Gotta love the Montana shoulder season

[jmez]

As far as I'm concerned the price charged never becomes a problem. If there are people willing and able to pay the prices. Good for them and good for the rancher. If the price gets to where no one will pay it then it takes care of itself.

I wouldn't pay $500 to shoot a cow, resident or non. I wouldn't drive to MT if I could shoot a cow on private land for free. I don't begrudge anyone that is willing to pay the money. I don't begrudge anyone for charging that money.

Hunting on somone else's land is always a privilege IMO.

 

[tipsntails7]

As far as I'm concerned the price charged never becomes a problem. If there are people willing and able to pay the prices. Good for them and good for the rancher. If the price gets to where no one will pay it then it takes care of itself.

I wouldn't pay $500 to shoot a cow, resident or non. I wouldn't drive to MT if I could shoot a cow on private land for free. I don't begrudge anyone that is willing to pay the money. I don't begrudge anyone for charging that money.

Hunting on somone else's land is always a privilege IMO.

How exactly is it going to take care of itself? This is a ridiculous circle jerk that continually ends where it started...




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[jmez]

Then they'll have to drop the price back down to where people are willing to pay to get rid of the elk.

 

[tipsntails7]

Then they'll have to drop the price back down to where people are willing to pay to get rid of the elk.

Or....... bitch enough to have some other bullshit program invented..


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Jason Snyder]

Logan,

A very large, underlying reason that there are shoulder seasons is because of Debbie Barrett's legislation that mandates FWP to manage elk numbers at OR BELOW objective. So yes, they are trying to protect themselves from a lawsuit.

It's a bullshit situation for sure.

 

[tipsntails7]

Logan,

A very large, underlying reason that there are shoulder seasons is because of Debbie Barrett's legislation that mandates FWP to manage elk numbers at OR BELOW objective. So yes, they are trying to protect themselves from a lawsuit.

It's a bullshit situation for sure.

Does it define objective in the legislation to include landowner tolerance like it does on the FWP website? If you give me the bill number I can look myself as well.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[5MilesBack]

I think it's funny that people think elk will stay off a property if they are pressured enough (only through free access, and not through pay access ) and all will be well. That is an absolute false premise. Outside of complete extermination, there will always be elk, and there will always be elk wintering (or even year round) on these private grounds as long as feed is available. Nothing "fixes" that. So you deal with what you got.

 

[JWP58]

Then they'll have to drop the price back down to where people are willing to pay to get rid of the elk.

Yes capitalism works. But don't tell that to the "I'm entitled because I said so" crowd. As I stated on the first page of this thread, there seems to be growing trend of conspiracy and collusion between land owners and the MT g&f dept....Heck another forum has a dedicated sub forum for the whine-fest.

 

[gelton]

How exactly is it going to take care of itself? This is a ridiculous circle jerk that continually ends where it started...




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Price always solves itself in a free market capitalist society. Its as simple as supply vs. demand as jmez was trying to point out. There are several factors here and the only outside factor is the State picking winners and losers (as government always tries to do these days).

From the Ranchers point of view, if the damage exceeds the return from the prices they are charging then they will have to raise prices. If there are backlogs of hunters willing to pay $500 then they can raise prices. If no one is willing to pay the price they are asking they will have to lower prices. If the depredation isnt as bad as it was in the past, they can lower prices.

Free markets find an equilibrium price that marries supply vs demand. Too much demand, not enough supply prices rise, not enough demand and too much supply lowers prices. The only thing that can compromise this economic law (not theory) is government regulation and laws. Stop blaming the ranchers and start looking at the state, they are the ones who make the laws.

 

[Jason Snyder]

Does it define objective in the legislation to include landowner tolerance like it does on the FWP website? If you give me the bill number I can look myself as well.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Its the objective that is in the elk management plan, which relies very heavily on landowner tolerance. I believe it was Senate Bill 42 from circa 2004.

 

[vanish]

Outside of complete extermination, there will always be elk, and there will always be elk wintering (or even year round) on these private grounds as long as feed is available. Nothing "fixes" that. So you deal with what you got.

Actually, there is a very easy fix for this. The landowner puts up a high fence. No more elk!

But the real problem isn't that there are elk on their land. Its that the landowner wants elk when they're good for the ranch (selling access, hunts) and don't when they're bad for the ranch (damaging crops / eating feed).

Is it expensive to put up a fence? Yes. Its called a cost of doing business.

 

[jmez]

Or....... bitch enough to have some other bullshit program invented..


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Like the hunters are currently doing?

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

 

[gelton]

Actually, there is a very easy fix for this. The landowner puts up a high fence. No more elk!

But the real problem isn't that there are elk on their land. Its that the landowner wants elk when they're good for the ranch (selling access, hunts) and don't when they're bad for the ranch (damaging crops / eating feed).

Is it expensive to put up a fence? Yes. Its called a cost of doing business.

And conversely the $500 fee is called the cost of access on private land. If they weren't able to charge how much access would you expect to have and how many do you think would participate in the program?

 

[5MilesBack]

Actually, there is a very easy fix for this. The landowner puts up a high fence. No more elk!

But the real problem isn't that there are elk on their land. Its that the landowner wants elk when they're good for the ranch (selling access, hunts) and don't when they're bad for the ranch (damaging crops / eating feed).

Is it expensive to put up a fence? Yes. Its called a cost of doing business.

Oh boy. I could write an entire thesis breaking down what you just wrote, and bringing every economic factor and down the line into the equation......but I won't go there.

Gelton.......I agree with what you wrote, but today's society doesn't want a free market capitalistic economy. They want to turn America into what every other country is around the world. So they certainly don't want to hear about how America flourished for many decades. You've heard it over and over in this thread.......the government agency's intent was to NOT provide any free market capitalistic opportunities to the ranchers.......only to allow "free access" to anyone and everyone because of the "what's yours is mine" doctrine.

We really do have a couple generations here of brainwashed people. The machine is doing its job well, and the subjects are soaking it up as fast as they can.

 

[jmez]

Actually, there is a very easy fix for this. The landowner puts up a high fence. No more elk!

But the real problem isn't that there are elk on their land. Its that the landowner wants elk when they're good for the ranch (selling access, hunts) and don't when they're bad for the ranch (damaging crops / eating feed).

Is it expensive to put up a fence? Yes. Its called a cost of doing business.

Always a caveat. So the rancher puts up a high fence to keep the state's animals from trespassing on his property. Now who's responsibility is it to remove all of the state's animals from inside the fence? According to livestock laws the state would need to come and remove them, I bet they wouldn't. The state is just as guilty of wanting to have their cake and eat it too.

They "own" the wildlife and want complete autonomy on how they are managed. Yet when "their" wildlife are causing problems they don't want to have to be responsible for taking care of the problem.

A friend of mine in WY did exactly what you suggested. He built a 12 foot perimeter fence around his entire property. The state of WY promptly sued him for "fencing in wildlife".

 

[tipsntails7]

Like the hunters are currently doing?

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

Don't follow you... landowners bitched and got a program, hunters are not happy that they are making money off of a program set up to help landowners.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Jason Snyder]

Oh boy. I could write an entire thesis breaking down what you just wrote, and bringing every economic factor and down the line into the equation......but I won't go there.

Gelton.......I agree with what you wrote, but today's society doesn't want a free market capitalistic economy. They want to turn America into what every other country is around the world. So they certainly don't want to hear about how America flourished for many decades. You've heard it over and over in this thread.......the government agency's intent was to NOT provide any free market capitalistic opportunities to the ranchers.......only to allow "free access" to anyone and everyone because of the "what's yours is mine" doctrine.

We really do have a couple generations here of brainwashed people. The machine is doing its job well, and the subjects are soaking it up as fast as they can.

Are you suggesting that the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation and the Public Trust Doctrine are "brainwashing"? If so, then it's pointless to continue any sort of conversation with you.

Continue to rail on others that don't agree with you. After all, not everyone is good at math or logic.

 

[Jason Snyder]

The age old conundrum of private land access to a publicly owned resource is a complex one. I think if nothing else, the disparity of opinions voiced in this thread show that 1) It will never easily be solved, and 2) It is a constantly evolving process that requires some cooperation on all sides.

 

[jmez]

Don't follow you... landowners bitched and got a program, hunters are not happy that they are making money off of a program set up to help landowners.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Correct. Now the hunters are bitching about the program and would like it changed.

 

[tipsntails7]

Oh boy. I could write an entire thesis breaking down what you just wrote, and bringing every economic factor and down the line into the equation......but I won't go there.

Gelton.......I agree with what you wrote, but today's society doesn't want a free market capitalistic economy. They want to turn America into what every other country is around the world. So they certainly don't want to hear about how America flourished for many decades. You've heard it over and over in this thread.......the government agency's intent was to NOT provide any free market capitalistic opportunities to the ranchers.......only to allow "free access" to anyone and everyone because of the "what's yours is mine" doctrine.

We really do have a couple generations here of brainwashed people. The machine is doing its job well, and the subjects are soaking it up as fast as they can.

I seriously call your reasoning or reading skills into question, as you don't understand a single thing about this. As far as I know hunters didn't push for this program, so no one is asking for free access. No one thinks that anyone's private property is tried when it's not. Landowners asked for it, TO HELP MITIGATE THEIR DAMAGES.... I seriously have no idea how many times that has to be said before you understand that. The intent of the program was to decrease the losses landowners have to deal with relating to Elk, not compensate them for it. What don't you get about that.

If you have a shit load of dove on your property messing up your crops or whatever, then you ask FWP to extend the season for dove, then you ask me to help reduce dove populations, you somehow think that's is me wanting free access.. no offense but it seems like FWP and myself are doing YOU the landowners a favor....

It's mind boggling to me that you think that is capitalism.... when it's literally the opposite. By this I assume you would be perfectly fine with people selling their food stamps to other people.. capitalism you know...

You act like your always the smartest one in the room and you can't even use the word thesis correctly...




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk