Attention: it’s time sportsmen and women listen!

[1_pointer]

Redacted...

 

[Ben Lamb]

Its not suppose to. Page 55 of the EMP addresses the refuge elk. FWP chooses to ignore page 55, except in HD270.


Montana Elk Management Plan 2005
page 55


5. 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.

I read that as maybe.

Elk on those lands are going to use wide swaths that coincide with other private lands that either are or are not open to hunting, as well as public & state trust lands, so I think they'd be counted, since it's tough to look at the APR map and not see a major coincidence with public lands. Plus, I don't think FWP is actively employing this part of the EMP or if they are, it seems to be pretty selective and not applied equally.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Couple of things:

The APR's money is a green as any other buyers. Private property rights should be protected regardless of buyer.

The APR should not be allowed to graze bison year round on public lands regardless of what the APR lovers tell you about the bison not impacting the land. The same rules should apply to all users, period. Every other grazer has to remove their critters, so should the APR.

They should not be allowed to remove fencing from public lands as long as bison continue to be classed as livestock and not wildlife.

There is zero guarantee of continued hunting access if, and I know it is a big if, the APR does get to it's vision of 3.5 million acres and becoming a National Park to rival Yellowstone and Glacier.

Nemont

1.) Totally agree. Willing seller/willing buyer is a cornerstone of capitalism & private property rights.

2.) I think that can be addressed in rotational grazing and number of animals. Bison evolved on this landscape in a year-round fashion. We don't force elk out of BLM allotments, etc. This is part of the method behind the large landscape conservation project - create enough space for critters to do what they would do normally, without human intervention. It fits with MT's code for bison classified as wildlife (must have containment).

3.) I think removing interior fences from allotments isn't a bad idea, especially when we look at sage grouse, mule deer, elk and pronghorn useage in those areas. Exterior allotment fences may be a different story unless immediately adjacent to APR deeded ground.

4.) Absolutely agree, but would simply note any attempt to hand these lands over the Fed will require legislation, especially if seeking park status and the enabling act of this legislation could very easily spell out hunting and angling opportunities as a part of the park's program.

 

[Deleted member 20812]

Plus, I don't think FWP is actively employing this part of the EMP or if they are, it seems to be pretty selective and not applied equally.

Understatement of the year.

 

[tjones]

I read that as maybe.

Elk on those lands are going to use wide swaths that coincide with other private lands that either are or are not open to hunting, as well as public & state trust lands, so I think they'd be counted, since it's tough to look at the APR map and not see a major coincidence with public lands. Plus, I don't think FWP is actively employing this part of the EMP or if they are, it seems to be pretty selective and not applied equally.

There is not much maybe about it. We spent 2 years getting this part of the EMP put to use in HD270. The only district in the state I know of it being used. The bio flies the private the week after opening of general season to see how many elk are not available to hunters. In our case the CB Ranch. That number is then subtracted from the next years spring count. That number becomes the observed elk for that HD and used towards the objective. Some counts had as many as 1/3 of HD270's elk living on the CB during season. FWP was using the total number to set season types and we were hammering the elk on public all the while 1/3 of the total elk were unavailable to hunters.

Back when this was going on I emailed every sportsmen group in the state including MWF trying to get more group support for what we where trying to do and where else it could be applied in the state. I heard crickets.

 

[mtmuley]

This has been a great thread so far. Lots of information to digest to decide feelings about the APR. I'm not sure yet. mtmuley

 

[bigsky2]

Its suppose to. Page 55 of the EMP addresses the refuge elk. FWP chooses to ignore page 55, except in HD270.


Montana Elk Management Plan 2005
page 55


5. 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.

Sounds like if FWP would just follow their EMP then a lot of their problems with over objective elk would go away.

 

[onpoint]

This has been a great thread so far. Lots of information to digest to decide feelings about the APR. I'm not sure yet. mtmuley

I'm thinking if one's decision/feeling is based on the solely hunting opportunity/situation on the APR, you'll probably never know for sure. That opportunity is subject to change at any time just as it can on any private holding. In the 30 some years I've hunted within an hours drive of Bozeman, I've "lost" a pretty fair number of deer and bird places due to various changes on those private parcels (actually have exactly zero left - but that's a different sob story/thread). That's recreating on someone else's place, it is what it is.
Currently there is opportunity here, and when it comes down to it, currently is all we really have.
Wonder why Elknuut hasn't chimed back in after beginning such an interesting discussion......................

 

[mtmuley]

I wouldn't base my decision solely on hunting access. If I did, so far I can't disagree with APR's policy. But, I like to learn about the rest of the story. mtmuley

 

[Nemont]

1.) Totally agree. Willing seller/willing buyer is a cornerstone of capitalism & private property rights.

2.) I think that can be addressed in rotational grazing and number of animals. Bison evolved on this landscape in a year-round fashion. We don't force elk out of BLM allotments, etc. This is part of the method behind the large landscape conservation project - create enough space for critters to do what they would do normally, without human intervention. It fits with MT's code for bison classified as wildlife (must have containment).

*Montana Code of wildlife doesn't currently apply to APR's bison, they are livestock as far as you or I are concerned. I know you buy a "hunt" out there but it is not a hunt in the sense that you are stalking wild born, free range critters. Bison evolved but they also migrated to greener pastures when the winter came or when there was a fire or when there was a drought or any other circumstance when the prairie didn't provide good habitat. These bison can't migrate and if opening the gate and luring them to an neighbor pasture is considered part of their "natural" behavior well that isn't natural.

3.) I think removing interior fences from allotments isn't a bad idea, especially when we look at sage grouse, mule deer, elk and pronghorn useage in those areas. Exterior allotment fences may be a different story unless immediately adjacent to APR deeded ground.

*It is a bad idea as long bison are classed a livestock. What happens if the APR doesn't come to about and they abandon the effort to get 3.5 million acres and sell to a large cattle operation? Why should the taxpayers be on the hook then to put the fences back in. Since right now that is as likely as total success, they shouldn't be tearing fences out and cutting stock water dams and all the other things they are doing on public lands, Prove it works on their own private lands first.


4.) Absolutely agree, but would simply note any attempt to hand these lands over the Fed will require legislation, especially if seeking park status and the enabling act of this legislation could very easily spell out hunting and angling opportunities as a part of the park's program.

*How exactly do you guarantee hunting and angling is even in the APR's master plan? The local on the ground people all parrot the same line, I highly doubt the real money people are big into hunting and fishing or care much about the continued endeavor of either of those pursuits for the average Joe. When I go by those yurts I think the majority of the clients who are sleeping over in them are most likely not hunter friendly and most likely will make their voices heard more and more loudly.

Park or no park, there is not guarantee for the future of hunting even those public lands, if there is enough pressure brought from the real money people behind the APR.

Like I said their money is a green as anybody else's, their private property rights should be held just as important as any other land owner. They should be given zero special treatment on our public lands. Let them prove all their ideas on the their own private lands and then show us dumb locals how it works.

Nemont

 

[BWALKER77]

Let's not BS. The current dynamic between private private property owners and hunters seems to be one based on pay to play or no access in many cases. So long as the APR allows access to the public I think their work is a good thing for hunters. Of course I am sure they get funding from some green anti hunting groups which raises questions in my mind.

 

[Irrelevant]

This is a great thread. The family is hoping to head out that way next spring. APR and CMR. I know I support what they're doing even if they didn't allow any access, let alone hunting and fishing.

 

[Eric Albus]

Great Points NEMONT....APR bison are livestock end of discussion.

 

[antlerradar]

Just a random thought. Maybe groups that claim nonprofit status should be required to allow public access to there property.

 

[VikingsGuy]

Just a random thought. Maybe groups that claim nonprofit status should be required to allow public access to there property.

That could get tricky, folks camping out in local churches and schools?

But seriously, I think comments above in this thread are the trick. Donors and supporters should demand the non-profits place public access hunting easements on all appropriate properties they own before they turn over the money - money talks.

 

[Straight Arrow]

I know I support what they're doing even if they didn't allow any access, let alone hunting and fishing.

As noted earlier, hunting is allowed in at least some APR lands. Otherwise there is extensive access to the APR for the public to hike, camp, and travel throughout the properties. Public seminars and tours are available. A system of yurts available for rent during hiking excursions is designed to attract public access and to inform the public about the goals and intent of the APR. Having driven through a part of the APR and camped at the "Buffalo Camp", I can attest to the open access. Interestingly to get there, the road takes one past the "Don't Buffalo Me" signs.

 

[1_pointer]

1.) Totally agree. Willing seller/willing buyer is a cornerstone of capitalism & private property rights.

2.) I think that can be addressed in rotational grazing and number of animals. Bison evolved on this landscape in a year-round fashion. We don't force elk out of BLM allotments, etc. This is part of the method behind the large landscape conservation project - create enough space for critters to do what they would do normally, without human intervention. It fits with MT's code for bison classified as wildlife (must have containment).

3.) I think removing interior fences from allotments isn't a bad idea, especially when we look at sage grouse, mule deer, elk and pronghorn useage in those areas. Exterior allotment fences may be a different story unless immediately adjacent to APR deeded ground.

4.) Absolutely agree, but would simply note any attempt to hand these lands over the Fed will require legislation, especially if seeking park status and the enabling act of this legislation could very easily spell out hunting and angling opportunities as a part of the park's program.

The last part of #3 becomes problematic for calculating/managing permitted AUMs. The deeded ground can be added to the allotment acreage via an exchange of use agreement. To have an allotment, you have to have a boundary, sort of by definition...

The year-round fashion of bison prior to settlement did not require them to stay inside a boundary that is human delineated. I am not saying year-long grazing couldn't work, but to be permitted they'd still have to have base property (not sure if there's any base water allotments in MT). If that base property is no longer fenced, its purpose as base property is gone as its main function is a place for the livestock to go when they can't be on the allotment. I'd think bison would be held to the same standards as other forms of livestock in the case of extreme drought or fire.

The nerd in me would love to see the results of long term vegetation and utilization monitoring on these allotments after the bison have been there a while.

 

[Hunting Wife]

2.) I think that can be addressed in rotational grazing and number of animals. Bison evolved on this landscape in a year-round fashion. We don't force elk out of BLM allotments, etc. This is part of the method behind the large landscape conservation project - create enough space for critters to do what they would do normally, without human intervention. It fits with MT's code for bison classified as wildlife (must have containment).

One thing that is often overlooked in the “bison evolved” argument is that, though the landscape appears unchanged to the untrained eye, large areas are now dominated by crested wheatgrass, Japanese brome, and other non-native vegetation. The landscape has actually changed quite dramatically since bison roamed, and many native species have suffered for it. Given the significant vegetative changes across wide swaths of the area, I don’t think anyone can pretend to know exactly how bison may use today’s landscape, or whether they will in fact use it any differently than cattle today do.

I agree with pointer, seeing some veg and utilization data would be extremely interesting.

 

[BrentD]

The nerd in me would love to see the results of long term vegetation and utilization monitoring on these allotments after the bison have been there a while.

Also being a "nerd" in that sort of way, these data exist for long-term treatments at Konza Prairie outside of Manhattan Kansas (and probably a lot of other places as well). Bison grazing treatments have been maintained and compared to nonbison (and maybe cattle) treatments for decades. So the data is out there for at least one, and probably quite a few sites.

 

[Ben Lamb]

The last part of #3 becomes problematic for calculating/managing permitted AUMs. The deeded ground can be added to the allotment acreage via an exchange of use agreement. To have an allotment, you have to have a boundary, sort of by definition...

The year-round fashion of bison prior to settlement did not require them to stay inside a boundary that is human delineated. I am not saying year-long grazing couldn't work, but to be permitted they'd still have to have base property (not sure if there's any base water allotments in MT). If that base property is no longer fenced, its purpose as base property is gone as its main function is a place for the livestock to go when they can't be on the allotment. I'd think bison would be held to the same standards as other forms of livestock in the case of extreme drought or fire.

The nerd in me would love to see the results of long term vegetation and utilization monitoring on these allotments after the bison have been there a while.

I appreciate the detailed explanation and approach.

One thing that is often overlooked in the “bison evolved” argument is that, though the landscape appears unchanged to the untrained eye, large areas are now dominated by crested wheatgrass, Japanese brome, and other non-native vegetation. The landscape has actually changed quite dramatically since bison roamed, and many native species have suffered for it. Given the significant vegetative changes across wide swaths of the area, I don’t think anyone can pretend to know exactly how bison may use today’s landscape, or whether they will in fact use it any differently than cattle today do.

I agree with pointer, seeing some veg and utilization data would be extremely interesting.

That's all very true, and I hadn't really considered that in my missive. I would say that when CMR was looking at using cattle in the refuge to "mimic bison activity" in restoring natural systems, it didn't seem to be part of the discussion, but then again, I could easily be misremembering it.