Sb 245

[BuzzH]

I believe MT has to start thinking about how to increase objective numbers on elk, rather than kill off what's left.

The only over-objective elk herds in Montana are found in fantasyland.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Let me just say that "it's never enough."



CPW's desire to harvest cow elk is exactly how Colorado got to where it is today. I know MT is definitely not CO, but your post is like déjà vu all over again for me.

I think that's what we all are guarding against - RFW, tranasferable tags, etc, but this doesn't do that.

Here's the language:

NEW SECTION. Section 1. Postseason elk population management hunting season. (1) The
14 department may conduct a postseason population management hunting season for antlerless elk to ensure that
15 the population of elk remains at or below the sustainable population number, as determined pursuant to 87-1-323.
16 (2) A resident, as defined in 87-2-102, or a nonresident, who is 12 years of age or older or who will turn
17 12 years old before or during the season for which the license is issued and who possesses an unused Class
18 A-5 resident elk tag license, an unused Class A-9 resident antlerless elk B tag license, an unused Class B-12
19 nonresident antlerless elk B tag license, or any unused nonresident elk tag license, may upon payment of a fee
20 of $10 receive a postseason management hunting season endorsement that entitles a holder who is 12 years
21 of age or older to hunt antlerless elk and to possess the carcass of the elk as authorized by this section and
22 department rules.
23 (3) The postseason population management hunting season:
24 (a) must follow the big game hunting season by no less than 2 weeks;
25 (b) may be conducted in hunting districts that are over population objectives for elk, as determined
26 pursuant to 87-1-323, or when the department determines other circumstances warrant a greater harvest; and
27 (c) may remain open until the population objectives for elk, as determined pursuant to 87-1-323, are met,
28 but no later than February 15.

Is it unnecessarily restrictive in it's scope? Maybe. Can the legislature change it at a later date? Absolutely.

but the Legislature can completely wipe out Title 87 code and replace with a scheme like Colorado at any point, so long as they follow the constitution, which guarantees us the right to hunt & fish, but does not guarantee us a place to do it.

If RFW or other transferable schemes get introduced, then we fight tooth and nail to kill it. No transferable tags have been allowed to become law yet in MT, and we've taken away the variable priced license. As a state, we're a little protective of the democratic allocation of the resource and the interplay between the landowner and the hunter. It's why UPOM trashes us and morons like the mental midgets behind Green Decoys come after us.

 

[Ben Lamb]

I believe MT has to start thinking about how to increase objective numbers on elk, rather than kill off what's left.

The only over-objective elk herds in Montana are found in fantasyland.

One of these does not exclude the other, IMO.

Revisiting the elk plan and redifining objectives is work at the commission level. This is about the legislative level, and whether the bill is bad, neutral or good. My opinion is that it's neutral, and if anything, strengthens commission authority by placing in code their current ARM rule.