The Hedgehog
Well-known member
It's really sad, knowing what potential Montana has for deer, elk, and antelope. It's been slowly squandered away for 2 decades, now getting the proposed ultimate kick in the balls.
Montana FWP makes seismic shift in elk permits
- Thread starter Ben Lamb
- Start date
rogerthat
Well-known member
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2015
- Messages
- 2,962
One item I want to emphasize is that the 900 tags had a quota which was some semblance of a limit and hunter management. There was more demand for the 900 tags than the quota as it was a less than guaranteed first choice application for residents. I feel this is being lost in the discussion. Hunt quality was really poor in several of these units which will only get worse if some kind of quota is not implemented in these units for archery.I've been following along with the proposed changes by FWP and there are several items and recommendations that are concerning. One of the biggest, which was discussed at the Great Falls meeting, was that the proposals we're being given are very different than the proposals submitted by the regional biologists. When asked what the process looks like, it was explained that the proposals are written and submitted to Helena, Helena then makes changes as they see fit, and submit them to the FWP commission, who also makes changes as they see fit. So, while the boundaries changes were left pretty much as given, anything relating to cow harvest, quotas etc. are up for changing depending on whose hand the proposal is in.
The 900 tags being unbundled from what I've heard as a member of the Region 4 CAC has for the most part gotten some support, but most would like to see it go as a first choice only choice instead of an unlimited option that you could draw as second choice. I think we can all agree that access is a major issue with over-crowding and maybe having to pick your Archery HD for special draws can help lower that somewhat, but only time will tell, I think we can all agree that additional bull tags are almost certainly not the answer we're looking for. When talking about access, it's also been brought to me that some of the boundary changes could impact access. I only have one example that was given to me, and I haven't had the time to verify but a Region 4 resident called me to discuss adding the Whitetail Prairie portion of 445 into 455 (to simplify the Beartooth WMA boundary) would potentially reduce public access in HD 445 by as much as 20%. Again, I haven't verified that but it's something to think about.
I don't have any answers, but I want to encourage everyone to think of some viable solutions and make sure you're reaching out to your commissioners, as well as your local CAC representatives so they can also advocate for you. I've added the links to your regional CAC's below.
Region 1 Citizen Advisory Committee | Montana FWP
Citizen Advisory Councils (CAC) in each region will help Fish, Wildlife & Parks to be responsive and responsible public-resource managers. Citizen advisors can help the department operate efficiently and effectively within the constraints of state law, Fish & Wildlife Commission rules and...fwp.mt.gov
Region 2 Citizen Advisory Committee | Montana FWP
Citizen Advisory Committees (CAC) in each region will help Fish, Wildlife & Parks to be responsive and responsible public-resource managers. Citizen advisors can help the department operate efficiently and effectively within the constraints of state law, Fish & Wildlife Commission rules and...Region 3 Citizen Advisory Committee | Montana FWP
Citizen Advisory Committees (CAC) in each region will help Fish, Wildlife & Parks to be responsive and responsible public-resource managers. Citizen advisors can help the department operate efficiently and effectively within the constraints of state law, Fish & Wildlife Commission rules and...Region 4 Citizen Advisory Committee | Montana FWP
Citizen Advisory Committees (CAC) in each region will help Fish, Wildlife & Parks to be responsive and responsible public-resource managers. Citizen advisors can help the department operate efficiently and effectively within the constraints of state law, Fish & Wildlife Commission rules and...Region 5 Citizen Advisory Committee | Montana FWP
Citizen Advisory Committees (CAC) in each region will help Fish, Wildlife & Parks to be responsive and responsible public-resource managers. Citizen advisors can help the department operate efficiently and effectively within the constraints of state law, Fish & Wildlife Commission rules and...Region 6 Citizen Advisory Committee | Montana FWP
Citizen Advisory Committees (CAC) in each region will help Fish, Wildlife & Parks to be responsive and responsible public-resource managers. Citizen advisors can help the department operate efficiently and effectively within the constraints of state law, Fish & Wildlife Commission rules and...Region 7 Citizen Advisory Committee | Montana FWP
Citizen Advisory Committees (CAC) in each region will help Fish, Wildlife & Parks to be responsive and responsible public-resource managers. Citizen advisors can help the department operate efficiently and effectively within the constraints of state law, Fish & Wildlife Commission rules and...
shoots-straight
Well-known member
Not by me they won't.
antlerradar
Well-known member
I could see some elk being moved if the tags went to outfitters that are hunting a ranch fairly hard. This however is not the trend I see near me. Outfitters are being replaced by hunt clubs or wealthy individuals out right buying the ranch. The easier it is to get tags the more attractive it is going to be to join/start a hunt club or buy a hunting ranch. This is not going to move elk and most likely just create more sanctuaries.
corndog1
Well-known member
I find it hard to feel sorry for someone who has inherited a ranch in the breaks.
In 2019, Rep. Galt explained in no uncertain terms in front of House Fish, Wildlife & Parks that he hunts cow elk sparingly during the shoulder seasons to keep elk on his place so his folks can get the harvest. That district is one of the most over-objective areas in the state, and one of the most heavily outfitted/leased. I think that's going on a lot on leased properties or amenity properties where the hunting is the primary driver for land management (N Bar for example). We all have either heard first hand experiences, or had them ourselves, of landowner agents herding critters to try and keep others from harvesting (I've had it happen in a few spots for whitetail too).
I have no doubt there are ranches in a lot of areas that are facing issues with elk depredation, and if we're going to be honest, 6 years of shoulder seasons hasn't done jack to alleviate these concerns, especially when we're seeing shoulder hunts being advertised for as low as $1500 and we now have to expand them beyond private land to public land, where the goal is simply to kill 1/2 the elk in the state. We know that damage hunts did reduce those site specific issues, but the agency hasn't performed damage hunts since shoulder seasons were implemented.
There have been some really solid concepts put forth on Hunt Talk as well as elsewhere about how to deal with this issue, but ultimately, people have to be honest about the root cause of this issue rather than just say whatever comes to mind and throw together 1/2 baked ideas that are going to create more conflict than it resolves. I'm hopeful that Eric can make some headway at PLPW, and that crew looks like they're solutions oriented for the most part (some big red flags for sure though).
That's where a type 3 BMA could be successful, so long as it's herd focused and not individual property focused. If a majority of landowners in a herd management unit sign up for Block, they get increased payments & more help from the agency to deal with chronic depredation. Rewarding the people who harbor elk isn't how this gets solved at all, and it's naive to think that the outcomes would be anything other than what @antlerradar is describing.
The Hedgehog
Well-known member
Ranching is more hard work, risk, and uncertainty than most livings, whether its in your family or not. Pretty sure Eric is not looking for elk conflict sympathy.
However, as one of the faces/voices of MOGA, I hope he realizes what's going on here and how it will negatively impact all but a very small percentage of landowners and outfitters - in addition to public land elk hunters.
The goal of Hank is NOT to address elk objectives. It's to get more bull elk permits in the right peoples hands, and make sure their properties are the only places with decent elk left in the state of Montana.
SAJ-99
Well-known member
Agree with the entire post. We should probably should start another thread on this to discuss hunter-landowner relations, but we first have to agree on some basic facts to frame the discussion. I think we tend to run to solutions before understanding the various participants viewpoint. I think some hunters embrace the idea of reducing elk numbers because they think they are the solution to the problem.
1) elk have a $ value
2) By fall, 95% (my guess) of the ideal grazing land in the state is on private property. Most public land is grazed hard during spring and summer.
3) Elk on private cost the ranching landowner money - the number is indeterminate for a variety of reasons, like the number of elk and how long they are on a property can vary and hay prices can vary yr-to-yr - but it does cost money.
4) Most landowners don't want to deal with a free-for-all of public hunters flooding their property every fall (the 5% of a-holes ruining hunter image) and they don't want to have to manage the process of limiting the number of hunters.
5) Hunters want to maintain opportunity (maintain general tags).
6) Hunters want more access to private.
7) neither of the groups- landowners and hunters- are homogeneous. Some landowners don't allow any hunters, some lease to outfitters, some enroll in type I BM, etc. Some hunters hunt only public, some lease, some hire outfitters.
Let me know if I missed anything.
Any solution with the LO has to involve compensation. Compensation can be in $s or in time repairing fences, moving cattle, whatever needs to be done. Building a relationship is what builds and maintains that access. At some point both hunters and LOs have to figure out what they are willing to sacrifice.
The fish and game first proposed different regulations on private land due to pressure from landowners. Some are greedy and some want to make sure the family can still hunt the property they have owned for generations. It looks like now the fish and game is throwing the public land hunters a bone with unlimited archery permits and more rifle tags in over objective units. This is a much bigger issue than more private land tags as they have to know this will all but eliminate any elk on these public lands due to pressure making it even more likely for only private land opportunities in the future. Get ready to say goodbye to any age class in these units as well. I can’t believe they think we are dumb enough to get behind unlimited archery tags and more rifle tags in units that have produced World Record animals. The root of all evil is driving these changes from top to bottom. Sad day for all of us Public Land DIY hunters. Whether resident or non resident it is time to fight this now. We deserve better than what our fish and game is trying to feed us here. Look into the mess in New Mexico. That’s where we are headed.
As a small land owner with land next to public land I can say the level of entitlement is amazing. I had to get the county to put up no parking signs going down the county road because of getting my driveway and the road blocked on almost a daily basis. People pulling on to my property past NO TRESPASSING signs and parking on my lawn under my trees for shade, doing donuts in my driveway to turn around, throwing garbage on my place, the list can go on. I could go on about illegal Hunters as well.... I think someone mentioned that it's only 5% of the bad hunters that cause all the problems. I would say from my experience that number should be much higher. As a hunter that would love to hunt some of these special places and willing to work for that privilege, the slobs really do ruin it for all. I have no problem showing my destain for these people.
With everything there is always more to the story. Game is a cash crop for the landowners. They have no incentive to give access and hunting time for free. Would you?? One issue I have is some are getting paid for damages for a cash crop. When you are using a public animal for income don't come asking to get paid again. If you are selling a hunt for public animals you should be paying for that right and I don't mean just outfitters fees. Remember these are not privately owned animals. A sliding scale depending on the animal harvested just like some landowners charge trophy fees. Again there is currently no incentive for landowners to change anything.
Radical I know.
With everything there is always more to the story. Game is a cash crop for the landowners. They have no incentive to give access and hunting time for free. Would you?? One issue I have is some are getting paid for damages for a cash crop. When you are using a public animal for income don't come asking to get paid again. If you are selling a hunt for public animals you should be paying for that right and I don't mean just outfitters fees. Remember these are not privately owned animals. A sliding scale depending on the animal harvested just like some landowners charge trophy fees. Again there is currently no incentive for landowners to change anything.
Radical I know.
Eric Albus
Well-known member
- Joined
- May 24, 2012
- Messages
- 1,710
How about a 5 day license, good Monday thru Friday for NR hunters, they can pick their week. This would detract from land values, and keep NR from competing on weekends with R hunters.
The Hedgehog
Well-known member
Wtf
Straight Arrow
Well-known member
Hey ... you're not supposed to be consuming that stuff to get high recreationally until tomorrow!
SAJ-99
Well-known member
Despite the other responses, I have seen worse proposals. That would be a large change for NR's. How about starting small and having to choose between bow, rifle, or muzzleloader?
rogerthat
Well-known member
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2015
- Messages
- 2,962
At least Eric is honest about his proposal and the objective for it. Hank can’t say the same. I like it. Count me as a yes on this one
With the vast majority of the proposed changes catering to Outfitters, I think the best way to counter balance it is to restrict outfitter licenses to private land only. No BLM, no State School Trust, No National Forest, No leased public lands. Loss of licenses and fined if caught on public with a client.
Now if that made your face flush a little at how ridiculous that sounds- take a look in the mirror. You're now feeling the same feelings as the public land hunter is with the majority of these recent proposals.
Now if that made your face flush a little at how ridiculous that sounds- take a look in the mirror. You're now feeling the same feelings as the public land hunter is with the majority of these recent proposals.
Big Shooter
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 15, 2008
- Messages
- 482
I really like that one actually!
antlerradar
Well-known member
Would be a great deal for NR looking to hunt with an outfitter. Probably discourage any NR from starting a hunt club or buying a ranch for hunting. Would also likely not work well for the DIY NR as many of them need more than five days and the ones that live close by may make several trips over the course of the season. I could easily see the NR comb license not selling out if this was implemented.
SAJ-99
Well-known member
I’m not sure how much impact it would have in those things, but it is better than nothing and it doesn’t affect residents. Heck, make it 7 days. That is about the longest any Montanan wants a NR to stick around anyway.
Gerald Martin
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2009
- Messages
- 8,673
Sounds like a good idea if the number of licenses sold stays the same. Knowing MOGA if this were proposed they would want 17,500 N.R tags for each week…
