Good Neighbor: Elk Management in Montana

[WanderWoman]

As @seeth07 points out in the thread - more acquisition helps this and the current push from the agency to get the 40 year easements in place is a great way to introduce folks leery of conservation easements into the process and product. Given the current land board's dislike of purchasing properties or even perpetual conservation easements (Auditor Downing & Governor Gianforte are the only two consistent yes votes for these programs), then some creative solutions need to be put in the agency's toolkit.

The option that has the most benefit for the public and the landowner is still the 40 year lease option through Habitat MT. That provides access to the public, provides a significant financial incentive to the landowner and helps keep ranch and farmlands complete and in the family for future generations.

I agree that the 40-year leases are a good way to get a relationship started between FWP and a landowner, especially since it seems our elected officials are doing such a poor job of representing not only the majority of the public but the willing landowners who want to enter into a perpetual CE. It boggles my mind how the land board gets away with technically violating a landowner’s property right to sell interest in their land to a certain entity.

I do disagree that the 40-year leases are the most benefit for the landowners and the public. The compensation isn’t that great, eastern MT rangeland is $119/acre for 40 years so a 3,000-acre ranch would be $357,000 for 40-years. The public access is minimal. Up to 3,000 acres it’s 1 recreation day per month per 300 acres. (At least 1/3 must be during hunting season.) So that same 3,000-acre ranch would have a requirement of 120 recreation days per year, with 40 of those being hunter days. Granted, it’s better than 0, but given Habitat Montana and the amazing benefit that perpetual CEs provide (the landowner might get $2 million or more for a perpetual CE with more terms to improve habitat and way more hunter access). Also I feel like other entities like USFWS offer similar enough programs to FWP leases (sans recreational access) that niche is kind of filled.

Yes they serve a purpose and they’re better than nothing but if a landowner is willing, perpetual CE is by far the best way to leverage $ for conservation and access. They keep habitat intact, agriculture use is written into the deed, and I always wonder what happens after 40 years. Will it be renewed? Will the land be protected? Also, the landowners can buy out of a 40-year lease too, say if the land sells or the next generation has different ideas.

https://fwp.mt.gov/binaries/content/assets/fwp/conservation/habitat/habitat-conservation-lease-faq_72423.pdf

 

[BuckRut]

A little short for time today so I haven't waded through all 6 pages but I would like to throw my 2 cents in.

The dynamic with these situations is vastly different west of the divide. Part of my frustration with these conversations is the fact that many ranchers are running an operation almost completely dependent on grazing leases from the government (AKA the public) at prices that are essentially a handout. I would venture to bet even the ranchers in the video utilize hundreds to thousands of acres of BLM ground to run their cows on.

Not saying they owe us the right to access their land whenever and however we please but it should definitely be part of these narratives.

The USFS land where I grew up hunting is now almost impossible to access without stock by a landowner who is being paid for Block Management access to his property while denying road access to the Forest.

 

[WildWill]

@Ben Lamb if you can afford to do something yet elect to take public money instead, you're a greedy welfare baby, I don't care if you're requesting funds to replace culverts, plant stream banks, or replace grass eaten by elk. There are both drawbacks and benefits to owning land. The public shouldn't have to pay you to do what's right. I'm sorry if that's too hard of a line in the sand. To see this issue being discussed at all, an issue between neighbors, where the problem is that they both have too much wildlife but one wants to be directly paid for having to "deal" with that wildlife. Well shit, I just can't support that. Not when the VAST majority of us would kill to trade their issue for our issues (the TPS report that's due today, the carpal tunnel for pecking at a keyboard for 40 years to pay off a mortgage), shit we spend a collective #*^@#*-ton of money annually on bird feeders, deer feeder, binos, and trips to experience wildlife. I have very little tolerance for their arguments.

 

[brockel]

Makes me want to hurry up this "death of the American Cowboy" movement.

Must not follow the horse market

 

[WanderWoman]

For starters the asshat in your video with the million-dollar custom log house stuffed with dead public resources that was driving the new pickup. Three $*)Q!#@$ things this peon, for one, can't afford, but I'm not clamoring to be paid for the grass the deer and elk eat on my place, or the cherries the birds eat.

Matt Wickens is a decent human being and a good outfitter. If you ever sat down and had a conversation with him, he’s a good listener, empathetic to hunters and traditional landowners (even if there’s not agreement), a true conservationist, and the Wickens’ are well-respected in Fergus County, which frankly has some notoriety in producing the opposite. Maybe part of why they chose him for this video.

I’ll admit to calling people asshats too, which I probably shouldn’t, but Matt isn’t one.

 

[Irrelevant]

a true conservationist,

I'll drink beer and get along fine with plenty of asshats, the world's full of them, hell I'm sure plenty of people put me in that camp too, so it's not exactly that bad of a label. There's plenty of labels that are much worse.

I had to go back to fact-check myself because that part of your quote conflicted with my take after watching it. And I'll admit, his worst words aren't meant to be HIS opinions, he's just conveying a concept that other ranchers, those that haven't monetized public wildlife as successfully as he has, feel about harboring wildlife.

But I'll challenge, you, or him, or anyone, that asking the public to subsidize the wildlife on your property, is the antithesis of a "true conservationist".

 

[WanderWoman]

I'll drink beer and get along fine with plenty of asshats, the world's full of them, hell I'm sure plenty of people put me in that camp too, so it's not exactly that bad of a label. There's plenty of labels that are much worse.

I had to go back to fact-check myself because that part of your quote conflicted with my take after watching it. And I'll admit, his worst words aren't meant to be HIS opinions, he's just conveying a concept that other ranchers, those that haven't monetized public wildlife as successfully as he has, feel about harboring wildlife.

But I'll challenge, you, or him, or anyone, that asking the public to subsidize the wildlife on your property, is the antithesis of a "true conservationist".

Good point, and I can certainly claim calling and being called worse things than that too.

I don’t agree at all with subsidizing wildlife, but until TR rises from the ashes and sets us all straight, I think if we as hunters try to start with things we agree on, we can still make inroads. I guess the main point I was going for is they certainly could have done worse in selecting a representative for that video.

 

[Irrelevant]

Good point, and I can certainly claim calling and being called worse things than that too.

I don’t agree at all with subsidizing wildlife, but until TR rises from the ashes and sets us all straight, I think if we as hunters try to start with things we agree on, we can still make inroads. I guess the main point I was going for is they certainly could have done worse in selecting a representative for that video.

He talks real purdy like.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Agreed on CE's & acquisition.

I'll drink beer and get along fine with plenty of asshats, the world's full of them, hell I'm sure plenty of people put me in that camp too, so it's not exactly that bad of a label. There's plenty of labels that are much worse.

I had to go back to fact-check myself because that part of your quote conflicted with my take after watching it. And I'll admit, his worst words aren't meant to be HIS opinions, he's just conveying a concept that other ranchers, those that haven't monetized public wildlife as successfully as he has, feel about harboring wildlife.

But I'll challenge, you, or him, or anyone, that asking the public to subsidize the wildlife on your property, is the antithesis of a "true conservationist".

Sand County Almanac would be a good place to start.

Aldo Leopold, the father of modern ecology, was a huge supporter of private land conservation. Every land trust in the nation, along with the USFWS also approach private land conservation in a similar fashion. LWCF conservation easements don't often provide access, but those easements have done amazing things keeping habitat intact.

Perhaps an argument can be made that if you only support efforts that benefit you in terms of access, you're really not a "true conservationist."

70% of Montana is private land. If folks don't see the benefit of having better dialog and relationships with all kinds of landowners then we're just dooming ourselves to the same failed fight that's been ongoing since the 1980's.

 

[Forkyfinder]

Good point, and I can certainly claim calling and being called worse things than that too.

I don’t agree at all with subsidizing wildlife, but until TR rises from the ashes and sets us all straight, I think if we as hunters try to start with things we agree on, we can still make inroads. I guess the main point I was going for is they certainly could have done worse in selecting a representative for that video.

Well if Matt reads this - i mean him no ill will and if i missed the context he was referring to other operations i was incorrect.

I think the best point made in this thread - this is a zoning/neighbor issue as much as it as anything else.

If a hyptothetical landowner (say who has no irrigated crops) who outfits is adjacent to a bunch of struggling ranches (with crops) providing access doesnt do anything but make the elk raid the place at night as pointed out earlier. I dont see a solution to this problem from fwp or the legislature that works and can say ive seen it more than a few times.

 

[WanderWoman]

Agreed on CE's & acquisition.


Sand County Almanac would be a good place to start.

Aldo Leopold, the father of modern ecology, was a huge supporter of private land conservation. Every land trust in the nation, along with the USFWS also approach private land conservation in a similar fashion. LWCF conservation easements don't often provide access, but those easements have done amazing things keeping habitat intact.

Perhaps an argument can be made that if you only support efforts that benefit you in terms of access, you're really not a "true conservationist."

70% of Montana is private land. If folks don't see the benefit of having better dialog and relationships with all kinds of landowners then we're just doing ourselves to the same failed fight that's been ongoing since the 1980's.

Related to this, the Wickens’ family have been recognized with Montana’s Leopold Conservation Award this year.

Wickens Salt Creek Ranch to Receive Montana Leopold Conservation Award

Wickens Salt Creek Ranch of Hilger has been selected as the recipient of the 2024 Montana Leopold Conservation Award®. The award honors ranchers, farmers, and forestland owners who go above and beyond in the management of soil health, water quality, and wildlife habitat on working land. Wickens…

sandcountyfoundation.org

 

[Irrelevant]

Sand County Almanac would be a good place to start.

Aldo Leopold, the father of modern ecology, was a huge supporter of private land conservation.

I'm familiar with the text, thanks.
"When we see land as a community to which we belong, we may begin to use it with love and respect.” – Aldo Leopold
You can twist it all you want, but there ain't any love and respect in asking someone else to pay you to tolerate wildlife on your property. That wildlife has to pay out economically or it isn't worth having.

Every land trust in the nation, along with the USFWS also approach private land conservation in a similar fashion. LWCF conservation easements don't often provide access, but those easements have done amazing things keeping habitat intact.

In the vast majority of those cases, we're buying a right from the landowner, we're paying to remove his/her right to develop. As you know, it doesn't necessarily have anything to do with habitat, though as we well know that is a huge secondary benefit. We already have the right to the wildlife, but it feels like we're trying to compromise that away, so we can what? Buy it back from them and call it conservation?

Perhaps an argument can be made that if you only support efforts that benefit you in terms of access, you're really not a "true conservationist."

Ok, sure.

70% of Montana is private land. If folks don't see the benefit of having better dialog and relationships with all kinds of landowners then we're just dooming ourselves to the same failed fight that's been ongoing since the 1980's.

What's failed? MT already has a plethora of programs that came from a place of compromise, trying to work with landowners, why aren't the existing programs successful? Ah, that's it, we have to do more, we have to compromise more. Direct payments, that's the ticket! That'll get those true conservationists to love and respect wildlife.

When that doesn't work, let's just give them the goddamn wildlife and let them do what they will with it. Maybe that'll appease them. Or we'll lease it back from them! Win-win!

 

[mtmuley]

When that doesn't work, let's just give them the goddamn wildlife and let them do what they will with it. Maybe that'll appease them. Or we'll lease it back from them! Win-win!

Might be the end game in sight. mtmuley

 

[Ben Lamb]

I'm familiar with the text, thanks.
"When we see land as a community to which we belong, we may begin to use it with love and respect.” – Aldo Leopold
You can twist it all you want, but there ain't any love and respect in asking someone else to pay you to tolerate wildlife on your property. That wildlife has to pay out economically or it isn't worth having.

In the vast majority of those cases, we're buying a right from the landowner, we're paying to remove his/her right to develop. As you know, it doesn't necessarily have anything to do with habitat, though as we well know that is a huge secondary benefit. We already have the right to the wildlife, but it feels like we're trying to compromise that away, so we can what? Buy it back from them and call it conservation?

Ok, sure.

What's failed? MT already has a plethora of programs that came from a place of compromise, trying to work with landowners, why aren't the existing programs successful? Ah, that's it, we have to do more, we have to compromise more. Direct payments, that's the ticket! That'll get those true conservationists to love and respect wildlife.

When that doesn't work, let's just give them the goddamn wildlife and let them do what they will with it. Maybe that'll appease them. Or we'll lease it back from them! Win-win!

Buddy, you seem like you need a hug. You ok?

 

[DFS]

Conservation easements do not ensure access. Ben might disagree but they don’t. The public should give tools to landowners to manage elk which they already have. At this point it is a neighbor issue the same as who is fixing fence. The public would be better off using Ben’s funding to secure long term access and herd health of our wildlife. 454 program should be scrapped landowner preference tags (which I have no problem with) should only be valid for the land they own. Redirecting funding or giving special privileges to landowners that have elk on their land is a big mistake for the public. Take care of the available land we have and expand it where it’s possible. The landowners can take care of the cows to cut populations to what they deem acceptable, FWP and the public can’t fix neighbor issues they can only give them the tools they need.

 

[Forkyfinder]

@Ben Lamb - what solutions exist? If its not transferable bull tags - or grazing reimbursement?

 

[WanderWoman]

Conservation easements do not ensure access. Ben might disagree but they don’t. The public should give tools to landowners to manage elk which they already have. At this point it is a neighbor issue the same as who is fixing fence. The public would be better off using Ben’s funding to secure long term access and herd health of our wildlife. 454 program should be scrapped landowner preference tags (which I have no problem with) should only be valid for the land they own. Redirecting funding or giving special privileges to landowners that have elk on their land is a big mistake for the public. Take care of the available land we have and expand it where it’s possible. The landowners can take care of the cows to cut populations to what they deem acceptable, FWP and the public can’t fix neighbor issues they can only give them the tools they need.

Not all CEs involve access, there are many types offered through different agencies, NGOs, etc.

FWP CEs have a public access component written into them. Probably why they’re my favorite. With that comes a higher price to the landowner and in my mind a better deal overall for us, the resource, and them.

 

[Rie Bread]

Is the number of these transferable tags that are filled tracked in the harvest data? Would be interested in the ratio of LO tags harvests vs the public general tags that if so

 

[DFS]

Not all CEs involve access, there are many types offered through different agencies, NGOs, etc.

FWP CEs have a public access component written into them. Probably why they’re my favorite. With that comes a higher price to the landowner and in my mind a better deal overall for us, the resource, and them.

I think they have evolved throughout the years, even the fwp CE’s. Access may be a component but that access may be family and friends.

 

[Forkyfinder]

Is the number of these transferable tags that are filled tracked in the harvest data? Would be interested in the ratio of LO tags harvests vs the public general tags that if so

There arent any that are transferable. Yet.

We'll have to wait and see if the legislature, through special interest, and some crooked lobbying on the part of UPOM makes it happen.