Logan, the quotes you used are exactly what the stated purpose of the shoulder seasons are. Were you told that their purpose was instead to offset the losses caused by the elk?
Regardless of whether you believe the FWP or not, neither of those quotes implies that land owners would be forced to allow hunting on their lands. Also, the Block Management program gives land owners a lot of say in how many hunters are allowed, and a lot of control over where they are allowed. I have hunted on BMA areas where I had to go check in to the ranch house each time I wanted to hunt, and was told exactly where they wanted me to be. I have also checked into BMAs at checkin boxes with no constraints on where I could be, other than. Not taking motorized vehicles into certain areas.
Also, complaining that allowing hunters to traipse across the land and run the elk off doesn't seem like much of a complaint. The purpose of the shoulder seasons are to move the elk OFF of private property as well as controll the populations. In the end, if the elk leave the private property for public lands, where larger populations can actually be sustained, then the program is a success.
How did you come to find that those were the stated purposes of the shoulder season? Did you read them? A lead biologist told a group of people face to face that their reason for the extended and new seasons was to have a compromise so Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks did not have to pay damage fees like other states. How do I explain that any better? That is what the lead biologist said, in front of another biologist, and two or three game wardens. Straight out of Karen Loveless' mouth. That is not the same thing that FWP is saying to general public. FWP is protecting their pockets, period. She told us that point blank! the FWP tells the public one thing, tells people involved their real reasoning, and then tries to manipulate landowners with public outcry. How about the FWP tells the public what they told the group of us their reasoning is-- the whole reasoning-- and not just "we want more hunters to have the chance to harvest more elk".
Depending on whether it is Type 1 or Type 2 block management makes a huge difference. What did you do if nobody was home when you checked in for the block? Some people don't go in, most I've seen just go anyways. We had several places that bordered us that were block management and had absolutely nothing on the property. The only thing separating them from the ranch I grew up on was a fence line. For 6 years we killed a minimum of 140 whitetail deer, and the best two years we had was just over 300. One ranch that had controlled access produced 200+ more deer just about every single year than several other places combined that were block... why? because a lot of the block management is not controlled. Not everyone follows rules. FWP "runs" the block management program. Private ranches (ours) ran their own. Tell me, which group ran a more successful program for hunters??? Everything else was the same. Same crops, same water, same cover. Matter of fact, FWP has the paperwork--sign in and report sheets-- to prove it, if they haven't "lost" it.
As to your third paragraph. It's not letting people scare off wildlife. Its all the other problems that go with people, period. I don't know what world you live in, but not everyone follows rules. Not everyone is responsible. It's all the garbage people leave. Places people shouldn't be when they have been told where to go. People crossing fences into a neighbors place where they don't want anyone for whatever reason that may be-- then the rancher or landowner gets in a pissing match with his neighbor because of some boneheaded person who doesn't give a crap where he's at. We won't even get into the stupid laws that could get a landowner in legal trouble if a hunter or trespasser gets hurt, even if the hunter or trespasser is at fault.
If Montana Fish Wildlife and Parks came to people back home and wanted to be serious about reducing elk populations it could be done with ease. For example. You give me and 4 other ranches a roster of people. We have two weekends to hunt. If I take out 5 hunters each day, that's 10 hunters per weekend. The same with the other ranches. That makes 50 people in one weekend. Two weekends of that and thats 100 people. I guarantee that with that cooperation from FWP and the ranches, the program WOULD kill a vastly larger number of elk than 100 or even 200 people going whenever they want over the course of a whole month, just between those said 5 different ranches. FWP will not do that! We have tried that exact plan with FWP. Why won't they??? Ask them, they haven't told us.
Also, as to your last paragraph, I don't know if you've noticed this or not, but come winter time, 99% of the animals live on private land because 99% of their other seasonal range is covered in snow to the point where they can't reach food through it or they have grazed it all already.
I'm not saying there are no bad eggs in the landowners and ranchers. But the majority of the ones I know who have these problems are people who would readily work with the FWP and the public to try to help this issue. But you can't expect them to allow FWP to do whatever FWP wants to do. When FWP doesn't want to listen in any way shape or form as to what the ranchers think would be the most beneficial way to do these things, then why should the landowners do whatever the FWP wants.
