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

[BuzzH]

That is incredibly short sighted and counter productive to sportsman interests. You can reject efforts to try to protect what sportsman have created but don’t shit on others efforts.

Giving landowners the tools they need to make a choice if they want to control elk or not....is far from shitting on anyone.

It's not short sighted, it's called manage your alleged elk problem or quit complaining.

Further, we don't have to crush public land elk to NOT solve the issue of private harboring.

That's a win-win.

 

[Dakotakid]

How are sportsmen abusing landowners? By telling them the truth that the management policies that FWP has implemented in response to their...

No, foisting the impacts on landowners without sharing the burden.

 

[BuzzH]

In 2018? mtmuley

The year after you had your tag and the second year they owned it.

 

[Gerald Martin]

That is incredibly short sighted and counter productive to sportsman interests. You can reject efforts to try to protect what sportsman have created but don’t shit on others efforts.

What should Buzz have done to help the landowner who wouldn’t let him shoot a cow because they had paying clients coming to shoot a bull?

I am seeing a lot of admonition that we need to help landowners but not much specificity about what it actually takes to help them.

Should that landowner who turned Buzz away so they could capitalize on a paying client to shoot one of the “too many elk” on their property also receive game damage compensation from FWP (funded by hunter’s dollars) when they refuse to use the easiest and best tool (hunters) that FWP has to reduce elk numbers?

 

[Dakotakid]

Giving landowners the tools they need to make a choice if they want to control elk or not....is far from shitting on anyone.

It's not short sighted, it's called manage your alleged elk problem or quit complaining.

That’s the flaw, the tools are not effecting the change. That is the shittinf. Sportsman continue to demand more elk, and the impacts are not sustainable, that is the shitting.

 

[BuzzH]

No, foisting the impacts on landowners without sharing the burden.

Lots of ways they can help themselves, and they don't in many cases.

 

[mtmuley]

The year after you had your tag and the second year they owned it.

Hey. Maybe I'm just bitter. Found a place with big bulls (had some help) and got the no. Do they let anyone that wants to hunt that property in today? Have some friends with a ton of points. Bet we get a no if they draw. mtmuley

 

[Dakotakid]

What should Buzz have done to help the landowner who wouldn’t let him shoot a cow because they had paying clients coming to shoot a bull?

I am seeing a lot of admonition that we need to help landowners but not much specificity about what it actually takes to help them.

Should that landowner who turned Buzz away so they could capitalize on a paying client to shoot one of the “too many elk” on their property also receive game damage compensation from FWP (funded by hunter’s dollars) when they refuse to use the easiest and best tool (hunters) that FWP has to reduce elk numbers?

Maybe this is the disconnect you are refusing to hear.
Good landowners that do allow hunters are suffering substantial impacts.

I repeat, sportsman should support the landowners that support sportsman.

When the rancher walks into the legislature and says I let a 1000 hunters hunt my property and I am overrun and suffering, the legislature is going to listen.

 

[Gerald Martin]

That’s the flaw, the tools are not effecting the change. That is the shittinf. Sportsman continue to demand more elk, and the impacts are not sustainable, that is the shitting.

We have less elk in this state now than we did ten years ago. Sportsmen are not demanding more elk. Some landowners are demanding less elk and don’t like the consequences of elk re-establishing themselves across their historic range.

Should we go back to the same numbers of elk in MT that were here in 1920?

 

[BuzzH]

That’s the flaw, the tools are not effecting the change. That is the shittinf. Sportsman continue to demand more elk, and the impacts are not sustainable, that is the shitting.

Wrong, I'm not demanding anything. I'm handing them THE best tool in the tool box to fix their alleged elk problem.

If they refuse, then I say let them rebuild their motor with a rusty crescent wrench then.

I've offered the complete set of snap on tools...

 

[Dakotakid]

We have less elk in this state now than we did ten years ago. Sportsmen are not demanding more elk. Some landowners are demanding less elk and don’t like the consequences of elk re-establishing themselves across their historic range.

Should we go back to the same numbers of elk in MT that were here in 1920?

You your self just said you wanted twice as many elk in region 410.

 

[Gerald Martin]

Maybe this is the disconnect you are refusing to hear.
Good landowners that do allow hunters are suffering substantial impacts.

I repeat, sportsman should support the landowners that support sportsman.

When the rancher walks into the legislature and says I let a 1000 hunters hunt my property and I am overrun and suffering, the legislature is going to listen.

Yes they are listening. FWP’s response is to issue 500 more cow tags and longer seasons and elk in other areas get killed and the landowner still suffers.

Have I not been clear that I specifically support increased compensation for landowners who allow access and suffer crop depredation from elk?

What part of current management isn’t alleviating the problems, equates to not being supportive of landowners who allow access?

 

[BuzzH]

Hey. Maybe I'm just bitter. Found a place with big bulls (had some help) and got the no. Do they let anyone that wants to hunt that property in today? Have some friends with a ton of points. Bet we get a no if they draw. mtmuley

You apply for a draw and can get on a standby list as many either shoot elk before their dates or don't show up.

 

[BuzzH]

Yes they are listening. FWP’s response is to issue 500 more cow tags and longer seasons and elk in other areas get killed and the landowner still suffers.

Have I not been clear that I specifically support increased compensation for landowners who allow access and suffer crop depredation from elk?

What part of current management isn’t alleviating the problems, equates to not being supportive of landowners who allow access?

You can tell some people and they just flat don't have the listening ears on.

The problem from day one has been over issuing cow tags valid for entire units instead of private land only.

Dakotakid will never savvy that simple fact.

 

[Gerald Martin]

Substitute late shoulder seasons for a five day private land only, antlerless only rifle hunt between archery and general rifle season.

Eliminate or drastically cut the harvest of cow elk on public land during the general season.

Increase game damage payments to landowners who allow public hunting via Block Management and improve the Block Management program by booking permission like you would a VRBO or Air BnB rental.

There are so many easy changes that are available for FWP to implement.

 

[brockel]

Substitute late shoulder seasons for a five day private land only, antlerless only rifle hunt between archery and general rifle season.

Eliminate or drastically cut the harvest of cow elk on public land during the general season.

Increase game damage payments to landowners who allow public hunting via Block Management and improve the Block Management program by booking permission like you would a VRBO or Air BnB rental.

There are so many easy changes that are available for FWP to implement.

I think a general rifle hunt dates of October 1st to October 31st would help give those problem elk the chance to move back to public for a month or more until winter really sets in.

 

[Dakotakid]

Substitute late shoulder seasons for a five day private land only, antlerless only rifle hunt between archery and general rifle season.

Worth a shot, although a substantial part of the impact is even before archery season starts. Is this only public access private or includes locked?

Eliminate or drastically cut the harvest of cow elk on public land during the general season.

If the numbers could be made to work, I don’t see the numbers working but try it.

Increase game damage payments to landowners who allow public hunting via Block Management

I don’t believe damage is currently paid but obviously I am in support. Would likely require legislation and a funding source.
Make it an opt in for block management users voluntary fee.

and improve the Block Management program by booking permission like you would a VRBO or Air BnB rental.

That really should be piloted. I think you might see more ranchers interest as well as interest from hunters.

 

[mtmuley]

You apply for a draw and can get on a standby list as many either shoot elk before their dates or don't show up.

At least I know I was on to something. For a big bull I mean. mtmuley

 

[BuzzH]

Bottom line is the mtfwp practices lazy management.

Manage like unmanned drones...no thought put into it other than keep on increasing unit wide cow tags.

 

[huntin24/7]

Bottom line is the mtfwp practices lazy management.

Manage like unmanned drones...no thought put into it other than keep on increasing unit wide cow tags.

I find it interesting that FWP won’t institute changes to season structures or other beneficial changes to MT wildlife because the general public wouldn’t support it because it gets in the way of tradition or limits opportunity. But, they have no problem trying to force garbage like the bull permits they want to give to the Wilkes bros and others or other changes that the general public would never support right down our throats. Nothing makes me need a drink more than discussing FWP.