Shoulder Seasons during Archery...

[El Jason]

I completely agree, Buzz!! I was just stating another thing most hunters overlooked. It will affect every tag/permit even the 'special tags'. But more importantly, like you pointed out, it will drastically impact elk and wildlife as a whole...

Shooting cow elk in early August - leaving unweened calves, 2 for 1 deal.
Shooting cow elk in late February - partially formed fetuses, 2 for 1, again.
Rifle shots during the ENTIRE pre-rut, rut, and post-rut - obviously impacting stress and mating habits, location, pattern.

Not to mention the environmental stress and impact of all other animals and everything else in the forest of having hunters out there for 7 months out of the year.

Just a couple of nits to pick.

Calves in August are fully functioning ruminants and will survive without mom.

No one ever gave a shit about cows with fetuses during the Gardiner and Gallatin late hunts back in the day.

 

[Straight Arrow]

Once again I will opine, with Colorado being a state seventy percent the size of Montana and including public land comprising only about seventy-five percent of that held by Montana, yet Colorado can sustain an elk population almost seventy-five percent greater than Montana … even before the proposed elk population reduction by shoulder seasons! Obviously, Montana values the elk wildlife asset much,much less than Colorado.

 

[BrowningBLR]

Just a couple of nits to pick.

Calves in August are fully functioning ruminants and will survive without mom.

No one ever gave a shit about cows with fetuses during the Gardiner and Gallatin late hunts back in the day.

I should have clarified... not all calves will survive without mom and not all will die. Mortality rates do go up without mom. Plenty of calves in October and November get incapacitated without mom or if the herd gets broken up by gunshots.

I care about cows with fetuses, and also 'wet' cows during the general season. That's a random moral line that I draw though - not saying it's right or wrong. Plus, Gardiner and Gallatin Canyon late hunts were a total train wreck, looking back at it now. Sure, everyone "got their elk" but total mismanagement.

 

[Ben Lamb]

The shoulder seasons are to end no later than Feb 15th.

Is a pregnant cow in November less valuable to the herd than one in February? You just end up having to look at the consequence the later it goes on.

 

[Nameless Range]

A good friend of mine was told, by a FWP employee, that the decision was made to create elk B-tags and that public comments were nothing more than a formality.

I don't doubt it's true, but it makes me sad when you write that $#!T. Either way I feel like we should make our comments if only to further highlight that in some instances FWP is not working in the best interests of wildlife and hunters.

 

[airlocksniffer]

Once again I will opine, with Colorado being a state seventy percent the size of Montana and including public land comprising only about seventy-five percent of that held by Montana, yet Colorado can sustain an elk population almost seventy-five percent greater than Montana … even before the proposed elk population reduction by shoulder seasons! Obviously, Montana values the elk wildlife asset much,much less than Colorado.

I blame the wolves....

 

[Ben Lamb]

I don't doubt it's true, but it makes me said when you write that $#!T. Either way I feel like we should make our comments if only to further highlight that in some instances FWP is not working in the best interests of wildlife and hunters.

It's because a lot of teeth that used to be in MEPA have been removed because certain industries were upset that public comment had to be taken in to consideration. Since it's inception, MEPA has been attacked and weakened piece-meal.

Want strong public involvement? Restore the public's voice. Same goes for EAJA - want to be able to hold your gov't accountable? Don't let Congress monkey with EAJA.

 

[BuzzH]

I don't doubt it's true, but it makes me said when you write that $#!T. Either way I feel like we should make our comments if only to further highlight that in some instances FWP is not working in the best interests of wildlife and hunters.

I agree, but how else do you explain the results of public comments being strongly opposed to elk B-tags, and elk B-tags happening anyway?

Its pretty clear that public comments DO NOT matter...with or without the phone call my friend made.

Its no different than the FWP rolling out shoulder seasons on a "pilot" basis in a few units, and 2 weeks later, before they even have the first clue about the results of their "pilot", they propose 44 more of them.

Funny too, that the 2 biologists I contacted in Region 2, had shoulder season recommendations ready to roll, before the "pilot" program was even implemented.

Why would they be directed to waste time on proposed shoulder seasons if we believe that the MFWP was going to truly run a couple "pilot" units and analyze the results before applying it to other units?

Answer?

This shit WAS going to happen...IS going to happen, and no amount of public comment is going to change it. Its not hard to see that this has been a rail-road job from the start.

Absolutely a joke...from stem to stern.

 

[Oak]

Once again I will opine, with Colorado being a state seventy percent the size of Montana and including public land comprising only about seventy-five percent of that held by Montana, yet Colorado can sustain an elk population almost seventy-five percent greater than Montana … even before the proposed elk population reduction by shoulder seasons! Obviously, Montana values the elk wildlife asset much,much less than Colorado.

Remember this post? Our wildlife managers insist that if not for the listed landowner welfare programs, tolerance and wildlife populations would be much lower here.

http://onyourownadventures.com/hunttalk/showpost.php?p=2478831&postcount=77

 

[Straight Arrow]

I remember, Oak ... and get it, loud & clear. However, that still does not deter me from asserting that Montana can sustain more elk by somehow creatively redistributing herds and mitigating adverse impacts, rather than suddenly and drastically reducing numbers to future levels which potentially could put them ‘back to the brink” … at least in certain areas and with respect to tourism and hunting opportunity.

 

[JMG]

I think everyone should submit a comment, regardless if folks feel it's not going to matter. If someone or some organization were to sue the MFWP Department, MFWP Commission, and/or the Governor . . . . I'm sure the attorneys would request a listing of the names and comments from everyone that did submit a comment to show the Court(s) that there was more folks against these "Shoulder Seasons" than for them. It would illustrate that they did not take into consideration the majority.

As stated above, it's too bad "we" cannot manage the wildlife based on science and NOT politics.

Also, it doesn't matter if a cow is pregnant of not . . . . . . the "Shoulder Season" is intended to reduce the number of elk. If you want to reduce the elk population . . . . . you kill more cows.

 

[katqanna]

I think everyone should submit a comment, regardless if folks feel it's not going to matter. If someone or some organization were to sue the MFWP Department, MFWP Commission, and/or the Governor . . . . I'm sure the attorneys would request a listing of the names and comments from everyone that did submit a comment to show the Court(s) that there was more folks against these "Shoulder Seasons" than for them. It would illustrate that they did not take into consideration the majority.

I strongly suspect that is why FWP has not supplied my requested public comments.

I have been digging, trying to find what is driving this whole damn thing from the Governors office. I have heard numerous speculations by hunters across the state, but none of those speculations accounted for what was really transpiring. Then yesterday, I got a call from a man that had made some inquiries, based on our conversation the day before, of all the speculations not holding up to scrutiny, he relayed some information, that connected to some other information I already had and some things put out by FWP that were staring me in the face and I had not caught it. This does have to do with Barretts SB 42 and just who would go after the Governor and FWP for "not meeting objective".

A really "successful" law case is the one you win before ever having to go to court. Strategy. The sportsmen, and definitely the wildlife, are the losers in this back room power play.

 

[Straight Arrow]

Kat, it is clear that this has more to do with the Montana EMP's social tolerance and Barrett's SB 42 than with the North American Wildlife Conservation Model and viable professional wildlife management on behalf of the people of Montana. 'Frustratingly sad.

 

[El Jason]

This does have to do with Barretts SB 42 and just who would go after the Governor and FWP for "not meeting objective".

I completely agree. I think FWPs feet are being held to the fire for failing to comply with SB 42 for so long. Some of it may be justified, some probably not. Regardless, the end result is having to live with a shitty EMP.

Had FWP been much more aggressive about not counting private land elk from the get go, things might be different. However, a precedent has been set and it's darned tough to change now when the pressure is getting ramped up.

IMO, the failure of the EMP for the sportsmen can best be illustrated in HD410. I remember when there were over 4k elk in 410. The hunting was outstanding and the sportsmen loved it. However, because of the EMP and an objective of around 2k elk, the public shot the piss out of the cows for a number of years. Now, elk numbers are pretty close to objective. There are far fewer elk on public land, and probably just as many on private land as compared to years ago when the unit was over objective.

If you think I'm drunk and need to step away from the keyboard tell me. However, this is my view from the cheap seats.

 

[Ben Lamb]

FYI:

http://leg.mt.gov/css/services division/lepo/mepa/mepaforpublic.asp

CAN I USE MEPA TO STOP A PROJECT?

The short answer to this question is "no" if the proposal is in compliance with all of the requirements for receiving the permit, license, or other authorization to proceed and if the agency has conducted an adequate MEPA review. The state laws and rules that authorize the proposed action also describe the requirements that must be met in order for the proposal to go forward or not. If they are met, the project goes forward.

Compliance with MEPA and the identification of the proposal's potential impact on the human environment are only procedural requirements. By law, agencies may not withhold, deny, or impose conditions on any permit or other authorization to act based on MEPA unless the project sponsor and the decisionmaker mutually agree. However, other laws or rules may allow the denial or conditioning of a proposal based on the information discovered as the result of a MEPA review. Also, for an agency-initiated action in which the same state agency is both the project sponsor and the decisionmaker, MEPA concerns can have significantly more impact on the agency's final decision to proceed.

WHAT ARE THE BENEFITS OF PUBLIC PARTICIPATION AND MY COMMENTS?

Your comments ensure that the decisionmaker is identifying and analyzing the impacts and values that are important to you and others.

Public comments give a private project sponsor and the decisionmaker a better understanding of the public perception and acceptance of the project. Citizen concerns about environmental impacts or the acceptability of a proposal can result in voluntary or, in some cases, enforceable modifications or agreements that ultimately result in better projects.
Public involvement can force decisionmakers and project sponsors to consider environmental impacts earlier in the planning of the project.
Public participation helps state government make informed decisions that may reduce the potential for serious unintended consequences. Your comments can often provide information to decisionmakers that might not be available through other sources, and they may prevent oversight of other legal considerations, including local ordinances, covenants, or easements.
Public participation may show decisionmakers and legislators where there's a need for policy changes.
Most importantly, your comments give you a voice in decisions that affect you and your environment, and they can lead to better decisionmaking by state government.

 

[katqanna]

Speaking with another FWP wildlife biologist this afternoon, they are not going to have any pilot project data available until after Feb. 15th, when the season ends, that is well after the Jan. 22nd deadline for public comments.

I think they
A - need to fess up that there is no real public process going on, stop blowing smoke up everyones *ss, wasting our time with a dog and pony show;
B - provide the data proving they have tried other methods in the EMP, the data for the existing objectives to prove if there is failure on that part to justify the elk shoulder seasons proposal;
C - delay the other 44 shoulder season proposals until after these pilot projects have been analyzed and made available to the public.

 

[Spartan_Eric]

Sadly enough this article from a few months ago, summarizes the political marching orders:

http://billingsgazette.com/lifestyles/recreation/wildlife-commission-oks-extended-elk-hunting-seasons-guidelines/article_9716eebd-8cb8-5104-90ed-2afebb4f82af.html

 

[----]

Sadly enough this article from a few months ago, summarizes the political marching orders:

http://billingsgazette.com/lifestyles/recreation/wildlife-commission-oks-extended-elk-hunting-seasons-guidelines/article_9716eebd-8cb8-5104-90ed-2afebb4f82af.html

To add to JLS and Kat above-

“It all comes back to, if we don’t do something the Legislature will,”

- Dan Vermillion

 

[katqanna]

“It all comes back to, if we don’t do something the Legislature will,”

I believe that particular statement is smoke and mirrors, to distract the public, get them focused on a retaliatory legislature to deflect attention from what has really happened.

Remember when Bob Ream resigned from the Commission at a public Commission meeting, calling out the Republican threat that was directly spoken to him that he would not be re-appointed?

I remember a news article, maybe back in 2011, where Schweitzer was threatening not to sign a plan (turned out to be the APHIS Brucellosis Management Plan).

Then in 1997 APHIS was threatening Montana and Racicot pushed back, wrote a letter to the editor, publicly calling out APHIS for their threats, ended up suing the fed and thus was born the IBMP.

Sometimes you get people bold enough to publicly call out the strong arm tactics and name names.

 

[JoeSchmo]

I talked to a biologist today and she said in this specific region, 3 biologist within 3 HDs do not want rifle hunts coinciding with archery. She said only late shoulder season will be proposed to the Commission. I asked if she thought the Commission will adopt that proposal. She said with the number of public comments concerning this overlapping rifle/archery season and with all 3 of their recommendations, she didn’t feel the Commission would vote otherwise… we will see.