MSA Comment to Commission on ESS

 Folks, this is our comment.  Please send in your comments as the 27th is the deadline.

January 26, 2020

Chairman Colton & Commissioners:

The Montana Sportsmen Alliance, MSA is the voice of reason for Montana resident hunters and anglers.  Our leadership group and the many sportsmen and women hale from many places on the Montana map. 

MSA would like to thank Chairman Colton and the Commission for making substantial changes to the 2020-2021 elk proposals. 

First things first; the present Elk Management Plan is still valid today, it is the standard of the industry, so to speak, and as relevant today as it was in January 2005 when it was unanimously approved by the Commission.  Although the EMP has never been fully implemented we strongly feel The EMP has been violated many times resulting from individuals, both in and out of the Department that wanted to take shortcuts or substitutions to circumvent the plan.  Actually, the ESS is one such substitution for the EMP.

The next thing is the matter of the third elk tag.  This is unbelievable that special interests can run something through our Montana Legislature while not even hiding their intended goals. The third elk tag is a travesty and needs to be watered down as much as possible.  It is nothing more than turning our public trust elk into so much vermin.

MSA has never agreed with the ESS, we went along because we are team players that want to help with any situation that may arise.  We also grudgingly agreed to the ESS because they came with specific criteria.  We took the department at their word and we intend to have them keep it. 

Regarding the ESS, we do want to thank those individuals within the Department that made strides to remove ESS from those Hunt Districts not meeting the criteria. 

We have formulated some ideas that we will briefly put to paper, as with anything MSA puts out to the public we will be happy to expound upon and visit with any of the Commissioners, Department personnel and others in the hunting community.

●      The ESS were never meant to replace the general seasons, let’s ensure the ESS do not become the season of choice.

●      Eliminate all ESS prior to the regular archery and end them no later than January 1, with special attention paid to those landowners that have made every effort to help themselves while helping hunters. Real “Skin in the Game”  These landowners are our neighbors, let’s treat them as such.

●      Elk numbers have to be trending in the right direction prior to continuing any ESS.

●      As per the valid EMP, let’s place strong consideration on antlerless-only seasons until objectives are achieved. 

●      We suggest coming up with not only objective numbers but distribution numbers as well, extra work for sure, but we’re all Montanans and used to hard work.

●      Quantitatively evaluate all elk hunting seasons and according to harvest criteria and base decisions on actual performance.

●      Provide a transparent database of the numbers of elk harvested by non-residents; broken out by bulls, cows, and calves; outfitted or non.

●      As per the EMP, exempting from objectives “inaccessible elk” (primarily on private lands)

1)    Use of sub-objectives, again part of the present EMP.  We will offer a further review of this use according to the EMP.

●      Realistic elk objectives

●      Establish elk working groups with equal stakeholders statewide as the Devil’s Kitchen group.  Set the rules at consensus-driven.  Each group messages the Commission and Department directly on items where consensus is reached, not through Department employees or commissioners individually.

●       A clear need to revitalize the hunt roster/damage hunt program to ensure effective and equitable participation while maintaining expediency to benefit all stakeholders. 

To continue the stated 1. From the last page. In the present EMP, it was presupposed that the Adaptive Harvest Management would provide tools necessary to manage elk to accomplish the objectives.  We have to realize that in many areas of Montana that “de facto” refuges exist.  Reality is these elk numbers are mostly impossible or completely impossible to manage to an objective, in those instances, elk in those refuges could be counted separately and sub-objectives established.  This could be very helpful to those landowners that suffer the negative effects of neighboring elk that are off-limits to the public.

In closing MSA again, wishes to thank the Commission for their work.  We wish to have our comment added to the official record.

Respectfully submitted,

MSA Leadership Group

John Borgreen, Great Falls

Jeff Herbert, Helena

Doug Krings, Lewistown

Laura Lundquist, Missoula

Sam Milodragovich, Butte

Joe Perry, Conrad

Steve Schindler, Glasgow

E. Don Thomas, Lewistown

Dale Tribby, Miles City

JW Westman, Park City

Robert Wood, Hamilton