Gotta love the Montana shoulder season

[5MilesBack]

Wrong to who? You in your own mind?

That's the nice thing about logic........it has no bounds, and is the same regardless of how people try to spin it. But since logic is so closely tied to math, and so many can't figure out math to save their lives.......not many people are good with it, and certainly don't understand it. That's why these debates go all over the map instead of focusing on one conclusion at a time.

 

[Jason Snyder]

Are you saying that every one of these landowners make money off those 11 weeks of hunting?

I'm saying they certainly have the opportunity to if they wish.

Are these elk living on their property throughout those seasons?

Some do, some don't. The shoulder seasons were meant to help the landowners who DIDN'T have elk on their property either year round, or during the general season.

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?

No. I do believe that the landowners should honor the intent of the shoulder seasons. If they don't, and they lose them, tough shit.

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

Do you know what the Public Trust Doctrine is? Public access to landlocked land is much more of a federal issue than a state issue. Certainly the state can pursue conservation/access easements, and by and large Montana has done a very good job of this despite the best efforts of some Republican legislators.

No one said anything about forcing access to private land. However, it should be a symbiotic relationship whereby the landowner receives state assistance via lengthened hunting seasons, etc. and in turn the public are provided opportunity to a public resource.

 

[5MilesBack]

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

No, you do not understand. They aren't selling "animals" they are selling "access". Then they can use those proceeds (profits or otherwise) to use as they see fit, just as you do with your paycheck I assume.

This is starting to sound like the great Federal public lands debate where NR's again "expect" (i.e. entitlement) to pay the exact same license fees as residents because they are hunting public land. In that case, the "access" actually is free........you're paying the state for the privilege to be able to hunt the animals on that land.

 

[5MilesBack]

No one said anything about forcing access to private land. However, it should be a symbiotic relationship whereby the landowner receives state assistance via lengthened hunting seasons, etc. and in turn the public are provided opportunity to a public resource.

And I'm saying the ranchers should be able to re-coupe any of the losses they've incurred, and if they by chance make a profit in the process......I don't care. Unless the F&G wrote something into the regulations prohibiting them from charging access, they and the hunters have no leg to stand on. Even then, the F&G have no ability to restrict someone from charging for property access regardless of what the fee is for.

If the ranchers don't charge, and even if the elk do disappear, they still aren't any better off than they were to start with.

 

[realunlucky]

That's the nice thing about logic........it has no bounds, and is the same regardless of how people try to spin it. But since logic is so closely tied to math, and so many can't figure out math to save their lives.......not many people are good with it, and certainly don't understand it. That's why these debates go all over the map instead of focusing on one conclusion at a time.

It's inconceivable to you that you could be wrong. I agree you can be right 100% of the time in your own head.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

 

[Jason Snyder]

And I'm saying the ranchers should be able to re-coupe any of the losses they've incurred, and if they by chance make a profit in the process......I don't care. Unless the F&G wrote something into the regulations prohibiting them from charging access, they and the hunters have no leg to stand on. Even then, the F&G have no ability to restrict someone from charging for property access regardless of what the fee is for.

If the ranchers don't charge, and even if the elk do disappear, they still aren't any better off than they were to start with.

It's obvious that you and I view things through a different lens, and that's fine. I don't begrudge nor object to landowners charging for access, except in this instance. It wasn't the intent for these seasons.

Just because it's legal to charge, doesn't mean it's right.

Peace out.

 

[realunlucky]

Fix the problem of to many elk and the other problems fix themselves.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

 

[FURMAN]

I did not read every post and I try to avoid the situations you are talking about at all cost but it does irritate me. I can not stand hearing landowners whine about this animal or that animal eating all the crops or tearing things up but they won't let anyone have access to the property to help with the situation and make it a win for both parties. I have hear it about prairie dogs, pronghorn, elk, and deer. The land owner gripes about the damage and then you say when can I come help and they say anytime for X dollars or even worse, never. It then becomes apparent to me the problem was not as bad and they made it out to be.

 

[tipsntails7]

And I'm saying the ranchers should be able to re-coupe any of the losses they've incurred, and if they by chance make a profit in the process......I don't care. Unless the F&G wrote something into the regulations prohibiting them from charging access, they and the hunters have no leg to stand on. Even then, the F&G have no ability to restrict someone from charging for property access regardless of what the fee is for.

If the ranchers don't charge, and even if the elk do disappear, they still aren't any better off than they were to start with.

5miles I think you've lost sight of exactly what is going on here, that or you you don't have the background info about any part of this program needed to speak intelligently on it.

The program was created to help ranchers mitigate losses due to damage by elk, it was no way intended to create another opportunity for landowners to make a buck.

If landowners didn't charge for access, and the elk disappear, then the program did exactly what it was intended to do.

I don't begrudge landowners for trying to make a buck. I hold it against hunters and the FWP that enable that behavior.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[nflesher]

First thing first, I'm not trying to start a hot debate about the Montana Shoulder season.

First sentence of the first post......

 

[5MilesBack]

I have a problem with folks complaining about capitalism and calling it "greed". Then "expecting" some sort of free handout from those that "have" (landowners). That's about as un-American as it can get, yet running rampant in our country today. The rest of the world begrudges capitalism, that's one of the great hallmarks that made us different and a "great" nation. Yes, I understand that we've gone away from that as a nation, but in some of your own words "that doesn't make it right".

I fully understand the intent of the program.......most western states use this type of thing to control populations. But most people and the Game departments don't expect the ranchers to just open up their gates for free and somehow expect that to re-compensate them for their losses. If the MT F&G has a problem with that......fine, shut down the seasons. If the ranchers have a problem then with that......fine, they can figure something else out to alleviate the problem or work with it. That's what capitalists do.

But don't hand a capitalist a way to make money, and then expect them to not use it......or condemn them when they do.

 

[5MilesBack]

Fix the problem of to many elk and the other problems fix themselves.

Nobody has given a reasonable solution to fixing the problem of the losses and damage that the ranchers have sustained. You could kill every elk in existence, yet the losses and damage remain (it didn't fix those problems). What is your solution to this problem........in your mind?

 

[tipsntails7]

Nobody has given a reasonable solution to fixing the problem of the losses and damage that the ranchers have sustained. You could kill every elk in existence, yet the losses and damage remain (it didn't fix those problems). What is your solution to this problem........in your mind?

It would absolutely fix those problems in the future.

It's weird that you talk about handouts yet that's exactly what your looking for for landowners. Any mechanism to make them whole (or better). How about tuff shit that's the price of doing business in that area. Don't like it move.

That's about as one sided of an argument as what your doing. AGAIN, this program was not meant to supplement the ranchers costs, it was meant to mitigate them in the future...

It's clear by your comments that you have this vision in your head and you have zero knowledge about what this actually is.

It's not a landowner reimbursement program. It's an animal management program...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Beendare]

I get both sides of the issue....

But from total outsiders perspective of hunting the Montana archery season for the first time...we found very few pockets of screaming bulls. The elk would bugle once and go silent during prime time- weird. Comparing it to decades of experience in Wyoming and Colo....it seems there are a lot more elk on public ground in both of those other states than in Montana. Lots of elk in Mt....just mostly on private ground.

 

[5MilesBack]

It's not a landowner reimbursement program. It's an animal management program...

Yes, and the F&G dictates what that looks like. But they don't and can't dictate what the landowners do with that. Let's say the landowners all got together and decided that they wouldn't allow access to anybody. Ok........so then what does the F&G do to manage the elk given that scenario?

See what I mean? You could go round and round with this while changing up the dynamics of the entire process. They could put up game fences to keep the elk off of private land as well, but that would most likely be cost prohibitive.

Are the elk living on these ranches year round? If so, the F&G really doesn't have a lot of control over them. If the elk migrate, then perhaps a better season would be "before" they move to the private ground. They did this a few years ago in Colorado. By the time the late seasons rolled around, the elk were already on private ground and the landowners either didn't allow access at all, or wanted to charge for access just like in MT. So the populations grew to the point that when the elk returned to the public ground, they were way over population objectives. The only way the F&G could manage that was to offer early rifle seasons on public ground to try and cut the populations. The thing is......if the elk never leave the private, then the F&G really doesn't have a population problem. At that point......the ranchers have a problem....if they even view it as a problem.

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.

 

[tipsntails7]

Yes, and the F&G dictates what that looks like. But they don't and can't dictate what the landowners do with that. Let's say the landowners all got together and decided that they wouldn't allow access to anybody. Ok........so then what does the F&G do to manage the elk given that scenario?

See what I mean? You could go round and round with this while changing up the dynamics of the entire process. They could put up game fences to keep the elk off of private land as well, but that would most likely be cost prohibitive.

Are the elk living on these ranches year round? If so, the F&G really doesn't have a lot of control over them. If the elk migrate, then perhaps a better season would be "before" they move to the private ground. They did this a few years ago in Colorado. By the time the late seasons rolled around, the elk were already on private ground and the landowners either didn't allow access at all, or wanted to charge for access just like in MT. So the populations grew to the point that when the elk returned to the public ground, they were way over population objectives. The only way the F&G could manage that was to offer early rifle seasons on public ground to try and cut the populations. The thing is......if the elk never leave the private, then the F&G really doesn't have a population problem. At that point......the ranchers have a problem....if they even view it as a problem.

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.

Your first paragraph is the entire reason that this "problem" exists...F&G would do what they did before landowners started bitching and moaning about elk damage... nothing. It's not F&G's job to cater to landowners. It's not their job to help offset costs, and it's not their job to develop a program for the sole benefit of landowners wallets. Landowners were the ones that wanted longer seasons, landowners wanted a program like this to help mitigate damage. And now landowners want to make money off a program they wanted , to do nothing but mitigate damage (save money) to their properties. That's like getting food stamps, buying a shit load of soda then dumping it out and cashing in the redemption value...


Straight form the website "objectives- levels based on LANDOWNER tolerance, hunter interests and other factors"


If they don't want to allow access to a program that they pushed for because they have to many elk on their property then I don't even know what to say to you...

This program was suppose to increase hunter access to private lands that were having problems with large amounts of elk in their property. Win, win. Joe blow gets on some nice property and fills his freezer, landowners get help with population control of elk on their property. It was not meant to extend the amount of tags and time landowners can charge trespass fees.

This is a perfect example of having your cake and eating it to.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Shrek]

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.

 

[vanish]

I have a problem with folks complaining about capitalism and calling it "greed". Then "expecting" some sort of free handout from those that "have" (landowners).

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

 

[gelton]

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 the 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.

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)

 

[5MilesBack]

This program was suppose to increase hunter access to private lands that were having problems with large amounts of elk in their property.

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.