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

[The Hedgehog]

Why such vitriol and hatred toward the people who are bearing the expense (self inflicted yes) but hold the keys? I’ve talked with a lot of folks who, like me, are on the outside looking in at elk. I’ve talked with very few who wouldn’t be thrilled for an opportunity to take a cow on an alfalfa field that they can drive up and load.
I learned in my youth “that life ain’t fair”. From the outside looking in, a cow elk is better than no elk.

There is no “hatred” - only big differences in opinions/values. You’re out for the progression of the outfitting industry and private landowner benefit. What’s going on here is going to F**K public land elk and elk hunters and only make any distribution problems WORSE - which is what Worsech and crew are pretending to try and address..

 

[Gerald Martin]

I agree life ain’t fair. Who’s going to be the one telling working landowners affected by the access policies of their neighbors they are screwed and hunters aren’t going to be killing every elk on public and accessible private anymore just so FWP can claim to be working on the problem of “too many elk”?

 

[Big Shooter]

Just to clarify……454 was not a MOGA bill…..may want to look into that. The outfitting industry does not benefit from 454 in any way, shape or form. The tags are not sellable, nor can the participants of 454 be charged for access. If I’m wrong…..please….do tell.

 

[BuzzH]

Just to clarify……454 was not a MOGA bill…..may want to look into that. The outfitting industry does not benefit from 454 in any way, shape or form. The tags are not sellable, nor can the participants of 454 be charged for access. If I’m wrong…..please….do tell.

Yet...and let's not pretend it likely isn't happening.

There will be $$$ changing hands...fact.

Remember that bullchit being shoveled when landowner's won't supposed to be charging for access with shoulder seasons too. Ink wasn't dry on the initial seasons and landowners near Drummond were running adds in local newspapers charging.

You're memory must be short or selective.

 

[Big Shooter]

Yet...and let's not pretend it likely isn't happening.

There will be $$$ changing hands...fact.

Remember that bullchit being shoveled when landowner's won't supposed to be charging for access with shoulder seasons too. Ink wasn't dry on the initial seasons and landowners near Drummond were running adds in local newspapers charging.

You're memory must be short or selective.

So you are just making assumptions that money is changing hands or will be soon? I will need to do some research on your shoulder season claim in my “spare” time as to not make assumptions if I’m not educated on the topic. You may want to try that at some point as well.

I’m sure that my memory is neither short nor selective…….fact!

 

[The Hedgehog]

Just to clarify……454 was not a MOGA bill…..may want to look into that. The outfitting industry does not benefit from 454 in any way, shape or form. The tags are not sellable, nor can the participants of 454 be charged for access. If I’m wrong…..please….do tell.

Sorry - got side tracked on the 2022 quota settings for elk in half of Montana..

 

[bigsky2]

I never said, or thought 2 cow elk hunters were/are/is enough.

If the landowner agrees to take a bull permit thru 454, they should have to allow a significant number of cow elk hunters. What that number is should be hammered out between owner/biologist, as to bulls permits, that should also be agreed upon by landowner(s), and FWP biologists. With an understanding that we don’t hammer the quality of bulls back to the Stone Age.

I wish you would have spoke up and said something like this during your PLPW meeting. Watching that, you’d get the impression that everyone thought these deals are great. “That’s two more cow elk than the public was killing before!”

 

[Eric Albus]

There is no “hatred” - only big differences in opinions/values. You’re out for the progression of the outfitting industry and private landowner benefit. What’s going on here is going to F**K public land elk and elk hunters and only make any distribution problems WORSE - which is what Worsech and crew are pretending to try and address..

I’ve never seen where Hanks stated goal “is to make elk distribution worse”.

Anytime there is pressure on cow elk they tend to move around, with no pressure on private land, and accessible lands are so over pressured the public keeps the elk forced onto the “king’s X”. This isn’t working out to well, unless I’m missing something.
If giving a landowner a permit gets the public access works, why fight it? It is either this or cut rifle/archery elk permits to a negligible number on accessible land and up the number of private land permits. Giving the elk pressure where needed and reducing pressure on accessible lands.

 

[Eric Albus]

I wish you would have spoke up and said something like this during your PLPW meeting. Watching that, you’d get the impression that everyone thought these deals are great. “That’s two more cow elk than the public was killing before!”

There was no discussion prior to the meeting and I hadn’t had time to study the issues

 

[Eric Albus]

As well as I have been last couple weeks been able to once I understood 454 a little better.
It’s still pretty much a brand new idea to me as I’d never heard of it until a couple weeks ago.

 

[bigsky2]

I’ve never seen where Hanks stated goal “is to make elk distribution worse”.

Anytime there is pressure on cow elk they tend to move around, with no pressure on private land, and accessible lands are so over pressured the public keeps the elk forced onto the “king’s X”. This isn’t working out to well, unless I’m missing something.
If giving a landowner a permit gets the public access works, why fight it? It is either this or cut rifle/archery elk permits to a negligible number on accessible land and up the number of private land permits. Giving the elk pressure where needed and reducing pressure on accessible lands.

This would be a better alternative than the direction things are heading.

 

[DFS]

Hank knew jacking up bull tags would all but ensure more elk would be pushed on to private only making the “problem” worse. It still didn’t solve the problem of getting billionaires elk tags. So he dug up an old rarely used program (454) and made it his own. The fact that Hank hasn’t been replaced yet is fascinating. Not many in the private sector would still have a job with the level of incompetence he has shown time and time again.

 

[Sioux33]

It is either this or cut rifle/archery elk permits to a negligible number on accessible land and up the number of private land permits. Giving the elk pressure where needed and reducing pressure on accessible lands.

This is exactly what WY does and they end up with success rates in the 40-50%s. They actually manage wildlife rather than let the billionaires hold them hostage and pretend that's their only option.

They also limit the pressure on private to cow only because the stated problem is over objective elk, not hurt feelings from outta state landowners. And they're wise enough to realize that 454 type agreements only incentivize over objective herds when bull tags are handed out like candy.

 

[Big Shooter]

This would be a better alternative than the direction things are heading.

Do you see any problems coming from a program like this? It would definitely disperse the elk more consistently in my opinion.

 

[DFS]

Do you see any problems coming from a program like this? It would definitely disperse the elk more consistently in my opinion.

I think this is where we need to head. People in Montana tend to freak out if you mention something like this though. I could see private land only permits and unit wide permits, similar to what Colorado has.

 

[Big Shooter]

Hank knew jacking up bull tags would all but ensure more elk would be pushed on to private only making the “problem” worse. It still didn’t solve the problem of getting billionaires elk tags. So he dug up an old rarely used program (454) and made it his own. The fact that Hank hasn’t been replaced yet is fascinating. Not many in the private sector would still have a job with the level of incompetence he has shown time and time again.

And…..opened up access for over 300 hunters that never would have had that opportunity. Although not in the private sector….that last sentence describes the President that a lot of people on here got voted in.

 

[Big Shooter]

I think this is where we need to head. People in Montana tend to freak out if you mention something like this though. I could see private land only permits and unit wide permits, similar to what Colorado has.

This is fascinating to me! (not for the fact that you are correct as you often times are on here)..they freak out because they think that the landowner and/or outfitter is going to actually benefit from it. So what if they do but the elk are getting moved to property that the DIY can get to.

 

[Eric Albus]

Hank knew jacking up bull tags would all but ensure more elk would be pushed on to private only making the “problem” worse. It still didn’t solve the problem of getting billionaires elk tags. So he dug up an old rarely used program (454) and made it his own. The fact that Hank hasn’t been replaced yet is fascinating. Not many in the private sector would still have a job with the level of incompetence he has shown time and time again.

“Jacking up bull tags”? I don’t think that the handful of permits did anything to exacerbate or relieve that problem. The BIOLOGIST’s are the ones “responsible” for upping the permit numbers.
Take the area I’m most familiar with, unit 622 in the breaks. Had wonderful age structure in the bulls, great cow:bull ratios, and the dept upped rifle and archery permits, because “we aren’t in the business to provide trophy hunts, we are about opportunity”. The only reason there is a decent buck or bull left in this state is because of private land. Open access to every acre and it’d be ground zero in 2 weeks. Every buck and bull killed.

 

[Eric Albus]

This is exactly what WY does and they end up with success rates in the 40-50%s. They actually manage wildlife rather than let the billionaires hold them hostage and pretend that's their only option.

They also limit the pressure on private to cow only because the stated problem is over objective elk, not hurt feelings from outta state landowners. And they're wise enough to realize that 454 type agreements only incentivize over objective herds when bull tags are handed out like candy.

The 454 should have a caveat of significant cow harvest before anything else is agreed upon.

 

[bigsky2]

Do you see any problems coming from a program like this? It would definitely disperse the elk more consistently in my opinion.

As long as the private land only tags were allocated through a draw and anyone could put in for them, and the tags that were good for public were set at a reasonable number to limit crowding, then I don’t see any problems in that system. Seems like everybody would win, except for maybe the people that would rather go for a walk in the woods with their weapon of choice every year instead of maybe having to go a year or two without a tag and have a quality experience when they do draw.

Edit- just to be clear, there would be private land only permits, and permits that would be good for the entire unit (both public and private)