Gastro Gnome - Eat Better Wherever

MT Elk Shoulder season legislation

Good letters in the public comments from Hellgate Hunters and MWF, who has really visibly stepped up its advocacy for elk in the Rocky Mountains, particularly Montana in the last year.
 
Last edited:
Randy,

With no intent to place blame on the RMEF, did anyone in those discussions ever honestly believe this was going to end well? You've been dealing with the FWP for years, same as some of those/us posting on this thread. This wasn't the first time the public was ignored or the first demonstration of the MTFWP flat lying. Certainly not their first demonstration of poorly planned management.

Its been a pattern for a long, long, long time...for me personally, dating back to the mid-80's when mule deer were tanking and the FWP was still allowing unlimited doe harvest for anyone with an A-tag. I was told to "not worry, the deer are there"...even though I watched them circle the drain. The places I hunted mule deer in the 1980's, I haven't seen a live mule deer in 7 years. Was told the same thing with Goats in the Bitterroot, when 75 tags were being issued good for any drainage from hwy12 to the Lost Trail Pass...now down to 1 or 2 tags. Same thing as cow elk being all but wholesale slaughtered in the Bitterroot. Same thing as elk hitting the chit in the Bob, everywhere West of Missoula, etc. Same thing with OTC whitetail b-tags for the Swan and Blackfoot. Same as a vast majority opposing the entire elk B-tag idea...I could go on all day.

There is a pattern of deception, lies, and mismanagement by the MTFWP and IMO, nobody is holding them accountable.

As you're aware, many on this board were already calling what has now happened with shoulder seasons...that wasn't by accident or that we are fortune tellers. Again, the FWP has done nothing here with these shoulder seasons that should be a surprise to anyone. Nor should anyone be surprised, unless they flat weren't paying attention to the complete failed mission of the MTFWP in my hunting lifetime. Its tough to find much of a positive since I began hunting in 1979...with the exception of turkey, lions, wolves and bears, hunting for those has gotten better. The rest is wayyyy worse now than when I first started. Worse for elk, deer, sheep, goats, moose, and pronghorn across the board.

Based on that past history, I had no reason to believe that the FWP was going to all of a sudden grow some management smarts and do this as they said they would.

As a long time Sportsmen in Montana, I will warn those that still find any reason to trust the FWP, that they are going to be only one thing, and that's sorry they ever did. It just amazes me that anyone, from any group, would have had any faith in the MTFWP doing the right thing with shoulder seasons.
 
Buzz, to your questions, I can only speak for me personally.

Did I consider some of the things you mention when putting my support to the idea of a limited experiment known as shoulder seasons? Yeah, to some degree. I also considered a lot of other points that needed to be weighed at that time.

Did I think FWP would so quickly hit the accelerator to expand shoulder seasons? Not at all.

I had "hoped" FWP would hold to what was represented. These kind of decisions require analyzing all alternatives; including the alternative of doing nothing, the risks of things going south as they did with shoulder seasons, the benefits of potential improvement if the experiment were successful, the long-term benefit of helping one of your largest conservation partners in Montana, helping some really good people who are in a political hotbox, and a host of other issues.

I was disappointed to see FWP go full speed ahead on shoulder seasons, given it was represented as a limited experiment. And in spite of the criticisms levied, I would weigh in with the same support, given the same facts and political context of that time.

I still hold there are some great people at FWP. There are some who are busting their hump to do what is right for hunters and the resource, exposing themselves to serious employment jeopardy in doing so. I wish these FWP employees had more protections from the political process. Fact is, they don't and the legislature knows it. Unfortunately, the political process FWP is exposed to is a huge challenge.

I wish things had turned out differently on shoulder seasons, for so many different reasons. But, it did not. Those who might have offered support for those seasons as a limited scope experiment are left to be criticized and second-guessed for that support. Comes with the territory.

I know the RMEF folks involved in the daily decisions. They are great folks who have the best interest of elk and hunters in mind. If I was building a team of folks to be advocates for the long-term interest of elk, the staff of RMEF would be my first draft choices. I have watched them work in some very challenging situations and every time they done what they think is best for elk, other wildlife, their habitat, and our hunting heritage.

FWP, RMEF, and other groups have to work together, no matter the past events or the situation of today or the challenges ahead. It will be a tough road, going forward. I wish I had answers, but I don't.
 
Mission - To ensure the future of elk, other wildlife, their habitat, and our hunting heritage.

In the effort to help with long-term (read future) of elk and habitat in Montana, FWP asked RMEF to support a "limited experimental" season that would supposedly prevent the legislature from dismantling FWP budgets and legislatively managing elk more than they already were. That was discussed, debated, and the decision was made to support a limited scope experiment. When the experiment was no longer what was represented and the scope was expanded, RMEF came out opposed to the expansion, as Sytes posted in post #45. Shoulder seasons were expanded almost immediately and provisions to protect against abuses where ignored. Why did RMEF not pin FWP to the wall on this? If they did, how? Legislative recourse is a valid concern, why not let them hold the match when burning the damn thing down?


Not everyone gets to sit back and lob their volleys with the benefit if hind sight. Some have to actually make decisions with current information, assess what they think will be best in the long-term, and accept the risks that come with doing so. I'm happy to accept those criticisms. And, I will push back when the criticism are uninformed and have no context to how the decisions were arrived at.You are a decision maker, so if you want to make this about you, so be it. The shoulder seasons were wrong then and they are wrong now. No hind sight! The context offered in support of the decision matrix does not add up.

If you think RMEF is somehow swayed in this decision by money or politics, you've were in different meetings and discussions than I was. If you think it was done without long consideration, you again would be misinformed or uninformed.You have not explained how gunning down elk for over sixth months makes sense to an organization charged with their protection?

As for the EMP, you're barking up the wrong tree. I, many on this site, and RMEF, have asked FWP to revisit that plan many times. I'm not the Governor or the Director or a legislator. Other than giving comment and requesting such, I can hardly go re-write the plan and tell FWP that this will now be law. I am not critical of those who were involved in these meetings (sportsman were underrepresented), rather disappointed in the belief that sportsman will be treated fairly by FWP's commission and legislators after several decades of deceit and betrayal.

I, many on this site, RMEF, and many RMEF members, were all there in 2002-2004 when the EMP was being crafted and we fought to keep the politicians out of it. I hope you were there, also. If you weren't there, spare me the comments about who has done what regarding the EMP.I was in college at MSU during this time and not as involved as i could/should have been. My point is that sportsman continue to negotiate in good faith with FWP and MT Government expecting a different outcome. Why not actively campaign against those who have/are screwing us? This is legislators, commissioners, fwp managers, directors, etc?

Continue your criticisms if that makes you feel better.
RMEF and others have gotten it wrong and need to right these wrongs. I often offer staunch support of RMEF and others on issues when they have it right. The "decision makers" were very secretive about the shoulder seasons when they were first rolled out as though a backroom agreement had been struck with FWP to make all better for sportsman. When inquiring about how this made sense, those questioned acted like it was all a big secret. This arrangement has and will continue to rain down chit on MT sportsman for years to come in spite of the collective wisdom by the decision makers involved. I do not claim to understand all of the detail involved in shoulder season program support. I am not alone in thinking a huge mistake was made by many organizations supporting the original program. Greater explanation of how we got here would be appreciated as it still does not make sense to many.
 
For me, it took watching FWP lie and wiggle about the 216” world record ram they picked up, then denied the existence of and lied about for over a year before manufacturing their giant freezer it was lost in lie, to realize just what crooked shitbags they are.
They are still lying about and hiding multiples 200”+ rams they picked up on the island. That freezer must be capital Y yuge
 
RMEF and others have gotten it wrong and need to right these wrongs. I often offer staunch support of RMEF and others on issues when they have it right. The "decision makers" were very secretive about the shoulder seasons when they were first rolled out as though a backroom agreement had been struck with FWP to make all better for sportsman. When inquiring about how this made sense, those questioned acted like it was all a big secret. This arrangement has and will continue to rain down chit on MT sportsman for years to come in spite of the collective wisdom by the decision makers involved. I do not claim to understand all of the detail involved in shoulder season program support. I am not alone in thinking a huge mistake was made by many organizations supporting the original program. Greater explanation of how we got here would be appreciated as it still does not make sense to many.

If you think this was some back room deal, you are again uninformed. You might want to go back and read the threads here on Hunt Talk from that period. The issues was scrutinized, criticized, and aired out here in great detail. The testimony given by supporters was live on the legislative video feeds, if you care to go pull those up and watch them. Hardly decisions/support made under the cover of darkness. Those supporting FWP at that time took their beatings then and the beatings continue. Knock yourself out.

Given all your rearview mirror critique, I hope you are traveling to Helena on a regular basis and doing more than just giving your opinions on a website. I hope you are personally visiting with legislators. I hope you are rallying hunters to the cause and helping them lobby their legislators.. I hope you are working with organizations that are engaged in the process. You obviously have passion for the topic. I hope you apply that passion in a manner and time that will make a difference for the benefit of elk, other wildlife, their habitat, and our hunting heritage.

If you care to attend, here is an event tonight that expands on how to be effective in the political process. Hope to see you there - https://www.backcountryhunters.org/montana_state_engaging_with_elected_officials
 
The shoulder hunts are a Band-Aid being used to treat a pancreatic cancer. You can hate that Band-Aid all you want, it won't cure the cancer.

Wylie Gault's a Band-Aid salesman. Richard Stuker is like a truckload of cigarettes and asbestos. Gault, Stuker and Zolnikov are just 3 stooges in a pool of many looking to make public land elk hunting even worse than it is today.

There was nearly 90% public opposition to the shoulder seasons a few years ago. FWP decided to push forward anyway, just a gentle toe in the water test with very specific criteria on doing so. Hah! We are so screwed.

I took a ride with a landowner and shot a cow on a shoulder hunt over New years. Saw more elk in one day than I've seen in close to 10 years on public land in MT while hunting. That is not an exaggeration.

I've got meat in the freezer - every meal is a good reminder that the good old days are gone and never coming back unless you've got connections or a fat wallet.
 
I find myself stuck in the middle on the shoulder season issue. In some areas I believe it will be terrible for the public land hunter, in other places, not so bad. You see, I don't believe that the elk have been driven off the public by people with guns. I believe that they have left the higher ground for greener pastures, and they have left timbered country for more open country. I believe that this has more to do with predators than it does with hunters. In the areas I hunt, the elk had left the public long before the shoulder seasons ever existed. Like 15 years before.

It has been documented with scientific study that the presence of wolves changes elk behavior. They react by seeking more open country.
The elk of my youth tended to seek more timbered, higher ground when pressured by hunters. They were happy to run up into the darkest places to escape hunters. The bulls would skirt clearings rather than cross them even when pushed.

Now the elk that I encounter head lower to open country, right across open meadows without hesitation. If they went up they would be less likely to encounter hunters. I am talking about bulls, because I have not seen a cow elk in a timbered area on forest service land in November for 10 ish years. I am fully aware that different areas are different.

If you read the Journals of Lewis and Clark, they note that there were many thousands of elk in the vicinity of Pompey's Pillar, in the Yellowstone river bottoms east of Billings.
They also note that they were unable to feed themselves in the timbered country further west, for lack of game.

I don't believe that this was caused by poor timber management, I believe that elk naturally seek more open country in the presence of wolves. I believe that the situation we have is here to stay.

I would like to note here that I am not a wolf hater. I supported their reintroduction, and am glad we have them in MT. If I had my choice they would be managed as predators, but realize that it isn't going to happen. I don't believe that hunters could ever eliminate wolves from the landscape without bounties, or poison.

Bottom line, this debate will rage on long after I am gone, but in the mean time I intend to adapt and keep hunting elk, and predators as long as I can. I am of the opinion that it makes little difference what they do with shoulder seasons in the areas I hunt.


In rereading this post I see that I stated -I believe- several times. That is because I am not 100% sure of anything, which puts me in the small crowd on this topic.

Of all the bickering going on in this thread, this post is the best IMO. Well said.
 
One of the other threads asked what does one get out of this forum? This, this thread and the 100s of others like it, are what I get. Good discussion on an issue that interests me, but one which i have no real info on. I didn't know RMEF supported it, I didn't realize that MT EMP where put objectives so low, or that it was driven by landowners, or that there was so much public opposition to them, etc.
 
Given all your rearview mirror critique, I hope you are traveling to Helena on a regular basis and doing more than just giving your opinions on a website. I hope you are personally visiting with legislators. I hope you are rallying hunters to the cause and helping them lobby their legislators.. I hope you are working with organizations that are engaged in the process. [/url]

In the age of social media, has RMEF considered drawing attention to various opportunities like this, with suggestions of what a supportive comment for the interest of elk might look like, what positions RMEF is taking and why, and where appropriate (season setting meetings for example) have a representative present?
I may be wrong, but from observation RMEF is often absent from engaging in the type of activities you suggested Bigfoot do.
I don’t mean this disrespectfully, but I know I’m not the only one that is sometimes confused by what is viewed as an unwillingness to ‘rock the boat’, which like you just said in your marriage advice podcast, peace can be better than justice, but the clock is ticking on the elk situation being irreversible, if we aren’t there now.
Maybe I just perceive RMEF as silent out of ignorance, but I’ve looked pretty hard without finding much as it pertains to the topic of this discussion, and when I ask about it, I usually get a similar response as what you told Bigfoot, which is to advocate on your own. Or the other one, ‘we are a habitat org’.

I just find it surprising that with what has happened in Montana in the last 15 years, that there hasn’t been an absolute raucous about elk. I’d rather not beat up RMEF for something from the past, if I can support them in something meaningful right now. But guys like me and maybe Bigfoot need that laid out a little clearer for us in what that is and what it looks like because we aren’t seeing it. The stockgrower’s ass’n is playing to win and win they are.
 
Greenhorn:
There was nearly 90% public opposition to the shoulder seasons a few years ago. FWP decided to push forward anyway, just a gentle toe in the water test with very specific criteria on doing so. Hah! We are so screwed.

That sums it up! What happened?
1. A seemingly ambiguous Elk Management Plan with skewed tolerance-based objective numbers.
2. Senator Debbie Barrett's HB 42 enacted to mandate FWP manage elk populations to numbers at or below the skewed objective numbers.
3. Elk behavioral evolution putting elk on lower lands, farms and ranches in greater numbers.
4. Shoulder season "toe-in-the-water" pilot program opposed by so many of us, but implemented.
5. A legislature of Sen Barrett's party and agreeing with the objectives and the need for shoulder seasons, a Governor of the other political party who took a helicopter ride with Galt and then strongly endorsed the shoulder seasons plan, then a weak FWP administration which quickly bowed to the political pressure.
6. A shoulder seasons pilot plan which became a widespread massive elk reduction program, not "toe-in-the-water" but fully emerged.
7. Now Galt's proposed HB 497 to codify more than two elk per year per hunter and HJ 18, the resolution to FWP to issue more than two elk tags per hunter, to allow "collective" hunter harvest, to establish elk hunting in excess of 6 months per year, liberal opportunities to "slaughter" elk.

I consider the Montana Legislature, the Governor, and FWP to have egregiously violated the "trust" in having been entrusted to protect, preserve, and manage a valuable Montana resource.
 
Just another 'Tanny beating it to death, but I am curious why a new elk plan would be desirable? Is there not a chunk of the current elk plan that is being wholly ignored that would rectify a fair bit of the "over objective" classification? That being inaccessible elk on private land not being counted toward the sum of elk within a district.
 
Just another 'Tanny beating it to death, but I am curious why a new elk plan would be desirable? Is there not a chunk of the current elk plan that is being wholly ignored that would rectify a fair bit of the "over objective" classification? That being inaccessible elk on private land not being counted toward the sum of elk within a district.

This is why I have no sympathy for FWP when people say that they're legally obligated to manage for those numbers. They aren't using all the tools they have available to them.
 
Just another 'Tanny beating it to death, but I am curious why a new elk plan would be desirable? Is there not a chunk of the current elk plan that is being wholly ignored that would rectify a fair bit of the "over objective" classification? That being inaccessible elk on private land not being counted toward the sum of elk within a district.

This thread is a classic example of navel gazing rather than gearing up to fight the battle at hand.

New EMP is needed, regardless of what we think of the old one, and probably precisely because of what we think of the old one. 15 year old elk plans that aren't being implemented mean that we don't have a freaking elk management plan - just a reaction whenever the legislature tries to make them flinch. If we don't do this now, then we sentence our elk to slaughter, and we will continue to treat elk hunting in Montana like a plague, rather than a heritage.

I encourage everyone to listen to the hearing from yesterday, especially the sponsor's closing on HJ 18.
 
This thread is a classic example of navel gazing rather than gearing up to fight the battle at hand.

New EMP is needed, regardless of what we think of the old one, and probably precisely because of what we think of the old one. 15 year old elk plans that aren't being implemented mean that we don't have a freaking elk management plan - just a reaction whenever the legislature tries to make them flinch. If we don't do this now, then we sentence our elk to slaughter, and we will continue to treat elk hunting in Montana like a plague, rather than a heritage.

I encourage everyone to listen to the hearing from yesterday, especially the sponsor's closing on HJ 18.

FWP not following or just picking and choosing parts of the EMP is nothing new. Its been going on since the damn thing was written. No one noticed when things were good. Public land elk numbers start declining where they once were good and hunters wake up.

Way back when we started working on the harboring issue and forcing FWP to use page 55 in HD270 I emailed every single sportsmen group in the state along with MWF as we were looking for support and also other areas in the state where it might apply. Not one single response. At the time the Bitterroot was in serious decline and FWP and their foot on the gas to kill elk. Things were good in most of the rest of the state at the time. Its hard to get hunters involved until they personally feel the pain.
 
FWP not following or just picking and choosing parts of the EMP is nothing new. Its been going on since the damn thing was written. No one noticed when things were good. Public land elk numbers start declining where they once were good and hunters wake up.

Way back when we started working on the harboring issue and forcing FWP to use page 55 in HD270 I emailed every single sportsmen group in the state along with MWF as we were looking for support and also other areas in the state where it might apply. Not one single response. At the time the Bitterroot was in serious decline and FWP and their foot on the gas to kill elk. Things were good in most of the rest of the state at the time. Its hard to get hunters involved until they personally feel the pain.

I don't disagree, but reveling in the past is a good way to ensure that nothing will happen in the future.

Or we just let the legislature have their way with it all, and we'll end up with no elk except for on private lands, for sale to the highest bidder.
 
I don't disagree, but reveling in the past is a good way to ensure that nothing will happen in the future.

Or we just let the legislature have their way with it all, and we'll end up with no elk except for on private lands, for sale to the highest bidder.

I don't think anyone is reveling in the past. My point is hunters always seem to be reacting and always a few years too late. Playing defense 90% of the time is a sure way to lose.
 
Yeti GOBOX Collection

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
111,004
Messages
1,943,303
Members
34,956
Latest member
mfrosty6
Back
Top