Good Neighbor: Elk Management in Montana

[Borny1]

With the latest ruling against UPOM, FWP has really been given some leverage. Landowners now know that no matter how much they complain, they aren't going to get the tags to sell. They will have to work with FWP or I hope the elk eat the siding off their houses.

 

[SAJ-99]

The dollar is the core to this entire issue. The dollar amount is zero. Recall from the video what the BM landowner said. He said back in the past you could go hunting anywhere you wanted. That's because no dollar amount was placed on game. Once outfitting and the commercialization of hunting happened, landowners stopped allowing access since they think they should be reimbursed for "their elk". We'll, the elk don't belong to them. They belong to all of us. If they want help regulating number they need to work with us or live with the hay burning, fence ruining consequences.

Sounds like the "Montana Values" argument. Good luck with that. I think it ignores the changes in economics and culture. We too often try to save things that can't be saved. I like the video, but my criticism is that they picked someone whose point of view ("show me the money") is literally the opposite of most Montanans. Someone needs to make a video that clarifies the issues of this situation so people (FWP, landowners, voters) can negotiate the points, hopefully in good faith, but going back to "the way it was" isn't going to happen. I am 100% sure that money will be a factor in any "solution".

 

[antlerradar]

The dollar is the core to this entire issue. The dollar amount is zero. Recall from the video what the BM landowner said. He said back in the past you could go hunting anywhere you wanted. That's because no dollar amount was placed on game. Once outfitting and the commercialization of hunting happened, landowners stopped allowing access since they think they should be reimbursed for "their elk". We'll, the elk don't belong to them. They belong to all of us. If they want help regulating number they need to work with us or live with the hay burning, fence ruining consequences.

I don't disagree with you. Just remember that the dollar amount is high because there are lots of hunters willing to pay the price. So far most of the effort to slow commercialization has been focused on the supply side of the equation. Find ways to cut demand and you will reduce the dollar amount and improve access.

 

[mtmuley]

I don't disagree with you. Just remember that the dollar amount is high because there are lots of hunters willing to pay the price. So far most of the effort to slow commercialization has been focused on the supply side of the equation. Find ways to cut demand and you will reduce the dollar amount and improve access.

Paying to hunt will always be a hard no for me. mtmuley

 

[Borny1]

I don't disagree with you. Just remember that the dollar amount is high because there are lots of hunters willing to pay the price. So far most of the effort to slow commercialization has been focused on the supply side of the equation. Find ways to cut demand and you will reduce the dollar amount and improve access.

Very good point. I see where outfitters are getting $13k+ for a single bull. That's a big carrot. I do have the answer for cutting the demand. It's simple, but unpopular because it too takes the dollar out of the equation. The answer is to go cow only in over-objective units. Access would abound and elk management would be restored.

 

[Irrelevant]

A couple of thoughts,

My naivete came out, because I'm still shocked that people who commodify a public resource line up so readily asking for more. So they can line their pockets, and walls, with the proceeds from that common resource, owned by all, that they've conveniently locked us commoners from access to. I'd be in support of govt eradication of the wildlife on that slick talkers place.

And second, you can never pay enough to access places like his, someone is always going to be willing to pay more than the public, and as you drive that price up you just incentivize more to ditch traditional ranching for leasing and outfitting.

 

[ismith]

YES! Whatever happened to the longstanding principles of the CODE OF THE WEST? It historically has been that the blessings of man's ownership of property with wildlife habitat also included appreciation, but especially a requisite tolerance, of wildlife on the property.

"Code of the West" means just about anything these days, unless you're talking about the Zane Grey novel. Hope that hooch you're drinking is the high dollar stuff...............

 

[ismith]

I for one would be in favor of no farmer/rancher welfare without public access for hunting.

 

[Straight Arrow]

"Code of the West" means just about anything these days, unless you're talking about the Zane Grey novel

'Don't know how long you've been in Montana, but the CODE OF THE WEST has historically and traditionally been more specific than you express. In fact it has been published as a Gallatin County document for newcomers to read as guidance in acclimating to Montana life and mores.

Hope that hooch you're drinking is the high dollar stuff...............

'Don't know why you made that remark ... but it's a bit disrespectful. 'Make's me speculate that perhaps you are a bit tipsy and not able to read and comprehend quite to the clarity expected of my post.