elk working group proposal

[JohnDeereGreen]

I agree with Ben Lambs comments regarding reforming Block Management. It's a great program in that it allows access to private lands for public hunters (I believe 8.5 million acres in 2011), but it needs some improvements to ensure it remains a great program for the next generation of hunters. The last figure I was quoted was that the landowner payments are now worth 30-40% less then when the program first started, becuase the payments do not reflect CPI increases. Even if their only opportunity to lease access was to the state via Block Management, that's a significant disincentive. But, when you consider the money that landowners can get from private leases or from outfitters, the average hunter should be more than a little concerned.
Furthermore, the programs metrics for success are based on quantity, i.e. quantity of acres, hunters, hunter use days. I believe that the program needs to incorporate quality into the equation. Quality in terms of management of the resource and a quality experience for the hunter. I realize that it is difficult to develop a metric for "a quality experience" as every hunter will no doubt give a slightly different answer to that question. Nevertheless, I think we need to take a stab at it. If Block Management were altered to reflect quality as well as quantity, I believe that the program would benefit over the long term.
A few things that might help: tie payments to CPI increases, higher payments to land owners who agree to multi-year enrollments and who are willing to develop an actual management plan in cooperation with FWP (even if that management plan meant fewer hunters), and FWP assistance with habitat enhancements on enrolled properties.
In short, the program needs to incentivize better, long-term management of wildlife and wildlife habitat on private lands. It needs a payment structure that can compete with private leasing and outfitters, and it needs to contain "quality" as one of the measurements of success.
What does that mean for Montana hunters? I think it means that if we want BM to continue and if we want it to improve in ways that ensure it's a viable program, then we will have to start thinking about how to pay for all that. As things stand right now, nonresidents are paying a big chunk of the tab. Maybe we better start digging in our own pockets for loose change...I for one would be happy to pay something for BM, if it meant that the program would benefit.

 

[Straight Arrow]

Many of us expressed similar opinions during the debate leading up to passage of I-161 and the associated funding equation changes. I think Montana hunters would be willing to pony up for increases in BM incentives and program improvements.

On topic, I fail to see how unlimited permits only on private lands would enhance BM or any other wildlife and hunting program.

 

[Big Fin]

I think Montana hunters would be willing to pony up for increases in BM incentives and program improvements.

SA - I agree that resident funding increases are part of the solution. But, history has shown me that MT hunters are not willing to pony up.

When we went for a voluntary BM stamp of $20, it was an uproar. Same thing when we asked for an increase in resident license fees for those ages 18 to 65, leaving it the same for young and old.

The big win in this process is that we kept the legislature from making the decision and kept wildlife management with the commission. At least for now. Given how many people will be PO'd about any of these outcomes, I expect another assualt in the next legislature.

No matter what option is selected, we will still have most of the elk in these units occurring on private land, with the Breaks being the exception. We will still have the most demand for quality hunting on accessible accessible public lands. We will still have outfitters wanting to make money from archery elk hunts on these land.

Since the commission can do nothing to force access to private lands and the demand for resident hunters is greatest on public lands, it seems more progress would be made by improving hunting on public lands.

That would require FWP to work more closely with Federal land agencies. More work, but probably resulting in tangible benefit for public hunters and lessening demand for access to the elk on private lands (assumption that if more quality hunting was available on public, residents would have less interest in private, big leap of faith).

It would also cost more money, something resident hunters have resisted every time it comes up. Guys who have never been to a hearing or comment session show up in droves when the topic is about a fee increase. Drives me nuts, but I have come to accept that reality with the resident MT hunter.

Given none of these scenarios increase access to private land in areas outside the Breaks, I see resident hunters feeling short changed in these options. I don't see any way to increase access on those properties, so my interest is working to improve hunting where we all would have access. Sorry to sound so complacent about units outside the Breaks. I have grown weary of the fighting that has went on with these units and it has provided no tangible result to anyone, just turmoil and wasted energy. Time to spend our energy on places where it will make a difference.

Two big myths I see - 1) that landowners will open up to more hunting under any of these options, and 2) that when the harvest objectives are not met (and they wont be met) that outfitters will accept the "cow only" season. That will be in front of the legislature faster than I can blink.

Glad to have kept the legislature away from commission decisions for two more years, but not sure anyone is going to be happy with whatever outcome is selected,
so it will be back in front of the legislature in eighteen months.

 

[Ben Lamb]

13 months, Big Fin. It's closer than any of us want it to be.

 

[Big Fin]

13 months, Big Fin. It's closer than any of us want it to be.

OMG, I might want to save one wolf bullet for myself.

Here is probably the biggest myth of all. THAT LANDOWNER VOUCHERS WILL HELP LANDOWNERS/OUTFITTERS IN MONTANA UNDER OUR CURRENT LICENSING SYSTEM.

There is almost a part of me that would, like to say, "Here are your landowner tags, now go try sell them on the open market when we can't even sell the ones the state is selling."

That would put the friggin' argument to bed and I am confident the landowners/outfitters would not get the big windfall they would expect. In fact, it would probably put the landowners and outfitters at each others' throats when they saw how the market responded or didn't respond.

Here is why.

Landowner tags are really a redeemable voucher. They do not get tags to sell. You get a voucher that you take to the state agency where you then can present that voucher that allows you to buy the tag. YOU STILL MUST PAY THE TAG FEE TO THE STATE TO COMPLY WITH THE PITTMAM-ROBERTSON DIVERSION OF FUNDS RULES.

If states let landowners keep the licenses/tag money it would be a diversion under the P-R rules. So, all the landowner gets to sell is a voucher that lets you go down to fish and game and buy the tag you did not draw.

Now the reality - The value to the landowner voucher is a function of supply and demand. Greater supply, lower the price on the open market. Greater demand, higher the price on the open market.

In Montana, we print Non-resident elk tags like they are Federal Currency. There is virtually more supply than demand. That is why we had leftovers after the draw and why we still had 800 NR general elk tags left when NRs turned back the elk portion of the deer/elk combo.

Under that scenario, what non-resident in his right mind will pay a landowner ONE EXTRA PENNY for something he has a 100% chance of drawing in the general draw and could still buy as a leftover after the draw?

Answer - NONE!

I say give the landowners all the general elk tags they want. Good luck selling them for any more than the paper they are printed on.

They will then realize that they have too much supply of non-resident tags for any value to be realized. Wanna see the outfitters and landowners hack on each other, just wait until landowners decide we need less non-resident tags to inflate the value of their new landowner elk voucher.

Really, I am not in favor of any of that, but wanted to illustrate what a farce it is for landowner/outfitter groups to be bouncing around saying that landowner vouchers are the salvation to all that ails them with wildlife.

Either they would need fewer non-resident tags to increase values, by limiting supply, or they would have to accept the fact that access to tags is not what is the problem for the utopian view that landowner vouchers solve everything. Fewer NR tags and MOGA are not parallel paths. Going to more limited entry units that put a 10% cap on NRs is not something MOGA wants, even if it would increase the value of landowner vouchers.

Access to the limited entry tags, such as premium bull and buck, moose, goat, sheep, is what they are really saying. The day we give away vouchers for our limited entry hunts would be the day in MT that things get really ugly.

If I were these landowner groups and MOGA, I would be thinking twice about promoting landowner vouchers as the cure for everything. It might be more of a curse than a cure.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Can we call it what it really is? Wildlife Welfare.

I still think that if all folks are honest, we're talking about two things: Who gets to control wildlife, and how much it will cost to harvest wildlife.

That's why we asked the legislature to do an in-depth study on landowner incentives to see what works and what doesn't. We've got a ton of incentive programs that sit idle, and only a few that seem to work.

Block can be the answer to a lot of problems, but folks will need to put aside the 25% we can't agree on, and focus on what we can agree on. I know it seems off topic, but reforms to Block will go a long ways towards helping resolve a lot of these conflicts. There will always be some who will push for the privatization of wildlife, but for the most part, if reasonable people sit down and are willing to be honest, I think there can be a way out of this morass.

Great post Randy!

 

[Straight Arrow]

'Interesting take on the market driven aspects of elk tags, Big Fin. Perhaps FWP should sell the vouchers for two grand each and let the landowners / outfitters purchase as many as they want (up to the previous OSL limit) to try to resell at whatever price. It might be a money maker for BM initially, but then the market dynamics would either ruin the program or private land hunting would truly be only for the wealthy.

It would make the NR draw licenses more attractive.