Montana Judge Says Landowners Don’t Have ‘Absolute Freedom’ to Kill Elk, and Allowing Public Hunting Doesn’t Infringe on Their Rights

[CoHunter1991]

If the publicly owned wildlife are causing them harm then allow the public to come remove their wildlife. There will be no shortage of volunteers. Easy solution.

 

[Eric Albus]

This is a complex issue. I see a couple ways to resolve it.

1. Create a private land only license for permit areas grossly over objective population. This puts more pressure on the private pushing elk onto accessible areas.

2. Cow only seasons until elk are under population objectives.

 

[CoHunter1991]

This is a complex issue. I see a couple ways to resolve it.

1. Create a private land only license for permit areas grossly over objective population. This puts more pressure on the private pushing elk onto accessible areas.

2. Cow only seasons until elk are under population objectives.

I agree as long as both sets of tags are allocated in the draw and not given to landowners.

 

[cgasner1]

This is a complex issue. I see a couple ways to resolve it.

1. Create a private land only license for permit areas grossly over objective population. This puts more pressure on the private pushing elk onto accessible areas.

2. Cow only seasons until elk are under population objectives.

I’d be all either if these options but if they want a tag with a antler it has to have a point restriction of 5 or less

 

[Dave N]

This is a complex issue. I see a couple ways to resolve it.

1. Create a private land only license for permit areas grossly over objective population. This puts more pressure on the private pushing elk onto accessible areas.

2. Cow only seasons until elk are under population objectives.

Doesn't solve anything if landowners don't allow access.

 

[CoHunter1991]

Doesn't solve anything if landowners don't allow access.

That is why i appreciate the wording of this ruling basically says the state already has programs to help their problem, if they refuse to use the programs its on them. Hopefully the access program will see a slight bump.

 

[Hammsolo]

Upom= blows weieners

They are weiners…

 

[Forkyfinder]

This is a complex issue. I see a couple ways to resolve it.

1. Create a private land only license for permit areas grossly over objective population. This puts more pressure on the private pushing elk onto accessible areas.

2. Cow only seasons until elk are under population objectives.

@Eric Albus - do you feel like the objectives are low for elk?

 

[Treeshark]

Doesn't solve anything if landowners don't allow access.

They will allow access if you allow them to sell/transfer some of those tags (especially if some of them are bull tags).

This is a complex issue. I see a couple ways to resolve it.

1. Create a private land only license for permit areas grossly over objective population. This puts more pressure on the private pushing elk onto accessible areas.

2. Cow only seasons until elk are under population objectives.

Some variation of point 1 is where the solution likely lies. While point 2 would be a good solution, I see it being a non-starter.

 

[Dave N]

They will allow access if you allow them to sell/transfer some of those tags (especially if some of them are bull tags)

I took Eric's post to mean private land tags to be sold to the public, not provided to the landowners to sell or transfer. Why would a landowner suddenly open up his ranch if he had tags to sell when he could have charged an access fee without them?

 

[Treeshark]

Why would a landowner suddenly open up his ranch if he had tags to sell when he could have charged an access fee without them?

If he had the tags to sell himself (bull tags), it would expand the possible pool of people he could sell his tags too.

My view on many of the elk issues going on in both Wyoming and Montana now basically boil down to private landowners holding elk hostage in order to get what they want. If landowners really wanted these “problem elk” gone badly enough, it wouldn’t be hard- go pound a sign in at the front gate saying “free hunting access.” It wouldn’t solve everything, but it would help them a lot.

It seems as if many of them may harboring elk intentionally in many cases, and then feigning hardship.

 

[Treeshark]

I took Eric's post to mean private land tags to be sold to the public, not provided to the landowners to sell or transfer.

Got it- I took it as transferable, I certainly could have misread what he actually meant. If so, I see your point from that perspective.

 

[Dave N]

If he had the tags to sell himself (bull tags), it would expand the possible pool of people he could sell his tags too.

My view on many of the elk issues going on in both Wyoming and Montana now basically boil down to private landowners holding elk hostage in order to get what they want. If landowners really wanted these “problem elk” gone badly enough, it wouldn’t be hard- go pound a sign in at the front gate saying “free hunting access.” It wouldn’t solve everything, but it would help them a lot.

It seems as if many of them may harboring elk intentionally in many cases, and then feigning hardship.

I still don't see any difference between selling the tags themselves or selling access to those who have one, just like a guide service. Pure profit both ways. I'm just a guy from Illinois so I don't know all of the details, but if a guy doesn't want hunting on his place without getting a bunch of money first then he probably isn't really worried about the elk eating the grass in the first place.

 

[cgasner1]

I still don't see any difference between selling the tags themselves or selling access to those who have one, just like a guide service. Pure profit both ways. I'm just a guy from Illinois so I don't know all of the details, but if a guy doesn't want hunting on his place without getting a bunch of money first then he probably isn't really worried about the elk eating the grass in the first place.

The difference is the money to antler ratio. And it won’t fix the problem they can already kill almost all the cows they want and choose not to selling horn won’t change the problem

 

[Dave N]

Got it- I took it as transferable, I certainly could have misread what he actually meant. If so, I see your point from that perspective.

I was typing when you posted.

 

[OverlordBear]

!. "Game departments" cannot "make" landowners allow access. For as wacky as UPOM is regarding asserting rights they don't actually have ... yet it is private property to which they do have legitimate property rights.

2. 'Don't know what you mean by "depredation payments" or if you pay them in Idaho, but that is not something I would support. Monetary payments to private landowners for wildlife being on their property is a huge can of worms and potential wildlife management funding loss I do not want to see. Those landowners are to be reminded that it was wildlife habitat long before it became private property. Money spent for hay fencing, hazing, and other mitigation techniques is enough.

They could make access-yes a condition prior to payment for any depredations payments however they won’t and hunting and fishing fees will continue to be the one of many welfare slush funds ranchers are able to pull from. Yes fencing is expensive the first time you put it up but it is cheaper then the alleged hay that gets reportedly pilfered by wintering elk every year. The fact is the ranchers want to have a private unlimited big game reserve that they can charge $5 to 10k for a bull to clients and they want to also be paid by the government for the “burden” of the same elk every year. They talk out of both sides of their mouth and use the legislative process as the weapon to be gain a competitive advantage over any competition. Such as the Wyoming $75 dollars “rancher” tag fee. They simultaneously are also anti corner crossing as well as try and shut down all stream access. Their attitudes and behaviors are no different then the European lords and dukes our ancestors fled to escape 400-300 years ago.

 

[Straight Arrow]

They could make access-yes a condition prior to payment for any depredations payments

You misunderstood my post. I am adamantly opposed to depredation payments under any conditions. It's a bad idea to pay landowners direct payments for tolerating wildlife on their property when wildlife existed there before it was even private property.

Question: Does Idaho pay landowners depredations payments?

 

[OverlordBear]

You misunderstood my post. I am adamantly opposed to depredation payments under any conditions. It's a bad idea to pay landowners direct payments for tolerating wildlife on their property when wildlife existed there before it was even private property.

Question: Does Idaho pay landowners depredations payments?

Yes unfortunately IDFG do pay depredation claims and hunters don’t benefit anything from it.

Loading…

www.idahostatesman.com

 

[OverlordBear]

Yes unfortunately IDFG do pay depredation claims and hunters don’t benefit anything from it.

Loading…

www.idahostatesman.com

“In the past few years, the Magic Valley’s elk population has grown, and with that growth the number of depredation claims has risen. In 2015, Idaho Fish and Game’s Magic Valley region paid out $69,000 in depredation claims. Just three years later in 2018, the number of claims tripled here and the total cost exceeded $1.5 million. In a few instances, hundreds of elk have descended on one ag field — Fish and Game had to pay $1.1 million for one Magic Valley claim in 2018. With the burden of depredation claim payouts becoming extreme, Fish and Game began looking for new methods to limit crop damage.”

Read more at: https://www.idahostatesman.com/outdoors/hunting/article244851557.html#storylink=cpy

 

[OverlordBear]

This instance and many others like it is why I am so hostile to ranchers on this issue. And yes I write polite letters to the commission and my state legislature which are largely ignored because they know who butters their bread. Politically DIY public land hunters are lone wanderers in the wasteland of the American Politics.