Bulls for Billionaires - MT EQC Meeting today 1:30 PM

[Deleted member 28227]

Again, people are talking out of their butts.

Central Montana has sold off an estimated 1/3 of its livestock.
The impact on wildlife is dramatic.
Telling landowners to suck it up or you just need to tolerate it, or you can go into bankruptcy is the exact reason causing animosity against wildlife and the pressure for bad legislation.

Elk populations are a modern phenomena in many districts.
Crapping on landowners doesn’t help wildlife.
Crapping on landowners that support public hunting doesn’t help sportsman.

Randy did at least one podcast on some of the broader reasons to support landowners.

It would be great if he did one in on central Montana issues.

What does this have to do with bulls?

Even if you’re 100% accurate on every point, how is the solution anything other than allowing public access on private land.

Seems like a bait and switch, huge elk herds are the problem, and the solution is for me to be able to kill a couple of big bulls?

Colorado has landowner tags, zero effect on the problems your alluding to.

 

[rogerthat]

I believe we need to pay for wildlife impacts, to landowners supporting public access.

Don’t we already via block management?

 

[Gerald Martin]

Don’t we already via block management?

Block Management is more of a reward for access than compensation for wildlife impacts.

There is a game damage fund that FWP utilizes for direct compensation. I would support an expanded usage of that fund for landowners who allow access and suffer from damage caused by wildlife.

 

[Dakotakid]

Colorado also pays landowners for impacts.

What does this have to do with Bulls?

Because it has been acknowledged that wildlife managers have very little in the tool box for dealing with billionaires or even just large sanctuary ranches. Bull tags as some form of gift to beg for cooperation.

Without creating better partnership between sportsman and supportive landowners, sportsman stand to loose what we currently have.

Battling for more access, wildlife and quality we risk getting less than what we have.

Long time ranchers that have traditionally supported sportsman are growing bitter to the impacts of losing a 1/3 of a corn crop to elk and the increase in hunters. Just sheer numbers.

More billionaire ranches certainly don’t help sportsman and I am not convinced is helpful for wildlife.

My understanding from local warden is that game damage is not funding, only exterpation.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Colorado also pays landowners for impacts.

What does this have to do with Bulls?

Because it has been acknowledged that wildlife managers have very little in the tool box for dealing with billionaires or even just large sanctuary ranches. Bull tags as some form of gift to beg for cooperation.

Without creating better partnership between sportsman and supportive landowners, sportsman stand to loose what we currently have.

Battling for more access, wildlife and quality we risk getting less than what we have.

Long time ranchers that have traditionally supported sportsman are growing bitter to the impacts of losing a 1/3 of a corn crop to elk and the increase in hunters. Just sheer numbers.

More billionaire ranches certainly don’t help sportsman and I am not convinced is helpful for wildlife.

My understanding from local warden is that game damage is not funding, only exterpation.

Folks better read deeply here. Legacy landowners are hurting & hunters have an opportunity to help.

2 issues that need to come off the table in order for everyone to calm down are transferable licenses & access.

Let's start from a spot of commonality instead of conflict.

 

[Dakotakid]

Folks better read deeply here. Legacy landowners are hurting & hunters have an opportunity to help.

2 issues that need to come off the table in order for everyone to calm down are transferable licenses & access.

Let's start from a spot of commonality instead of conflict.

I apologize for not being familiar enough with your writing your intent?

I do not support transferable license. I am not sure to what access you reference. I did say some of our efforts to increase access may cost us in the long run. Rather we take some of our current access for granted.

I am not familiar with new ranch owners being overtly supportive of access as a generalization.

 

[Ben Lamb]

@Dakotakid I was supporting what you are saying & just saying that there is a big difference between what production ag families are dealing with and what the billionaires are.

And that working with legacy landowners is a duty that sportsmen should take seriously.

Transferable licenses & access are the positive and negative terminals in this battery. People tend to try and start there rather than from a place of understanding the problem. I certainly have been guilty of this in the past.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

What does this have to do with Bulls?

Because it has been acknowledged that wildlife managers have very little in the tool box for dealing with billionaires or even just large sanctuary ranches. Bull tags as some form of gift to beg for cooperation.

Without creating better partnership between sportsman and supportive landowners, sportsman stand to loose what we currently have.

It hasn't worked in CO... if anything it exacerbates the issue.

If indeed you are a rancher, and you're on the verge of going bankrupt because of game damage, shooting a bull might make you feel better but it's not effecting your bottom line. Also if you didn't let public hunters on to hunt cow previously it's not going to suddenly make you change your mind.

 

[Nameless Range]

As the discussion progresses, I think there is this false premise alluded to or at the very least overstated, that we have not cracked the nut that is public access to private lands.

7+ million acres enrolled in the block management program Where I and many others have shot bulls, cows, deer, pronghorn, countless birds…. Let us not forget that. Further, let us not to lean into solutions that would the weaken that program, such as transferable tags would certainly do, and how poorly negotiated 454 agreements very well may do too.

Perhaps we should lean into what works - expand it, strengthen it. Maybe that should be the chief focus

 

[Dakotakid]

@Dakotakid I was supporting what you are saying & just saying that there is a big difference between what production ag families are dealing with and what the billionaires are.

And that working with legacy landowners is a duty that sportsmen should take seriously.

Transferable licenses & access are the positive and negative terminals in this battery. People tend to try and start there rather than from a place of understanding the problem. I certainly have been guilty of this in the past.

Thank you for that explanation.
I know billionaires create visceral responses, I do not know how to influence a landowner that is for all intents and purposes a feudal baron.

But I think sportsman have a greater duty to protect and support those that support sportsman. Those legacy landowners that are negatively impacted by the barony are an opportunity for sportsman to partner.

I do not think people are realizing the impacts on ranches that do allow public hunting, and encourage cow harvest and public access.

The volume of elk on ranches that do support hunting is not sustainable. These are also voices demanding legislature act.

 

[Gerald Martin]

What does creating better partnerships look like in reality?

Hunters are partners too. What responsibilities do landowners affected by wildlife have towards our needs?

 

[Dakotakid]

What does creating better partnerships look like in reality?

Hunters are partners too. What responsibilities do landowners affected by wildlife have towards our needs?

Just my own opinion, it is funding for impacts. And in my opinion only funding if with public access.
And as has been discussed- a better way of managing hunters, maybe technology can help.
I know many ranches that are not opposed to hunting but oppose unlimited anonymous access.

I do not know the negative effects that have resulted in Colorado.

I do know the growing anger and bitterness landowners are developing towards hunters, wildlife and FWP is counter to sportsman and the future of hunting.

 

[Gerald Martin]

Thank you for that explanation.
I know billionaires create visceral responses, I do not know how to influence a landowner that is for all intents and purposes a feudal baron.

But I think sportsman have a greater duty to protect and support those that support sportsman. Those legacy landowners that are negatively impacted by the barony are an opportunity for sportsman to partner.

I do not think people are realizing the impacts on ranches that do allow public hunting, and encourage cow harvest and public access.

The volume of elk on ranches that do support hunting is not sustainable. These are also voices demanding legislature act.

Generalized caricatures of legacy landowners and amenity landowners don’t accurately portray reality.

The idea of “billionaires bad, legacy ranches good” is only as true as individual landowners fit those descriptions.

I had a conversation last week with a billionaire NR landowner who has various properties and various access policies on each property ranging from no access to being enrolled in Block Management.

Interestingly enough, his management preferences for some ranches he controls in certain areas of the state is to have higher elk numbers and allow more public access to his property there. A major obstacle to this being accomplished is the attitudes of his neighbors towards elk and incredibly liberal FWP harvest regulations in that area. If he allowed unrestricted access, the local elk herd in that area would be reduced to levels below his preference and far below carrying capacity.

Why shouldn’t I prefer him to own that property over the legacy landowner who was the prior owner of the property and didn’t let people hunt because the property was leased to an outfitter?

 

[Dakotakid]

Generalizing is probably not productive and in opposite to my original comment that we need to address region by region or even district by district.

Note I specifically said supporting legacy landowners that support sportsman.

It has been overtly stated on this board that the nbar is better managed than the surrounding properties. That is not my experience nor the wardens I speak with.

 

[BuzzH]

Just my own opinion, it is funding for impacts. And in my opinion only funding if with public access.
And as has been discussed- a better way of managing hunters, maybe technology can help.
I know many ranches that are not opposed to hunting but oppose unlimited anonymous access.

I do not know the negative effects that have resulted in Colorado.

I do know the growing anger and bitterness landowners are developing towards hunters, wildlife and FWP is counter to sportsman and the future of hunting.

Anyone want to talk about getting some decent numbers of elk back to using public lands?

Do that and a lot of these landowner focused discussions go away.

The reason Montana hunters are so worried about landowners is that elk hunting flat sucks in areas it shouldn't.

Nonstop pressure for months on public has altered elk behavior.

So, hunters have flat given up efforts that would get elk back on public land and are 100 percent focused on accessing what's left...which are elk that spend a majority of their lives on private.

Public land elk are hosed.

 

[Dakotakid]

Anyone want to talk about getting some decent numbers of elk back to using public lands?

Do that and a lot of these landowner focused discussions go away.

The reason Montana hunters are so worried about landowners is that elk hunting flat sucks in areas it shouldn't.

Nonstop pressure for months on public has altered elk behavior.

So, hunters have flat given up efforts that would get elk back on public land and are 100 percent focused on accessing what's left...which are elk that spend a majority of their lives on private.

Public land elk are hosed.

Which district or region do you reference?

 

[BuzzH]

Which district or region do you reference?

Pick one...the war waged on elk in Montana is consistent across public land.

 

[Eric Albus]

Which district or region do you reference?

All mid them.

 

[Eric Albus]

All of them….fat fingers and an I phone

 

[Eric Albus]

The elk on accessible lands are so pressured they flee to the King’s X.

I read an email from a manager of a “problem” elk ranch holding 1000’s of elk. He roughly stated that the elk have no chance to leave with hikers/four wheelers ect, keeping elk pushed in”