Discuss Master Hunter programs here....

[Sytes]

Face value: Not a fan of the name... An instant turn off - Piss poor choice however getting over the title;

From my review, I greatly value landowner's collectively searching a means to open the public to their privately owned lands...

I value BMA's and appreciate private landowners enrolled however I'm personally involved with the flat out loss of access due to abuse by "entitled" public crap, so called hunters. Direct loss by landowner's who held every interest to provide hunting to the public - burned and off to the reverse... Outfitter leased.

If programs such as this preserve private landowners interest to open land to hunters who value and respect the owners property - 100% support this venue.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

Yesterday I connected with the lead instructor for the program and had a pretty wide ranging hour long conversation.

It's hard to explore the details of things via a forum, and I think it says a lot that someone like Everett is willing to take that kind of time to talk to a non-resident, who probably will never participate in the program.

I want to share some of my big take away's but I also want to qualify from the go that these take away's are partly my interpretation and maybe my misunderstand, I'm not quoting Everett or the website please don't interpret these comments as such.

First and foremost after our conversation, I see the program now as continued hunter education. If you won't want to learn more it's probably not for you, you are going to get what you put into it and if you think you know everything it's a waste of your time. The class is not for everyone. So I'm still consistent in my thinking that a lot of hunters will have to swallow their pride to participate and therefore wont want to do it, there is probably stuff in here for very seasoned hunters, but the class is probably going to appeal most to more recent additions to the hunting community.

Access is a benefit, but it's not the primary thrust of the program. There are a lot of people who did this class, and said they found it very valuable, (in Montana) who primarily hunt public. (according to the instructor)

My thinking has shift slightly, I think initially I was thinking the end goal was similar to the German Jagdschein, I now think the goal of the Montana program is to more to create a hunting ambassador, i.e., a competent hunter, that has spent time not only learning how to find stalk and kill animals, but also has spent time learning how to navigate and speak to the political hunting landscape in Montana. All western states have similar problems in bringing all the stake holders together, and it is important for hunters to understand the animal husbandry component of land use in order to help find a middle ground between hunters and landowners. This doesn't mean buddying up to landowners and advocating for their interests, but if more hunters understood the needs of landowners I think it would make it easier for us to create mutual beneficial solutions.

I think if I was helping design curriculum for the program I might include some class time in how to communicate to non-hunters about the efficacy of hunting, keeping the critters in check is not an effective rhetorical strategy IMHO, and giving hunters more effective arguments is valuable. For instance a conversation about food is a much better tactic.

----------------------------------

As for the access component, because I don't want to gloss over it at that is a huge part of this discussion that bit is tricky. Landowner do want hunters on their property, but they want responsible individuals. There are also public lands hunts that could happen... but individuals need to be very cognizant of politics and image and act with those in mind.

Colorado has chosen to tackle this problem in an adhoc manner here are two examples

If you want to hunt elk in boulder you have to attend and orientation class and a shooting proficiency class.

Ron Stewart Preserve at Rabbit Mountain Elk & Vegetation Management Plan

www.bouldercounty.org

If you draw a sheep tag for Waterton Canyon you can only hunt during the week and have to take an orientation class.


This is comparable to this MT hunt, https://www.hunttalk.com/threads/roundup-mt-urban-deer-hunt-live.294161/

Essentially these are two different strategies to achieve the same end, I prefer both to using hired shooters. To be honest I'm not sure which is more egalitarian, I do think hunters need more training to do any of these as there is huge potential to shoot holes in our boat. On the private side... I do like this program better than RFW, it's not monetizing wildlife which is my primary complaint with that system.

I still think that a program, a program that ties public land hunts or other hunting access to a class, needs to be made accessible to everyone, not just via the cost and actually allowing anyone who wants to participate, but actually marketing it in a way in which everybody feels like they can do it.

If you make it unintentionally exclude people because they feel like they don't have the ability to participate skills/money/time/scholastic aptitude you are still excluding people, but I understand it's a balancing act.
(A pure education class is a bit different... but if you are tying public resources to a class it needs to be available to everyone)

------------------------------

The person I talked first and foremost had their heart in the right place (IMHO) I feel comfortable saying that this organisation or at the very least individuals in the organisation are really trying to move the ball down the field and help hunters.

 

[JLS]

@wllm1313 good on you for taking the time to visit with him. I don’t doubt the sincerity of what they are trying to do, and I also realize they can’t necessarily make it accessible to all.

I am not in any way against continuing education. I had a great phone conversation with a member here last year about the same types of classes offered via county extension services, and still support it.

Some of you may think I have a weird hang up on titles and certifications, and I probably do. I don’t like an elitist class of hunters, and where this has the potential to take us down the road.

Like @onpoint said yesterday, the industry is strong, and I too fear what we are creating and have created as hunters in our attempt to recruit others to the sport. I have blood on my hands as well. But then again, others think I’m abrasive because I think it’s stupid to leave it up to hunters and communities to take care of poachers on their own, so WTH do I know.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

Some of you may think I have a weird hang up on titles and certifications, and I probably do. I don’t like an elitist class of hunters, and where this has the potential to take us down the road.

I think the logical counter argument is do you prefer corporate hunters doing culls, or the only people allowed on ranches being friends of the rancher?

To that end creating a system where anyone with the desire can put in the work to gain access is a pretty egalitarian idea. I mean you can't hunt period without a hunter's ed card, people don't seem to oppose bow hunter ed requirements etc.

I don't know the best solution... but I am open to the argument that this is an egalitarian solution. I do have some of the same worries you do, it's amazing how the best intentioned ideas can be bastardized. @Ben Lamb says that if he got all the infinity stones he would act as Thanos... but I have a sneaking suspicion he would just get rid of all hunters + anti hunters, leaving himself with a ton of opportunity and no one to oppose him making the most of it.

 

[TOGIE]

i mean, waterton canyon basically has 50x more girls running in sports bras than sheep - the orientation might almost be more for the hunters safety than anything else

but also, much of the land and initial access is denver water board and corps of engineer land

i feel a number of those orientations would be similar to this, in that, it's not straight up public land, you want to hunt the local government land or private property? do what it is they require. dont want to hunt land you could get access too via master hunter? don't. instead, go fix fences for a day on a different private property. there are choices, lots of private land, and a shit ton more public. i don't see the big deal. also, e.g. red mountain open space hunting in larimer county

i may get some of the hang ups with RFW in colorado, but i'm not sure i see the issue as it may relate to egalitarianism - it's private land...

 

[Deleted member 28227]

i may get some of the hang ups with RFW in colorado, but i'm not sure i see the issue as it may relate to egalitarianism - it's private land...

At it's most basic level it's monetizing wildlife. We (people of CO) allow you to sell our elk that are on your property for access for a small number of public hunters on your property.

 

[TOGIE]

At it's most basic level it's monetizing wildlife. We (people of CO) allow you to sell our elk that are on your property for access for a small number of public hunters on your property.

that, or zero hunters on the property right? unless you want to pay a 5 grand trespass?

seems to me that it's more of a bridge for private access to animals that we would otherwise not have access to, than a barrier. i mean, the cost of the tag doesn't change? maybe i'm missing where the wildlife are becoming monetized with RFW. to me that would be the vouchers

 

[JLS]

that, or zero hunters on the property right? unless you want to pay a 5 grand trespass?

seems to me that it's more of a bridge for private access to animals that we would otherwise not have access to, than a barrier. i mean, the cost of the tag doesn't change? maybe i'm missing where the wildlife are becoming monetized. to me that would be the vouchers

Except now, certification through a private company gains you access. Certifications that cost money.

 

[onpoint]

At it's most basic level it's monetizing wildlife. We (people of CO) allow you to sell our elk that are on your property for access for a small number of public hunters on your property.

Hmm, very interesting, wllm. I'll pull out the slippery slope argument. Maybe some will see the connection.
From the MontanaMasterHunter website FAQ's.....

Why are landowners allowed to charge a fee for access to their properties by certified MontanaMaster Hunters?
Although most of the properties enrolled in our program allow access for no charge, landowners may charge a nominal daily access fee in order to offset costs associated with hunter access on their properties. Our research to date has shown that many Montana hunters are willing to pay a nominal fee for hunting access and understand that there are costs associated with managing public hunting access for private landowners. Overall, the decision of whether or not to charge a nominal access fee will be left up to each individual landowner and will be specified in each property’s specific “ranch rules.”

I have nothing to gain by being concerned about this shit. There are folks on here that have as much hunting ahead of them as I have behind me. Intellectual Consistency's a bitch, right Lamb?........................

 

[TOGIE]

Except now, certification through a private company gains you access. Certifications that cost money.

trespass fees cost money to. so what's the difference in the end? this trespass fee just involves some class time.

 

[JLS]

trespass fees cost money to. so what's the difference in the end? this trespass fee just involves some class time.

You can lead a horse to water but you can’t make him drink. It’s a freaking wonderful program.

#halfassamateurhunter

 

[Deleted member 28227]

that, or zero hunters on the property right? unless you want to pay a 5 grand trespass?

seems to me that it's more of a bridge for private access to animals that we would otherwise not have access to, than a barrier. i mean, the cost of the tag doesn't change? maybe i'm missing where the wildlife are becoming monetized with RFW. to me that would be the vouchers

So under the current program 50 bighorn vouchers are sold/given/exchanged/allocated for the ranches to sell at their discretion for 50 individuals who have draw the tag to hunt the ranch. For Elk and Deer a ranch gets 9 bull licenses for every 1 bull + 10 cow hunters they allow on their property. (Over simplification to some extent)

https://cpw.state.co.us/Documents/Hunting/BigGame/Ranching/RFWGuidelines.pdf

 

[JLS]

While this is a private land program per se, the potential impacts to public land resources are huge.

 

[Irrelevant]

i mean, waterton canyon basically has 50x more girls running in sports bras than sheep

Wait, where is this?

 

[Ben Lamb]

Hmm, very interesting, wllm. I'll pull out the slippery slope argument. Maybe some will see the connection.
From the MontanaMasterHunter website FAQ's.....

Why are landowners allowed to charge a fee for access to their properties by certified MontanaMaster Hunters?
Although most of the properties enrolled in our program allow access for no charge, landowners may charge a nominal daily access fee in order to offset costs associated with hunter access on their properties. Our research to date has shown that many Montana hunters are willing to pay a nominal fee for hunting access and understand that there are costs associated with managing public hunting access for private landowners. Overall, the decision of whether or not to charge a nominal access fee will be left up to each individual landowner and will be specified in each property’s specific “ranch rules.”

I have nothing to gain by being concerned about this shit. There are folks on here that have as much hunting ahead of them as I have behind me. Intellectual Consistency's a bitch, right Lamb?........................

It is a bitch!

And I'm the first to admit I fall short of my goals & make the cardinal sin of not always being intellectually consistent.

However, we pay up to $15,000 per landowner for Block Mgt. We pay millions for conservaton easements with access requirements and we pay hundreds of thousands of dollars for fishing access site leases, access corridor easements, etc. We may use different semantic devices to tell ourselves that we're not paying for access - but we're paying for access. And those are all awesome programs that have great oversight of sportsmen dollars by watchdog organizations and by the Fish & Wildlife Commission. SO again, we're ok with that, but not a private entity trying something new.

I share the concern that any program could be turned and burned for special interests. That's the biggest issue with a participatory democracy - YOU HAVE TO PARTICIPATE!

Transferable tags routinely get floated at the legislature. We routinely crater those proposals and offer alternatives, like the expanded 454 program, PAL Act, etc. The Master Hunter program isn't for everyone, but it's a good faith attempt to get to a solution for an issue that sportsmen routinely say needs to be addressed. At the end of the day, it's a private effort, and if you don't like it, don't do it.

Just like leasing rights for hunting, outfitter leasing, charging tresspass fees, etc - it's a landowner's right to control who uses their land, and how that land is accessed. I am hugely thankful that Montana has a lot of landowners who enroll in the public programs that help sustain our blue-collar heritage of hunting. I also appreciate the NGO's out there looking for creative ways to increase access to hunting on lands that currently are off limits.


And @wllm1313 - the snap would leave a 2010 era Scarlett Johannsen behind as well. But the rest of you SOB's are toast.

 

[onpoint]

jagetchyerelk?
.......................................................................................................................................

 

[Ben Lamb]

jagetchyerelk?
.......................................................................................................................................

Nope. And I gotta wait until next October to try again, because shoulder seasons are a bad idea & I won't participate in them.

 

[JLS]

We may use different semantic devices to tell ourselves that we're not paying for access - but we're paying for access.

Certainly we are paying for access. With equal opportunity for all without a select few "screening" who shall be anointed.

At the end of the day, it's a private effort, and if you don't like it, don't do it.

It's also a free country, and I'll continue to speak my mind in hopes of preventing a future I don't like.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Certainly we are paying for access. With equal opportunity for all without a select few "screening" who shall be anointed.



It's also a free country, and I'll continue to speak my mind in hopes of preventing a future I don't like.

Neither of these points are in dispute.

 

[onpoint]

Ben,
Maybe once you get your new and exciting paid position with that new NGO, all in the interest of preserving and advancing the NAM, those cow elk will be much closer in reach................................