Good Neighbor: Elk Management in Montana

[Ben Lamb]

I can get a pretty good idea of the variability in the individual cases. I would also guess that some form of a "solution" already exists. Not a perfect solution, but the right direction. Maybe the problem we have is applying the specific solution to the specific cases? WY has similar problems and has proposed many different solutions. It doesn't change the core fact that private ranches typically have the best wintering ground and the "social tolerance" regarding elk varies greatly from one fence line to another. Sprinkle in the fact that a lot of legislators will bend over backward for those that have enough zeros after the first digit in the bank balance.

Interior western legislatures are dominated with rural lawmakers (CO is the exception, not the rule). It shouldn't a surprise they would favor the ag voice over others. It's not so much about dollars as it is values, IMO. WY provides the best example of why damage payments shouldn't be an option elsewhere. That program is not reducing conflict, and it only pays out after a bad action, so it's doing nothing to stop the issue, or find more creative ways to manage the situation. It's a short-term stop-gap that doesn't actually address the issue.

 

[Treeshark]

It seems that whenever this issue is discussed, it is almost always Montana or Wyoming.

Does Colorado experience these problems to a similar degree?

 

[Forkyfinder]

Interior western legislatures are dominated with rural lawmakers (CO is the exception, not the rule). It shouldn't a surprise they would favor the ag voice over others. It's not so much about dollars as it is values, IMO. WY provides the best example of why damage payments shouldn't be an option elsewhere. That program is not reducing conflict, and it only pays out after a bad action, so it's doing nothing to stop the issue, or find more creative ways to manage the situation. It's a short-term stop-gap that doesn't actually address the issue.

Exactly.

And folks who vote for these "free market" politicians should clearly understand they are committed to serving their special interest and not what shows up in your mailbox. Whether its "values" or money driven - it really doesnt matter for the end result.

It seems that whenever this issue is discussed, it is almost always Montana or Wyoming.

Does Colorado experience these problems to a similar degree?

They likely lack the political capital in that state to find "solutions." I also think they have quite the public/private interface issues that Montana does. Could be wrong though.

 

[Ben Lamb]

It seems that whenever this issue is discussed, it is almost always Montana or Wyoming.

Does Colorado experience these problems to a similar degree?

Colorado's approach is much different because they severely limit hunter days afield while also providing transferable licenses. Their problems are much different than other states simply because of how they initially set up Ranching for Wildlife, and how it got away from them. But even now, CO is looking at limiting non-residents and reducing opportunity even more. The issue of transferability causes a large inequity between the public and those lucky enough to sell permits (actual commodification of wildlife instead of leasing, etc).

So you can have a lot less opportunity & transferable tags - or find other options. The "other options" side has a lot more tools and better outcomes for everyone, personally.

 

[Treeshark]

Colorado's approach is much different because they severely limit hunter days afield while also providing transferable licenses.

Sometimes the answers to our questions are sitting right there under our nose, aren’t they…?

 

[Ben Lamb]

Sometimes the answers to our questions are sitting right there under our nose, aren’t they…?

If the goal is simply to trade one set of crappy problems for another set of equally crappy problems, then sure.

 

[Forkyfinder]

Sometimes the answers to our questions are sitting right there under our nose, aren’t they…?

Have you bought a transferable tag in CO? Why not, if you havent?

 

[Treeshark]

Have you bought a transferable tag in CO? Why not, if you havent?

Some are certain that I have, while some are certain that I have not.

I guess I’m bit of mystery wrapped in an enigma

 

[Irrelevant]

m cuirious as to which wealthy outfitting operations you're thinking of?

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.

But if you want to play naïve I can carve out some time to make a spreadsheet for you. I know a guy...

Wealthy people who have ranches don't need the financial incentive.

Yet they mostly still actively seek them, or do you think they're not taking the tax right offs? Not enrolling in CRP, not using "grant" money to rebuild their fences in the "name of wildlife" then getting some fleeced public servant to create what amount's to a marketing video showcasing all the "conservation" work they're doing... it honestly makes me sick how hard they still suck on the welfare tit.

They already can buy any tag they want. They've purchased ranches for reasons other than just sticking a bull or a buck. They want to be able to hunt their property.

If that's the reason and the cause for the conflict, then let's go to cow tags only for private land.

 

[Treeshark]

If the goal is simply to trade one set of crappy problems for another set of equally crappy problems, then sure.

There are a ton of valid points to make on both sides of this one.

Objectively (removing the raw emotional opposition), I think we can all agree here that practically, Colorado has done a better job with this issue than WY/MT.

 

[Forkyfinder]

Colorado's approach is much different because they severely limit hunter days afield while also providing transferable licenses. Their problems are much different than other states simply because of how they initially set up Ranching for Wildlife, and how it got away from them. But even now, CO is looking at limiting non-residents and reducing opportunity even more. The issue of transferability causes a large inequity between the public and those lucky enough to sell permits (actual commodification of wildlife instead of leasing, etc).

So you can have a lot less opportunity & transferable tags - or find other options. The "other options" side has a lot more tools and better outcomes for everyone, personally.

Colorado also has a lot more people - i think the opportunity is more of a product of that than the other things outlined.

 

[Forkyfinder]

There are a ton of valid points to make on both sides of this one.

Objectively (removing the raw emotional opposition), I think we can all agree here that practically, Colorado has done a better job with this issue than WY/MT.

If Wy/Mt legislatue looked like CO - we would hear a lot less complaints.

 

[Nameless Range]

There's an aspect to all of this, and it's not to discount the very real issues folks who work the land deal with in regard to elk, of a few well-connected squeaky wheels instigating the proposal of big changes vs the majority. UPOM is a great example - well connected leadership, a lot of pull - but won't even release who the hell is within their membership and for good reason. I know a handful of landowners - none of em put some of these proposed ideas (raw payment for damage, transferable tags, etc) in their top 10 of chit they care about. Is my sample skewed or are a few contingents constantly trying to upend the public's stake in the game? I can't help but feel it's the latter, and the more landowners I meet and interact with, the more my assumption comports with reality.

On the game damage hunt I went on last week, I spoke to the ranch manager. He said 3 years ago elk ate $50,000 worth of grass on his land, and in the last few years it's basically been $0. I asked him how he figured that, and he spoke to an adult elk eating 60 cents of grass per day. I suppose one could dig into the veracity of that, but I also assume landowners are pretty in tune with expected yield and what they actually get in a given season.

 

[SAJ-99]

On the game damage hunt I went on last week, I spoke to the ranch manager. He said 3 years ago elk ate $50,000 worth of grass on his land, and in the last few years it's basically been $0. I asked him how he figured that, and he spoke to an adult elk eating 60 cents of grass per day. I suppose one could dig into the veracity of that, but I also assume landowners are pretty in tune with expected yield and what they actually get in a given season.

Classic story of "You should have been here yesterday 3 yrs ago!". I wonder if that ranch is running more cattle now that they have more grass? What happens in a drought? I have so many questions around any of the grass yield formulas.

I think some ranchers have legit problems and some want to complain about the problem with the goal of getting an end result they want. The only reason I turn to $ is because that is how society has equalized things of different value since we stopped bartering on how much flour it took to exchange for a chicken a couple of thousand years ago.

 

[Ben Lamb]

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.

Respectfully, there's a lot of assumption here that you may not want to dig in too deep on.

I saw a small lodge with mounts. That's part of the business. Most outfitters have lodges. That's part of the overall business model. You can rent it - it's a 2 bedroom cabin: https://www.dogcreekoutfitters.co/lodge-rental

Trucks are a tool on a ranch as well. They get changed out, etc. The ranch truck in the video is loud enough you can hear it from the drone above. I guess I didn't see a new truck or a million dollar house. True - there's a pile of mounts in that lodge, just like every other hunting lodge in the world. I've known this family for a few years now. They're not wealthy. They are getting by and running two businesses while doing great work in their community.

Yet they mostly still actively seek them, or do you think they're not taking the tax right offs? Not enrolling in CRP, not using "grant" money to rebuild their fences in the "name of wildlife" then getting some fleeced public servant to create what amount's to a marketing video showcasing all the "conservation" work they're doing... it honestly makes me sick how hard they still suck on the welfare tit.

I talked to a family that is very similar to the Wickens about an easement on their home place. They were looking at ways to grow their cow/calf operation while not selling the family homestead. It's damned good elk parturition ground & the public would have had use of it while remaining privately held. If they got an easement, I'd be all for them getting block payments to manage the hunting access.

CRP is a federal HABITAT program. Most federal programs have little to no access requirement as they focus on other critical issues. Crop subsidies, etc are a different thing altogether.

Happy to look at a spreadsheet.

 

[Irrelevant]

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.

Let's take a little peaksky

How about the XI Ranch? Sold for $66 mil (https://hallhall.com/property-for-sale/montana/ix-ranch/a09i00000060rUZ/), leases to the Montana Outfitting Company, where you can book a nice little bull elk hunt for $12.5k. And for the common man, an easy cow elk hunt for $3k. Very affordable.

But who can blame them for trying to make a little money to fund the ranch.

And yet(!) they still wanted, and even worse, received! federal conservation grant funding to enhance the wildlife on their ranch. Sucking hard on that welfare tit their lips are probably going numb.

Partners in North Central Montana Leverage RCPP for Conservation - IWJV

Sage grouse, deer, pronghorn, elk, and the waterfowl reliant on North America’s “duck factory” all depend on healthy native grasslands in north-central Montana. These partners are building a community that keeps this system intact.

iwjv.org

 

[SwaggyD]

Let's take a little peaksky

How about the XI Ranch? Sold for $66 mil (https://hallhall.com/property-for-sale/montana/ix-ranch/a09i00000060rUZ/), leases to the Montana Outfitting Company, where you can book a nice little bull elk hunt for $12.5k. And for the common man, an easy cow elk hunt for $3k. Very affordable.
View attachment 343672
But who can blame them for trying to make a little money to fund the ranch.

And yet(!) they still wanted, and even worse, received! federal conservation grant funding to enhance the wildlife on their ranch. Sucking hard on that welfare tit their lips are probably going numb.

Partners in North Central Montana Leverage RCPP for Conservation - IWJV

Sage grouse, deer, pronghorn, elk, and the waterfowl reliant on North America’s “duck factory” all depend on healthy native grasslands in north-central Montana. These partners are building a community that keeps this system intact.

iwjv.org

View attachment 343674View attachment 343673

Yes!!!! He’s back!!!!

 

[Irrelevant]

@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.

 

[Ben Lamb]

@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.

Noted.

 

[Forkyfinder]

I have very little tolerance for their arguments.

I try to listen - but it doesnt take much digging to find there is a wide variance from legit problems to invented ones to profit of public resources.

The largest issue i have is being subject to a business world where the bottom line matters. If there are two deparments within a business - and one of them is more successful - most companies/owners are not in position of privelage to simply "choose" to do the other simply cause they enjoy it and have a heritage doing it. Everywhere ive been employed if a department is not adding value, changes are made until it does, or that part of the business shrinks dramatically and/or dies.

Frankly, it sounds awfully entitled to me. I know people who have lost their job to automation, market changes, or their small business to corporations brutal efficiency. There seems to be a lot less concern in Helena for them and their way of life than whats happens to land owners.