Gotta love the Montana shoulder season

[5MilesBack]

Isn't it the people that are the "haves" (an elk herd) and the landowners expecting a handout (damage compensation) ?

Charging for access isn't a handout. A handout is given when there is no expectation of anything in return.

If the people "have" the elk, then they would easily be able to go shoot them. Since they are on private land, the people don't "have".

 

[striker3]

Lots of ways to tackle this. The ranchers either want them off the property, or they want to make money off of access. Either way is their choice given the circumstances. Like I said earlier, I know some ranchers that have almost given up cattle operations and just cater to the hunting and providing access to make up the difference now. You play the hand you're dealt. The thing is........until you or anyone else actually pays the access fee or gets permission to hunt, you're not even in the game.

It sounds like you are confusing land owner rights and land owner privilege. If a land owner harbors elk during all various hunting seasons, and charges access or outfitter fees, that is their right. Nobody here is arguing against that. But they then are not owed the privelege of the state helping to mitigate their property damages incurred by the herd in the off season.

You seem to think that landowners can have it by the ways. We are saying that is not the way this will work.

The shoulder season, as intended, is an awesome compromise. The land owners can still charge for access during the general season. I grew up on a ranch, and my family still works one. I understand how the market sucks right now and have zero problem with them making good money outfitting. But during the shoulder season is when the public is supposed to help with herd population control. The owners just need to let the state and public do the job they have been ask of them. Either that, or just suck up the property damage and quit complaining.

 

[tipsntails7]

The solution to this is a call list depredation hunt arranged and controlled by F&G. If landowners want the elk numbers reduced the join then program and the F&G calls willing hunters to go hunt the elk. If the owner doesn't want to allow free access then fine let the elk eat them out of house and home until they get over the elk not being a profit center. There is no right to compensation for wildlife effects on your property. The fact that we the people are willing to suppress our elk herd to reduce the burden on the landowner is being generous in the first place and the ranchers trying to make a quick buck off our generosity is very ungracious. The shoulder seasons need to go away and the ranchers told to open access during the season so the herd can be reduced through normal means or suffer the consequences of their decisions.

They already had depridarion programs, they apparently didn't work.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[vanish]

If the people "have" the elk, then they would easily be able to go shoot them. Since they are on private land, the people don't "have".

Wildlife as a public resource is how its been managed for the last century. Otherwise the landowners could just exterminate the entire elk herd on their land.

 

[tipsntails7]

Then they should enroll them in the block management program, and if they refuse that.......then don't give them a shoulder season. Sounds to me like the F&G has all the control here.........use it.

I completely agree, which is why I don't hold it against the landowners for making a buck. I don't agree with it but it is what it is. Like I stated earlier.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[tipsntails7]

Ranchers "told" to open access during the season? When did private property become public? The state can ASK for them to open access during the season, and offer them INCENTIVES to do so, but the state has no right to force access on private property. Another thing I dont think has been mentioned yet is the liability of letting the public on your private land. Anyone loses a fingernail these days and they are ready to sue...if I were a landowner I would'nt want to open access to the public without a fee and a waiver, the state can try to TELL me otherwise and I would be happy to tell them where to shove it. (reading your posts over the years I know, you know this)

A waiver release is a pretty simple form to have on hand. I provide them signed to any waterfowl properties I hunt on. It's a shame that it has come to that but I agree.

I don't see anywhere about forcing land access, and I am absolutely against that. But I'm not going to pay a "fee" to help you out with a "problem". Sorry. That fee is going to put everyone right back to where they started. Pretty soon that fee creeps to every landowner, then that fee creeps higher, then it's just like everyday to hunt area. It's why I don't hunt pigs in California anymore.
First it was free then it was 500 bucks a year, then 500 bucks a week. Now it's 500 bucks for a 2 day hunt... no thanks.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Logan T]

With the exception of a few, most people here are bashing the landowner for making a buck off of an extra season. Have you guys ever actually dug deeper and talked to FWP about their "real" reasoning for this shoulder season??? Or do you just listen to their public service announcement saying "this season is to allow more opportunities for the public to harvest elk and help the landowners out with their overpopulation of elk".

There has been several comments that say: "The shoulder season only purpose is reducing herd numbers to be with habitat objectivs period." and "The shoulder season was implemented specifically to address the land owner complaints of property damage by placing increased hunt pressure on private lands."

Those comments are just spew from the mouths of Montana FWP to get the public to buy into this shoulder season. Those statements are nothing more than what may be benefits of what the shoulder season is actually for. Two years ago at a late season cow hunt landowner meeting, on why the FWP is coming up with these extra seasons, two biologists, and several game wardens stated to I along with several other people who are ranchers but not landowners, that the FWP is implementing these seasons to "basically keep the ranchers/landowners happy so the FWP doesn't have to start paying a stipend for property damages as other states have started doing." Some people at the FWP could really care less about the majority of hunters. They didn't implement this season for you. They (FWP) did it to save themselves money.

Being a rancher as well as a big public land hunter, and dealing with these issues myself- I see both sides. However the side that is on here bashing the ranchers and landowners really don't deal directly with these issues. If they did, or if they knew what FWP is trying to do, then they (you) would or at least should be pissed at FWP. If the landowners/ranchers don't want to let people come dink around all over their ranch, fine. How about you let people come walk around all over your property or houses?? If the ranchers are going to complain about too many elk or deer but not allow anyone in to deal with that problem, then fine, that's their problem and they should do something about it. But FWP is just in it for themselves, not the general public like so many of you think they are.

Two years ago, I had two damage permits for cow elk back home, and a guy I had working with me had one as well. I killed two cows in a span of 8 seconds one day and Rob killed a cow the next day. I know for a fact that 7 other cows were killed as well that week at other access areas in that unit. ALL of the kills had to be reported to FWP's hunt coordinators. That friday night at the FWP/landowner meeting, the biologists passed out a sheet of paper with updated weekly harvest reports on it for each of the areas in that unit the damage hunt was in. The week that I shot my 2 cows, watched Rob kill his, and know for a fact that 7 other cows were killed, FWP had printed on the paper that only 2 elk were killed that entire week. FWP blatantly lied. Absolutely lied! When confronted with our argument about the real numbers, they just simply ignored it and moved on.

So many hunters are sportsmen and we take pride in the fact that our dollars spent on tags and hunts are what drives our wildlife funding. As hunters we support healthy population levels, repopulation levels in areas that have been decimated with disease, etc. But i have yet to see anyone mention "what about the elk calves when the cow gets shot". The calves are 2 months old, and when the cows get killed, those calves die too. I haven't heard this from anyone except landowners and other ranchers I know. Your not supposed to shoot a sow with cubs, but its ok to shoot a cow with a calf that is still dependent on the milk.

Moral of my ranting and raving--- unless you really know what FWP's motives are, you really have no idea what you are talking about. The landowners and ranchers aren't the bad guys here. If they say they have too many animals around, let them get hit with the damages until they change. FWP is in it for FWP and doesn't really care in a lot of instances about the average Joe, like so many of you here think they do.

 

[vanish]

Logan T, that's a pretty good pitch, and there's almost certainly much truth in there.

However, landowners already have recourse for dealing with elk on their land:

1.) They can deal with it as a cost of ownership, just like falling snow, rain, etc.
2.) They can let people hunt it.
3.) They can put up a high fence.

Instead, they'll threaten to seek money from the government ( the people ), as you're intimating. At the same time, a lot of landowner defense I see here talks about capitalism and such, and yet that's about as opposite of capitalism as it gets. If this resembled anything remotely capitalist, landowners would be paying hunters.

 

[striker3]

Logan, read the articles linked earlier about the Devil's Kitchen area as well as the article talking about the success of the shoulder season trial last year on the Galt Ranch.

If you have read the thread here, nobody is bashing the average land owner. We are bashing the exceptions, those who complain about herd damage on their property yet refuse to allow the public access to help solve the issue. Nobody is advocating or demanding access to private property. I have said this half a dozen times, yet you guys keep ignoring it. Property owners have every right to refuse access to their lands. But by doing so, they should forfeit any state assistance in regards to mitigating property damage by the public managed wildlife.

As far as having depredation payouts, good luck with that. Usually those types of programs are also tied to allowing public access to your lands. As it stands now, that seems to be off the table.

 

[Logan T]

Striker and Vanish, perhaps you missed the two times where I stated that if the landowners do not want to allow hunting, the let them deal with the costs of the damage the wildlife incur.

Striker, I have read the entire thread. The two quotes I used as examples of people saying the intended concept of the shoulder season were just that- quotes from two different posts on this thread.

As someone who's family managed a big ranch with a shit load of deer, and the last time I counted back home over 1300 head of elk wintering on it, and having worked with some in the FWP to GET people into hunt and at years kill over 300 whitetail does, and dozens of elk,everything I stated about FWP before is the truth. I'd rather not name drop biologists at the front of this thing but I'm pretty sure people could find out who "she" is, at least in the area where I'm from.

FWP lied about harvest reports, to my face and others. Doesn't that make the general public mad? The biologist directly told a group of us the reasoning for extended and additional seasons, and that was what I stated earlier. Your problem should be with FWP, as mine is, lying to the public about what THEIR reasoning is for the seasons.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Logan T]

The best way for ranchers and landowners to let people in to kill what would be a significant amount of elk over time would be to have a hunt roster for each ranch that starts after general rifle season. The problem is that landowners and ranchers want to be in charge of where and how many at a time.... they don't want people running all over causing problems. A lot of people do just that and act like boneheads and run elk off and nobody gets a thing. But that is where FWP kills it. They don't think that would be best. I do and a lot of people do. Who is going to know where the elk are? The ranchers. Who's going to know the best way to get to the elk? The ranchers. Who is directly affected by this? The ranchers. For whatever reason, FWP will not let the ranchers take the lead on their own property, and that kills the whole motion.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[5MilesBack]

Wildlife as a public resource is how its been managed for the last century. Otherwise the landowners could just exterminate the entire elk herd on their land.

Ok. What's your point? If that public resource never leaves the private land, how does the F&G manage it? Which brings us back to where we were. Because it is a public resource, the landowners CAN'T just exterminate the entire herd. But they can allow access for free or even charge for that access when there is a season in place. They most likely won't make up the losses they've incurred, but it might offset some of them. This is their ONLY way to try to recoup some of the losses. Exterminating the herd won't even do that. Letting everyone and their brother hunt with free access won't do that. So I can understand WHY they want to charge for the access. Apparently most can't. Probably because most have never incurred any losses.

 

[striker3]

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.

 

[jmez]

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.

True. And if you have hunters willing to pay $500 for the privilege of being allowed on private land and they move elk off private property as well as control the populations, then the program is also a success.

 

[striker3]

First hunting in the shoulder season is not a privelege when it is the land owners asking for the seasons to help them out, lol. You seem to be under the impression that the seasons are there to help the hunters. You are wrong. Second, very few people in Montana will pay that much money for a cow elk. Beef is cheaper than that.

How many of you that are from out of state would pay $500 on top of the non-res fee and the travel costs outside of the hunting seasons for a cow elk?

 

[tipsntails7]

True. And if you have hunters willing to pay $500 for the privilege of being allowed on private land and they move elk off private property as well as control the populations, then the program is also a success.

Until that price changes... then we are back to exactly where we were. At what point does it become a problem? So, in reality the FWP has granted landowners another opportunity to profit off elk that they don't even want on their property.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Logan T]

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.

 

[Logan T]

First hunting in the shoulder season is not a privelege when it is the land owners asking for the seasons to help them out, lol. You seem to be under the impression that the seasons are there to help the hunters. You are wrong. Second, very few people in Montana will pay that much money for a cow elk. Beef is cheaper than that.

How many of you that are from out of state would pay $500 on top of the non-res fee and the travel costs outside of the hunting seasons for a cow elk?

I don't know what kind of beef you buy but that's a crock too. $500 spent on beef at the store will get you nowhere near the same amount of meat you get from a whole elk.

 

[striker3]

Probably because I buy beef straight from the ranch, cause it's Montana... Like I said in an earlier post, I pay around $600 for a 1/4 beef, butchered and vacuum packed. That is much better than $500 for a cow elk, which is 1/2-1/3 less meat than the 1/4 beef. I am paying $3.80-$3.90 a pound with out any work on my part. Here is the site if you want to verify Order Montana Grass Fed Beef | Hormone Free | All Natural

To ask a further question, how are the problems that you describe with hunters in the block management any different than without? If you run into so many hunters who are so rude, does no hunting signs keep them out? And yes, if I was directed to a ranch house and nobody was there, I did not hunt the property. If I was told to stay in a certain area, I did. I also steer clear of orange markings at private boundaries when on public land. My fairly large circle of hunter friends all act the same.

I think that you, I and most of the others in this thread probably think more alike than what it seems in these posts. I don't know where you are in Montana, but I would love to meet you, buy you a drink of your choice and have a good chat face to face. Hell, we would probably get along just fine.

 

[Logan T]

Probably because I buy beef straight from the ranch, cause it's Montana... Like I said in an earlier post, I pay around $600 for a 1/4 beef, butchered and vacuum packed. That is much better than $500 for a cow elk, which is 1/2-1/3 less meat than the 1/4 beef. I am paying $3.80-$3.90 a pound with out any work on my part. Here is the site if you want to verify Order Montana Grass Fed Beef | Hormone Free | All Natural

To ask a further question, how are the problems that you describe with hunters in the block management any different than without? If you run into so many hunters who are so rude, does no hunting signs keep them out? And yes, if I was directed to a ranch house and nobody was there, I did not hunt the property. If I was told to stay in a certain area, I did. I also steer clear of orange markings at private boundaries when on public land. My fairly large circle of hunter friends all act the same.

I think that you, I and most of the others in this thread probably think more alike than what it seems in these posts. I don't know where you are in Montana, but I would love to meet you, buy you a drink of your choice and have a good chat face to face. Hell, we would probably get along just fine.

Posted signs keep the honest people from wandering outside the BMAs, but not the people who don't care- which is a lot of people still. The only thing to slow that down is watching and when you do catch people, you give them a warning. If they are a problem with you talking to them, you call the warden. That still doesn't stop a lot of people though. Thats great you follow rules, but for everyone who does there's someone who doesn't. It's like anything in life- it only takes a few people to ruin it for everyone.

My point is this. FWP has other reasons that they don't always make known to the general public, just like these extended and extra seasons. And FWP will and does fabricate numbers when it comes to certain things like the cow season I talked about earlier, and they do get away with it. People need to understand that after all of the seasons have closed, no matter if there were no elk left on private land or not, the wildlife will return to private land because they more times than not have nowhere else to go to survive the winters-- and that is when the costs add up. Not so much the hay stacks they get into, but the left over feed in pastures ranchers save for the following year, in case of drought for example. If a rancher whines and moans about the elk numbers but don't want anyone in there hunting, then that is their problem and the deserve to eat that cost. But just because some charge 500 bucks for a cow, doesn't mean they don't have a point when it comes to the elk numbers. In reality many of them would like to work out a better way around this issue, but FWP has it their way or usually no way.

I'm sure we'd get along just fine, and I'd take you up on that offer but I now live up in Winifred in the breaks. However, if we actually did that, I'd buy you a real steak- one with flavor, none of that grass fed double muscled tough beef. That explains why you get that much beef for that price