Calling all (Sportsmen) Ranchers, and or Landowners!

[shoots-straight]

OK, it was to hard for anyone over on the other thread to get past the subsidy, grazing public land issue..

So I thought Id start a new thread to discuss other issues the Ranching community has helped cause.

These walls are going to get tougher to bring down, if we don't' find some middle ground here. That last post showed how big the differences are.

Right now, the Ranching community has dictated to us, how many elk we can have and where those elk can live. Some of it is really ridiculous.

The East Fork of the Root, has a Elk objective of 3000-3600 head of elk. That's wintering counts. Elk migrate there because of the warm climate, lack of snow, and large amounts of winter range. Way under utilized IMO.


Do you feel we have enough elk in the state of Montana? Should HB 42 that became law in 2003 apply to areas with lots of winter range. The Missouri Breaks northern region had over 4,000 elk in 2005 or 6. Now that herd is half that, and headed even lower. There's no wolves there, so you can't blame them. The objective levels are set at 1700-2000 there. Right now, they (MTFW&P's) have to keep the pedal down on the gas and kill more elk. Even though that region has good winter range.

In your opinion should we increase elk numbers, leave the plan alone, or go in another direction?

Some places even if we wanted too, raising elk numbers is going to be a problem.

Do you fellas understand what "Ranching For Wildlife" is? If yes then do you support it?

Do you feel the state owns enough land, and that there should be no net gain in said land?

Do you fellas believe in our stream access laws? How do you feel about fisherman walking up the creeks and rivers that flow through your lands?

Should a land owner be able to lock off a road that was historically used as public access?

I'd like to know where my fellow sportsman, landowner sits on a few of these issues.

I think most regular sportsman would like to work with the Ag community on these issues so we could get past the arguments. So, I'd like to hear what you think, and if you have any suggestions for compromise.

 

[bjtc_brian]

Do you feel we have enough elk in the state of Montana?

No, I feel as though there are areas of the state that have been decimated. The bitterroot for one.

In your opinion should we increase elk numbers, leave the plan alone, or go in another direction?

We have to go in a different direction. And truthfully, I think the plan should be more fluid than the one we have. There are many more factors in this type of decision to think that a 10 year plan will work. New factors come in every day. We saw this with the wolves coming in. Say next week the wolves decide to hightail it out of the state(I wish), should the plan stay the same? I think this plan needs to start from complete scratch.

On a side note to this also. Unfortunately the yester-years are gone. The days of being able to drive down a road and fill every tag in your pocket are over. Our numbers will never again be like they were in the past. For many reasons, more people, more predators, etc.

On top of that, the plan is nowhere near making both sides remotely happy. I think point right there should tell people it needs to change. We all have to live in this world together.

Do you fellas understand what "Ranching For Wildlife" is? If yes then do you support it?

Nope, I do not know about it.

Do you feel the state owns enough land, and that there should be no net gain in said land?

Undecided. I am all for having more public grounds to hunt on. But what is the expense(both politically and monetarily). Do I think the state should institue eminant domain and start taking land. Aboslutely not. If someone wants to donate their land, I am all for it. If someone wants to sell their land, I am all for it. Yes, I would much rather see a ranch continue on and keep producing, but it is the landowners choice of what to do with it.

Do you fellas believe in our stream access laws? How do you feel about fisherman walking up the creeks and rivers that flow through your lands?

This is a very tricky one for me. I understand the issue, but I know how people can abuse someone elses property(not just land and not just private). There is a lot more to this than just someone walking up the stream.

Should a land owner be able to lock off a road that was historically used as public access?

I am assuming that there are no right of ways involved. Just a landowner used to let people drive through his private property and now he doesn't. I think the landowner should be able to do(for the most part) what he wants with his land. If the public ground was bought for the public to access it, than that should have been part of the deal. Or they should work on making that part of the deal.

 

[shoots-straight]

I'll clarify the last question:

Should a land owner be able to lock off a road, that has been previously considered a public road, right of way, or prescriptive easement?

 

[bjtc_brian]

I'll clarify the last question:

Should a land owner be able to lock off a road, that has been previously considered a public road, right of way, or prescriptive easement?

Is that even legal for a landowner to do? Now, that isn't to say that easments and right of ways will alwasy be there. The landowner could have made a deal to remove it in some way. But then I guess it is back to private ground. So I guess I would say no, I definitely am not for the landowner locking down public acess points.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Is that even legal for a landowner to do? Now, that isn't to say that easments and right of ways will alwasy be there. The landowner could have made a deal to remove it in some way. But then I guess it is back to private ground. So I guess I would say no, I definitely am not for the landowner locking down public acess points.

Yes, it is illegal, but the burden of proof is put on the County rather than the person trying to close a road. There was a bill last session to correct this, but it was killed in Committee under some strange circumstances.

 

[6speed]

This should be interesting. After all the one side against the other in the grazing thread it may be nice to see how many agree on these issues. I'm not from Montana but I will do my best.

Do you feel we have enough elk in the state of Montana? Should HB 42 that became law in 2003 apply to areas with lots of winter range. The Missouri Breaks northern region had over 4,000 elk in 2005 or 6. Now that herd is half that, and headed even lower. There's no wolves there, so you can't blame them. The objective levels are set at 1700-2000 there. Right now, they (MTFW&P's) have to keep the pedal down on the gas and kill more elk. Even though that region has good winter range.

No I don't feel we have enough elk anywhere (except on the highway between mile post 160 and 175)

In your opinion should we increase elk numbers, leave the plan alone, or go in another direction?

Increase elk numbers.

Some places even if we wanted too, raising elk numbers is going to be a problem.

Why would we not want to?

Do you fellas understand what "Ranching For Wildlife" is? If yes then do you support it?

Nope perhaps you could explain it and I will answer if I support it after you do?

Do you feel the state owns enough land, and that there should be no net gain in said land?

That's a tough one. If your state is like mine and the legislature is pushing to sell state land to private ownership then I would have to say the state has too much.

Do you fellas believe in our stream access laws? How do you feel about fisherman walking up the creeks and rivers that flow through your lands?

It's my understanding that the public right of way is from high water mark to high water mark as it is in Idaho if that's not the case then it should be. I know Utah hosed their fishermen by making some sort of "only if you can float there" law but I guess I'm not sure if Montana has such a law or not.

Should a land owner be able to lock off a road that was historically used as public access?

No. The Carole King incident comes to mind.

 

[shoots-straight]

"Ranching For Wildlife" is a system where tags are given to landowners, and they are transferable. Meaning, you can sell them. You have to have a min amount of land to enroll. I believe that the landowner must allow some public hunting. It usually results in cows for the local hunters.

In Colorado the landowner usually turns the reins over to a outfitting business. They sell the hunts, I believe they can take place from archery season through the end of rifle, and you can use any weapon on that land you want. You can rifle hunt in the archery season if the landowner wishes it.

IMO, its the privatization of our public resource. This is one of the goals,of the MSGA I believe, when the bill was passed in 2003. HB 42. The gal that wrote the bill still has a large herd of elk on her land, where as the rest of the HD around her has taken a huge hit.

 

[bjtc_brian]

"Ranching For Wildlife" is a system where tags are given to landowners, and they are transferable. Meaning, you can sell them. You have to have a min amount of land to enroll. I believe that the landowner must allow some public hunting. It usually results in cows for the local hunters.

In Colorado the landowner usually turns the reins over to a outfitting business. They sell the hunts, I believe they can take place from archery season through the end of rifle, and you can use any weapon on that land you want. You can rifle hunt in the archery season if the landowner wishes it.

IMO, its the privatization of our public resource. This is one of the goals, I believe, with the bill that was passed in 2003 by the MSGA. HB 42. The gal that wrote the bill still has a large herd of elk on her land, where as the rest of the HD around her has taken a huge hit.

Oh, this is what they are doing/trying to do in the Breaks? I disagree with this completely. If a landowner wants to be an outfitter, get their outfitting license and do it the same way as everyone else. I think there are much better ways that sportsman and ranching/farming communities to do this. I think BM is a much much better program and just needs to be expanded upon. For one, people breaking the rules need to be punished so that the landowners don't turn away from the program.

 

[6speed]

"Ranching For Wildlife" is a system where tags are given to landowners, and they are transferable. Meaning, you can sell them. You have to have a min amount of land to enroll. I believe that the landowner must allow some public hunting. It usually results in cows for the local hunters.

In Colorado the landowner usually turns the reins over to a outfitting business. They sell the hunts, I believe they can take place from archery season through the end of rifle, and you can use any weapon on that land you want. You can rifle hunt in the archery season if the landowner wishes it.

IMO, its the privatization of our public resource. This is one of the goals,of the MSGA I believe, when the bill was passed in 2003. HB 42. The gal that wrote the bill still has a large herd of elk on her land, where as the rest of the HD around her has taken a huge hit.

In Idaho that was known as S1282 and S1283 this legislative session. I have never written every member of the legislature until this year. These 2 bills were the catalyst. I'm most definitely against privatizing our tags to generate a profit for a private citizen or so called sportsmen group for that matter.

 

[Summitthunting]

Here is the link to the CO DOW Ranching for Wildlife page.

http://wildlife.state.co.us/HUNTING/BIGGAME/RANCHINGFORWILDLIFE/Pages/RFW.aspx

 

[belly-deep]

"Ranching For Wildlife" is a system where tags are given to landowners, and they are transferable. Meaning, you can sell them. You have to have a min amount of land to enroll. I believe that the landowner must allow some public hunting. It usually results in cows for the local hunters.

In Colorado the landowner usually turns the reins over to a outfitting business. They sell the hunts, I believe they can take place from archery season through the end of rifle, and you can use any weapon on that land you want. You can rifle hunt in the archery season if the landowner wishes it.

IMO, its the privatization of our public resource. This is one of the goals,of the MSGA I believe, when the bill was passed in 2003. HB 42. The gal that wrote the bill still has a large herd of elk on her land, where as the rest of the HD around her has taken a huge hit.

Don't we already have that, in essence?

What is the difference between RFW and Turner's leased out ranch in the Spanish Peaks, or any other lease ranch?

At least the RFW gives the FWP a little leverage to get local cow hunters on. And it creates a little pressure on the elk inside of the sanctuary ranches.

I'm not in support of RFW because I don't know much about it, but from what you say, I see little difference.

 

[Straight Arrow]

Big difference is that in Montana all licenses and permits are acquired directly from FWP, to include any for hunting on outfitted ranches like Turner's Flying D.

RFW in Colorado is hugely different in that the tags are given to the owner, the ranch itself to sell to the hunters. Although there are stipulations regarding public hunting and such, the latitude given the ranch is large in scope. Even if it does result in some internal pressure, I still don't like the private for profit sector being given hunting tags to sell. Much like our heretofore Outfitter Sponsored tag system, it establishes an unhealthy relationship between an industry and a state agency, in my opinion.

Incidently, Turner's Flying D Ranch is adjacent to the Spanish Peaks. And actually, Turner does not lease out his ranch. The outfitter works for the ranch. The ranch sets the prices, rules, numbers of hunters, locations of hunts, and everything else.

 

[belly-deep]

Big difference is that in Montana all licenses and permits are acquired directly from FWP, to include any for hunting on outfitted ranches like Turner's Flying D.

RFW in Colorado is hugely different in that the tags are given to the owner, the ranch itself to sell to the hunters. Although there are stipulations regarding public hunting and such, the latitude given the ranch is large in scope. Even if it does result in some internal pressure, I still don't like the private for profit sector being given hunting tags to sell. Much like our heretofore Outfitter Sponsored tag system, it establishes an unhealthy relationship between an industry and a state agency, in my opinion.

Incidently, Turner's Flying D Ranch is adjacent to the Spanish Peaks. And actually, Turner does not lease out his ranch. The outfitter works for the ranch. The ranch sets the prices, rules, numbers of hunters, locations of hunts, and everything else.

Right, but its nearly the same result, itsn't it? Doesn't the public wind up with big ranches shutting off access and charging high prices to hunt either way? And aren't we moving towards that with what groups are pushing for in the breaks?

 

[Straight Arrow]

Nope, big differences. Not sure what you are referring to in the Breaks. ???

 

[shoots-straight]

Most of you know that HB 42 that became law in 2003, IMO, was responsible for the Slaughters that have taken place across this state. Turning what once was great hunting areas into over ran race tracks, of orange clad hunters racing to get to the elk before any others. I think this legislation has turned out to be even worse for our big game herds than wolves, lion, and bears all together. We need to amend or repeal this law, or live with less elk. That will mean, permits in most of our state before long. The supply will out pace the demand in short order. We have a increase in hunters, and a decrease in elk. At some point we cross over, to a way of life similar to other states.

Some places even if we wanted too, raising elk numbers is going to be a problem.

What I meant by this, is once we reduced the elk populations in areas of heavy predation, we passed the point of raising elk. We just left to many predators with respect to elk numbers. HD250 is one of these areas. I'm not sure we will ever return that area back to where it was. So even though its mostly public lands, we won't gain elk numbers there to offset the demand for more elk.

RFW, one of my utmost favorites. Unless you can show me how to regulate this so it benefits the Montana resident sportsman, and regulate the he$$ out of it. I will fight this one to my grave.

Do you feel the state owns enough land, and that there should be no net gain in said land?

There are lands, that don't produce much in many areas of this state. Farmers and ranchers are trying to make these marginal lands pay, but it's futile. It would have been far cheaper to purchase these lands back years ago than continue to pay a subsidy to keep it in production. Some lands don't even produce enough to pay for the seed but have been farmed for decades. These types of lands would be better suited to be in the hands of the state and utilized for recreational, and wildlife purposes. There are some really great ranches that are wildlife rich, that are also working cattle ranches, that could be state owned, kept in production, and kept that way for future generations. Taxes would still be paid by the state to those counties, and we (hunters would have more lands to access) Especially in sensitive areas like winter ranges, that are being threatened by development.

Do you fellas believe in our stream access laws? How do you feel about fisherman walking up the creeks and rivers that flow through your lands?

Without a doubt one of things that makes Montana, special. When I was a kid growing up in the Root. It seemed like I fished every day in the summer months back then. We went wherever we wanted, crossed any field we wanted, and had no problems with anyone that owned the lands. If we ran into the local rancher he generally would ask how fishing was, and if would would return to kill some gophers.

I will go back over to Helena next fall, and fight to keep this part of our Montana heritage. I encourage all of you who feel Montana is a special place to do the same. The legislation is being drawn up as I write this to gut access to our rivers and streams. What will our legacy be that we pass on to our children?

Should a land owner be able to lock off a road that was historically used as public access?

Absolutely not, the first transplants to the Root that I met did this. A guy from Texas, showed up in 1977, bought a piece of land right up against the Calf Creek Wildlife Management areas. Back then you could use the state owned wintering range area year around. Anyway, he put a green gate across the road leading to the winter range. I was headed with a buddy to go shoot some critters, I got out and opened this brand new green gate, only to be met by this strange talking fella, cussing, and yelling at me. Long story short, he opened that gate the next day, because a sheriff showed up and forced him too. After that incident I have been a strong advocate against this type of access loss. We have some on going issues in the Root right now, with these exact types of land, described in the question.

I'd like to hear from the biggest antagonists that show up on this site every time the words 'Welfare Rancher" is used.

Shooter, care to educate us on some of these issues?

Sweetnectar? There must be some different view points.

jmcd? You always have lots to say.

There's others, I'd like to hear your side. I know there is one, or why else do we have to go to battle every other year.

It would be nice to see how you fellas feel on some big sportsman's issues that are coming our way.

 

[bjtc_brian]

Surprise, surprise, I have a couple of comments.

There are lands, that don't produce much in many areas of this state. Farmers and ranchers are trying to make these marginal lands pay, but it's futile. It would have been far cheaper to purchase these lands back years ago than continue to pay a subsidy to keep it in production. Some lands don't even produce enough to pay for the seed but have been farmed for decades. These types of lands would be better suited to be in the hands of the state and utilized for recreational, and wildlife purposes. There are some really great ranches that are wildlife rich, that are also working cattle ranches, that could be state owned, kept in production, and kept that way for future generations. Taxes would still be paid by the state to those counties, and we (hunters would have more lands to access) Especially in sensitive areas like winter ranges, that are being threatened by development.

I was going to post this earlier in the other thread and got side tracked. If you guys are seeing the kind of devastion to these public lands from farmers and ranchers not doing their job, you need to report them to the managing agency. These guys can and have lost their permits due to this. Now that doesn't mean go out and start complaining about every single landowner with public permits, or this is will be a useless tool. One of our neighbors has had his permits threatened just for consistently being a couple weeks late in his rotations. And what he was doing was by no means making it look like the moon.

Without a doubt one of things that makes Montana, special. When I was a kid growing up in the Root. It seemed like I fished every day in the summer months back then. We went wherever we wanted, crossed any field we wanted, and had no problems with anyone that owned the lands. If we ran into the local rancher he generally would ask how fishing was, and if would would return to kill some gophers.

I think most farmers and ranchers(especially ones that have had their land passed on for generations) would love for this to be the case too. Problem is that kids and grown ups do not have the respect that you had when you were a kid. You wouldn't have left candy wrappers in any places. Or been damming up the streams so they don't go into irrigation ditches. Or riding your motorcycle across the property tearing up the ground. And I know that not everyone is this and I am not trying to stereotype people. That drives me nuts cause it happens to me a lot. And yes, I know this is the same thing that happens to ranchers, one rancher is an ass, and they all get tagged as asses. But, too many landowners have been burned by this, including my folks. We used to let gopher hunters on, until someone decided to fill one of our cattle full of lead. Now it is limited as to who gets to hunt(ha ha), shoot gophers. "Back when" this wouldn't have happened. For one, if your father found out it was you....look out. Nowadays, parents would stick up for their kids doing something like this.

I also would like to see some of the other guys that are more on the road of SS respond to this. BuzzH, Jose, others? I think this thread has the potential to show we really aren't that far off from our thinking, and a lot less bitchy. Now, I could be wrong on that last part. Now I know everyone saw what SS and I got into on the other thread, look how close our answers are. And I am going to commend SS for trying to do this in a sensible manner.

 

[BuzzH]

I aint skeered to answer the questions...

Do you feel we have enough elk in the state of Montana?

Absolutely not. The elk habitat in Montana is in excellent condition over-all. The MTFWP claims we have 140,000ish elk in the state. I'm of the opinion that 200,000-230,000 is a more realistic number based on habitat. I still dont think with even that many elk MT would be close to carrying capacity. I think thats a realistic goal that will not negatively impact the available habitat.

In your opinion should we increase elk numbers, leave the plan alone, or go in another direction?

Definately increase elk numbers, this time, base the elk objectives for each herd more on biology and a LOT less on social and economic reasons (like was done the first time). Give ranching/ag interests a seat at the table...rather than the keys to the kingdom. Repeal HB42 immediately and revisit the EMP, both have to be done.

Do you fellas understand what "Ranching For Wildlife" is? If yes then do you support it?

Yes, I understand it. Its another welfare program sold to the public as an "access" program in some neighboring states. What it really is...another form of privatizing the publics wildlife, where those with the most money get the tags, largely set their hunt dates, increase outfitter numbers, etc. The "good deal" the DIY Residents get is the long odds of maybe someday getting one of the few public tags the RFW program throws their way. The Average-joe DIY NR hunters get a lesson in pissing backwards. They dont have the funds to pay for a guided hunt on the RFW properties, and they arent allowed to apply for the public tags. To go one step further, even public lands within the boundaries of a RFW property are off limits to those with a permit good for the entire area.

How anyone that believes in the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation could support this type of crap is a complete mystery. You guessed it, I'm not a fan in any way, shape, or form.

Do you feel the state owns enough land, and that there should be no net gain in said land?

No. There are many crucial pieces of property that should be purchased or owned by the states. If hunters are willing to foot the bill for said property, dont see anything but a win/win. In particular if said properties can be managed by the states to increase funding for the School Trust.

Do you fellas believe in our stream access laws? How do you feel about fisherman walking up the creeks and rivers that flow through your lands?

Huge fan of stream access laws and any others that increase public access to public lands. I hear the constant whining and bitching from landowners that stream access laws decrease property values and that fishermen are littering, blah, blah, blah. All largely a bunch of BS perpetuated by a cranky bunch of landowners that are pissed because they cant control the states fisheries.

Should a land owner be able to lock off a road that was historically used as public access?

No, they shouldnt be allowed to on roads that have historic public access. This one gets side-tracked and out in the weeds pretty quickly. Mainly because if there isnt written easements, the good old days of shaking hands on easements, is pretty tough to prove in court. It can be done, but, its time consuming, expensive, and largely up to a judge to decide. Better route to take would be to work up NEW long-term easements between agencies and landowners where possible and applicable.

 

[sagebrush]

I don't live in MT or hunt in MT so I have no dog in this fight. My opinion on Ranching for Wildlife it is not in the best interests of wildlife or hunters. Landowners start ranching the wildlife, attracting it from the surrounding public land. In NM, some landowners have an elk round-up, driving the elk from public onto their ranch to drive up the price they can get for their tags while John Q watches the "hunts" from outside the fence. If landowners need compensation, pay them cash in exchange for public access and agreement to manage all of the habitat equally, private and public.

 

[Straight Arrow]

"Do you feel the state owns enough land, and that there should be no net gain in said land?"

It's important to point out the largest threat to wildlife in the west is the continuous loss of habitat to development. The health and welfare of wildlife is entrusted to the state, so acquisition and maintenance of habitat is critical, but does not even come close to offsetting the constant losses of habitat and migration corridors over the past few decades.
In Montana and other states where the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation has acquired important habitat and turned it over to the USFS or BLM as public land this, together with the lesser state acquisitions, has proved to be key to survival of many herds of elk and other wildlife. In other areas it has made reintroduction of elk into historical elk habitat possible.

 

[shoots-straight]

"Do you feel the state owns enough land, and that there should be no net gain in said land?"

It's important to point out the largest threat to wildlife in the west is the continuous loss of habitat to development. The health and welfare of wildlife is entrusted to the state, so acquisition and maintenance of habitat is critical, but does not even come close to offsetting the constant losses of habitat and migration corridors over the past few decades.
In Montana and other states where the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation has acquired important habitat and turned it over to the USFS or BLM as public land this, together with the lesser state acquisitions, has proved to be key to survival of many herds of elk and other wildlife. In other areas it has made reintroduction of elk into historical elk habitat possible.

Excellent point. Lots of times it's lands like those Plum Creek was wanting to unload. Had we been unable to accept a positive gain in state lands, 10's of thousands of acres of land would have been sold to private individuals. More harboring elk, more development. etc.