Townsend Elk Slaughter II

[BRI]

I don’t like to see this either and I’m not trying to deflect blame, but do you think the current season/tag structure is perpetuating this problem? Elk hunting on public land in MT has gotten flat tough for the average hunter and people are going to go where the elk are and where they may have a chance at an elk.

With the way the elk habits have changed by residing primarily on private land and out in the wide open, I think we’ll see this more frequently unless FWP can figure out a way to get more elk back onto public land. Like a lot of general areas in MT, the area I've hunted for 20+ years has changed so much, you can't hardly find an elk on public land come rifle season. If FWP counts are believed, you drive by nearly every one of those elk (on inaccessible private land) to hunt what few remain on public land. But yet a lot of tags are issued every year because the herd is over objective.

There are some pretty sharp minds on this site, so how do you think FWP can get elk back to public land? Maybe FWP should take some of these problem areas and make them a separate district and manage them differently to try and prevent these occurrences. I don’t know, just thoughts……

 

[belly-deep]

Maybe the elk will eventually realize they are safer in the mountains where all of the lazy asses won't climb up to get them?

 

[belly-deep]

I think we should expand the authority of game wardens. At this point the only statute in the MT Criminal code that game wardens can enforce is Criminal Trespass, IIRC. I would think if you gave the game wardens the ability to not only cite for the Game violations (shooting from roads, party hunting, illegal harvest, Harassing animals with a vehicle) and expand that to also include weapons violations in the MT criminal code or something like criminal negligence that would help. Also, you could include alcohol and drug related offenses that game wardens have no ability to control currently.

YDRC (you didn't remember correctly)

87-1-506. Enforcement powers of wardens. (1) A warden may:

. . .

(j) exercise the other powers of peace officers in the enforcement of the fish and game laws, the rules of the department, and judgments obtained for violation of those laws or rules.

 

[Bambistew]

How to fix it? Thats the rub. Those elk will usually stay on the flat if they aren't harassed a little. The ranchers don't want them, and the hunters want to fill their freezers. How do we go about it in a fashion that solves both problems and eliminates the mob mentality? Not sure... limiting the numbers would be a start. I've seen countless hunters lose their mind when they encounter a herd of elk, they shoot until one finally drops. Its hard to pick out a single in a group of a 100 and then keep track of it.

IMO, I'd like to see some/all of the following:
The F&G or LE hire a temp or two to patrol the circus, the one game warden in town has better things to do than babysit a bunch of poachers;
Those handful of state/BLM sections should be made into weapons restriction areas (it worked around the Ennis airport, I'm surprised no one was killed out there);
Make the fines include seizure of weapons, vehicles, and loss of hunting privileges;
Make the flats area a draw permit, and make hunters take a mandatory hunters ed class prior to receiving their permit;
Put up signs stating the rules, and include more information in the regs book.

All of these will cost money, but without doing something now it will cost us all a lot more in the end.

 

[Rat Fink]

The Flynn Ranch was one of if not the FIRST pay to play property in the area. They started the leasing trend for big game hunting rights and outfitter leasing around Townsend. So seeing Kelly Flynn denounce this and wanting to introduce legislation to curb these issues is a joke. He needs to look in the mirror and see that his family started what has become a huge problem for resident sportsman, and that is access to the animals. When people don't have access to places that were traditionally open to public hunting because of leasing and outfitters these shootout situations will continue to be a problem.

 

[Ben Lamb]

How to fix it? Thats the rub. Those elk will usually stay on the flat if they aren't harassed a little. The ranchers don't want them, and the hunters want to fill their freezers. How do we go about it in a fashion that solves both problems and eliminates the mob mentality? Not sure... limiting the numbers would be a start. I've seen countless hunters lose their mind when they encounter a herd of elk, they shoot until one finally drops. Its hard to pick out a single in a group of a 100 and then keep track of it.

IMO, I'd like to see some/all of the following:
The F&G or LE hire a temp or two to patrol the circus, the one game warden in town has better things to do than babysit a bunch of poachers;
Those handful of state/BLM sections should be made into weapons restriction areas (it worked around the Ennis airport, I'm surprised no one was killed out there);
Make the fines include seizure of weapons, vehicles, and loss of hunting privileges;
Make the flats area a draw permit, and make hunters take a mandatory hunters ed class prior to receiving their permit;
Put up signs stating the rules, and include more information in the regs book.

All of these will cost money, but without doing something now it will cost us all a lot more in the end.

The Legislature has removed a lot of authority from FWP to enact weapons restrictions areas due to the false furor of lead ammo regulation.

You still have to fight the bat-crap crazy Leg for the spending authority to get even part time help. The joint Revenue Committee just voted to cut $140 million from the Gov's budget, without specifying which agencies will get the burden, FWP will be squarely in the crosshairs of the appropriations committee, even though it won't help the overall budget or general fund numbers.

I'm in total agreement with your solutions, but I'm not sure we can get anywhere with the current make up of the legislature.

Maybe it's time to remove appropriation authority from the Legislature for FWP issues and do like Wyoming does with an independent agency.

 

[opyff]

How to fix it? Thats the rub. Those elk will usually stay on the flat if they aren't harassed a little. The ranchers don't want them, and the hunters want to fill their freezers. How do we go about it in a fashion that solves both problems and eliminates the mob mentality? Not sure... limiting the numbers would be a start. I've seen countless hunters lose their mind when they encounter a herd of elk, they shoot until one finally drops. Its hard to pick out a single in a group of a 100 and then keep track of it.

IMO, I'd like to see some/all of the following:
The F&G or LE hire a temp or two to patrol the circus, the one game warden in town has better things to do than babysit a bunch of poachers;
Those handful of state/BLM sections should be made into weapons restriction areas (it worked around the Ennis airport, I'm surprised no one was killed out there);
Make the fines include seizure of weapons, vehicles, and loss of hunting privileges;
Make the flats area a draw permit, and make hunters take a mandatory hunters ed class prior to receiving their permit;
Put up signs stating the rules, and include more information in the regs book.

All of these will cost money, but without doing something now it will cost us all a lot more in the end.

So does FWP give money to local land owners for the damage that wildlife does on private land? If so then stop unless those landowners start opening up their private land for hunting to the regular public even if it is only for antlerless. From my neck of the woods elk would pile onto private land, land owners would complain to the G&F but yet they wouldn't allow hunting. Seems pretty simple in that aspect. But on the other hand the states including WY I think need a stronger campaign from hunter safety course on up to push better conservation and hunter ethics

 

[RobG]

My mother forwarded me the article this morning. She lives in Seattle and hangs with a crowd that isn't too crazy about hunting, especially hunting wolves just so we more elk to kill. In other words, these stories are quickly making the rounds nationwide.

I don't know about a one shot limit into herds. I think it would just result in more wounded animals limping around. I'm in the camp that once you take a shot you need to followup if given the opportunity. These guys seem to be unaware of the laws anyway. I think the firing line slaughter is the most objectionable thing to most people. The only thing that immediately comes to mind is to limit the number of people with cow tags in the areas where they herd up - basically outside of the national forest.

We managed to convince people that posting gruesome photos of wolves on Facebook is bad for our image. Maybe a campaign to educate hunters will work. As much as I hate to admit it, these are not isolated incidents.

 

[belly-deep]

But on the other hand the states including WY I think need a stronger campaign from hunter safety course on up to push better conservation and hunter ethics

The public will always be the public, no matter what the government tries to do or tell them. Education only works on those with open minds...

Down in Lima, they don't allow anyone to stop on the county roads during the first week or so of season. It seems to have eliminated SOME of their problems.

I really don't know what the solution is. I don't think more law enforcement officers is the answer. If you look at the first incident in that area this year, officers were only able to write 3 citations in the whole goatfu--.

More laws? Like don't shoot at running game or 7 cartridges/day? I see that as an enforcement nightmare. How in the hell is a warden going to figure out who shot how many times when 50 guys are blazing away?

Eliminate the opportunity and you eliminate the problem. Draw tags? You could still end up with a bunch of hunters firing into a herd. Significantly reduced numbers of tags? Then what do you do to trim an overpopulated herd? Drive the elk off the private? These things seem to pop up out of nowhere and the hunters get word out before the wardens even know it is going on.

 

[Bambistew]

The Legislature has removed a lot of authority from FWP to enact weapons restrictions areas due to the false furor of lead ammo regulation.

You still have to fight the bat-crap crazy Leg for the spending authority to get even part time help. The joint Revenue Committee just voted to cut $140 million from the Gov's budget, without specifying which agencies will get the burden, FWP will be squarely in the crosshairs of the appropriations committee, even though it won't help the overall budget or general fund numbers.

Was this weapons restriction just recently? I know there is a new one just east of Ennis, that started this year. Surprised it made it this long. Seems like there are lots around Bozeman and Helena too?

Sad that game agencies are always in the cross hairs, even more sad that hunters don't stand up for them. Its always the good guys vs the bad guys... hunters seem to think the F&G is the bad guy for some reason.

I'm glad that Alaska has separated game management and law enforcement of game laws into different entities. I'm also grateful for the rules we have and the penalties. Its pretty hard to find a hunter that doesn't know, that if they screw up they could lose their truck (airplane, boat, ATV), gun, all hunting equipment used in a violation. Sure there are few idiots, but the penalties make them think pretty long an hard.

 

[ingomar]

This is a hunter attitude problem and more wardens will not necessarily solve all the issues. Restricting hunter opportunity seems counter productive for the future of hunting. Hunters need to step up and report violations when they see them. We should not confront violators as then we might just see a bunch of fist fights but we need to find a way to let them know this type of behavior is not acceptable. We need to recognize that these "slob" hunters could have a serious impact on access.

 

[RobG]

Eliminate the opportunity and you eliminate the problem. Draw tags? You could still end up with a bunch of hunters firing into a herd. Significantly reduced numbers of tags? Then what do you do to trim an overpopulated herd? Drive the elk off the private? These things seem to pop up out of nowhere and the hunters get word out before the wardens even know it is going on.

Just got a tip that landowner tags are in already in our future.

 

[belly-deep]

Just got a tip that landowner tags are in already in our future.

Cow only, I hope.

Jeezus...

 

[Ben Lamb]

Was this weapons restriction just recently? I know there is a new one just east of Ennis, that started this year. Surprised it made it this long. Seems like there are lots around Bozeman and Helena too?

2011 It allows for the establishment of weapons restrictions areas, but it keeps FWP from outlawing lead. My mistake. It's been a few years since I looked at it. IIRC, the original bill would have had the impact I thought of, i.e. eliminating the ability to enact weapons restrictions.

My mind is slipping!

http://leg.mt.gov/bills/2011/billpdf/HB0159.pdf

Too many bills and too little RAM.

We're up to 60 bill drafts already, and it's not even the session. http://laws.leg.mt.gov/legprd/LAW0203W$BSRV.ActionQuery?P_SESS=20151&P_BLTP_BILL_TYP_CD=&P_BILL_NO=&P_BILL_DFT_NO=&P_CHPT_NO=&P_ENTY_ID_SEQ2=&P_SBJT_SBJ_CD=FISH&P_ENTY_ID_SEQ=&Z_ACTION2=Find

 

[Deleted member 20812]

YDRC (you didn't remember correctly)

87-1-506. Enforcement powers of wardens. (1) A warden may:

. . .

(j) exercise the other powers of peace officers in the enforcement of the fish and game laws, the rules of the department, and judgments obtained for violation of those laws or rules.

87-1-506. Enforcement powers of wardens. (1) A warden may:

(a) serve a subpoena issued by a court for the trial of a violator of the fish and game laws;

(b) search, without a warrant, any tent not used as a residence, any boat, vehicle, box, locker, basket, creel, crate, game bag, or package, or their contents upon probable cause to believe that any fish and game law or department rule for the protection, conservation, or propagation of game, fish, birds, or fur-bearing animals has been violated;

(c) search, with a search warrant, any dwelling house or other building;

(d) seize game, fish, game birds, and fur-bearing animals and any parts of them taken or possessed in violation of the law or the rules of the department;

(e) seize and hold, subject to law or the orders of the department, devices that have been used to unlawfully take game, fish, birds, or fur-bearing animals;

(f) arrest, in accordance with Title 46, chapter 6, a violator of a fish and game law or rule of the department, violation of which is a misdemeanor;

(g) enforce the disorderly conduct and public nuisance laws, 45-8-101 and 45-8-111, as they apply to the operation of motorboats on all waters of the state;

(h) as provided for in 37-47-345, investigate and make arrests for violations of the provisions of Title 37, chapter 47, and of any rules adopted pursuant to that chapter relating to the regulation of outfitters and guides in the state;

(i) enforce the provisions of Title 80, chapter 7, part 10, and rules adopted under Title 80, chapter 7, part 10, for those invasive species that are under the department's jurisdiction; and

(j) exercise the other powers of peace officers in the enforcement of the fish and game laws, the rules of the department, and judgments obtained for violation of those laws or rules.

You are not reading this correctly. If you look at the entire context of the statute, you will see that it is very clearly spelled out what arrest authority Game Wardens have in Montana. They do not have full peace officer authority and cannot enforce open container, reckless discharge of a firearm, etc.

 

[belly-deep]

87-1-506. Enforcement powers of wardens. (1) A warden may:

(a) serve a subpoena issued by a court for the trial of a violator of the fish and game laws;

(b) search, without a warrant, any tent not used as a residence, any boat, vehicle, box, locker, basket, creel, crate, game bag, or package, or their contents upon probable cause to believe that any fish and game law or department rule for the protection, conservation, or propagation of game, fish, birds, or fur-bearing animals has been violated;

(c) search, with a search warrant, any dwelling house or other building;

(d) seize game, fish, game birds, and fur-bearing animals and any parts of them taken or possessed in violation of the law or the rules of the department;

(e) seize and hold, subject to law or the orders of the department, devices that have been used to unlawfully take game, fish, birds, or fur-bearing animals;

(f) arrest, in accordance with Title 46, chapter 6, a violator of a fish and game law or rule of the department, violation of which is a misdemeanor;

(g) enforce the disorderly conduct and public nuisance laws, 45-8-101 and 45-8-111, as they apply to the operation of motorboats on all waters of the state;

(h) as provided for in 37-47-345, investigate and make arrests for violations of the provisions of Title 37, chapter 47, and of any rules adopted pursuant to that chapter relating to the regulation of outfitters and guides in the state;

(i) enforce the provisions of Title 80, chapter 7, part 10, and rules adopted under Title 80, chapter 7, part 10, for those invasive species that are under the department's jurisdiction; and

(j) exercise the other powers of peace officers in the enforcement of the fish and game laws, the rules of the department, and judgments obtained for violation of those laws or rules.

You are not reading this correctly. If you look at the entire context of the statute, you will see that it is very clearly spelled out what arrest authority Game Wardens have in Montana. They do not have full peace officer authority and cannot enforce open container, reckless discharge of a firearm, etc.

That statute says they have the powers of a "regular" peace officer in the enforcement of fish and game statutes, so there has to be a connection of some kind.

But this statute gives warden, you, and I the power to enforce ANY criminal offense:

46-6-502. Arrest by private person. (1) A private person may arrest another when there is probable cause to believe that the person is committing or has committed an offense and the existing circumstances require the person's immediate arrest. The private person may use reasonable force to detain the arrested person.
(2) A private person making an arrest shall immediately notify the nearest available law enforcement agency or peace officer and give custody of the person arrested to the officer or agency.

 

[The Hedgehog]

Illegal to be stupid

There's no law that will correct stupidity, which is what nearly anybody suffers from who thinks it's a good idea to head out the door with a rifle when there's a mob of elk on the flats south of Ennis, or other places like that.

The solution is more long range precision shooters.

 

[Deleted member 20812]

That statute says they have the powers of a "regular" peace officer in the enforcement of fish and game statutes, so there has to be a connection of some kind.

But this statute gives warden, you, and I the power to enforce ANY criminal offense:

46-6-502. Arrest by private person. (1) A private person may arrest another when there is probable cause to believe that the person is committing or has committed an offense and the existing circumstances require the person's immediate arrest. The private person may use reasonable force to detain the arrested person.
(2) A private person making an arrest shall immediately notify the nearest available law enforcement agency or peace officer and give custody of the person arrested to the officer or agency.

Yes, the connection is they can act with full peace office authority for the purpose of enforcing the laws and rules delineated in the MCA. They cannot, acting as a peace officer stop someone for a DUI unless they are acting under the direction of the MHP or local Sheriff's Office.

Sure, anyone can make a citizen's arrest. However, Anyone in a Game Warden uniform and truck that makes a private arrest is a fool. How much do you think the state is going to act to foot their legal bills if they get sued in civil court?

 

[belly-deep]

Yes, the connection is they can act with full peace office authority for the purpose of enforcing the laws and rules delineated in the MCA. They cannot, acting as a peace officer stop someone for a DUI unless they are acting under the direction of the MHP or local Sheriff's Office.

Sure, anyone can make a citizen's arrest. However, Anyone in a Game Warden uniform and truck that makes a private arrest is a fool. How much do you think the state is going to act to foot their legal bills if they get sued in civil court?

The Montana Supreme Court has upheld out-of-jurisdiction arrests by law enforcement officials on several occasions. Apparently the State is not concerned about civil suits.

Point is, there is no legal obstacle between wardens and enforcement of the criminal code. Resource allocation and training are another matter, and dictated by department policy.

 

[The Hedgehog]

What's not to like about a V8 sneak?