In the Laramie Mountains too many elk and no easy fixes

[rtkbowhunter]

In many ways we have the same “problem” out east.

Farmers complain about too many deer, damaging their crops and so forth. Then you go try and knock on their door for hunting permission and the answer is always no, my uncles brothers cousin has permission, it’s leased, or some other excuse.

Then (and here is the worst part) in many cases the ODNR will issue damage permits to the farmers allowing them to shoot any number of deer out of season, by any means.

I get it, big bucks are worth big money, but if it was really such a problem, why not allow doe only hunting to the public, or even better charge a small trespass fee per day?

Many of us, myself included feel the real trophy is the meat. Sure, I like a nice wall hanger as much as anyone, but hunting is hunting, and I just want to see more opportunities to do it more places, even if it means antlers aren’t an option.

Again, somewhere here there is a disconnect due to greed and poor public policy on the part of game agencies.

Where I hunt in PA, Lancaster Conservancy picked up almost 1,000 acres to add to protected land. Most of the Conservancy land is open to hunting, some archery only others archery/rifle. The property they just picked up is slated for archery/rifle. I questioned the head of the conservancy about that. I pushed for archery only as I feel with multi-use properties that are close to population centers, there is less conflict. JMO. Anyhow, his repsonse was they want rifle as well becasue the surrounding farmers wanted the deer population thinned out. The caveat? All those farms are posted and patrolled. Ya, sorry. That sounds like a "your" problem.

 

[Buckshot85]

Where I hunt in PA, Lancaster Conservancy picked up almost 1,000 acres to add to protected land. Most of the Conservancy land is open to hunting, some archery only others archery/rifle. The property they just picked up is slated for archery/rifle. I questioned the head of the conservancy about that. I pushed for archery only as I feel with multi-use properties that are close to population centers, there is less conflict. JMO. Anyhow, his repsonse was they want rifle as well becasue the surrounding farmers wanted the deer population thinned out. The caveat? All those farms are posted and patrolled. Ya, sorry. That sounds like a "your" problem.

I want rifle only areas.

You can make numerous arguments for "your" style of hunting. IMO, none hold water.
Hunting is hunting. Lets not divide ourselves and help the antis.

 

[rtkbowhunter]

I want rifle only areas.

You can make numerous arguments for "your" style of hunting. IMO, none hold water.
Hunting is hunting. Lets not divide ourselves and help the antis.

I wasn't making a case for "my style" of hunting. This was a piece of property that was slated for development, think 5 acre McMansion lots. The Lancaster Conservancy properties have seen such an increase in recreational use, that they have closed parking areas indefinitely to ALL users. And while you think it may not hold water, 90% of the voters, you know, the ones that DON'T hunt, do. And on small couple hundred acre properties, it means whether the Conservancy allows ANY form of hunting or not. It's THEIR property.

But while you were busy jumping to conclusions you missed the main point of my post. The part where surrounding farmers want the Conservancy to control the deer numbers WITHOUT allowing access to their farms. Sorta goes along with the whole point of the thread.

 

[Miflatlander91]

Really sounds to me like they were pushing landowner tags or outfitter welfare in the article to me

Sent from my SM-G998U using Tapatalk

 

[Buckshot85]

I wasn't making a case for "my style" of hunting. This was a piece of property that was slated for development, think 5 acre McMansion lots. The Lancaster Conservancy properties have seen such an increase in recreational use, that they have closed parking areas indefinitely to ALL users. And while you think it may not hold water, 90% of the voters, you know, the ones that DON'T hunt, do. And on small couple hundred acre properties, it means whether the Conservancy allows ANY form of hunting or not. It's THEIR property.

But while you were busy jumping to conclusions you missed the main point of my post. The part where surrounding farmers want the Conservancy to control the deer numbers WITHOUT allowing access to their farms. Sorta goes along with the whole point of the thread.

I got the initial point and the response I figured I'd get.
If they have slated for and can get it open to hunting of any kind that is a win for all of you. We have similar issues in Wisconsin. Land is purchased from hunting, fishing, trapping, boating licenses and permits. Then it is posted for only hiking and bird watching. None of those people have any skin the game and did nothing but reap the rewards. I get it. But, it all starts with a common mindset.
I may have bent the context some but, your comment struck a chord that typically, has deeper roots.
I apologize for twisting your point.

 

[rtkbowhunter]

I got the initial point and the response I figured I'd get.
If they have slated for and can get it open to hunting of any kind that is a win for all of you. We have similar issues in Wisconsin. Land is purchased from hunting, fishing, trapping, boating licenses and permits. Then it is posted for only hiking and bird watching. None of those people have any skin the game and did nothing but reap the rewards. I get it. But, it all starts with a common mindset.
I may have bent the context some but, your comment struck a chord that typically, has deeper roots.
I apologize for twisting your point.

No worries and I do see where you are coming from. Here in PA our State Game lands are bought primarily with hunting license dollars and as such are managed for hunting. Any other use is secondary. People piss and moan they can't mountain bike (big issues a few years back), bitch about hunters when they are trying to hike on a Saturday.... mind you on land they have no $$'s in. Non-users keep floating a user fee and the PGC shoots them down because then they would have a say in how the game lands are managed.

Conservancy land is typically bought with donations and grants (some tax $$'s). As such when land is acquired there is intial plan proposed with time for public comment, master plan, again open for public input. They'll work with the PA Game Commission to set up guidlines and such for hunting. Most of the tracts they acquire are relatively small, 50-200 acres. With the diversity of stakeholders, there is much less resistance to archery or archery/mizzleloader than there is to archery/rifle.

 

[Overdrive]

My family enjoys elk meat so much, I'd gladly pay full price for a cow tag and "reasonable" trespass fee.

I talked with the outfitter I work for up in that area and the only Elk hunters we had draw for cow tags paid full price, the reduced price cow tag, not one hunter drew, ridiculous!
We've talked with many landowners up there to lease more land, and you can't throw enough money and those landowners, I mean you could but it doesn't make sense from a business stance.

 

[chutinlead]

I would love to go hunt on a private ranch for a cow elk without a trespass fee. But I can see why it would take a lot to manage.

 

[cgasner1]

I feel like if it was a serious issue when I get on wagonhounds website it wouldn’t have a cow elk hunt listed for 3k


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Bighorner]

The groundwork is being laid for transferable landowner tags. $$$

It certainly is.

 

[Bighorner]

I feel like if it was a serious issue when I get on wagonhounds website it wouldn’t have a cow elk hunt listed for 3k


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I think that in it's self speak volumes.

 

[Michigander]

I feel like if it was a serious issue when I get on wagonhounds website it wouldn’t have a cow elk hunt listed for 3k


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I hunted that area last year. The locals we talked to didn't have too many good things to say about Wagonhound.

 

[cgasner1]

I hunted that area last year. The locals we talked to didn't have too many good things to say about Wagonhound.

Was down there myself it is cool seeing those super herds


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[FlyGuy]

So, I hail from Louisiana (not many ranches down there) and I have a genuine question. I don’t mean to piss anyone off with it, just trying to understand what makes this issue so complicated….

I don’t understand why the state pays for damages caused by elk on ranches that aren’t open to hunting? That seems like having your cake and eating it too. Elk aren’t stupid, sure they will go to the areas of less pressure and that’s often going to be a private ranch. But if a ranch has open access to hunting, those elk won’t stay on it and cause damage anymore than they would on a piece of public.

Now, if a landowner wants no public hunting on their land so that they can hunt it themselves or sell tags/guided hunts on their property, I don’t have any problem with that at all. That makes sense that it would be more valuable if a person has the opportunity to hunt unpressured elk. But, they should use the proceeds of those sales to offset the damages caused by too many elk.

It just seems to me that it would kill two birds here. Lots more public access to hunting, and a lot less $ paid out for elk damages. Win/win.

What am I missing?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[Bighorner]

So, I hail from Louisiana (not many ranches down there) and I have a genuine question. I don’t mean to piss anyone off with it, just trying to understand what makes this issue so complicated….

I don’t understand why the state pays for damages caused by elk on ranches that aren’t open to hunting? That seems like having your cake and eating it too. Elk aren’t stupid, sure they will go to the areas of less pressure and that’s often going to be a private ranch. But if a ranch has open access to hunting, those elk won’t stay on it and cause damage anymore than they would on a piece of public.

Now, if a landowner wants no public hunting on their land so that they can hunt it themselves or sell tags/guided hunts on their property, I don’t have any problem with that at all. That makes sense that it would be more valuable if a person has the opportunity to hunt unpressured elk. But, they should use the proceeds of those sales to offset the damages caused by too many elk.

It just seems to me that it would kill two birds here. Lots more public access to hunting, and a lot less $ paid out for elk damages. Win/win.

What am I missing?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

You are not missing a darn thing. Unless it is the private dealings that go on with large land owners and fish and game. That over objective levels they keep talking about are set in private conversations between landowners and fish and game. There are not driven by biology they are driven by landowners. There are too many elk, because the ranches say there are too many elk. And that's not to say they situation is not jacked up and elk are not hard on fences and are not hard on crops, but it very much falls squarely on dening access. It is a mess of there own making.

You hit the nail on the head. Stakeholder want to confuse the issue, particularly by painting these huge ranches and hobby ranches as the picture of the wyoming cowboy a hundred years ago and not as the big business it actually is. It is about marketing and profit.

It is very much about setting the stage for transferable tags. Make no mistake about that.

 

[BuzzH]

So, I hail from Louisiana (not many ranches down there) and I have a genuine question. I don’t mean to piss anyone off with it, just trying to understand what makes this issue so complicated….

I don’t understand why the state pays for damages caused by elk on ranches that aren’t open to hunting? That seems like having your cake and eating it too. Elk aren’t stupid, sure they will go to the areas of less pressure and that’s often going to be a private ranch. But if a ranch has open access to hunting, those elk won’t stay on it and cause damage anymore than they would on a piece of public.

Now, if a landowner wants no public hunting on their land so that they can hunt it themselves or sell tags/guided hunts on their property, I don’t have any problem with that at all. That makes sense that it would be more valuable if a person has the opportunity to hunt unpressured elk. But, they should use the proceeds of those sales to offset the damages caused by too many elk.

It just seems to me that it would kill two birds here. Lots more public access to hunting, and a lot less $ paid out for elk damages. Win/win.

What am I missing?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

I've hunted the Laramie range a good deal.

I recently attended the TRW meeting in Casper where this elk issue was discussed.

To clarify some things.

1. Landowners do not receive damage claims unless they allow hunting access. That access has to be at a level to remove enough elk to keep the population from growing.

2. Damage is primarily only paid to repair infrastructure loss. Fences, water tanks, etc.

3. Forage/crop damage has to be excessive and is rarely compensated.

4. Over the last decade, statewide elk damage has totalled anywhere from $150,000-a high of $356,000 a year.

Also the large, mostly absentee landowners that harbor elk are not receiving damage claims. They don't mind having a few thousand elk on their property.

Those suffering legitimate damage are their smaller neighbors that rely on livestock to make a living. They do all they can to reduce elk, allow hunting, and also receive damage claim funds (rightfully so).

The problem is, the elk are only accessible on those places part of the year, often times the most damage occurs when hunting isn't allowed. Plus elk on smaller properties only tolerate so much pressure before they no longer are available to hunters.

I'm working with the commission to try to come up with some ways to keep elk more accessible to hunters. We have some ideas that are worth looking at with license changes, improvements to hma program, etc.

 

[Bighorner]

I've hunted the Laramie range a good deal.

I recently attended the TRW meeting in Casper where this elk issue was discussed.

To clarify some things.

1. Landowners do not receive damage claims unless they allow hunting access. That access has to be at a level to remove enough elk to keep the population from growing.

2. Damage is primarily only paid to repair infrastructure loss. Fences, water tanks, etc.

3. Forage/crop damage has to be excessive and is rarely compensated.

4. Over the last decade, statewide elk damage has totalled anywhere from $150,000-a high of $356,000 a year.

Also the large, mostly absentee landowners that harbor elk are not receiving damage claims. They don't mind having a few thousand elk on their property.

Those suffering legitimate damage are their smaller neighbors that rely on livestock to make a living. They do all they can to reduce elk, allow hunting, and also receive damage claim funds (rightfully so).

The problem is, the elk are only accessible on those places part of the year, often times the most damage occurs when hunting isn't allowed. Plus elk on smaller properties only tolerate so much pressure before they no longer are available to hunters.

I'm working with the commission to try to come up with some ways to keep elk more accessible to hunters. We have some ideas that are worth looking at with license changes, improvements to hma program, etc.

I appreciate your time with the commission and assume it is in good faith.

It seems you have always been against transferable tags and I hope you continue down that road. It seems a private lland reduced price elk tag is a good way to put one if not two tags in the hands of folks to want to hunt private land elk and still keep the tag allocation a public mater at rates set by the state rather than the private market.

I also think there are good things happening at the walk in level and some things that can be improved, but I truly believe there is good existing frame work to move the ball forward.

 

[jimh406]

Weird that WY hunters are doing what some accuse MT landowners of doing. That is, hazing the Elk that are on public that makes them go onto the private land. Could it be that private landowners in MT aren't actually the cause of the Elk moving to the private land, and it is the hunters who complain?

In MT, some landowners welcome the Elk and are profiting off of it. In WY, it seems like some just want to complain about too many Elk during hunting season. I suggest that WY landowners develop other activities that prevent the Elk from being comfortable. Hunting would be preferable for hunters obviously. But, there are other possibilities. For instance, hire people to drive/ride back and forth to haze them back to public during hunting season. Or, set aside areas for Elk instead of letting the Elk choose where they want to go.

I'd say fencing, but I've seen even high fences busted by Elk. I'm assuming thousands of acres and miles of fences, so that probably won't work.

 

[BuzzH]

I appreciate your time with the commission and assume it is in good faith.

It seems you have always been against transferable tags and I hope you continue down that road. It seems a private lland reduced price elk tag is a good way to put one if not two tags in the hands of folks to want to hunt private land elk and still keep the tag allocation a public mater at rates set by the state rather than the private market.

I also think there are good things happening at the walk in level and some things that can be improved, but I truly believe there is good existing frame work to move the ball forward.

No transferable tags in anything I've talked about with the commission.

The task force has turned into a disaster.

 

[HOT ROD]

The task force is the gift that keeps giving and not in a good way either jmo....