Wapiti Warrior
New member
Here is an article about limited archery permits in the eastern part of MT.
http://www.plwa.org/viewarticle.php?id=167
http://www.plwa.org/viewarticle.php?id=167
Limited archery tags letter
- Thread starter Wapiti Warrior
- Start date
Lawnboy
Well-known member
2." Unlimited permits means large numbers of hunters in blue-ribbon hunting
districts. With private land access constricted by fee hunting or harboring
this multitude of hunters concentrates on the open access of public lands.
Elk are smart. They depart the public lands very quickly when the hunting
pressure comes on. Where they go is onto private lands where fee-paying
private hunters have exclusive use of the game and public hunters can only
watch from across the fence."
Only makes sense that if you push them onto private you're going to have to watch across the fence (This happens to us all the time on the Yellowstone park boundary). It only takes one guy to push 300 head from a public section to the private land. It doesn't matter if there are 100 hunters or 1. You spook them they run. Sounds like the risk you take hunting so close private land. Maybe try bigger blocks of puclic or any of our Wilderness areas.
3. "This profit opportunity motivates some landowners to cut off public access
to public lands neighboring their properties in order to enlarge and secure
their control over the public game on their land. The favorite method of
doing this is to put locked gates across roads that transsect their property.
Many of these roads are legally provable as public rights of way. current
state law is strongly slanted toward benefit of the private landowners. Getting
these road open again is very slow and very costly for the public."
This is illegal and you should call the sheriff immediately! Limiting permits isn't going to change the idiot behavior of some of the landowners. They need to be addressed by the local authorities not the public hunter. They are law breakers just like shoplifters and thieves. There shouldn't be anything slow about returning order or righting a wrong like someone blocking a legal public right away. They sure wouldn't let some nut job shut down I-90 for very long. The local authorities need to get some nutters and go take care of the situation. I totally agree that this happens but they are few and far between, regardless they still need their clocks cleaned by local authorities.
"One of the most distressing aspects of my many conversations with
bowhunters on this subject is the degree to which they are willing to sacrifice
the quality of their hunt in exchange for more acreage via liberal permits. It
must be very hard to understand that it doesn't matter if you have a permit in
your pocket if there will few elk for you to hunt where you are able to hunt -
whatever private land access you once had is being taken away in exchange
for that depreciated permit you desire"
Distressing to you but this is obviously the opinion of many hunters. So what makes your idea of a good hunting situation any better than theirs. Using his words "it must be very hard to understand..." If you hunt near private land you run the risk of having the animals on any given day being on that private land and not on the boundary you are hunting. Furthermore like I mentioned it only takes 1 hunter who is either seen or smelled by the animals to make them run. This is just the facts of hunting. If I choose to hunt by the Park boundary or Turners many ranches I run the risk of having elk inside the park and not in the hunting district. Do I run to Fwp and cry about it and demand some sort of permitting because the animals weren't on the land I wanted them to be on? What if Fin and the camera crew shows up and now I don't have the whole thing to myself? Boo Hoo
Go to another spot. Maybe hike deep into the wilderness areas and set up camp or does that require too much effort?
"Having said all that I think private landowners who maintain quality wildlife
habitat on their property deserve more compensation than tradition has
produced for them. But that is another letter."
I have found many contradictions in this guys article. The above statement would be interesting to read. I wonder if he will ever write another letter addressing this? We've talked on here about paying more for quality Block Management places. This will open more land than any restrictions of permits will ever do. Reward the landowners who provide quality access and get rid of the ones that don't have any game even on their land.
It does sound like some of the Breaks units might animal number issues. ( I recall Buzz's experience this year) Then I think that would be a viable reason to start cutting back on permits both archery and rifle. The key is managing the resource properly. Usually if there are too many hunters then game numbers are in the toilet. This would merit cutting tags. The Bitteroot is finally doing that and hopefully they can get the animals back again. My thought is the highest population in the state is in the Billings area. The closest "good hunting" is the breaks and now they are having huge conflicts of hunters. Gas up the truck and head West instead of North and look for another elk spot. I certainly have to do the same for deer around here. Too many hunters and very few muleys so I head east to see if its any better.
If I understand the current proposal it would restrict the NR to chose the unit and then only allow them to hunt that unit and on private land only. This shouldn't provide any competition to the Res public land hunter at all. In fact I'm more relieved knowing that the NR guy hunting the ranch can't hop the fence and go after the elk on the public when they are feeding or crossing. Just my thoughts.
districts. With private land access constricted by fee hunting or harboring
this multitude of hunters concentrates on the open access of public lands.
Elk are smart. They depart the public lands very quickly when the hunting
pressure comes on. Where they go is onto private lands where fee-paying
private hunters have exclusive use of the game and public hunters can only
watch from across the fence."
Only makes sense that if you push them onto private you're going to have to watch across the fence (This happens to us all the time on the Yellowstone park boundary). It only takes one guy to push 300 head from a public section to the private land. It doesn't matter if there are 100 hunters or 1. You spook them they run. Sounds like the risk you take hunting so close private land. Maybe try bigger blocks of puclic or any of our Wilderness areas.
3. "This profit opportunity motivates some landowners to cut off public access
to public lands neighboring their properties in order to enlarge and secure
their control over the public game on their land. The favorite method of
doing this is to put locked gates across roads that transsect their property.
Many of these roads are legally provable as public rights of way. current
state law is strongly slanted toward benefit of the private landowners. Getting
these road open again is very slow and very costly for the public."
This is illegal and you should call the sheriff immediately! Limiting permits isn't going to change the idiot behavior of some of the landowners. They need to be addressed by the local authorities not the public hunter. They are law breakers just like shoplifters and thieves. There shouldn't be anything slow about returning order or righting a wrong like someone blocking a legal public right away. They sure wouldn't let some nut job shut down I-90 for very long. The local authorities need to get some nutters and go take care of the situation. I totally agree that this happens but they are few and far between, regardless they still need their clocks cleaned by local authorities.
"One of the most distressing aspects of my many conversations with
bowhunters on this subject is the degree to which they are willing to sacrifice
the quality of their hunt in exchange for more acreage via liberal permits. It
must be very hard to understand that it doesn't matter if you have a permit in
your pocket if there will few elk for you to hunt where you are able to hunt -
whatever private land access you once had is being taken away in exchange
for that depreciated permit you desire"
Distressing to you but this is obviously the opinion of many hunters. So what makes your idea of a good hunting situation any better than theirs. Using his words "it must be very hard to understand..." If you hunt near private land you run the risk of having the animals on any given day being on that private land and not on the boundary you are hunting. Furthermore like I mentioned it only takes 1 hunter who is either seen or smelled by the animals to make them run. This is just the facts of hunting. If I choose to hunt by the Park boundary or Turners many ranches I run the risk of having elk inside the park and not in the hunting district. Do I run to Fwp and cry about it and demand some sort of permitting because the animals weren't on the land I wanted them to be on? What if Fin and the camera crew shows up and now I don't have the whole thing to myself? Boo Hoo
Go to another spot. Maybe hike deep into the wilderness areas and set up camp or does that require too much effort?"Having said all that I think private landowners who maintain quality wildlife
habitat on their property deserve more compensation than tradition has
produced for them. But that is another letter."
I have found many contradictions in this guys article. The above statement would be interesting to read. I wonder if he will ever write another letter addressing this? We've talked on here about paying more for quality Block Management places. This will open more land than any restrictions of permits will ever do. Reward the landowners who provide quality access and get rid of the ones that don't have any game even on their land.
It does sound like some of the Breaks units might animal number issues. ( I recall Buzz's experience this year) Then I think that would be a viable reason to start cutting back on permits both archery and rifle. The key is managing the resource properly. Usually if there are too many hunters then game numbers are in the toilet. This would merit cutting tags. The Bitteroot is finally doing that and hopefully they can get the animals back again. My thought is the highest population in the state is in the Billings area. The closest "good hunting" is the breaks and now they are having huge conflicts of hunters. Gas up the truck and head West instead of North and look for another elk spot. I certainly have to do the same for deer around here. Too many hunters and very few muleys so I head east to see if its any better.
If I understand the current proposal it would restrict the NR to chose the unit and then only allow them to hunt that unit and on private land only. This shouldn't provide any competition to the Res public land hunter at all. In fact I'm more relieved knowing that the NR guy hunting the ranch can't hop the fence and go after the elk on the public when they are feeding or crossing. Just my thoughts.
wingman1
New member
I'm all for limited permits. If I draw once every three to four years that would be fine and dandy. Quality not quantity?!!!
Wapiti Warrior
New member
I too am for these limits. The new proposal from the elk working group is a joke!!! But that has already been said on another thread. I just thought this was a well written article specifying why the limits were put in place.
John
John
Problem then becomes, if those elk are not available to public land hunters/no fee paying hunters, no elk are harvested that help bring populations to objective. According to page 55 of the Elk Plan, if those elk spend the majority of their time on inaccessible private lands, they shouldn't count towards the EMU's objective. Not sure that the Dept is going down that road now, but they should be looking at this. You draw a good analogy between the park and what is happening in eastern MT. For years, the Northern Herd was way over objective (pre-wolf) and we had late season hunts, etc that were designed to remove as many elk as possible. The park served as a refuge for those elk, similarly to large blocks of private that only fee hunters can get on.
Agreed, but let's face the reality of this situation. Watching the guys at PLWA go through these court battles and it becomes clear that the counties are reluctant to take on their neighbors and new landowners on this issue, and in some cases, the Counties can be complicit in the shutting down of roads. This issue is not isolated to central MT, but can be found throughout R1, R2, R3, R4, R5, R6 and R7. It happens more than people realize.
Distressing to you but this is obviously the opinion of many hunters. So what makes your idea of a good hunting situation any better than theirs. Using his words "it must be very hard to understand..." If you hunt near private land you run the risk of having the animals on any given day being on that private land and not on the boundary you are hunting. Furthermore like I mentioned it only takes 1 hunter who is either seen or smelled by the animals to make them run. This is just the facts of hunting. If I choose to hunt by the Park boundary or Turners many ranches I run the risk of having elk inside the park and not in the hunting district. Do I run to Fwp and cry about it and demand some sort of permitting because the animals weren't on the land I wanted them to be on? What if Fin and the camera crew shows up and now I don't have the whole thing to myself? Boo Hoo
This disregards the other issues associated with elk management in Central MT. It's when there is a high concentration of elk on lands inaccessible to public hunters that the bigger problems of damage, etc occur. While I don't disagree with your paragraph here, there are other issues, larger issues at play. Most importantly: What does effective elk management look like in 2012 and beyond? the idea that you have to walk farther, hunt harder, is fine, until you pull up to the trailhead and there's 6 other rigs and trails headed in every direction. Yes you can find a new place to hunt, and I often do. If I decide to throw in with the circus, I still walk my fat butt beyond other hunters - which causes heartburn by those hunters whose areas I just busted. The other issue with the permits is this: You cannot currently restrict resident archery hunters to 10% of the total number of hunters unless the permits are in place. There is talk of more legislation to rectify that, and I hope it comes forward. Find a new way to get non-residents back in compliance w/ the 10% rule, and this issue becomes moot quickly.
The breaks are certainly a creature of their advertising. No doubt. The increased number of hunters, and the dramatically decreased numbers of open acres those resident hunters have traditionally had access too (such as the Bullwhacker Road) has led to congestion. Don't lay the blame exclusively on the 100% increase in archery hunters over the last 20 years. Lay it on the shoulders of those who are closing down large swaths of public land as well.
Most folks I've talked with view the EAWG proposal as the first step towards transferable tags (an idea that is often proffered by the President of the Senate, and a few House Majority Whips). Either sex tags available to privat elands not enrolled in block management creates the expectation that those elk are the property of the landowner, and there for their benefit. That is 180 degrees opposite of the Rathburn case. It's not just the competition to resident hunters that has people concerned: it's the privatization of the wildlife.
Lawnboy
Well-known member
First off Ben I want to commend you on how you respond to questions. I am sure that's why you have the job you do. You could of easily called me a butt munch and tried ramming your thoughts but you are good debater. I mean that seriously thanks.
Problem then becomes, if those elk are not available to public land hunters/no fee paying hunters, no elk are harvested that help bring populations to objective. According to page 55 of the Elk Plan, if those elk spend the majority of their time on inaccessible private lands, they shouldn't count towards the EMU's objective.
I totally agree that this can mess up any biology plan. Not sure how to solve the problem. You can't force access and the rancher then complains about the "publics" elk doing damage. They can't have it both ways but I don't see how this will make a rancher open up his land. They seem to just get pissy and tell everyone to take a hike. The numbers are there for the unit just not on public all the time. I really don't see a cure to this.
Agreed, but let's face the reality of this situation. Watching the guys at PLWA go through these court battles and it becomes clear that the counties are reluctant to take on their neighbors and new landowners on this issue, and in some cases, the Counties can be complicit in the shutting down of roads. This issue is not isolated to central MT, but can be found throughout R1, R2, R3, R4, R5, R6 and R7. It happens more than people realize.
You might be right but what really does this have to do with limited tags? They are law breakers. The counties that don't enforce our rights are just as guilty. To throw this into the reasons for limiting tags is silly.
This disregards the other issues associated with elk management in Central MT. It's when there is a high concentration of elk on lands inaccessible to public hunters that the bigger problems of damage, etc occur. While I don't disagree with your paragraph here, there are other issues, larger issues at play. Most importantly: What does effective elk management look like in 2012 and beyond? the idea that you have to walk farther, hunt harder, is fine, until you pull up to the trailhead and there's 6 other rigs and trails headed in every direction. Yes you can find a new place to hunt, and I often do. If I decide to throw in with the circus, I still walk my fat butt beyond other hunters - which causes heartburn by those hunters whose areas I just busted. The other issue with the permits is this: You cannot currently restrict resident archery hunters to 10% of the total number of hunters unless the permits are in place. There is talk of more legislation to rectify that, and I hope it comes forward. Find a new way to get non-residents back in compliance w/ the 10% rule, and this issue becomes moot quickly.
I think the trend especially with archery is more numbers of people trying it every year. I guess if the true opinion of all hunters is that if they want better quality (less pressure) rather than opportunity then permitting would help solve this. I still get the vibe though that people are just pissed that the animals are concentrating on private that they can't and in my opinion won't be able to hunt regardless so they want to punish the landowner. This won't open access in my opinion. Let's face it all areas are a more populated than they used to be. Sounds like the Breaks are especially bad. Like you said I think I would just try a different area or lobby for permits if I wasn't willing to try other areas (seems lazy). Again were does it stop? Will fishing holes along the lakes and rivers turn to this if they are being heavily used by the public. Can we not just move downstream or to a different area on the water or hunting land? Or maybe get time off midweek versus the weekend knowing it will be crowded? Just some thoughts.
The breaks are certainly a creature of their advertising. No doubt. The increased number of hunters, and the dramatically decreased numbers of open acres those resident hunters have traditionally had access too (such as the Bullwhacker Road) has led to congestion. Don't lay the blame exclusively on the 100% increase in archery hunters over the last 20 years. Lay it on the shoulders of those who are closing down large swaths of public land as well.
How can they legally shut down public land that has had legal access recently?
Most folks I've talked with view the EAWG proposal as the first step towards transferable tags (an idea that is often proffered by the President of the Senate, and a few House Majority Whips). Either sex tags available to privat elands not enrolled in block management creates the expectation that those elk are the property of the landowner, and there for their benefit. That is 180 degrees opposite of the Rathburn case. It's not just the competition to resident hunters that has people concerned: it's the privatization of the wildlife.[/QUOTE]
Agree
Problem then becomes, if those elk are not available to public land hunters/no fee paying hunters, no elk are harvested that help bring populations to objective. According to page 55 of the Elk Plan, if those elk spend the majority of their time on inaccessible private lands, they shouldn't count towards the EMU's objective.
I totally agree that this can mess up any biology plan. Not sure how to solve the problem. You can't force access and the rancher then complains about the "publics" elk doing damage. They can't have it both ways but I don't see how this will make a rancher open up his land. They seem to just get pissy and tell everyone to take a hike. The numbers are there for the unit just not on public all the time. I really don't see a cure to this.
Agreed, but let's face the reality of this situation. Watching the guys at PLWA go through these court battles and it becomes clear that the counties are reluctant to take on their neighbors and new landowners on this issue, and in some cases, the Counties can be complicit in the shutting down of roads. This issue is not isolated to central MT, but can be found throughout R1, R2, R3, R4, R5, R6 and R7. It happens more than people realize.
You might be right but what really does this have to do with limited tags? They are law breakers. The counties that don't enforce our rights are just as guilty. To throw this into the reasons for limiting tags is silly.
This disregards the other issues associated with elk management in Central MT. It's when there is a high concentration of elk on lands inaccessible to public hunters that the bigger problems of damage, etc occur. While I don't disagree with your paragraph here, there are other issues, larger issues at play. Most importantly: What does effective elk management look like in 2012 and beyond? the idea that you have to walk farther, hunt harder, is fine, until you pull up to the trailhead and there's 6 other rigs and trails headed in every direction. Yes you can find a new place to hunt, and I often do. If I decide to throw in with the circus, I still walk my fat butt beyond other hunters - which causes heartburn by those hunters whose areas I just busted. The other issue with the permits is this: You cannot currently restrict resident archery hunters to 10% of the total number of hunters unless the permits are in place. There is talk of more legislation to rectify that, and I hope it comes forward. Find a new way to get non-residents back in compliance w/ the 10% rule, and this issue becomes moot quickly.
I think the trend especially with archery is more numbers of people trying it every year. I guess if the true opinion of all hunters is that if they want better quality (less pressure) rather than opportunity then permitting would help solve this. I still get the vibe though that people are just pissed that the animals are concentrating on private that they can't and in my opinion won't be able to hunt regardless so they want to punish the landowner. This won't open access in my opinion. Let's face it all areas are a more populated than they used to be. Sounds like the Breaks are especially bad. Like you said I think I would just try a different area or lobby for permits if I wasn't willing to try other areas (seems lazy). Again were does it stop? Will fishing holes along the lakes and rivers turn to this if they are being heavily used by the public. Can we not just move downstream or to a different area on the water or hunting land? Or maybe get time off midweek versus the weekend knowing it will be crowded? Just some thoughts.
The breaks are certainly a creature of their advertising. No doubt. The increased number of hunters, and the dramatically decreased numbers of open acres those resident hunters have traditionally had access too (such as the Bullwhacker Road) has led to congestion. Don't lay the blame exclusively on the 100% increase in archery hunters over the last 20 years. Lay it on the shoulders of those who are closing down large swaths of public land as well.
How can they legally shut down public land that has had legal access recently?
Most folks I've talked with view the EAWG proposal as the first step towards transferable tags (an idea that is often proffered by the President of the Senate, and a few House Majority Whips). Either sex tags available to privat elands not enrolled in block management creates the expectation that those elk are the property of the landowner, and there for their benefit. That is 180 degrees opposite of the Rathburn case. It's not just the competition to resident hunters that has people concerned: it's the privatization of the wildlife.[/QUOTE]
Agree
An open and honest discussion of ideas is never a bad idea. Besides, I'm too much of wuss to try and be an internet tough guy
Correct - the permits, in my view, were not so much about opening access as they were to limit NR's to 10% of the overall numbers. The hope by some was that this would lead to opened access when all of the folks who owned land w/ elk on it realized that the inflated market couldn't bear their cost anymore. That is not a good place to begin negotiations, and it led to more conflict. So, while this issue has been framed as about opening more access, I doubt that either side, when they are honest about it, think that it is a salient argument. It certainly isn't one of mine. The cure goes back to an honest conversation with landowners and the resident hunter. Right now, we (resident hunters) get a smoking deal on Block Management. That's why so many of us have been trying to steer the conversation to landowner incentive programs that all can support, rather than transferable tags, etc. The cure, is for resident hunters to be honest about what they expect from Block Management and for landowners to be willing to work with folks to improve the program so that everyone has a stake in it, and that folks are compensated appropriately.
Lack of access leads to increased situations where people purchase their access, which leads to higher numbers of NR archery hunters. For example; in 2007, in EMU 410, 35% of all archery hunters were NR's. In 2010, that number was down to 10%. Right where the people and the legislature of MT have indicated they should be.
Roads might not be a direct correlary to permits, but the effects of loss of access have a way of working into the debate in a meaningful manner. It's an extenuating circumstance in a complex puzzle. Less access = more exclusivity = fewer animals harvested = more landowner complaints = over allocation of the resource to one user group = permits to try and react to the situation.
The River issue is a great example. The Big Hole in particular, where there are days where outfitters can float, and days for residents. Many other highly popular waterways face similar restrictions - like the Blackfoot, Smith, etc. (with the Smith being a permit only river).
As far as people being upset over the congregation of wildlife on private lands, yes I think they are upset. And I don't necessarily disagree with them. Increased problematic concentrations of wildlife lead to disease outbreaks as well as a host of other issues we've already talked about, including the impossibility of achieving objective numbers because nobody can harvest those critters. The Landowner then becomes the bad guy (I think 99% of the landowners are great folks who are looking for viable solutions) whether they allow access, or they shut it down because too many boys shot up their center lines. It then comes back to what is a fair and equitable exchange between the hunter and the landowner when it comes to hunting animals. If nobody is willing to budge from the extremes on both sides, then we will continue to rip each other apart in the legislature, or in initiatives. Neither one of the situations is good for either side.
Lastly, what happens when we run out of other places to go? Lots of boys in the Flathead head over to Eastern MT now because they lost a lot of access when Plum Creek or other timber lands were sold off for trophy developments. Same goes in many other areas of the state.
A chain, and a complacent county attorney and county commission. Right now, the burden of proof that a road has been abandoned falls upon the county, not the ones who are trying to eliminate access. That means that cash strapped counties don't want the fight, and can't afford the fight, especially if the person they are fighting is a neighbor, or family. It's a catch 22 that we tried to fix in the last legislature, but we were shot down unceremoniously by the House Ag committee, IIRC).
Correct - the permits, in my view, were not so much about opening access as they were to limit NR's to 10% of the overall numbers. The hope by some was that this would lead to opened access when all of the folks who owned land w/ elk on it realized that the inflated market couldn't bear their cost anymore. That is not a good place to begin negotiations, and it led to more conflict. So, while this issue has been framed as about opening more access, I doubt that either side, when they are honest about it, think that it is a salient argument. It certainly isn't one of mine. The cure goes back to an honest conversation with landowners and the resident hunter. Right now, we (resident hunters) get a smoking deal on Block Management. That's why so many of us have been trying to steer the conversation to landowner incentive programs that all can support, rather than transferable tags, etc. The cure, is for resident hunters to be honest about what they expect from Block Management and for landowners to be willing to work with folks to improve the program so that everyone has a stake in it, and that folks are compensated appropriately.
Lack of access leads to increased situations where people purchase their access, which leads to higher numbers of NR archery hunters. For example; in 2007, in EMU 410, 35% of all archery hunters were NR's. In 2010, that number was down to 10%. Right where the people and the legislature of MT have indicated they should be.
Roads might not be a direct correlary to permits, but the effects of loss of access have a way of working into the debate in a meaningful manner. It's an extenuating circumstance in a complex puzzle. Less access = more exclusivity = fewer animals harvested = more landowner complaints = over allocation of the resource to one user group = permits to try and react to the situation.
The River issue is a great example. The Big Hole in particular, where there are days where outfitters can float, and days for residents. Many other highly popular waterways face similar restrictions - like the Blackfoot, Smith, etc. (with the Smith being a permit only river).
As far as people being upset over the congregation of wildlife on private lands, yes I think they are upset. And I don't necessarily disagree with them. Increased problematic concentrations of wildlife lead to disease outbreaks as well as a host of other issues we've already talked about, including the impossibility of achieving objective numbers because nobody can harvest those critters. The Landowner then becomes the bad guy (I think 99% of the landowners are great folks who are looking for viable solutions) whether they allow access, or they shut it down because too many boys shot up their center lines. It then comes back to what is a fair and equitable exchange between the hunter and the landowner when it comes to hunting animals. If nobody is willing to budge from the extremes on both sides, then we will continue to rip each other apart in the legislature, or in initiatives. Neither one of the situations is good for either side.
Lastly, what happens when we run out of other places to go? Lots of boys in the Flathead head over to Eastern MT now because they lost a lot of access when Plum Creek or other timber lands were sold off for trophy developments. Same goes in many other areas of the state.
A chain, and a complacent county attorney and county commission. Right now, the burden of proof that a road has been abandoned falls upon the county, not the ones who are trying to eliminate access. That means that cash strapped counties don't want the fight, and can't afford the fight, especially if the person they are fighting is a neighbor, or family. It's a catch 22 that we tried to fix in the last legislature, but we were shot down unceremoniously by the House Ag committee, IIRC).
BuzzH
Well-known member
Its not tough to see whats being done with this issue.
Outfitters and Landowners want unlimited tags so they can increase their profits to charge non-resident clients to hunt on their lands. Its just a back-door approach to privatizing wildlife...no two ways about it.
They're using the EMP as justification for unlimited archery tags to help "control" elk numbers. Thats a fuggin' joke, they have no desire to control elk numbers. They use the EMP to suit their agenda. Archery hunting isnt going to reduce jack squat for elk.
If landowners in Central Montana were serious about reducing elk numbers, they'd be allowing public access to shoot cows...yet that doesnt happen much. Strange?
Even more amazing is that some Montana hunters jump on the band wagon...seemingly over joyed that they can get a permit every year to chase elk around central Montana to "help" the poor landowners reduce elk numbers.
I would be fine with the unlimited archery permits in the central units on the following conditions:
1. It must be applied for as a first and only choice.
2. You were restricted to only hunting those units during elk season, your elk tag would not be valid in any other hunting districts or any other seasons...period.
I would like to see, just one time, the elk seasons and permit numbers applied just to accessible elk as per the EMP...totally disregarding the elk that primarily use private land. I know of many hunting units that have gone to total crap because antlerless quotas and permits are based on the total population of elk in a district...not on the number of huntable elk. A good friend of mine asked a biologist in the area he hunts for a list of every land owner complaining of elk damage. My friend called and/or knocked on the door of very land owner that was complaining in that particular unit to seek permission to kill a cow elk...he was denied by EVERY one of them.
If I were the biologist for that area, I'd not issue a single cow tag for that unit again until those elk could be hunted...period.
This crap has got to stop, we're creating a situation where a big part of the elk population is forced onto largely unhuntable private lands. Yet, we're giving out permits as if we have access to every one of them. All that happens is you shoot the shit out of the accessible elk on public and force more elk onto private land earlier in the season. Whats going on right now is not working in many hunting units.
Outfitters and Landowners want unlimited tags so they can increase their profits to charge non-resident clients to hunt on their lands. Its just a back-door approach to privatizing wildlife...no two ways about it.
They're using the EMP as justification for unlimited archery tags to help "control" elk numbers. Thats a fuggin' joke, they have no desire to control elk numbers. They use the EMP to suit their agenda. Archery hunting isnt going to reduce jack squat for elk.
If landowners in Central Montana were serious about reducing elk numbers, they'd be allowing public access to shoot cows...yet that doesnt happen much. Strange?
Even more amazing is that some Montana hunters jump on the band wagon...seemingly over joyed that they can get a permit every year to chase elk around central Montana to "help" the poor landowners reduce elk numbers.
I would be fine with the unlimited archery permits in the central units on the following conditions:
1. It must be applied for as a first and only choice.
2. You were restricted to only hunting those units during elk season, your elk tag would not be valid in any other hunting districts or any other seasons...period.
I would like to see, just one time, the elk seasons and permit numbers applied just to accessible elk as per the EMP...totally disregarding the elk that primarily use private land. I know of many hunting units that have gone to total crap because antlerless quotas and permits are based on the total population of elk in a district...not on the number of huntable elk. A good friend of mine asked a biologist in the area he hunts for a list of every land owner complaining of elk damage. My friend called and/or knocked on the door of very land owner that was complaining in that particular unit to seek permission to kill a cow elk...he was denied by EVERY one of them.
If I were the biologist for that area, I'd not issue a single cow tag for that unit again until those elk could be hunted...period.
This crap has got to stop, we're creating a situation where a big part of the elk population is forced onto largely unhuntable private lands. Yet, we're giving out permits as if we have access to every one of them. All that happens is you shoot the shit out of the accessible elk on public and force more elk onto private land earlier in the season. Whats going on right now is not working in many hunting units.
Last edited:
sweetnectar
New member
I find this the most interesting part of the whole discussion.
It's the crux of the entire issue.
Lawnboy
Well-known member
Are there any states out there that have anything that is currently working in regards to landowner compensation and landowners allowing some access to reduce numbers? You would think there could be a solution if both sides are willing to give some like you mentioned.
I'm not the guy to ask on that. I can say that with some minor modifications to Block, that system will work well for the next 20 years or so. Hopefully Fin or others jump in with a broader perspective.
We tried to get the legislature to study the issue of landowner incentives to see what works, and what doesn't as there are a number of programs reportedly not being used, while others are used heavily. That didn't go anywhere unfortunately. Fortunately, some Block cooperators, livestock groups and sportsmen have started having the discussion.
WY's Access Yes program is at about 500,000 acres, as opposed to the few million acres that Block has. That's the only incentive that I know of that comes close. Game Damage hunts turn into firing lines, poor behavior, and put the resource last, IMO. It's more about social tolerance rather than actual over-populations.The Madison is the prime example (or it was).
For me, it boils down to two things:
1.) What is effective elk management in today's landscape (loss of access, wolves, etc)
2.) What is fair compensation for landowners who want to allow managed public hunting through the Block Management program.
a.) What reforms to block are needed
b.) what is fair compensation
We tried to get the legislature to study the issue of landowner incentives to see what works, and what doesn't as there are a number of programs reportedly not being used, while others are used heavily. That didn't go anywhere unfortunately. Fortunately, some Block cooperators, livestock groups and sportsmen have started having the discussion.
WY's Access Yes program is at about 500,000 acres, as opposed to the few million acres that Block has. That's the only incentive that I know of that comes close. Game Damage hunts turn into firing lines, poor behavior, and put the resource last, IMO. It's more about social tolerance rather than actual over-populations.The Madison is the prime example (or it was).
For me, it boils down to two things:
1.) What is effective elk management in today's landscape (loss of access, wolves, etc)
2.) What is fair compensation for landowners who want to allow managed public hunting through the Block Management program.
a.) What reforms to block are needed
b.) what is fair compensation
sweetnectar
New member
There are some land owners that are gazillinares that don't care much for compensation. They simply come to Montana to buy land, lock the gates, and enjoy their purchase which includes exclusive hunting rights to their choice spread...only let down to them seems to be when they don't draw a tag. Other land owners simply just want to be left alone, but I'd think there are quite a few that are interested in a more healed block management program as well.
That certainly is their right, so long as it does not infringe on the rights of others. However, this does not make for good neighbors when it comes to wildlife management and mitigating impacts to other landowners who are trying to be community oriented and solve issues before they become huge problems.
Similar threads
