News

FWP Archery Elk Options

Posted by at 1:48 pm

Elk Archery

There are five (5) options for public review. All address the listed Hunting Districts below both in AND out of the Missouri Breaks. If you would like additional information outside of the below article please visit: http://fwp.mt.gov/fwpDoc.html?id=53718 and refer to pages 19-24.

ELK ARCHERY OPTION #1 – Elk Archery Working Group Recommendation

The elk archery working group recommendation first maintains the status quo either sex elk archery permits represented by the following list of districts, bundles, quota ranges and annual quota formulas. These existing permits are valid on all land ownerships within the described districts or portions of districts.

Inside the Missouri River Breaks

HDs 410/417 (biennial quota range 1600 – 1900)

HDs 620/621/622 (biennial quota range 1100 – 1300)

HDs 700/701 (biennial quota range 500 – 820)

Outside the Missouri River Breaks (annual quotas set at 90% of previous year’s 1st and 2nd choice eligible resident/nonresident applicants)

HDs 401/403/450 (200 permits in 2012)

HDs 411/412/426/511/530 (985 permits in 2012)

HDs 420/447/455 (860 permits in 2012)

HDs 500/570 (135 permits in 2012)

HDs 502/510 (west of Hwy 310)/520 (south and east of West Fork of Rock

Crk)/575 (130 permits in 2012)

HD 580 (south of Sweetgrass Creek) (125 permits in 2012)

HD 590 (and portion of HD 701 north of the Yellowstone River, south of Hwy

12 and west of Sumatra-Myers Rd.) (430 permits in 2012)

HDs 702/704/705 (860 permits in 2012)

To this status quo, the elk archery working group recommends another set of either sex elk archery permits to each of the bundles in and out of the Breaks.

These new permits would be available thru the drawing as a first and only choice.

These new permits would be valid only on private land outside Block Management Areas in a specific bundle.

A person holding one of these new permits could not hunt an antlered bull elk in any other district during any other season that license year.

The number of these new permits would ultimately be set to accommodate the number of outfitted nonresident archery elk hunters in each of these bundles in 2007.

For the 2012 and 2013 hunting seasons, these new permits would be initially available thru the drawing in unlimited fashion only to determine what an appropriate number of limited permits would be to needed to accommodate a number of nonresidents equal to the number of outfitted nonresident archery elk hunters in each of these bundles in 2007. These permits would only be valid on private lands outside Block Management Areas. The focus is on the number of successful nonresidents—they may or may not be outfitted. After the 2013 hunting season, these new permits would become limited.

These new permits would be initiated in all bundles for the 2012-2013 21

seasons.

These new permits would be proposed to remain in place in any one district if the elk population objective was met or maintained OR if an annual harvest prescription was met. This annual harvest prescription would be developed by FWP staff with consideration of achieving a population objective in not more than 6 years.

There would be an assessment of these circumstances every two years within the biennial season setting process. FWP would use population trend surveys and harvest surveys to assist biennial assessments.

If there was no clear and consistent reaching or maintaining a population objective or annual harvest prescription during the two year interval, these new permits would be proposed to be removed until a subsequent two year evaluation revealed the population objective or annual harvest prescription was clearly and consistently reached. Note: A biennial adoption by the FWP Commission is for two years only so any such assessment would result in a proposal for change or status quo during the next biennial season setting process. Any Commission action on that proposal would be made at that time.

In addition, the recommendation would maintain the existing working group (to include the specific persons to the extent possible) through at least one 2-year cycle of review for these permits. This group would meet twice annually to assess the effectiveness of this recommendation. In addition to evaluating the elk population status relative to objective and harvest, this group would attempt to assess harvest of bull elk on different permits, elk distribution on public and private lands during the hunting season, effectiveness relative to fundamental objectives (see below), public access levels (looking for no net loss) and outfitted acres.

Examples of how the permits would appear in the regulation booklet are below.

HDs 401, 403, 450 Add lpt: 401-17. Unlimited Either-sex permits. Must apply first and only choice. Valid only on private lands outside Block Management Areas in HDs 401, 403 and 450. Permit holder may not hunt bull elk in any other HD during any season. ArchEquip Only. Sep 01 – Oct 14 Either-sex Elk. Archery Only Season. HDs 410, 417 Add lpt: 410-17. Unlimited Either-sex permits. Must apply first and only choice. Valid only on private lands outside Block Management Areas in HDs 410 and 417. Permit holder may not hunt bull elk in any other HD during any season. 22

ArchEquip Only. Sep 01 – Oct 14 Either-sex Elk. Archery Only Season. HDs 411, 412, 426, 511, 530 Add lpt: 411-17. Unlimited Either-sex permits. Must apply first and only choice. Valid only on private lands outside Block Management Areas in HDs 411, 412, 426, 511 and 530 . Permit holder may not hunt bull elk in any other HD during any season. ArchEquip Only. Sep 01 – Oct 14 Either-sex Elk. Archery Only Season. HDs 420, 447, 455 Add lpt: 420-17. Unlimited Either-sex permits. Must apply first and only choice. Valid only on private lands outside Block Management Areas in HDs 420, 447 and 455. Permit holder may not hunt bull elk in any other HD during any season. ArchEquip Only. Sep 01 – Oct 14 Either-sex Elk. Archery Only Season. HDs 500, 570 Add lpt: 500-17. Unlimited Either-sex permits. Must apply first and only choice. Valid only on private lands outside Block Management Areas in HDs 500 and 570. Permit holder may not hunt bull elk in any other HD during any season. ArchEquip Only. Sep 01 – Oct 14 Either-sex Elk. Archery Only Season. HDs 502, 510, 520, 575 Add lpt: 502-17. Unlimited Either-sex permits. Must apply first and only choice. Valid only on private lands outside Block Management Areas in HDs 502, 510 (west of Hwy 310), 520 (south and east of West Fork of Rock Crk) and 575. Permit holder may not hunt bull elk in any other HD during any season. ArchEquip Only. Sep 01 – Oct 14 Either-sex Elk. Archery Only Season. HD 580 Add lpt: 580-17. Unlimited Either-sex permits. Must apply first and only choice. Valid only on private lands outside Block Management Areas in HD 580 south of Sweetgrass Crk. Permit holder may not hunt bull elk in any other HD during any season. ArchEquip Only. Sep 01 – Oct 14 Either-sex Elk. Archery Only Season. HDs 590, 701 Add lpt: 590-17. Unlimited Either-sex permits. Must apply first and only choice. 23

Valid only on private lands outside Block Management Areas in HD 590 and portion of HD 701 north of Yellowstone River, south of Hwy 12 and west of Sumatra-Myers Rd. Permit holder may not hunt bull elk in any other HD during any season. ArchEquip Only. Sep 01 – Oct 14 Either-sex Elk. Archery Only Season. HDs 620, 621, 622 Add lpt: 620-17. Unlimited Either-sex permits. Must apply first and only choice. Valid only on private lands outside Block Management Areas in HDs 620, 621 and 622. Permit holder may not hunt bull elk in any other HD during any season. ArchEquip Only. Sep 01 – Oct 14 Either-sex Elk. Archery Only Season. HDs 700, 701 Add lpt: 798-17. Unlimited Either-sex permits. Must apply first and only choice. Valid only on private lands outside Block Management Areas in HDs 700 and 701. Permit holder may not hunt bull elk in any other HD during any season. ArchEquip Only. Sep 01 – Oct 14 Either-sex Elk. Archery Only Season. HDs 702, 704, 705 Add lpt: 799-17. Unlimited Either-sex permits. Must apply first and only choice. Valid only on private lands outside Block Management Areas in HDs 702, 704 and 705. Permit holder may not hunt bull elk in any other HD during any season. ArchEquip Only. Sep 01 – Oct 14 Either-sex Elk. Archery Only Season.

ELK ARCHERY OPTION #2
Elk Archery Working Group Recommendation WITH the addition of antlerless elk only on private land also proposed if population or harvest objective was not met. Also require mandatory reporting for individuals holding private land only permit.

ELK ARCHERY OPTION #3
Current Status Quo (2011 season structure) to include 2011 bundles, permit ranges and formulas used to determine annual permit numbers. See below.

Inside the Missouri River Breaks

HDs 410/417 (biennial quota range 1600 – 1900)

HDs 620/621/622 (biennial quota range 1100 – 1300)

HDs 700/701 (biennial quota range 500 – 820)

Outside the Missouri River Breaks (annual quotas set at 90% of previous year’s 1st and 2nd choice eligible resident/nonresident applicants)

HDs 401/403/450 (200 permits in 2012)

HDs 411/412/426/511/530 (985 permits in 2012)

HDs 420/447/455 (860 permits in 2012)

HDs 500/570 (135 permits in 2012)

HDs 502/510 (west of Hwy 310)/520 (south and east of West Fork of Rock

Crk)/575 (130 permits in 2012)

HD 580 (south of Sweetgrass Creek) (125 permits in 2012)

HD 590 (and portion of HD 701 north of the Yellowstone River, south of Hwy

12 and west of Sumatra-Myers Rd.) (430 permits in 2012)

HDs 702/704/705 (860 permits in 2012)

ELK ARCHERY OPTION #4
Status Quo (2011 season structure) with potential to adjust bundles and permit numbers, ranges or formulas.

ELK ARCHERY OPTION #5
2007 Season Structure (unlimited either sex elk archery permits in Breaks, no elk archery permits outside Breaks)

Court Challenge to Anti-Poaching Law

Posted by at 7:37 am

Several legislative sessions ago, the MBA was instrumental in getting the anti-poaching law passed. It provides for restitution values for illegally taken wildlife and sets the threshold for a felony unlawful possession of game animals. This law is critical to protecting our wildlife resources and providing due process and restitution in poaching cases.
Recently, the 22nd District court in Billings upheld a challenge to the constitutionality of the trophy poaching restitution law. The challenge was filed in State v. James Ike Rainey, State v. Mark Gary Morse, and State v. Lenard Lee Powell which are separate cases
involving related defendants in poaching incidences. On October 5, 2010, the Defendants in the above case, James Ike Rainey, Mark Gary Morse, and Lenard Lee Powell were charged in the district court of Big Horn County, Montana, with offenses including unlawful possession of a game animal, a felony, as specified in Mont. Code Ann. § 87-3-111 (2009). The charging documents describe various illegal hunting practices and the possession of unlawfully-taken deer and elk. In July, August, and September 2011, the Defendants fi led pleadings requesting that the court declare Mont. Code Ann. §§ 87-1-111, 87-1-115, and 87-3-111(5) unconstitutional. FWP has filed an application with the Montana Supreme Court, asking for a stay of proceedings and a request to override the lower court’s decision. FWP has called upon MBA and other sportsmen’s groups to file an amicus curiae to support their actions. According to U.S. Supreme Court Justice William H. Rehnquist, amicus curiae is “a phrase that literally means “friend of the court” — someone who is not a party to the litigation, but who believes that the court’s decision may affect its interest.” It is certainly within the interest of all sportsmen in Montana to defend the right of the State to protect our wildlife resources, and to penalize those who violate wildlife laws. The MBA will support FWP however possible in urging the Supreme Court to review the ruling issued by the district court. It is extremely important that we get this case overturned lest we have no recourse in future poaching cases. We must ensure that our interests are protected, not those of rich poachers who can buy themselves good lawyers to wrongly influence the courts.

© Bruce MacQueen / photoXpress
SECOND VICE PRESIDENTS REPORT

JACK CREEK PRESERVE FOUNDATION

Posted by at 7:35 am

NEWS FOR IMMEDIATE
RELEASE Oct. 14, 2011
Contact: Katie Alvin,
Executive Director, 406-995-7550
FOUNDATION TO
PROVIDE FREE HUNT TO
DISABLED VETERAN
For the seventh year, the Jack Creek Preserve Foundation
will be giving a hunt for either elk or black bear to a U.S.
veteran that was wounded and disabled while serving in
either Iraq or Afghanistan.
The Jack Creek Preserve, a 4,600-acre wildlife preserve
near Ennis, Montana, consists of wild and scenic mountain
country that has been set aside to conserve and protect
wildlife and its habitat. The major focus of the Foundation’s
mission is to provide opportunities that give young people
a deeper understanding and involvement with habitat
and ecology, wildlife management, ethical hunting,
hunter conservationists, and bowhunting. Among the
Foundation’s board of directors are representatives of the
Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation and the Pope and Young
Club.
Rich in natural resources, the landscape provides a wildlife
corridor between the northern and southern portions
of the Lee Metcalf Wilderness. The Foundation directly
supports young hunters and others by offering bowhunting
opportunities for elk, deer, and black bears. Hunter success
is generally about 30%. A 7X7 elk was taken in 2008 that
scored 385.

The opportunity to participate in one of these high
quality hunts will be given free to a U.S. military veteran
that was wounded and disabled while serving in either Iraq
or Afghanistan. The 2012 hunt will be for archery bull elk,
rifl e cow elk, or spring bear (bow or rifle).
Assistance is potentially available from the Foundation to
help with travel expenses or with the purchase of the license
if needed. The JCPF is able to accommodate a veteran
that may have suffered severe physical disabilities. Cabin
lodging will be provided and Foundation personnel will
assist the hunt recipient to insure that he or she enjoys a
truly outstanding hunting experience.
The deadline to apply for the hunt is Feb. 1,
2012. Applications can be downloaded from www.
jackcreekpreserve.org, or obtained by request via e-mail
info@jackcreekpreserve.org or regular mail (Jack Creek
Preserve Foundation, P.O. Box 3, Ennis, MT 59729).

Lewiston Bonanza Shoot Aug. 6th-7th

Posted by at 3:42 am

Lewistown Bowhunters Association Bonanza Shoot to be held Aug. 6th – 7th. See attached event poster for divisions and details.

Report on the Bitterroot Elk Working Group Meeting 5-19-11

Posted by at 4:15 am

Bitterroot biologist Craig Jourdonnais reported the results of the much awaited annual spring elk survey to the Bitterroot Elk Working Group.  Although the survey took place 3 weeks later this year, Craig reported conditions were excellent for observing and counting elk.  He was able to classify 6581 of 6605 elk this spring.  Overall, elk in the Bitterroot are near population objectives, but concerns over declining bull to cow ratios and poor calf recruitment continue to cause concern.  (Please refer to the two attachments in my email dtd 5-17-11, “Bitterroot Elk Numbers” for additional survey data)

On the east side of the valley, HD’s 204 and 261 are within population objectives.  Calf recruitment there is slightly improved over last year as is the bull to cow ratio.

HD 204 total = 788 elk.  18 calves : 100 cows : 18 bulls

HD 261 total = 718 elk.  22 calves : 100 cows : 20 bulls

This past winter saw about 150 to 170 elk wintering on agricultural land in the Ambrose Creek area northeast of Stevensville.  FWP received several complaints from land owners of elk damaging fences and haystacks.  FWP is contemplating a management hunt to take place as early as this August as a means to discourage elk from wanting to live in the area.  Hunting will not be permitted during the general gun season but will resume in December and continue through January.   The boundary of the hunting area for this mgmt hunt in HD 204 will be Ambrose Creek Rd on the North; the Eastside Hwy on the west; Burnt Fork Rd on the south; and a difficult to describe serpentine boundary on the east in the Iron Cap area.

It’s worth noting for those not familiar with this area that it contains a large number of residences mostly on 5 to 10 acre lots.  I foresee an issue with the use of high-powered hunting rifles in the proposed hunting area.  I also believe access it will favor only landowners and their immediate circle of friends.  The general public is going to locked out of this hunt.

Lack of elk in the far northwestern portion of HD 240 on the west side of the valley is a major concern.  Craig reported that he found only 12 elk in the area along Hwy 12 from Lolo to the Idaho state line.  He also noted that most of the elk in HD 240 are now found on private land during the hunting season making them inaccessible to public hunting.

HD 240 total = 719 elk.  32 calves : 100 cows : 10 bulls

The situation in the West Fork, HD 250, may have stabilized according to Craig, but the elk population remains about 60% below the population objective.  Craig counted 785 elk this spring compared to 764 last year.  He was able to locate 11 of the 11 living radio collared elk study cows.  (One of the original 12 cows was killed as the result of predation)  The calf to cow ratio remains below the sustainable level and the bull to cow ratio is also below the objective level.  In 2005, there were 357 elk checked through the Darby check station from HD 250,  This year there will be only 25 permits for BAB’s.  The extraordinary reduction in hunter opportunity will have a harmful impact to the local economy.

Most noteworthy is a lack of yearling bulls and the fact 3 age classes of elk have been lost in the West Fork according to Craig.

HD 250 total = 785 elk.  18 calves : 100 cows : 9 bulls

Elk numbers in the East Fork, HD 270 are also of concern, especially south of Rye Creek.

The overall population is within objective and holding steady.  Craig indicated he found a huge difference in calf recruitment between elk found north of Rye Cr versus those south of Rye Cr.  Calf survival south of Rye is poor.  Bulls are below 10:100 cows for the second consecutive year.  He also noted the lack of yearling bulls in the district.  This is another cause of concern

The state Elk Management Plan calls for “unlimited” permits for BAB’s when the bull to cow ratio drops below 15:100 cows for 2 consecutive years.  The working group discussed proposing this season structure for the next tentatives but no decision was reached.  FWP is hesitant to ask for further reduced hunter opportunity in the Bitterroot and suggested the group wait until later in the year before making any proposal.  They also ask the working group to consider a limited hunt for antlerless elk.

It is shocking, IMO to even hint of a cow hunt.  Here are the facts.  Craig counted 3595 elk in HD 270.  During most years, a large number of those elk aren’t available during bow season or the general hunting season.  Unless there are favorable weather conditions to cause them to migrate from the divide and/or the Big Hole area of HD 334 into the lower elevations of HD 270, they are not even available during the general gun season.  He counted 1500 elk on the CB ranch, which is adjacent to the Rye Cr, during the 2010 hunting season.  A few years ago there were about 500 elk on the ranch.  There were about 1000 elk there during the 2009 hunting season.  The population trend of elk on the ranch is increasing each season.  The CB Ranch allows no general public hunting.  The harboring of elk on the ranch is significantly decreasing hunter opportunity. (In fairness, it must be pointed out that they do open the ranch, under strict ranch supervision, to a few youth hunters to harvest cow elk.)

In 2010, 95 cows and 7 cows were harvested by hunters under the current season structure in HD 270.  We simply do not need to harvest any addition cow elk as every cow removed from the herd represents the potential loss of a calf.  It is pointless and harmful to the future welfare of the herd to support any additional hunting of cow elk at this time.  The best chance to increase future hunter opportunity is by the adherence of sound biological principles.

There is one pack of 14 wolves currently on the CB ranch.  Who knows how many calves they are killing.  I believe that unless we can grow more calves, HD 270 will begin to falter and turn into another HD 250.  We must stop removing cow elk from the herd.  Note:  There is support among the working group in support of lowering the cow harvest in the district down to 5 cows at the next tentative session.

I’ve cited my concerns and beliefs, but I need the MBA’s input on this topic.  I hope the Board will discuss it and provide some direction.

HD 270 total = 3595 elk.  19 calves : 100 cows : 8

One last comment on the elk survey.  Craig continues to see an increase of elk living around residence on the west side (HD 240) of the valley.  He also noted an increase of elk in the river bottom (HD 260).

The river bottom elk totaled 102.  65 cows, 33 calves and 4 spikes. Calf recruitment was 51 calves : 100 cows.  This high number of calves results in a higher overall rate of calf recruitment.

Kelly Proffitt, FWP research biologist, in charge of the on the 3 year Bitterroot Elk Survival and Recruitment Study gave an update on the project.

44 cow elk were radio collared in the initial phase of the project.  Half from the West Fork and half from the East Fork.

There has been 3 mortalities of collared elk.

1 lion kill, HD 250

1 wolf kill, HD 270

1 winter kill, HD 270.  This elk was very old (> 12 yrs) and not pregnant.

HD 270 elk were in good condition going into winter and all but one cow was pregnant.

HD 250 elk were found to be below average.  Only 67% were pregnant.  ( IMO, this is highly suggestive that environmental or habitat issue may be contributing to the population issue)

The research team will begin capturing elk calves around the end of May.  They have 80 radio ear tags available with plans to have them all in place by mid June.

The BEWG discussed its support of current tentative wolf hunt proposal and ideas to strengthen it.  (The idea of a separate WMU for the West Fork came out of the working group.)  The working group believes the following ideas will strengthen the current proposal:

Allowing for 2 or more wolf tags

Extending the season to Feb 28

Allowing trapping

An exemption for WMU 250 to the provision that allow for shift in a quota number to another WMU should an adjacent unit exceed its authorize quota

Of the 15 lion permits issued for HD 250 last season, there were 5 lions taken.  The feeling of the working group is that we must harvest more lions to help reduce the predation of elk and supports an increase to the number of lion permits.  We plan to request an increase of 8 additional male permits and 2 additional female permits for the West Fork.  This will raise the permit levels to 21 males and 4 females.  We will ask for an increase of 4 male permits in HD 204 and for 1 additional female permit in HD’s 240 & 270.

I hope the MBA Board will discuss this and provide me with some direction on this issue.

Lastly, I apologize for the length of this report.  I tried to keep it short but provide all the important factual information necessary to provide for an account of the current population trends and the associated issues.  Because communication with the membership is essential, I ask that this report be provided to each Region 2 MBA member with an email account.

Please feel free to call (406 777 2690) or email (ckjohn@bigsky.net) me with questions or comments.  Thanks,

Charlie

MBA 2011 Comment on Wolf Season

Posted by at 4:12 am

Montana Bowhunters Association
PO Box 23611
Billings, MT  59104

June 9, 2011

Dear Commissioners;

The Montana Bowhunters Association is certainly very happy to see the management of wolves back on the hands of FWP.  As such we would like to make the following comments on the 2011 proposed wolf season.

Archery:

The MBA strongly supports the archery wolf opportunity proposed to begin with the regular big game archery season, and we appreciate your approval of this opportunity in 2010 even though the wolf season did not occur that year.

Quota:

Montana sportsmen are looking for immediate relief in the form of greatly reduced wolf numbers.  We are not looking for a step-wise, slow reduction in wolf populations.  Many of our ungulate populations in the western half of the state are in very poor shape as a direct and indirect result of wolf predation.  While a quota of 220 wolves is a nice and easy start that is predicted to reduce wolf populations by 7-25%, it is simply not enough.  Using a conservative estimate of documented wolves statewide and the most aggressive population model, predictions show we will still be left with a very conservative number of 425 (the true number is likely to be more than 500+) wolves post-season here in Montana.  That is almost 1 ½ times the recovery goal of 300 wolves set for the entire 3 state area and is almost 3 times the recovery goal of 150 wolves allocated for Montana.  When our wolf populations had grown to 425 back in 2007, we were seeing severe impacts to our ungulate populations than and livestock depredation was certainly an issue.  We already know that 425 wolves are too many for our landscape.  We agreed to keep 150.  Therefore, we want to see the number of wolves cut to near 150 as soon as possible.  We have the opportunity to do that this year, yet we are not even attempting to come close.  We ask that you adopt a less conservative quota than 220 wolves for this coming season so we can get Montana back in balance with our predator/prey populations and give our ungulates and sportsmen their much due relief.

Season Extentions:

The current wording of this tentative proposal does not seem to leave any room for season extensions.  The Department must have the ability to extend seasons should quotas not be met or for any other extenuating circumstances that might come about as the season progresses.

Season Duration:

To ensure that quotas can be met, the season should go through January 31^st.  There would be very little risk to potential disturbance of wolf breeding activities in January as very little if any breeding activities begin to even take place in the month of January.  Most of our big game seasons take place during breeding seasons with little to no impact to their populations.

HD 250 – West Fork of the Bitterroot:

Wolf populations and their associated impacts are extremely high in the West Fork of the Bitterroot.  Due to this heavy predation, there will only be 25 elk hunters in the entire West Fork this year and mule deer have an unlimited permit structure.  With such limited hunting opportunities, there will be very few hunters in HD 250 to incidentally take wolves, and quotas will therefore be hard to meet especially considering the more remote and relatively timber conditions there.

In the West Fork and any other hunting district for that matter with limited ungulate hunting opportunity, we ask that you allow for 2 or more wolf tags/hunter, extend the season to February 28^th, allow trapping, and give an exemption for WMU 250 to the provision that allows for shift in a quota number to another WMU should an adjacent unit exceed its authorized quota.  These are exactly the areas that require a very aggressive wolf season the very most.

Please let us know if you have any questions regarding our positions on the proposed wolf season or if you need any further clarifications.

Sincerely,
Jason Tounsley – President

MBA Regarding Breaks and 22OD Limited Permits

Posted by at 11:40 pm

At the May Commission meeting it was announced that there would be a special meeting of the Commission on June 8^th to discuss the limited permits for archery elk in both the Breaks and the 22 units outside the Breaks in regions 4, 5, and 7. The MBA is excited about the opportunity to revisit the decisions about these limited permits and would like to make our positions on these permits clear, explain the rationale behind those positions, and ask for your support as this process moves forward.

Missouri River Breaks (HDs  410, 417, 620, 621 622, 700, and 701)

As early as 2006, the MBA started to discuss with FWP the possibility of limited permits in the Breaks units and what the structure of such a system should look like. The driving force behind this move from the MBA was member input speaking to overcrowding issues, both perceived and real.

Vast amounts of publicly accessible Federal, State and Private lands coupled with unlimited permits and national notoriety of both the number and trophy quality of the Breaks elk combined to create the perfect storm turning the breaks into a mecca for the do-it-yourself, non-resident hunter looking for a public land, archery elk hunting opportunity. The MBA feels this was the major factor which pushed the number of non-resident hunters as high as 33% of the total number of hunters in these units, with the majority of the non-residents competing directly with residents for access on public lands.

Since 2008 and the implementation of limited permits in the Breaks, feedback from our membership has shown an impression of increased overall hunt quality and is largely supported by those members who choose to take advantage of this opportunity.

As a result the MBA has supported and will continue to support a limited permit system in the breaks which keeps the resident first choice applicants at or near 100% success, while in turn limiting non-residents to 10% of the total number of permits.

22 Units Outside the Breaks (22OD) 401, 403, 411, 412, 420, 426, 447, 450, 455, 500, 502, 510, 511, 520, 530, 570, 575, 580, 590, 702, 704, 705

In a nutshell, this permit system limits archery opportunity in any elk hunting district (HDs) in regions 4, 5, and 7 which is limited for general season opportunity. Simply put, if it is limited for rifle season it is limited for archery season. Prior to the permits all of these units were a general archery opportunity, and as such any hunter could take advantage of the archery opportunity while still applying for a general season permit.

By limiting the number of resident permits this automatically introduces a limit on non-resident hunters of no more than 10% of the total number of permits offered, unless there are surplus permits after all first second and third choice resident applicants are drawn, at that point the permits can be sold over the counter to non-residents.

Unlike the limited permits in the Breaks, the MBA was unaware of the intentions of the FWP and the Commission to apply a permit system similar to the one in the breaks to 23 other districts outside of the breaks until a few days before the idea was proposed at the June 2007 commission meeting. The MBA has been and continues to be opposed to the limited permits in the 22OD. (In 2009 the Commission removed HD441 from the 23OD at the request of the MBA making it the 22OD.)

The FWP and the Commission have stated several factors to justify the rationale they used for implementing the permit system as it is.  Among these, the most substantial in my mind are the relationship between unlimited opportunity and management effectiveness, equity between user groups and the distribution of opportunity, and hunt quality as it relates to the perception of overcrowding. Obviously in the interest of responsible management of the resource these topics must be explored but as with most things the opinions of what the problems are and how they should be dealt with will differ depending on the point of view.

Unlimited opportunity and management effectiveness

The FWP and Commissioners maintain that the unlimited permit system caused a situation where high numbers of public land hunters were moving elk onto private land with access controlled by commercial interests (outfitters with an unlimited client base) creating “sanctuaries” for elk. Without public access to the elk, managing the herd to population objectives as dictated in the 2004 Elk Management Plan (EMP) became impossible according to the Dept.

By limiting the number of potential clients and making non-residents dependent on a draw system the FWP and Commissioners concluded that commercial interests would have less incentive to lease private lands. One can only assume the intended consequence of the permits in this circumstance would be to increase the likelihood of public access to private lands currently being leased by outfitters and coincidentally increase harvest.

While there is no doubt that the “sanctuaries” created by limited access to private lands are creating difficult, localized circumstances for elk population management it seems inconsistent to use the EMP as a justification for the limited permits while at the same time ignoring the steps outlined  in the EMP to address elk populations which are over objective. The limited permits also fail to address what many suspect is the most rapidly growing segment of those who lease land and create “sanctuaries” for elk, residents.

The EMP provides for three levels of regulation relative to population objectives: Restrictive regulations, Standard regulations, and Liberal regulations when populations reach over 20% above objective. Therefore in areas where population management is the main priority with populations 20% over objective, the most liberal of regulations should be imposed. Limited archery permits are not part of a liberal regulation package for any of the 22OD according to the EMP. Ironically, however, limited archery permits are part of the restrictive package for each of the units included in the 22OD meant to be implemented when populations reach 20% below objective.

Likewise on page 55 of the EMP guidelines are provided to deal with elk populations where hunting by the general public is virtually non-existent during general season due to access issues and/or demand for antlerless harvest being less than required for population control, both problems cited by FWP in reaching objectives within the 22OD. In neither instance is limited archery permits suggested. Rather, local working groups, removing elk not normally accessible during general season from trend counts, establishing sub-objectives, and “a substantially more liberal regulation package than traditionally used…” are mandated.

Data provided by FWP has revealed some interesting facts regarding population objectives and the status of the 22OD relative to those objectives. In 2007 there were 6 HDs within the 22OD which were at or within 20% of objective. In 2010, after three years of the new limited permit system with increasing limits on both residents and non-residents, the number of units within 20% of objective had increased by only one. Conversely, the number of HDs in 2007 which were over 20% above population objectives was six in 2007 and by the end of 2010 the number had climbed to eleven, almost doubling. While more rigorous analysis of the data would be required to determine if the limited permits contributed to the dramatic increase in HDs over objective it is not hard to come to the conclusion that the limited permits certainly are not helping to solve the problem.

Equity of opportunity between user groups

As I stated above prior to 2008 and the limited permit system the 22od were all general archery seasons but limited for rifle hunting. Any sportsman was free to apply for a rifle permit and if not successful could take advantage of the generous archery opportunity or choose to participate in neither. After all it is not predetermined whether any of us is a rifle hunter, bow hunter, or dual season hunter. Under general regulation it was simply a matter of whether or not you choose to take advantage of the opportunity available. It doesn’t get much more equitable than that. Under a limited permit system sportsmen are forced to choose between the archery or general season opportunities creating two separate user groups and pitting them against one another.

A misconception being perpetuated by those who support the limited archery permits is that in several of the areas archery harvest is above 50% of total harvest and that is fundamentally unfair to those who choose to put in for the general season permit. This is simply not true. The harvest data in the 22OD reveals that between 2004 and 2008 not one time did the percentage of elk harvested by archers reach anywhere near 50%. In fact there are only two cases between 2004 and 2010 where archery harvest exceeded 50% of the total harvest and both of these instances were in 2009 after the introduction of limited permits. It is important to note that these were isolated instances with both previous and subsequent years showing much lower harvest % by archers. One possible explanation for this anomaly could be the random telephone sampling system.

This same argument has been made in regards to the number of “trophy” bulls being harvested by archers. While it is impossible to define trophy quality of elk due to the differing opinions of what a trophy is in the eyes of each hunter the FWP has tried to break down the harvest unit by unit of bulls six points or better to address this complaint/concern. Of the 22OD only three areas (450,530, and 704) were identified as having a higher harvest of six-point or better bulls in at least 3 of the last 5 years by archers. While HD’s 450 and 530 can easily be categorized as statistical anomalies, by comparing the information provided by FWP regarding 6-point or better harvest to the harvest data posted on their website two interesting findings come to light. First, the harvest statistics provided by FWP and posted on their website proves that the six-point or better harvest in HDs 450, and 530 by archers is much less than 50% and second, that after implementing the limited permits in HD704 while six-point or better harvest by archers has remained near average the harvest of six-point or better bulls by rifle hunter’s has dropped significantly. Further, although HD704 six-point or better harvest is slightly higher during archery season than during general season the 799 bundle overall which includes HD704 has far less than 50% harvest of six-point or better bulls by archers.

The MBA has spent the last 40 years carving out archery hunting opportunities in Montana and that effort has led to the most diverse and liberal archery seasons anywhere. This should not be looked upon as a negative by other sporting groups but rather a model of how to work to build opportunity as the number of people taking advantage of them grows. This is where the efforts of other sportsmen’s groups should be concentrated, with 11 of the 22OD over objective and elk populations growing across the eastern 2/3 of the state there seems to be plenty of chances to increase opportunity for general season hunters where the resource can tolerate it and the EMP mandates it. Any attempts to increase general season opportunity without infringing on archery opportunities with the goal of getting HDs to population objective would more than likely be supported by the MBA.

Overcrowding and Quality of Hunt

The perception of overcrowding and a quality hunt are impossible to quantify on a scale any larger than exactly one hunter. The number of hunters I can tolerate in my area is likely to be different than the number that another hunter can comfortably tolerate. Also where those others are encountered has differing levels of tolerance for each hunter. For example while for some people finding another vehicle at the trailhead may ruin the day, the threshold for another may be another camp nearby or actually running into another hunter in the field. On the other hand there are some who put value in the social aspect of hunting and to them meeting new people and hunting with others is vital to a quality experience. Other factors also have an effect on the perception of a quality hunting experience: proximity to home, number and trophy quality of the elk in the area, ease of access (# and quality of roads), amount of access (to public and private lands), ease of game retrieval, and likelihood of harvest.  Each hunter has to prioritize these among countless other factors to find the opportunity that best fits their expectation of a quality hunt. It would be both unfair and impractical to place the expectation of a quality hunt on the FWP or the Commission.

Addressing the core issues

While there may be real problems that the permits were designed to address they are not working precisely because they were designed to treat the symptoms rather than the disease. To address the issues at their core three things must be considered.

Elk Population Objectives – Current population objectives are too heavily dependent on landowner tolerance rather than biological and environmental tolerances. I do not know a sportsman who believes there are too many elk on public land and until the sportsman feel they have some ownership in the population objectives the FWP will continue to have limited support reaching those objectives.

Non-resident licenses – A common misperception among sportsmen is that there are 17,500 non-resident big game licenses sold in Montana. The most recent data compiled by FWP shows that in 2008 there were a total of 45,812 non-resident big hunters with an alarming total of 147,003 big game permits on the landscape of Montana. With programs like “coming home to hunt” and others the number of non-resident licenses continues to climb. Limited permits in the 22OD simply shift pressure to the western side of the state, compounding the problem of elk herds depleted by wolves.

Expanding Opportunity- It does not take a degree in marketing to know that decreasing the supply and increasing the demand of any commodity, including elk hunting opportunity, is the formula to increase its monetary value. Look at other western states like New Mexico, Arizona, Colorado, and Utah who have gone down the limited permit road. In these states, long draw odds, short seasons, landowner tags, ranching for wildlife type programs and opportunity being auctioned to the highest bidder are the rule rather than the exception. What has set Montana apart until this point is opportunity, everyone is on the same playing field and opportunity is abundant. It is up to you and you alone to make of that opportunity what you want, not how much money you make or your luck in the draw.

As lengthy as this letter is it merely scratches the surface of the limited permit discussion. That discussion among other Sportsmen’s groups, Landowners, the FWP, and the Commission focused on finding better solutions to the problems in the 22OD is imperative to the future of Montana’s hunting heritage. Ultimately a solution which expands opportunity for everyone while keeping the responsible management of the resource the main priority, is the ultimate goal of the MBA.

Thank you for your time and consideration,

Jason Tounsley
President, Montana Bowhunters Association

MBA Watch List: Action Needed

Posted by at 2:12 pm

We’re just a few days from the end of the session and a few of our priority bills remain in the House.  Earlier in the week, we thought SB 414 was dead.  However, it was reconsidered for a Second Reading in the House, which will occur on the 18^th.  This bill will undermine this week’s federal delisting action by creating conflicting legislation.  We need to contact the full House and ask them to oppose SB 414, SB 303, and SB 400.  Please also encourage the Governor to veto SB 255.

SB 414 Provide for control of wolves

Position:  Oppose

Sponsor:  Chas Vincent

Status: (S) Scheduled for Second House Reading 4/18/2011

SB 414 will directly undermine the current delisting action which the President signed this week. The “wolf rider” within the budget bill results in reissuance of the wolf delisting rule of April 2, 2009.  The reissuance will not be subject to judicial review, and delisting will occur, allowing for state control and wolf hunts to resume.

Please contact the full House and ask them to oppose this bill.

SB 303 Generally revise state land laws

Position: Oppose

Sponsor: John Brendan

Status: (S) Scheduled for Third House Reading 4/18/2011 Requires “no net gain” of state public lands, which means that for every purchase of land, the state has to sell a parcel. That means that there will be no more new Wildlife Management Areas, no new State Parks and no new hunting grounds like the Marshall Block, Spotted Dog, Fish Creek, Marias, etc. Please contact the full House and ask them to oppose this bill.

SB 400 Revise big game licensing laws

Position: Oppose

Sponsor: Chas Vincent

Status: Tabled in Committee; sponsor may try to resurrect it on the House floor

Authorizes the sale of 2,000 Class B-10 non-resident big game combination licenses for use in wilderness areas.  FWP anticipates about 27,000 non-resident deer and elk hunters will go afield this year.  This session alone, more than 3500 nonresident licenses have been added through legislation, and these 2,000 licenses further increase that number.  Over the past several sessions, more and more nonresident licenses have been added to the original 17,000 “license cap” (see attached “FWP History of NR License Numbers”).  It’s time to slow further nonresident license allocation until we can assess the biologic, economic, and social impacts of the current license numbers.

Please contact the full House and ask them to oppose this bill.

SB 255 Establish criteria for FWP commission decisions

Position: Oppose

Sponsor: Jim Peterson

Status: Pending transmission to Governor

Any allocative Commission decision made during a biennial or quadrennial seasonal rule adoption must include justification including statement of management intent, objectives, expected impacts to the resource and economy, and evaluation after two years.  Public notice required. Fiscal note states will cost $2.8M over 4 years.  This legislation is punitive to FWP and results in excessive costs for the Department.  Please contact the Governor and ask him to veto.

http://governor.mt.gov/contact/commentsform.asp

Full House Email List

goodwind1.duane@gmail.com; emarntzen@gmail.com; liz@lizb4house.com; rnewbar@gmail.com; rep.bbeck@centurytel.net; tbelcourt@hotmail.com; bennettforhouse@gmail.com; jbenhd1@hotmail.com; tom@tomberrymt.com; mblasdel@bresnan.net; dblyton@aol.com; cboland@mt.gov; brodehl@centurytel.net; tburnetthd63@hotmail.com; christy_clark@ymail.com; connell4hd87@yahoo.com; robc_hd27@itbusa.com; vjchd52@yahoo.com; mike@mcuffe.com; rdriscoll@peoplepc.com; champ.edmunds@yahoo.com; montanamutt@montana.com; johnesp2001@yahoo.com; boyd.evans@gmail.com; fitzpatricks@bresnan.net; hideaway@mt.net; tjfurey@montana.com; stevedgibson52@gmail.com; edgreef@hotmail.com; alangail38@wildblue.net; betsyhands@gmail.com; krishansen33@gmail.com; bharris@midrivers.com; hendrickhd14@yahoo.com; elliehillhd94@gmail.com; matthiner@hotmail.com; hgrain@3rivers.net; galen@hollenbaugh.org; brian@hovenequipment.com; d.howard@usadig.com; chunter717@bresnan.net; pathd13@blackfoot.net; dougkary.hd48@gmail.com; dan@votedankennedy.com; krayton@kraytonkerns.org; klock@mtintouch.net; james@vote4knox.com; austinforhouse@yahoo.com; stevelavin4hd8@gmail.com; cloney@q.com; macmargaret@gmail.com; garymaclaren@yahoo.com; suemalek@gmail.com; macwilly66@msn.com; ediemcclafferty@gmail.com; tmcgillvray@bresnan.net; mcnallyhd49@gmail.com; jonathanmcniven@gmail.com; walt@midrivers.com; rmehlhoff@yahoo.com; mikemenahan@yahoo.com; mmilburn@mcn.net; mike4hd84@blackfoot.net; mp_more@yahoo.com; pnoonan73@yahoo.com; jesse59404@yahoo.com; oneil@centurytel.net; ryanosmundson@gmail.com; cpease-lopez-hd42@mt.gov; kenneth59@bresnan.net; mikephillips@montana.net; jl_price@bresnan.net; leerandall_2003@hotmail.com; jrdemob@yahoo.com; kregier@centurytel.net; sreichner@centurytel.net; michelereinhart@gmail.com; mattrosendale@midrivers.com; dansalomon12@gmail.com; repdianesands@gmail.com; trudischmidt@q.com; jonsesso@yahoo.com; skattumd@wispwest.net; derekskees@gmail.com; badcatsmall@yahoo.com; cary@bresnan.net; clairena@nemontel.net; sqigs@msn.com; wstahl@nemont.net; kswansonforrep@live.com; jannataylor@montana.com; vancehd67@gmail.com; bobwagner4leg@yahoo.com; wendywarburton@gmail.com; ted@tedwashburn.com; kathleenhd65@bresnan.net; franke.wilmer@gmail.com; max.yates.hd74@gmail.com

To communicate with Legislators:

Remember – Be Respectful!  You represent the MBA!

Email: Use the email addresses listed with each bill.  Use the on-line message form or telephone instructions for legislators who don’t have email addresses listed.

Electronically:

On-Line Message Form: You may send a message using an online message form. If you are reading this memo electronically, simply hold down the CTRL button on your keyboard and click on the following link:  http://leg.mt.gov/css/sessions/62nd/legwebmessage.asp. If you are reading this memo from a piece of paper, then type the above address onto the address line of your internet browser.  Either way, you will be taken to the online message form.

By Telephone:

Call 406-444-4800 to leave a message for as many as five legislators or one legislative committee per call. Your message will be delivered directly to the legislators.  The TTY (Telephone Device for the Deaf) number is 406-444-4462.  The Session Information Desk is open from 7:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. Mondays through Fridays and from 8 a.m. to adjournment on Saturdays

If you are unsure of who your legislator is, click on the NRIS link below to find out who represents your district.

http://nris.mt.gov/gis/legislat/2011/

MBA Alert and Watchlist Update

Posted by at 4:14 pm

Legislative Report

Posted by at 1:08 am

We’ve had a very full plate this session as you’ve seen on the legislative alerts I’ve been emailing. What’s that you say?? You haven’t received our legislative alerts??? Well, that must mean we don’t have current member information for you (including an accurate email address)! Remember, the people that change the world are those who show up and give their input!

As I mentioned in my 1st VP report, HB 173, the lighted nocks bill, was tabled in committee. We’ve also asked for an archery opportunity for bison with SB 184. I’ve chosen not to place a full bill listing here because bill statuses change daily (sometimes hourly). I will throw you a bone, though. You can search for bills relevant to hunting on the LAWS site: http://leg.mt.gov/css/Default.asp Otherwise, you can simply contact one of your MBA buddies for information. If you have any questions regarding a bill’s intent or the MBA’s stance, contact your local MBA representative for clarifi cation and assistance. Click Here for our numbers and emails.