The question then is what will this do for elk distribution. If we keep the foot to the pedal on "armed walking opportunities" rather than harvest opportunity, all we're doing is pushing elk deeper onto lands they feel secure, while ensuring none are on accessible lands - public & private.
Bulls for Billionaires - MT EQC Meeting today 1:30 PM
- Thread starter Ben Lamb
- Start date
The question then is what will this do for elk distribution. If we keep the foot to the pedal on "armed walking opportunities" rather than harvest opportunity, all we're doing is pushing elk deeper onto lands they feel secure, while ensuring none are on accessible lands - public & private.
Eric Albus
Well-known member
- Joined
- May 24, 2012
- Messages
- 1,671
There are LE permit areas with to many elk. Giving a landowner an either sex permit to shoot a bull or two off their own property in exchange for allowing the public access to take a bull or two and a lot of cows is the plan in over objective units.
What about the over objective units that aren’t actually over objective because of the refusal to update objectives.
antlerradar
Well-known member
Not sure how better odds would change pressure much if the quotas stayed the same. If anything having better odds would reduced political pressure to increase the quotas on public units.
The small increase in bull hunters on private would not move may elk. It is important that any 454 deals include a heavy helping of cow hunting.
rogerthat
Well-known member
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2015
- Messages
- 2,829
The objective should be to address the objectives in the new emp so that we can objectively determine which units are actually over objective and focus our objectives on those units objectively.
That’s funny, once again I’m not great with my words. Everyone seems to be in a rush to give bull tags for access, that’s great but in some areas that’s not needed. That is being conveniently ignored imo.The objective should be to address the objectives in the new emp so that we can objectively determine which units are actually over objective and focus our objectives on those units objectively.
ismith
Well-known member
I'm a quarter Puerto Rican and Identify as a Torque Wrench, that 380 elk permit is as good as mine, perhaps several actually.
Eric Albus
Well-known member
- Joined
- May 24, 2012
- Messages
- 1,671
I’m trying to look at this “object”, “objectively” lol….. some LE units are over objective, but not over carry capacity, big difference. When elk were introduced in the east part of Mt they(dept) sat with the landowners and came up with numbers landowners could tolerate. Maybe we need sit down with those landowners toady and take their temperature. They are the ones feeding/housing/(in some cases)sheltering. All else aside, they are the ones footing the expenses for our elk, and have more at more at stake than any of us. With traditional owners these elk impact livelihoods. Those capitalizing on the elk may realize a profit, or break even, those who choose not to capitalize it costs. For billionaires presence is pure aesthetic value, hunting them a huge bonus.
rogerthat
Well-known member
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2015
- Messages
- 2,829
Definitely agree. When we do that we are going to find out there are some units where landowner tolerance is different than it was in 2005. You could see that from the comments fwp received. In some units landowners commented questioning the 200% over objective. The hard thing about this conversation is it is so easy to talk in generalizations but when it comes down to it, each unit has its own unique land ownership pattern, landowner preferences, elk population, access issues, etc. each unit needs to be addressed individually by a biologist yearly or bi-annually but we have to start with an emp that is grounded in the realities facing all stakeholders. New emp should be priority #1
Just saw this on Instagram: looks like a win for everyone?
www.instagram.com
Montana Chapter of BHA on Instagram: "STATEMENT FROM MONTANA BHA: We have long encouraged FWP to improve the 454 agreements, including most recently at March’s EQC meeting. Some of our suggestions included a cap on these agreements (which are curr
245 likes, 0 comments - montanabha on April 13, 2022: "STATEMENT FROM MONTANA BHA: We have long encouraged FWP to improve the 454 agreements, including most recently at March’s EQC meeting. Some of our suggestions included a cap on these agreements (which are currently unlimited) and to move...
www.instagram.com
Wind Gypsy
Well-known member
- Joined
- Mar 12, 2017
- Messages
- 1,984
I apologize if this is a thread hijack.. But i've gathered that "Ranching for Wildlife" is like a curse word used in relation to MT regulations around here. Why is it any worse than what is currently going on in MT? Is the thought that if MT had a similar program, the harboring properties wouldn't utilize it anyway?
In theory it could facilitate more hunters on the hard to access private ground. As long as there isn't a net positive number of tags issued and the balance goes to more hunters on private it would seem like a win. The catch would be we cant complain about fewer tags for public, especially since a lot of us are saying there are too many tags issued already.
I wouldn't mind if units that are primarily private had tags that were only valid on private land. I am not talking about landowner tags, they would be able to be drawn by anyone. Then the remaining tags would be valid for both private and public. I think this would help distribute hunting pressure so the public wouldn't get absolutely piss pounded in some of these units.
Just saw this on Instagram: looks like a win for everyone?
Montana Chapter of BHA on Instagram: "STATEMENT FROM MONTANA BHA: We have long encouraged FWP to improve the 454 agreements, including most recently at March’s EQC meeting. Some of our suggestions included a cap on these agreements (which are curr
245 likes, 0 comments - montanabha on April 13, 2022: "STATEMENT FROM MONTANA BHA: We have long encouraged FWP to improve the 454 agreements, including most recently at March’s EQC meeting. Some of our suggestions included a cap on these agreements (which are currently unlimited) and to move...
It's a positive step in the right direction, but it's also a missed chance to tighten things up significantly and eliminate the abuse.
One thing to consider is that with this rule change, it's eliminating the commission's advantage in demanding that these be negotiated with the landowner, and makes it solely the purview of the commission to approve or deny these based on the statutory criteria.
That means the agency isn't now required by the commission to negotiate the contracts, just move them up to the commission for an up or down vote, assuming the commissioners will do their due dilligence and not simply approve them.
The 10% issue isn't a bad one either as it finally sets a cap on those 454 permits within limited entry areas, but that's an administrative change with no rule or force of law to back that up, so it could be used, or it could be ignored based on the decision of the director.
So, yes, good starting move on reformation of the program, but it still has a long, long way to go.
Wind Gypsy
Well-known member
- Joined
- Mar 12, 2017
- Messages
- 1,984
I could see the "private only" tags being under subscribed if they were subject to a max of 10% NR utilization. Depending on tag numbers obviously.
Seems like a reasonable concept to me but I could see plenty of uproar over rich guy preference even if it was a better solution to actual game management than is currently going on.
Probably, although it wouldn't actually be giving any preference to rich guys or landowners.
Eric Albus
Well-known member
- Joined
- May 24, 2012
- Messages
- 1,671
The hunter chosen was a Purple Heart recipient.
Eric Albus
Well-known member
- Joined
- May 24, 2012
- Messages
- 1,671
If there is not an incentive for landowners to allow access then there will be no access
Aren’t the elk eating them out of house and home? That should be incentive enough.
Eric Albus
Well-known member
- Joined
- May 24, 2012
- Messages
- 1,671
On some of these ranches, take the horse ranch for example. Thousands of elk Pressured by the PUBLIC that rarely to never leave. Who really cares if the landowner(s) get a bull permit or two that goes over the sacred 10% in order to ensure the public receives access for an equal number of bulls, and “X” number of cow elk?(X being a substantial number in this case)
I’m at the point of of thinking we ought go with a limited number of permits good only on private land. For each of these permits issued (drawn) x number of cow elk must be taken. Make the season for either sex(bulls) good for first 2 weeks only, then cows last 3 weeks, until objectives/carry capacity is balanced. The landowners and biologists (both FWP and private) having a say as to what healthy objectives are.
I’m at the point of of thinking we ought go with a limited number of permits good only on private land. For each of these permits issued (drawn) x number of cow elk must be taken. Make the season for either sex(bulls) good for first 2 weeks only, then cows last 3 weeks, until objectives/carry capacity is balanced. The landowners and biologists (both FWP and private) having a say as to what healthy objectives are.
Schaaf
Well-known member
“No effing way I’m letting a Purple Heart recipient hunt on my place unless I get a free elk tag.”
