Alternatives for public elk hunting access

[Jmscon]

Still trying to figure this site out with quoting and whatnot

From 7 mag

Jmscon said:
I’m going to throw this out here.

As unpopular as this might sound, I think there should be areas or regions that there should be no hunting on private
Again tryi gvto tell a private property owner what they can or cannot do on our own property will never ever pass.

I agree, but if was something that would help herd health in low objective areas a condition on a tag such as not within 1/4 mile of private ag land, opposite of within 1/4 mile restrictions.

 

[Jmscon]

What good would it do to stop hunting on private ground? Do you mean public? Landowners already have the option to severely limit any hunting on their property (and do, hence current issues we are seeing).

I understand, access is a big issue! What I’m saying is it could cause some unintended consequences to overall herd health by allowing access to some areas where the elk are already pressured during long seasons and are finding sanctuary on private.

A herd bull will be at his lowest energy and fat reserves at the end of the rut. If he can’t recoup by the time winter sets in then he likely won’t make it to next year.

A similar thing goes for cows. With areas that have high predator pressure cows are less likely to become pregnant or go full term.
Antler size should not even be part of the conversation. That said, first and second trimesters of pregnancy are rather low cost periods in terms of energy expenditure. Many areas have late elk hunts that do not affect the calving rate, as evidenced by continued population growth. That said, you can't always extrapolate between areas with any reliability.

 

[Jmscon]

Antler size should not even be part of the conversation. That said, first and second trimesters of pregnancy are rather low cost periods in terms of energy expenditure. Many areas have late elk hunts that do not affect the calving rate, as evidenced by continued population growth. That said, you can't always extrapolate between areas with any reliability.

Right antler size shouldn’t be a in this conversation, I was just using it as an example for the health of a pregnant cow.

Second trimester is not as big of an energy use period but it is the time of lowest amount of food sources. The end of second into the third (late winter early spring) is when females will self abort if they are not getting enough food to sustain pregnancy.

 

[JLS]

With areas that have high predator pressure cows are less likely to become pregnant or go full term.

This is not an absolute truth. See my post above referencing the Wyoming Game & Fish cooperative study.

I understand, access is a big issue! What I’m saying is it could cause some unintended consequences to overall herd health by allowing access to some areas where the elk are already pressured during long seasons and are finding sanctuary on private.

Landowners are already free to close their land to hunting if they disagree with the season structure, and it is and has been done (see CMR and APR for examples). The bigger underlying issue is the state not following their EMP when doing herd counts. They can exclude elk that are not available to the public from their overall hunt district populations, and by doing so alter the harvest structure and goals for the district. However, they are continually reluctant to implement this.

 

[BWALKER77]

Imo that would increase poaching 10x

Great. With the added money from increased license costs hire a few more wardens and pass mandatory minimum laws for poaching.

 

[BWALKER77]

Gerald, if you told landowners "that the emphasis of management has been weighted in the direction of their economic interests for far to long" I would suggest wearing a helmet and pads. The landowners I know feel they are bearing the cost of production for the publics elk herd with little to no recourse or compensation. Elk are large ungulates that cause severe damage to pasture, fences, and crops, costing landowners in this state millions of dollars. I agree that the current system is not working, it is time to figure out what will work, for both sides. An incentive based solution is needed.


Will an incentive work for every landowner? No. Will an incentive work for some? Yes. Punitive measures against landowners will never incentivize them to allow access. If the public wishes access to "their wildlife" then figure out a way to give landowners an incentive to allow the public access.

What that incentive is I am not certain, but is going to have to be of a monetary nature(reduced property tax, etc.).

Eric, land owners have mechanisms to deal with excess elk on their property, but they chose not to use them. That's no ones fault but their own.
I do agree with your incentive idea. However, can the state compete with the outfitting industry that has much of the prime land tied up? I think not.
The other thing is there was a time when hunters and landowners scratched each others backs most of the time. This is largely gone and not a good thing for either as we need unity in the face of the continued migration into and urbanization of MT. An examplenofnwhatbI am talking about here is the APR. The APR is starting to sound pretty good to many hunters, as misguided as that is.

 

[Straight Arrow]

... urbanization of MT. An examplenofnwhatbI(sic) am talking about here is the APR. The APR is starting to sound pretty good to many hunters, as misguided as that is.

Please explain how the APR is an example of "urbanization". Why would a private land large expanse of wildlands and prime wildlife habitat which is open to access for hiking, camping, hunting, and other public recreational activities be misguided as a "sound pretty good" opportunity to hunters?!

 

[BWALKER77]

Please explain how the APR is an example of "urbanization". Why would a private land large expanse of wildlands and prime wildlife habitat which is open to access for hiking, camping, hunting, and other public recreational activities be misguided as a "sound pretty good" opportunity to hunters?!

I was referring to outsiders who have no interest in farming and ranching controlling vast tracts of land. My words were chosen poorly. Sorry for that.

 

[Straight Arrow]

"One earlier post described the proponents as foreign ultra wealthy out-of-the-area people wanting to adversely impact the Montana way of life. Although APR is supported by folks of all stripes and incomes levels from all over, it is the very nature of the positive healthy conservation concept that garners the support. To refute the foreign origin of support, I point to one of the strongest proponents and APR board member, a Chester, Montana native from a longstanding Montana family who grew up in the agricultural economy of the state and went on to hone his artistic talents to become perhaps the greatest landscape artist of the West. He and many Montanans recognize the positive aspects of the APR and in particular the great economic potential for that area of the state which needs uplift."

Above is what I posted on the "APR NPR" thread, which I encourage you to read, as the thread as well as the referred NPR article sheds light on a more positive perspective of the APR. This concept of "outsiders who have no interest in farming and ranching" is a fallacy as alleged and basically refuted by the facts and the very actions of APR in operating that "reserve". Don't just take my word ... research and learn yourself, but more broadly than from UPOM and the vocal "save the cowboy" opponents.

 

[Eric Albus]

Gerald, my comments and observations are also limited in scope to the eastern side of the state. We see the same thing here in the Missouri Breaks with the elk all being pushed onto private land.

If solutions are what is wanted for the elk debacle then both sides are going to have to sit down and get real. Elk have a monetary value, as do all wildlife, we can stomp our feet, throw our suckers in the dirt and not like it, but it's a fact. So where we go from here is up to each individual. The problem can continue to exacerbate or WE can look for a palatable solution.

I have no real skin in this game, the elk we had south of highway 2 on our private land have seemingly moved back to the breaks(we let enough folks harass them that they left, thankfully). I do not hunt elk nor do I care to, but I am willing to sit and work with other landowners and reasonable sportsmen to come up with a viable solution.

 

[BWALKER77]

"One earlier post described the proponents as foreign ultra wealthy out-of-the-area people wanting to adversely impact the Montana way of life. Although APR is supported by folks of all stripes and incomes levels from all over, it is the very nature of the positive healthy conservation concept that garners the support. To refute the foreign origin of support, I point to one of the strongest proponents and APR board member, a Chester, Montana native from a longstanding Montana family who grew up in the agricultural economy of the state and went on to hone his artistic talents to become perhaps the greatest landscape artist of the West. He and many Montanans recognize the positive aspects of the APR and in particular the great economic potential for that area of the state which needs uplift."

Above is what I posted on the "APR NPR" thread, which I encourage you to read, as the thread as well as the referred NPR article sheds light on a more positive perspective of the APR. This concept of "outsiders who have no interest in farming and ranching" is a fallacy as alleged and basically refuted by the facts and the very actions of APR in operating that "reserve". Don't just take my word ... research and learn yourself, but more broadly than from UPOM and the vocal "save the cowboy" opponents.

The long term goal of the APR is to transform the entire Breaks into a yellowstone of the plains. Can you hunt in Yellowstone?
You really think the global elites that fund APR are sympathetic to MT hunters? If you can answer either of these with yes I have a bridge I'd sell you cheap.

 

[Straight Arrow]

... yellowstone of the plains.

A metaphorical reserve, not a National Park with no-hunting rules. Another red herring propagandistic phrase based on misquoted play on words.

... global elites that fund APR ...

Again, not exclusively a fact. But likely some wealthy folks who also support conservation do contribute to APR ... along with many not-so-wealthy Montanans. I certainly hope you are not as opposed to Yellowstone National Park (YNP) when I tell you that many of YNP's programs and functions are supported by wealthy donors ... some of whom may not even be US citizens. (They aint from around here either.)

 

[tjones]

The long term goal of the APR is to transform the entire Breaks into a yellowstone of the plains. Can you hunt in Yellowstone?
You really think the global elites that fund APR are sympathetic to MT hunters? If you can answer either of these with yes I have a bridge I'd sell you cheap.

Wait, isn't this Agenda 21 or do I have my conspiracy theories mixed up?


Like everyone I would love to see a new EMP with objectives set by science not landowner tolerance. This will be years down the road, as we still await the mountain lion plan. That one has been 3-4 years in the making.

Antlerless only during general season in units over objective may work until a new EMP is made.

 

[MTGomer]

Most of the breaks are public lands and cannot be closed to hunting by the APR.

I figure worse case scenario the APR ends hunting on their deeded land (like most ranches do) and become an elk factory that will make the hunting adjacent to them better.

 

[BWALKER77]

A metaphorical reserve, not a National Park with no-hunting rules. Another red herring propagandistic phrase based on misquoted play on words.

Again, not exclusively a fact. But likely some wealthy folks who also support conservation do contribute to APR ... along with many not-so-wealthy Montanans. I certainly hope you are not as opposed to Yellowstone National Park (YNP) when I tell you that many of YNP's programs and functions are supported by wealthy donors ... some of whom may not even be US citizens. (They aint from around here either.)

I sincerely hope your assessment is spot on. I have my doubts.
However, I believe if APR added to their mission statement that the would allow hunting and access in perpetuity it would go along way toward calming fears.

 

[Eric Albus]

Perhaps you all should pick up and read the latest "Range" magazine. Very informative on APR and their agenda.

 

[Irrelevant]

Perhaps you all should pick up and read the latest "Range" magazine. Very informative on APR and their agenda.

Wait you want us to use "Range" as a real source? The same "Range" that supported the Bundy's and is about as anti-public land as possible?

http://rangemagazine.com/features/spring-17/range-sp17-ammon_bundy.pdf

RANGE magazine.com - Problem with Parks

"In a scant quarter century, environmentalists have converted a small and relatively benign system of protected areas into a spaghetti bowl of government land-control units that can threaten property ownership, restrict property use, degrade property resources, increase property management and development costs, and reduce property value. Today parks play an important role in the rape of rural America. For private property owners, and for those who make a living on the public lands, protected area policies have become as much a threat as a promise. "

Who do you think you're talking to?

 

[BWALKER77]

Perhaps you all should pick up and read the latest "Range" magazine. Very informative on APR and their agenda.

Eric, I read the article. Honestly, if The APR reached its goals and allowed access in perpetuity it would be a great thing for public land hunters and not such a great thing for outfitters and ranchers. As such you guys need to really think about the long game here.

 

[BuzzH]

Perhaps you all should pick up and read the latest "Range" magazine. Very informative on APR and their agenda.

No thanks, Dave Skinner being an author of several articles tells me that magazine is nuttier than squirrel shit...

 

[Eric Albus]

If the caveat of "in perpetuity were added then I would have less issue, but it is not. Their end goal is to remove folks like myself and my neighbors from the landscape, fill it with bison and let the wolves and grizzly bears do the "management". This won't happen in my lifetime so why should I really care? Perhaps that is the stance most of you have? Won't happen in our lifetimes so let the APR have at it. The reason I care is on account of seeing the next generation(s) take over, wanting them to have the same opportunity their great-great-grandfather's had. So, we really are "thinking about the long game here".
Those of you who don't live here won't really understand. Those who aren't earning their living off this land can't really understand what this place means to those of us who chose to call it "home".