Regarding human behavior, I was thinking the same thing Gerald. One thought came to mind....there needs to be a plan to resolving this issue. Corner crossing needs to come after we have agreement on license allocation which needs to come after we agree on population measurement.
They don’t like it because you are not beholden to them in that scenario.
When those owners bought, they got something for nothing, exclusive access to public lands. Corner crossing gives back the value of public lands to you and I, to the detriment of landowners who have wrongfully, IMO, locked us out of our lands. Landowners owe the public damages, not vice versa.
So why not spread hunter density out while also limiting/managing the tags allocated? There's literally millions of acres of public that is currently inaccessible via checkerboard that would attract plenty of hunters to spread them out off of the currently accessible pieces. Instead of preserving the resource for future generations, you instead suggest that landowners buy the checkerboard? I just don't track.
If the tags/license/hunters were limited/restricted on accessible lands like they are on private lands we’d not be having this discussion.
I agree to a degree about this statement however public lands are just that…..public anyone that wants to recreate on public lands should have access to them and be able to enjoying them for whatever reasons they want! I also believe hunting on public needs restricted/managed.
I have found that people will go the extra mile if there is even a slightly better chance of a quality hunt. Just look what happen to the public land Randy few into. Much more expensive than walking a few miles, yet plenty of people do it.
If the land is legally accessible I agree. If you have to corner cross/force access across private then I don’t agree. I’ve been reading up on case law, it is clear that corner crossing is an illegal way to gain access.
You must have a lot of serious hunters around your parts. I've hunted some of the most pressured units for elk in the state and once I'm 2 or 3 miles from the trail head I rarely see anyone. The spot you mentioned where people float into doesn't surprise me, sure its a time investment but it doesn't require much physical effort.
The float isn't too tuff, till you have to row back upstream to your truck with a 30-mph headwind.
Or float/drag to the bridge.
Yet those tags/license/hunters that you seem to think are restricted on private land are still valid, and hunting, the checkerboard public. Kind of hypocritical that you can take your clients on that public land, but disagree with others having the same access via corner crossing, no? Unless you were required to outfit on private land and private land only, your stance is laughably skewed.
Tip over and elk in the mostly likely part of that BLM and that float trip turns into a trip just like if you are in the mountains plus floating/dragging a boat.
Sounds like a fun hunt! Maybe I'll try floating my llamas in there
Well I'm glad we put this issue to bed. Thanks for reading up on case law! And to think of all the time, trouble, and money wasted on resolving this issue when all we had to do was ask you. I feel so foolish now.
I'm by far not an expert on the topic of all the issues with wildlife management in Mt., but I do follow these threads and engage in discussions with some local friends to try to educate myself on all the complexities with elk and deer management.
FWP has managed socially instead of biologically. It has been all about opportunity and what makes the most revenue (license sales). If elk/deer were managed biologically we’d have been in a limited draw years ago.
