Alternatives for public elk hunting access

[SAJ-99]

When Montana was settled, people staked out the valleys where they could raise cattle because that is where the grass was. Those valleys were historic wintering areas for the mountain elk. Landowners don't have to create a sanctuary, those areas have been sanctuaries for thousands of years. Improving access to these valleys is a great goal for hunters, but you will probably get an increase in harvest coupled with higher stress on the elk because they are forced out of prime feeding areas which probably equals lower recruitment rate. As they say, be careful what you wish for. There are always unintended consequences. It would require even more site specific management by FWP, like closing hunting in the Paradise valley when Yellowstone's northern herd is forced out of the park.

 

[BigHornRam]

GNA is a good step, but it doesn't address a lot of the issues that need to be tackled, especially outside of the Mountain side of the state.

Understood, but I live and hunt on the mountain side, and that's where my knowledge comes from. The open, rolling, mostly private, Eastern Montana ranch country issues are much different than the issues over here. There is some overlap however.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Understood, but I live and hunt on the mountain side, and that's where my knowledge comes from. The open, rolling, mostly private, Eastern Montana ranch country issues are much different than the issues over here. There is some overlap however.

Absolutely. We need a more robust approach to noxious species than what's currently provided by any state program. MT's investment in that issue is weak.

 

[Mtnhunter1]

There is one along the upper Clark Fork near Drummond, but someone here may have more recent information on hunting access. The last information I had when hunting around there was that a very small group of friends and family would occasionally hunt it, but that was not constant, and it was not outfitted.

My point is that I do not know of a single Big-Block, elk sanctuary land owner that does not allow any form of hunting. Most of the ranches around our lands are getting gobbled up by nonresident groups to add acreage to their outfitting business. The old time cattle ranches are quickly being replaced by elk as the new cash crop.

 

[HighWildFree]

Pie in the sky but the only way I see to reverse the trend is to make it illegal to lease hunting rights on private lands. So long as bull elk are worth $8-10k a head, the state will never be able to compete with that. Landowners can still have there private property rights and can even outfit but they can't sell access to a public resource.

Ultimately it seems like public land hunters are going to need a lot of political capital to even begin to turn things in their favor. More than likely it will take a few dedicated, vocal folks in the capitol building in Helena.

 

[Sytes]

From an average Joe MT hunter well aware some may not like or agree one fraction though for sake of throwing out our opinions, here's my two coppers:

1. Raise funds... Increase R Fees and measure NR w/ other same big game primary hunting NR states.
2. Specific BM stamp fee for BM /Access use - IF hunter intends to use BM or Access programs.
* Funds for BM/Access programs, LEOs, and Biologists.
3. Create archery / traditional muzzleloader OR Rifle big game choice tags - able to mix: example: Rifle season deer (general), archery / traditional muzzle elk (rut).
4. Reduce season time frames.
5. Mandatory reporting of all big game harvests in order to be eligible for tag(s) next season.
6. Reduce adverse effects by wolves on elk calving in targeted needed areas as studied/peer reviewed by Scott Creel of Montana State University.

Greater Yellowstone elk suffer worse nutrition and lower birth rates due to wolves

Wolves have caused elk in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem to change their behavior and foraging habits so much so that herds are having fewer calves, mainly due to changes in their nutrition.

www.montana.edu

a. Get a grip on actual wolf #'s versus sole dependency on "minimal ESA count". (example: R1)
b. Increase contract wolf trapper's compensation for wolves taken in targeted areas & Implement independent trapper compensation for expenses related to wolves taken in targeted areas.

 

[shoots-straight]

Use page 55 of the EMP that exempts elk that are mostly inaccessible to the public to hunt. Fight for Elk Objectives that are legitimate. Stop the slaughter of Wildlife in this state. I could give a rats ass if a landowner wants more elk or deer on their lands. That's their right. We should not have to remove the public lands game. I hear all this conjecture looking for more access. More access will lead to dead Elk, or Elk that leave public lands. We need sanctuary areas on public to keep our Elk there longer and away from private lands. Maybe we need to go back to some preserves on public lands like those in the Sun River areas?

 

[Sioux33]

Lots of good ideas here. One common thread is we're going to need to find ways to raise money to pay for the access and habitat improvements. A couple ideas on that:

1) Require anyone booking a hunt with an outfitter to pay an additional $1-2k to the state, maybe in the form of an outfitter tag or something. These guys dropping $10k to spend a week chasing bulls can afford it. That money could go towards higher BMA payments or habitat enhancements. These outfitters are profiting off a public resource, the public should get something in return for losing its resource.

2) What about a few additional Governor's tags auctioned off? Sacrificing say 5 bulls a year in return for well over $100k to be put back into improving elk hunting as a whole may be worth it.

Anyways, just a couple outside the box ideas, I'm sure we could come up with more.

 

[Irrelevant]

My point is that I do not know of a single Big-Block, elk sanctuary land owner that does not allow any form of hunting. Most of the ranches around our lands are getting gobbled up by nonresident groups to add acreage to their outfitting business. The old time cattle ranches are quickly being replaced by elk as the new cash crop.

I don't know what you consider big blocks, but I have to think with all the Celebs in MT they're providing quite a bit of non-hunting refuge. https://activerain.com/blogsview/4975685/some-big-names-you-probably-didn-t-know-live-in-montana

 

[Gerald Martin]

Use page 55 of the EMP that exempts elk that are mostly inaccessible to the public to hunt. Fight for Elk Objectives that are legitimate. Stop the slaughter of Wildlife in this state. I could give a rats ass if a landowner wants more elk or deer on their lands. That's their right. We should not have to remove the public lands game. I hear all this conjecture looking for more access. More access will lead to dead Elk, or Elk that leave public lands. We need sanctuary areas on public to keep our Elk there longer and away from private lands. Maybe we need to go back to some preserves on public lands like those in the Sun River areas?

Good post.

I personally don't care if a rancher wants to harbor elk on his property so they give a quality outfitted hunt. At least more elk survive even if I can't access them. More elk, eventually means maybe some will wander to land I can access. I would rather see that and know there are good numbers than the current war on elk that FWP is structuring at the demands of the ag lobby and facilitated by willing hunters who would shoot the last elk in their county if they could buy a tag from FWP who are embracing said hunters demands for "opportunity"

Outlawing outfitting or trespass fees or leasing is a taking of private property rights and won't secure more access or better hunting for guys like myself who depend on and prefer public lands to hunt on. Taking from those who have the management foresight to protect their interests to counter the affects of actions by those too foolish to protect their interests (public hunters) doesn't solve any of these problems.

In the large scale picture, it's not the outfitter's fault and it's not the wolves fault. It's not the NR hunters fault. It's the mentality of the unengaged average resident hunter who just wants to shoot something. When FWP gives in to demands to let them, they are upset that the resource eventually diminishes and they can't find anything to shoot.

 

[Pucky Freak]

Slapping down a Jefferson per resident only takes any solution so far. That's like trying to build a house out of toothpicks. Adapting resident tag prices with a structure similar to CO is a good first step to fuel the change desired.

 

[OverlordBear]

I paid $400 for a nonresident WY cow tag and it felt like it was a bargain. I think residents in all states should consider paying at least $200 bucks for an elk tag. I mean let’s show some respect to this wonderful creatures. They say that something that comes cheap is something you don’t value. We think it is time to show we value these animals and we should pay more in resident fees for all big game species than turn those extra funds into purchasing more private land to turn into public and improve habitats. These recipe could be followed across the west.

 

[antlerradar]

Lots of good ideas here. One common thread is we're going to need to find ways to raise money to pay for the access and habitat improvements. A couple ideas on that:

1) Require anyone booking a hunt with an outfitter to pay an additional $1-2k to the state, maybe in the form of an outfitter tag or something. These guys dropping $10k to spend a week chasing bulls can afford it. That money could go towards higher BMA payments or habitat enhancements. These outfitters are profiting off a public resource, the public should get something in return for losing its resource.

2) What about a few additional Governor's tags auctioned off? Sacrificing say 5 bulls a year in return for well over $100k to be put back into improving elk hunting as a whole may be worth it.

Anyways, just a couple outside the box ideas, I'm sure we could come up with more.

We will not solve this issue on the backs of nonresidents.
While a grand or two may be pocket change for many of an outfitters clients. I would bet that the is quite a few where the extra money would be a deal breaker. Montana's outfitters will find it harder to compete with other states. Montana may still sell out its elk licences, but if the hunters are not hunting with an outfitter the question is where will the hunters be hunting. Hunting public or doing their own private lease or buying there own bit of Montana. Likely will be a combination of all three. This might raise some money for BMA and habitat but it is also likely to lose some access on the other end.
I am not a fan of Governor's tags. Sell five more and the temptation is to sell even more. Soon we will be selling tags like Utah. There are other states that have management plans that I think Montana should take a hard look at. Utah is not one of them.
If more money for BMA and habitat is part of the solution and I think it is we should look to resident hunters for the bulk of this money.

 

[JMG]

Why can't you just enact a statewide sales tax and pay landowners for access or purchase land straight up (especially those adjacent to landlocked public land)? In other states they also use some of the money for other outdoor programs to help sell it to non-hunters. Problem solved. You're welcome.

How about a tax break for landowners that allow "recreational" activities (fishing, hunting, access across to land locks public lands, etc.)?

 

[beginnerhunter]

How about a tax break for landowners that allow "recreational" activities (fishing, hunting, access across to land locks public lands, etc.)?

Why not? Could improve access without increased revenue/spending from that naughty phrase, "tax increases". Landowners would be incentivized via the tax system rather than direct payments (though I'm sure many would prefer payments).

 

[BigHornRam]

How about a tax break for landowners that allow "recreational" activities (fishing, hunting, access across to land locks public lands, etc.)?

Why not? Could improve access without increased revenue/spending from that naughty phrase, "tax increases". Landowners would be incentivized via the tax system rather than direct payments (though I'm sure many would prefer payments).

Montana already does offer a tax break for this, although I have not taken them up on it.

 

[BigHornRam]

I don't know what you consider big blocks, but I have to think with all the Celebs in MT they're providing quite a bit of non-hunting refuge. https://activerain.com/blogsview/4975685/some-big-names-you-probably-didn-t-know-live-in-montana

A lot of the people on that list have sold their property and moved on. Most are relatively small properties. The Sun Ranch in the Madison used to harbor a lot of elk and not allow hunting, but I don't know the status of that property today.

 

[Sioux33]

We will not solve this issue on the backs of nonresidents.
While a grand or two may be pocket change for many of an outfitters clients. I would bet that the is quite a few where the extra money would be a deal breaker. Montana's outfitters will find it harder to compete with other states. Montana may still sell out its elk licences, but if the hunters are not hunting with an outfitter the question is where will the hunters be hunting. Hunting public or doing their own private lease or buying there own bit of Montana. Likely will be a combination of all three. This might raise some money for BMA and habitat but it is also likely to lose some access on the other end.
I am not a fan of Governor's tags. Sell five more and the temptation is to sell even more. Soon we will be selling tags like Utah. There are other states that have management plans that I think Montana should take a hard look at. Utah is not one of them.
If more money for BMA and habitat is part of the solution and I think it is we should look to resident hunters for the bulk of this money.

Good points here. I should've clarified that I didn't mean the NR's should shoulder the load, these were just some ideas in addition to raising resident fees, which was already stated. It's crazy to think how cheap a resident elk tag is. I can buy that tag for almost half the cost of what my friends in MN pay for their resident fishing license.

And yes, the outfitter tag fee would be controversial, but IMHO those cutting off access, creating the harboring issues, and profiting off the public's resource should somehow be expected to be part of the solution, instead of just the problem. Maybe it's in a different form, but just throwing out another spin on things.

 

[ismith]

A lot of the people on that list have sold their property and moved on. Most are relatively small properties. The Sun Ranch in the Madison used to harbor a lot of elk and not allow hunting, but I don't know the status of that property today.

I think the Sun ranch is outfitted, still harbors a bunch of elk.

 

[BuzzH]

Not much more to add, but missed the discussion while helping 5 friends kill elk in Wyoming this last week.

What I would like to see is the following:

1. No more pandering to landowners, you want less elk on your land, let people hunt or put a cork in it. Give them a list of all the elk b-tag holders, with phone numbers. You have an elk problem use your cell phone.
2. Elk b-tags across the board are private land only, at least until elk numbers increase on public. That means private land only, I don't care if elk leave farmer Browns private and cross the fence to his state or federal leases. They cross on to public, leave them alone...period.
3. Archery season cut from the current 6 weeks to the month of September only. Giving the elk a 2-3 week break between archery and rifle would allow them to move back onto pubic land. Archery hunters in Montana live in a delusional world where they believe they don't impact elk behavior and kill elk by the boatload. They do both and it needs to be controlled.
4. Do away with the youth deer in that time frame, just puts more people in the field longer and pushing elk around more while the youth hunt deer.
5. Rifle elk season from traditional starting date to no later than November 10.
6. Demand the FWP actually start managing elk based on age classes, bull to cow ratio's etc. They haven't done jack chit to manage elk based on anything other than the theory that the only good elk is a dead elk for decades.
7. Any other measures that keep elk using public land and avoiding private land as much as possible.