Alternatives for public elk hunting access

[Straight Arrow]

Their end goal is to remove folks like myself and my neighbors from the landscape ...

More of the paranoid anti-APR propaganda.

This won't happen in my lifetime so why should I really care? Perhaps that is the stance most of you have?

Not true. Most of us here on HT are deeply concerned about protecting and preserving open spaces, wildlife habitat, and the legacy of hunting (with proper wildlife management and hunting opportunity) for future generations.

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".

Another falsehood. Many of us share your concerns about perpetuating the agricultural industry and accompanying opportunity in Montana. Some even closely relate due to the "living off the land" homesteading family heritage.
We wish for your success. There does not seem to be any reasonable evidence that APR wishes any differently. Conversely, a stated and promoted "end goal" is the promotion of outdoor recreation and tourism in NE Montana, with the accompanying area opportunities and economic uplift for others who live there.

But more broadly, how in the heck can hunting access on the APR even relate to potential for your progeny to farm, ranch, and continue "living off this land"? How the APR can adversely impact your agricultural operation is puzzling to those who hear that fear mongering.

 

[JLS]

Get tired of the naive and arrogant thought process of I live here and you don’t, so you simply can’t care like I do. Bullshit. Maybe some care for different reasons, but they still care.

I’ve lived all over the west, and some the places I care most about I don’t and probably won’t live there again

 

[Ben Lamb]

Get tired of the naive and arrogant thought process of I live here and you don’t, so you simply can’t care like I do. Bullshit. Maybe some care for different reasons, but they still care.

I’ve lived all over the west, and some the places I care lost about I don’t and probably won’t live there again

I think there's geographic elitism everywhere. It's no stranger to rural America, just like it's no stranger to towns, cities, and nations. People like to look down their noses at other people. It makes them feel better about themselves.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

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".

Proximity and engagement are totally different things. Locals don't always know or care much about what's going on around them. It took me moving to Montana to really become interested in herd dynamics of my home town.

I think ranching and agriculture is an important part of our countries identity, and I would like to see it continue.

Have you asked the next generation what they want? Having been on the other side of the table trying to dispose of family assets I didn't want, and removing myself from a lifestyle I wanted no part in, I can tell you how frustrating it is to hear people preach about legacy.

No one in my generation will have the same opportunities as our parents let alone our great-great-grandparents, that's not to say we won't have opportunities... they will just be different.

If gen Z wants to keep and work the family ranch, I certainly sympathize with their struggle, I really don't care much for boomers or the silent generation foisting there lifestyle on others.

None of this is relevant to the work APR is doing.

 

[Big Fin]

It seems this discussion has drifted more towards a discussion of APR, rather than the original purpose, which was to discuss new ideas for elk access for the public.

Here is a different thread to post on for comments related to APR - https://www.hunttalk.com/threads/apr-on-npr.294284/page-5#post-2919685

Interested in more thoughts here about public access to elk and/or keep elk where they are publicly accessible.

 

[Straight Arrow]

RMEF has a successful volunteer program for boots-on-the-ground habitat enhancement, such as removal of old unneeded fences, but on public lands. Many on this forum have described help they have provided for landowners who then allowed them access for hunting. Perhaps a larger program to organize hunter volunteers to assist landowners with property enhancements, fencing repairs, water system maintenance, and such projects would open access where now unavailable. Of benefit to such a program would also be the positive relationships developed.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

RMEF has a successful volunteer program for boots-on-the-ground habitat enhancement, such as removal of old unneeded fences, but on public lands. Many on this forum have described help they have provided for landowners who then allowed them access for hunting. Perhaps a larger program to organize hunter volunteers to assist landowners with property enhancements, fencing repairs, water system maintenance, and such projects would open access where now unavailable. Of benefit to such a program would also be the positive relationships developed.

Kinda seems like what master hunter program is trying to achieve although informally?

 

[Nameless Range]

Kinda seems like what master hunter program is trying to achieve although informally?

Do I have to fill out an application to be deemed worthy to pay $345 to repair fence, after which I can then pay an undefined "access fee"? If so, then yes that would be similar.

I'm all for habitat improvement on public and private lands, whether access gained is a part of the equation or not. An open and free program like one Straight Arrow mentions would be a good thing.

 

[d-edward]

RMEF has a successful volunteer program for boots-on-the-ground habitat enhancement, such as removal of old unneeded fences, but on public lands. Many on this forum have described help they have provided for landowners who then allowed them access for hunting. Perhaps a larger program to organize hunter volunteers to assist landowners with property enhancements, fencing repairs, water system maintenance, and such projects would open access where now unavailable. Of benefit to such a program would also be the positive relationships developed.

+1. There seem to be willing landowners and public land hunters interested in this type of mutually beneficial collaboration, but I think more facilitation and awareness - informally or from groups such as RMEF - could help bring these parties together to unlock more access. Certainly there's no harm increasing the scope of these types of efforts.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

Do I have to fill out an application to be deemed worthy to pay $345 to repair fence, after which I can then pay an undefined "access fee"? If so, then yes that would be similar.

I'm all for habitat improvement on public and private lands, whether access gained is a part of the equation or not. An open and free program like one Straight Arrow mentions would be a good thing.

Counter argument, should you have to be affiliated with RMEF to be able to take advantage of the opportunity? The cost of the master hunter program is certainly a hurdle, but so is having to join RMEF and then either attend a banquet of do a bunch of calling around to find out if a habitat improvement opportunity exits that might open up a door that might some day lead to hunting access.

Master hunter is formalized, anyone one can find it on the web and sign up, and the program has formal relationships with landowners.

I think the RMEF option is honestly far less egalitarian, and much more opaque.

This is not in any way a criticism of RMEF or saying that people shouldn't volunteer with the org and build landowner relationships. Habitat work is important and worthwhile even if the participate gains nothing directly from it.

It's not a great solution to access issues. Probably completely useless to NR... although so is the master hunter program.

Which is why I presume RMEF is the headlining sponsor of the Master Hunter program.

 

[Nameless Range]

Counter argument, should you have to be affiliated with RMEF to be able to take advantage of the opportunity?

No. As I said: "open and free". Of course effort and cost must be a part of the equation, and no matter what there are potential problems, but an undefined cost as currently exists? No way. I don't think there are easy answers and won't pretend there are.

Master Hunter is open to 30 students per class and there are three classes. That's 90 people, out of the 180,000 resident hunters in MT. Egalitarian?

Edit* I am not hung up on free as much as I am, open.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

No. As I said: "open and free". Of course effort and cost must be a part of the equation, and no matter what there are potential problems, but an undefined cost as currently exists? No way. I don't think there are easy answers and won't pretend there are.

Master Hunter is open to 30 students per class and there are three classes. That's 90 people, out of the 180,000 resident hunters in MT. Egalitarian?

Edit* I am not hung up on free as much as I am, open.

Valid conserves, I know that Montana's lack of Hunter ED seats, is a real hurdle for a lot of folks. I know a lot of adult onset hunters, who really didn't want to make the drive from Bozeman to Miles city just to take a 1/2 a day field course.

I think you and I are keying in on different parts of the same problem.

There area a massive amount of elk on a massive amount of public land. A lot of these solutions work for getting 20-100 people access to a few ranches but how to you get 10,000 people access in a way which minimizes conflict.

In my mind the best example of a working solution are the BMAs.

 

[Doublecluck]

State run automated reservation system limiting the amount of hunters to each property daily/weekly to fit landowners preference. Hunters must read and retype the rules for the property when applying for the reservation. Break the rules and you can’t apply for any properties in the program for 1 year. Nominal fee to apply (1-5$) to pay for running the program.

 

[WyoDoug]

I for one do not depend on the Government to arrange for hunting access on my behalf. I simply do not trust the government for anything myself.

I am a meat hunter. So I go and ask for permission to shoot cows and does mainly and I get a lot of private landowners giving me permission, especially for deer and antelope. I have very insignificant hardship finding permission to hunt or fish on private property. I usually start off by offering to help repair their fences or something. I hunt deer on local private property of someone I became good friends with. Antelope, I got all I want on base close to home.

As for elk, when I hunted in Colorado when I was a resident there, I had permission to hunt on a ranch by Meeker that I got by tracking down and killing a mountain lion that was killing livestock. He wanted me to come back and offered $500 a lion. I said no, because it costs an average of $1000 per trip to hunt without consideration of the license required. Instead, I offered a trade of hunting rights if he let me hunt elk all I wanted on his ranch, I would come with a lion license every time and probably a bear tag too and hunt down a lion. I shot a total of 4 lions off that ranch and my first bear. Landowners are greedy and fall for lucrative leases that some outfitters offer. However, if you are personable and offer trade-offs with them they just might give you a chance. I even offered to patrol his property looking for trespassers which were reported to the sheriff or game and fish depending on what happened.

Having the government manage sportsman access to private property is risky, giving government too much control. You can't depend on it. I prefer to obtain permission on my lonesome and not have to rely on the government for it.

 

[Irrelevant]

State run automated reservation system limiting the amount of hunters to each property daily/weekly to fit landowners preference. Hunters must read and retype the rules for the property when applying for the reservation. Break the rules and you can’t apply for any properties in the program for 1 year. Nominal fee to apply (1-5$) to pay for running the program.

WA has this and a couple of things they've added to make it better, you can only reserve one place per day and you can only reserve 7 days in advance.

 

[greatwhitebuffalo]

Would/should the program offer reciprocity across state lines? i.e - If I get certified in Florida, am I eligible in MT?

 

[JLS]

I for one do not depend on the Government to arrange for hunting access on my behalf. I simply do not trust the government for anything myself.

He wasn't suggesting the government provides access. It merely provides an online reservation system, no different than some of Wyoming's HMAs.

 

[406LIFE]

Do I have to fill out an application to be deemed worthy to pay $345 to repair fence, after which I can then pay an undefined "access fee"? If so, then yes that would be similar.

No graduate of the program pays for access to any of our land owner partners; and no land owners receive any monetary benefit from the Master Hunter Program.

Master Hunter is open to 30 students per class and there are three classes. That's 90 people, out of the 180,000 resident hunters in MT. Egalitarian?

Space is limited as are the resources and time that are spent to put on the class. If we could do more, we absolutely would. It's not egalitarian, its a simple function of being finite.

 

[406LIFE]

Valid conserves, I know that Montana's lack of Hunter ED seats, is a real hurdle for a lot of folks. I know a lot of adult onset hunters, who really didn't want to make the drive from Bozeman to Miles city just to take a 1/2 a day field course.

FWIW, ID offers a completely online Hunter Education that Montana will recognize. It is only valid for adults. Minors will still have to attend a class in person. This helps with AOH.

 

[Nameless Range]

No graduate of the program pays for access to any of our land owner partners; and no land owners receive any monetary benefit from the Master Hunter Program.



Space is limited as are the resources and time that are spent to put on the class. If we could do more, we absolutely would. It's not egalitarian, its a simple function of being finite.

Thanks.

On the right hand side of the brochure under the “Benefits to Landowners” section it says “land owners may charge a fee“.
What am I missing?

https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5c48680db40b9d7552cc4223/t/5caa59f8bd162e0001420035/1554668027000/1MT_10224_MH_Brochure-Hunter_sm.pdf