Here we go again in MT...

[wind gypsy]

Another very well articulated point from Newberg from his forum. Ideas have been offered, whatcha think the odds are Worsech will embrace these ideas since they don't serve the Governors ilk?

I'm still trying to figure out the logic here. Maybe that is an exercise in futility.

This spring, the Department gave us HB 505, where landowners could sponsor up to 10 hunters if their unit was at objective. We were told that the rationale was for landowners to stay at objective, as once they get above objective HB 505 would no longer allow this liberal use of sponsoring hunters. Supposedly, and incentive for landowner to get more elk killed.

Now, we get this proposal that is based on units that are way over objective. It gives every incentive to keep objectives set at artificially low number and gives no incentive to kill cows, as the units being identified for the new plan are those that are over objective. This new idea lets the real money animals, bulls, get served up to private land hunters without restriction.

So, if the department is looking for landowner incentive to get elk numbers down to objective as we were told with HB 505, why are they proposing this plan that gives landowners every financial incentive to keep number higher and above objective so that they can continue with virtually unrestricted bull elk hunting?

Seems punitive to those landowners who have worked to get elk numbers down via hunting and/or those landowners who have a higher tolerance for elk and thus higher objectives in the unit where they operate. Rather, this proposal gives way more benefit to those who have declined efforts to try manage elk by giving them an unlimited stream of bull elk tags.

Maybe that is a rhetorical question I'm trying to answer, but I'm trying to follow what seems to be a bipolar string of logic between the Department proposals and what the stated rationale is for each.

Here are the some of the ideas I've provided to the Commission and the Director in emails, phone calls, and meetings. I've share the same with some legislators who seem to be focused on elk ideas.

1. Where elk are above objective, give Private Land Only cow tags. Don't cap them. Given all cooperative landowners every chance possible to lower elk numbers.

2. Absolutely no cow elk hunting on public lands, as this only places pressure on the "wrong elk" and habituates elk to move to the private land sanctuaries. Kill the elk that are the problem elk, the ones spending most their time under irrigation pivots. Cow elk lead the herds. Drive them to private land sanctuaries and the entire herd follows. Take pressure off public land cow elk and put that pressure on private land cow elk via #1 above.

3. Shorten seasons for all elk, to include taking them out of the new muzzleloader season. This huge period of pressure only serves to condition elk to find private land sanctuaries and keep them there beyond hunting seasons. This would include getting rid of shoulder season.

4. For those landowners trying to keep numbers down and having to deal with neighbors who provide elk sanctuary during hunting season, give them financial reimbursement from the General Fund. I say General Fund as this problem has nothing to do with hunting, rather how people exercise their property rights. Given these working landowners assistance with fencing, hazing, and whatever else can reward those who are trying to solve the problems.

I could come up with a lot more, but these four, or at least the first 3, seem would be a much better experiment to try.

 

[wind gypsy]

The whole "we are obligated to manage towards objectives in the elk management plan" excuse is absurd. They disregard goals and portions of the EMP all of the time.

One part that has been repeatedly pointed out is in relation to the elk being accessible:

4. Elk populations in portions of some EMUs may be almost entirely inaccessible to
hunters during the general hunting season or accessible to only a few hunters. To
avoid over-harvest of accessible elk on public lands or private lands open to
hunting, the inaccessible elk may not be included in objective numbers. Trend
count number objectives may include only elk normally accessible to general
hunting (if they are a distinct segment), though hunter access negotiations will
continue. Elk occupying these “refuges” may be counted separately where
practical (if they are a distinct segment) and sub-objectives established that could
be operative if access negotiations are successful. If significant harvest of these
“refuge” elk is possible with special management at some times and locations,
they should be included in objective levels.

Following that portion wouldn't jive with their end goals though..

 

[mtwarden]

the "over objective" is not biological like many think- it's social, the habitat can withstand more elk across the state (there might be a rate exception, but I'm not aware of it); landowners can not and I get that part

if the "over objective" is landowner tolerance, then there are plenty of tools in the tool chest already to reduce those numbers, reducing bull opportunity for public land hunters and replacing it with bull harvest on private land is NOT a viable way to reduce the herd number

the sad part is you have plenty of landowners that allow hunting, but enough that don't that they're throwing a wrench into the whole works; the elk "refuges" don't typically last year round and the landowner that allowed hunting gets bit in the a$$ a couple of months later when the elk decide to come off their "refuge"

if someone had the conojus they would further incentivize landowners to allow harvest- more carrot, but also decentiivize those that harbor elk part time- some stick

 

[Erict]

Game Damage Program​

About the Program​

Game damage occurs when wildlife such as elk, deer, and antelope concentrate on private farms and ranches and damage crops and property.
Landowners may be eligible for game damage assistance if they allow public hunting during established hunting seasons. Assistance may include hazing, repellants, temporary or permanent stackyard fencing, damage hunts, kill permits, or supplemental game damage licenses.
Landowners may report game damage to the local game warden, FWP biologist or FWP regional office.
Typically, game damage hunts are small in geographic scale and occur only on one landowner's land, with a relatively small number of hunters recruited from the Hunt Roster and, if requested by FWP, a list of names submitted by the landowner (no more than 25% of the total hunters may be selected from the landowner’s list.)
The primary intent of a damage hunt is to reduce crop and property damage by re-distributing game animals with only minimal harvest.

Management Hunts​

A management hunt is a proactive measure to prevent or reduce potential damage caused by large concentrations of game animals resulting from seasonal migrations, extreme weather conditions, restrictive public hunting access on adjacent or nearby properties, or other factors. Management hunts typically occur on a larger scale than game damage hunts and may take place across multiple ownerships. There may be relatively large numbers of hunters recruited from the Hunt Roster for a longer period of time with the potential for a significant harvest. Some hunters (no more than 25% of the total) may also be selected from a list of names submitted by the landowner or landowners, if requested by FWP.)

Supplemental Game Damage License Hunts​

A supplemental game damage license hunt is a very small-scale measure trying to harvest no more than 12 animals to prevent or reduce crop or property damage in situations where larger-scale game damage hunts or management hunts are not applicable.
By law (MCA 87-2-520), the Department may issue a specific type of license called supplemental game damage license, valid only for antlerless or doe/fawn elk, deer, or antelope, and valid only for a specific property, specific time period, and this specific type of hunt.
Also by the same law, depending upon whether the hunting district regulations offer limited permits or not, landowners may designate some or all of the hunters who may receive supplemental game damage licenses.

 

[wind gypsy]

There will be Ideas. Wouldn’t be surprised if one of them isn’t a ballot initiative if the beatings continue.

Guest view: Citizens' elk coalition forming

Elk hunting is everything to Montanans. We guard our vacation days with jealousy in anticipation of elk camp deep in the forests or Breaks country. We choose our sick days

mtstandard.com

 

[mtwarden]

^ can't argue with that article much

 

[Deadfall]

Solution is simple. Increase the permits in these areas. FWP Flys over private, hazing elk off. If that's once a month, or 4 times a month. FWP is constantly airborne anyway.

Make landowner tags only good for tge landowners land.

Not building rocket ships.

Recon if landowners don't like it....oh well.

2 rambling cents from a moron

 

[Deadfall]

View attachment 356264

Worsech is posturing, he doesn't give a fook about your ideas.

They are swimming in ideas, but if they don't serve the governor's chronies they are not sufficient. There are wildlife professionals on staff that that understand these things but surprise surprise, they probably dont serve the governor's chronies either. I inserted a quote below that illustrates exactly that.

Lots of good info on Hunttalk in relation to how people have been trying to share ideas and why they aren't being listened to.

From user SapperJ24:

Hmmm. Last year we shut down a bunch of ideas. Could of shut down more, except the masses quit. As a whole we slacked off.

Granted we should not have to work this hard. That's the world we live in.

 

[wind gypsy]

Hmmm. Last year we shut down a bunch of ideas. Could of shut down more, except the masses quit. As a whole we slacked off.

Granted we should not have to work this hard. That's the world we live in.

Agree that enough action and negative feedback could still kill this thing, it just seems the request for ideas is beyond disingenuous when they have plenty.

 

[Deadfall]

Agree that enough action and negative feedback could still kill this thing, it just seems the request for ideas is beyond disingenuous when they have plenty.

Does seem that way at first glance. However, the political realm is extremely difficult to navigate. Worsech job is completely political and has been for decades. He is vastly outnumbered. Unless we, as tge dipshot joe smo public give him the equalizing ammunition.

Not saying it's right. Just saying that's the way it is. Imperative we stay on the firing line.

 

[S.Clancy]

I'd also point out that, IMO, the residents don't own the animals either simply by virtue of paying income tax (the only MT tax residents pay that I don't). The state doesn't own the critters either......

This isn't a matter of opinion. The taxpayers of MT own the natural resources (water, wildlife, etc) per our constitution. FYI

 

[Deadfall]

We can't just come with negative feedback. We must offer alternative solutions. Most often the best solution is the simplest one.

I.E. FWP should be flying these private lands that are over objective. Hazing wildlife back to public. Doing so during the hunting season.

There should also be less grazing on public land. Leaving more winter forage.

Make landowner tags only good for that landowners piece of dirt.

Anyone who draws a permit in draw units, should gave a placard to hang in their rig for gamewardens to see.

Make anyone outfitting on private land be licensed through the board. There would have to be some verbage and definition changes.

In permit units that are over objective. Increase the permits. No special treatment one side or the other.

 

[Squincher]

So residents don't like having done to them what they did to non-residents? I suppose the landowners could argue that you should have bought land like they did, just as residents argue non-residents could have chosen to move.

 

[mmw194287]

So residents don't like having done to them what they did to non-residents? I suppose the landowners could argue that you should have bought land like they did, just as residents argue non-residents could have chosen to move.

Nope, not at all. Thanks though!

 

[Montana Slim]

So residents don't like having done to them what they did to non-residents? I suppose the landowners could argue that you should have bought land like they did, just as residents argue non-residents could have chosen to move.

 

[Deadfall]

There will be Ideas. Wouldn’t be surprised if one of them isn’t a ballot initiative if the beatings continue.

Guest view: Citizens' elk coalition forming

Elk hunting is everything to Montanans. We guard our vacation days with jealousy in anticipation of elk camp deep in the forests or Breaks country. We choose our sick days

mtstandard.com

Does anyone know district in NW montana they are referring to, that takes 530 hunter days to harvest a elk?

 

[S.Clancy]

Currently watching the Commission Work Session from today. Seems the commission is well aware that people are not happy. It's probably going to be a long day tomorrow....

Fish & Wildlife Commission: December 13, 2021 Work Session | Montana FWP

Informational Meeting Only! No decisions or voting will take place. No public comments will be taken.

fwp.mt.gov

 

[S.Clancy]

FWP pulls back limited elk permit proposals ahead of commission meeting

Commissioners described an outpouring of concern and anger from hunters and indicated the proposals would not receive the commission’s support.

helenair.com

 

[boovlawrence09]

​

​ ​

​ FWP proposes new, limited elk season structure to commission​ HELENA – Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks is looking at a handful of new strategies to better manage elk populations and improve quality hunting opportunities on public lands. FWP will propose these strategies to the Montana Fish and Wildlife Commission at its Dec. 14 meeting. In recent years, Montana has seen a dramatic increase in elk populations in many hunting districts around the state. Currently, 14 hunting districts are at least 200 percent above population objectives. Data also show an overcrowding of elk populations on private land, limiting opportunities for public land hunters. “What we know is the status quo isn’t working,” said FWP Director Hank Worsech. “So, we’re going to propose a few new strategies we think can finally help us make progress in addressing the problem, both for hunters and for landowners.” Required by law to achieve population objectives set by the Fish and Wildlife Commission, FWP proposes targeted provisions to fulfill the statutory requirement of managing to population objective, address the increasing impacts of high elk populations on Montana farmers and ranchers, and improve quality opportunities for hunters. Those numerical objectives are identified in the current elk management plan. The targeted provisions for 14 hunting districts with limited permits and over population objectives are: In all 14 hunting districts, FWP proposes to remove some or all of the limited either-sex permits. In eight of those hunting districts, where problems with distribution, population and access tend to be most acute, FWP is proposing to retain the limited either-sex permits but make them valid only on public land. In most of these districts, the permit quotas are proposed to be half of the 2021 quotas. The hunting districts proposed for this structure are: 411, 417, 426, 535 (newly proposed for 2022), 590, 702, 704 and 705. The proposal would also make a general elk license valid for either-sex elk only on private land in these eight districts. This would include the general archery and firearm seasons as well as the muzzleloader season. Early and late antlerless seasons would remain the same, and only be for antlerless elk in the districts in which they occur. All of FWP’s proposed hunting regulations are undergoing review as part of the agency’s regular, biennial season-setting process, and are subject to commission approval. If the commission approves the proposals, there will be a 30-day public comment opportunity. “We can’t keep doing the same thing over and over again and expect a different result. We have to try something different. This proposal is a new strategy we can implement for two years and see if it has the desired effect – more elk harvest, better elk availability on public lands, fewer landowner conflicts, and elk at population objective,” Worsech said. “In some hunting districts, we have broad public tolerance or outright support for limited permits, and we want to keep those in place.” By having different season types in multiple areas with similar circumstances – over population elk herds and limited either-sex permits – FWP will be able to analyze which strategy is most effective at decreasing elk numbers and moving more on to public land. In addition to this specific season proposal, a new elk plan is being developed with the help of guiding principles identified by an external working group and endorsed by the commission. The process for this new plan will include extensive public commenting opportunities. The Private Land/Public Wildlife council will also review all FWP access programs and revisit elk hunting access agreements, which provide access to private land in exchange for elk licenses and permits for the landowner. Worsech is also looking to pull together an additional citizen group to explore more ways to address issues around hunter access to private land and landowner preferences. The goal for the group will be to provide tangible recommendations FWP and the commission can implement. Also, with the availability of more federal Pittman-Robertson funds, FWP is exploring a three-fold increase of funding for its access programs. “It’s time for people to bring their best ideas forward, and I want to hear from them,” Worsech said. “Don’t just tell us what you don’t like. I want to hear your ideas to improve the situation. I hope we can all see and realize a better day for landowners, hunters and the elk resource itself.”

I am new here dont know if this is going through

 

[cgasner1]

I’ve been saying for years I would love to see the non residents go to a draw by region so we could help manage how many Wisconsin guys ended up where and make the 900 and breaks archery general again be nice if they could take that article one step farther, but that would be bad for the guides. I actually think making all those areas general archery would make it worse the pressure would push those elk into the ranches even sooner. I could be wrong on that but I hunt one of those units and the pressure is already insane


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk