Shoulder seasons for sale

[MThuntr]

Here's a response I got from the commission
"Grant,

Fish, Wildlife and Parks (FWP) has received a number of emails concerning advertisements in local newspapers for elk hunts on private land during shoulder seasons. Other than the time when they occur and the restrictions to private land, shoulder seasons are no different than elk season during archery and general rifle seasons. Just as landowners can, if they choose to charge for access then, they can charge for access during a shoulder season. Fortunately, charging for access during shoulder seasons is the exception, rather than the rule.

Shoulder seasons are intended as another tool for private land owners to manage elk numbers in hunting districts where they are over population objective. Even though FWP has repeatedly said that everyone, including landowners, are going to have to be part of the solution, and have encouraged landowners to allow access, some may still choose to charge for access. Charging for access or outfitting during shoulder seasons is not what FWP would like to see, but it is not prohibited by law.

There are Commission-adopted harvest objectives and season performance criteria set up for shoulder seasons that address this issue. Basically, there has to be more elk harvested than are being recruited into the population if FWP is to continue with a shoulder season in a hunting district. If charging for access, or limiting access, or another similar circumstance, limits elk harvest to such a degree that harvest objectives are not met after three years (the evaluation period for shoulder season success), then FWP will not propose to continue the shoulder season, and it will be lost as a management tool for landowners.

Shoulder seasons are new, and FWP suspects many landowners are not aware of the harvest criteria and harvest objectives. This first year is a learning experience for everyone. This past summer, FWP sent out letters to all landowners with 160 acres or more in hunting districts with shoulder seasons telling them about the season and encouraging them to allow access. When FWP sends out the letters to landowners next year, FWP will inform them as to how many elk needed to be harvested in the hunting district, and how many actually were, thus giving them a sense of where they stand as a landowner community.

Thank you for your email!

Coleen Furthmyre
Commission Secretary
Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks
1420 East 6th Avenue; PO Box 200701
Helena, MT 59620
(406) 444-7826
[[email protected]][email protected]"

 

[BuzzH]

That email comes as a surprise to absolutely...nobody.

What a joke.

 

[BuzzH]

Rahrrrr...I'm the Montana Fish and Game Commission. I'm here to make sure landowners don't charge for access to shoulder seasons:

 

[Eric Albus]

buzz...I find charging access for the shoulder season about like I find you, pathetic. So there is my take on it, no denial, no defense, almost pity, or sadness.

 

[mtmander]

How is a landowners charging to hunt on their land for the shoulder season different than the landowner charging to hunt on their land during the regular season , which they have been doing for a long time.

isn't it the shoulder season that you don't like ?

 

[BuzzH]

buzz...I find charging access for the shoulder season about like I find you, pathetic. So there is my take on it, no denial, no defense, almost pity, or sadness.

Cheer up Eric...I told you so, again.

Next up will be outfitters booking shoulder season hunts...if it isn't already happening.

 

[Backstrap]

Sending out much love for BuzzH! You are one of the true treasures this board has to offer (there are several for sure).

 

[Eric Albus]

lol...will give you that, you did say it would happen... I hoped it would not.

there is a huge difference in charging for shoulder seasons.... the reason for a shoulder season is that there is a population problem that needs checked.... and those that limit, charge access, are the problem for the over population problem....

would have been like me charging someone to shoot does around Glasgow in 2008-09-and 10. would have just been wrong... that's why in 09 and 10 we opened up to any deer...

 

[katqanna]

Eric, I am glad you see the difference.

Shoulder seasons was not supposed to be a 6 month long hunting season commercial opportunity for private landowners.

 

[Eric Albus]

I have been very vocal about not charging access for the shoulder seasons.... if you have a wildlife population that is out of check and you need help reducing the population it is not right to spit in the eye of the sportsmen/FWP by charging access... I find it deplorable, and will denounce it at every turn.

 

[Straight Arrow]

I have been very vocal about not charging access for the shoulder seasons....

But you may be an exceptional outfitter ... and the exception among outfitters.

 

[katqanna]

if you have a wildlife population that is out of check

This is a multi pronged problem, that is not just about straight wildlife numbers. I brought this up at the very first commission meeting that discussed shoulder seasons, which several of them voiced concern over, until their "boss" intervened and they passed the damn thing.

1. Numbers on the ground is supposed to be based on habitat carrying capacity, not landowner intolerance, creating bullsh*t objective numbers in some HDs right off the bat.

2. FWP has not utilized removing the harbored elk numbers from the counts, as they should, except in HD 270, when the local sportsmen's group pushed the issue and paid for aerial flights with their own dime, took a couple years too, then finally it was brought to the commission and they voted to approve it.

Now that is a thought! Perhaps local sportsmen's groups could gather the data, present it at one of the commission meetings at the end, the part for matters that are not on the agenda, make it a public matter. The more this subject starts showing up, it will get their attention.

 

[Eric Albus]

kat, I speak only about Reg. 6, as it is the only place I have great deal of knowledge about the elk. The elk here in the Missouri Breaks were hauled in by locals. The local ranchers originally had a say in how many elk would be tolerated in the breaks, if memory serves correct that number was 2400 on the north side of the lake. The elk did not get the memo, and we now have a problem. I do not care what the "carry capacity" is....obviously areas 620, 630, and 670 could support 10x's that number of elk, but that was not the deal. The deal was elk numbers were to be kept to 2400. Now that we are well over that number I have elk in my back yard....are they cool to see? yes, are they part of the original landscape? yes, but remember so were grizzly bears and wooly mammoths(if we want to go waaayyy back)... were there elk here when my Great-Great-Grandad homesteaded? NO. there were no elk here until they were introduced, and there were no elk on our ranch until the last few years.

Like it or not landowner tolerance has to be considered, especially if the public wants access to the elk. Once again, were I in charge, we would not have shoulder seasons or any other bullshit seasons. Elk season this year would be just like normal until the last 2 weeks, then it would be cow only...in areas over objective there would be an unlimited cow season....but it would run just like the unlimited sheep hunt, when the quota was filled season would end.

If this failed to get us to objective we would go cow only for the last 3 weeks the following year, and would keep going cow only 4 weeks the following year, and finally cow only all season until numbers get back to objective and landowner tolerance.

 

[katqanna]

After I created the thread, I had emailed the Commissioners, then sent another to the Governor, FWP Dir., Dep. Dir, and Ken McDonald. Today, I received a reply from Director Hagener.

Fish, Wildlife and Parks (FWP) has received a number of emails concerning an advertisement in local newspapers for elk hunts on private land during a particular shoulder season. The opportunity offered includes a fee. Other than the time when they occur and the restrictions to private land, shoulder seasons are no different than elk season during archery and general rifle seasons. Just as landowners can, if they choose to charge for access then, they can charge for access during a shoulder season. Fortunately, charging for access during shoulder seasons is the exception, rather than the rule.

Shoulder seasons are intended as another tool for private land owners to help manage elk numbers in hunting districts where they are over population objective. Even though FWP has repeatedly said that everyone, including landowners, is going to have to be part of the solution, and have encouraged landowners to allow access, some may still choose to charge for access.

To respond specifically to the question asked by some on the legality of this landowner’s offering:

No, it is not illegal for a landowner to rent a cabin and/or charge an access fee to hunt on his property. That is no different than a landowner renting his property for grazing or harvesting a crop. FWP does not condone access fees, but they are not prohibited by law and are not something FWP can regulate.

The Department and Commission must follow statutes and listen to all constituents when addressing issues. Current statutes (87-1-321-323 MCA) require the department to manage game populations in a sustained manner and specifically, “the department shall consider the specific concerns of private landowners when determining sustainable numbers …”

As elk populations have been increasing in several areas game damage complaints have steadily increased. In order to address this situation the department formed a working group to seek methods to address the issue. The result of this working group was the shoulder season proposal which went through a rigorous public process before Commission approval. Many people commented on the shoulder season proposal, both in support and in opposition. The Commission ultimately amended the original proposal and approved what is now in place. It is important to note that the current shoulder seasons are almost exclusively on private lands and have specific performance criteria that must be met for the shoulder seasons to continue. There are Commission-adopted harvest objectives and season set up for shoulder seasons that address this issue. Basically, more elk have to be harvested than are being recruited into the population if FWP is to continue with a shoulder season in a hunting district. If charging for access, or limiting access, or another similar circumstance, limits elk harvest to such a degree that harvest objectives are not met after three years (the evaluation period for shoulder season success), then FWP will not propose to continue the shoulder season and it will be lost as a management tool.

In the case of the newspaper advertisement that has been referred to it should be noted that this is one small landowner within HD 217. The district consists of over 100,000 acres of both private and public land. This particular landowner has rented his cabin and allowed fee access to his acreage for several years – this is not new due to the shoulder season. It should be noted that several other landowners within HD 217 who had either not allowed, or greatly restricted, access in the past opened their properties this year during the early shoulder season to harvest and disperse elk off of unharvested crops. Although reports are that not many elk were harvested on the private properties (current reports are that 17 elk have been harvested on private land), elk were dispersed off of those private lands.

By this time last year, Region 2 had 38 active game damage hunts for elk on private lands. In stark contrast this fall, throughout R2 there have been limited elk damage complaints within HD’s that had shoulder seasons. On the other hand, several game damage complaints were received in HD’s that did not have shoulder seasons. Anecdotal reports from some archers on public lands surrounding shoulder season areas were that more elk were seen on the public lands than in several previous years.

M. Jeff Hagener, Director

Interestling, if I do a search on a cabin rental with that phone number, the only thing that pulls up are all the ads he placed this August for the shoulder season hunts. Not to say he didn't list some other way that doesn't pull up online, like the newspaper ads do, such as his bull elk hunts from 3 years ago.

This is in the newly created HD 217, which lists 600 as the objective with 1225 as the count.

 

[BuzzH]

My, that's certainly a big shock that the montana fwp and commission aren't going to do jack chit to stop this...who would have ever guessed? Sportsmen got punked again.

 

[MTGomer]

Who is this landowner?
Parke, Wallace, Angelo and Dutton are the big ones.

Thomas's will let you hunt and want you to hunt.

 

[MTGomer]

PS: Hagener is a puke.
Always has been.


But that is like stating that water is wet and that the Earth's heat source is the sun.

 

[katqanna]

Gomer, I am trying to figure out who the landowner is. That phone number shows up with four different names associated with it, three of which have no other records associated, nor are landowners in Granite or Powell counties near Drummond, the city on the ads (Blain Ramsey - Corvallis, Oleta Pratella - Hamilton and Jarred Miura - Hamilton). K. Dodson - Hamilton is the 4th name. That phone number has consistently advertised elk hunting for at least 3 years, near Drummond with an available cabin; so it can't be a new cell number. The carrier is Cellco Verizon out of Hamilton, MT. I am wondering if it a cell phone for a property manager, only used for this, nothing else, nothing personal, since zilch is coming up on a search. I have done the phone number search with New Chicago, Hall, Sherryl, Stone, Maxville, Jens, Cold Creek and Wallcity - towns within HD 217 - nada.

HD 217 is almost a 1/3 public land. If I find out this "small landowner" has land adjacent to our public lands and is selling access to a 6 month private landowner elk hunting season, I am going to be even more pissed off than I have been with general shoulder seasons bs.

 

[bobbydean]

Hey Kat.

What do you do to make a living.

You are always posting political statements of fact. Are you a political advocate, or do you work for a conservation group?

Enjoy the information. None of my business, but just curious. Everyone in Montana seems to know you.

 

[katqanna]

Bobby, I hate politics, with a passion.

I am simply a conservation advocate who works for the public trust. Since too much of our wildlife & habitat falls under the jurisdiction of politics, I have to get involved on that front, being a pain in the ass, to some, with the law and scientific wildlife conservation.

I don't work for any employer, am not paid a salary, nor am I independently wealthy or retired (lost my house about 7 years ago, after my first injury here in MT, don't believe in having other people subsidizing my lifestyle or losses, so I am starting over from scratch, so to speak, with the handicap of now having a passion for conservation that consumes most of my time). I do independent contract work for clients, like Dr. Jim Bailey's two books & website, or helping conservation sportsmen get their sites up to better network them.

Then I have my site and newsletter to network the bigger picture, which some individuals contribute to. I didn't file it as a non-profit, which requires a board, so that it couldn't be taken over, as some other groups with awesome intentions had happen here in Montana and the Gallatin Valley, totally changing their mission. If you would like to see my 2015 $8000 tax return or the $6000 one from 2014, they make for very short reading. As I said, I am a wee bit obsessed with Montana public trust. I don't know if I will ever get used to driving 20 minutes out of town and be at the doorstep to the wild, without having to pay an entrance fee, or stream access or public land hunting and this abundance of wildlife, but I hope to have that amazement continue the rest of my life here.

There you have it, not so glorious, nor so well known as you seem to think, just persistent and not shy.