Gotta love the Montana shoulder season

[jmez]

Then they should open the shoulder season to public lands as well.

$500 really isn't all that much money to hunt private land. Who on this board couldn't find a way to save an extra $42 a month for a year? Is it the point of the whole thing? There is a point from both sides. Property rights trump all for me. The state has no business mandating free access to private land. Private land owners have no obligation to allow free access to their property. I can't even fathom the mindset of expecting that landowners should just let hunters on their property, regardless of the circumstances.

The other side of the coin for ranchers. I live in ranch country. I have a lot of friends that are ranchers. This year ranchers received the same price for their calves that they got in 1988. Their expenses aren't the same as they were in 1988. Who on this board would be just fine with having their yearly salary reverted back to what they made in 1988 overnight? Most ranchers are wealthy on paper, they are assett rich but cash poor. They don't realize any meaningful gain unless they sell out. Most will never do that, they will pass on what they have to family. They spend an entire life sacrificing to attain that. Yet Joe Hunter sits in his office making far more money than the rancher and just expects to be able to shoot an elk for free because of some entitlement mindset.

Want private property to hunt, buy a ranch. Can't afford it, most ranchers can't either but they find a way. Living off of what most of us refuse to do.

 

[Trial153]

Access will be the anchor that drowns us. Nothing is more detrimental to hunter retainment then lack of access. When a F&G department establishes a season that is prohibitive because of access then we all slapped in the face with a glimpse of our future demise.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[gelton]

Then they should open the shoulder season to public lands as well.

$500 really isn't all that much money to hunt private land. Who on this board couldn't find a way to save an extra $42 a month for a year? Is it the point of the whole thing? There is a point from both sides. Property rights trump all for me. The state has no business mandating free access to private land. Private land owners have no obligation to allow free access to their property. I can't even fathom the mindset of expecting that landowners should just let hunters on their property, regardless of the circumstances.

The other side of the coin for ranchers. I live in ranch country. I have a lot of friends that are ranchers. This year ranchers received the same price for their calves that they got in 1988. Their expenses aren't the same as they were in 1988. Who on this board would be just fine with having their yearly salary reverted back to what they made in 1988 overnight? Most ranchers are wealthy on paper, they are assett rich but cash poor. They don't realize any meaningful gain unless they sell out. Most will never do that, they will pass on what they have to family. They spend an entire life sacrificing to attain that. Yet Joe Hunter sits in his office making far more money than the rancher and just expects to be able to shoot an elk for free because of some entitlement mindset.

Want private property to hunt, buy a ranch. Can't afford it, most ranchers can't either but they find a way. Living off of what most of us refuse to do.

Nailed it.

 

[jmez]

Why is hunting one of the only hobbies that people expect to be allowed to enjoy on their terms for free? I remember seeing the exact same sentiments in the Letters to the Editor section of Bowhunter magazine in the mid 80's. People don't lack for access, people lack for what they consider "quality" access. You don't have a very good opportunity at a 200 inch deer on public ground. In most places you can still shoot a deer on public ground.

A lot of it has to do with where you live as well. There are 1.5 million acres in the Black Hills of SD. All public. There are over 50,000 acres of walk in areas in Meade county SD where I live. There is more public ground to hunt here than I could cover in 10 years. I live here by choice. I could leave tomorrow and head to the East or West Coast and likely at the very least double my salary. It is all about choices. You can't always have your cake and eat it too. You balance the things in your life and make decisions based on what is most important to you.

 

[striker3]

Jmez, did you read the thread? We are not for for infringing on property rights. The problem is when land owners complain about the damage the herds do to their lands, but refuse to let the state and public help to resolve the issue. As I said earlier, hunters don't need access to private lands to be successful, but landowners need state and public hunter help to get the herds off their property. Read the article I linked above talking about how this was resolved in the Devil's Kitchen area.

As far as opening up the shoulder season to public lands, that is not the purpose of the shoulder season. The shoulder season was implemented specifically to address the land owner complaints of property damage by placing increased hunt pressure on private lands.

 

[TJ]

Interesting article regarding the shoulder season.

Landowners speak out against shoulder seasons — Montana On The Ground

If this article is correct the second largest land owner in Montana, Errol Galt, was pushing for this.
They offer mostly fee-based hunting on the Galt Ranches.
Poor Mr Galt has only made $1,477,856 in USDA subsidies since 1995 through 2015.

EWG's Farm Subsidy Database put the issue on the map and is driving reform. Just ten percent of America's largest and richest farms collect almost three-fourths of federal farm subsidies; cash payments that often harm the environment.

My point is not all "farmers or ranchers" are the poor struggling to survive type.

In my twenties I worked on several large cattle ranches in E. Oregon.
Having heard the comment from a local rancher, "the day I have to pay taxes is the day I fire my accountant".
I am a bit skeptical.

 

[tipsntails7]

Then they should open the shoulder season to public lands as well.

$500 really isn't all that much money to hunt private land. Who on this board couldn't find a way to save an extra $42 a month for a year? Is it the point of the whole thing? There is a point from both sides. Property rights trump all for me. The state has no business mandating free access to private land. Private land owners have no obligation to allow free access to their property. I can't even fathom the mindset of expecting that landowners should just let hunters on their property, regardless of the circumstances.

The other side of the coin for ranchers. I live in ranch country. I have a lot of friends that are ranchers. This year ranchers received the same price for their calves that they got in 1988. Their expenses aren't the same as they were in 1988. Who on this board would be just fine with having their yearly salary reverted back to what they made in 1988 overnight? Most ranchers are wealthy on paper, they are assett rich but cash poor. They don't realize any meaningful gain unless they sell out. Most will never do that, they will pass on what they have to family. They spend an entire life sacrificing to attain that. Yet Joe Hunter sits in his office making far more money than the rancher and just expects to be able to shoot an elk for free because of some entitlement mindset.

Want private property to hunt, buy a ranch. Can't afford it, most ranchers can't either but they find a way. Living off of what most of us refuse to do.

Jmez, I get what your saying, and I may have missed it but I don't think anyone is calling for unfettered access to private property.

The problem people have is making money of something that is viewed as a nuisance. Most of my buddies now are ranchers, they beg me to come and shoot coyotes of their property, they don't charge me, but because elk have "value" ranchers are charging, and more power to them, if they can get guys to line up at the door to pay 500 bucks to shoot a cow off winter range.

I absolutely agree the state has no business telling landowners what to do, but ranchers don't get to have it both ways.

I've seen ranchers do EVERYTHING they can to get elk on their property during season to make money, then do EVERYTHING they can to get elk off their property once season closes.

My feelings, if you lease hunting rights, run guides, or sell hunts you should not be eligible for depredation or nuisance hunts or permits. This is coming from a guy who grew up in a ranching family in Oregon, and who's dad owns a ranch in eastern Oregon that has a LO tag associated with it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[striker3]

It occurred to me that maybe some are under the impression that bulls can be taken during the shoulder season. The shoulder season is for cow only, so the people that are hunting then are only looking to put meat in the freezer. $500 is more than most around here would pay just for meat. I pay $600 for a 1/4 beef, butchered and vacuum packed. That is a much better value if I am looking just get cheaper meat.

If I were looking for a a trophy bull, $500 is definitely a good price for access.

 

[MSElkHunter]

Interesting article regarding the shoulder season.

Landowners speak out against shoulder seasons — Montana On The Ground

If this article is correct the second largest land owner in Montana, Errol Galt, was pushing for this.
They offer mostly fee-based hunting on the Galt Ranches.
Poor Mr Galt has only made $1,477,856 in USDA subsidies since 1995 through 2015.

EWG's Farm Subsidy Database put the issue on the map and is driving reform. Just ten percent of America's largest and richest farms collect almost three-fourths of federal farm subsidies; cash payments that often harm the environment.

My point is not all "farmers or ranchers" are the poor struggling to survive type.

In my twenties I worked on several large cattle ranches in E. Oregon.
Having heard the comment from a local rancher, "the day I have to pay taxes is the day I fire my accountant".
I am a bit skeptical.

I googled Mr. Galt and it appears he owns 248,000 acres of land and I am by no means implying no he is a poor struggling rancher. However if his subsidies were actually $1,447,856, then he made a grand total of $0.29 per acre per year. He is hardly getting rich from government subsidies.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[tipsntails7]

I googled Mr. Galt and it appears he owns 248,000 acres of land and I am by no means implying no he is a poor struggling rancher. However if his subsidies were actually $1,447,856, then he made a grand total of $0.29 per acre per year. He is hardly getting rich from government subsidies.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I don't believe that's quite how it works. But I could be wrong.

 

[TJ]

I googled Mr. Galt and it appears he owns 248,000 acres of land and I am by no means implying no he is a poor struggling rancher. However if his subsidies were actually $1,447,856, then he made a grand total of $0.29 per acre per year. He is hardly getting rich from government subsidies.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yes, that's only $73,829 a year.

Search EWG's Federal Farm Subsidy Database by name or zipcode.

 

[vanish]

jmez - You keep referencing hunters feeling entitled to get something for free (access to private land) but fail to mention the landowners getting something for free (the tags for the shoulder season).

This is the rub!

 

[jmez]

The landowners are not getting the tags. They are simply deciding how they wish the hunts to be conducted on their ground.

There is a huge difference between farm subsidies and ranch subsidies. Not even in the same ballpark. Those subsidies are not all cash payments either. Most of those subsidy dollars are for reduced rates on Federal Crop Insurance. In many cases it doesn't equal dollars paid out in hand. There are basically no subsidies available to ranchers.

 

[tipsntails7]

The landowners are not getting the tags. They are simply deciding how they wish the hunts to be conducted on their ground.

There is a huge difference between farm subsidies and ranch subsidies. Not even in the same ballpark. Those subsidies are not all cash payments either. Most of those subsidy dollars are for reduced rates on Federal Crop Insurance. In many cases it doesn't equal dollars paid out in hand. There are basically no subsidies available to ranchers.

Some would argue allowing cattle free range on public land all across this country for pennies on the dollar would be considered one.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[striker3]

As far as Mr. Galt, his ranch had over 17,000 acres open for the general season as part of the BMA last year. He also opened 100,000 acres for the shoulder season trial. So I will give him the benefit of the doubt and believe that he wants the elk herds controlled better and is willing to work with hunters to accomplish it.

Bullock, Republican rancher find common ground on elk shoulder season | Montana & Regional | missoulian.com

 

[westrnwild]

The Galt Ranch actually has a large chunk of land in BMA by the way. The Camas Ranch and Castle Mountain Next door are the ranches that harbor the elk and then complain more about it. Camas doesnt even let its ranch hands hunt much. Galt has a ton of land you can hunt.. but it mainly holds speed goats, but ive seen elk on it too.

 

[jmez]

I think both sides on this issue, me included, tend to paint with too broad of a brush. Not all hunters are of an entitlement mindset. On the flip side, not all landowners are greedy. I talked to a landowner at length on my trip this year about a lot of these issues. He runs an outfitting business. Owns 4000 acres and then butts up against a huge forest service lease that he is part of. He is allowing 50 hunters to come in and shoot cows on the shoulder season with no charge.

I see the point with landowners complaining and then charging for access. I have a strong belief in individual liberty and personal property rights so I'll always side with the landowner on that one.

If there are enough hunters willing to pay the $500 access fees then the shoulder season is doing what it was designed to do, reduce elk numbers on private lands. Not all hunters will like the system but it is functioning. I'm sure there are also landowners that would prefer that the game and fish directly issued them the tags and they could sell or do what they wanted with all of them. No solution is going to please both sides.

 

[jmez]

Good point on the FS leases. Those are a subsidy and a pretty good one for the ranchers lucky enough to have them. The big difference between that and farm subsidies is that they aren't available to everyone. Once a guy has a FS lease, unless they blatantly disregard the terms of the lease they have it forever. They can pass that lease onto future generations and they stay with the family. Two ways to lose them, being and idiot or simply turning them back in.

Farm subsidies are available to all farmers and there are multiple different programs available to them. Not so with ranching.

The rancher I talked to had a good point. There are three groups that need to get along, hunters, landowners and the Game and Fish. Currently none of them do, that is the real problem.

 

[tipsntails7]

I think both sides on this issue, me included, tend to paint with too broad of a brush. Not all hunters are of an entitlement mindset. On the flip side, not all landowners are greedy. I talked to a landowner at length on my trip this year about a lot of these issues. He runs an outfitting business. Owns 4000 acres and then butts up against a huge forest service lease that he is part of. He is allowing 50 hunters to come in and shoot cows on the shoulder season with no charge.

I see the point with landowners complaining and then charging for access. I have a strong belief in individual liberty and personal property rights so I'll always side with the landowner on that one.

If there are enough hunters willing to pay the $500 access fees then the shoulder season is doing what it was designed to do, reduce elk numbers on private lands. Not all hunters will like the system but it is functioning. I'm sure there are also landowners that would prefer that the game and fish directly issued them the tags and they could sell or do what they wanted with all of them. No solution is going to please both sides.

I get what your saying and I feel that our opinions align closer than this conversation probably shows.

On a side note if that rancher charged 500 bucks to those 50 he would get 25k. Did you happen to ask how much damage the elk are responsible for a year outside of hunting seasons? 25k is a lot of feed and fence work.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Jason Snyder]

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.

Sorry, but I'm calling bullshit on this statement. Here is some historical perspective as to why:

For many years, Montana FWP allowed late season damage hunts for landowners who provided reasonable public access during the 5 week general season. Over time, a trend developed where the landowner would have paying clients, then want a damage season. Eventually, the late season damage hunts were done away with.

Largely as a result of poor access, elk numbers have gone through the roof and are over objective. Keep in mind that this over objective is NOT necessarily over what the habitat will support. The objective also takes social tolerance into heavy consideration.

There has been a long existing standoff between many large landowners and FWP in terms of elk damage. FWP has held that we give you a 5 week season, you fix your own problem. For whatever, reason, many landowners don't utilize this to address the population issues effectively. Go back and reference the Devils Kitchen model for how to effectively do so.

The FWP Commission agreed to the shoulders seasons as a POPULATION control measure, not another opportunity to make a buck. They are granting a hunting season way outside the norm to try to alleviate landowner concerns. They did not include public land because many of the public lands can hold many more elk than they currently do.

For people to charge for access is clearly in violation of the spirit of what this hunt was intended to do. Anyone can charge all they want during the 5 week general season, but the shoulder season was not meant to be that way.

I fully support landowner rights. If you don't want to let people hunt, then don't. However, you can't expect the state to come in and fix a problem that you have created by providing an elk sanctuary. Nor should you be allowed to make a profit off a state provided effort to remedy your elk issues. If you got government provided disaster relief, is it okay to turn around and sell that? That's basically what's happening here.