Gotta love the Montana shoulder season

[5MilesBack]

Trump loses money so pays no taxes. Yep he is a master mind. No need to bring politics into everything

Who said anything about politics?

 

[5MilesBack]

Instead, the elk seem to decimate the crops of those who are selling access.

Ya, I'm sure the elk are "targeting" those landowners because they are selling access.

 

[realunlucky]

I do not understanding your position here.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

 

[5MilesBack]

I do not understanding your position here.

Some on here apparently think that the landowners are making out like bandits because they charge for access to kill the elk that have eaten their crops and done damage to their property. They'll be lucky to even come close to even breaking even, let alone reaping in some sort of new found wealth, as some seem to think they are.

The bottom line is THEY own the land.......it's theirs. They can do as they like and charge as they like. I'm not going to condemn them for that just because I don't want to pay $500 for access to kill an elk on THEIR property.

 

[realunlucky]

The issue is not what do with their own land only that they think they own the wildlife too. The fish wildlife and parks must they do too because they get set thier own hunting regulations and seasons.
That's what has residents angry, it was sold as a additional opportunity for Montana sportman but in reality it's an opportunity for a few ranches. Oh course word is spreading and so is shoulder season. More ranches waiting to enroll.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

 

[5MilesBack]

The issue is not what do with their own land only that they think they own the wildlife too.

If they were fencing them in with a high fence or shooting them all themselves, then I'd probably agree with that. Otherwise, the elk can go wherever they choose to.

MF&G can sell it as whatever they want to sell it as, but in time it will work itself out to whatever it will be. If hunters refuse to pay, then the elk will continue to propagate and do more damage, and either the landowners or F&G or both will have to re-evaluate the program and how it works or doesn't work.

CDOW keeps selling to us that there are over 300k elk in Colorado to hunt. In reality a large portion of those elk live on private land year round. If they want to charge for access, that's up to them. We can decide to pay it, or hunt elsewhere. I'm not going to complain about that.

 

[realunlucky]

So you don't know anything about shoulder seasons just wanted to insert your wisdom of land owner rights?

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

 

[striker3]

Not trying to be offensive, but do you understand elk migration habits as hunting pressure increases? It doesn't take an animal with human intelligence to figure out that the place where their friends are killed in the least numbers is where they want to hang out.

A lot of the animosity held by public access hunters is that the landowners complain about the effects of elk depredation on their fields In some areas even getting PAID restitution, yet unwilling to work with the public to mitigate the damage.

 

[W.D. Crawford]

Not trying to be offensive, but do you understand elk migration habits as hunting pressure increases? It doesn't take an animal with human intelligence to figure out that the place where their friends are killed in the least numbers is where they want to hang out.

A lot of the animosity held by public access hunters is that the landowners complain about the effects of elk depredation on their fields In some areas even getting PAID restitution, yet unwilling to work with the public to mitigate the damage.

Bingo.

 

[elkbowkevin]

I know of a rancher in E OR that yearly has 200-400+ elk on his land and the leased land DAILY from early AUG till the snow flies. They eat ALOT of hay, alfalfa, and browse. The 3 years I hunted there I asked him about damage costs. He said the elk cost him average +/-$10k in crop eating yearly, up to a grand or so in fence repair yearly, and he only sells a few hunts a year.
Gets depredation landowner tags but I guess has to cash in eligible LO bull taqs for his land for the cow tags he can sell or use. I forgot the ratio of tags but its not alot.

 

[striker3]

I bet that if he opened up his land for free public access and put the word out, he would have more elk killed each year and the pressure would be enough to push the herd off of his land.

Here is an article which describes landowners doing just that. So it does work.

What the Devil’s Kitchen Working Group proposed to the FWP Commission was to limit the bull harvest (to increase the number of trophy bulls), liberalize the antlerless harvest (to reduce the overall elk herd size), increase the amount of public hunting on ranches, and have FWP help manage the hunting activity.
After some initial hesitation, the commission okayed the group’s proposal in 1994. Since then, says Graham Taylor, FWP regional wildlife manager at Great Falls, the number of older, bigger bulls has increased, the overall herd size has decreased, and elk damage complaints among group members are almost nonexistent.

Elk Depredation

 

[realunlucky]

Don't try and use logic striker

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

 

[striker3]

I am all for the right of landowners to restrict access to their private property. Property rights trumps hunting access in my opinion. But the land owners can't have it both ways, they have to decide whether selling hunting access is worth more than the crop damage. Right now, what I see is land owners complaining in the FWP meetings about the size of the herds, and how much damage is being done to their property, but not willing to allow the public to help out(This is not all landowners. There are 10's of thousands of acres open through the Block Management Program, which I am sincerely grateful for).

I don't want to come off as being against landowners, and seeming like I think hunting on their land is my right. It is just that the system that we have doesn't work. Charging someone to save you money is the complete opposite of supply and demand. Hunters can find elk on public land if they put in the work, but land owners cannot kill extra elk on their own, regardless of how much effort they put in. In reality, the hunters are in shorter supply than the elk, the landowners need the hunters, the hunters don't need the land owners.

I have a friend whose family owns a ranch in SW Montana. His family makes very good money outfitting. The cool thing is that every year he puts a call out to the hunters that he knows and will bring pretty much anyone out to his place at the end of the season to kill a cow elk or doe white tail. He even brought a group out for the opening shoulder season this year and did the same thing. Opening up to the guys looking to fill their freezers like this helps to drive the herds back off his property for a while longer, and reduces the overall size of the herd. This is how I think a fair system would work.

Also, like I said earlier, if a land owner wants to charge me $500, point me to where he last saw the herd and come pick up the carcass and help me load it in the truck, I would call that money well spent. But To pay $500 just for access is ridiculous.

 

[Jason Snyder]

What if the ranchers didn't allow anyone whatsoever hunt their land and all the elk sat on private land all the time.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That is exactly what has created the issue that led to the shoulder seasons.

The article referencing the Devils Kitchen group is spot on the money. I know many of these people, and they found a very easy solution to their problems that benefited everybody.

Charging $500 for access during the shoulder seasons was NOT the intent of the commission. This wasn't meant to be Ranching For Wildlife.

 

[TOMKLUNDER]

The Landowners of Montana have the right to charge an access fee to their land to shoot elk. The State of Montana also has the right to deny landowner permits, kill permits, Game fences, and paid hazers of elk during the summer months. If these landowners won't participate in allowing free hunting of elk then I think the state should refuse to help that landowner in any way. The State has also put more pressure on those landowners who do allow hunting. They get hounded during the regular season and then during the shoulder seasons. Give these landowners one or two bull tags a year to use themselves or sell. It would compensate them for allowing hunting. Just my 2 cents worth.

 

[tipsntails7]

Some on here apparently think that the landowners are making out like bandits because they charge for access to kill the elk that have eaten their crops and done damage to their property. They'll be lucky to even come close to even breaking even, let alone reaping in some sort of new found wealth, as some seem to think they are.

The bottom line is THEY own the land.......it's theirs. They can do as they like and charge as they like. I'm not going to condemn them for that just because I don't want to pay $500 for access to kill an elk on THEIR property.

Correct me if I'm wrong but you don't know how much "damage" elk have done, or the measly profit from selling elk hunts, so you've got a lot of assumptions going on.

A ranch in Southern California I used to hunt would let me get on and shoot as many pigs as I had tags for, they decimated everything. Then a couple years went buy and pig hunting became the hot thing. They sell year round pig hunts and make ALOT more money they they ever did before.

Another example is a timber company locally. They get depredation tags for bear because of tree damage. They sell access to their timber lands that go along with these tags.

I don't have a problem with them charging, but call it what it is. Don't whine and cry about the nuisance then place a value on it. The last thing any FWP should due is actual push for something of that nature.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[tipsntails7]

I know of a rancher in E OR that yearly has 200-400+ elk on his land and the leased land DAILY from early AUG till the snow flies. They eat ALOT of hay, alfalfa, and browse. The 3 years I hunted there I asked him about damage costs. He said the elk cost him average +/-$10k in crop eating yearly, up to a grand or so in fence repair yearly, and he only sells a few hunts a year.
Gets depredation landowner tags but I guess has to cash in eligible LO bull taqs for his land for the cow tags he can sell or use. I forgot the ratio of tags but its not alot.

Does he not sell hunting rights? Or allow hunting? He could make that up with 2 elk hunts..


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[5MilesBack]

So you don't know anything about shoulder seasons just wanted to insert your wisdom of land owner rights?

I am a strong supporter of land owner rights. No one else in this thread except Jmez seemed to want to view or share land owner rights in this thread. But if you like one sided rants without any landowner's perspectives........carry on with the pity party. Only looking at one side isn't logical. Since I have no dog in the fight, it's real easy for me to see both sides.

 

[realunlucky]

The shoulder season only purpose is reducing herd numbers to be with habitat objectivs period.



Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

 

[realunlucky]

Only looking at one side isn't logical. Since I have no dog in the fight, it's real easy for me to see both sides.

It's not a two sided issue. Elk over habitat carrying capacity need fewer elk. You either reduce the number of elk or deal with the consequences of herd overabundance.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk