HB 505: A Lack of Thought On The Road To Commercialization of Our Wildlife

[Nameless Range]

Here is the draft text to LC2343, which would allow distinct landowners owning more than 640 acres in districts over objective to be given 10 transferrable elk tags. Attached are the 2020 elk counts in PDF form. Below are those districts listed as over objective in that document. I did this last night and didn't put much effort into the maps:

 

[Nameless Range]

I pulled all the cadastral data for those districts over objective, aggregated polygons by identical ownership name, removed public and state lands, and queried out only those owners who own more than 640 acres. To be clear, I have no doubt there are errors in this data. The public lands dataset and the cadastral were not coincident, and ownership of public and state lands is a disaster in terms of the names on the deeds. For example, this was one query I tried and it missed stuff:

OwnerName NOT IN ( 'MONTANA DEPARTMENT OF FISH', 'MONTANA DEPARTMENT OF FISH WILDLIFE & PARKS', 'MONTANA DEPARTMENT OF FISH, WILDLIFE AND PARKS', 'MONTANA DEPT OF FISH WILDLIFE', 'MONTANA DEPT OF FISH WILDLIFE & PARK', 'MONTANA DEPT OF FISH WILDLIFE & PARKS', 'MONTANA DEPT OF NATURAL RESOURCES', 'MONTANA DPT FISH WILDLIFE PKS', 'STATE OF MONTANA', 'STATE OF MONTANA - AG EXPERIMENT STATION', 'STATE OF MONTANA DEPT OF', 'STATE OF MONTANA DEPT OF MILITARY AFFAIRS', 'STATE OF MONTANA DEPT OF MONTANA', 'STATE OF MONTANA DEPT. OF STATE LANDS', 'STATE OF MONTANA DNRC', 'STATE OF MONTANA MINE LEASE LAND', 'STATE OF MONTANA STATE BOARD OF LAND COMMISSIONERS', 'STATE OF MONTATNA DEPT OF STATE LANDS', 'STATE OF MT DEPT OF FISH WILDLIFE & PARK', 'STATE OF MT FISH & GAME', 'STATE OF MT TRUST LAND', 'U S A', 'U S A IN TRUST FOR CROW TRIBE', 'U S A IN TRUST FOR N CHEYENNE TRIBE', 'U S A IN TRUST FOR THE CROW TRIBE', 'U S FISH & WILDLIFE SERVICE', 'U S FOREST SERVICE', 'UNITED STATE OF AMERICA', 'UNITED STATES BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT', 'UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE', 'UNITED STATES FOREST SERVICE', 'UNITED STATES IN TRUST FOR CONFEDERATED SALISH', 'UNITED STATES OF AMERICA', 'UNITED STATES OF AMERICA-BLM', 'UNITED STATES OF AMERICA DEPT OF AG', 'UNITED STATES OF AMERICA SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR BLM-MONTANA/DAKOTAS SO', 'UNITED STATES OF AMERICA USDI', 'UNITED STATES OF AMRERICA','USDA FOREST SERVICE')

 

[Nameless Range]

 

[Nameless Range]

I will leave it to you to compare the amount of elk, as well as historic tags in those districts, to the amount of new tags this would create. In many districts it is appalling.

Throw in that it only takes one elk for a district to be over objective, and it is further evidence that this was written with little thought or effort.

Part of me wonders if this is a distraction. Say the bill only allocated one elk tag per 640. I would still be opposed to it. These are our wildlife and I reject such an allocation and commercialization of them. They deserve better.

Landowners have Block Management, Damage Rosters, and in most districts that are over objective, a 7 month elk hunting season where they can let anyone they choose on to their property. This bill is BS and an attempt to stain a legacy and we need to call it as such.

 

[Nameless Range]

To sum it up, this could potentially create somewhere around 83,000 new elk tags......

Edit: Probably closer to 30-50,000

​

 

[Nameless Range]

I guess one assumption I made that I should include in this analysis is ownership across multiple districts. If Ranch X owned 700 acres in District 300 and 1500 acres in District 335, am assuming that ranch would be allowed 20 transferrable tags - 10 from each district in which they owned more than 640 acres.

 

[Hunting Wife]

Thank you for putting that together. Even quick and dirty data illustrate the point quite well.

 

[Nameless Range]

Thank you for putting that together. Even quick and dirty data illustrate the point quite well.

Thanks, digging into the data, I can certainly say this may be overstating things somewhat.

For example, in 380 I see Kimpton Ranch Co, Kimpton Ranch Co Inc, and Kimpton Ranch Company. Those are being counted as 3 distinct owners, because that is what is on the deeds. I think there are a fair amount of examples like that.

Attached is a text file you could bring into excel and explore yourselves if you wanted that has the owner names, the district, and the acreage.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

You're missing 329, but other than than really close to what I got running the same basic process.

 

[Nameless Range]

You're missing 329, but other than than really close to what I got running the same basic process.

Thanks, that is good to point out. My brain is fried.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

Thanks, that is good to point out. My brain is fried.

Yeah inputting that spreadsheet into a def query is super tedious as well.

Anyway you cut it this bill is at least doubling NR tags and giving them to "outfitters" on top of the 39% in the other bill.

 

[teamhoyt]

The EMP needs revised, working off numbers from so long ago is ridiculous. This bill is ridiculous. Transferable landowner tags(unless were antlerless only) is not going to reduce population, is not going to make public elk more publicly accessible and will likely make it less, also will just strengthen the harboring issues imo.

In some districts these tags will likely be a non issue after year one. Make unit 410 general and it'll be under objective in short order and the Transferable tags will be done. So will the elk herd.

 

[Nameless Range]

Instead of multiplying by 10, to be conservative due to the nature of cadastral data, here is a spreadsheet where I multiplied by 3. Probably a more realistic representation of what is potentially possible.

 

[Sioux33]

Thank you for putting this together. This is the kind of stuff we need in front of the committee and legislature before the party-line BS begins...

 

[rustednuts]

Montanan’s sure seem to hate their elk

 

[JLS]

Montanan’s sure seem to hate their elk

It's not so much a hatred of elk, it's a hatred of not being able to freely utilize them like the commodity they are viewed as. Public trust has long been forgotten.

I have a copy of the book "Back from the Brink". I personally knew a rancher, whose dad was integral in some of the major wildlife restoration efforts in central Montana. I knew ranchers who could speak of the times when deer and elk were virtually non-existent in some places.

It's amazing and sad to me how the good old days of elk hunting are becoming nothing more than a race to be Jerry McGuire.

 

[Straight Arrow]

It's not so much a hatred of elk, it's a hatred of not being able to freely utilize them like the commodity they are viewed as. Public trust has long been forgotten.

I have a copy of the book "Back from the Brink". I personally knew a rancher, whose dad was integral in some of the major wildlife restoration efforts in central Montana. I knew ranchers who could speak of the times when deer and elk were virtually non-existent in some places.

It's amazing and sad to me how the good old days of elk hunting are becoming nothing more than a race to be Jerry McGuire.

View attachment 174624

For elk ... it's more like BACK TO THE BRINK!

 

[npaden]

I would think that your original estimate may be more accurate long term. I would think that if this was passed many ranches would set up ownership where several different family members each owned 640+ acres sized pieces of the ranch. Pretty easy to change the names on the deeds and for 10 extra elk tags every year it would be worth it in several areas.

 

[Ben Lamb]

This is fantastic work Bret. Let's make sure you send it to the committee secretary before the hearing, so she can hand it out to the committee members. They need to have this in front of them.

 

[golfer]

It's not so much a hatred of elk, it's a hatred of not being able to freely utilize them like the commodity they are viewed as. Public trust has long been forgotten.

I have a copy of the book "Back from the Brink". I personally knew a rancher, whose dad was integral in some of the major wildlife restoration efforts in central Montana. I knew ranchers who could speak of the times when deer and elk were virtually non-existent in some places.

It's amazing and sad to me how the good old days of elk hunting are becoming nothing more than a race to be Jerry McGuire.

View attachment 174624

Back from the brink should be a requirement of those on these committees to watch before taking their seat on the committee