Montana contemplates shooting more cows, less bulls

[midwesterncrosshair]

Its awesome that RMEF does that but they give that land back to the feds, and congress/special interest groups seem to have this bug in their head about disposing the lands. Like I said if you could keep the lands and make them public and avoid property taxes.

I'm not sure competing would be the view... I would look at the two groups like brothers in arms type deal working together.

And would it dilute money going in? The main focus of RMEF is Elk(awesome for that) but this so called other group could just focus on turning land into public grounds... could also bring more help to the public land issue (hunter, fishers, hikers, bikers, campers... ect) not that RMEF isn't doing that but maybe more groups would create more public lands faster.

IDK though like is said I'm young and dumb, just an idea...

 

[Carnage2011]

And this is the worst post to date on this thread.

What makes this post so bad Bighorn? I think Killergaurd is right....if more people were held accountable it might make a difference.

 

[Straight Arrow]

Its awesome that RMEF does that but they give that land back to the feds, and congress/special interest groups seem to have this bug in their head about disposing the lands.

RMEF wildlife habitat acquisitions have not been disposed of to date ... and you can be assured of a huge battle if that attempt is made.

And would it dilute money going in?

May be in error, but I view the money available from outdoors minded folks as a finite amount, so the more worthy causes the less to each. You have a great point in that the public lands through your proposal would be open for much more than wildlife habitat, hunting, and related activities. However, it would be wise to determine just how many organizations now exist with a similar mission or with missions peculiar to the specific public land activity. Good luck with the idea.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

Its awesome that RMEF does that but they give that land back to the feds, and congress/special interest groups seem to have this bug in their head about disposing the lands. Like I said if you could keep the lands and make them public and avoid property taxes.

So if it's not fed then who pays the admin costs it's not just taxes you have to think about, road maintenance, fire mitigation, etc. Would you create a trust that is funded to administer the lands, who would be the trustees, would they be elected, would you allow timber sales and mining to defray the costs of maintaining the land? Who would do the contract evaluation and management if you did... etc...etc

RMEF along with a number of other orgs that conservation work have to think about all these things. There is not a one size fits all solution and RMEF has a number of different conservation mechanisms they use.
http://www.rmef.org/Conservation/HowWeConserve/LandProtection.aspx

 

[Irrelevant]

Its awesome that RMEF does that but they give that land back to the feds, and congress/special interest groups seem to have this bug in their head about disposing the lands. Like I said if you could keep the lands and make them public and avoid property taxes.

I'm not sure competing would be the view... I would look at the two groups like brothers in arms type deal working together.

And would it dilute money going in? The main focus of RMEF is Elk(awesome for that) but this so called other group could just focus on turning land into public grounds... could also bring more help to the public land issue (hunter, fishers, hikers, bikers, campers... ect) not that RMEF isn't doing that but maybe more groups would create more public lands faster.

IDK though like is said I'm young and dumb, just an idea...

There are TONS of various Land Trusts that do just that. Some keep the lands but allow public use, others transfer it to the Feds/State for public use. The Trust For Public Land (https://www.tpl.org/#sm.0000skoewak57fg0r391w1ohj08yb) is one. The Nature Conservancy is probably the largest (https://www.nature.org/en-us/) we also have a smaller local land trust that just works on deal in my two County area. I contacted several down along the Oregon border this year able hunting access. I recieved mixed results, some allowed, some didn't, some allowed it on some lands but not others.

 

[Straight Arrow]

... but they give that land back to the feds, and congress/special interest groups seem to have this bug in their head about disposing the lands. Like I said if you could keep the lands and make them public and avoid property taxes.

'Just a couple of clarifications: Typically the RMEF acquired lands are private property, thus there is no "give back to the feds". "You could keep the lands" ... yes they typically become federal public lands. "Avoid property taxes" ... yes the former private property owners no longer pay property taxes, but typically the federal govt pays PILT (Payment In Lieu of Taxes) funds to the state and/or county losing property taxes.

As wllm1313 has pointed out, it's not a simple process and it seems RMEF and other such organizations are continuously adjusting to changing laws, policies, and political whims.

 

[BigHornRam]

So if it's not fed then who pays the admin costs it's not just taxes you have to think about, road maintenance, fire mitigation, etc. Would you create a trust that is funded to administer the lands, who would be the trustees, would they be elected, would you allow timber sales and mining to defray the costs of maintaining the land? Who would do the contract evaluation and management if you did... etc...etc

RMEF along with a number of other orgs that conservation work have to think about all these things. There is not a one size fits all solution and RMEF has a number of different conservation mechanisms they use.
http://www.rmef.org/Conservation/HowWeConserve/LandProtection.aspx

That is why I'm a fan of conservation easements brought forward by the the Trust for Public Lands like this one.


https://www.dailyinterlake.com/local_news/20171221/conservation_easement_sought_near_libby

Checkerboard in holdings surrounded by National Forest, that will still be owned and managed by Stimson. Property taxes paid by Stimson. Public access granted in perpetuity on these properties. Housing development no longer allowed in perpetuity on these properties.

This project ranked #1 nation wide for 2019 Forest Legacy projects and is moving forward to completion.

 

[BigHornRam]

What makes this post so bad Bighorn? I think Killergaurd is right....if more people were held accountable it might make a difference.

Killerguards post came off to me as saying if the public land managers don't do what I want them to do, then we should fire them. Public means everyone has a say in how it is managed, and when the public gives the land and wildlife managers 50 different directives it becomes difficult to please anyone. It's a tough job. Get involved, informed, and cut them a little slack.

 

[BigHornRam]

Its awesome that RMEF does that but they give that land back to the feds, and congress/special interest groups seem to have this bug in their head about disposing the lands. Like I said if you could keep the lands and make them public and avoid property taxes.

I'm not sure competing would be the view... I would look at the two groups like brothers in arms type deal working together.

And would it dilute money going in? The main focus of RMEF is Elk(awesome for that) but this so called other group could just focus on turning land into public grounds... could also bring more help to the public land issue (hunter, fishers, hikers, bikers, campers... ect) not that RMEF isn't doing that but maybe more groups would create more public lands faster.

IDK though like is said I'm young and dumb, just an idea...

I don't think we need to dilute our financial support starting new groups when we already have orgs like RMEF and TFPL getting it done. Why not support them?

 

[Straight Arrow]

... RMEF and TFPL getting it done. Why not support them?

Bingo!

 

[midwesterncrosshair]

So if it's not fed then who pays the admin costs it's not just taxes you have to think about, road maintenance, fire mitigation, etc. Would you create a trust that is funded to administer the lands, who would be the trustees, would they be elected, would you allow timber sales and mining to defray the costs of maintaining the land? Who would do the contract evaluation and management if you did... etc...etc

RMEF along with a number of other orgs that conservation work have to think about all these things. There is not a one size fits all solution and RMEF has a number of different conservation mechanisms they use.
http://www.rmef.org/Conservation/HowWeConserve/LandProtection.aspx

This is why you should be a board member... You have the right questions lol

I wasn't aware there were so many groups on this subject. Every time I've searched for them on google I get the "save our public lands" links. I will support TFPL now that I know them!

I'm not speaking for the whole Midwest but in a part of Wisconsin where I grew up and now in Illinois it seem like hunting is becoming the wealthy mans hobby. Mega Farms are buying all the land available and charge $500 to hunt a 40 acre lot. In IL where my in laws are from I have seen people lose their lifelong hunting spot due to $$$. Some Chicago guy that wipes his butt with dollar bills writes a check to the landowner for $10,000. And you cant blame the landowner for taking it.
So one man hunt 2000 acres to himself... That or you have to buy your own land.

I'm just worried that that's the direction of hunting in the Midwest. I hunt both private and public but I sure think it would be cool if most states were 1/3 public lands like Colorado.

 

[PrairieHunter]

I thought about this thread as I was reading this article.

https://billingsgazette.com/lifesty...S60XhXR7VIX1JlieZFn_F7Mnkrk3GZVx8VqspcxhR6DWQ

Montana has also entered the record books and received national attention recently for the No. 1 typical archery-killed and nontypical elk, both of which were killed in southeastern Montana on public land. It seems, in some ways, that this is the golden era for hunting some big game species in Montana.

 

[Sytes]

Recently, the ID Game and Fish Director was on the Meat Eater Podcast and talked for quite a while in depth about what’s going on in ID and with funding/PR Act/ and pending federal amendments to fund wildlife. I wonder how that would change MT stance on Elk with additional 20 Million to offset what they get in tags. Plus up thier hunter access programs, maybe they should get the MT Director on a podcast.

That would be worth the listen.

 

[midwesterncrosshair]

So back to the subject Of hunting Cow Elk.... Many of you make it seem like its not even worth going out hunting in MT. All the elk flush down into the valley as soon as the first shot is fired? Even if it is true all I need to hear is that there might be one elk up in public land for the taking and I'm still going for it.

My brothers and father are going to try to get together for our first elk hunt and we were looking at MT cow tags. Even if 99% of the elk are on private that still gives me a chance to get an elk.

Maybe I brought to light on why you guys are getting so many non-residents buying out tags, if I had to pay $500 to hunt a 40 acre lot I would say screw it and use that money going West.

 

[VikingsGuy]

Even if 99% of the elk are on private that still gives me a chance to get an elk.

[video]https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=zMRrNY0pxfM[/video]

 

[antlerradar]

So back to the subject Of hunting Cow Elk.... Many of you make it seem like its not even worth going out hunting in MT. All the elk flush down into the valley as soon as the first shot is fired? Even if it is true all I need to hear is that there might be one elk up in public land for the taking and I'm still going for it.

My brothers and father are going to try to get together for our first elk hunt and we were looking at MT cow tags. Even if 99% of the elk are on private that still gives me a chance to get an elk.

Maybe I brought to light on why you guys are getting so many non-residents buying out tags, if I had to pay $500 to hunt a 40 acre lot I would say screw it and use that money going West.

Music to FWP's ears. Even a near empty glass is full in your eyes.

 

[antlerradar]

I thought about this thread as I was reading this article.

https://billingsgazette.com/lifesty...S60XhXR7VIX1JlieZFn_F7Mnkrk3GZVx8VqspcxhR6DWQ

Montana has also entered the record books and received national attention recently for the No. 1 typical archery-killed and nontypical elk, both of which were killed in southeastern Montana on public land. It seems, in some ways, that this is the golden era for hunting some big game species in Montana.

Both killed in a limited entry unit. Maybe the gazette is suggesting that we go to all limited entry to bring back the golden era of hunting.

 

[The Hedgehog]

So back to the subject Of hunting Cow Elk.... Many of you make it seem like its not even worth going out hunting in MT. All the elk flush down into the valley as soon as the first shot is fired? Even if it is true all I need to hear is that there might be one elk up in public land for the taking and I'm still going for it.

My brothers and father are going to try to get together for our first elk hunt and we were looking at MT cow tags. Even if 99% of the elk are on private that still gives me a chance to get an elk.

Maybe I brought to light on why you guys are getting so many non-residents buying out tags, if I had to pay $500 to hunt a 40 acre lot I would say screw it and use that money going West.

I’m hopeful to one day read about your successful family elk hunt in a hunt talk thread that includes all the boring details around killing the last one in the national forest. I’m a big fan of the long winded tear-jerking up-chucks detailing family traditions, the ups and downs, obstacles and blessings, and ending with with a picture of a dead lost calf elk (and maybe a forkie mule deer) followed by dozens of atta-boy posts -way to git’r done, thanks for sharing, strong work, or epic adventure! It never gets old.

 

[tjones]

I’m hopeful to one day read about your successful family elk hunt in a hunt talk thread that includes all the boring details around killing the last one in the national forest. I’m a big fan of the long winded tear-jerking up-chucks detailing family traditions, the ups and downs, obstacles and blessings, and ending with with a picture of a dead lost calf elk (and maybe a forkie mule deer) followed by dozens of atta-boy posts -way to git’r done, thanks for sharing, strong work, or epic adventure! It never gets old.

Spit my morning coffee all over my computer.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

I’m hopeful to one day read about your successful family elk hunt in a hunt talk thread that includes all the boring details around killing the last one in the national forest. I’m a big fan of the long winded tear-jerking up-chucks detailing family traditions, the ups and downs, obstacles and blessings, and ending with with a picture of a dead lost calf elk (and maybe a forkie mule deer) followed by dozens of atta-boy posts -way to git’r done, thanks for sharing, strong work, or epic adventure! It never gets old.

Damn Greenhorn maybe you and BrentD should go get some beers and be eeyores together.