Reducing the Friction Between Working Landowners and Elk

[TheTone]

If you can’t keep elk out of stored hay you really aren’t trying very hard

 

[shoots-straight]

Shoots, I am talking about the elk in 262 as a separate population than the rest of the Valley. These elk are not indicative of the elk numbers here. There are generations of elk born on the Valley floor. They aren't leaving. Not migrating. Ours is a unique situation. mtmuley

Yes, it WAS unique, but what's happened here is happening all over the state now. That's my point. We've been thinking outside the box for a long time now. I remember telling Hunt Talkers that what was happening in the Root was going to be coming to a HD near you, about 15 or more years ago. Had discussions with other HT that still hang here that it wouldn't happen. They were more concerned with wolves, and Grizzlies then, and lack of Elk do to those predators than too many elk. So here we are.

 

[SAJ-99]

This shows how complex the problem is. There are a lot of instances you are correct, however elk seek sanctuary and a pumpkin patch of hunters can push them right onto private sanctuaries where no elk will be harvested.

I agree, but the argument that less tags will equal a reduced elk population is hard to make.

In reality, there might be a solution to landowner/hunter relationship. But it might be different than the solution to the problem of elk being over objective. I agree that a short term fix would be to be more flexible in the management of each zone and region independently. But that starts with the objective numbers that are mostly BS. For example, For the entire zone 4, it is over the upper bound of objective by 13,827. Of that, almost 45%, 6,144 is in one area E411, which is the N-Bar. What is going to fix that? My understanding is that those were supposed to be inaccessible elk and not counted in the survey. Zone 1 and Zone 2 are both "At Objective", but it doesn't take long to find a thread about not enough elk in those regions and wolves keeping the population from rebounding. In Zone 1, 14 zones- 4 not flown, 5 under objective, 5 at objective. Yet the whole zone is at objective. The legislative Committees use the wolves eating elk as an excuse for wolf legislation. Can't have it both ways.

My main probably is we don't measure the things we need to gauge if anything works. I pointed this out to various representatives on 505. I explained to the "lets try it for one year" group that there was no objective measure in the bill to determine if it worked or didn't work after that year. It is all a guessing game.

I am frustrated that every time I think about this I end up going down a rabbit hole and coming up with various problems. The solution might be what the solution always is...$$$.

 

[JLS]

Montana has long tried to avoid the micromanaging of hunters. The philosophy has been allow them to go where then game is.

I’m a huge opportunity guy, but I think the handwriting is clearly on the wall that a different approach to seasons and hunter distribution is way past due.

 

[HONEYBADGER]

One thing said to me more than once by supporters of HB 505, or those sympathetic to the idea that we need a mass reduction of elk across the landscape, was, "Well, what's your idea to solve the problem?" Nevermind that in the face of a bill about to become law, this seems off the mark, it has got me thinking.

I think there needs to be a good faith attempt to recognize and improve the friction between Montanans whose livelihoods are dependent upon the land which they own, and I think the existence of and recognition of such an effort would very wise to have in place prior to the next bill that comes along, or the next legislative session, or during the writing of the next EMP. The Citizens Elk Group and what comes of it will hopefully be a good representation of this type of thing, but in trying to answer the question above in earnest here are a few ideas I have thought about.


In my King for a Day scenario, any model that exists in perpetuity moving forward will take into consideration a few premises I believe to be both true and mutually compatible:


1. Elk cause many landowners a large financial detriment, and in many ways landowners are subsidizing the existence of elk on the landscape. Their concerns are valid.
2. Our current EMP Objectives are unreasonably low. In spite of insanely liberal harvest over the last decade, I believe elk populations have shown us that.
3. Elk belong to all Montanans, and should not be commercialized, and equal opportunity in the tag drawing process is a principal we must not abandon, but maybe there is a bit of wiggle room.

These are all half-baked ruminations, but I am curious what folks think of them or any other solutions.

An Expanded and More Aggressive Game Damage Hunt Program

I like the game damage program because it is an acute solution(not unit wide), is typically fair, is vetted by FWP as necessary, and has a temporal window of occurrence(not an entire season.) Something that is true is that the current game damage hunts are at times marginally effective. I've seen it in action. What if after a vetting by FWP, a more aggressive solution were implemented? Something like the landowner-sponsored tags in HB 505 in addition to the current roster process. It is true that there would be a skewed aspect to this, where equal opportunity in the drawing process would be affected, as sponsored tags would be in addition to the game damage roster. These game-damage sponsored-hunter periods would be vetted as necessary, would have a temporal aspect (say two weeks, where at the end it would be assessed again), and in the spirit of the HB 505 amendments (which I appreciated) ,it would be illegal for landowners to benefit financially from sponsoring.

Financial Compensation

There is an uneasiness to this for me, as I could see it being gamed and out of control. That said, Montana sells something like 200,000 elk licenses per year at an absurdly low cost to residents. What if the price of a tag were increased by $10, or $20, and that money went in to a pot to compensate landowners for elk damage? I have no idea how much damage elk do in a monetary sense across Montana, so maybe that amount is naively insufficient. This would also require FTE at the state level to implement this program, vetting properties and assessing damage, etc. But would exist in the spirit of recognizing that much of the elk meat in our freezers came from grass owned by fellow Montanans. It would set in place a recognition that would lend itself to some realistic elk objectives in the new EMP.

Controlled Hazing

Why not just let concerned landowners haze elk off their property? I know it is unsavory, but for chrissake we are hunting them 7 months out of the year anyway. There could sideboards, and defined approved methods of hazing, and I also know this could cause friction between neighbors. Maybe a more aggressive hazing program where landowners and the state come together to plan hazing. The fact is, there are plenty of landowners who love elk on their property, and the logic that hazing elk from one property to another would cause headache between neighbors doesn't seem that much different to me than the idea that we would hunt them off one parcel to another, which is what HB 505 claimed was the intent.


Like I said, not thought out particularly well, but maybe the start of a conversation. I'm heading off grid for a couple days with my family after I hit enter. Feel free to tell me why these are bad ideas or if you have your own.

Greed is why elk are out of control on private land. Landowners could easily allow hunting if the elk are such a problem, but they won't, unless their palms get sufficiently greased. So instead they just cry to politicians and policy makers asking for handout tags for outfitters so they can sell 5000k per head hunts....landowners know how to solve the problem, they don't want to, they want money.

 

[JLS]

Greed is why elk are out of control on private land. Landowners could easily allow hunting if the elk are such a problem, but they won't, unless their palms get sufficiently greased. So instead they just cry to politicians and policy makers asking for handout tags for outfitters so they can sell 5000k per head hunts....landowners know how to solve the problem, they don't want to, they want money.

This may be an overly simplistic and somewhat inaccurate broad brush depiction.

 

[BuzzH]

This may be an overly simplistic and somewhat inaccurate broad brush depiction.

I agree, but its also a very valid depiction in a lot of cases.

I used to hunt private in Montana near Avon, lots of elk, lots of broken fences from them. We always shot a few off the property we had access to. Outfitter comes in, leases it, and we're looking for a new elk hunting spot. Run into the landowner a few months later and he tells us how the outfitter didn't take any elk off his place. Also told us he had significantly more fence damage. Cry me a river...you had guys killing elk but money came into the equation and that changed. Too bad.

Had another instance in the breaks where a local landowner was telling me how the elk were doing several thousand dollars of damage on their place. I told them I'd be happy to shoot a cow on their place as I wasn't seeing any bulls I wanted on my rifle any elk tag. Told me, "we can't let you on, we have guys paying to hunt"...OK. Went out the last day I could hunt and shot a 5 point bull on public. Would have been more than happy to kill a cow that day on private to help the problem. Glad I was able to take a bull, and I hope the cow I didn't kill on that private resulted in a bunch more elk in the breaks. Even trying to be helpful, lots of hunters are turned away.

Money is driving a goodly portion of this problem...certainly overly simplistic but IMO, its a rather large part of the problem.

The tough part, is I see and appreciate that landowners should do what they feel is best with their property, including charging for hunting, leasing to outfitters etc.

I hate when I don't really have solutions...and this one has been ongoing for a long time and I don't have any good ideas to solve it.

 

[Gerald Martin]

Greed is why elk are out of control on private land. Landowners could easily allow hunting if the elk are such a problem, but they won't, unless their palms get sufficiently greased. So instead they just cry to politicians and policy makers asking for handout tags for outfitters so they can sell 5000k per head hunts....landowners know how to solve the problem, they don't want to, they want money.

This is true in some cases. However, those landowners aren’t usually the ones who are suffering from wildlife depredation.

They are the ones using the real suffering of others as justification to get more access to tags even though that won’t alleviate the problems others are facing.

 

[mtmuley]

This is true in some cases. However, those landowners aren’t usually the ones who are suffering from wildlife depredation.

They are the ones using the real suffering of others as justification to get more access to tags even though that won’t alleviate the problems others are facing.

A lot of times the ones suffering are surrounded by landowners that aren't impacted by elk damage. Read your post again Gerald. I see that's basically your point. mtmuley

 

[RobG]

4. Start killing the "problem elk," not the migratory elk - In Montana, our "one-size fits all" approach has resulted in a lot of migratory elk getting shot in these late antlerless seasons, while the elk conditioned to private lands find their sanctuary and are off-limits. This lack of precision allows higher exploitation of herds migrating down low, not knowing the safe spots, and they get toasted upon arrival to the low country. The non-migratory elk know who provides safe boundary and they have lower exploitation than the migratory elk. End results is the harvest goals might get met, but we shoot more of the "well behaved" elk that spend most their time on high ground that is public and we shoot fewer of the "problem elk" that have learned to never leave private. Over time, we get elk herds that have lost the migratory patterns and thus fewer elk on public, while seeing more private land elk that never leave.

Stopping the cow harvest on public lands would help, but the only way I can think of to effectively target the non-migratory elk is rifle hunting cows on private before the snow flies (i.e. bow season and early shoulder season). However, that idea is explosively unpopular even if limited to private land...

 

[HONEYBADGER]

I agree, but its also a very valid depiction in a lot of cases.

I used to hunt private in Montana near Avon, lots of elk, lots of broken fences from them. We always shot a few off the property we had access to. Outfitter comes in, leases it, and we're looking for a new elk hunting spot. Run into the landowner a few months later and he tells us how the outfitter didn't take any elk off his place. Also told us he had significantly more fence damage. Cry me a river...you had guys killing elk but money came into the equation and that changed. Too bad.

Had another instance in the breaks where a local landowner was telling me how the elk were doing several thousand dollars of damage on their place. I told them I'd be happy to shoot a cow on their place as I wasn't seeing any bulls I wanted on my rifle any elk tag. Told me, "we can't let you on, we have guys paying to hunt"...OK. Went out the last day I could hunt and shot a 5 point bull on public. Would have been more than happy to kill a cow that day on private to help the problem. Glad I was able to take a bull, and I hope the cow I didn't kill on that private resulted in a bunch more elk in the breaks. Even trying to be helpful, lots of hunters are turned away.

Money is driving a goodly portion of this problem...certainly overly simplistic but IMO, its a rather large part of the problem.

The tough part, is I see and appreciate that landowners should do what they feel is best with their property, including charging for hunting, leasing to outfitters etc.

I hate when I don't really have solutions...and this one has been ongoing for a long time and I don't have any good ideas to solve it.

They can do as they please with their land, but don't come begging for public tags when their choices result in causing the problems they are complaining about. If they allowed hunting, the elk would react to the pressure and move, same as they react to pressure from public land....

 

[BuzzH]

They can do as they please with their land, but don't come begging for public tags when their choices result in causing the problems they are complaining about. If they allowed hunting, the elk would react to the pressure and move, same as they react to pressure from public land....

I agree for the most part. I think there's plenty of existing time, tags, and opportunity for most landowners to allow some sort of hunting and fix the problem.

But, as its been noted, sometimes landowners that allow hunting are impacted by those that don't. Those are the toughest situations to find a solution to. But I'm on your side, that particular problem can't be fixed with landowner/outfitter sponsored tags.

 

[mevertsen]

Me too. Zoom had me on lock down.

Here are some ideas I see in other states, all having mixed results. None will solve all the problems, especially on a complicated and diverse landscape and ownership pattern as Montana has.

I think each idea needs to be considered in the context of what the idea is hoping to accomplish. Is the objective population reduction, financial compensation for crop and property impacts, incentive to increase elk tolerance, other?

I think it is also necessary to understand where it is truly an "uncooperative neighbor" problem and not try to solve that problem. There are just some situations where no level of incentive is going to solve the problem. In those instances it is not an elk problem, rather a neighbor problem, where a neighbor refuses to allow any management of elk by any means.

In SW Montana, we have more and more new landowners who allow no hunting, not by the public, not by friends, not by outfitters, nobody. No amount of incentive is going to work in convincing them that large accumulations of elk have problems for their neighbors who are trying to make a living on the land.

We also need to consider that the blanket approach FWP has used to date is not a solution. What works in Regions 2 or 3 isn't necessarily what works in Region 4, 5, 6 or 7. MT is too diverse to expect a "one-size-fits" all approach. This requires more work by FWP, which I think falls under the responsibility of "management."

I'm tossing out a few ideas for consideration, none of which have been completely vetted in my mind, but are an effort to look at what works in other places and see if they might work here. No order of priority, just the order in which I have them in my notes:

1. PLO - Private Land Only antlerless elk permits might work for some who are being hammered by too many elk. I would be interested in the CO and NM folks to hear how that is working for them. How the tags are issued is to be determined, likely OTC until certain harvest objectives are met.

2. General Fund funding for property damage - We have too many instances where FWP is not going solve the issue. These landowners are not going to allow elk to be managed. There are not enough financial incentives for these billionaire landowners to allow for access that will help with management. This is not a problem the neighboring landowners can solve, nor can hunter, nor can FWP. For those neighbors negatively impacted, we need to compensate them financially from the general fund. I say the general fund, as this is 5th Amendment issue related to property rights, not related to wildlife management. We cannot expect the neighboring landowners to bear the impacts of these "new age landowner's" high elk tolerance. And it is not possible for FWP to change that situation. So, I would propose it comes from the general fund, given it is not a problem specific to FWP.

3. Block Management focused more on elk and big game - Wyoming does a great job of allocating their access program money towards properties that have good elk hunting. It costs money and it results in unwanted competition in the mind of outfitters. Yet, it works in Wyoming. Through their access program, WY gets access to private lands that have great elk hunting or those private lands provide access to public lands that have great elk hunting. It also moves elk around the landscape during hunting seasons and allows for a better harvest.

4. Start killing the "problem elk," not the migratory elk - In Montana, our "one-size fits all" approach has resulted in a lot of migratory elk getting shot in these late antlerless seasons, while the elk conditioned to private lands find their sanctuary and are off-limits. This lack of precision allows higher exploitation of herds migrating down low, not knowing the safe spots, and they get toasted upon arrival to the low country. The non-migratory elk know who provides safe boundary and they have lower exploitation than the migratory elk. End results is the harvest goals might get met, but we shoot more of the "well behaved" elk that spend most their time on high ground that is public and we shoot fewer of the "problem elk" that have learned to never leave private. Over time, we get elk herds that have lost the migratory patterns and thus fewer elk on public, while seeing more private land elk that never leave.

5. Improve public land habitat - Elk select for private lands because of habitat and hunting pressure. The private landowners get accused of "harboring elk," a stupid term in my mind. They aren't harboring elk, the elk are just selecting for better habitat and less hunting pressure. If we are not going to manage public lands for wildlife and just let the land manage itself, we will have far fewer elk on public where they can be harvested.

6. Manage Seasons (hunting pressure) with more consideration of how that changes elk behavior - This ties to the point above. Elk select for habitat and safety. When we shoot the hell out of elk for months at a time, elk are going to select for places where they can get away from hunters.

7. Focus on antlerless harvest, not bull harvest - Seems simple, but we often hear about wanting bull tags. Well, we know bulls are not dropping calves in late May. It is hard to take an overpopulation concern seriously when the proposed solution is some sort of bull elk hunting.

8. Get serious about the impact bad hunter behavior has on this situation - Hunters might disagree, but I work with way too many landowners who have had their days ruined by idiots. I know there is the claim of "a few bad apples." Well, in the experience of the many landowners I interact with, there are way more bad apples than hunters are willing to admit. I'm trustee of a ranch that has a lot of public trails through it. To call it a PITA is being kind. I don't see the problem improving, rather declining. We better get serious about this if we expect credibility.

Forget any idea that can be flipped as the old rag of "hunters forcing access to private lands." I've never advocated for any such solution and I would never support such. I'm only interested in working with willing landowners. I want to reward those who are working on solutions. I want to help the working landowner, the landowner I work with in my CPA business, who is trying to make a living from his land.

I'm not interested in wasting time with those who bought their big piece of paradise and feel they have no responsibility to their neighbors. As a public land hunter and a Montana resident, I can't help with that situation. We have big enough issues to solve that we don't need to pretend we can solve the elk issue on lands owned by billionaires. If they want to be included in solutions, that's great, but let's not pretend they are concerned about their working ranch neighbors or the average Montana hunter.

Given how long this issue has been brewing, it's going to take a lot of WORK to solve it. It will take leadership and risk. Like most hunters I know, I'm willing to stick my neck out and work with any group and consider any idea, something that always comes with risk. Without the hard work and some risks taken, progress won't happen.

Regarding number 4 specifically...

Look at Nevada. There are even some new hunts this year in specific units to deal with the resident herd.

Depredation tags with very specific area restrictions.

 

[Nameless Range]

Lots of interesting discussion here.

One thing I have long thought is that Montana needs to manage Elk more acutely. Districts are treated as a singular thing, and the population within them monoliths. This causes real problems.

When the session is all over, I would like to respond to the couple legislators who wrote me asking what my solutions were, not with ideas I necessarily believe in, but examples of more intelligent and nuanced solutions than the bullshit that HB 505 was, all the while stressing that real solutions will involve all parties involved and won’t be edicts handed down on high from government.

I have high hopes for citizens groups, our state conservation organizations, and hunters who HB 505 caught flat-footed, to step up.

 

[mtmuley]

Lots of interesting discussion here.
Districts are treated as a singular thing, and the population within them monoliths. This causes real problems.

Yep. mtmuley

 

[belshawelk]

#1 from Fin

Oregon is in its second year of OTC cow tags for private land. All you need is permission. They are doing it 4 or 5 different units with high population. Will be interesting how it works. I own land and have no complaints about Elk. I don’t want compensation other than LOP tags, which I do not sell. I just dislike all the “haters” of private land owners. Lots of us do lots of things that protect elk for everyone. I spend lots of time and money on shelter, food and water.

 

[HighWildFree]

I think as most folks have pointed out, there's too much diversity between and among hunting districts for the broad management that has been historically applied.

I wonder if some kind of working group for each hunting district would be feasible. Similar to the elk citizens group, but on a continual basis. Some group of stakeholders (landowners, hunters, biologist, folks who just like elk/deer/antelope) whose purpose is to be a local resource, knowledge base, and propose solutions to issues in that district. The goal would be (1) to have stakeholders address district specific issues and (2) have a channel of continuous dialogue between stakeholders and form some working relationships that can help overcome conflicts as they arise rather than driving everyone into their corners

The other thing is that folks have brought up is that for landowners elk are a wildlife conflict issue, just like bears, wolves. More urban states tend to have conflict specialist dealing with poodles getting snatched by coyotes. As far as I know there's no dedicated staff for solving wildlife conflicts here in MT. Just biologist trying to put out a different hundred fires, while trying to do the rest of their jobs. I often forget that for many of these ranchers elk are pretty new on the landscape, much in the same way some ranchers and farmers are dealing with grizzlies. bear biologist are mostly bear-people PR specialist. Might need a few of those for elk

 

[Nameless Range]

I wonder if some kind of working group for each hunting district would be feasible. Similar to the elk citizens group, but on a continual basis. Some group of stakeholders (landowners, hunters, biologist, folks who just like elk/deer/antelope) whose purpose is to be a local resource, knowledge base, and propose solutions to issues in that district. The goal would be (1) to have stakeholders address district specific issues and (2) have a channel of continuous dialogue between stakeholders and form some working relationships that can help overcome conflicts as they arise rather than driving everyone into their corners

I really like this idea. I am on a working group configured in a similar way as it pertains to a mountain range. A combination of varied locals who care and agency folks can get a lot of good done

 

[Mtnhunter1]

Seems that our FWPs has the job of managing our public wildlife. I'd say that the management has been lacking and has fallen way behind in recent decades.

With that, I would push for mandated harvest reporting with details for starters. No way to establish management goals and possible landowner payouts unless there is a hard data set to pour over. To date, harvest data has been a guess at best!

Landownership across Montana has changed greatly over the last few decades. The family working ranch is slowly disappearing and is being replaced. This has been mentioned already in this thread. Nothing can be done about the landowner that wants nothing to do with hunting on their lands. Nothing can be done about the landowner that leases the hunting rights on their lands. The remaining landowners, some of which are complaining about too damn many elk, are the ones that would be open to a regulated/managed public harvest. Lets face it, us hunters have ruined the opportunity to gain access via a knock on the door or a short phone call. The wildlife decline on our public lands has raised the pressure for access on each and every privately owned piece of ground. This has soured the landowners on public hunter access and most are starting to hate the thought of the fall season. So, my idea starts and ends with our FWPs actually managing our wildlife. An expansion of the Block Management program with a voucher program would be a start. Raise the costs of each license to help with the costs to implement. Manage the hunter access throughout the program in order to even out the pressure. Continue with the cow/calf hunts and extra tags if the management goals need to be met. As stated, other states seem to have a whole lot better handle on this issue...but then again, they actually work to manage the public wildlife. I my mind, it all comes down to the management. Mandated harvest reporting, with details, should be the starting point.

Just my 2-cents.

 

[BWALKER77]

I know this is not a productive view but we extirpated elk, bighorn sheep, antelope, grizzly bears, wolves, bison, prairie dogs, black-footed ferrets, and a whole host of other species to make way for ranching and farming in the West. Not to mention all the horrible things done to the native peoples in order to move them off the land to make way for .

None of that was or is true.
And the natives in particular was war and a clash of civilizations. One modern and one stuck in the stone age. Predictable results ensued.