Good Neighbor: Elk Management in Montana

[Borny1]

The latest court ruling against UPOM is a great start.

 

[SAJ-99]

Landowners are certainly not all the same, and it is hard to find solutions given that variability, but it was pretty clear from the rancher/outfitter that the issue is money. I feel like these questions need to be asked/answered of those in that category...
What $ amount is adequate compensation to feed these elk annually?
What $ amount would it take for you to allow limited cow elk hunting?
What $ amount would it take for you to join BM and fully open to the general public?

 

[Forkyfinder]

Landowners are certainly not all the same, and it is hard to find solutions given that variability, but it was pretty clear from the rancher/outfitter that the issue is money. I feel like these questions need to be asked/answered of those in that category...
What $ amount is adequate compensation to feed these elk annually?
What $ amount would it take for you to allow limited cow elk hunting?
What $ amount would it take for you to join BM and fully open to the general public?

Its transferable bull tags. Anything less will be non sufficient.

Watch.

 

[seeth07]

I know the land owner pieces are vastly larger out west so maybe this isn't quite as logical of an argument in the state of Montana but I have talked with a few landowners here that complain about the deer populations and the ag kill tags they get or the compensation they get for crop damage and/or allowing public access. I've asked why they just don't build a taller fence or make it electric and just keep the deer off their property. They always beat around the answer but basically they don't want to actually lose the deer from their land because it provides $$$ to them and it isn't actually a nuisance. Guessing its about the same response you would get from them.

I'm not saying this is a good idea but think about this: What if you cut the ties 100%. Remove all incentives for having elk on their land and how many landowners do you think would change what they are doing now? I'm guessing the lease price they get from the outfitters to use their ranch or the $$$ they are getting directly from clients to use their ranch for hunting is plenty enough. Otherwise don't you think that they would be looking at creative ways to just keep them off? Heck just hanging blaze orange rags on each fence post might just be enough to deter them from crossing.

 

[seeth07]

I know the land owner pieces are vastly larger out west so maybe this isn't quite as logical of an argument in the state of Montana but I have talked with a few landowners here that complain about the deer populations and the ag kill tags they get or the compensation they get for crop damage and/or allowing public access. I've asked why they just don't build a taller fence or make it electric and just keep the deer off their property. They always beat around the answer but basically they don't want to actually lose the deer from their land because it provides $$$ to them and it isn't actually a nuisance. Guessing its about the same response you would get from them.

I'm not saying this is a good idea but think about this: What if you cut the ties 100%. Remove all incentives for having elk on their land and how many landowners do you think would change what they are doing now? I'm guessing the lease price they get from the outfitters to use their ranch or the $$$ they are getting directly from clients to use their ranch for hunting is plenty enough. Otherwise don't you think that they would be looking at creative ways to just keep them off? Heck just hanging blaze orange rags on each fence post might just be enough to deter them from crossing.

Again, not saying its a great idea but a thought: If you cut all that 100%, what is the annual saves to the state of Montana. What if you took that money instead and actually bought up land for sale instead? Can get profit off it by leasing it just like other state lands and its now open to the public should Montana continue to let state land be open to hunting and fishing. Lots of willing sellers of land over 100 acres across Montana on zillow. Just seems partially silly to me to "pay rent" every year as a state for a program that many don't like anyways when you could instead "buy" and turn hopefully some profit off of it.

 

[SAJ-99]

Its transferable bull tags. Anything less will be non sufficient.

Watch.

I agree, for that person at least. I doubt there is anything that will get that group sufficiently satisfied enough to join BM. But until FWP asks the question directly, we will keep getting videos suggesting buying the ranch donuts and helping with fences. I can also acknowledge that doing those things will greatly improve individual relationships, but so will simply following rules, stop ripping up wet roads, closing gates, and generally not being an a-hole hunter. I give the guy credit for admitting it is about money and saying it on tape. We as hunters need to admit that the actions of some of us have caused the real problem.

What if you took that money instead and actually bought up land for sale instead?

Big government is bad. Every acquisition is a fight. The guy auditioning for the role as future Governor is adamantly opposed to new acquisitions (unless, of course, the Feds are required to divest land to the states).
I'm not sure people don't like BM. Those that leave often just get a better offer.

 

[Forkyfinder]

Landowners are certainly not all the same, and it is hard to find solutions given that variability, but it was pretty clear from the rancher/outfitter that the issue is money. I feel like these questions need to be asked/answered of those in that category...
What $ amount is adequate compensation to feed these elk annually?
What $ amount would it take for you to allow limited cow elk hunting?
What $ amount would it take for you to join BM and fully open to the general public?

Looks like the works already been done

Book an experience at Wickens Ranch in Montana. Hunting and Outdoor Recreation packages are available.

Cattle are at the heart of the Wickens Family Ranch, although for over 20 years recreational hunting has been an important part. Dog Creek Outfitters specializes in fair chase guided hunts for Trophy Mule Deer, Whitetail Deer, Antelope, Archery Elk, and Bighorn Sheep. Game is plentiful in our...

landtrust.com

Can someone point me to where a lack of incentive exists? Or is 1500 a day for a hunter not an incentive?

 

[Irrelevant]

Robert Frosts' poem Mending Wall introduced the quote "Good Fences Make Good Neighbors" and is his second most misquoted poem (The Road Not Taken being the first), because most people stop at that quote and don't read further into it.

In the poem, the speaker talks about how every year him and his neighbor meet at the fence and rebuild the gaps caused by weather and hunters (yup!). The poet never brings it up to his neighbor, but wonders to himself why they keep rebuilding the fence, because it is between a pine wood and an apple orchard and won't cause any problems. Yet the neighbor is insistent that "good fences make good neighbors" without any justification other than that it is what his father taught him and a stubborn refusal to change.

To this day people say that line from the poem not realizing the poem they are quoting is mocking it. Good fences don't make good neighbors. Building walls is not the way to solve the problems we have. Common ground isn't common if it has a fence through it.*

1. Thanks for the poetry lesson, I had only read that poem once before, and clearly fell into the same group as the masses, where over time I only remembered that one line, and assigned an incorrect interpretation to the poem.
2. However, both you and mr frost are wrong. It takes very little time with any group of neighbors to see that walls make good neighbors. They clearly differentiate rights and responsibilities between two entities that without, would almost never see eye to eye. By removing that ambiguity and potential source for conflict you can more easily maintain a better relationship with said neighbor. I prefer my creek over a wall, less to maintain but still clearly divides, but would still build a fence if not for the creek. I don't care how close or far away the neighbor is.

In an ideal world maybe they're not needed, but in reality, they're very useful.

 

[FREAK]

Here's my cliff notes version of the film.

1. Onx has changed the game for public land hunters

2. It's an awesome tool but has some consequences like more crowding on public lands, especially private/public boundaries due to the ease of obtaining information.

3. Sympathize with ranches as they understand your frustration when you see piles of elk on their property and can't hunt it. They may need to use that resource as a revenue stream to subsidize a slow year of ranching and would rather not deal with the average hunter screwing up their land.

4. It's a complicated situation, we should all hold hands and sing kumbuya

I'm all about a free market and don't really care how a rancher manages elk/deer on their land. Thank you to the ones that allow access or sign up for block Mangement!

I would have been more interested in the film if it came out and proposed some legislation or promoted Block management or advocated for ranchers and better compensation for hunter access through some program. A lot of vague/feel good stuff for me.

The more I look into the American Prairie model the more it makes sense.... The pendulum always swings towards center. Same goes for land trust. If that's how you want to do it, knock yourself out. There are some reasonable deals from property owners that want to be somewhere in the middle. If they're crappy deals they wont get booked, let the free market work it out. I'd rather donate to AP and explore some of their properties that I can access year after year then spend 1500/day but that's just me.

A property owner that charges or outfits their land is still allowing access and hunting, it's just to a very limited subset of hunters. It's better IMO than someone that doesn't. Although it's not significant it's still a net benefit to huntable acreage/hunter.

In the Midwest it's much more common to buy a hunting property or get permission or lease. It's not taboo like it is out west. Demand for elk hunting is skyrocketing. I don't want to see accessible lands decrease but I'm also not going to complain cause "50 years ago everybody would just let you on."

If I won the lottery i'd probably lease a big ranch out east and shoot 350" bulls every year. Sleep in a nice cabin stocked full of cold beer and steaks. Sounds a lot more fun than the way I do it.

...ouch, need to slap myself back into reality...its rag horns and sore backs for me for the foreseeable future .

 

[Nameless Range]

I think increased financial incentivization is needed, but it should always be tied to some sort of access.

I think hard red lines not-to-be-crossed are transferable permits or just raw money for habitat. Both would simply exacerbate and incentivize the existing issues and frankly, hurt block management.

A perfectly acceptable premise to move forward from as well, is that some landowners just won’t want to participate in certain programs - even if we make them more appealing. That’s perfectly reasonable, and shouldn’t stop us from bettering the deals on offer so that existing participants and potential participants may be more interested in a future with block management.

Someone smarter than me could come up with a sort of more complex formula for compensation, and I’ll leave it to the politicians to figure out where the money comes from, but I think it’s also OK to consider that access to certain species is more valuable to hunters than access to another. We already acknowledge this through restitution law . The spirit of it might sort of be a proxy for providing habitat, but again it should never be separated from access. Maybe that’s not a great idea, but it’s something I’ll think about more.



I think anything like a type two should be administered by the state, but I also think we should offer more flexibility to landowners in terms of the public’s period of use, the primary species they are most likely to be able to hunt and how that figures into compensation, etc. It wouldn’t necessarily be simple and we would be codifying thresholds in gray areas, but we do that with other things all the time.

I’m Currently on a game damage hunt and looking at a herd of 300 elk bedded down in the middle of a flat with not a tree for a mile. They are still on the ranch where I can hunt. I did an 8 mile hike this morning, a mile of which I crawled, trying to get close to them. I hope they move into somewhere more accessible this evening. On this 6000 acre ranch which through this damage opportunity I’ve had the privilege to hike, you can’t walk 100 yards without seeing fence damage. I’m skeptical that a six month game damage Hunt, nor herds of block management hunters would actually fix that, but the landscape of this ranch is absolutely providing opportunity for hunters far beyond the boundaries of the parcels that make it up. I think there’s ways to acknowledge that, even if it is an offer declined, that would be meaningful. It might be worth noting that offers declined were used as criteria the judge in the UPOM case leveraged to dismiss them.