UPOM suing FWP over elk regulations

[Eric Albus]

So, the public losing a lot of opportunity to hunt elk is the choice you’d make?

 

[Eric Albus]

I'm struggling with the math. So if we only manage to accessible elk, and the data shows say 50% to objective for a given HD, you're saying that you'd be comfortable with a major cut in permits even though there are hundreds or thousands of head on private that you might actually lease. Wouldn't that significantly cut down on your revenue to go from at least some tags to nearly no tags despite an HD actually being over objective if the non accessible elk where counted?

I’m not suggesting “count elk only on public”, I want all the elk in an area counted, accessible and inaccessible. There are those on here suggesting we count only accessible land elk, and if we do that permits will be cut down next to zero.

 

[tjones]

There are those on here suggesting we count only accessible land elk,

Well that is what the EMP calls for. The same EMP you keep quoting objective numbers from.

 

[sacountry]

I’m not suggesting “count elk only on public”, I want all the elk in an area counted, accessible and inaccessible. There are those on here suggesting we count only accessible land elk, and if we do that permits will be cut down next to zero.

Gotcha. Count all elk, but only manage the elk on public.

 

[DFS]

So, the public losing a lot of opportunity to hunt elk is the choice you’d make?

The public “opportunity” you are peddling isn’t worth it. It is very one sided. What is the point of your opportunity? Kill bulls to reduce numbers?

 

[brockel]

The public “opportunity” you are peddling isn’t worth it. It is very one sided. What is the point of your opportunity? Kill bulls to reduce numbers?

I say we start killing bulls to help move the herds off the hayfields. We shoot bulls from middle of May to end of June on private. By then the hay is knocked down or close and hopefully all the shooting has kept the elk off the fields. I mean this is all to control elk populations and get the herds moving isn’t it?

For every bull knocked down in that time frame 5 cows must be killed by the general public in the fall on the same place the bulls were killed on that summer until populations are down to the new EMP numbers

 

[DFS]

I say we start killing bulls to help move the herds off the hayfields. We shoot bulls from middle of May to end of June on private. By then the hay is knocked down or close and hopefully all the shooting has kept the elk off the fields. I mean this is all to control elk populations and get the herds moving isn’t it?

For every bull nocked down in that time frame 5 cows must be killed by the general public in the fall on the same place the bulls were killed on that summer until populations are down to the new EMP numbers

Hammer some half grown velvet bulls and let’s see what the real problem is. I like it. We have to try something different. This fits the bill.

 

[Hunting Wife]

So, the public losing a lot of opportunity to hunt elk is the choice you’d make?

If the elk aren’t accessible for the public to hunt, the “opportunity” has already been lost. So yes, cut the permits until there is opportunity on public again. This shouldn’t be surprising. That’s what people have been saying all along.

I say we start killing bulls to help move the herds off the hayfields.

I suggested it once before, but if UPOM is successful with this lawsuit, I would advocate we go straight to aerial gunning, starting with the bulls. If that doesn’t get the population to acceptable levels, then we’ll start on the cows. You know, since removing bulls seems to be the problem and all. I’m only half joking.

 

[Eric Albus]

Well that is what the EMP calls for. The same EMP you keep quoting objective numbers from.

The object numbers were set in the breaks before the elk were turned loose in the breaks.

 

[Eric Albus]

The public “opportunity” you are peddling isn’t worth it. It is very one sided. What is the point of your opportunity? Kill bulls to reduce numbers?

The number of bulls killed off the private ranches thru 454 didn’t dent numbers of mature bulls, let alone over all numbers of bulls.
The “opportunity” of which I speak is giving the landowner(s) a permit for which they must allow 3 additional permittees in for bulls, AND allow an antlerless harvest to occur to reduce numbers significantly.

 

[Eric Albus]

If the elk aren’t accessible for the public to hunt, the “opportunity” has already been lost. So yes, cut the permits until there is opportunity on public again. This shouldn’t be surprising. That’s what people have been saying all along.


I suggested it once before, but if UPOM is successful with this lawsuit, I would advocate we go straight to aerial gunning, starting with the bulls. If that doesn’t get the population to acceptable levels, then we’ll start on the cows. You know, since removing bulls seems to be the problem and all. I’m only half joking.

Agreed, the “publics opportunity” at the elk in permit areas has been reduced substantially, due to increased pressure by “the public” pressuring the elk into private land.
“We” now have 3 choices, #1, work with the landowners to gain some access. #2, don’t work with landowners and continue trying to force access, or #3 keep doing things the same(which to me looks like a combination of 2&3 which has us where we are now)

 

[antlerradar]

The “opportunity” of which I speak is giving the landowner(s) a permit for which they must allow 3 additional permittees in for bulls, AND allow an antlerless harvest to occur to reduce numbers significantly.

This is not the deal that the director signed with the Wilks. I could support this deal if a few other issues are put in writing. the current one with the Wilks not so much.

 

[tjones]

The object numbers were set in the breaks before the elk were turned loose in the breaks.

Nice try but you whiffed the point.

BTW the EMP is 2005. There were elk in the breaks prior to 2005.

 

[Straight Arrow]

The object numbers were set in the breaks before the elk were turned loose in the breaks.

That's untrue bar talk someone made up to support a false narrative. You would be hard pressed to substantiate that with any credible documentation, other than some "bar talk" vague remembrances, likely from UPOM predecessors.

 

[Addicting]

 

[brocksw]

The object numbers were set in the breaks before the elk were turned loose in the breaks.

I guess Lewis and Clark were full of shit then...

 

[Deleted member 20812]

I guess Lewis and Clark were full of shit then...

I wonder if they counted all of the elk, or followed page 55.

 

[Wind Gypsy]

So, the public losing a lot of opportunity to hunt elk is the choice you’d make?

Yes, but they'd actually have to be under the objectives for the loss of opportunity. In some places the objectives are so low that I think even the "accessible elk" would still be over objective so there wouldn't be a loss in opportunity. Others not so much.. E 411 and 530 would need less than 4% of the current estimated population to be classified as "accessible" to be under objective.

I could get on board with taking action against FWP for not following the EMP, but in a different manner than the UPOM jabronis want..

 

[Wind Gypsy]

I’m not suggesting “count elk only on public”, I want all the elk in an area counted, accessible and inaccessible. There are those on here suggesting we count only accessible land elk, and if we do that permits will be cut down next to zero.

Next to zero is about the ballpark of some of the objectives MOGA and UPOM insist we need to manage towards.. So I don't think permits would need to be cut in many areas where elk populations are such a "problem".

 

[Eric Albus]

I guess Lewis and Clark were full of shit then

No, they weren’t.
Neither am I when I say elk were re-introduced(foisted is another term could be used) upon the landowners of eastern Montana in the 40’s.