Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Elk Hunting MT Seeks Public Input on Elk Hunting Seasons

Where are there too many elk?

SB-245 would have directed FWP to bring back the late season cow hunts. There has been several big landowners support the bill and have committed to allow access for the late season cow hunts, with some willing to allow some bull hunting as well. This bill would have created a lot of opportunity and access.

SB-425 had passed the legislature, but was vetoed by Governor Bullock...

Here is the legislative audit of the FWP damage program. SB 425 was introduced this spring to provide more access and opportunity to hunt late season elk in Montana.



May 2015 Legislative Performance Audit of the FWP’s Game Damage Program

The Legislative Performance Audit of the FWP’s Game Damage Program was finally released, but was completed prior to 2015 Legislative secession, why it wasn’t released sooner is unknown. The audit found several areas of concerns, with the Auditors making 11 recommendations to the Department to improve the Program. In the Department’s response to the Audit, they concurred on all the Recommendations except #5. The Director is making changes to the Program in order to abide by the Recommendation made by the Audit committee. I find it interesting that media outlets have not reported on this Audit.

The Audit found that there wasn’t any consistency in the implementation of the Game Damage Program, with many of the Regional staff requiring landowners to provide unrestricted free public hunting or in many cases would not allow landowners to charge a fee to hunt in order to qualify for Game Damage assistances. In some cases Department personnel would not consider Friends and Family to be counted as public hunters in order to qualify for Game Damage hunts or other assistances.

The Audit's 11 Recommendations and FWP’s Responses are as follows:

Recommendation # 1
We recommend the Department of Fish, Wildlife, & Parks expand and clarify:

A. Policy for documenting game damage complaints and landowner eligibility reviews related to game damage assistance.
B. Timeline requirements for reviewing and approving documentation related to game damage complaints and landowner eligibility.

Response: FWP concurs. The Department intends to adopt amended Game Damage Program policies, including those referenced in Recommendations 1A.and 1B. above, as soon as practicable, but no later than November 30, 2015, to provide clear and consistent guidance to Department staff about how to properly document and implement Game Damage Program actions.


Recommendation #2

We recommend the Department of Fish, Wildlife, & Parks:

A. Define the role of regional supervisors, wildlife managers, warden captains and game damage coordinators in reviewing and approving decisions regarding game damage assistance provided to landowners.
B. Develop and implement policy for maintaining documentation for the approval of game damage hunts and management seasons.

Response: FWP concurs. The Department intends to adopt amended Game Damage Program policies, including those referenced in Recommendations 2A.and 2B. above, as soon as practicable, but no later than November 30, 2015, to provide clear and consistent guidance to Department staff about how to properly document and implement Game Damage Program actions. FWP anticipate the completion of the information management system addressed in Recommendation #7 will help to ensure consistent implementation of game damage policies, including documenting appropriate reviews and approvals in a timely manner.

Recommendation #3

We recommend Department of Fish, Wildlife, & Parks comply with administrative rule by:

A. Providing landowners with written decisions, including landowner appeal right, when game damage is denied.
B. Submitting copies of written decision documents to the director’s office when game damage assistance to landowners is denied and landowners appeal the decision.

Response: FWP concurs. The Department intends to amend current forms and administrative procedures to ensure all landowners making formal game damage complaints are provided with documentation that explains the Department's decision regarding a game damage complaint and also explains the process for appealing that decision. In the event that a denial decision is appealed, the Department will also ensure appropriate documentation is provided to the director's office.

Recommendation #4

We recommend the Department of Fish, Wildlife, & Parks establish a clear definition of the public hunting requirements landowners need to meet to qualify for game damage assistance:

Response: FWP concurs. However, each game damage complaint is unique depending on the circumstances of the situation, the species involved, the habitat, etc. The many factors and variables involved in each individual game damage complaint situation present a very real challenge to development and adoption of some simplistic equation or formula that can be applied across the broad spectrum of landownership, game species, game animal populations and distributions, management situations, and actual game damage incidents. The current definition and associated documents have, when properly applied in a thoughtful manner with Department staff communicating clearly with affected landowners, resulted in decisions mutually and amenably agreed-upon between the Department and landowner regarding whether or not the landowner qualified for assistance through this program.

In 2006, the Department adopted a new ARM that attempted to provide a better definition of the public hunting requirements landowners need to meet to qualify for game damage assistance. ARM 12.9.803 states "...For eligibility, public hunting must be allowed at levels and in ways sufficient to effectively aid in management of area game population. Restrictions that may significantly restrict public hunting include:

a) Species or sex of animals hunters are allowed to hunt;
b) Portion of land open to hunting;
c) Time period land is open to hunting;
d) Fees charged; or
e) Other restrictions that render harvestable animals inaccessible ..."

In conjunction with the new ARM adopted in 2006, FWP developed a form called the Landowner Eligibility Worksheet. This form requires the responding biologist or warden to explain, "Based upon general knowledge of area game herd numbers and population, district population management objectives, area land types and ownerships, and other relevant factors, approximately how many public hunters hunting during the general season and/or how many harvested animals might be required to achieve a level of harvest on this property and subsequent dispersal during the general hunting season to effectively aid in management of (type noted on this form) throughout the overall management area.

This form requires both the area game warden and area biologist to sign this portion of the form, indicating both have agreed to the specified levels of public hunting required to meet the public access eligibility requirement. The Regional Supervisor is then required to sign the form indicating whether or not the landowner is eligible for assistance, based upon the cumulative information provided on the form.

Given the wide diversity of habitats, landownership patterns, and wildlife numbers, consistency in agency response may not be quickly visible in some situations without careful consideration of the detailed context in each complaint. For example, one level of access in an area where the elk population is under objective may "effectively aid management" while the same access level in another area where the elk population is over objective may in fact be a primary reason the population is over objective. In all cases, circumstances and rationale for both assistance approval and denial must be consistently documented.

HOWEVER, the Department is fully committed to trying to address this recommendation through further refinement and development of clear and consistent criteria and guidelines to help Department staff, affected landowners, and public hunters determine what constitutes adequate public hunting access for program eligibility. The Department intends to solicit and utilize input from hunters, landowners, and outfitters in this effort, though at this time it is unclear whether that process may include work by a group like the Private Land/Public Wildlife Council, or be conducted through some other Department public process.

Recommendation #5

We recommend the Department of Fish, Wildlife, & Parks no longer use supplemental game damage licenses in conjunction with game damage hunts and management seasons to address game damage issues.

Response: FWP partially concurs. There is no statutory or ARM provision that prohibits use of supplemental game damage licenses in conjunction with game damage hunts or management seasons. There may be specific situations in which it is entirely appropriate to combine these tools. However, the Department agrees with audit report recommendations that the statutory and ARM authority that applies specifically to supplemental game damage licenses should not also be extended to selection of hunters for game damage hunts and management seasons. Subsequently, the Department will adopt appropriate ARM and policy revisions to address that issue.

Recommendation # 6

We recommend the Department of Fish, Wildlife, & Parks amend administrative rules related to supplemental game damage licenses to allow individuals to possess up to two elk licenses as authorized by state law.

Response: FWP concurs. While MCA 87-2-520, the law authorizing issuance of supplemental game damage licenses, was adopted at a time when other Montana law limited hunters to harvesting no more than one elk in any license year, subsequent changes in law regarding how many elk a hunter may harvest per year, and how many elk licenses and/or permits a hunter may possess at any one time, have changed, necessitating amendments to corresponding administrative rules like this. The Department intends to amend ARM 12.9.805 as soon as practicable.

Recommendation #7

We recommend the Department of Fish, Wildlife, & Parks prioritize and implement a management information system to better track, monitor and improve accountability of the department's Game Damage program.

Response: FWP concurs. The Department has made this an agency priority and has committed necessary staff and resources towards development of a Game Damage Program Application in hopes of having key elements of this system functioning by November 30, 2015. Ultimately, FWP expects this system will help address many of the recommendations in this audit, including helping ensure consistent implementation of game damage policies, documenting the response to formal complaints, documenting appropriate reviews and approvals in a timely manner, and tracking game damage materials,

Recommendation #8

We recommend the Department of Fish, Wildlife, & Parks:

A. Update administrative rules and game damage policies regarding the use and issuance of cracker shells and ammunition when responding to game damage complaints.
B. Develop more comprehensive game damage policies regarding oversight and administration of herding contracts.


Response: FWP concurs. The Department intends to adopt amended Game Damage Program policies and administrative procedures as soon as practicable, but no later than November 30, 2015, to provide clear and consistent guidance to Department staff about use and issuance of cracker shells and ammunition, oversight of herding contracts, implementation of other game damage response actions.


Recommendation #9

We recommend the Department of Fish, Wildlife, & Parks:

A. Establish contracts in all regions that exceed $5,000 in annual purchases for stackyard materials.
B. Purchase stackyard materials from contracted vendors in regions that have a contract


Response: FWP concurs. The Department will comply with all state procurement rules. The Department intends to have appropriate contracts in place for all regions for FY 16, while also exploring other options to determine how to most effectively meet the needs of field staff in responding to game damage complaints in remote areas in the most appropriate, efficient, and cost-effective manner.


Recommendation # 10

We recommend the Department of Fish, Wildlife, & Parks develop and implement policy on the staff responsibilities and expectations for monitoring contracts for game damage materials.

Response: FWP concurs. The Department will develop and implement policy and administrative procedures to provide for adequate clarification and coordination of responsibilities for headquarters and regional staff members regarding purchase of game damage materials covered under contract procurement procedures.

Recommendation # 1 1

We recommend that the Department of Fish, Wildlife, & Parks implement inventory controls to track inventory of game damage materials from acquisition to issuance to landowners.

Response: FWP concurs. The Department intends to develop new policy and administrative procedures to help address this recommendation, and anticipates that some components of a newly-developed Game Damage Program Database will also be effective in addressing this issue.











© 2015 Microsoft Terms Privacy & cookies Developers English (United States)

Jcubed: You are exactly right!
I Hunt Whitetailed Deer on a homesteaded ranch here in SW Montana which is owned by my close 70 year old gun trading buddy.
He was born on this ranch!
All his life Elk were NEVER seen on this ranch!
Last year he had 600 Elk on the place, for many days, eating his crops and haystacks!!!!
The Elk are on private ranches taking refuge from predation and constant pressure from Wolves in the nearby hills/forest service/public lands!
Ten years after the Wolves were transplanted from Canada to the Yellowstone/surrounding area (Montana, Idaho and Wyoming) the Elk started changing there habits!
SIGNIFICANTLY.
These changes have allowed for Elk to prosper as long as they keep their ranges AWAY from the Wolves as much as possible (living more and more on private ranches).
I have Hunted Montana every year since 1969 and prior to the Wolf introduction/transplantation, and now over-population, it was quite rare to see a herd of more than 50 or 60 Elk.
Now it is common to see them in herds of 600, 800, 1,000, 1,200, 1,800 and the largest herd I have recently counted was 2,100!!!
These large herds are always on private land and safer from the predation and pressure from Wolves.
In recent years I have seen herds of 1,000 plus Elk on MANY (10 or 12) different private ranches here in SW Montana and on one ranch that borders Idaho/Montana but is mostly IN Idaho.
Any input from "the public" will be ignored by the feds and the Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks, save your breath.
Sportsmen/Hunters learned that lesson REPEATEDLY from 1994 through the present!
Wolves have become a politically correct entity and "the powers that be" will decide how and when they will be "handled".
The sportsmen/Hunters who worked so long and so hard (and so expensively!) to build up herds of Moose, Bighorn Sheep, Elk and other game will be ignored - as they have since the ignorant and misguided transplantation of the Canadian Wolves to Montana/Idaho/Wyoming!
Similar disdain will be shown to Hunters in Washington, Oregon, Colorado, New Mexico, Arizona and Utah pretty soon now.
Thanks for nothing rmWf!
Hold into the wind
VarmintGuy

There's a 10 week season in MT. If the elk hoarding ranches can't cut numbers down during that season, they don't need special seasons set. Solution is to allow more hunting, not special seasons catering to their business.

There's a state program here called "ranching for wildlife." The ranches sign up to the program, and get to host their paying hunters during the elk rut, using rifles. You can't do that on public land, the rifle seasons are after the rut.

In exchange, they have to allow a certain number of cows (set by CP&W) to be taken off their ranches by the general public, who get the tags through the draw.

That could work. Lots of cows are taken with those tags, on some places they're almost a sure thing.

One of the areas where there is concern about too many elk is what is called the Hells Kitchen area, an area between Cascade and White Sulphur. Hunters on private ground reported herds of hundreds of elk seen where they couldn't be hunted, and the biologists and ranchers confirmed those accounts. Part of the problem is access, as there is very limited public hunting where these elk hang out. They used to come out of the high places to places like the Bear Tooth Game Range, but mild weather in hunting season has changed that.
Another area where ranchers want more elk killed is on the east side of Canyon Ferry. (This area kind of bleeds into the Hells Kitchen area.) Outside of hunting season, its not unusual to see 800 or 1000 in a 20 mile stretch.

So, what obligation does a private landowner have with respect to allowing people to hunt on his/her property?

None. Zilch. Zero.

Which is exactly what they deserve in return, as opposed to special seasons, licenses, and quotas. The land is theirs - the animals are not.

None. Zilch. Zero.

Which is exactly what they deserve in return, as opposed to special seasons, licenses, and quotas. The land is theirs - the animals are not.

There's a state program here called "ranching for wildlife." The ranches sign up to the program, and get to host their paying hunters during the elk rut, using rifles. You can't do that on public land, the rifle seasons are after the rut.

In exchange, they have to allow a certain number of cows (set by CP&W) to be taken off their ranches by the general public, who get the tags through the draw.

That could work. Lots of cows are taken with those tags, on some places they're almost a sure thing.

If there are too many elk, the land owner should allow access during the ten weeks of hunting season.

I agree with that but it's not the world we live in now.

With some of the stunts I've seen pulled on both public and private land, I can't blame landowners for wanting to restrict access to their property.

That said, it's a bunch of BS when some will rub shoulders with their favorite buddy politician (or vice versa) to have some special seasons, licenses, or hunts, to their benefit, and maybe to those happy as a fly on a turd to load up the pickup and gun down cows over the door frame of the truck.

With a ten week season, last thing MT needs is rifle (shoulder) hunts before archery season, or after the season. Would be a shame to be like Colorado someday when we'll have to pick our hunt, one of 6 seasons, each a week long, one weapon. While watching (insert celebrity name here) gun down a big rutting bull on a private ranch on a special landowner license.

MD, thanks for the explanation, makes perfect sense. Lots of different angles here. Colorado's landowner tag system is slanted toward the landowners so badly it's pathetic. Their landowner tags are good not only for their property, but the whole Unit that their land is in and some of those units take years and years to draw. And they can sell the vouchers. Ag. Is a powerful lobby here. RFW is just a tool to give public land hunters access to remove some cows and put meat in the freezer, one of the few aspects of the landowner system here that benefits the average hunter.

Jcubed: You are exactly right!
I Hunt Whitetailed Deer on a homesteaded ranch here in SW Montana which is owned by my close 70 year old gun trading buddy.
He was born on this ranch!
All his life Elk were NEVER seen on this ranch!
Last year he had 600 Elk on the place, for many days, eating his crops and haystacks!!!!
The Elk are on private ranches taking refuge from predation and constant pressure from Wolves in the nearby hills/forest service/public lands!
Ten years after the Wolves were transplanted from Canada to the Yellowstone/surrounding area (Montana, Idaho and Wyoming) the Elk started changing there habits!
SIGNIFICANTLY.
These changes have allowed for Elk to prosper as long as they keep their ranges AWAY from the Wolves as much as possible (living more and more on private ranches).
I have Hunted Montana every year since 1969 and prior to the Wolf introduction/transplantation, and now over-population, it was quite rare to see a herd of more than 50 or 60 Elk.
Now it is common to see them in herds of 600, 800, 1,000, 1,200, 1,800 and the largest herd I have recently counted was 2,100!!!
These large herds are always on private land and safer from the predation and pressure from Wolves.
In recent years I have seen herds of 1,000 plus Elk on MANY (10 or 12) different private ranches here in SW Montana and on one ranch that borders Idaho/Montana but is mostly IN Idaho.
Any input from "the public" will be ignored by the feds and the Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks, save your breath.
Sportsmen/Hunters learned that lesson REPEATEDLY from 1994 through the present!
Wolves have become a politically correct entity and "the powers that be" will decide how and when they will be "handled".
The sportsmen/Hunters who worked so long and so hard (and so expensively!) to build up herds of Moose, Bighorn Sheep, Elk and other game will be ignored - as they have since the ignorant and misguided transplantation of the Canadian Wolves to Montana/Idaho/Wyoming!
Similar disdain will be shown to Hunters in Washington, Oregon, Colorado, New Mexico, Arizona and Utah pretty soon now.
Thanks for nothing rmWf!
Hold into the wind
VarmintGuy

What a load of crap.

"the wolves chased all the elk to private" is usually an excuse used by guys that can't kill elk.

There's lots of great landowners in MT that are great stewards of their land, many of which have outfitting, or little to no public hunting allowed. We all still benefit from these guys. They owe the public nothing. If I owned a large ranch, I would not allow hunting other than for my family and friends.

..... they should have no role in deciding what those people are allowed to shoot.

If you think elk hunting is tough now, just let the big land owners dictate game management policies.

It seems to me the epicenter of this thread is landowner complaining, what excess or benefits is this to the general non-land owner public etc. My feelings are focus should be on what is in the best interest of elk management and elk herd health, of which I have heard little. I also believe that the outfitter/landowner locking people out is greatly exaggerated. I like the idea that there are areas that are off limits to the general public. If every square inch of Montana was open to the general public, how long would it be before every trophy bull and buck was in the back of somebody's pickup? Also, it has been said the elk belong to the public, and this is true, and landowners who hoard elk are entitled to nothing, the latter is not true. If the land belongs to somebody, and the elk that are on it belongs to the people, should not the landowner be compensated for caretaking and providing for the states elk? Should not the landowner have some say for the personal resources it takes to sustain an elk herd? Also, is not the general public also responsible for the conduct on private property that causes a lot of gates to be shut to begin with? These are honest questions that require some thought. How many of you, if you owned a big ranch or vast tracks of property would open it up to the general public?