MT Elk Shoulder season legislation

You gotta love the comments about adding shoulder seasons to public land.
 
Not that they make a difference, but there’s some great comments in there. I saw everal from guys I went to college with who own large ranches and are opposed to the shoulder seasons.

I was surprised at how many names I knew.
 
Seems like the majority of the comments were opposed to shoulder seasons at least in part, if not all. Disappointing that we will likely continue the war. Maybe landowners should start building walls to keep the elk off their properties...
 
BuzzH said:
Latest round of comments...

http://fwp.mt.gov/doingBusiness/ins...tings/agenda.html?coversheet&topicId=46135023

Decision was already made, business as usual at MTFWP.
Click to expand...

I recommend “ALL” persons viewing this thread click on the provided link and read through all the comments. Various views points and concerns from all sides of this issue were submitted for us to read and absorb.

I suggest “ALL” Nonresident public land elk hunters read post #89 in the link provided. Buzz hit the nail on the head and I expect that most, if not all, resident Montana “Public Land” elk hunters would agree whole heartedly with his statements. I know that I agree 100% with Buzz’s views on Montana’s “Public Lands” elk management, or lack of, by our MTFWPs. Most of Western Montana’s big blocks of public lands have an elk populations so low that “ALL” elk hunting in these units should be limited or discontinued. This includes Montana’s historically premium wilderness areas.

Then I suggest reading post #212 for the opposing view from a Montana Rancher/Outfitter. The big private landowners, Montana Stockman’s Association/Montana Outfitter’s, views are reflected in this post. These are the folks that would really like to take control of the wildlife that resides on their lands. Their goal is “Ranching for Wildlife” as has been implemented in other elk populated states. What better way to achieve this goal than to have a legislated mandated elk population objective? These entities, knowing full well that MTFWPs would not ever be able to reach these objectives goals, will again start lobbying to take control of the public’s elk. Increasing the public pressure on the public lands surrounding the large private holdings only helps with their endeavor. This is why they are calling for “all public lands” be included in all further elk shoulder seasons. Then they suggest “unlimited hunter” elk-b tags, party hunting, etc., what better way to chase out or eliminate the public elk from the public lands. All these suggestions will force the remaining elk herds to seek refuge on their privately controlled lands and that is their end game!

The 68% of over objective elk populated HDs have one common denominator, private land refuges, where the public hunters have limited access to the elk. The MTFWPs, Sportsman’s groups and all the public hunters can do nothing about this; private land is just that, “Private”. But what can be proposed is to eliminate “ALL” bull elk hunting in these over objective HDs and then increase the opportunities for the harvesting of cows and calves throughout the over objective units. The MTFWPs would have to make this a permanent moratorium in these HDs. This “antlerless elk only” moratorium would not be lifted until the elk population was brought back to expectable management levels. Season dates should be Sept. 1st through Dec. 31st, four month “Any Weapon” season. Compensation should be given for elk damage to those landowners that allow public hunting. No game damage compensation for those that will keep their gates closed to the public. This change would not affect those private elk refuge lands that do not allow any form of hunting. It would surely take the monetary incentive out of Ranching for Wildlife and would help with unlocking those closed gates that the public hunter is facing today.

I am expecting to see most of the landowner recommended ideas implemented in the 2019 MTFWP elk regulations and the general public’s comments completely ignored. I fear that the, “On Your Own”, “DIY”, Montana public lands elk/deer hunter has seen their best days. SAD!
 
Mtnhunter1 said:
I recommend “ALL” persons viewing this thread click on the provided link and read through all the comments. Various views points and concerns from all sides of this issue were submitted for us to read and absorb.

I suggest “ALL” Nonresident public land elk hunters read post #89 in the link provided. Buzz hit the nail on the head and I expect that most, if not all, resident Montana “Public Land” elk hunters would agree whole heartedly with his statements. I know that I agree 100% with Buzz’s views on Montana’s “Public Lands” elk management, or lack of, by our MTFWPs. Most of Western Montana’s big blocks of public lands have an elk populations so low that “ALL” elk hunting in these units should be limited or discontinued. This includes Montana’s historically premium wilderness areas.

Then I suggest reading post #212 for the opposing view from a Montana Rancher/Outfitter. The big private landowners, Montana Stockman’s Association/Montana Outfitter’s, views are reflected in this post. These are the folks that would really like to take control of the wildlife that resides on their lands. Their goal is “Ranching for Wildlife” as has been implemented in other elk populated states. What better way to achieve this goal than to have a legislated mandated elk population objective? These entities, knowing full well that MTFWPs would not ever be able to reach these objectives goals, will again start lobbying to take control of the public’s elk. Increasing the public pressure on the public lands surrounding the large private holdings only helps with their endeavor. This is why they are calling for “all public lands” be included in all further elk shoulder seasons. Then they suggest “unlimited hunter” elk-b tags, party hunting, etc., what better way to chase out or eliminate the public elk from the public lands. All these suggestions will force the remaining elk herds to seek refuge on their privately controlled lands and that is their end game!

The 68% of over objective elk populated HDs have one common denominator, private land refuges, where the public hunters have limited access to the elk. The MTFWPs, Sportsman’s groups and all the public hunters can do nothing about this; private land is just that, “Private”. But what can be proposed is to eliminate “ALL” bull elk hunting in these over objective HDs and then increase the opportunities for the harvesting of cows and calves throughout the over objective units. The MTFWPs would have to make this a permanent moratorium in these HDs. This “antlerless elk only” moratorium would not be lifted until the elk population was brought back to expectable management levels. Season dates should be Sept. 1st through Dec. 31st, four month “Any Weapon” season. Compensation should be given for elk damage to those landowners that allow public hunting. No game damage compensation for those that will keep their gates closed to the public. This change would not affect those private elk refuge lands that do not allow any form of hunting. It would surely take the monetary incentive out of Ranching for Wildlife and would help with unlocking those closed gates that the public hunter is facing today.

I am expecting to see most of the landowner recommended ideas implemented in the 2019 MTFWP elk regulations and the general public’s comments completely ignored. I fear that the, “On Your Own”, “DIY”, Montana public lands elk/deer hunter has seen their best days. SAD!
Click to expand...

Cant find much to disagree with in that post.

Its definitely sad what has transpired in Montana, the most disappointing thing, is the wasted potential.
 
Interesting to read through all the comments. on this page and the MTFWP comments page. Makes me wonder what states do the best job of manage the general public's desires vs private landowners concerns.

The same issues present with MT elk are present where I live with DE deer. They're doing everything they can to slash the deer herd here and I believe its unfortunately created horrible buck:doe ratios and a poor quality of public land hunting. It even got to the point that they attempted to lease off sections of state forest to the highest bidder for purposes of hunting "to better manage the deer herd" because neighboring landowners complained about the degree of crop damage.

What states does everyone believe to be the best at juggling all stakeholders?
 
Ben Lamb said:
Multiple B tags so you can shoot even more pregnant elk on winter range.

Resolution calling for, among other things, increased B tags and party hunting of elk during shoulder seasons



We've just spent the last 6 weeks talking about how them Canadian super-woofs is eating all the elk. We'll spend the next 4 weeks talking about how elk are everywhere, and we need to kill 'em all.

Just another session at the Montana Legislature.
Click to expand...

Ben,

I recall you supporting the shoulder seasons in pubic hearings a few years back? Do you still support the shoulder seasons?
 
Big Foot said:
Ben,

I recall you supporting the shoulder seasons in pubic hearings a few years back? Do you still support the shoulder seasons?
Click to expand...

I'm far less likely to support the shoulder seasons than in the past. We were told these would run for three years then have in depth review, and that's not happening in my opinion. We're running the risk of institutionalizing these culls without serious reflection on what the impacts have been, both positive and negative. We have not met target objectives, regardless of what you think of them, in three years of hammering elk on winter range. I don't think you can look at this program and call it a success unless your goal is to make things even more complicated.

This isn't a situation where more wide-open opportunity is having the desired effect. it's creating worse concentrations on unavailable lands, stressing elk, creating situations we were told wouldn't occur like selling access for shoulder seasons, and we're seeing people in the system abuse it by allowing only a few people specifically chosen to come cull. It's changing elk behavior on a grand scale, and it's proving to show that Montana's elk management philosophy is not working in the 21st century.

I think that it's time to go back to the drawing board and start fresh on how we manage and hunt elk in Montana. There are some good bills moving forward that would help do that, and there some bad bills moving forward that enshrine the current, less than successful, model.
 
Rep. Wylie Galt, R-Martinsdale, whose family is one of the largest landowners in the state, has had a joint resolution drafted that would enshrine the so-called elk shoulder seasons in state law. Among its provisions the resolution suggests: “allowing general elk licenses to be used to harvest antlerless elk during shoulder seasons and providing liberal numbers of antlerless elk B tags and opportunities to acquire those tags in hunting districts that are over objective;” and “allowing two or more persons hunting in the field together during a shoulder season to collectively harvest as many antlerless elk they collectively have valid licenses for.”
Click to expand...

Buzz is right. Fire up the choppers. Shoot 'em all.
 
Big Foot said:
Ben,

I recall you supporting the shoulder seasons in pubic hearings a few years back? Do you still support the shoulder seasons?
Click to expand...

Ben Lamb said:
I'm far less likely to support the shoulder seasons than in the past. We were told these would run for three years then have in depth review, and that's not happening in my opinion. We're running the risk of institutionalizing these culls without serious reflection on what the impacts have been, both positive and negative. We have not met target objectives, regardless of what you think of them, in three years of hammering elk on winter range. I don't think you can look at this program and call it a success unless your goal is to make things even more complicated.

This isn't a situation where more wide-open opportunity is having the desired effect. it's creating worse concentrations on unavailable lands, stressing elk, creating situations we were told wouldn't occur like selling access for shoulder seasons, and we're seeing people in the system abuse it by allowing only a few people specifically chosen to come cull. It's changing elk behavior on a grand scale, and it's proving to show that Montana's elk management philosophy is not working in the 21st century.

I think that it's time to go back to the drawing board and start fresh on how we manage and hunt elk in Montana. There are some good bills moving forward that would help do that, and there some bad bills moving forward that enshrine the current, less than successful, model.
Click to expand...

Yes, these hunts were pitched as an experiment in four hunting districts. It was represented that after two years, analysis would be done to determine the effectiveness. The answer to questions about alternatives was that if FWP didn't do something in this vein, the legislature was going to take over elk management. That brought a lot of people and groups to give FWP a bit more support than would have been provided without the assurances of limited scope/experimental.

Within six months, FWP announced they would open these hunts to a large number of hunting districts and did so without even the slightest analysis or public input. I am amazed that they did such, as in doing so they have lost a lot of trust from folks/groups that in the past had given them the benefit of the doubt and probably would come to FWP's aid when the legislature was hacking on them.

Now, they have put themselves on a bit of an island. If you make representations to people/groups that you need their help on a controversial topic, whereby those people/groups take a lot of heat for supporting the proposals, then doing something very different than what was represented will have consequences of trust as you go forward.

I hated the idea to start with, but I gave FWP the benefit of the doubt. It is unfortunate to see it unfold how it has over the last two years. I've expressed my displeasure to FWP and those who might have influence on the decision. I will not support these hunts. I have refused to participate in the hunts and I won't give information to those who are asking for info that would allow them to participate. When I've stated my displeasure on the podcast or our elk talk live events, a lot of hunters have asked why I don't support them.

As I posted on prior threads, these are social issues with wildlife management consequences, not wildlife management issues with social consequences. There is only so much FWP can do when access to elk is limited. Even less can be done when more and more landowners are not operating ranches and have a high tolerance for elk. FWP needs to tell the legislature some facts that a few legislators may not want to hear. That's called leadership, something that I hope FWP can show more of.

I never thought I would say this, but the next time FWP needs some support, I might be busy that day. Burn me once ...........
 
As I posted on prior threads, these are social issues with wildlife management consequences, not wildlife management issues with social consequences. There is only so much FWP can do when access to elk is limited. Even less can be done when more and more landowners are not operating ranches and have a high tolerance for elk. FWP needs to tell the legislature some facts that a few legislators may not want to hear. That's called leadership, something that I hope FWP can show more of.
Click to expand...

I couldn't have said it better.

Leadership would be following the elk plan at all times, not just when it's easy. One only needs to look back at the changes (or lack thereof) of season structure in the Big Snowies, when the EMP directly called for either VERY limited bull hunting, or strictly cow seasons. Not wanting to take the political heat, FWP took the status quo because it was easier than standing up for what was right.

This whole situation is sad.
 
I never thought I would say this, but the next time FWP needs some support, I might be busy that day. Burn me once ...........
Click to expand...
This shoulder season debacle has us all stirred up, but I am confident that Big Fin will likely continue to engage to provide FWP constructive criticism or support as appropriate.

An important hunting issue for discussion on this forum and for informative updates and firsthand perspectives of Ben Lamb, yet today is a critical opportunity to voice one's view to the Montana House FWP Committee regarding the proposed HB 497 to put into statute the taking of two or moreelk per year per hunter and HJ 18, the proposed resolution requesting the FWP Commission to establish more than two elk licenses per hunter per year, authorize hunter "collective" harvests (two hunters "collectively" filling four or more tags), as well as a potential for more than six months per year of killing elk. These are to be discussed during the committee hearing tomorrow, Tues, Feb 19. Please contact them to express your opinions.
 
Straight Arrow said:
This shoulder season debacle has us all stirred up, but I am confident that Big Fin will likely continue to engage to provide FWP constructive criticism or support as appropriate.

An important hunting issue for discussion on this forum and for informative updates and firsthand perspectives of Ben Lamb, yet today is a critical opportunity to voice one's view to the Montana House FWP Committee regarding the proposed HB 497 to put into statute the taking of two or moreelk per year per hunter and HJ 18, the proposed resolution requesting the FWP Commission to establish more than two elk licenses per hunter per year, authorize hunter "collective" harvests (two hunters "collectively" filling four or more tags), as well as a potential for more than six months per year of killing elk. These are to be discussed during the committee hearing tomorrow, Tues, Feb 19. Please contact them to express your opinions.
Click to expand...

I'll be sending my comments in support of both...with maybe a recommended amendment to have NO closed season and no limit on the number of tags a person can have.

The MTFWP has already made their point, more than clear, that they will flat ass lie to the public, lie to their partners and lie to themselves as long as it equals dead elk.

If that's what they want, then why would I lift a single finger to stop bills that accomplish their stated goal?

If I lived in Montana, I would be pushing the FWP and the legislature to adopt a bill, for aerial gunning of elk by wildlife services on any private land where elk are located...the only stipulation would be bulls die first. Don't stop until elk are at, or below objective.

That's where they're heading anyway, get on with it, get it over with, and then the squabbling about bills like this can end. The Sportsmen in Montana are hiding in the corner, sucking their thumbs afraid of the boogey man (revisiting the EMP). The FWP and Commission are using Montana elk hunters as their useful idiots, providing "opportunity" to kill the living chit out of elk...and nobody is holding them accountable. If anything, they're encouraging it by participating in the shoulder seasons.

If the FWP and the Commission are going to continue to wage war on elk, put it on THEIR shoulders to make the decision to fire up the choppers and get to killing. The last thing I would do is be used as a complicit and willing partner to do their dirty work.

Exactly why I likely will never buy another elk tag in Montana ever again...I'm not going to be a partner to crap elk management, hunting elk in units where a season isn't even warranted.

All anyone has to do is look at the data...single digit cow/calf ratios, single digit bull to cow ratio's, and absolutely nothing changes, other than more and more elk dying in longer and longer seasons.

That's not management...any way you slice it.
 
Straight Arrow said:
This shoulder season debacle has us all stirred up, but I am confident that Big Fin will likely continue to engage to provide FWP constructive criticism or support as appropriate.

An important hunting issue for discussion on this forum and for informative updates and firsthand perspectives of Ben Lamb, yet today is a critical opportunity to voice one's view to the Montana House FWP Committee regarding the proposed HB 497 to put into statute the taking of two or moreelk per year per hunter and HJ 18, the proposed resolution requesting the FWP Commission to establish more than two elk licenses per hunter per year, authorize hunter "collective" harvests (two hunters "collectively" filling four or more tags), as well as a potential for more than six months per year of killing elk. These are to be discussed during the committee hearing tomorrow, Tues, Feb 19. Please contact them to express your opinions.
Click to expand...


Thanks for the reminder on when the committee hears these proposals. I just emailed the entire committee my comments. Appreciate Ben and others on this post taking the lead on this thing.
 
kingderek said:
Thanks for the reminder on when the committee hears these proposals. I just emailed the entire committee my comments. Appreciate Ben and others on this post taking the lead on this thing.
Click to expand...

Committee starts at 3 PM tomorrow, and it's going to go for a while. They have 4 bills up for a hearing, and they have a few that they may do executive action on as well, depending on how fast they go.

I just finished getting my testimony and supporting documents together, and I'm mostly going to steal Buzz's thoughts, except I'm going to ask that we change classification of elk to predator, so we don't need a license at all, and we can just shoot any elk we see. And add Helo gunships from JLS. And I might ask for posion, but that may injure a wolf, and I don't want to give Greenhorn the satisfaction of that. ;)

Kidding.

There are good things happening during the session for elk management. HB 2, the budget bill, is the prime example. Within that is a new wildlife planner position for the new EMP - which is going to happen and I'd rather see it happen under this governor than, for example, a Governor Gianforte.

There's good stuff in HB 2 for the other programs that will help reduce noxious weeds on public lands, improving wildlife habitat, there's 9 employees that should be added to DNRC's staff to help improve public land habitat under the Good Neighbor Authority contained within the Farm Bill of 2015, HB 5 makes Habitat Montana whole and helps keep MT's version of the Land and Water Conservation Fund moving, and there's a lot of solid work being done on the individual bills to help improve incentives for landowners and sportsmen & women alike. All of that is thrown out the window with these two bills, and the poorly-thought out actions that would come along with them.

The more I work on these two bills, the more convinced I become that their passage would be the worst possible message to send to an incoming administration, and to future generation of Montana Elk Hunters.

I don't always agree with Buzz, but I do here, and he has some damned fine points. Especially around revising the EMP and getting on with new management philosophies. If we ever want to improve elk hunting, distribution and success rates, we are going to have to look to other models and consider that perhaps it's time to adapt our strategy from 11 weeks of wide open hunting to a more nuanced approach.
 
Ben,,,,, I wish you luck!

Copy/paste from a quick web search. I typed in “Montana elk hunting”!

Our hunting area consists of 28,000 +/- acres of private land and 6,400 acres of adjoining public land…………We have a resident elk population of around 1200 head which stay in the area year around…………95% success rate for elk………We will have openings for the 2019 rifle season but at this time we are not sure what openings will be available for the 2019 season as we offer our 2018 clients the first chance to re-book for the 2019 season.……..7 DAY RIFLE HUNTS $7500.00

The primary elk ranch, one of our best trophy elk hunts, is in the Snowy Mtns Unit 411 in central Montana. The area consistently produces 320" to 360" bulls. Elk numbers are above objective so there are liberal cow elk seasons………We hunt for mature bulls and cow elk on this ranch, the hay fields attract a lot of elk, we expect 90-100% shot opportunity on bulls or cows……..Hunts are typically guided 2 hunters per guide, bull hunts are 5 days, cow hunts 3 days………Elk, Bull Hunt $9950,
Elk (group 3) $8950, call for cow hunt only rates.

With over 19,419 Acres, approximately 800 elk winter on our ranches with MT FWP counts as high as 1200……..In the spring about 300 cows give birth, then by Mid-August an additional 300-400 elk move onto the ranch to feed on the lush fields. By late October, hunting pressure from the surrounding land increases our elk herd to 800+……..Success the last five years has run 95% on trophy caliber bulls with shot opportunities each and every day……….Archery Elk Hunt rate $11,500……..Rifle Elk Hunt rate $13,500

These examples are ALL from over objective units and I could of kept going, on and on and on!

Montana’s public elk herds have become a private CASH-CROP! The general public doesn’t have a chance……SAD
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

MITCHMO
Michigan Elk Hunt
2 3
Replies
53
Views
3K
Maverick1
M
Buschy
Buschy's 2023 Season Review
2
Replies
28
Views
1K
bullhead
B
elkfanatic
15 year old sons first elk hunt
Replies
19
Views
2K
Outdoorsfl
O
kansasdad
Kansas elk 2023
10 11 12
Replies
223
Views
21K
noharleyyet
noharleyyet
KipCarson
The 25 Year Elk Drought
2 3 4
Replies
68
Views
5K
Benfromalbuquerque
Benfromalbuquerque
PEAX Trekking Poles

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
111,013
Messages
1,943,656
Members
34,963
Latest member
ElknTrout

Share this page

Back
Top