Do You Realize Now What You Have Done?

[JLS]

Are you suggesting everyone else in MT is responsible for poor wildlife management except for the agency that actually sets the seasons on elk, cougar, and wolves! That would be like saying WDFW wants to increase elk numbers and reduce wolf and cougar numbers but the hunters and eastern Washington residents won't let them! We all know how badly WDFW wants to reduce wolf and cougar numbers! 

I have no idea where you derived this from my post.  I did not speak to WDFWs management of predators at all so your statement makes no sense to me.  FWP is doing a poor job of managing elk hunting because they are held hostage by a legislature that does not really care about the public land elk hunter.  FWPs elk management plan sucks in the first place, and has since it was implemented 12 years ago.  Elk population objectives are ridiculously low and are driven by social tolerance instead of biological carrying capacity.

Do you even know who Debbie Barrett is?  Do you know what the content of SB42 was that she sponsored and introduced in 2004?  Do you understand the long term impact this has for the public land elk hunter in Montana?

I have never heard of an outfitter or hound hunter who wants fewer cougar tags in MT, the outfitters and hound hunters I know in MT want more cougar tags. MFWP has resisted increasing cougar tag numbers for years! Could the primary problem be certain commissioners, biologists, and anti-hunting groups?

The Bitterroot and other parts of NW Montana went to a limited permit for lions largely at the request of outfitters.  I do not know of a single biologist in Montana that is anti hunting.  Feel free to fill me in if you do.  Houndsman are the most vocal supporters for lowering female sub quotas for lion harvest.


In western Montana there is plenty of public access on lots of public ground, a lack of logging on the forest and predators play a much larger role in determining herd numbers as this topic has proven. Herds in many of those western Montana units are the herds that hunters complain about having depressed herd numbers.

There is a wealth of new logging in western Montana.  You can see it from the freeway and every highway.  The problem might be a little more than just predators, but we can agree to disagree here.

In other MT units (especially central and eastern MT) there are access issues, elk herds have grown on large ranches that have been purchased by non-resident owners who don't allow public hunting. Those large elk herds maraud neighboring ranches when hunting seasons aren't open so neighboring ranches want elk numbers reduced. You can't blame the ranchers when those herds are consuming their livelihood. Those elk aren't being hunted, they are not the herds hunters are complaining about having low elk numbers.

I can blame the ranchers who want shoulder seasons to kill elk into February but don't allow any public access during the general season.  This problem goes far beyond central and eastern Montana.  It is highly prevalent in many areas of SW Montana from the Deer Lodge valley towards Billings and Dillon.  It's not just non-resident owners who create this problem.

These elk don't "grow up" on these ranches in many parts of the SW corner of the state.  They migrate there from public land because they've learned it is a refuge for them.

It's funny how ranchers don't mind elk during hunting season when they are selling hunts, but outside of that they hate them.

I haven't studied all the "Shoulder Seasons". I hope MFWP isn't trying to reduce elk numbers in public land units where herds are depressed? I hope MFWP intends to reduce herds in areas with excessive elk numbers where certain landowners are preventing elk harvest, areas where herds need reduced!

Montana could easily support as many elk as Colorado.  The Missouri Breaks north of Lewistown had phenomenal public land hunting in the early 2000's.  However, due to an asinine population objective the season was opened up to shoot cows left and right and "reduce the herd".   What's ironic is that private land elk numbers probably haven't changed all that much but the public land hunting is a shadow of what it used to be.  Again, this is courtesy of Debbie Barrett.

I'm switching states to hunt elk in this year for various reasons, and it has absolutely NOTHING to do with wolves.

I agree that MT could have as many elk as Colorado but as long as MFWP mismanages elk and predators on public lands that is not likely going to happen. Public land holds the greatest opportunity to expand herds. I definitely think MFWP should do a better job of working with hunters, landowners, and legislators to accomplish better elk management everywhere in MT.

Your continued assertion about predators is confusing.  Have you read the EMP?  If so, you would understand that the elk objectives were set in 2004.  Debbie Barrett's legislation mandated that all elk units would be managed at or below the objective population.  Thus, it doesn't matter HOW MANY predators you kill in many units, the state is prohibited by law to manage for more elk.  This would include the Northern Yellowstone herd, which was one of the primary talking points of the original article. 

What would you suggest FWP does for better elk management?

I would also directly challenge your assertion about mismanagement of predators on public lands.  You can hunt wolves for months at a time, and kill more in a year than most folks will kill in a lifetime.  There is general tag spring and fall bear hunting, with many districts open to unlimited harvest.  What more would you suggest?  Enlighten me as to how they could manage better?  As I said earlier, IMO anyone that complains about the number of predators in Montana should spend more time in the field with a rifle because the opportunity is certainly there.


I never said any MT biologist was anti-hunting, not sure where you got that?

The following quote insinuates/directly implies that biologists have resisted increasing tag numbers.  If I incorrectly drew the parallel that you were insinuating that they were associated with anti-hunting groups then I apologize for my misinterpretation.

I have never heard of an outfitter or hound hunter who wants fewer cougar tags in MT, the outfitters and hound hunters I know in MT want more cougar tags. MFWP has resisted increasing cougar tag numbers for years! Could the primary problem be certain commissioners, biologists, and anti-hunting groups?

http://www.outdoorlife.com/blogs/newshound/2014/04/montana-mountain-lion-hunters-oppose-increasing-harvest-quotas

In addition, the above link would directly contradict your statement that FWP has resisted increasing cougar tags.


I don't know Debbie Barrett but I would like to hear her side of the story too! You seem to be biased against the legislature, those are representatives of the people, could it be that your views are not the same as most Montanans?

There are very divergent viewpoints between many landowners and the general public hunters in Montana, hence the long standing issues with public access.  I am biased against a legislature that is continually pushing towards a Ranching for Wildlife model and away from a North American model of wildlife management.  As to whether my views are consistent with the "mainstream", I guess it would depend on who you ask.  My views are first and foremost to the North American model of conservation and a close second to the public land hunter.  I would challenge you to name one thing that Debbie Barrett has done that is supportive of either of these.


Some of your comments are confusing? The Block Management program is funded by non-resident hunters and has been very successful at opening up thousands of acres of private land to public hunting in Montana. However, I respect private property rights of landowners and do not think landowners should be required to open their lands to public hunting in order to have a hunting season. What is wrong with a landowner only allowing family members, friends, or paying hunters to hunt?

There is nothing wrong with only allowing family members, friends, paying hunters to hunt.  What is wrong is continued attempts by these same people to then make the elk overpopulation a "problem" when they don't allow reasonable public access by the public to hunt.  Reasonable public access has been a long standing requirement for private landowners for many years if they were to expect help from FWP in terms of game damage.  What constitutes reasonable access has been a long standing dispute.  My comments had nothing to do with Block Management, rather they had to do with folks creating a problem and then expecting the state to help them resolve it.

In years past, a landowner was not granted a special season outside of the general hunting season unless they qualified for game damage assistance under state law, which required reasonable public access (thereby disqualifying anyone who commercially outfitted for the entire season).  FWP has changed their stance on this under pressure from the legislature and will now allow special seasons outside of the general season.  I highly disagree with this.

A landowner's property is theirs, and they can choose whatever level and type of hunting they wish.  However, they don't live in a vacuum, and under the Rathbone Decision the Montana State Supreme Court dictated that landowners must tolerate a certain level of wildlife on their land as part of living in Montana.


We simply may have to agree to disagree on some issues! Good luck with your new hunting area.

Thank you. 

I couldn't get the link about hound hunting to work? I know that hound hunters often only want to hunt toms, that doesn't mean they want the entire season to close when a certain quota is met. As I mentioned, hound hunters I know think the quotas and seasons need expanded. 

The link worked for me.  Google Search "Region 2 mountain lion working group Montana" and you should get it.  It speaks directly to the conflict between elk/deer hunters and outfitters/houndsmen in terms of lion quotas and harvest guidelines.  It has no bearing on population numbers if you expand the seasons but not the quotas.  Lion hunters/outfitters have very strongly advocated for lower quotas and permit only systems for many years.  I was at some of these public meetings and witnessed it firsthand.

[color]
[/quote]

Edit:  I am not in any way directly opposed to ranchers.  I have some very good friends in Montana that are ranchers.  Some allow public hunting and some don't.  I respect both and realize it is their choice. 

What I don't support are ranchers who attempt to use the legislature to subvert the commission process for fish and wildlife management in order to create a better system for them to profit off of wildlife.  Management of wildlife should be first and foremost for the betterment of the resource, not to maximize the profits one can make on their ranch.

Legislative control of hunting issues is a very dangerous precedent and has been a front burner issue in Montana for years.  The recent MO has been to go the legislature if the commission tells you no, and the legislature's pattern has been to put the landowner interests far and above the general public's interests.

[JLS]

http://fwp.mt.gov/mtoutdoors/HTML/articles/2008/mountainlions.htm

Another article about mountain lion quotas, as well as the working group document.

[wolfbait]

Not All Montana And Idaho Residents Are Happy With Wolves
November 16, 2010

Editor’s Note: The following is a copy of a letter sent by Gary Marbut, President of the Montana Shooting Sports Association, in response to a column recently found in the Billings Gazette written by Jeremy Pelzer.
Jeremy,

Greetings from Montana.

In re your article about Wyoming joining Montana and Idaho to negotiate about wolves, be advised that the sentiment in Montana and Idaho is not all as it has been held out to be.

There are LOTs of citizens, hunters and landowners in Montana who are absolutely fed up to the gills with our Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks’ tolerance of wolves, total agreeability to do whatever the feds want about wolves, and outright complicity with the feds and sometimes illegal acts done in the process of foisting wolves on Montana.

Throughout this fiasco, FWP has minimized and dramatically downplayed current and future impact of wolves, especially on game populations. Their position on wolf impact all along has been so disingenuous and so incorrect as to qualify as deceit rather than innocent mistake. Administrators have actually ordered FWP personnel to silence about wolf impact on game populations. The people of Montana are angry, almost beyond measure, at our state wildlife agency for having so readily sold Montana citizens down the river over wolves.
People in Idaho feel the same, or even more strongly.
And, FYI, there are many of us who bless Wyoming for having held out on wolf management to prevent the acceptance of an area-wide wolf management practice that would favor wolf-lovers at the expense of hunters, stockgrowers and others.
This is definitely not the picture usually presented – that Montana and Idaho are smugly happy with the status quo and blame evil Wyoming for blocking progress to making overpopulation of wolves a permanent institution here.
In order to radically alter the status quo, I wrote a bill that was introduced into the 2009 Montana legislative session, SB 183, that would have forcibly wrested control of wolves out of federal hands, and the hands of our FWP, and placed wolves under stern management according to the will of the Legislature (FWP not only has NOT sought permission from the Legislature for its wolf policy and practices, it has actually outright ignored legislative direction).

An Idaho clone of that same bill was introduced in the Idaho Legislature in 2009. That bill didn’t pass in 2009. We fell three votes short in the Senate. However, we will be back with that bill in 2011, introduced again by Senator Joe Balyeat (R-Bozeman). With substantially improved public sentiment (improved for state control of wolves), I believe we can get this bill passed.
About the three states hiring an attorney to “negotiate” with the USFWS, I believe that is a ploy invented to help persuade the Montana Legislature to not pass the 2011 version of SB 183 (no bill number yet for 2011). Heck, the feds know that the wolf train wreck can no longer be camouflaged. They definitely do not want to be seen as having their hand on the throttle of the train when it comes completely off the tracks. They want out, right now. So, there’s nothing for them to “negotiate.” Even if something reasonable could be negotiated with the USFWS, the results of that negotiation would and could not bind the federal courts or those suing to allow the wolf rampage to continue unabated.
So, there is zero potential benefit to the three states negotiation with the USFWS, EXCEPT that Montana and Idaho wildlife managers can warn their legislatures to hold off on corrective legislation while “delicate negotiations” are in progress to magically solve the entire wolf problem.
Ditto for the secret (and thereby illegal in Montana) negotiations that are rumored to be going on between state wildlife agencies and Defenders of Wildlife and EarthJustice, the plaintiffs in the pending suit to block wolf delisting. Absolutely nothing binding can come from any such negotiations. They are designed only to give state wildlife administrators a reason to ask state legislatures to hold off on stronger legislative medicine while the wildlife agencies continue to cooperate with the stall tactics that are an ongoing win for the wolf advocates.
Negotiations are a ruse – just another tactic to stall any real solution while wolves put an end to hunting.
Gary Marbut, president
Montana Shooting Sports Association

http://mainehuntingtoday.com/bbb/2010/1 … th-wolves/

[bearpaw]

Are you suggesting everyone else in MT is responsible for poor wildlife management except for the agency that actually sets the seasons on elk, cougar, and wolves! That would be like saying WDFW wants to increase elk numbers and reduce wolf and cougar numbers but the hunters and eastern Washington residents won't let them! We all know how badly WDFW wants to reduce wolf and cougar numbers! 

I have no idea where you derived this from my post.  I did not speak to WDFWs management of predators at all so your statement makes no sense to me.  FWP is doing a poor job of managing elk hunting because they are held hostage by a legislature that does not really care about the public land elk hunter.  FWPs elk management plan sucks in the first place, and has since it was implemented 12 years ago.  Elk population objectives are ridiculously low and are driven by social tolerance instead of biological carrying capacity.

Do you even know who Debbie Barrett is?  Do you know what the content of SB42 was that she sponsored and introduced in 2004?  Do you understand the long term impact this has for the public land elk hunter in Montana?

I have never heard of an outfitter or hound hunter who wants fewer cougar tags in MT, the outfitters and hound hunters I know in MT want more cougar tags. MFWP has resisted increasing cougar tag numbers for years! Could the primary problem be certain commissioners, biologists, and anti-hunting groups?

The Bitterroot and other parts of NW Montana went to a limited permit for lions largely at the request of outfitters.  I do not know of a single biologist in Montana that is anti hunting.  Feel free to fill me in if you do.  Houndsman are the most vocal supporters for lowering female sub quotas for lion harvest.


In western Montana there is plenty of public access on lots of public ground, a lack of logging on the forest and predators play a much larger role in determining herd numbers as this topic has proven. Herds in many of those western Montana units are the herds that hunters complain about having depressed herd numbers.

There is a wealth of new logging in western Montana.  You can see it from the freeway and every highway.  The problem might be a little more than just predators, but we can agree to disagree here.


In years to come the new logging will pay off! Stopping logging in previous years hurt the herds.

In other MT units (especially central and eastern MT) there are access issues, elk herds have grown on large ranches that have been purchased by non-resident owners who don't allow public hunting. Those large elk herds maraud neighboring ranches when hunting seasons aren't open so neighboring ranches want elk numbers reduced. You can't blame the ranchers when those herds are consuming their livelihood. Those elk aren't being hunted, they are not the herds hunters are complaining about having low elk numbers.

I can blame the ranchers who want shoulder seasons to kill elk into February but don't allow any public access during the general season.  This problem goes far beyond central and eastern Montana.  It is highly prevalent in many areas of SW Montana from the Deer Lodge valley towards Billings and Dillon.  It's not just non-resident owners who create this problem.

These elk don't "grow up" on these ranches in many parts of the SW corner of the state.  They migrate there from public land because they've learned it is a refuge for them.

It's funny how ranchers don't mind elk during hunting season when they are selling hunts, but outside of that they hate them.

I haven't studied all the "Shoulder Seasons". I hope MFWP isn't trying to reduce elk numbers in public land units where herds are depressed? I hope MFWP intends to reduce herds in areas with excessive elk numbers where certain landowners are preventing elk harvest, areas where herds need reduced!

Montana could easily support as many elk as Colorado.  The Missouri Breaks north of Lewistown had phenomenal public land hunting in the early 2000's.  However, due to an asinine population objective the season was opened up to shoot cows left and right and "reduce the herd".   What's ironic is that private land elk numbers probably haven't changed all that much but the public land hunting is a shadow of what it used to be.  Again, this is courtesy of Debbie Barrett.

I'm switching states to hunt elk in this year for various reasons, and it has absolutely NOTHING to do with wolves.

I agree that MT could have as many elk as Colorado but as long as MFWP mismanages elk and predators on public lands that is not likely going to happen. Public land holds the greatest opportunity to expand herds. I definitely think MFWP should do a better job of working with hunters, landowners, and legislators to accomplish better elk management everywhere in MT.

Your continued assertion about predators is confusing.  Have you read the EMP?  If so, you would understand that the elk objectives were set in 2004.  Debbie Barrett's legislation mandated that all elk units would be managed at or below the objective population.  Thus, it doesn't matter HOW MANY predators you kill in many units, the state is prohibited by law to manage for more elk.  This would include the Northern Yellowstone herd, which was one of the primary talking points of the original article. 

Your going to have to show me where the legislature mandated MFWP to allow wolves to populate to the extent they reduced the Northern Yellowstone Elk Herd from nearly 20,000 elk to a struggling 4,000 animals and to totally eliminate the elk seasons that many hunters relied on for years to fill their freezer? Your also going to have to show me where the legislature mandated for the herd declines in the bitteroot! I have to question if that's what the legislature actually did!

What would you suggest FWP does for better elk management?

Increase predator harvest where needed. They have proof cougar are impacting the Bitteroot and wolves have impacted the northern Yellowstone.


I would also directly challenge your assertion about mismanagement of predators on public lands.  You can hunt wolves for months at a time, and kill more in a year than most folks will kill in a lifetime.  There is general tag spring and fall bear hunting, with many districts open to unlimited harvest.  What more would you suggest?  Enlighten me as to how they could manage better?  As I said earlier, IMO anyone that complains about the number of predators in Montana should spend more time in the field with a rifle because the opportunity is certainly there.




I never said any MT biologist was anti-hunting, not sure where you got that?

The following quote insinuates/directly implies that biologists have resisted increasing tag numbers.  If I incorrectly drew the parallel that you were insinuating that they were associated with anti-hunting groups then I apologize for my misinterpretation.

You were incorrect! Thank you for apologizing for your misinterpretation!

I have never heard of an outfitter or hound hunter who wants fewer cougar tags in MT, the outfitters and hound hunters I know in MT want more cougar tags. MFWP has resisted increasing cougar tag numbers for years! Could the primary problem be certain commissioners, biologists, and anti-hunting groups?

http://www.outdoorlife.com/blogs/newshound/2014/04/montana-mountain-lion-hunters-oppose-increasing-harvest-quotas

In addition, the above link would directly contradict your statement that FWP has resisted increasing cougar tags.


I don't know Debbie Barrett but I would like to hear her side of the story too! You seem to be biased against the legislature, those are representatives of the people, could it be that your views are not the same as most Montanans?

There are very divergent viewpoints between many landowners and the general public hunters in Montana, hence the long standing issues with public access.  I am biased against a legislature that is continually pushing towards a Ranching for Wildlife model and away from a North American model of wildlife management.  As to whether my views are consistent with the "mainstream", I guess it would depend on who you ask.  My views are first and foremost to the North American model of conservation and a close second to the public land hunter.  I would challenge you to name one thing that Debbie Barrett has done that is supportive of either of these.


Some of your comments are confusing? The Block Management program is funded by non-resident hunters and has been very successful at opening up thousands of acres of private land to public hunting in Montana. However, I respect private property rights of landowners and do not think landowners should be required to open their lands to public hunting in order to have a hunting season. What is wrong with a landowner only allowing family members, friends, or paying hunters to hunt?

There is nothing wrong with only allowing family members, friends, paying hunters to hunt.  What is wrong is continued attempts by these same people to then make the elk overpopulation a "problem" when they don't allow reasonable public access by the public to hunt.  Reasonable public access has been a long standing requirement for private landowners for many years if they were to expect help from FWP in terms of game damage.  What constitutes reasonable access has been a long standing dispute.  My comments had nothing to do with Block Management, rather they had to do with folks creating a problem and then expecting the state to help them resolve it.

In years past, a landowner was not granted a special season outside of the general hunting season unless they qualified for game damage assistance under state law, which required reasonable public access (thereby disqualifying anyone who commercially outfitted for the entire season).  FWP has changed their stance on this under pressure from the legislature and will now allow special seasons outside of the general season.  I highly disagree with this.

A landowner's property is theirs, and they can choose whatever level and type of hunting they wish.  However, they don't live in a vacuum, and under the Rathbone Decision the Montana State Supreme Court dictated that landowners must tolerate a certain level of wildlife on their land as part of living in Montana.


I completely agree that elk learn where to go for safety during hunting seasons. It's obvious you did not read my comment correctly and again misinterpreted my comments. Perhaps I didn't clarify well enough? I meant to say that certain landowners are not hunting elk and neighboring landowners are being impacted when those elk enter their property outside of current hunting seasons. The impacted landowners need an opportunity to hunt those elk when the elk enter their lands. I also don't expect any landowners to be forced to allow public hunting on their land. I didn't ask for the landowners creating the undermanaged elk herds to be given a special season for their benefiit, there's quite a difference between what I said and what you implied I said. I hope you can see the difference?

We simply may have to agree to disagree on some issues! Good luck with your new hunting area.

Thank you. 

Awesome, we agree on something!

I couldn't get the link about hound hunting to work? I know that hound hunters often only want to hunt toms, that doesn't mean they want the entire season to close when a certain quota is met. As I mentioned, hound hunters I know think the quotas and seasons need expanded. 

The link worked for me.  Google Search "Region 2 mountain lion working group Montana" and you should get it.  It speaks directly to the conflict between elk/deer hunters and outfitters/houndsmen in terms of lion quotas and harvest guidelines.  It has no bearing on population numbers if you expand the seasons but not the quotas.  Lion hunters/outfitters have very strongly advocated for lower quotas and permit only systems for many years.  I was at some of these public meetings and witnessed it firsthand.

[color]

I was able to read the link, it was downloading rather than opening and I figured that out finally, LOL. Thanks, it was good reading. I saw and wasn't surprised that hound hunters on that working group were the most supportive of more cougar and for trophy cougar but they did settle on a nearly identical proposal as the status quo. It appeared outfitters were more in line with other hunters agreeing with more balanced management. I know an outfitter and hound hunter in Region 2 who says there should be longer cougar seasons and higher quotas but he wasn't on the working group. I must say the majority of the opinions I referenced live in other regions and I don't know if there have been cougar working groups in those regions? But it says hound hunters on the working group did support higher cougar numbers in Region 2 so I was incorrect about region 2.

Edit:  I am not in any way directly opposed to ranchers.  I have some very good friends in Montana that are ranchers.  Some allow public hunting and some don't.  I respect both and realize it is their choice. 

What I don't support are ranchers who attempt to use the legislature to subvert the commission process for fish and wildlife management in order to create a better system for them to profit off of wildlife.  Management of wildlife should be first and foremost for the betterment of the resource, not to maximize the profits one can make on their ranch.

Legislative control of hunting issues is a very dangerous precedent and has been a front burner issue in Montana for years.  The recent MO has been to go the legislature if the commission tells you no, and the legislature's pattern has been to put the landowner interests far and above the general public's interests.
[/quote]

I would never support landowners to benefit in the manner you just described, if you think I suggested that you were mistaken. I am constantly reminded that in NE Washington even though residents and their legislators have certain beliefs, the majority living in the I-5 corridor and their legislators have different beliefs. I think the same scenario could apply with you in Montana! Is it possible that your beliefs and what you perceive to be in the public's best interest is not exactly what the majority of Montanans actually believe is in their best interest?

[JLS]

Responses in purple, below.

Your continued assertion about predators is confusing.  Have you read the EMP?  If so, you would understand that the elk objectives were set in 2004.  Debbie Barrett's legislation mandated that all elk units would be managed at or below the objective population.  Thus, it doesn't matter HOW MANY predators you kill in many units, the state is prohibited by law to manage for more elk.  This would include the Northern Yellowstone herd, which was one of the primary talking points of the original article. 

Your going to have to show me where the legislature mandated MFWP to allow wolves to populate to the extent they reduced the Northern Yellowstone Elk Herd from nearly 20,000 elk to a struggling 4,000 animals and to totally eliminate the elk seasons that many hunters relied on for years to fill their freezer? Your also going to have to show me where the legislature mandated for the herd declines in the bitteroot! I have to question if that's what the legislature actually did!

The legislature mandated to manage at or below objective.  Objectives come with season structure/harvest guidelines.  The elk herd in Bitterroot was identified as over objective, meaning a very liberal antlerless harvest was implemented.  As a result, hunters shot the crap out of elk herds over several years.  Biologists finally acknowledged that a number of elk being counted in objective population were actually inaccessible to the public because they spent nearly all of their time on private land that did not allow hunting and therefore should not have been counted as part of the populations (per the EMP).  Elk herd went to very limited season structure/harvest guideline and as a result herd numbers are improving.  Make sense?

Wolves and lions were present in the Bitterroot before the population crashed.  I'm not going to delve into an argument as to what caused the crash, but I don't think it rocket science to correlate the timing of the crash and look at antlerless elk harvest data leading up to that.  Herd numbers began responding immediately to reduced hunting, despite relatively unchanged populations of lions and wolves.
CORRECTION: lion quotas were reduced in the same general period.  Also, the article added below speaks to the legislative mandate to lower herd numbers.
Also, I have two elk units transposed.  The Northern Yellowstone elk herd is in HD 314.  I was actually looking at the objective for HD 316, on the west side of the Paradise Valley, which is at objective despite only several thousand elk.  The Northern Yellowstone herd does not have an objective.  However, please tell me how FWP an effectively alter this herd via predator harvest when the majority of the herd calves and summers inside of YNP and grizzlies are still an ESA species?  If you want to make FWP a whipping boy for something, that's fine.  I have.  However, it would make sense to use an example that they actually have a high degree of direct control over.  This isn't one of them.

Lastly, you're acting like these two units are the entirety of elk hunting in Montana.  I personally take much greater issue with the abysmal elk management in the Missouri Breaks, and I'm willing to bet a lot of Montana hunters would agree with me.  At the same time, I could just as easily point out units that have TONS of elk along with grizzly bears, wolves, and lions.  Bottom line, not everything is black and white and to try to use two hunt districts to paint a picture of elk hunting and elk management in Montana is missing the bigger picture.


What would you suggest FWP does for better elk management?

Increase predator harvest where needed. They have proof cougar are impacting the Bitteroot and wolves have impacted the northern Yellowstone.

See above comment reference the Bitterroot harvest guidelines and YNP issues with predator harvest.  So your entire synopsis of how to improve elk management is to shoot more predators?  What about access issues and elk that migrate to inaccessible ranches?  What about public land elk herds that get hammered under liberal season structures because of "over objective" elk herds that include elk that primarily reside on private land?

I completely agree that elk learn where to go for safety during hunting seasons. It's obvious you did not read my comment correctly and again misinterpreted my comments. Perhaps I didn't clarify well enough? I meant to say that certain landowners are not hunting elk and neighboring landowners are being impacted when those elk enter their property outside of current hunting seasons. The impacted landowners need an opportunity to hunt those elk when the elk enter their lands. I also don't expect any landowners to be forced to allow public hunting on their land. I didn't ask for the landowners creating the undermanaged elk herds to be given a special season for their benefiit, there's quite a difference between what I said and what you implied I said. I hope you can see the difference?

In the past, so long as a landowner allowed reasonable public hunting during the general season, they would qualify for a damage season if a herd of elk spilled into their haystacks in the winter.  Now, that privilege is potentially being extended to landowners who do not allow any hunting all, and also possibly/very likely expanded into an extended season granted without documented damage being done at all.

I certainly agree that a landowner should not pay the price because their neighbor does not allow any or enough hunting. I am entirely sympathetic and empathetic to elk management issues that can/do affect landowners.  However, with a little compromise some very good solutions can be reached.  One rancher I know outfits for two weeks then allows public hunting for three weeks.  The public hunting is primarily for antlerless elk with some permit only bull hunting.  Another outfitter I know allowed free public cow hunting so long as it didn't directly interfere with his client's mule deer hunts.  He did so because he realized the impacts his neighbors could suffer and was trying to do the right thing.

I was able to read the link, it was downloading rather than opening and I figured that out finally, LOL. Thanks, it was good reading. I saw and wasn't surprised that hound hunters on that working group were the most supportive of more cougar and for trophy cougar but they did settle on a nearly identical proposal as the status quo. It appeared outfitters were more in line with other hunters agreeing with more balanced management. I know an outfitter and hound hunter in Region 2 who says there should be longer cougar seasons and higher quotas but he wasn't on the working group. I must say the majority of the opinions I referenced live in other regions and I don't know if there have been cougar working groups in those regions? But it says hound hunters on the working group did support higher cougar numbers in Region 2 so I was incorrect about region 2.

The same attitudes are/were very prevalent in Region 3 and 4 when I attended the meetings.

I would never support landowners to benefit in the manner you just described, if you think I suggested that you were mistaken. I am constantly reminded that in NE Washington even though residents and their legislators have certain beliefs, the majority living in the I-5 corridor and their legislators have different beliefs. I think the same scenario could apply with you in Montana! Is it possible that your beliefs and what you perceive to be in the public's best interest is not exactly what the majority of Montanans actually believe is in their best interest?

I never said you suggested that, I was merely explaining my stance.  I am sorry if it came across that I was implying you made any statements.

As to representation you are correct but incorrect.  Many of the counties in Montana are VERY conservative Republican and very pro-stockgrower/private property rights.  The majority of hunters in Montana are not represented very well in the legislature, particularly in the Senate.  Legislation is constantly introduced that would be damaging to the public land hunter. It's been that way for many years and appears to be getting worse.

So, to answer your last question, it would again depend on who you are asking.  The majority of hunters in Montana are public land hunters, so in my opinion the answer would be yes.  There are current and past legislators who would love to have FWP cater to their economic interest at the expense of the public land hunter.  They would answer no.  I am not anti-landowner, anti-outfitter, anti-houndsman.  I am pro-North American model and pro-Public Trust Doctrine to the core.  That is what guides my beliefs and dictates my stances.

You seem to take issue with how critical I am of certain legislators in Montana, and I'm not sure why that is.  I am equally critical of FWP's elk management plan.  I believe it is entirely too conservative, and wonder at times if that was done purposely to placate an angry landowner contingent.  If so, then FWP set themselves up to be back-doored by Senator Barrett who then made it law for FWP manage at or below their objectives and put themselves in the position where they are today.

Even very small concessions in terms of public access would greatly change the nature of elk hunting in Montana.  Maybe things will change and maybe they won't.  However, I will stand firmly behind my opinion that lack of hunter access and legislative pressures in regards to elk management are far greater threats to elk hunters in Montana than wolves ever will be.  The 2000 cow elk that hunters used to kill at Gardiner could easily be made up across the state if there were different attitudes and approaches amongst all involved.  Continuing to worry about a wolf that was reintroduced 20 years ago is detracting efforts from actually finding meaningful solutions to much more impactful problems.

Edit:  I referenced the Absaroka study earlier, here is the link to it.  Also, a study on the Bitterroot was added.  BOTH OF THESE WERE FUNDED BY SPORTSMEN'S GROUPS.  I also changed an incorrect statement that I had in my above post.

http://wyocoopunit.org/projects/absaroka-elk-ecology-project#Funders

There are some very interesting results in these studies.  I don't think it's unreasonable to look at the Absaroka study and question how much of this is applicable to the Northern Yellowstone herd?  After all they summer in very close proximity to each other.  There were well documented examples of very low calf recruitment and a rapidly aging cow population in the Northern Yellowstone elk herd dating back to the mid-90's.

Why is it that elk numbers in the Sunlight Basin area have been increasing across the past decade despite the presence of multiple wolf packs?  I am starting to believe more and more the predators are doing the dirty job of exposing and potentially magnifying bigger underlying issues that cause population declines.  That doesn't mean I think they are good and we need more wolves, or really any at all.  I'm simply saying that they directly or indirectly (in the case of both of the referenced studies) bring to light issues that have much greater significance in terms of population management.

The Bitterroot study points out critical variations in how different elk herds respond to aggressive antlerless harvest.  It also brings up the "H" word as a key factor in population dynamics.  It's interesting to note that even despite the Bitterroot studies, there was extreme resistance by houndsmen to increase lion quotas, hence the formation of the working group to address the issues.

Read these articles and derive your own conclusions.  I'm not here to tell anyone what to think.  I'll tell you what I think, but I can also present facts and examples to support it, and it will be peer reviewed science, not an op-ed from the Canadian Press or a blog post from Lobowatch.

You can't expect biologists to use science for management if you refuse to believe it.

[bearpaw]

Montana has determined and published how some units have been impacted by predators, I've not said the whole state has been impacted by wolves or by cougars, we all know it's certain units that have been affected the most which is why I addressed two areas everyone has heard about. It has become obvious that no matter what I say you'll spin it to fit your narrative to deny or diminish predator impacts as a factor in herd numbers. I've got other things I must do tonight so I will have to bow out of this discussion. Have a great night! 

[JLS]

Quite frankly I'm ready to bow out also.  You have repeatedly questioned my assertions.  I've presented you facts and examples, but I guess that is merely spinning things to fit my narrative.

All we have to do is shoot more predators and all will be right with elk hunting in Montana.

[Houndhunter]

I'm a hound hunter from MT and would like to see fewer lion tags, as do alot of people I know. Lots of females being killed and tracks are becoming few and far between. Increasing the lion quotas seems to be the easy answer from the wolf issues in MT