katqanna
Well-known member
I got a call a wee bit ago from a fellow conservation hunter that was listening to the Northern Ag Network this morning, telling me I needed to turn it on, they were discussing elk shoulder seasons. So I got on online, listened to the two speakers - a land owner named Robert (dont know where he was from or how much acreage, I didnt catch the beginning) and a guy, Terry, who the host kept deferring to as having most of the answers and knowledge, I use those terms loosely.
Terry it turns out is Terry Anderson, from PERC, who has 20 acres up by Bridger Bowl area, he said. He said the average hunter needs to pay for hunting access, talked about $1000, said the hunters were driving around in $30,000 pickups with expensive rifles and such and can afford to pay landowners for the right to hunt. Terry said our licenses need to go up, but the increase should be dedicated to landowners, then spoke about going back to late season hunts to drop elk numbers down like before. The listeners where then referred to PERC's website for more information. PERC is a Bozeman based organization.
I went to PERC's site, typed in elk hunting in the search bar to find they advocate ranching for wildlife, specifically talking about the Texas Model,
They advocated longer seasons, "Because a longer season offers a better chance of harvesting trophy animals, more hunters are willing to pay landowners a premium for these hunts."
And of course, PERC advocates a transfer of federal public lands to the states. There were numerous papers there like Turning Wildlife Into An Asset, Wildlife in the Marketplace, etc.
This Sept., after the Skyline Sportsmen wrote an oped against elk shoulder seasons, PERC's Terry Anderson wrote a reply, in which he stated, "Colorado’s 'ranching for wildlife' program takes an even bigger step. It gives landowners more say in who can hunt and gives them some permits which they can sell at whatever price the market will bear in return for cooperating with the state’s wildlife agency on habitat management plans.
Put bluntly, opposition to shoulder seasons is driven by short-sighted self-interest. It is short sighted because it fails to recognize landowners, who control the best habitat in the state, as allies of hunters. It is self-interested because it fails to recognize that landowners bear the cost of providing habitat and asks them to provide a free-access lunch for hunters. To be sure, elk are public wildlife, but as Chuck Denowh, policy director for United Property Owners of Montana, put it, 'it’s time for the public to pay. The shoulder seasons are a very tiny step in the right direction.' "
Terry it turns out is Terry Anderson, from PERC, who has 20 acres up by Bridger Bowl area, he said. He said the average hunter needs to pay for hunting access, talked about $1000, said the hunters were driving around in $30,000 pickups with expensive rifles and such and can afford to pay landowners for the right to hunt. Terry said our licenses need to go up, but the increase should be dedicated to landowners, then spoke about going back to late season hunts to drop elk numbers down like before. The listeners where then referred to PERC's website for more information. PERC is a Bozeman based organization.
I went to PERC's site, typed in elk hunting in the search bar to find they advocate ranching for wildlife, specifically talking about the Texas Model,
They advocated longer seasons, "Because a longer season offers a better chance of harvesting trophy animals, more hunters are willing to pay landowners a premium for these hunts."
And of course, PERC advocates a transfer of federal public lands to the states. There were numerous papers there like Turning Wildlife Into An Asset, Wildlife in the Marketplace, etc.
This Sept., after the Skyline Sportsmen wrote an oped against elk shoulder seasons, PERC's Terry Anderson wrote a reply, in which he stated, "Colorado’s 'ranching for wildlife' program takes an even bigger step. It gives landowners more say in who can hunt and gives them some permits which they can sell at whatever price the market will bear in return for cooperating with the state’s wildlife agency on habitat management plans.
Put bluntly, opposition to shoulder seasons is driven by short-sighted self-interest. It is short sighted because it fails to recognize landowners, who control the best habitat in the state, as allies of hunters. It is self-interested because it fails to recognize that landowners bear the cost of providing habitat and asks them to provide a free-access lunch for hunters. To be sure, elk are public wildlife, but as Chuck Denowh, policy director for United Property Owners of Montana, put it, 'it’s time for the public to pay. The shoulder seasons are a very tiny step in the right direction.' "
