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

[Eric Albus]

Ultimately, this is not a R v NR hunter issue.

At the heart of this issue is that various stakeholders have different interests and different priority of those interests.

We hear a lot of statements of fact thrown around like “too many elk” and “landowners want xyz” or “hunters want xyz” as if these are universally accepted values akin to gravity or laws of physics.

Who gets to decide what the right number of elk are? What is that number?

Personally, I vehemently reject the concept that Montana has too many elk. We certainly don’t have as many elk as there once were or even as many elk as we had a decade ago. We certainly don’t have nearly as many elk on public land as we did just a few years ago.

I think that a state wide objective of 90,000 elk is ridiculous, biologically unhealthy and harmful to the interests of other wildlife and the residents of MT who consider higher elk numbers as being beneficial to their quality of life.

Personally, while I am very appreciative of the attitudes and wildlife management policies of a majority of ranchers and landowners, I am also frustrated by the arrogance of other landowners who view their commercial interests and preferences as being the highest priority on the management totem pole.

Those individuals and entities who seek to promote their self interests above other shareholders at the expense of the health of the resource should not be allowed to dictate the course of wildlife management in Montana.

All shareholders have a reasonable expectation to have their preferences considered and reasonably accommodated. That’s where collaboration among shareholders can give robust and durable policies according to the needs of shareholders in various regions. In a scenario like that everyone gains by ensuring that everyone’s preferences are considered.

As a public land hunter whose quality of life has been negatively affected from the unintended consequences of management policies legislatively forced on us by the Agriculture and Ranching Lobby, I would like to know what is going to be done to remedy that? How are my preferences(and tens of thousands of other public land hunters) going to be accommodated?

Are there private land shareholders who take my preferences seriously and attempt to accommodate me and work in fair collaboration for our mutual benefit? Or can I continue to expect additional legislative assault on the wildlife and recreational experiences I treasure until I conclude that I am completely neglected and the only recourse I have is to increase my representation and force a change of policy regardless of how it impacts other shareholders?

(edit) Additionally, I want to know why almost all the attention of elk management is being monopolized by central and eastern MT which has less than 1/3 of the elk in this state? Why are the demands of certain private landowners in these regions being allowed to set management policies that negatively affect the rest of the state?

Gerald,
With all due respect, why as a “public land hunter”, would you care about “private land share holders” catering to your preference?
Further, the rest of the state is not “negatively affected” by what’s happening in the east, near as I can tell it’s elk season as usual in all the general areas….everyone has a chance to go on an armed hiking excursion or armed horseback ride to see great scenery unhindered by elk.

 

[Dakotakid]

Who gets to decide what the right number of elk are? What is that number?

Personally, I vehemently reject the concept that Montana has too many elk. We certainly don’t have as many elk as there once were or even as many elk as we had a decade ago. We certainly don’t have nearly as many elk on public land as we did just a few years ago.

I think that a state wide objective of 90,000 elk is ridiculous, biologically unhealthy and harmful to the interests of other wildlife and the residents of MT who consider higher elk numbers as being beneficial to their quality of life.

(edit) Additionally, I want to know why almost all the attention of elk management is being monopolized by central and eastern MT which has less than 1/3 of the elk in this state? Why are the demands of certain private landowners in these regions being allowed to set management policies that negatively affect the rest of the state?

A couple comments on this post.

1. Each region has its own management challenges. Often on this board people generalize an issue in one region being applicable to all 7.
Management can’t be done at 20,000 ft.

But at this moment eastern Montana is facing severe drought. The legacy ranchers I know are struggling to survive. Just saying they need to accept more losses from elk impact is a bitter pill. Driving those lands into billionaire’s control will be hunters downfall.

The reason the focus is on eastern Montana is because the impacts are substantial and at a very high risk of hunters losing.

But bashing landowners seems to be the salve for hunter emotions.

There is very little the state can do to deal with the billionaire ranch holdings.
There are substantial resources hunters can use to keep the legacy ranches next door out of billionaire’s hands.

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

 

[Straight Arrow]

But bashing landowners seems to be the salve for hunter emotions.

I don't believe that is a true statement. As reflected by this forum, the "bashing" is primarily directed at some outfitters and wealthy nonresident large landowners who are very different from "legacy" multi-generational ranchers, who are mostly supported by hunters.

 

[Dakotakid]

“ for that they should be thankful. They can enjoy them, profit off them, hunt them, let others hunt as they see fit on their property or not. But none the less they are still not property of the landowner. I will be the last person to feel sorry for a landowner because he’s got a lot of elk.”

Just one quick example, may not be the most egregious bashing but certainly pits an us versus them and is not limited to billionaires. there are several more just in this thread.

 

[Straight Arrow]

may not be the most egregious bashing

Understatement!

 

[Dakotakid]

Are you intentionally being obtuse?

 

[Straight Arrow]

Are you intentionally being obtuse?

Overstatement.
Question: Are you intentionally "bashing" hunters on this forum?

 

[The Hedgehog]

“ for that they should be thankful. They can enjoy them, profit off them, hunt them, let others hunt as they see fit on their property or not. But none the less they are still not property of the landowner. I will be the last person to feel sorry for a landowner because he’s got a lot of elk.”

Just one quick example, may not be the most egregious bashing but certainly pits an us versus them and is not limited to billionaires. there are several more just in this thread.

Landowner “bashing” ?

 

[shoots-straight]

So I just read the entire 166 posts this morning. I've been in jury duty all week because of a very frivolous lawsuit that was filed by a individual to make lots of money, but that should have come together with the other party and fixed their own situation. Big waste of time for 14 jurors and tied a court up all week.

So "Our" situation that deals with Elk Management, and who controls it will only be fixed by us.

First thing is to make sure we have a basic system in place to negotiate in. Right now it's a very corrupted system. WE can't fix this with the system that's in place. I feel there's to many special interests being pandered too.

If I've said it once I've said it a 1000 times. (had to fix that )

The decisions are set in place on November 3rd. The majority in Montana are 6 votes away from a super majority (I believe without going through it right now). IF the majority gets those 6 votes then our constitution is in trouble.

Rather than go back and forth with real well made comments and ideas, go to work to get some sportsman friendly legislators elected this coming up primary. Then work harder to get them elected on November 3.

Nothing we do on this thread will made a pinch of shit until we do that.

Just my .02 cents worth again.

 

[SAJ-99]

“ for that they should be thankful. They can enjoy them, profit off them, hunt them, let others hunt as they see fit on their property or not. But none the less they are still not property of the landowner. I will be the last person to feel sorry for a landowner because he’s got a lot of elk.”

Just one quick example, may not be the most egregious bashing but certainly pits an us versus them and is not limited to billionaires. there are several more just in this thread.

You are reading into something that isn’t there. As was pointed out, it’s not bash all landowners, just a few that think they can get what they want at the expense of others. Also, if the issue is elk affecting landowners’ ability to make a living, people seem to have empathy toward that. But when the statement is “there are too many elk on my property, I need a bull tag” then they should get called out.

 

[Gerald Martin]

Gerald,
With all due respect, why as a “public land hunter”, would you care about “private land share holders” catering to your preference?
Further, the rest of the state is not “negatively affected” by what’s happening in the east, near as I can tell it’s elk season as usual in all the general areas….everyone has a chance to go on an armed hiking excursion or armed horseback ride to see great scenery unhindered by elk.

Eric, respectfully, your comment about the rest of the state not being negatively impacted by what’s happening out east because we still have “elk season as usual in general areas” is completely wrong.
You complain about the diminishing quality of deer in your region because of poor management. You must be wrong because as far as I can tell it’s “ still deer season as usual over in region 6.”

Landowner complaints about there being more elk than the arbitrary objective numbers which were largely determined by landowner influence gave us shoulder seasons in a large portion of the state.

Along with shoulder seasons came increased cow tags or either-sex harvest in many units.

The resultant pressure on accessible public and private dramatically reduced the numbers of elk on accessible areas. Localized herds that didn’t cause conflict were shot down to token levels. Survivors learned to find sanctuary on properties that do not allow access or died.

That is one function of how management policies determined by the preferences of one region can have negative consequences for other areas.

Legacy landowners and working ranchers aren’t able to offer any better solutions to solving the lack of access on ranches that want elk and don’t allow access. The fact is plain and simple. Private property rights grant a landowner the ability to deny hunting access.

Overkilling elk in other parts of an over objective unit won’t solve the issue of elk from an inaccessible property leaving that property and causing damage to neighbors.

 

[Eric Albus]

Eric, respectfully, your comment about the rest of the state not being negatively impacted by what’s happening out east because we still have “elk season as usual in general areas” is completely wrong.
You complain about the diminishing quality of deer in your region because of poor management. You must be wrong because as far as I can tell it’s “ still deer season as usual over in region 6.”

Landowner complaints about there being more elk than the arbitrary objective numbers which were largely determined by landowner influence gave us shoulder seasons in a large portion of the state.

Along with shoulder seasons came increased cow tags or either-sex harvest in many units.

The resultant pressure on accessible public and private dramatically reduced the numbers of elk on accessible areas. Localized herds that didn’t cause conflict were shot down to token levels. Survivors learned to find sanctuary on properties that do not allow access or died.

That is one function of how management policies determined by the preferences of one region can have negative consequences for other areas.

Legacy landowners and working ranchers aren’t able to offer any better solutions to solving the lack of access on ranches that want elk and don’t allow access. The fact is plain and simple. Private property rights grant a landowner the ability to deny hunting access.

Overkilling elk in other parts of an over objective unit won’t solve the issue of elk from an inaccessible property leaving that property and causing damage to neighbors.

Thanks for making my point.

Until the accessible lands are managed to resemble inaccessible lands we will have this continued conundrum.

The sportsmen of Montana are going to have to get on the same page and demand FWP manage accessible land. This will mean restrictive measures and no longer hunting elk/deer for 6-8 months.
Let’s start with “pick your region”, Pick weapon, season, ect..

 

[Gerald Martin]

Thanks for making my point.

Until the accessible lands are managed to resemble inaccessible lands we will have this continued conundrum.

The sportsmen of Montana are going to have to get on the same page and demand FWP manage accessible land. This will mean restrictive measures and no longer hunting elk/deer for 6-8 months.
Let’s start with “pick your region”, Pick weapon, season, ect..

I am in complete agreement with you on this point.

There has to be a reduction of pressure on accessible areas.

I would make the point though that liberalized harvest quotas, shoulder seasons, etc., are a result of management policy changing to accommodate landowners complaining about “ too many elk”. Hunters are not the ones demanding this and the vast majority of opposition to these liberal seasons comes from hunters who see firsthand the negative consequences of too much pressure on local elk herds.

FWP does not have the tools to incentivize landowners who don’t want to be incentivized. Their “solution” of too many elk in one area is to kill elk on another area to show on paper that they are “managing for objective.”

Programs that supposedly “incentivize landowners” by offering either-sex tags for access for a select few will not reduce elk numbers in any significant amount in areas that have large amounts of inaccessible private property. Anyone thinking that killing 30-40 elk on the N-Bar helps get elk in that area “to objective” deserves to be laughed at.

No landowner who likes elk and wants to see a healthy herd with good bull/cow ratios would tolerate as much pressure on his property as what FWP facilitates on public land as a way of addressing “too many elk.”

 

[Gerald Martin]

A couple comments on this post.
But at this moment eastern Montana is facing severe drought. The legacy ranchers I know are struggling to survive. Just saying they need to accept more losses from elk impact is a bitter pill. Driving those lands into billionaire’s control will be hunters downfall.

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

Your first comment contains some statements I agree with and some I disagree with.

Ranchers in eastern MT are facing tough times because of drought and market conditions.

Elk have nothing to do with causing drought or slim economic margins when a crop goes to market. If a ranch is so close to insolvency that a herd of elk is the difference between staying in business or going bankrupt, I am betting that ranch doesn’t stay solvent for long even if elk magically disappeared from the landscape.

As far as who I prefer to own a ranch… honestly, I would prefer a billionaire who likes wildlife and will not allow any hunting over a legacy rancher who hates anything that eats grass, overgrazes his habitat and lets hunters shoot every deer or elk on his property. Thankfully, those two extremes are not the norm of landowners in MT and aren’t our only choices.

I do agree that landowners who allow some degree of public access deserve financial compensation for the cost of wildlife on their property. I don’t believe they deserve to be completely free from the costs of wildlife since wildlife exists as a condition of the land. I also think there are already programs and policies in place that can aid landowners.

I think there are some really good ideas being floated around about how the Block Management program can be tweaked to better facilitate access and ensure accountability of hunters who access private property via the program.

In summary, I am not antagonist to the goals of many working ranchers. I am just pointing out and advocating that many of the policies that FWP has implemented over the past ten years have not significantly alleviated economic impacts of elk on private land and have negatively impacted other shareholders who engage with wildlife primarily on public land.

 

[Gerald Martin]

From a purely pragmatic perspective, public land hunters deserve a seat at the table where elk management policy is being decided.

Collaboration that considers our preferences will ensure a “buy in” from hunters. Continued attempts at forcing bad ideas that don’t solve problems at the legislature will ensure that conflict between user groups increases.

Looking back at the bills that have been introduced, implemented or defeated in the past couple legislative sessions should give anyone who wants to actually solve problems an understanding that we would be far better off finding collaborative solutions rather than trying to implement one sided legislation.

Personally, I am willing to work with other shareholders.
I am not willing to be continued to be taken for granted and watch Montana’s deer and elk herds be mismanaged and harmed.

 

[Dakotakid]

Ranchers in eastern MT are facing tough times because of drought and market conditions.

Elk have nothing to do with causing drought or slim economic margins when a crop goes to market. If a ranch is so close to insolvency that a herd of elk is the difference between staying in business or going bankrupt, I am betting that ranch doesn’t stay solvent for long even if elk magically disappeared from the “

You are not correct.

 

[rogerthat]

I wish I had a big ranch with a lots of “elk” problem. I’m definitely not bashing ranchers but some of them need a reality check. it’s funny once you have something it’s easy to take it for granted. I think that’s the case. And spare me the you don’t know how tough it is to be a rancher and the drought crap. I grew up on a multigenerational ranch my dad still runs at age 73. Droughts are part of ranching and always have been. This one is the worst I have ever seen in certain parts of MT but eventually it will rain, it always does, and the strong ranchers will come out of it perfectly fine just like they always have. The drought whiners I suspect have either gotten too comfortable and lazy with govt subsidies or are the very “out of state” ranchers that have never been there done this.

 

[Gerald Martin]

You are not correct.

So elk are the difference between profitability and bankruptcy?

 

[Dakotakid]

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.

 

[Gerald Martin]

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.

Who is telling landowners to suck it up? That statement is your own.

Also, agricultural production in these areas is a modern phenomenon as well. The fact that ranchers didn’t have competition from wildlife when great-great Granddad started running cattle is because the deer and elk were extirpated in the process of settlement.

Why should the historic anomaly of land use for the past 120 years be the end all of land use status?