I think their example is a good one. The random draw element is neat, I think iv encountered a few other type 2 BMA that have a random selector as well.
This got me thinking about the spectrum of landowners that participate in BM. There are clearly places FWP can focus the efforts. I’m sure even this breakdown isn’t as clean and neat as we would like.
Yup.
I think they have a good thing going honestly. They take 200 to 250 hunters a year free of charge. That elk herd last I heard was around 1700 head between 8 mile creek and Strickland creek.
I get what your saying but if you go cows only in overpopulated units the demand has to go to units that are at or below objective. This also gives outfitters a reason to help keep the cow numbers down or they will lose the chance to outfit. Demand is not going down and we don't want it to.
If landowners are compensated market rates for damages - especially and specifically with grazing - dont you think this makes some of the existing problems worse?
MT hunts elk for 6 months out of the year and gives out a $hit-ton of tags and still can't make a dent in over-objective units. Why? 1) because objectives are ridiculously low and 2) because most of those elk don't show up on complainer ranches until after the seasons ends. Apparently, Spring grass is delicious. Unless we are going to start threads about how to cook an unborn calf into a nice soup, the answer is going to be $$$. I get that it is unpalatable. Mostly it ends up paying one traditional rancher for his rich, a-hole neighbor that likes to "harbor" elk. I think we all need to recognize reality. This argument about access-to-solve-elk-problems is nonsense. But giving the a-hole neighbor a bull tag to let some plebes on to shoot a few cow elk is also bull$hit (IMO, of course).
BINGO! Ben wins again.
Who counts the elk? Or the grass they ate? If access and hunting aren't granted as part of the payment - whats the public paying for it getting in return? Why stop at elk - rabbits are known to eat a lot of crops?
Completely agree with the thought process. I have asked the similar questions before, like how can we quantify how much grass elk eat from one time period to another and put it in terms of "loss"- cattle shipping weights? (see solutions for game damage hunts, which could be used). I can sympathize equally with the hunter who sees elk on property they can't access and with the rancher who has to bear the financial impact of elk in the six months the season is closed and allowing access is pointless. But none of that really matters. It is certainly true that some of the "complaints" about too many elk are certainly disingenuous when coming from ranchers that lease out hunting rights. But if the problem is too many elk on private, legislatively you will eventually be at gunning them down from a helicopter. In the end, I think what matters is the elk objectives. If hunters want to raise elk numbers, the objectives need to go up. Any argument around "helping" ranchers reach current objectives is silly. The easiest way to determine how to raise objectives is to ask ranchers "How much?". And yes, the solution will be abused by some. We live in an imperfect world where money will drive poor ethical decisions. But a lot of ranchers might jump on board.
The death to the American Cowboy will likely happen in the next 20 years, barring the Lords return when all these 55-75 year old ranchers die and their properties come up for sale and only the weathly individuals that can utilize a ranch for a schedule F write off will be the ones buying them.
The Montana Stockgrowers Association would not agree with that statement. Nor would the beef industry data.
Granted motorized cattle herding has become a viable method, however there is still a popularity with doing things on the back of a horse. In fact, the recreational and competitive venues have only increased over the past decades. My perspective may be a bit skewed because I live in an area of Montana with more and more horses and facilities every year, but there are likely more horses here than one hundred years ago, before big car dealers.
Estimating forage loss isn't that difficult based on existing AUM rates, etc. Counting critters gets a bit more complicated. However, only a very few people are thinking that damage payments are a good idea in addressing wildlife mgt issues. There may be a bill this session on it, but the issues of diversion, and competing interests for limited funds make that push unlikely to succeed. And to be clear - damage payments only happen if a law is passed. The recent ruling in the UPOM case was also clear that landowners have to avail themselves of the suite of options that FWP has regarding access, etc. Hazing, etc is different as there's no funds that exchange hands, just the actions to help landowners deal with problematic concentrations.
I would wager a guess that the people who have hunted those properties would say that they benefited from some of the solutions. But I'm cuirious as to which wealthy outfitting operations you're thinking of? Most of the owner-operators I know are still working low profit margins, have families working a couple of jobs, etc. Sure - wealthy properties benefit from programs like the 454 elk permits but the balance has been shifting towards the public benefit in that program (Last commission meeting previous detractors were supporting the program changes and increase in transparency, etc). If someone is leasing their property to a hunt club or outfitter, they are not eligible for a lot of FWP programs. Those folks have made a financial decision that works for them and their business model.
'Don't know about the rest of Montana, but in SW Montana there does not seem to be increased access or greater community involvement from wealthy people owning the big ranches with good wildlife habitat and large numbers of wildlife. I agree with the first four statements, but I just don't recognize any of those "some instances".
