Except Montana can’t even figure out license printing anymore
Montana FWP makes seismic shift in elk permits
- Thread starter Ben Lamb
- Start date
Carnage2011
Well-known member
“Please print your tag on pink paper so we can bust you if you hunt the wrong week” -Future FWP enforcement plan
The Hedgehog
Well-known member
One thing's for sure, we're so screwed.
Eric Albus
Well-known member
- Joined
- May 24, 2012
- Messages
- 1,677
Only Ben Lamb gets a pink tag!!
BuzzH
Well-known member
You going to supply hunters with the correct color of paper to print their own licenses on?
What a total shit-show Montana has become, right down to printing your license on computer paper and having to carry a handful of ziploc's.
As to your landowner tags...10 for 5 isn't an equal deal. 10 landowner tags for 10 public tags and unfettered access by the public is fair, including access for pre-season scouting.
Landowners high grading the best bucks x 10 before a public hunter can hunt, and then allowing the public to clean up what's left x 5...isn't a good deal at all.
And the token gesture of allowing the public to manage cows/does is not near enough sweetening in the pot to justify 2-1 transferable LO tags.
Hard no...
Last year when I had FWP print and mail me my tags I received double the amount just as a few people I know did. How many more received the same and filled both tags?
BuzzH
Well-known member
Good lord...as if I'm surprised or shocked?
Just another day of total incompetence at the MTFWP.
Hey Buzz, do you think Montana FWP is doing a bad job? mtmuley
The Hedgehog
Well-known member
Zero landowner tags. ZERO
Sounds like the CO model of ranching for wildlife to me….The fear of "privatization and monetization" is the greatest stumbling block to overcome. I agree if we don't go pick weapon/season/area for all hunters it will not have much effect.
How about something like this? Offer landowners a transferrable permit(s) in exchange for public access. Landowner gets X number of permits according to acres/habitat/elk numbers(good on their ranch only) and has to in exchange give "Y" number of R hunters access for "Z" number of either sex, and "C" number of cows(good on said ranch only) in order to bring over objective number areas to "at or below".
Landowner "A" gets 10 transferrable either sex permits, has to give ?4?5 R hunters drawn by lottery access for either sex, and 50 cow hunters access to bring numbers down. The number given to the landowner has to equitable enough to offset his perception of what he is giving up. It can't be an equal number to the public or it will not fly.
Once numbers are at or below objective the program can be revisited and if all involved, landowners and R hunters like it tweak it where needed and let it keep working.
The only other solution I can think that will work is punitive to a degree,yr 1 last week gen. season cow only, yr 2 last 2 weeks cow only, yr 3 last 4 weeks cow only for 2yrs, yr 4 cow only all season. This can create a nightmare as well, as there are always "unintended consequences". 2-4 years of limited bull harvest will make for a lot of big bulls, could this create a sort of dilemma? Unlike a lot of folks I like to figure out "unintended consequences" ahead of time. Saves a lot of time and effort and money.
The Hedgehog
Well-known member
The whole elk issue has ZERO to do with objectives and 100% to do with giving more bull tags to landowners and outfitters. It’s a total disingenuous pile of shit strategy by the new FWP director..
BuzzH
Well-known member
Totally agree...but if Albus and his cronies are going to make an offer at least pretend to make it a half serious offer.
Eric Albus
Well-known member
- Joined
- May 24, 2012
- Messages
- 1,677
tags for LO should only be good on their ranch, not on neighbors.
Eric Albus
Well-known member
- Joined
- May 24, 2012
- Messages
- 1,677
No, you'd have to find your own.
One point you make has merit, printing your own tags is a total joke.
Equity does not figure into the equation. Finding LO tolerance of the public is what this is about, if the public wants access.
D
Deleted member 18333
Guest
People bitch and moan that State Fish and Game agencies are willing to sacrifice sound wildlife management just to make a $ off the sale of a license. Start down the transferable landowner license path and the private landowner will show you how its really done.
antlerradar
Well-known member
This is Colorado's ranching for wildlife. I don't have a problem with the concept. Not that much different than BM. Block Management is money for access and ranching for wildlife is tags for access. In some ways the tags for access is better in that it incentives the landowner to manage for quality in stead of the more hunters more money incentive of BM.The fear of "privatization and monetization" is the greatest stumbling block to overcome. I agree if we don't go pick weapon/season/area for all hunters it will not have much effect.
How about something like this? Offer landowners a transferrable permit(s) in exchange for public access. Landowner gets X number of permits according to acres/habitat/elk numbers(good on their ranch only) and has to in exchange give "Y" number of R hunters access for "Z" number of either sex, and "C" number of cows(good on said ranch only) in order to bring over objective number areas to "at or below".
Landowner "A" gets 10 transferrable either sex permits, has to give ?4?5 R hunters drawn by lottery access for either sex, and 50 cow hunters access to bring numbers down. The number given to the landowner has to equitable enough to offset his perception of what he is giving up. It can't be an equal number to the public or it will not fly.
Once numbers are at or below objective the program can be revisited and if all involved, landowners and R hunters like it tweak it where needed and let it keep working.
The only other solution I can think that will work is punitive to a degree,yr 1 last week gen. season cow only, yr 2 last 2 weeks cow only, yr 3 last 4 weeks cow only for 2yrs, yr 4 cow only all season. This can create a nightmare as well, as there are always "unintended consequences". 2-4 years of limited bull harvest will make for a lot of big bulls, could this create a sort of dilemma? Unlike a lot of folks I like to figure out "unintended consequences" ahead of time
The issue for sportsman is in the details of the agreement. Often the terms are far to skewed to the landowner in the form of more tags, better hunt timing etc. The Wilks agreement is a good example.
The issue for landowners is tolerance. If you let random people from the public on to hunt it is not if you are going to regret letting some one hunt but how soon.
Because of this I would never participate in both programs.
The fear of "privatization and monetization" is the greatest stumbling block to overcome. I agree if we don't go pick weapon/season/area for all hunters it will not have much effect.
How about something like this? Offer landowners a transferrable permit(s) in exchange for public access. Landowner gets X number of permits according to acres/habitat/elk numbers(good on their ranch only) and has to in exchange give "Y" number of R hunters access for "Z" number of either sex, and "C" number of cows(good on said ranch only) in order to bring over objective number areas to "at or below".
Landowner "A" gets 10 transferrable either sex permits, has to give ?4?5 R hunters drawn by lottery access for either sex, and 50 cow hunters access to bring numbers down. The number given to the landowner has to equitable enough to offset his perception of what he is giving up. It can't be an equal number to the public or it will not fly.
Once numbers are at or below objective the program can be revisited and if all involved, landowners and R hunters like it tweak it where needed and let it keep working.
The only other solution I can think that will work is punitive to a degree,yr 1 last week gen. season cow only, yr 2 last 2 weeks cow only, yr 3 last 4 weeks cow only for 2yrs, yr 4 cow only all season. This can create a nightmare as well, as there are always "unintended consequences". 2-4 years of limited bull harvest will make for a lot of big bulls, could this create a sort of dilemma? Unlike a lot of folks I like to figure out "unintended consequences" ahead of time
I appreciate the thoughtful response, Eric.
There will be significant opposition to any landowner set aside or transferable license. That is the heart of a lot of this conflict, and if people are serious about ending the conflict and finding better solutions, then I think we need to take the discussion of transferable tags off the table at the very least until people are more trusting of each other. Simply put, leading with ranching for wildlife plays into the concerns that a massive number of resident hunters have regarding the future of wildlife management in Montana, and the concerns that Montanans have regarding this administration. It's politically toxic, and if it's the main thrust of the agency, PLPW or any politician, it will just be more rallies, more initiatives and more conflict.
There are a lot of other options out there relative to wildlife management than giving away prized permits for sale to keep encouraging the same poor behavior. I don't think that transferable tags get to the heart of the issue - wildlife population management using public hunting as the management tool. I know that the bon mot offered by those seeking to privatize wildlife management is that objective numbers will be going up, but I think that's happening anyway. I do think that Montana needs to be far more progressive in approaching the elk distribution issue though, and that's where a type 3 Block Management prescription could be helpful:
This would be different than types 1 or 2 in that it would have to be a whole herd unit Block Management Agreement. It's not punitive, it's inclusive. By getting a majority of landowners to agree to a hunting plan that is administered by the agency (no special picks for friends or families and if you lease or are outfitted, you will need to justify participation since you're already making money off the resource). Having the majority of landowners work with FWP to develop a management plan for the EMU, alongside hunters or through the local CAC could open those participating landowners up for the max payment (as opposed to being based on only hunter days), more fencing, deterrents in the form of EMU specific damage hunts, and compensation for lost forage through a game damage fund that's paid for out of general tax dollars, and not hunter license revenue. I don't think that's punitive, and gets to the heart of the issue - increasing harvest rates and decreasing animal concentrations where they're not wanted at the correct times.
The only ones claiming that cow only would be punitive are the ones who have created the situation of harboring through outfitting or leasing, that I'm aware of.
SAJ-99
Well-known member
They already exist. All you can try to do is determine the parameters around which they are issued.
