Explain Ranching for Wildlife

[cedahm]

How it started and how it morphed - It started with a 1:1 ratio of bulls for RFW and public hunters. If I recall correctly, over time, the legislature changed that from 1:1 to 1:2, to 1:5, to 1:10. So, now the ratio is way different than what was sold to hunters at the beginning.

This is news to me. And not the warm fuzzy kind. I had assumed that it was in the 1:2 or 1:3 kind of range. Definitely my bad (and probably countless other CO hunters) for being under-educated. But, it's not like this is a statistic that gets publicized in 40 point font on the front of the CPW website.

Just wow.

Don't do it, Montanans.

 

[Speeddmn]

AFAIK, there is no need for either the BLM or the USFS to give a "blessing" for that land to be included in the CWMU. They are treated as their own hunt units, to which the UDWR is tasked with establishing. I know of a good chunk of public ground that is legally accessible (borders a state highway for a couple of miles) that is enrolled in perhaps THE CWMU...

Correct the CWMU's are their own unit for hunting. If you have a tag for Chalk Creek as an example, you can not hunt even private land if that land is in a CWMU for the same species. If the Manager/Owner of the CWMU needed 200 acres of BLM land to meet the minimum requirement they would let him have it.

Why I stick to public land here and only have 2 more seasons as of right now then back to MT for good!

 

[Pierre]

Ranching for wildlife is a horrible term. I prefer ranching for rich guys or something like that. In very simple terms it is transferable tags. Landowners are awarded the tags for free and are able to sell for whatever the market will tolerate. It is a throw back to old world management. Royalty and rich landowners own the wildlife and sell the hunts. The common folk get nothing.
How many Montanas can afford to do this? I might suggest you look at another state if you are flush enough to pay.
Montana has always adhered to the N. Am. Model of Wildlife Management. The critters are held in trust for all citizens. Everyone has an equal chance to get licenses and hunt. We refer to it as the "Montana Model" which takes into account our rich heritage.

 

[antlerradar]

I am not sure I like the "Montana Model". The long seasons and easily available tags to go along with the FWP reluctance to micro manage is much to close to the Texas model for me. Montana is on its way to becoming Texas. If it wasn't for the limited number of nonresident tags and the relatively large amount of public land we would likely crossed that line long ago.

 

[shoots-straight]

and what do we have now in Montana with a 100% draw for deer/elk license...RFW would be of ZERO benefit to any landowner

right now

They could hunt anytime of the season, using any type of weapon. In limited entry areas they would receive more of those types of tags.

 

[Straight Arrow]

Montana is on its way to becoming Texas.

Antlerradar, that is an interesting but disconcerting perspective that I'm not quite following. Please explain the similarities.

 

[RobG]

right now

They could hunt anytime of the season, using any type of weapon. In limited entry areas they would receive more of those types of tags.

And originally they wanted the shoulder seasons, which were limited to private land, to include bulls.

 

[sbhooper]

Randy,

I know exactly where you are talking about on the 3Forks. We hunted just south of there for several years for cows (no good bulls there anyway). We watched gobs of elk on the mountain with binos. We discussed the aerial option, even though we did not have the money. At one time, there was a road into that area and amazingly the BLM closed the road. Gee! I wonder how that could have happened!?

I filled every elk permit that I ever drew in Colorado, but I am done with their politics, short seasons and land use policies.

 

[[email protected]]

I think you hit the nail right on the head. It should be called rich guys tags or transferable tags, something other than ranching for wildlife. It's ranching for profit with a public trust resource, an entitlement for the landed gentry for sure. You talk of what many call the Montana Model, the true name of that is "The Montana Model of Fish & Wildlife Conservation". That depicts the many, many things that sets Montana apart from the other states, it's what makes Montana unique. Quite simply, The Montana Model means "the democracy of hunting", something that transferable tags for landowners is definitely is not. JW Westman

 

[antlerradar]

Antlerradar, that is an interesting but disconcerting perspective that I'm not quite following. Please explain the similarities.

I was mostly referring to the length and timing of hunting season. Both Montana and Texas have long seasons that run the through the rut.
Both states are managed by the game departments for opportunity with a minimum of restrictions. This gives landowners the flexibility to manage how they see fit. Over time with this philosophy of management price determines who gets the opportunity.
It is unrealistic to think that with a similar season and management that we in Montana will not follow in the foot steps of Texas on private land.

 

[Straight Arrow]

Thanks, antlerradar. I see your points. but I don't necessarily agree with your conclusion. I understand how you reached it, but I sincerely hope your prediction is incorrect ... and intend to support a different outcome as a hunter / sportsmen / landowner.

 

[antlerradar]

I hope I am proven wrong too. Unfortunately I only have to look at the way the pay hunting has progressed here in seven the last 30 years to come to a different conclusion. I understand that many people like Pierre are working hard to mitigate the problem. My fear is that as long as we keep the same season structure and management philosophy their efforts my a only be as effective as running north on a train bound for Texas.

 

[shoots-straight]

If we could get 30% of the sportsmen of Montana committed to this NOT happening, and work like Pierre and many others are, that would be a solid front. I doubt there would be much push from law makers, or for anymore shenanigans taking place in Helena.

 

[Eric Albus]

The fear mongering is alive and well, on both sides I see.... Montana will never look like Tx, we simply have to much public land. The public land BENEFITS from the managed private lands. There are very few places in Montana where there exists a large enough parcel of private land to hold an elk/mule deer/whitetail until they expire of old age. Granted there are a few exceptions, but very few.

 

[vanish]

RFW is a cool idea.

Its the implementation where things fall apart.

Kind of like democracy, socialism and capitalism.

 

[RobG]

RFW is a cool idea.

Its the implementation where things fall apart.

Kind of like democracy, socialism and capitalism.

That might be the best analysis so far.

 

[RobG]

Eric - FWIW, I grew up in Montana but lived in Texas for a few years after college. Now I'm back.

There is some merit in what you say, but depending on where you are, public land hunting in Montana is turning into a grueling elk-only endeavor. If you want to hunt whitetail or antelope it is really getting hard to find a place that isn't leased out. In the future it is probably going to be just like Texas in the sense that if you want to hunt whitetail you just go get a lease and not think twice about it. The attitude that a lease is just how deer hunting is done is what really struck me as odd when I went to TX. (The other thing was the high fence exotic animal hunting, but that's probably preventable in MT.)

People can blame the outfitters, but if you talk with the ranchers most just got sick of dealing with the morons in the hunting crowd. Given that, and the fact that the number of hunters will continue to grow, the prospects of keeping large amounts of quality private land open seem pretty bleak.


There's not a lot we can do about that, but we can prevent programs like RFW that make privatizing wildlife a much better option than keeping quality hunts available to the public. The free market attraction of outfitting is hard enough for the DIY to deal with - we will be crushed if it becomes subsidized with unfair access to tags and special seasons.

 

[Eric Albus]

RobG, there is already unlimited access to tags, we have had an undersell 4 years running, so tags are not an issue for outfitters, or private landowners who choose to charge for access, all their clients/people are drawing 100%, unless of course it is in limited entry areas.

What we need is better wildlife management on open/accessible lands. There is to much pressure on a finite resource.

 

[RobG]

RobG, there is already unlimited access to tags, we have had an undersell 4 years running, so tags are not an issue for outfitters, or private landowners who choose to charge for access, all their clients/people are drawing 100%, unless of course it is in limited entry areas.

What we need is better wildlife management on open/accessible lands. There is to much pressure on a finite resource.

I know that Eric, and that is why we have to be careful that doesn't change. The shoulder seasons are a step towards RFW. Right now we have the "criteria" and no bull policy to keep them fair, but those will ignored if they don't get close to their objectives, and the landowners will be given a sweet deal with no reason to include the public.

 

[BuzzH]

RobG, there is already unlimited access to tags, we have had an undersell 4 years running, so tags are not an issue for outfitters, or private landowners who choose to charge for access, all their clients/people are drawing 100%, unless of course it is in limited entry areas.

What we need is better wildlife management on open/accessible lands. There is to much pressure on a finite resource.

Yet, the reason for the lack of management on open/accessible land is because of outfitters, landowners, and the Legislature.

The landowners/outfitters that harbor wildlife bitch and complain, the response from the FWP is to over-issue doe and cow tags, valid unit wide, create 6 month shoulder seasons, and other-wise wage war on MY public wildlife resources.

Then when the public shoots the chit out of the wildlife on public, guys like YOU, eric, complain because the FWP isn't "managing" wildlife on open/accessible lands.