Non resident Landowner incentive.

[Gerald Martin]

As a Montana resident hunter I refuse to give up any of my hunting opportunity. It’s my Constitutional right to be able to hunt. (Sarcasm folks)

Twenty years ago I was only allowed to kill one elk per year and hunting season in all but a couple units only lasted from the first Saturday in September through Thanksgiving weekend. Now, I get to hunt elk somewhere in MT from August 15 through February 15. I can kill three elk per year. We have the same archery and general season structure plus nine days of muzzleloader season as the deer and elk are arriving on their winter range. Even though Montana has 200,000 hunters every year hunting for the approximately 25,000 bulls that are alive in Montana at the beginning of the season I urge our wildlife managers to continue this highly sustainable and responsible management strategy.

After all, we heard about that one unit that is 900% over objective and has a 130/100 bull to cow ratio so we definitely need to keep killing more elk. Even though that unit only has 350 elk in it and its objective number is 60 elk we can see by extrapolating that across the state that we have too many elk.

 

[DFS]

As a Montana resident hunter I refuse to give up any of my hunting opportunity. It’s my Constitutional right to be able to hunt. (Sarcasm folks)

Twenty years ago I was only allowed to kill one elk per year and hunting season in all but a couple units only lasted from the first Saturday in September through Thanksgiving weekend. Now, I get to hunt elk somewhere in MT from August 15 through February 15. I can kill three elk per year. We have the same archery and general season structure plus nine days of muzzleloader season as the deer and elk are arriving on their winter range. Even though Montana has 200,000 hunters every year hunting for the approximately 25,000 bulls that are alive in Montana at the beginning of the season I urge our wildlife managers to continue this highly sustainable and responsible management strategy.

After all, we heard about that one unit that is 900% over objective and has a 130/100 bull to cow ratio so we definitely need to keep killing more elk. Even though that unit only has 350 elk in it and its objective number is 60 elk we can see by extrapolating that across the state that we have too many elk.

It really is perplexing. If I was a game manager I would want healthy elk and deer populations and I would fight for it, the conversations I’ve had go like and I’m paraphrasing “f’ it we’ve been here before I’m sure things might come back, can’t control the weather, the data doesn’t show that, if you don’t like it go somewhere else or try harder, maybe you aren’t remembering correctly”. It doesn’t make sense unless there is a higher power not allowing them to do their job. I can’t imagine it’s that hard to update elk objectives and not try to take mule deer to the brink. Higher powers must not allow that. Until mtfwp starts throwing the flag that we have a problem bad legislation will continue because the people we elect don’t know any different.

 

[Gerald Martin]

Because the folks we elect listen to the recommendations of the managers who listen to the people who want to hunt without consideration for the health of the resource because they listen to the summary of the managers that tells them they can have more opportunity because the data shows we’re still killing as many critters as we always did so the hunters continue to elect legislators who promise to not take away any opportunities because the managers say they don’t need to.

It’s simple, really. You just have to be really drunk for it to make sense.

 

[DFS]

Local staff says talk to the commissioners for change, commissioners lean on the local staffs and their data and it looks good!! At the end of the day you can waste a lot of time to try to help wildlife and it simply won’t happen. And we continue to legislate to make things worse. It’s not hard to see why people would support a bill to not make things worse. Rant over, pass the bill and move on with your lives. It won’t improve a thing for the wildlife that reside in this state.

 

[DFS]

Because the folks we elect listen to the recommendations of the managers who listen to the people who want to hunt without consideration for the health of the resource because they listen to the summary of the managers that tells them they can have more opportunity because the data shows we’re still killing as many critters as we always did so the hunters continue to elect legislators who promise to not take away any opportunities because the managers say they don’t need to.

It’s simple, really. You just have to be really drunk for it to make sense.

This is exactly why wildlife management shouldn’t be legislated. Elect commissioners from each region and let the staff do their job. It is completely separate from many issues the majority of Montana voters vote on. If that’s truly what Montana residents want we will stay the course, I don’t think it is but when you add in all the other issues on the table it changes things.

 

[Gerald Martin]

Montana could do lots for mending hunter/landowner relations just by shortening seasons. Landowners get tired of their door being knocked on or their phone ringing for 6 months straight

I can’t tell you how many landowners I have heard this from. The solutions are there, the people in charge aren’t looking for them. No sides want to give anything, the fwp thinks they are knocking it out of park, and things keep moving towards privatization of wildlife through unlimited opportunity, which at the end of the day is no opportunity on accessible lands.

Lessening landowner fatigue of hunters and increasing landowner’s appreciation and tolerance for wildlife can only be a good thing for a better future for wildlife and our ability to have a quality hunt.

One thing that I think many folks are not considering is that as the demographic of ranch owners continues to trend towards amenity ranches it will a good thing to have NR landowners wanting to see more deer and elk on their property when it comes to setting objectives during the next EMP.

 

[SAJ-99]

it will a good thing to have NR landowners wanting to see more deer and elk on their property when it comes to setting objectives during the next EMP.

This is a good point. But again, I don’t think these landowners want hunters decked out in blaze orange as a regular part of the landscape they paid to see. I might be miss estimating the demographics of 2500+ acre NR landowners. Only time will tell.

 

[Gerald Martin]

This is a good point. But again, I don’t think these landowners want hunters decked out in blaze orange as a regular part of the landscape they paid to see. I might be miss estimating the demographics of 2500+ acre NR landowners. Only time will tell.

Everyone keeps looking at this from the perspective of gaining access. Isn’t it even more important to have animals on the landscape as a starting point? Cart before horse and all that…

Many of the problems we now are dealing with are the direct consequence of landowner intolerance of elk. HB-42 forced FWP to change management practices in order to decrease elk populations to objectives. Liberalization of harvest, lengthened seasons, with lessening access on many private parcels has led to increased “harboring” of elk as accessible private and public land bears the brunt of hunting pressure.

We are making some great progress with access programs to open up areas to hunt.

Is it too much to also focus on building bridges with the landowner community to increase tolerance for wildlife in order to either increase populations or ease pressure of the policies that aren’t reducing elk numbers to objective and are exacerbating conflict?

 

[DFS]

Lessening landowner fatigue of hunters and increasing landowner’s appreciation and tolerance for wildlife can only be a good thing for a better future for wildlife and our ability to have a quality hunt.

One thing that I think many folks are not considering is that as the demographic of ranch owners continues to trend towards amenity ranches it will a good thing to have NR landowners wanting to see more deer and elk on their property when it comes to setting objectives during the next EMP.

Any changes we want start at mtfwp and trickle to our commissioners. Nobody is hearing we need them. Until that happens I predict 40 years of bad hunting. Unless you are lucky enough to have access to a large tract of private land. It’s as simple as that. Democrats and Republicans have both been at the helm.

 

[SAJ-99]

Everyone keeps looking at this from the perspective of gaining access. Isn’t it even more important to have animals on the landscape as a starting point? Cart before horse and all that…

Many of the problems we now are dealing with are the direct consequence of landowner intolerance of elk. HB-42 forced FWP to change management practices in order to decrease elk populations to objectives. Liberalization of harvest, lengthened seasons, with lessening access on many private parcels has led to increased “harboring” of elk as accessible private and public land bears the brunt of hunting pressure.

We are making some great progress with access programs to open up areas to hunt.

Is it too much to also focus on building bridges with the landowner community to increase tolerance for wildlife in order to either increase populations or ease pressure of the policies that aren’t reducing elk numbers to objective and are exacerbating conflict?

I get your point, and generally agree. But access is a dream in most cases. I would argue that these owners WANT deer and elk. Clearly so if they ask for permits. Case in point- Wilks. But they don’t want hunters. Read this article and convince me I’m wrong, because I want to be.

Tom Brokaw’s West Boulder Ranch Sells; Burnt Leather Ranch Included in Transaction - The Land Report

Read more from The Land Report Blog: Tom Brokaw’s West Boulder Ranch Sells; Burnt Leather Ranch Included in Transaction

landreport.com

 

[Jock Conyngham]

Everyone keeps looking at this from the perspective of gaining access. Isn’t it even more important to have animals on the landscape as a starting point? Cart before horse and all that…

Many of the problems we now are dealing with are the direct consequence of landowner intolerance of elk. HB-42 forced FWP to change management practices in order to decrease elk populations to objectives. Liberalization of harvest, lengthened seasons, with lessening access on many private parcels has led to increased “harboring” of elk as accessible private and public land bears the brunt of hunting pressure.

We are making some great progress with access programs to open up areas to hunt.

Is it too much to also focus on building bridges with the landowner community to increase tolerance for wildlife in order to either increase populations or ease pressure of the policies that aren’t reducing elk numbers to objective and are exacerbating conflict?

Gerald, I just don’t see tolerance of wildlife being a big issue on the NR amenity ranches. I sure do on the resident-owned working ranches. There we agree completely, I suspect.

 

[brockel]

Any changes we want start at mtfwp and trickle to our commissioners. Nobody is hearing we need them. Until that happens I predict 40 years of bad hunting. Unless you are lucky enough to have access to a large tract of private land. It’s as simple as that. Democrats and Republicans have both been at the helm.

How things have really tanked in the last 10-15 I can’t imagine in 40

 

[DFS]

How things have really tanked in the last 10-15 I can’t imagine in 40

Its abundantly clear to me anything that we saw in the past is gone. Lace those boots up game check stations that are only open 2 weekends showed little to no doe harvest and a lot of old warrior troll bucks come through. I suspect you aren’t trying hard enough.
Back to the bill who cares, pass it. North American model in Montana is already gone with lack of management on accessible lands.

 

[Gerald Martin]

Is there value in wildlife on property that I will never access?

I think there is. Wildlife tolerant landowners are beneficial to Montana residents. We have seen fit to grant resident landowners preferential treatment in appreciation of what they contribute with their private wildlife habitat. Recognizing the contribution of non-resident landowners whose Montana property provides wildlife habitat is a net positive in my opinion.

 

[Straight Arrow]

Is there value in wildlife on property that I will never access?

I think there is. Wildlife tolerant landowners are beneficial to Montana residents. We have seen fit to grant resident landowners preferential treatment in appreciation of what they contribute with their private wildlife habitat. Recognizing the contribution of non-resident landowners whose Montana property provides wildlife habitat is a net positive in my opinion.

BACK FROM THE BRINK tells the story of Montana's recovery of wildlife during the last century. Along with the state fish and game agency and wildlife management professionals, critical to that recovery were the efforts of farmers, ranchers, and other landowners who not only provided habitat but also actually were involved in relocating wildlife to their lands.
Private property landowners have always been instrumental in maintaining wildlife populations across not only the west, but all of the country. It is helpful for even strictly public land hunters to appreciate and respect that.

 

[mtmuley]

Is there value in wildlife on property that I will never access?

I think there is. Wildlife tolerant landowners are beneficial to Montana residents. We have seen fit to grant resident landowners preferential treatment in appreciation of what they contribute with their private wildlife habitat. Recognizing the contribution of non-resident landowners whose Montana property provides wildlife habitat is a net positive in my opinion.

Not harboring? mtmuley

 

[SAJ-99]

Just seems the argument 'for' keeps changing. Initially it was cutting hunter days on public lands, now it is getting NR landowners to appreciate wildlife. Again, it doesn't appear there is a good estimate on how many people will sign up. Let's see where the numbers end up and then evaluate what kind of abuses we see. What is clear is the Montana hunters enjoy their opportunity and relatively cheap tags. Any changes will be borne by NRs until it gets so bad the obvious can't be ignored.

 

[Gerald Martin]

Not harboring? mtmuley

I might not be understanding your question so if this goes off on a tangent, my apologies.

“Harboring” as a result of too much pressure on accessible property pushing elk onto private property where landowners’ access policies don’t allow adequate hunting to meet harvest objectives is a widespread current reality that ensures conflict between hunters (want access to game) wildlife intolerant landowners ( elk are a financial liability)and wildlife tolerant landowners increases. I think most of us are on the same page in understanding causes and effect of why we are here.


“Harboring” that exists as wildlife selects the best habitat and most secure place to live is not an undesirable situation in my opinion. I would like access and would hope access to the wildlife on those properties will increase but at least the animals exist and are thriving.

Currently, as Doug Stickney pointed out, public land wildlife management with it’s long season structures and liberal harvest allowances does not allow the habitat of public lands to attract and retain wildlife to the extent that it could. Habitat improvements can happen on public lands but wildlife’s preference for selecting those areas is hindered by too much hunting pressure.

There’s a lot of work on various fronts that needs to happen for us all to experience better hunting and better wildlife management. Many of the things necessary for that to happen are not going to be popular with folks who are entrenched in an entitlement mentality that believes the status quo of “opportunity” is the highest expression of success for Montana hunters.

We’ve been maxing out the credit card, paying the minimum balance and are upset that reality is demanding a lifestyle adjustment.

 

[mtmuley]

I guess I don't see the harboring difference. If habitat isn't favorable, elk leave. Even if there is outside pressure, bad habitat on private land won't keep them there. So, if a landowner has desirable habitat, the elk aren't harbored even if they stay on said private land? Or are they? Or, are they only harbored if no access is allowed ? mtmuley

 

[Gerald Martin]

I guess I don't see the harboring difference. If habitat isn't favorable, elk leave. Even if there is outside pressure, bad habitat on private land won't keep them there. So, if a landowner has desirable habitat, the elk aren't harbored even if they stay on said private land? Or are they? Or, are they only harbored if no access is allowed ? mtmuley

We might be saying similar things past each other??? Not sure I’m tracking.