I dont understand

[Rob5589]

I completely understand the hesitancy to allow strangers onto their land. Just take a look at how people trash public land.

Landowners should get dep tags if truly necessary. However, those shouldn't be defacto hunting tags that can be sold. If they are truly depredation tags.

If they receive simple landowner tags, they should not be able to sell those for more than the state does. They aren't supposed to be a for profit vehicle for landowners. Charging for land access is perfectly acceptable.

Landowners should realize that losing crops and livestock is part of doing business in the areas they choose to utilize. If they need X amount of dep tags to mitigate those loses, they should receive them. Landowners should not be financially compensated for crop and livestock losses because nature is being nature.

It would be awesome to see landowners that receive dep tags to allow juniors to hunt on those tags.

 

[CorbLand]

Really though, what's 1 tag per landowner in grand scheme of things. Especially considering success rates are less then 20 percent.
Leave those tags separate from rest. U think it would be worth it just for the goodwill. Would it pay dividends immediately. Doubtful, would help soften some hard hearts though. Start building good carma and who knows what form or how it comes back.

Good breads good. Bad breads bad

How many land owners are in the unit you are speaking about though? Looks like they give out 500 tags total so if you gave one to each land owner, that would eat into that allocation pretty quick.

 

[Deadfall]

I had an old neighbor when I was a kid who was a respected, real cow man, not a gentleman rancher with a quarter section he visited from town once a year. He had mountain and low country property. He just asked people to shut the gate. He’d tell you where he was seeing elk. You could camp and hunt on his land no problem, didn’t even have to ask. No one left much of a mess, he was around enough that it just didn’t happen. The more elk that were taken the more feed was left for his cattle was his theory. Not like a lot of ranchers who bitch about the elk, take the money, and keep the gate locked. He also let us pheasant hunt on the low stuff. He sold out to an AZ couple, nice folks. They also left it open for a number of years. Then some d-bag cowboy who worked for them bullshitted them into locking it so he could guide (illegally) on it. He finally got his but it took years...hard to enforce the rules behind a locked gate. More years went by, it’s changed hands again, the new folks like to post surrounding public property and lead you to believe they can close access on a public road. The definition of the “cut above” attitude. They’ve figured out the elk are a money machine because it’s an OTC area and the same folks lease it every year.

So, there’s one for the greed column, on both sides.

Money ruins everything. Some rule changes could help curb that. I think anyway

 

[Deadfall]

How many land owners are in the unit you are speaking about though? Looks like they give out 500 tags total so if you gave one to each land owner, that would eat into that allocation pretty quick.

We talked about this. Also talked about big land trust outfits that are owned by conglomerates.

There would have to be very specific language in the legislation.

 

[Deadfall]

I completely understand the hesitancy to allow strangers onto their land. Just take a look at how people trash public land.

Landowners should get dep tags if truly necessary. However, those shouldn't be defacto hunting tags that can be sold. If they are truly depredation tags.

If they receive simple landowner tags, they should not be able to sell those for more than the state does. They aren't supposed to be a for profit vehicle for landowners. Charging for land access is perfectly acceptable.

Landowners should realize that losing crops and livestock is part of doing business in the areas they choose to utilize. If they need X amount of dep tags to mitigate those loses, they should receive them. Landowners should not be financially compensated for crop and livestock losses because nature is being nature.

It would be awesome to see landowners that receive dep tags to allow juniors to hunt on those tags.

That's almost exactly where we ended up

 

[Deadfall]

Policing ourselves....communication....good will is our ticket to success. Eventhough there would probably be negative backlash at first.

 

[CorbLand]

We talked about this. Also talked about big land trust outfits that are owned by conglomerates.

There would have to be very specific language in the legislation.

But then that legislation will change to allow more and more tags. It happens all the time here in Utah. Every year landowners petition to get more tags for their CWMUs but never want any more public tags, only the ones they can use or sell. Their is a guy here that has been on probation for three years in a row for the same bullshit and the state keeps giving him tags.

I know a guy that runs a CWMU here in Utah, basically Utahs landowner tag system. They have big bulls on their land, very big bulls. They sell the tags they get every year. $25000 a pop. I love the guy, looks just like Sam Elliott but he was denied a petition to count some BoR ground into his CWMU that would have given him just enough acreage for one more tag each year. Its not his land, it is accessible by the public to begin with. Trust me, he didn't want to count that ground because he likes elk. It was dollar signs.

 

[Lawnboi]

Really though, what's 1 tag per landowner in grand scheme of things. Especially considering success rates are less then 20 percent.
Leave those tags separate from rest. U think it would be worth it just for the goodwill. Would it pay dividends immediately. Doubtful, would help soften some hard hearts though. Start building good carma and who knows what form or how it comes back.

Good breads good. Bad breads bad

Not a big deal for the landowner who wants to hunt. Just adding fuel to the fire for the landowner that wants to sell it for 5 grand.

 

[Like2hunt]

I think a lot of it just depends on the kind of person they are and past experiences they have had with hunters. My grandpa and uncle both own farms and they both get depredation tags. I know this year my uncle gave away some of his tags to a guy that needed meat for his family and he gave a couple to me so I could help out people I know or just people that like eating deer and don't hunt. He just asks that theres no gut piles in the field and make sure to ask him before you drive out in the field.

My grandpa is the same kind of guy. Him and my uncle (a different uncle) run a really big ranch together and get a lot of tags. They will just give tags to people they know or people that need the meat. They especially like it when youth hunters come out and are able to get a antelope and would rather give the youth hunter tags then shoot them theirselves. Both my uncles and grandpa give their tags out free of charge, they just like helping out people.

But I also get landowners not wanting people on their property too. They just don't want to risk their land that they work hard to keep in good condition. I know my grandpa has had people trash the place and they don't get to come back so I get landowners not wanting to risk letting strangers on their land

This is the way it should be in my opinion. Just people helping out people free of charge, not greedy landowners charging thousands a tag and complaining they still need more tags just cause they want more money

 

[idelkslayer]

Idaho instituted a Landowner Appreciation Program, LAP, in order to give tags to landowners with at least 640 acres in units that are draw only. They complained that it wasn't fair that they couldn't hunt their own land because tags were difficult to draw. It wasn't about depredation, there is already a fund dedicated to compensating landowners for depredation. There is also a depredation tag program. This was about getting tags for antlered game.

It seemed fair enough, it kind of makes sense that a guy should be able to hunt his own property. Setting aside the debate about whether or not owning property should entitle you to a tag. So, Idaho started out by issuing tags to landowners that were transferable to the person of their choice. The intent was that the landowner or another member of their family would use the tag. And, even though landowners claimed they wanted to be able to hunt on their own land, the tags were allowed to be used in the entire unit, not just their property. The LAP tags have the same season dates as other tags.

Then after a couple years, landowners wanted more of these tags, and they wanted the ability to sell the tags. You know, to compensate them for their depredation losses. Remember, there were already depredation funds in place to handle those claims and depredation tags for killing antlerless game to discourage game from being on the property. They also wanted the LAP tags to have longer seasons because some land only became occupied by wildlife after the hunting seasons were closed. Well, IDFG listened to the majority of sportsman in the state and did not allow LAP tags to be sold. So the Landowners got their friends in the legislature to craft a bill that would increase the LAP share of tags and allow for selling the tags. IDFG and many sportsmen opposed the bill. When the bill failed, the landowners and their friends retaliated by killing a much needed fee increase bill and by passing a mandatory depredation fee on all hunters when purchasing a tag.

Through this series of events the true motivations of the LAP program have been laid wide open. It is not about hunting their family land, it is not about recuperating depredation losses, it is about money. It is about profiting off of the game animals. Mechanisms for compensation already existed, this isn't about compensation, it is about profiting on the wildlife.

Now, you could say that it's just a few bad apples that spoil the bunch and there may be some truth to that but I haven't heard of any landowners that opposed any of the actions referenced above. If there are more earnest landowners they have failed to speak up.

My opinion now is that LAP tags shouldn't exist at all. Depredation tags are all that is needed. Depredation tags are not subject to other seasons and limits, solving the problem of animal occupancy after seasons are closed.

If however, the LAP programs must continue, they should only be used on the private property for which they were issued and should not be sold. They should be used for the original purpose they were intended, to allow landowners to hunt on their own property.

 

[idelkslayer]

Someone has to start the ball rolling in different direction. We as DIY are the biggest group, so why not us be the ones to take some initiative and change how we roll. Start plocing ourselves.

When out hunting, swing in to a place and say hi. Don't ask to hunt just introduce ourselves, maybe drop a pie and a phone number. Offer help if they need any and go away.

For dang sure start turning our people when they misbehave.

Through a pair of fence pliers in your hunting truck with a hammer a staples. When messing around just stop and fix alittle fence if it needs. Maybe rancher sees you and asks what your doing, maybe he don't. Good carma is easy to come by.

If their house needs painted and you're a painter maybe offer to paint it.

Many farmers/ranchers are likely to lose their minds if they see a stranger touching their fence even if they are trying to fix it.

I agree that the way to get permission is to generally be friendly and offer help when it is needed but I wouldn't recommend taking it upon yourself to lay hands on their private property without notifying them first.

 

[cuerro viejo]

I completely understand the hesitancy to allow strangers onto their land. Just take a look at how people trash public land.

Landowners should get dep tags if truly necessary. However, those shouldn't be defacto hunting tags that can be sold. If they are truly depredation tags.

If they receive simple landowner tags, they should not be able to sell those for more than the state does. They aren't supposed to be a for profit vehicle for landowners. Charging for land access is perfectly acceptable.

Landowners should realize that losing crops and livestock is part of doing business in the areas they choose to utilize. If they need X amount of dep tags to mitigate those loses, they should receive them. Landowners should not be financially compensated for crop and livestock losses because nature is being nature.

It would be awesome to see landowners that receive dep tags to allow juniors to hunt on those tags.

Part of depredation tags is income recovery for crop loss.

I hate the states that issue no transferable Depredation tags. It’s just killing to maybe fuel a food bank. It offers no incentive to improve wildlife habitat or tolerance.

I give most mine to kids and friends and never sell them. But obviously being on here I value wildlife, although it’s a love hate relationship at grain harvest or stocking rate time.

My neighbors would rather kill every Consumptive competitor on their land, and in prior years legally have, atleast with the proceeds from CDP it buys a lot less trigger happy farmers now.

Corp insurance is about historical average or basis. If I have to invoke A claim, I’m loosing money, not making. Public perception is skewed with mis-information.

property and season specific transferable CDP is the right way to go IMO.

 

[Deadfall]

All good points. Language in bills are crucial. What that looks like. Beats the hell outta my hillbilly ass.

 

[MT257]

Have a rancher buddy wants some remodel stuff done. Rode around with him looking at a couple projects yesterday, what should have taken a couple hours ended up being all day. We got to talking about the disconnect.

Got someone else's perspective of stuff.
I'm a OTC guy. 44 yrs old and this is first year I put in for a permit. Just a deer, point is I don't know much about permitting system. He brought up some things I've been researching.

His unit. They give out 400 bow tags good for multiple units. Only 100 rifle tags. Under general column for that unit it has season dates, but mention nothing about special drawing. The 100 tag permit is good for bow or rifle. The 400 tag permit is good only bow. Is this unit open to general tag? Still figuring that out.

His complaint is that he owns a good size chunk and winters elk, and alot of elk. He has not drawn a tag in 4 years and hasn't been able to hunt his own property. However, fr several years now the same group of archers stop and ask for permission. To hunt his place. His POV is why should he let people hunt his place when he can't hunt it. He's the one feeding them and fixing fences and paying taxes. Which I think is fair statement.

His other complaint is guys trespass to get to a little strip of BLM on top of a mountain, then shoot elk on him and want to pack it out through his place.

He rattled off piles of situations involving lazy hunters and entitled hunters. I talked to the game warden today and stories like that are pretty standard.

We also talked about poopy landowners, and outfitters and so on. Why I won't hunt on private land.

So what I don't understand...
1. FWP regulations.
2. Entitlement
3. Greed
4. How come the good stuff/interactions is never talked about. Only rotten interactions.

Mindless late night rambling.

What I took away from our conversation. All sides need to do and be better.

Also come up with some ideas we are going to start bouncing off fancy people.

He did say he's not in favor of something like 505. His reasoning surprised me alittle. And is sound I think. 2 points he had.
1. Owning 640 acres doesn't mean anything if wildlife is there they would be blown off in a day or 2.

Does he use the current landowner preference pool to apply instead of the general pool of applicants if he qualifies?

 

[Deadfall]

Although I don't agree with our governors picks for FWP commission. I do agree with his thinking about FWP needing to change how they operate. My only complaint ith his picks are that the majority of montana hunters are not fairly represented.

I think putting people on commissions that stand to gain monetarily from their own influence opens the door to a bunch more if what we are discussing.

 

[Deadfall]

Does he use the current landowner preference pool to apply instead of the general pool of applicants if he qualifies?

That I do not know.

 

[Deadfall]

Hopefully we will be having some open hearings this next year or 2. Maybe find some solid ground. See I guess

 

[Deadfall]

Initially he kind of acted like landowners shoulder most of burden for conservation and whatnot. Acted like Joe blow doesn't do much. Then I explained pittman-robertson, and Dingall-Johnson. He had no idea.

Communicating helped open him to over ideas. From there ou conversation really took on life.

 

[GotDraw?]

Yeah man, I know a few ranchers and it just blows my mind that most hunters don't seem to give any thought to the position they are in. They have elk crushing their haystacks and pastures that they need to feed their livestock over the winter. Hunters crush public lands so the elk have learned to move to private for food and sanctuary.

So hunters say, well you should just let everyone onto the land that you and your family have spent their entire lives building and maintaining. They end up with their roads torn up because people just cruise through regardless of conditions, they end up with bullet holes in their outbuildings, trash all over the place, gut piles attracting bears and wolves.

It is a tough spot to be in for them. I wish more people could have some empathy and not just default to "greedy landowner" mentality

@bsnedeker - the unfortunate thing here is that elk can't speak and have no voice. You state:

"Yeah man, I know a few ranchers and it just blows my mind that most hunters don't seem to give any thought to the position they are in. They have elk crushing their haystacks and pastures that they need to feed their livestock over the winter.."

I think if the elk had a voice, their response would be:

• We were here first and the fact that you, Mr. Rancher, happen to have "money" that we don't have and were able to "Buy" our land or "grazing rights" out from under us does not offset the fact that we still need to eat. Factor that into your business plan, cowboy up (as ranchers seem to boldly say to others) and quit your whining.
• How is it that for ONLY $1.35 per "Animal Unit Month" that you, Mr. Rancher, get the right to graze one cow and one calf or FIVE Sheep all year on THOUSANDS of acres of our land and fodder we need to survive? We have seen entire mountain tops and drainages denuded of vegetation and covered in cow and sheep pies, where we used to have ample native grasses.
  • So for a total cost of only $1,350 per month, Mr. Rancher, you can control THOUSANDS or tens of thousands of acres and graze 1,000 cows + 1,000 calves OR 5,000 sheep and turn formerly lush high mountain pastures and low valley wintering range we used to have into stubble? WE wish we had $1.35 per month for each our elk Cow/Calf "AUMs", because WE would easily pay that to get rid of your some of your AUMs.

Too bad Elk don't have a Lorax to speak for them in front of the BLM and Forest Service, cause for $1.35 they are getting the shaft and if anything has the right to complain, they do.

Best,

JL

 

[Rob5589]

@bsnedeker - the unfortunate thing here is that elk can't speak and have no voice. You state:

"Yeah man, I know a few ranchers and it just blows my mind that most hunters don't seem to give any thought to the position they are in. They have elk crushing their haystacks and pastures that they need to feed their livestock over the winter.."

I think if the elk had a voice, their response would be:

• We were here first and the fact that you, Mr. Rancher, happen to have "money" that we don't have and were able to "Buy" our land or "grazing rights" out from under us does not offset the fact that we still need to eat. Factor that into your business plan, cowboy up (as ranchers seem to boldly say to others) and quit your whining.
• How is it that for ONLY $1.35 per "Animal Unit Month" that you, Mr. Rancher, get the right to graze one cow and one calf or FIVE Sheep all year on THOUSANDS of acres of our land and fodder we need to survive? We have seen entire mountain tops and drainages denuded of vegetation and covered in cow and sheep pies, where we used to have ample native grasses.
  • So for a total cost of only $1,350 per month, Mr. Rancher, you can control THOUSANDS or tens of thousands of acres and graze 1,000 cows + 1,000 calves OR 5,000 sheep and turn formerly lush high mountain pastures and low valley wintering range we used to have into stubble? WE wish we had $1.35 per month for each our elk Cow/Calf "AUMs", because WE would easily pay that to get rid of your some of your AUMs.

Too bad Elk don't have a Lorax to speak for them in front of the BLM and Forest Service, cause for $1.35 they are getting the shaft and if anything has the right to complain, they do.

Best,

JL

I wouldn't go as far as needing the Lorax, weird little freak, sweet 'stache though I don't ranch so take that into account before shredding me but, as a rancher, is your land not fenced? And could not that fence be built tall enough to keep out elk, deer, etc?