Spark one. Might not be a bad thing if the pot tax is used that way. mtmuley
Montana FWP makes seismic shift in elk permits
- Thread starter Ben Lamb
- Start date
Or take there power away from them!
sacountry
Well-known member
The last best joint?
Gerald Martin
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2009
- Messages
- 8,673
It would be a groovy idea to have the smokers of grass pay for the negative effects of the eaters of grass.
sacountry
Well-known member
Do you envision this as a grass roots effort?
PsRpOiGrRiAtM
Well-known member
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2017
- Messages
- 359
I think it's a pipe dream.
Who's feeding all these excess elk?Commission meets on December 14th to approve the UPOM model of elk management.
FWP proposes new, limited elk season structure to commission
HELENA – Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks is looking at a handful of new strategies to better manage elk populations and improve quality hunting opportunities on public lands. FWP will propose these strategies to the Montana Fish and Wildlife Commission at its Dec. 14 meeting.
In recent years, Montana has seen a dramatic increase in elk populations in many hunting districts around the state. Currently, 14 hunting districts are at least 200 percent above population objectives. Data also show an overcrowding of elk populations on private land, limiting opportunities for public land hunters.
“What we know is the status quo isn’t working,” said FWP Director Hank Worsech. “So, we’re going to propose a few new strategies we think can finally help us make progress in addressing the problem, both for hunters and for landowners.”
Required by law to achieve population objectives set by the Fish and Wildlife Commission, FWP proposes targeted provisions to fulfill the statutory requirement of managing to population objective, address the increasing impacts of high elk populations on Montana farmers and ranchers, and improve quality opportunities for hunters. Those numerical objectives are identified in the current elk management plan.
The targeted provisions for 14 hunting districts with limited permits and over population objectives are:
The proposal would also make a general elk license valid for either-sex elk only on private land in these eight districts. This would include the general archery and firearm seasons as well as the muzzleloader season. Early and late antlerless seasons would remain the same, and only be for antlerless elk in the districts in which they occur.
- In all 14 hunting districts, FWP proposes to remove some or all of the limited either-sex permits.
- In eight of those hunting districts, where problems with distribution, population and access tend to be most acute, FWP is proposing to retain the limited either-sex permits but make them valid only on public land. In most of these districts, the permit quotas are proposed to be half of the 2021 quotas. The hunting districts proposed for this structure are: 411, 417, 426, 535 (newly proposed for 2022), 590, 702, 704 and 705.
All of FWP’s proposed hunting regulations are undergoing review as part of the agency’s regular, biennial season-setting process, and are subject to commission approval. If the commission approves the proposals, there will be a 30-day public comment opportunity.
“We can’t keep doing the same thing over and over again and expect a different result. We have to try something different. This proposal is a new strategy we can implement for two years and see if it has the desired effect – more elk harvest, better elk availability on public lands, fewer landowner conflicts, and elk at population objective,” Worsech said. “In some hunting districts, we have broad public tolerance or outright support for limited permits, and we want to keep those in place.”
By having different season types in multiple areas with similar circumstances – over population elk herds and limited either-sex permits – FWP will be able to analyze which strategy is most effective at decreasing elk numbers and moving more on to public land.
In addition to this specific season proposal, a new elk plan is being developed with the help of guiding principles identified by an external working group and endorsed by the commission. The process for this new plan will include extensive public commenting opportunities.
The Private Land/Public Wildlife council will also review all FWP access programs and revisit elk hunting access agreements, which provide access to private land in exchange for elk licenses and permits for the landowner.
Worsech is also looking to pull together an additional citizen group to explore more ways to address issues around hunter access to private land and landowner preferences. The goal for the group will be to provide tangible recommendations FWP and the commission can implement.
Also, with the availability of more federal Pittman-Robertson funds, FWP is exploring a three-fold increase of funding for its access programs.
“It’s time for people to bring their best ideas forward, and I want to hear from them,” Worsech said. “Don’t just tell us what you don’t like. I want to hear your ideas to improve the situation. I hope we can all see and realize a better day for landowners, hunters and the elk resource itself.”
shoots-straight
Well-known member
The lands they historically have lived on.
shoots-straight
Well-known member
Do Ranchers get subsidies in any form?
TheJason
Well-known member
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2024
- Messages
- 18,559
No reimbursement for standing crop damage. Landowners who allow public access can receive fencing materials for hay stack yards.
shoots-straight
Well-known member
Can you write off all of your groceries because you ranch? How's the tax code for Ranching?
Not reimbursed, because wildlife exist as a condition of the land according to the Montana State Constitution and two Supreme Court decisions (Rathbone & Sackman) that expressly state that wildlife must have reasonable accommodation for that wildlife, while the agency is directed to work with the landowner to bring the situation to a reasonable conclusion.
Does FWP always do the right thing here? No, not always. There are ways to do better. That's never given the opportunity to see the light of day as well funded think tanks like PERC & dark money groups like UPOM are constantly pushing for conflict rather than actual solutions.
Is it the fault of hunters though, when elk congregate on lands where they won't get shot or where neighbors are creating refugia situations for other landowners to deal with once the season is over?
Furthermore, leasing for hunt clubs or outfitters cashes in on that crop damage issue as well, so there's a free market solution here, without government intervention. That market solution however comes at costs to other landowners who do allow public hunting or who are impacted after teh season when elk move over to fresh fields and haystacks.
Damage hunts, fencing, conservation easements, block management, etc all exist to help deal with these issues. It's not perfect, so what's the other solution besides transferable tags?
shoots-straight
Well-known member
Are Alfalfa famers subsidized?
TheJason
Well-known member
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2024
- Messages
- 18,559
If I were king for a day, I would do a
deep dive into damage reimbursement for standing crops to landowners who allow public access. You won’t influence the hedge fund ranchers with these payments, but you can help the traditional rancher who has to deal with the neighbors.
deep dive into damage reimbursement for standing crops to landowners who allow public access. You won’t influence the hedge fund ranchers with these payments, but you can help the traditional rancher who has to deal with the neighbors.
Hem
Well-known member
There were some valid poinrs that a mandatory harvest report by individuals would be an insignificant action towards immediate concerns.
Probably so, but i would speculate that mandatory reporting might draw a percentage of people out of the dark and in to the arena of elk management awareness. Ive talked to alot of hunters of my generation that dont frequent key forums and are clueless of the shenanigans.
Obviously the powers above prefer we be uninformed.
Thanks to all that spell it all out.
Probably so, but i would speculate that mandatory reporting might draw a percentage of people out of the dark and in to the arena of elk management awareness. Ive talked to alot of hunters of my generation that dont frequent key forums and are clueless of the shenanigans.
Obviously the powers above prefer we be uninformed.
Thanks to all that spell it all out.
We win this the old fashioned way - We talk to our family, friends and neighbors one on one or at party's, etc.
Mandatory reporting would be beneficial in the long run, and if done correctly you can use it while you still do the phone survey's to overlap data sets.
rogerthat
Well-known member
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2015
- Messages
- 2,963
I don’t oppose this idea but honestly the worst thing for their industry is all the subsidies. If they sign up for the right “programs” over the years, they could get paid for about anything. It’s utterly ridiculous.
The wildlife came with the land. It’s honestly a benefit. I wish I got to look at wildlife all day while I did my job. With the amount of opportunity hunting that Montana has if they wanted to “deal” with the wildlife they have no excuses. I grew up on a ranch. My parents still run it. Heading out there tonight in fact but seriously, why do we need to keep paying them just to do their job? I get incentivizing the good actors vs the bad. But just saying, the more we pay them with these programs the more entitled they have got. As a whole (especially in Prairie county MT) they are some of the most entitled welfare cases in the west
Nameless Range
Well-known member
Quite the conversations happening here:
fwp.mt.gov
Private Land/Public Wildlife (PLPW) Advisory Committee | Montana FWP
Private Land/Public Wildlife (PLPW) Advisory Committee information.
fwp.mt.gov
