggest, they would be fools to do so. No matter what they stated, how they arrived at what they stated, there would be hundreds of folks disagreeing and critiquing every detail.

Randy, that is the worse excuse ever. If they can't justify their position on elk policy because people would disagree then they should just sell girl scout cookies. Really.

I was hoping to get some guidance from RMEF on why they are not opposing this season if you won't admit they seem to be supporting it. Even an official response on what their position is after implying a position on their facebook page would be nice. I guess it is too much to ask to keep their members informed.

 

[SixPoint]

Hopefully RMEF comments on the "Tentatives" will reflect a solid analysis of the proposal(s) and will reflect not only a position supporting the RMEF mission, but also a position supporting the North American Wildlife Conservation Model. If so, then I will not be silent but will commend RMEF and express my pride as a longtime member, as I have done many times before.

Well Said!

The struggle I am having with the Shoulder Season philosophy is that it appears to be a direct step towards the commercialization of wildlife here in the state of Montana. By allowing managers and landowners to harvest antlerless elk so far outside of the general season, and unit wide... won't that be just encouraging the private property folks to lock up or lease out the hunting rights during the general season, with the expectation that the public will come in and clean up the "problem" at a later date? In my opinion we would be giving them their cake and letting them eat it too. Landowners that do offer public access during the general season, and are still experiencing significant financial losses should be first in line for assistance, and I have no issue supporting those landowners. However, those that lock up their gates and give the keys to the highest bidder, then scream about overpopulation and crop damage post season... well, to me that appears you made your bed now lie in it. We have no obligation as sportsmen to assist those folks whatsoever!

The issue as previously stated again and again in this thread is that most folks are uninformed and oblivious to the fact that if FWP is suggesting it, it may not be in the best interest of the elk.

So my question is: what do we do as concerned sportsmen? My Wildlife Biology Professor at UM used to have a great saying. "conservation comes after breakfast" Which doesn't quite apply here, but it kind of does. How do educate and convince the folks with an empty freezer and an elk tag that the right thing to do here is not participate?

 

[Nameless Range]

I listened to the public comment section Randy11 referenced above, and can transcribe roughly what the RMEF rep said, because his comment was literally 30 seconds in length. I believe the RMEF rep's name was Mark Lambrecht:

"We want to reiterate our support for this program(shoulder seasons) moving forward. We support fine tuning as needed, but really support the efforts of FWP in meeting their management objectives"

That was it, and IMO seemed to be a statement of support.

Also a quick comment on Facebook pages and organizational stances. If an organization posts a reply or a comment on facebook under that org's FB account, in the 21st century that is nearly as formal a position statement as an article in a magazine or an email. The RMEF has 205,000 members. Their Facebook feed and comments reach 393,000 people. It reaches nearly twice as many people as their membership, and is probably a more effective tool at conveying the position of the RMEF than emails, official position releases, or Bugle Magazine, and therefore it is justifiable to take what they say on their FB page as their position.

That's just social media 101 for any organization in the age of the internet.

 

[----]

Mark Lambrecht is their director of Government affairs.

I've written them multiple times since December 10th asking for them to explain their position, still haven't gotten an answer.

I do find it surprising that it's not even remotely possible that they could be in the wrong on this one.

 

[Rat Fink]

I listened to the public comment section Randy11 referenced above, and can transcribe roughly what the RMEF rep said, because his comment was literally 30 seconds in length. I believe the RMEF rep's name was Mark Lambrecht:



That was it, and IMO seemed to be a statement of support.

Also a quick comment on Facebook pages and organizational stances. If an organization posts a reply or a comment on facebook under that org's FB account, in the 21st century that is nearly as formal a position statement as an article in a magazine or an email. The RMEF has 205,000 members. Their Facebook feed and comments reach 393,000 people. It reaches nearly twice as many people as their membership, and is probably a more effective tool at conveying the position of the RMEF than emails, official position releases, or Bugle Magazine, and therefore it is justifiable to take what they say on their FB page as their position.

That's just social media 101 for any organization in the age of the internet.

Nameless, Range - Thanks for the Quote of RMEF's comments. You heard it the way I heard it which is exactly why I made the original FB post that has started this focus on RMEF's support of the proposal. I am embarrassed that I finally renewed my RMEF membership after about 5 years as a non member. I wish that RMEF and FWP were willing to work for what is in the best interest of the elk and the future of elk hunting in MT.

 

[mtmiller]

http://fwp.mt.gov/doingBusiness/insideFwp/commission/meetings/agenda.html?meetingId=37238843

Click the red button next to "2016-2017 Elk Hunting Season, Quota Ranges and HD Boundaries - Proposed"

I don't have time to sit through it a second time and transcribe it.

Thanks for the link Randy. Good discussion from both landowners and sportsmen.

 

[Lawnboy]

From looking on the website there are 23 Board of Directors and 2 officers. Randy is only 1. I highly doubt he is end all of decisions nor is this a Cuban dictatorship. I can understand your frustrations based on apparent testimony given but taking it out on one person on this forum seems silly. I realize he is very active on here and tries to comment when he can so it makes sense to try this avenue first. Knowing Randy for many years he'll look into the issue and what was said and voice his opinion when he can. It may not be necessarily what everyone on here wants nor the other board members of RMEF for that matter.
I am a member and did also read what was said and do not agree with there stance currently based on testimony and the Facebook comment. I do agree also that if you're going to have someone responding on Facebook it better be in line with what the stance of the organization is or you're just asking for trouble. I'm sure not going to march down the street and get in Randy's face about it.

Maybe you letters and rants are best served by pounding the Headquarters with your thoughts rather than one messenger that has a life and business outside of this assignment. It's obvious that he wasn't able to hear all of it and more than likely is shooting a little in the dark on what RMEF said or is thinking. Just my observation.:W: Don't make me throw a penalty flag for dog pilling. Ten yard penalty automatic first down.

 

[shoots-straight]

I'm not in the know on this at all. BUT, If the RMEF have polled their members from Montana then I believe they covered their bases. I hope that if they are sticking their necks out on a divisive issue such as this that it's what their membership wants. I belong to a bunch of different groups and we send out notifications for feedback on these types of issues. I would have hoped that Randy (being on the board) would have received a notice from the top to send in a response. That would be a minimum of action taken I think.

 

[StykbowMT225]

Something that worries me: In HD 411 the shoulder season will start August 15th, and run through both the archery and general seasons. This shoulder hunt is valid on Private, BLM, and DNRC lands. I archery hunt these lands often. I also hunt these lands with my kids and let them call for me. I can only picture my daughter blowing on a cow call on September 15th and having a 12 year old with a 270 waiting for the slightest bit of movement from the trees thinking he is about to kill his first elk. This is just one area, and it is close to home. I get more furious every time I think about it. Not to mention the entire Western half of the mountain range is under objective. I hear some rich Texans own the other half, and don't imagine these shoulder seasons will do much to curb the ever expanding population in their neck of the woods.