Elk Camp At the Capitol - January 24th 2023

[Schaaf]

And to celebrate, Shaaf is busting open his recently restocked supply of canned oysters. Hit him up if you'd like some.

My fancy ones are expensive. I give out one (1) bite size sample.

 

[MThuntr]

I'm pretty mad I could make it. I had intentions but my truck's dash decided it wanted to light up like a Christmas Tree on Monday and I'm still fighting with troubleshooting errors.

 

[Nameless Range]

Something said at the event that caught my ear, I believe by Dusty Crary, was in reference to mule deer. There was certainly a recognition of the divisions of contingents who care about elk - landowners, outfitters, and The Hunting Public. These divisions were explicitly described by more than one speaker. At one point during his portion of the speech, he said something like, "And outfitters are with you all on mule deer. We are very concerned."

Not about elk, but it just goes to show that topics that only a few years ago were essentially silent, are now at the forefront. Doesn't necessarily mean anything good will come of it, but it is what one would want to hear if they were hopeful for change.

 

[Eric Albus]

It's both. What wev've seen is that in the last decade, the B8 sales have doubled to around 11-12K licenses under a fairly open OTC regime. We're also seeing NR's spending more time hunting, leading to a big increase in hunter days.

The thought is to save the anterless harvest for residents, while still allowing opportunity for NR's, but on a more economical scale. This will reduce hunting pressure on public land, be essentially budget neutral and help with restoring mule deer populations. It also allows for the commission to make some changes based on the biology and population controls needed for whitetail in river bottoms, etc.

Fact is, an elk doesn't know if you're chasing a doe or a them.

Ben,
Great job with the explanation, and all the heavy lifting and bridge building. It’ll surprise a lot of folks to learn, we(outfitters/sportsmen) have more in common than not.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Ben,
Great job with the explanation, and all the heavy lifting and bridge building. It’ll surprise a lot of folks to learn, we(outfitters/sportsmen) have more in common than not.

It's been great working with you, Mark & Dusty, Eric. I deeply appreciate the open dialog and honest intent that's gone in to this from everyone.

Let's keep it moving forward.

 

[Mtn-time]

LC1956 In Draft ready for Delivery - https://leg.mt.gov/bills/2023/billpdf/LC1956.pdf

REVISING COUNTY ROAD ACCESS LAWS

NEW SECTION. Section 2. Prohibition against abandoning, vacating, or encroaching county road used to access public lands. A county road that is used to access public lands may not be abandoned, vacated, or closed using any type of encroachment, including a gate, fence, building, or other structure.​

This may be deserving of its own post and discussion, but i find it worth contacting your local legislature for support to protect existing public access routes.

 

[Wind Gypsy]

See the attached PDF. We are still drafting, but have a group of bi-partisan legislators ready to introduce them once finished. They should be introduced by next week.

SB 58 & HB 243 are already introduced and are making their way through the process.

Great work folks! Thank you!

 

[shoots-straight]

Ben,
Great job with the explanation, and all the heavy lifting and bridge building. It’ll surprise a lot of folks to learn, we(outfitters/sportsmen) have more in common than not.

I too believe this, BUT the representatives of the Outfitters rarely show up when we fight for the resource. This group is the first that I've witnessed.

Mule Deer next?

When we (Ravalli County Fish & Wildlife ass.) pushed to go to the (now famous) limited mule deer permits for the areas around the Root, the Outfitters were our biggest detractors. They wanted their clients to have access to a potential forky no matter what. My hope is that has changed.

I know many outfitters have benefited by the permits as they have had clients that drew and wanted the hunt outfitted so they got the biggest deer possible.

 

[Mtnhunter1]

Montana Citizens’ Elk Management Coalition: ‘Elk Camp at the Capitol’, Elk Camp is a celebration of Montana’s exceptional outdoor legacy and an opportunity for hunters and anglers to discuss wildlife and habitat policy with lawmakers ,The Coalition has been active this past year working to improve the status-quo of elk management,,,,

1) NR Landowner preference to have up to 15% of the NR B10 allocated licenses. The licenses can only be used on private or privately leased lands.

2) Landowner preference reform to allow these licenses to be used on all private lands within the district issued.

3) 454 clarification to allow all lineal family members, their spouses and any full time employee a license. The first issued license will a "bull for a bull' to allow a public hunter to pursue on the landowners properties. The public cow hunting opportunities will be left up to the landowner going forward.

4) Increase the trespass fines for hunters and create a "Trespass Conviction List" for landowners so that they can deny access to those names on the list.

5) Mandatory in-person field days for MT Hunter Ed and create a study bill for "Enhanced Hunter Ed"........ Master Hunter Program possibly?

6) Limit all NR B10 and B11 holders to only (2) extra B8 doe tags and limit all other NR hunters to (1) B8 doe tag.

7) Double the "MAX" pay cap to the landowners that are enlisted in the Block Management Program that have reached that cap historically.

Now I did not attend but could someone smarter than me explain how these proposals help further Montana's elk management? If someone could also explain how the MOGO members helped with drafting these proposals?

Thanks in advance.

Mtnhunter1

 

[Mtnhunter1]

Since my above questions went unanswered I'll bump this to the top and poke @Ben Lamb for the info.

(Montana Citizens’ Elk Management Coalition: "The Coalition has been active this past year working to improve the status-quo of elk management.")

Question: Ben, has the Montana Citizens’ Elk Management Coalition worked on anything that would improve the elk management on Montana's vast public lands? If so, can you explain?

My view to the seven items that will be pushed forward are: #1=Landowner Concession, #2=Landowner Concession, #3=Landowner Concession, #4=Landowner Concession, #5 The in person field day is good but if the "Enhanced Hunter Ed" equates to Master Hunter Program well=Landowner Concessions, #6=Limiting the NR B8 to allow the MT resident hunter more opportunity to shoot the does? I guess that I will hold my tongue on this one! #7=Landowner Concessions.

I am failing to see how the majority of these pushed forward issues are nothing more than the status-quo, but then again, I could be wrong thus the questions!

Thanks in advance.

Mtnhunter1

 

[Ben Lamb]

Since my above questions went unanswered I'll bump this to the top and poke @Ben Lamb for the info.

(Montana Citizens’ Elk Management Coalition: "The Coalition has been active this past year working to improve the status-quo of elk management.")

Question: Ben, has the Montana Citizens’ Elk Management Coalition worked on anything that would improve the elk management on Montana's vast public lands? If so, can you explain?

My view to the seven items that will be pushed forward are: #1=Landowner Concession, #2=Landowner Concession, #3=Landowner Concession, #4=Landowner Concession, #5 The in person field day is good but if the "Enhanced Hunter Ed" equates to Master Hunter Program well=Landowner Concessions, #6=Limiting the NR B8 to allow the MT resident hunter more opportunity to shoot the does? I guess that I will hold my tongue on this one! #7=Landowner Concessions.

I am failing to see how the majority of these pushed forward issues are nothing more than the status-quo, but then again, I could be wrong thus the questions!

Thanks in advance.

Mtnhunter1

1.) This would remove up to 2550 NR b10's from public land use while still charging the landowner full price & not providing a permit. It would also incentive access by offering a bonus points to landowners who enroll in a state sponsored access program and these licenses would limited to their own private land. I think that's a good step forward in reducing pressure on public ground & increasing access to inaccessible public land.

2.) Increases acreage for landowners to 1280 acres (with commission authority to change based on actual usage) and limits landowners to private land in the district. This is a tightening of the current system & will reduce public land hunting pressure.

3.) This will create parity between the 1st hunter & the permit holder. Bull for bull, with the commission having more authority to negotiate for higher numbers of hunters relative to each application. The applications will be filed at the regional level from now on, so as to encourage a closer working relationship with landowners & fwp staff.

4.) The B8 reduction is to get a handle on nr antlerless harvest. That has grown over 100% in the last decade. It should result in about 20,000 Hunter days of use on public & private land. Resident antlerless opportunity is a commission decision & I suspect we will see a reduction in resident antlerless harvest in the next round of season setting.

5.) The study bill is about providing better education to those who need it & reducing the barrier to entry into the program. I don't see how this is a landowner concession unless your view is that hunter ethics are unnecessary.

6.) Rasing the cap on block means more acres open and better hunter distribution. It makes block management competitive to leasing.

In the aggregate, we're looking at reducing crowding on public land, reforming landowner incentive programs, providing better incentives for access & increasing hunter success.

This isn't the end-all of the effort, btw. Season setting, new rules for these bills, etc all have to be done. Block management rules and regs especially will have to be worked on.

 

[Mtnhunter1]

1.) This would remove up to 2550 NR b10's from public land use while still charging the landowner full price & not providing a permit. It would also incentive access by offering a bonus points to landowners who enroll in a state sponsored access program and these licenses would limited to their own private land. I think that's a good step forward in reducing pressure on public ground & increasing access to inaccessible public land.

2.) Increases acreage for landowners to 1280 acres (with commission authority to change based on actual usage) and limits landowners to private land in the district. This is a tightening of the current system & will reduce public land hunting pressure.

3.) This will create parity between the 1st hunter & the permit holder. Bull for bull, with the commission having more authority to negotiate for higher numbers of hunters relative to each application. The applications will be filed at the regional level from now on, so as to encourage a closer working relationship with landowners & fwp staff.

4.) The B8 reduction is to get a handle on nr antlerless harvest. That has grown over 100% in the last decade. It should result in about 20,000 Hunter days of use on public & private land. Resident antlerless opportunity is a commission decision & I suspect we will see a reduction in resident antlerless harvest in the next round of season setting.

5.) The study bill is about providing better education to those who need it & reducing the barrier to entry into the program. I don't see how this is a landowner concession unless your view is that hunter ethics are unnecessary.

6.) Rasing the cap on block means more acres open and better hunter distribution. It makes block management competitive to leasing.

In the aggregate, we're looking at reducing crowding on public land, reforming landowner incentive programs, providing better incentives for access & increasing hunter success.

This isn't the end-all of the effort, btw. Season setting, new rules for these bills, etc all have to be done. Block management rules and regs especially will have to be worked on.

Thank you for the clarification....and thank you for fighting the good fight.

 

[Deleted member 48080]

A quote from Ben Lamb in another thread-

In the instance of the MT Program, it's important to note a couple of things:

1.) This is a private entity doing this program, not the state. One Montana is a good group that looks to bridge urban/rural divides. Their program does not mean that the state of MT - the legal entity in charge of managing our hunting opportunity - is giving anyone special preference in terms of access or creating a higher class of hunters. Being private, it's not much different than hunters who look down on other hunters for using one brand of camo versus the others.

 

[Labman]

1.) This would remove up to 2550 NR b10's from public land use while still charging the landowner full price & not providing a permit. It would also incentive access by offering a bonus points to landowners who enroll in a state sponsored access program and these licenses would limited to their own private land. I think that's a good step forward in reducing pressure on public ground & increasing access to inaccessible public land.

2.) Increases acreage for landowners to 1280 acres (with commission authority to change based on actual usage) and limits landowners to private land in the district. This is a tightening of the current system & will reduce public land hunting pressure.

3.) This will create parity between the 1st hunter & the permit holder. Bull for bull, with the commission having more authority to negotiate for higher numbers of hunters relative to each application. The applications will be filed at the regional level from now on, so as to encourage a closer working relationship with landowners & fwp staff.

4.) The B8 reduction is to get a handle on nr antlerless harvest. That has grown over 100% in the last decade. It should result in about 20,000 Hunter days of use on public & private land. Resident antlerless opportunity is a commission decision & I suspect we will see a reduction in resident antlerless harvest in the next round of season setting.

5.) The study bill is about providing better education to those who need it & reducing the barrier to entry into the program. I don't see how this is a landowner concession unless your view is that hunter ethics are unnecessary.

6.) Rasing the cap on block means more acres open and better hunter distribution. It makes block management competitive to leasing.

In the aggregate, we're looking at reducing crowding on public land, reforming landowner incentive programs, providing better incentives for access & increasing hunter success.

This isn't the end-all of the effort, btw. Season setting, new rules for these bills, etc all have to be done. Block management rules and regs especially will have to be worked on.

I’ve had offline discussions with Ben on item 2 and don’t agree with it. Limiting those tags to private only would undoubtedly pull land out of Block Management. IMO pressure on public land can’t be decreased when there are any general OTC seasons running concurrently. Eliminating the ability of 15% of the tag holders to private only, when many wouldn’t have hunted public anyway, would do close to nothing. Also not sure why 640 acres worked as a minimum prerequisite for LOP since the beginning of time but now needs to be changed. I can’t imagine LO’s being thrilled about this proposal.

 

[Mtn-time]

Am I out of focus, or could this be more accurately titled "Montana Landowners Elk Management Coalition". - Elk Camp. Not necessarily opposed to the bullet points listed, but find them to be more landowner initiated than citizen. To sell this as a voice of the Citizens is less than honest.

 

[Ben Lamb]

A quote from Ben Lamb in another thread-

I still think that. The idea here is not to tie access to enhanced hunter education, but find a way for the agency to offer the course as a way to increase hunter ethics. I would push back with EQC if they tried to tie this to access. I would hope others would as well.

There's a significant difference between the agency offering enhanced hunter Ed & using it to incentive access.

 

[Deleted member 48080]

I still think that. The idea here is not to tie access to enhanced hunter education, but find a way for the agency to offer the course as a way to increase hunter ethics. I would push back with EQC if they tried to tie this to access. I would hope others would as well.

There's a significant difference between the agency offering enhanced hunter Ed & using it to incentive access.

I guess I don't understand what enhanced hunters education is or how it relates to the Master Hunter program.

Hunters have to take an advanced course to apply for certain tags? Or is it voluntary?

 

[Ben Lamb]

I guess I don't understand what enhanced hunters education is or how it relates to the Master Hunter program.

Hunters have to take an advanced course to apply for certain tags? Or is it voluntary?

Voluntary. Just another option for making more ethical hunters. I wouldn't support a mandate for this for any state level access opportunities.

 

[Deleted member 48080]

Voluntary. Just another option for making more ethical hunters. I wouldn't support a mandate for this for any state level access opportunities.

I'm going to go out on a limb, and say the hunters that are causing the most landowner conflicts won't be the ones lining up to take a voluntary ethics course.

Seems like a pie in the sky idea, and like @onpoint and @JLS brought up 3 years ago, a very slippery slope to start down.

 

[Carnage2011]

Voluntary. Just another option for making more ethical hunters. I wouldn't support a mandate for this for any state level access opportunities.

I wouldn’t necessary be in support of a mandate for something like the master hunter program, but I don’t think an 8 hour/1 day refresher would be a bad option to require for state access opportunities. Anyone wanting to hunt block management, WMA’s, or damage hunts could easily do a “refresher” every so often.