Gotta love the Montana shoulder season

[Jason Snyder]

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.

No, the system is NOT functioning. The Commission clearly stated that the shoulder seasons were not intended to be a commercial opportunity. People like this that are violating the spirit of the agreement will be why the shoulders seasons will potentially be lost, then they will complain about FWP not helping them with their elk issues.

As I said, this was never intended to be Ranching for Wildlife, and that is exactly what some folks are trying to make it.

 

[jmez]

I didn't ask him about dollar numbers. He told me that there were currently around 300 elk staying on his 4000 acres. That is a lot of feed that he needs for his cattle the 8 mos of the year they can't be on a FS lease. He's likely got about as many elk as he does cows.

He outfits bowhunts and rifle hunts on both his private land and the FS. Said there were simply too many elk on his place and he needed some removed. Allowing in 50 guys would cut the numbers, decrease the damage, and still leave plenty of elk for the outfitted hunts.

 

[tipsntails7]

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.

Jason if that's the background and history of the program why doesn't FWP step in and say hunters cannot be charged? Don't mandate that landowners have to grant access, but if they do, a fee is not to be charged?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[striker3]

Never make a regulation or law which you cannot enforce would be my guess. If it came down to that, $500 would be the going rate to point on a map the last place the owner saw the herd.

 

[Jason Snyder]

Jason if that's the background and history of the program why doesn't FWP step in and say hunters cannot be charged? Don't mandate that landowners have to grant access, but if they do, a fee is not to be charged?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I can't say specifically. If the landowner charges it as a trespass/access fee instead of a "hunt fee" there isn't a lot that FWP can do about it. In the old days, if someone charged a trespass fee, they were pretty much automatically disqualified for any sort of game damage assistance, including a late season/damage/depredation hunt. Under the shoulder seasons, they can charge every day of the season during the 5 week general season if they so choose. They just aren't supposed to charge for the shoulder season hunts.

 

[jmez]

Right wrong or indifferent, thinking that everyone will just follow some "spirit of agreement" in a situation like this is naive.

 

[TradLife406]

Why not just issue more tags for the general season? It just seems no one was actually killing elk on the damage hunts. I only saw a few on Montana Weekend Warriors Facebook page. My biggest complaint is that for as big of a problem the land owners think they have with the elk they sure don't enable the hunters at all. Or watching the ranchers actually feeding the elk or hazing them deeper into the no go zone. Or not knowing exactly where the elk are. They should honestly allow and encourage baiting. Obviously being a Montana kid baiting isn't our style. But it's a very effective management tool.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

 

[Jason Snyder]

Right wrong or indifferent, thinking that everyone will just follow some "spirit of agreement" in a situation like this is naive.

Which then directly leads to anti-landowner sentiment. I think it's easy to see who's making their own bed here.

 

[jmez]

I'd say the hunters that don't want to pay $500 to shoot a cow. There are a lot of guys out there that will take them up on this, have a good time doing it and have no qualms with the landowner.

 

[5MilesBack]

Originally Posted by 5MilesBack 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.

Exactly what are you calling bullshit on? There isn't one word of what I wrote that isn't true.

I see a lot of people complaining about something that really has no affect on them at all. What has anyone lost over this whole thing? Besides the entitlement to shoot a cow for free on private land? I'm not seeing the connection here.

Also, what exactly has the F&G given to the ranchers as part of this agreement for crop damage? In Colorado, ranchers don't get compensated if they don't allow hunters access. Are these ranchers getting compensated by the F&G in Montana? If so, then that's an easy fix. The state should stop compensating them.

If they aren't being compensated, I still fail to see the problem. You have an over-population of elk on private land that ranchers may or may not charge hunters to help control. At that point, it's their right to charge or allow free access as they see fit. You could have two different hunters drive up standing right next to each other and ask to hunt and he could say "you hunt for free, but you have to pay $500". That's his right, and I have no problem with that. The guy getting charged $500 would probably have a problem with that, and that's what I see going on in this thread......"whoa is me".

In Colorado the CDOW issues landowner vouchers for draw units. In order to get these vouchers, ranchers have to agree to let the hunter they transfer them to, to hunt their property. But it doesn't restrict what they can charge for those vouchers. In some units they go for $15k. I also have no problem with this process either.

 

[Jason Snyder]

Exactly what are you calling bullshit on? There isn't one word of what I wrote that isn't true.

That no one else is viewing landowner rights.

The FWP Commish gave a long season to landowners to address population concerns under the auspices that it wouldn't be used commercially. Now that they have the season, some are charging for it. Ergo, I want my cake and eat it too.

Montana does not give out monetary compensation.

Again, for many years MT FWP told landowners that you have a 5 week rifle season, fix your problem. Now, they are being granted a multi month antlerless season so that they can address their problem, all while continuing to charge whatever and however they wish during the archery and rifle seasons. Yet, some folks still can't do this in a non-commercial manner. Tough shit when they loose the long antlerless season and then blame the government.

 

[5MilesBack]

That no one else is viewing landowner rights.

Read up until my post that you quoted and find someone expressing those landowner rights or explaining the landowner's point of view. But I'll give you "view".....I can't for tell what someone is viewing in their mind. But they certainly weren't sharing it.

 

[5MilesBack]

Montana does not give out monetary compensation.

Then how on earth does anyone in this thread, and the F&G expect them to re-coupe their losses?????? Sheesh.

These ranchers have lost feed and incurred damages in most cases, yet hunters have lost absolutely NOTHING except a chance to shoot a cow on private property (which they DO NOT own).......and they want to complain about that. I really don't understand this new age mindset.

 

[realunlucky]

Gosh you must be right!

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

 

[Jason Snyder]

Then how on earth does anyone in this thread, and the F&G expect them to re-coupe their losses?????? Sheesh.

These ranchers have lost feed and incurred damages in most cases, yet hunters have lost absolutely NOTHING except a chance to shoot a cow on private property (which they DO NOT own).......and they want to complain about that. I really don't understand this new age mindset.

11 weeks worth of archery and rifle hunting is not enough time to recoup losses?

Actually, this "new age mindset" that you refer to has been in place for many years in Montana. It's a public resource, and MT FWP has long advocated for public access under the Public Trust Doctrine.

 

[5MilesBack]

Gosh you must be right!

Prove me wrong.

 

[realunlucky]

Any animal living on private ground should be sold to highest bidder and profits used by the land owner to compensate for any damages real or just made up. I understand your position

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

 

[Jason Snyder]

should be sold to highest bidder and profits used by the land owner

Now you're embracing the true Utah and Colorado spirit!

 

[realunlucky]

Prove me wrong.

Wrong to who? You in your own mind?

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

 

[5MilesBack]

11 weeks worth of archery and rifle hunting is not enough time to recoup losses?

Are you saying that every one of these landowners make money off those 11 weeks of hunting? Are these elk living on their property throughout those seasons? And if so, now you believe that at some agreed upon time land access should just become "free" when they break even or something to that effect?

Public Trust Doctrine? How about they start with public access on "PUBLIC" land that is landlocked before concentrating of forcing access on private land.