Good Neighbor: Elk Management in Montana

[WanderWoman]

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.

If that’s the case it’s the exception rather than the rule and depending on how it’s written up could/should be rectified. There may be examples of very early CEs where there’s a problem but by now I’d imagine after doing CEs since the 80s(?, 90s?) that FWP is starting to figure it out. I have heard complaints about some CEs on this forum before but not if those complaining have addressed it with FWP.

A number of CEs are administered through Block Management, non-BMA but outside reservation system, sign-in and go, simply go, or via calling the landowner.

Minimum hunter days are written into the CE Deed and access rules/administration is part of a management plan, both of which should be available to peruse if you ask your regional office.

Also, “friends” are technically still public, but I don’t like the optics of that either. I do firmly believe that is also relatively rare considering how many properties have access agreements with FWP.

 

[Nameless Range]

I think in the same way it is a major error to assume UPOM is representative of the majority of landowners, so it would be to assume that ranches charging 3 grand for a cow hunt are as well.



Just take the area above in which I live. I see BMA participants(in red) who drive 25 year old Buick LeSabres here - some of the program's first participants - and I don't see a lot of wealth or greed. I see folks I know. Even in between the red, I see large chunks of private lands owned by people who dang near live in poverty, and certainly take less vacations than most of you reading this. I see great elk habitat, and a hell of a lot of pressure release valves for the public land in the area of interest.

Take the statewide level. That's nearly 5 million acres of Type 1 and over 2 million acres of Type 2. That's an area larger than any of the 8 smallest American States. There's more land enrolled in block management than there is State Trust Lands. Twice as many acres are enrolled in BM as there are acres of Wilderness in the State.



Block Management is the answer. Increased monies to help landowners with real issues should be tied to access. Those who don't want to participate for many perfectly rational reasons I can think of are perfectly fine not to, and we should move on. If we are talking about solutions with a utilitarian bent, I don't really see them as major players in our conversation. Sweeten the deals, improve the program, and lean into it because nothing else will come close. Who gives a chit if a landowner benefitting is well-to-do or not? The question should be whether it benefits the public, our statewide elk herd (numbers and distribution), and the future of hunting in Montana.

I think it is a mistake to attack caricatures of landowners. In my experience it is still true, and will continue to be, that the majority of those working cattle-related ag are living the only lives they've ever known. I'd rather keep the public's interests competitive with private's, and let the chips fall where they may.

 

[Ben Lamb]

I think in the same way it is a major error to assume UPOM is representative of the majority of landowners, so it would be to assume that ranches charging 3 grand for a cow hunt are as well.

View attachment 343773

Just take the area above in which I live. I see BMA participants(in red) who drive 25 year old Buick LeSabres here - some of the program's first participants - and I don't see a lot of wealth or greed. I see folks I know. Even in between the red, I see large chunks of private lands owned by people who dang near live in poverty, and certainly take less vacations than most of you reading this. I see great elk habitat, and a hell of a lot of pressure release valves for the public land in the area of interest.

Take the statewide level. That's nearly 5 million acres of Type 1 and over 2 million acres of Type 2. That's an area larger than any of the 8 smallest American States. There's more land enrolled in block management than there is State Trust Lands. Twice as many acres are enrolled in BM as there are acres of Wilderness in the State.

View attachment 343774

Block Management is the answer. Increased monies to help landowners with real issues should be tied to access. Those who don't want to participate for many perfectly rational reasons I can think of are perfectly fine not to, and we should move on. If we are talking about solutions with a utilitarian bent, I don't really see them as major players in our conversation. Sweeten the deals, improve the program, and lean into it because nothing else will come close. Who gives a chit if a landowner benefitting is well-to-do or not? The question should be whether it benefits the public, our statewide elk herd (numbers and distribution), and the future of hunting in Montana.

I think it is a mistake to attack caricatures of landowners. In my experience it is still true, and will continue to be, that the majority of those working cattle-related ag are living the only lives they've ever known. I'd rather keep the public's interests competitive with private's, and let the chips fall where they may.

There's a lot of opportunity in the block management program to try out some pilot projects geared towards a more individualized approach, and consequently - a more localized approach that brings multiple properties online for BMA's. Aggregates are great in R4 where I've hunted and they tend to get neighbors talking & working together on some solutions oriented management decisions along with the agency.

@Forkyfinder, the solution is in using existing programs to advance the goals of habitat restoration & conservation, access and there has to be a change in the hunting season structure. PAL & Block Management have opened around 1 million acres of landlocked public land in the last 4-5 years. Habitat MT has opened a few million acres of land that otherwise would be inaccessible due to ownership, or being located behind private.

Human pressure is the primary driver of elk distribution. Not just hunting but summer recreation as well.

 

[BuckRut]

Block Management is the answer.

In my opinion with the current status of the program Block Management is building more resentment for the landowners than it is offering help. The FWP needs to vet these properties better. All the FWP cares about is how many acres are in the program. They don't care if the property is useful for hunting or not.

Don't get me wrong. I am not saying the private land owners are evil. I just have a problem with continuing to make failing businesses the burden of the public.

Like I mentioned in my previous post. Many of these ranchers are running cattle on Government land at $1.35/AUM when the current fair market value for the private land leases is $27.00+/AUM. Hard to listen to everyone say give em more money.

 

[Nameless Range]

In my opinion with the current status of the program Block Management is building more resentment for the landowners than it is offering help. The FWP needs to vet these properties better. All the FWP cares about is how many acres are in the program. They don't care if the property is useful for hunting or not.

Don't get me wrong. I am not saying the private land owners are evil. I just have a problem with continuing to make failing businesses the burden of the public.

Like I mentioned in my previous post. Many of these ranchers are running cattle on Government land at $1.35/AUM when the current fair market value for the private land leases is $27.00+/AUM. Hard to listen to everyone say give em more money.

I don’t think their business success is relevant nor whether they are leasing public ground at a steal of a rate. I just care about being competitive with private interests and doing our best to keep access or improve it. My own experience with BM is varied but really is no different way than it is with public land. In the majority of parcels enrolled, I have extracted significant value.

Some chunks of ground are just better than the others, and I’m not saying it can’t be improved or refined. I’m actually saying we should.

 

[WanderWoman]

In my opinion with the current status of the program Block Management is building more resentment for the landowners than it is offering help. The FWP needs to vet these properties better. All the FWP cares about is how many acres are in the program. They don't care if the property is useful for hunting or not.

Don't get me wrong. I am not saying the private land owners are evil. I just have a problem with continuing to make failing businesses the burden of the public.

Like I mentioned in my previous post. Many of these ranchers are running cattle on Government land at $1.35/AUM when the current fair market value for the private land leases is $27.00+/AUM. Hard to listen to everyone say give em more money.

I used to feel that way back in my pre-hunting, pre-MT, hippie-dippie days. But after being in rural MT for a number of years now I truly appreciate the saying, “cows over condos.”

As Ben and others bring up numerous times, there are factors and forces affecting the ag markets not related to wildlife or game damage or even Montana, but I can sure as heck appreciate doing what we can to keep multi-generational, traditional working landowners on the landscape.
Agriculture is one of the many businesses in which we the public support, prop up, etc. I’d rather that aid continue to go to ag, particularly family producers, than big corporations, big banks, etc.

Just because a BMA isn’t good for elk doesn’t mean it’s not good for upland birds, migratory birds, deer, etc. and yes some are better than others and the program, like any other, could use some tweaking and improvement. But I don’t know of another program like it in any other state that even comes close to providing what it does to both landowners and the public.

 

[Forkyfinder]

In my opinion with the current status of the program Block Management is building more resentment for the landowners than it is offering help. The FWP needs to vet these properties better. All the FWP cares about is how many acres are in the program. They don't care if the property is useful for hunting or not.

Don't get me wrong. I am not saying the private land owners are evil. I just have a problem with continuing to make failing businesses the burden of the public.

Like I mentioned in my previous post. Many of these ranchers are running cattle on Government land at $1.35/AUM when the current fair market value for the private land leases is $27.00+/AUM. Hard to listen to everyone say give em more money.

Thats a totally seperate issue for a variety.of reasons.

It wasnt long ago the CAP for block management was 15k which is not a lot when you think about even a single cattle gaurd getting broke on a private road. Look at the fence in the video from good guy Bob - its not cheap to build, repair, or replace and is a major time suck if you lose animals.

If the intent is to work within block management - i hope they increase prices on tags significantly and give a bigger portion to them and offer bonuses for harvests, sign ups for volunteers if theyd like help managing hunters/repair, larger payments if the elk in the bma are residents, and offer other unique/individual programs and incentives for BMA properties.

 

[Forkyfinder]

I don’t think their business success is relevant nor whether they are leasing public ground at a steal of a rate. I just care about being competitive with private interests and doing our best to keep access or improve it. My own experience with BM is varied but really is no different way than it is with public land. In the majority of parcels enrolled, I have extracted significant value.

Some chunks of ground are just better than the others, and I’m not saying it can’t be improved or refined. I’m actually saying we should.

Also changes a lot year to year. And i know of a few nice muleys that came from archery access bmas that i would have totally ignored.

 

[Fred Rogers]

Is there a specific was to isolate the archery only BMA's?

 

[BuckRut]

Agriculture is one of the many businesses in which we the public support, prop up, etc. I’d rather that aid continue to go to ag, particularly family producers, than big corporations, big banks, etc.

I'll leave it at this so as not to derail the thread but this doesn't work. All the subsidies are doing right now in their current state is propagating generation after generation of operations that are barely making it while continuing to give the corporations a steady stream of lower cost goods.

I think we definitely need to stand behind these people and support them but I think it needs to be in a way drives competition and improvement and not relying on handouts.

Just food for thought. That money is still going to the corporations and the banks. Just taking a different route.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Thats a totally seperate issue for a variety.of reasons.

It wasnt long ago the CAP for block management was 15k which is not a lot when you think about even a single cattle gaurd getting broke on a private road. Look at the fence in the video from good guy Bob - its not cheap to build, repair, or replace and is a major time suck if you lose animals.

If the intent is to work within block management - i hope they increase prices on tags significantly and give a bigger portion to them and offer bonuses for harvests, sign ups for volunteers if theyd like help managing hunters/repair, larger payments if the elk in the bma are residents, and offer other unique/individual programs and incentives for BMA properties.

In 2023, the cap on block management was raised to $50,000. Typically, that means in order to hit that level, you need to be a type I bma, with little oversight in terms of hunter numbers, distribution, etc. Hutterite colonies are good example of BMA's that seek to maximize the daily hunter numbers to boost income. The payments are tied to impacts from hunting under law and rule for the program. This was done for a variety of reasons that @Elky Welky explained very well.

Block Management is currently funded by a percentage of the B120 & B11 licenses, along with some other funding from the General License Account and elsewhere. The funding is relatively stable and the appropriation for the program saw an increase last session, as well as more hunt technicians to go along with it. There have been discussions over the last 3 years relative to Type III BMA's, with some very strong concepts coming forward in terms of trying an approach that provides not only cash, but hunt techs, working groups and a majority stakeholder participation (from landowners inside an EMU).

For some landowners, the cash payment isn't the issue at all. Some landowners want to be sure that there's a certain quality of hunter that is allowed on their property so vetting becomes important to them. The Master Hunter program was started in an attempt to address this, and the MPG/Ravalli County Fish & Wildlife Assn's Next Level Hunter Education course does as well in a 2 day format. Because of the MPG program, many folks are hunting a property that was not easily accessed in the past. For an operation like the PV Ranch, it's about protecting their center pivots, ensuring elk are blown out and being positive of the situation in which elk are shot is one that won't cause a rodeo. So they have staff attend to each hunter, serving as a chaperone. That's a massive expense for the ranch properties, but it's one that's been deemed necessary for the management of animals.

If there's a free, public process that's able to vet hunters for some of those properties, I bet you'd start seeing more of them open their doors to public hunting.

 

[Ben Lamb]

I'll leave it at this so as not to derail the thread but this doesn't work. All the subsidies are doing right now in their current state is propagating generation after generation of operations that are barely making it while continuing to give the corporations a steady stream of lower cost goods.

I think we definitely need to stand behind these people and support them but I think it needs to be in a way drives competition and improvement and not relying on handouts.

Just food for thought. That money is still going to the corporations and the banks. Just taking a different route.

This isn't a derailment to me. Humans have a tendency to look myopically at problems, rather than globally. If the markets are not providing the kind of profit margin to help family ag, then we do need to look at how to change that so the packers aren't monopolizing the profits, and the producers increase their share. These things are inextricably linked. Improving profit margins, decreasing overhead and providing appropriate incentives for actions that are deemed for the public good all have to be part of that discussion.

 

[SAJ-99]

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".

Private land owners are a vital part of conservation in MT, maybe because they give out so many tags. I'm not sure Wilkens would take any amount of money to join BM, but if he did I am pretty sure it would only take a couple of seasons for elk populations on his property to go down the toilet.

I guess the main point I was going for is they certainly could have done worse in selecting a representative for that video.

I think any attacks or accusations against Wilkens are misdirected. He admits the wildlife are an asset to him and he manages them. The problem is the video is about elk management and clarifies the problem of distribution of elk between public and private to the increasing frustration of traditional landowners (and hunters). He is someone that some will view as part of that particular problem, not the solution. It's certainly a paradox. As Hank Worsech put it, hunters better get to know some landowners. I will add, and get out their checkbooks.

 

[SAJ-99]

This isn't a derailment to me. Humans have a tendency to look myopically at problems, rather than globally. If the markets are not providing the kind of profit margin to help family ag, then we do need to look at how to change that so the packers aren't monopolizing the profits, and the producers increase their share. These things are inextricably linked. Improving profit margins, decreasing overhead and providing appropriate incentives for actions that are deemed for the public good all have to be part of that discussion.

I found this kind of funny...The company with 30% profit margins and record profits is suing the companies in a 5% profit margin business for colluding to inflate prices.

McDonald's sues several meat packing companies, claims they colluded to inflate beef prices

McDonald's filed a lawsuit against multiple meat companies over allegations they engaged in a price-fixing scheme for beef specifically the last nine years.

www.foxbusiness.com

 

[Forkyfinder]

I found this kind of funny...The company with 30% profit margins and record profits is suing the companies in a 5% profit margin business for colluding to inflate prices.

McDonald's sues several meat packing companies, claims they colluded to inflate beef prices

McDonald's filed a lawsuit against multiple meat companies over allegations they engaged in a price-fixing scheme for beef specifically the last nine years.

www.foxbusiness.com

Im glad someone is seeing to it that theres not corruption there.

The price of beef in the store and beef on the hoof are getting further apart than ever.

 

[SAJ-99]

Im glad someone is seeing to it that theres not corruption there.

The price of beef in the store and beef on the hoof are getting further apart than ever.

Lots of people in between. When you chose to be in a business that produces a commodity, you can expect profits to be low and scale to be more important. Small family ranches are in a tough spot. Co-op?