Gotta love the Montana shoulder season

[tipsntails7]

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

I'd bitch to if I was a resident, at the FWP for doing a shitty job implementing it.

Next time I ask a guy to help me cut wood I'm gonna charge him to come... but hey you can have a few logs.

It's weird that it's ok for landowners to profit off what amounts to government handouts (extended season).


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Jason Snyder]

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

Because the landowners are not honoring the intent of the program.

 

[tipsntails7]

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?

Considering they asked for it I would hope whoever has a problem with elk populations.

This has to be the only example where someone asks for help then charges the guy helping...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[gelton]

Considering they asked for it I would hope whoever has a problem with elk populations.

This has to be the only example where someone asks for help then charges the guy helping...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Ever read Tom Sawyer? As long as people are standing in line with their checkbooks why is it a bad thing to accept their payment? When people stop paying prices will fall.

 

[jmez]

Because the landowners are not honoring the intent of the program.

We disagree on that single premise. No reason to keep rehashing. It is what it is.

 

[tipsntails7]

Ever read Tom Sawyer? As long as people are standing in line with their checkbooks why is it a bad thing to accept their payment? When people stop paying prices will fall.

Like I've said probably 5 times in this thread, I don't begrudge the landowner... like 5miles says capitalism.

I put the blame on the FWP and it's half assed attempt at putting this program forward.
I see nothing wrong with hunters voicing their displeasure with aspects of the program.

A single sample pilot of 5 units, then the next year spread it to over 40?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[tipsntails7]

Double

 

[tipsntails7]

We disagree on that single premise. No reason to keep rehashing. It is what it is.

Jmez, what do you feel the intent of the program was?
Not a smart ass question in anyway, as my arguments on this thread may lead you to that conclusion.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Jason Snyder]

We disagree on that single premise. No reason to keep rehashing. It is what it is.

Here is a quote from the director. You can disagree all you want. Commercialization of the shoulder seasons was not the intent. If you don't believe me, call Director Hagener and ask him. Landowners that are charging for access can potentially screw up a management tool that some folks are utilizing in a very productive manner.

There are Commission-adopted harvest objectives and season set up for shoulder seasons that address this issue. Basically, more elk have to be harvested than are being recruited into the population if FWP is to continue with a shoulder season in a hunting district. If charging for access, or limiting access, or another similar circumstance, limits elk harvest to such a degree that harvest objectives are not met after three years (the evaluation period for shoulder season success), then FWP will not propose to continue the shoulder season and it will be lost as a management tool.

 

[jmez]

I'll answer both in one. No need to qualify with me, I don't hold any ill will or take any comments personally in these discussions.

I think the intent is to reduce elk numbers over all in selected areas and specifically targeting numbers of animals on private land.

If charging for access, or limiting access, or another similar circumstance, limits elk harvest to such a degree that harvest objectives are not met after three years (the evaluation period for shoulder season success), then FWP will not propose to continue the shoulder season and it will be lost as a management tool.

Key term in that statement is If. Nowhere does that imply that the intent is for this to be free access. If the fees being charged are not limiting access and limiting elk harvest to such a degree that objectives are not met then the season will be continued. The objective and the intent are both being met.

 

[tipsntails7]

I'll answer both in one. No need to qualify with me, I don't hold any ill will or take any comments personally in these discussions.

I think the intent is to reduce elk numbers over all in selected areas and specifically targeting numbers of animals on private land.



Key term in that statement is If. Nowhere does that imply that the intent is for this to be free access. If the fees being charged are not limiting access and limiting elk harvest to such a degree that objectives are not met then the season will be continued. The objective and the intent are both being met.

Can we say that the objectives are being met as the season is not over? Have they already met objectives in certain areas?

It sounds like we won't really know that until 3 years from now.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[jmez]

No we can't. According to the intent we can't say that for three years.

I don't know what has been met. I can tell you I talked to a rancher that has 50 guys lined up free of charge to shoot cows on his private ranch for the shoulder season in the unit I hunt.

I also don't think we can characterize this entire situation based off of one random posting on Craig's list, which is what we have all been doing. For all we know the guy that posted that on Craig's list may get zero takers on his offer. He could then decide to allow people in for nothing because the charging scheme did not work. He could also get more offers from hunters to pay to shoot an elk than he has elk. In both of those situations the objective and intent, as I see it, have been met. If he gets no takers, or not enough, and still has an elk problem then he sleeps in the bed that he's made.

 

[tipsntails7]

No we can't. According to the intent we can't say that for three years.

I don't know what has been met. I can tell you I talked to a rancher that has 50 guys lined up free of charge to shoot cows on his private ranch for the shoulder season in the unit I hunt.

I also don't think we can characterize this entire situation based off of one random posting on Craig's list, which is what we have all been doing. For all we know the guy that posted that on Craig's list may get zero takers on his offer. He could then decide to allow people in for nothing because the charging scheme did not work. He could also get more offers from hunters to pay to shoot an elk than he has elk. In both of those situations the objective and intent, as I see it, have been met. If he gets no takers, or not enough, and still has an elk problem then he sleeps in the bed that he's made.

That's probably true. And a good point.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[kicker338]

2 guy's here, LOGAN and STRIKER you guy's need to get togather, I smell a real good friendship building here, so take some advice from an old guy here get together, I bet you both be glad you did.

 

[5MilesBack]

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.

Nope, I never mentioned those. It's the overall brainwashing of America in general, which most has absolutely nothing to do with hunting, but it does fit in this discussion.........obviously.

 

[5MilesBack]

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...

I've noticed a common theme for you is to run off on something that wasn't even discussed, or you're running with a false premise. So I'll just address a couple of your statements. By "free access" I was addressing those that that applies to in this thread complaining about "pay access". If that doesn't apply to you, then ignore that.

Is it legal to sell food stamps? That's a rhetorical question.

And please enlighten me to my wrong use of thesis. In its simplest form......thesis: a long essay or dissertation.

Smartest in the room? I just think this stuff is really easy common sense stuff........so it doesn't take a smart person to figure it out.

 

[5MilesBack]

It seems to me that there are not clear objectives with this program. Like I said earlier, if the F&G REALLY wanted to reduce populations, they should hand out some early rifle tags while the elk are still on public ground. That eliminates most all of this bickering between landowners and hunters.

Secondly, if there are still populations of elk on individual ranches they could do like they do here in CO. F&G issues depredation vouchers to the landowners and they can do whatever they want with those vouchers........sell them, give them away, use them themselves, etc.

These two together should work just fine to reducing elk populations.

 

[Logan T]

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.

Are you serious?? So lets say these people do put up fences. Then where are the elk going to go?? They are going to move onto someone else place, and then they will have too many and will put up a fence. Then the elk move again and so on and so forth. Where in the hell are the elk going to winter then?? Do you really think that they will go back up on public land or in the mountains all winter long, live up there and calve up there?? A ranch could have 50 people out for a weekend, have them scare off the elk, and by the end of whatever season it is those elk will be right back there for a reason--because that's where the feed is!!

Next thing you know all of the public will be whining and complaining about those high fences because the elk are starving, all over the roadways getting killed and probably killing people on highways. And it will be the landowners fault in your eyes....

 

[Jason Snyder]

It seems to me that there are not clear objectives with this program. Like I said earlier, if the F&G REALLY wanted to reduce populations, they should hand out some early rifle tags while the elk are still on public ground. That eliminates most all of this bickering between landowners and hunters.

Secondly, if there are still populations of elk on individual ranches they could do like they do here in CO. F&G issues depredation vouchers to the landowners and they can do whatever they want with those vouchers........sell them, give them away, use them themselves, etc.

These two together should work just fine to reducing elk populations.

The objectives are pretty clearly stated in the hunt guidelines.

FUNDAMENTAL OBJECTIVES
Elk considerations:
 Manage elk populations to objective as rapidly as possible.
 Increase harvest of elk, where appropriate.
Hunter and landowner considerations:
 Address problematic distributions of elk and elk harvest.
 Enhance free public access to bulls and cows on private land during the general seasons.
 Reduce exclusive access to elk.
 Enhance landowner flexibility to manage elk hunting on their property.
 Reduce game damage.
 Reduce hunter impacts on landowners
[FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman](e.g., cost of hiring additional staff, loss of productivity, property damage from hunters, etc.). [/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman] Simplify rules and regulations
[/FONT][/FONT]

Also, implementing rifle hunts on public land during the early fall would be the absolute worst decision one could make, for all involved parties. It would:

Reduce available elk on public land
Put more pressure on public land elk to migrate to private land sanctuaries/refuges
Further exacerbate elk movement patterns to private land to escape hunting pressure
Do nothing to alleviate damage concerns on private land.

There are some VERY legitimate reasons to have shoulder seasons. Some ranchers continue to suffer from elk damage with no mechanism to alleviate it, because of elk movement patterns, a large neighboring ranch that doesn't allow hunting, etc. If landowners work in concert, they can help each other out. If they are only out for themselves, they may very well screw their neighbor.

The issuance of vouchers does absolutely nothing to help bring elk populations to within the parameters that are mandated by law.

 

[tipsntails7]

I've noticed a common theme for you is to run off on something that wasn't even discussed, or you're running with a false premise. So I'll just address a couple of your statements. By "free access" I was addressing those that that applies to in this thread complaining about "pay access". If that doesn't apply to you, then ignore that.

Is it legal to sell food stamps? That's a rhetorical question.

And please enlighten me to my wrong use of thesis. In its simplest form......thesis: a long essay or dissertation.

Smartest in the room? I just think this stuff is really easy common sense stuff........so it doesn't take a smart person to figure it out.

I've noticed a theme for you is to cherry pick certain sentences and twist them to fit your weird agenda's...

I absolutely would complain about being charged access to hunt a property that felt having elk was a burden. I absolutely feel it's ridiculous that a program set up to ease the cost associated with elk to landowners should be an opportunity for that same landowner to make a buck. That's not what the program was for as has been stated I don't know 20 times in this thread. You may disagree but it's pretty Much everywhere that this program has ever been mentioned. This thread, meeting agenda, the FWP website, meeting minutes.

It is illegal to sell food stamps, just like it shouldn't be allowed to sell access for s program that benefits landowners.

A thesis is absolutely a paper, although it's a paper composed up of an idea that you vet and substantiate with research that you do ON YOUR OWN normally given to a board in an attempt to garner further education degrees or provided for peer review in journals.

If you did some research about this maybe you wouldn't be screaming anti capitalism and free access for all nonsense.
Either way this thread and this topic has run its course.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk