elk working group proposal

[Wapiti Warrior]

here is an article in the billings Gazette about their proposal.

http://billingsgazette.com/lifestyl...le_4e928c2b-b8c7-56b1-bf6e-7ab896747b74.html]

 

[Straight Arrow]

The following analysis was posted on BOWSITE today. I don't know who wrote it, but I concur with the opinions.

ANALYSIS OF ELK WORKING GROUP RECOMMENDATION


GUARANTEED TO TAKE PLACE:


While within the 17,000 Non Resident Quota, these tags would set a new permit applicable only to Private Lands. Residents who currently hunt on private lands are not likely to use these tags due to the restrictions against hunting anywhere else in the state. Residents who hunt public land will not apply for these tags due to private land only provision. THEREFORE, THE ONLY LIKELY APPLICANTS ARE NON-RESIDENTS HUNTING ON PRIVATE LANDS-MOST LIKELY THEY HAVE EITHER LEASED LAND OR ARE PAYING A LANDOWNER/OUTFITTER TO HUNT. It is my belief that this new permit structure will do nothing to increase the number of elk available on public land, and it will do nothing to reduce elk numbers in areas that are over the objective according to the Elk Management Plan.



ASSUMPTIONS:


The positive benefits to resident hunters are all based on assumptions, rather than any concrete guarantees, such as the landowner set-aside tags created under the proposal. Those assumptions are as follows:


Private landowners will allow additional cow hunters on their lands to bring herds down to objective levels.


Enough landowners will allow access to rifle hunters to disperse elk more evenly between public and private lands.


Legislation will not be brought forth mandating a return to 2007 permit levels or circumventing the provision that if herd levels are not brought down within 2 years then it will go to a cow only season.


Landowners/Outfitters will not ask the Commission (with its new members) in two years to extend or modify the recommendation to allow a continuance of the unlimited archery either sex licenses.



BENEFITS:


Landowners: guaranteed tags for non-residents archery hunters for 2 years.


Outfitters: guaranteed tags for their non-resident archery hunter clients for 2 yrs.


Resident Archery Hunters: ??????


Resident Rifle Hunters: Possibility of being allowed to hunt cows on private land.




RISKS:


Landowners do not open their lands to residents or only allow a minimal number.


Does not reduce elk herds per landowner complaints.


Elk are not disbursed onto public lands.


Creates a precedent for tag allocation in other parts of the state


This proposal set the stage for “ranching for wildlife” legislation in 2013.



This recommendation will be viewed by the resident hunters as an attempt to

circumvent the intent of I-161.



FINAL OPINION:


This recommendation, as built, provides guaranteed benefits for the landowners and outfitters without providing any guaranteed benefits for resident archery/rifle hunters. The assumptions of increased access and disbursement of elk across the landscape are questionable at best. If herd populations are the real issue for landowners, they already have the tools to allow resident rifle hunters onto their land to harvest excess cows. If financial benefit for certain special interest groups is the true issue then this recommendation creates an unacceptable precedent for future tag allocations and potential legislation.


This recommendation, as proposed, appears to be an attempt to satisfy landowner/outfitter concerns with minimal concern for the resident archery and rifle hunter.


I believe that the working group worked very hard on this issue, were well intentioned and I thank them for their time and efforts. I just have a different perspective as to what the likely outcome of this recommendation will be. I am a resident hunter and have been fighting for hunter rights for 40 years. The last legislative session was very difficult for those of us involved and I worry that the future sessions will be no better.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Vito at Headwaters wrote that, I helped a little.

 

[howler]

yep vito wrote it and I asked permission to post it and he said yes so I posted it,, there is now more info about the proposal and some spin offs that the commission put ot.. check them out on the bowsite, on the Montana site

 

[EasternMTHunter]

There was also an arcticle in the Billings Gazette about it and the other options offered by Mr. Colton. I would like to see all the residents who apply for an achery tag get one and still limit the non-residents. Where we hunt was getting very over crowded and the last 2 years have been much better. While that option isn't listed, I'd be in favor of status quo or with the ability to adjust the tags or districts. We still saw more non-residents than residents while we were there and I have no problem with that since they are more motivated to hunt farther, but one camp every 600 yards or less along the road was miserable!

 

[Ben Lamb]

yep vito wrote it and I asked permission to post it and he said yes so I posted it,, there is now more info about the proposal and some spin offs that the commission put ot.. check them out on the bowsite, on the Montana site

Keep on 'em Steve.

From the FWP summary of the commission meeting:

• The Commission approved recommendations for adjustments to archery seasons in and outside of the Missouri Breaks. The following review of recommendations from the Elk Archery Working Group added another set of either-sex archery permits to each of the bundles in and out of the Breaks. The permits would be available through the drawing as a first and only choice and be valid only on private land outside BMA's in a specific bundle. A person holding one of these permits could not hunt an antlered bull elk in any other hunting district during any other season that license year. For 2012-2013 these permits would be available through the drawings in an unlimited fashion. His will help to determine the appropriate number of limited permits needed to accommodate the number of nonresidents equal to the number of outfitted nonresident elk archery hunters into these bundles in 2007. These permits would remain in place in any district if the elk population objective was met or maintained or if an annual harvest prescription was met. Other alternatives include:
o Status quo
o Status quo with potential adjustment to bundles and permit numbers,
o Adjust the working group recommendation to include mandatory reporting and antlerless only on private land,
o Retain the 2007 season structure

 

[BuzzH]

The breaks are such a mess...I dont think anyone can keep straight what they want.

Bundles, private tags, some good for the cmr, some not...shitloads of cow permits, a-7 , b-12, unlimited for archery, limited for NR's.

Sounds like a damn auction...

The sad part of the whole situation is that the resource is being "managed" to death over there...and an oportunity squandered to have a world-class elk hunting area.

Pretty lame when they issue more permits than there are elk...

 

[Dinkshooter]

Pretty lame when they issue more permits than there are elk...

Welcome to Colorado.

 

[Lawnboy]

Herd population on private really isn't the issue for most landowners. They mostly want the guarantee to be able to hunt their land and possibly lease or guide it. That's the reality.

I see the benefit to residents being that those who get these tags are restricted to only hunt the area and private land they have chosen. They get no other choices. I gotta believe that it would reduce some crowding you guys are experiencing. We can't hunt the private land anyway so just as well reduce the non res. numbers on the public if they are ones that are flip flopping back and forth.

Is it helping the Outfitter and landowner? Yea I think so but I also see some benefits for the residents as well.

 

[Ben Lamb]

The biggest problem I see with the EAWG's proposal is the either sex permit for private land not enrolled in Block. This new tag will create the expectation of a landowner set-aside, or worse, will give tacit approval of ranching for wildlife in the state. It also negates the concepts that I-161 was promoting (democratic allocation of the resource). Even with a tiny bit of a stick in threatening to take away this subsidy (we all know how good folks are at giving up subsidies after a few years, right?), we're still going to have the fight from UPOM and others in the next session. It just seems like an incremental approach to privatizing wildlife.

FWIW - the EAWG members I know are all good guys. I don't think anyone went in to this with a pre-conceived notion, and they were looking for a solution. Maybe it's the structured decision making process that makes this look like there was consensus, but when you look at the data for the alternatives, it's clear who favored this one: landowners and outfitters.

It will be interesting to see where the majority of folks come down on this after a few years of permits.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Herd population on private really isn't the issue for most landowners.

For the entire legislative session ,we were told that unlimited archery tags were necessary to reduce the herds. It's been made one of the key talking points by those looking to eliminate all structure and balance in the allocation of the resource. Landowner after landowner testified that they needed those tags to get herd numbers down.

 

[Lawnboy]

For the entire legislative session ,we were told that unlimited archery tags were necessary to reduce the herds. It's been made one of the key talking points by those looking to eliminate all structure and balance in the allocation of the resource. Landowner after landowner testified that they needed those tags to get herd numbers down.

Did you really believe this? Like Vito mentioned they still had means to reduce numbers(cows) with or without those permits through residents.
I can't say that I blame them for squawking. Most lost some big income streams through leasing and outfitting. Being friends with a landowner I can see that side of it for sure. I still go back to the reality that none this will open up the private lands for the public. I'm sure there will be a few ranches that enroll in BM but for the most part it's more of a hassle than the moneys worth. I think if we could somehow up the budget for BM (increase tag fees) and make it more enticing for ranches that actually have wildlife to enroll that would be a better solution. Notice I mentioned actually having animals. Many of the BM's are like hunting on a reservation. Not even a mouse living to be found. Just my thoughts

 

[tjones]

Did you really believe this?

So were the landowners that testified during the session lieing?

 

[Straight Arrow]

'Don't know how many of the NRs come to Montana and pay for access and/or outfitters to shoot cow elk in order to assist landowners in managing wildlife ... but I'm gonna go out on a limb and say very few. The reality is that cow elk are mostly taken by residents, The landowners lobbying for the permits want the NRs' money ... not the residents to harvest elk to reduce numbers, unless hunting on public land.

I often see comments similar to "more of a hassle than the moneys worth" regarding Block Management. It's usually from someone not an advocate of access for resident hunters. Furthermore, it ignores the reality that there are landowners supporting BM and the program to date is alive and well.

 

[jlmatthew]

Montanans complaining about the number of Nonresident hunters, now thats funny!

You have no idea how spoiled you guys really are

 

[Straight Arrow]

Yes, we are spoiled and unfortunately we are forced to continue to fight to maintain our blessings. However, I don't see complaints about NR hunters ... unless they receive in excess of the limited number of licenses or more than 10% of permits in any given HD as established by Montana law. Otherwise most of us welcome them to visit and hunt with us.

Most wildlife abundant states with hunting have established such laws. Basic tenet in any state in the USA is that the wildlife within that state are entrusted to the state for management on behalf of the residents of that state, so why would the residents not be given priority?

 

[BuzzH]

So were the landowners that testified during the session lieing?

No, they'd never lie to ge their way

Its kind of funny to listen to all the crap landowners come up with to support their ideas, and ultimately get in most cases.

They get what they want because hunters live in lala land and believe that by getting things like unlimited permits for private land, they'll be the ones hunting those elk. Further, you have another large group of hunters who feel we must do whatever a landowner wants so we can maintain that coveted landowner/hunter relationship

That relationship is largely a one-way street that benefits the landowner long before the average hunter...and even longer before that relationship really benefits whats best for the wildlife. Hunters are the gift to landowners that just keeps on giving...to the point that you're excluded.

What a joke, why should I care about a group of landowners that are crying and testifying that unlimited archery tags are needed to "reduce elk numbers"...then when they get those, they dont allow access. Or they sell access so people can hunt bulls? Further, too many elk isnt even the issue!

I agree with Ben Lamb that this is just one step short of them getting landowner set asides and a RFW program that they've been wanting for years.

As a nice aside, when I was hunting in the breaks I talked to one landowner that told me to make sure I killed an elk before I went home. In fact, the landowner said, "make sure you shoot 3 or 4". Seems they had, according to the landowner $50,000 in damages by elk tearing up their fences. Of course, this landowner didnt allow acccess, unless you paid, and stated that "their archery hunters" had a good year.

If I was suffering 50K a year in elk damages...I'd be allowing access for free....but in true fashion, during the season when there is potential to profit from elk, those are "their" elk. Once the season is over and bust a strand of rusted barbed-wire...then those are the "states" elk.

My thoughts on this issue is to keep permit numbers low, and the elk herds grow. No special tags good for only private, one tag should be able to fit all.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Did you really believe this? Like Vito mentioned they still had means to reduce numbers(cows) with or without those permits through residents.
I can't say that I blame them for squawking. Most lost some big income streams through leasing and outfitting. Being friends with a landowner I can see that side of it for sure. I still go back to the reality that none this will open up the private lands for the public. I'm sure there will be a few ranches that enroll in BM but for the most part it's more of a hassle than the moneys worth. I think if we could somehow up the budget for BM (increase tag fees) and make it more enticing for ranches that actually have wildlife to enroll that would be a better solution. Notice I mentioned actually having animals. Many of the BM's are like hunting on a reservation. Not even a mouse living to be found. Just my thoughts

Now we're getting somewhere.

Those big income streams helped create the situation that they're complaining about now. Leased land and reduced public hunting have put many elk off limits to the average guy or gal.

I can see this from the landowner side as well, and it seems like the real crux of what we're talking about is landowner incentives. Many landowners, and the President of the Senate as well as many legislators, have said that they want transferable tags for landowner incentives. Most resident hunters I've spoken with have indicated that this is unacceptable. So where does that leave us?

1.) The EAWG's proposal sets the expectation among landowners across the state that they too can get special permits that apply only to them.

2.) Let's get serious about reforming Block so that the payment is reflective of the current CPI (or rate of inflation, etc). Block is a great program, but it's not always used effectively. We've all hunted Block where there's only a small chance at a game animal. Those are the folks that recieve the highest payment. Meanwhile, folks who manage the hunting to provide a quality experience don't make enough to pay for the maintenance on their properties. That's the common ground. Everybody agrees that Block Management is great, opens up lots of land, and needs to be adjusted in some ways. Let's focus on that instead of continuing the conflict over permits.

 

[jlmatthew]

So Montana landowners want Colorado style benefits

 

[BuzzH]

yep....and likely in spades.