Conservation Hunters left with no other choice

I know Berman et al are going to try and label these concerned hunters as "green decoys", but they tried every avenue possible and were left with no other choice but a lawsuit to protect wildlife habitat security, to keep ungulates from seeking shelter on private lands, exacerbating the problem.

I know alot of these guys personally, and not only are they conservation hunters, a number of them are also retired state and federal employees like FWP and Forest Service.

Groups sue Helena-Lewis and Clark National Forest over big game security

Helena Hunters and Anglers Association, Montana Backcountry Hunters and Anglers, the Montana Wildlife Federation, Anaconda Sportsman’s Club, and the Clancy-Unionville Citizens Task Force filed the lawsuit in U.S. District Court in Missoula Aug. 25.

A coalition of hunting groups filed a federal lawsuit last week against the Helena-Lewis and Clark National Forest alleging that the agency failed to consider alternatives to controversial new big game security measures...

The organizations say the Forest Service erred in its March 1 decision to eliminate big game hiding cover requirements for the Divide area west of Helena. “Treeless” big game security puts elk herds in jeopardy and sets a dangerous precedent, the lawsuit alleges.

“Simply put, (litigation) is our last tool in the toolbox,” said John Sullivan, Backcountry Hunters and Anglers Montana chair. “If we accept that elk need security from hunters and predators, then that means dense trees or else they’ll move onto private ground.

Click to expand...

Here is what Jack Lyon, the leading elk researcher in the West, said about the situation on the Helena National Forest, and the precedent it sets nationwide:

"This is an exceedingly disturbing development. The habitat model in question was developed through cooperative research in the 1970s involving several study areas in Montana. FWP has just republished the final report of that research. For over 40 years, the model has been subjected to repeated tests and confirmations.... There is absolutely no valid reason to believe that hunted elk can adjust to a habitat without security cover."

The question is so big it needs folks to intervene. Why are we not using proven science?

I voiced a comment of support on the Montana BHA Facebook page . I think the last thing backcountry hunters and anglers wants to do is get involved with litigation, so I appreciate them making a tough but warranted decision. Because of topography, road density, and human use, I think elk security via timber is especially important in the Helena national forest.

Nameless Range said:

I voiced a comment of support on the Montana BHA Facebook page . I think the last thing backcountry hunters and anglers wants to do is get involved with litigation, so I appreciate them making a tough but warranted decision. Because of topography, road density, and human use, I think elk security via timber is especially important in the Helena national forest.

Click to expand...

Agreed. It's also a great case-in-point why we shouldn't rush to eliminate or make harder our right to sue our own Government for failing to live up to the law.

Davis Stalling wrote an article yesterday on the habitat security aspect of this.

Elk Vulnerability: Secure Habititat Protects Healthy Herds and Hunting

As a former Wildlife Program Leader for the U.S. Forest Service’s Northern Region, Christensen not only helped pioneer the concept of elk vulnerability, he did something about it. In 1989, he joined with other wildlife professional from state and federal agencies, universities and timber companies to form an Elk Vulnerability Working Group. Through research, symposiums and publications, the group united biologists and managers to identify vulnerability problems and seek solutions...

Thanks in large part to the leadership and efforts of Alan Christensen and others who participated in the Elk Vulnerability Working Group, land and wildlife managers developed standards to incorporate into management plans, ensuring protection of habitat security to reduce vulnerability and maintain healthy elk herds and hunting opportunity. But some managers seem to be forgetting the history and the science...

“A lot of time, effort, cooperation and good, solid science went into understanding habitat security and elk vulnerability, and developing reasonable standards that help us maintain healthy habitat, healthy elk herd, and public hunting opportunities,” Alan Christensen says. “It’s a proud part of Forest Service history. We need to stick to the science and maintain these standards.”

Click to expand...

How does the breaks herd do so well if the "security cover" theory is so important to elk?

Why do the elk leave the heavily timbered forest service land for wide open, private foothills during hunting season if this is true?

I'm clueless on this - not trying to fight just trying to understand these contradictions. My experiences seem to indicate hunting pressure has a lot more to do with it then cover.

SteveE said:

How does the breaks herd do so well if the "security cover" theory is so important to elk?

Why do the elk leave the heavily timbered forest service land for wide open, private foothills during hunting season if this is true?

I'm clueless on this - not trying to fight just trying to understand these contradictions. My experiences seem to indicate hunting pressure has a lot more to do with it then cover.

Click to expand...

Elk harvest needs to be limited or controlled in some way.

In the breaks, this is done with limited permits. On private farmland, it's done by limiting access.

In general, public land units this is usually done by either remoteness or cover. This area doesn't have the remoteness, so it relies on the cover.

Randy11 said:

Elk harvest needs to be limited or controlled in some way.

In the breaks, this is done with limited permits. On private farmland, it's done by limiting access.

In general, public land units this is usually done by either remoteness or cover. This area doesn't have the remoteness, so it relies on the cover.

Click to expand...

Bingo.

Look at how fast the elk numbers in HD410 dropped when it was a general cow season for youth hunters.

Well said.

So the cover is required to protect them from humans and too many tags. ??

So biologically elk really dont require this security cover - it is about human pressure. ??

SteveE said:

Well said.

So the cover is required to protect them from humans and too many tags. ??

So biologically elk really dont require this security cover - it is about human pressure. ??

Click to expand...

Biologically all animals need cover for a variety of reasons...to escape thermal stresses (heat and cold), snow, etc. Cover is pretty important for hiding fawns/calves. There are other predators that they use cover to avoid beside humans as well.

BuzzH said:

Biologically all animals need cover for a variety of reasons...to escape thermal stresses (heat and cold), snow, etc. Cover is pretty important for hiding fawns/calves. There are other predators that they use cover to avoid beside humans as well.

Click to expand...

This is just field observations so I defer to you guys that have a lot more knowledge on the subject.

It seems like elk move out of heavy cover unless it is rifle season or the sun. It seems to me that every other time they are trying to be in the semi-open. Excluding rifle season, they feed in the open until the sun moves them into shade.

Hunting the breaks country makes me wonder if "cover" to the elk and deer is different then what humans consider cover. Has Walt Disney made us believe "cover" needs a roof over it ie; high heavy trees. Those elk find enough cover to live 365 days a year out there and central mt herd is increasing faster then any other. Not much security cover. Private land is the cover.

I wonder if the issue is not human pressure more then security cover.

No doubt when the rifles start banging that is where they head, and thank God it is there for them but the majority of the year, when the sun is not pushing on them, I find elk in the opens.

Litigation is what the world has come to I guess.

SteveE said:

This is just field observations so I defer to you guys that have a lot more knowledge on the subject.

It seems like elk move out of heavy cover unless it is rifle season or the sun. It seems to me that every other time they are trying to be in the semi-open. Excluding rifle season, they feed in the open until the sun moves them into shade.

Hunting the breaks country makes me wonder if "cover" to the elk and deer is different then what humans consider cover. Has Walt Disney made us believe "cover" needs a roof over it ie; high heavy trees. Those elk find enough cover to live 365 days a year out there and central mt herd is increasing faster then any other. Not much security cover. Private land is the cover.

I wonder if the issue is not human pressure more then security cover.

No doubt when the rifles start banging that is where they head, and thank God it is there for them but the majority of the year, when the sun is not pushing on them, I find elk in the opens.

Litigation is what the world has come to I guess.

Click to expand...

I think you're not giving elk enough credit for how they learn from all kinds of experiences. I also think you're applying your own experience to a rather specific elk herd and painting with a broad brush applying that to everywhere else. An elk herd in the breaks will not necessarily act the same as a herd in St. Regis.

The thing to keep in mind, is that on a very basic sense, all animals need food, water, and shelter.

I believe your hang-up regarding the "Disney" comment is that this lawsuit is about a problem that you believe can only be mitigated by old growth trees, etc.

That's not the case, hiding cover is hiding cover. In areas of central Montana, or even where I live here in Laramie, the TOPOGRAPHY of the country itself can be adequate for hiding cover. The topography can also provide thermal cover (think shaded side of a ridge, leeward side of a ridge to escape the wind, and perhaps bedding on a south facing slope during cold weather).

But, make no mistake, that country is providing COVER.

IME, given a choice in Western Montana, with thick tree cover, even unpressured elk will bed on North Slopes when the weather is hot, and prefer to bed on south exposures when its cold.

At the same time, heavily pressured elk will absolutely lay out in 90 degree weather on a south slope on private ground, rather than have their asses shot off in the trees. That is not making the case that elk don't need trees for hiding/thermal cover, rather that they will endure uncomfortable and less than ideal situations to stay alive. Elk will also feed in less than ideal places (in cover) rather than risk getting caught in the open. IME, old bull elk are notorious for this behavior, they'll scratch a meager living in the trees, higher elevations, etc. rather than risk being in areas with better forage that may not be as secure.

What I'm saying is that making generalizations as to WHY elk behave the way they do is pretty risky. There are lots of moving parts as to the "why" part of how elk behave.

But, in areas that have high hunting pressure, open, timbered, etc. elk absolutely will seek out the areas where they feel the most secure.

I don't know if y'all noticed, but last week I was going through the EQC meeting this next week, read through the DNRC proposals for 2017 bills. One of them is to double the board feet for allowable timber harvest on State lands. I made some calls to a number of sportsmens groups to give a heads up that are concerned with the habitat security aspect, what I feel are chess moves that will drive ungulates towards private lands. But then that may be what some want.

I live in western MT Buzz. I hunt timbered mountains more then the breaks herd just for reference.

I think we agree that secure cover can come in different forms.

Kat - doubling the timber harvest on STATE lands makes no sense. The majority of state lands dont have enough timber to interest the loggers. The only sections with profitable stands would be in the middle of large forest service tracts.

The forest service land I travel does not seem healthy. Pine beetle kill and blowdowns worse then I have ever seen on 40+ years. Not sure who is at fault - fire surpression, enviro lawsuits, i dont claim to have the education to understand it all but I do know what I see and if they want to log a section of state land in the middle of 20 sections of timbered forrest service land then let them have at it. To my uneducated eye the harvested land supports more feed and the non-predator wildlife use the heck out of those clearcuts.


Twenty sections of solid timber is only good for the mountain lions and bears imo.

Lawsuit prompts Forest Service to reinstate elk security standard

Helena-Lewis Clark National Forest has decided to withdraw a controversial change in elk security requirements in the Divide area near Helena that sportsmen’s groups argued in a lawsuit could have negatively impacted big-game habitat... “We’re pleased that the Forest Service listened to our concerns and recognizes the importance of maintaining habitat security for healthy elk herds and ample hunting opportunity,” Dave Stalling, MWF Western field representative, said in a statement. “This is good news for elk and good news for those of us who hunt elk.”

John Sullivan III, chairman of Backcountry Hunters and Anglers, said blanket application of the 4a standard is difficult for forests.

“We acknowledge that,” Sullivan said. “But they abandoned any elk security requirement. The only way the public can hold the forest accountable is if they have an elk security standard.”

Click to expand...

Thanks to Helena Hunters & Anglers (especially Gayle Joslin), Montana Backcountry Hunters & Anglers, MWF, Clancy-Unionville Citizens Task Force and Anaconda Sportsmen's Club.