Here we go again in MT...

[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

 

[Deadfall]

They pulled it back. Awesome. Thats 1. Few hundred more to go

 

[Bojo34]

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

Interesting, I'll look that up. Do you know offhand if they distinguish between "taxpayers?" (property vs income for example?

 

[mtwarden]

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

great news! obviously lots of folks calling and writing helped that decision

we can pat ourselves on the back for now, but need to remain vigilant and committed to act when necessary