Montana elk hunting is about to take a dive

[Deadfall]

Where are the bill amendments? The website said they were available 3/11 but I can't seem to find them. Anyone....

No idea. I can't find them either

 

[Deadfall]

Well that is disappointing. They put the ridicuolous 5 bonus point in there to get people focused on it and then amend it to 1 so they can say "we listened to everyone's concern" and amended the bill. This is childish politics from FWP. This bill simply needs to be tabled at this point.

I hope we had enough people raise concern???

God willin

 

[finner]

No. From conversations with two R's on the committee this week, it sounds like there isn't enough opposition on the committee to kill it. They'll amend it down so they can say they listened to sportsmen, then ram it through.

Pretty tough for the likes of us to compete with the governor and the speaker of the house. If they want this passed, it will pass and there's not a thing MT hunters can do about it.

 

[Deadfall]

No. From conversations with two R's on the committee this week, it sounds like there isn't enough opposition on the committee to kill it. They'll amend it down so they can say they listened to sportsmen, then ram it through.

Pretty tough for the likes of us to compete with the governor and the speaker of the house. If they want this passed, it will pass and there's not a thing MT hunters can do about it.

Can't be the speaker if he isn't in office. Hopefully everyone remembers this come election time.

 

[netman]

Dang that is a handy link to send emails. It only takes a minute. Please help us out to stop this nonsense.

To sweeten the pot I will share Montana hunting advice in exchange for a few minutes of your time to email these legislators. Just pm me when you are done.

Sent my letter! Glad to be of service. Let me know if anything else I can do.
Randy

 

[Legend]

No idea. I can't find them either

Finner found it for us:

https://leg.mt.gov/bills/2021/AmdPublicWeb/HB0505.001.001.pdf

 

[dreamingbig]

I called today and left a message for FWP committee as opposed to the bill. Took about 1.5 minutes. Hope it helps!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[mattgraf]

Wylie Galt's latest outfitting scheme, House Bill 505, will give landowners 10 tags each to sell to nonresidents if they own a section or more, in addition to the 17k nonresident elk combo licenses statewide. Also, if hunters commit to shoot a cow on private for one year, they'll get 5 bonus points as a reward, for a total of six per year. That's for residents or nonresidents.

Basically, this bill will bump up hunting pressure to unprecedented levels, incentivize landowners to keep elk on their lands year round, and explode point creep. Wylie Galt is a member of the second-largest landowner family in the state, and also runs an outfitting business in Central MT.

This is the worst bill introduced this session, and it will pass if MT hunters don't get real angry, real quick.

Here's an editorial on the bill: https://missoulian.com/opinion/colu...2oQ831Z_fHbL1jeCZR93dAnIiJTHP8_HLpqNbOSKX8spU

This goes to committee on Tuesday, 3/9. The House switchboard is (406) 444-4800. Legislators are on break during the next few days, but you can also look up their district phone numbers and give them a call there.

Frustrating to see

 

[grizz_bait]

Thank Greg Gianforte and his republican cronies for this bill.

 

[Legend]

Thank Greg Gianforte and his republican cronies for this bill.

I can tell you after seeing this S*** show in the legislature I am going to be pulling for a balance of power (voting in some democrats to house and senate). You can't let someone like Gianforte own the whole thing. I am a republican but these are not republican ideas, they are simply ideas for the wealthy buddies of Gianforte.

 

[charvey9]

Admittedly, I've been following this bill from the fringes for a few weeks.

One thing I'm not sure about, does each landowner get 10 tags per section the own....or just 10 tags total if they own more than 640 acres? There is a big difference.

Although I've never taken advantage of an LOP tag, I have lived and hunted in many states that do. I'm surprised no one from one of those states has chimed in with their experience. I personally never saw an impact when living in Oregon. I hunted on public land, and always found elk. I know several outfitters that operate on LOP tags, yet never saw that as taking away from my opportunity on public.

I'm not sure why there is the growing wave in the mainstream that demonizes private lands conservation. Well, yes I do, its because there is something to be gained from getting people riled up on either side. Of course, no matter what he situation is SOME people (landowners) will find a way to take advantage of any system, yet most I know and have worked with care as much about wildlife as anyone on this forum.

I've often recognized how hunters get tunnel vision about where the elk, deer, etc. are during their respective seasons, yet fail acknowledge the 365 day cycle wildlife need to survive. Elk don't have winter range in the mountains, they are in our valleys and often on private land at the expense of those landowners.

I've always viewed the positive side of LOP tags, since it does incentivize landowners to provide quality wildlife habitat...not just for deer and elk, but dozens (if not hundreds) of non-game species. Habitat is always the limiting factor, and better habitat equals more wildlife on public and private lands. Incentivizing habitat is the key behind some of the nations most successful conservation programs, like CRP.

I'm not saying this bill is good. I don't know how the numbers where proposed for 10 tags per section. I haven't wrapped my mind around the proposed point system changes, and do not see the benefit. The bill would likely decrease participation in our 23 million acre block management program, yet I feel like many owners who don't want to be in that program have already leased out their land.

I'm am saying that incentivizing landowners to provide wildlife habitat is a good thing. More conservation dollars coming to the state that can help pay for wildlife management, access projects, and opportunities are a good thing. Weigh it all out, the issue is far from black and white....or red vs. blue.

 

[Mt Al]

I'm am saying that incentivizing landowners to provide wildlife habitat is a good thing.

Agreed. I don't belong to a party but its sad/predictable that the R's would either cave to, or make it look like they're caving to, land owners and guides at the expense of other hunters. Like all things R, their PR sucks vigorously and that's part of the game, like it or not. I have no beef with either land owners or guides and private land owners support a pile of wildlife that spills onto public and publicly accessible land.

As above, none of this is based on conservative or republican ideals, it's more socialist/taking care of your donor base.

Hope the Rs don't totally screw up the land board.

 

[S.Clancy]

FYI, an article by Andrew McKean addressing issues with the North American Model and private land.

Elk Management in Montana Shows the Blind Spots of Our North American Model of Wildlife Conservation

Montana has an elk problem. We have too few of them in the right places, public land where hunters can pursue them with an over-the-counter tag for our full 5-week rifle season. And we have too many elk in the wrong places, large private ranches where public hunting is generally not allowed.

www.outdoorlife.com

I agree with him that we need some sort of incentives system for elk management. In my view, this bill does not adequately address it. It's too easy for the commission to change objectives to fit what they want.

Instead, I would like to see a system where landowners that allow a certain harvest of elk by the public be eligible for tags. It still makes me a little sick to think about, but at least there are positive incentives for both sides in that case. Flame away

 

[Schaaf]

@charvey9 it is 10 landowner sponsorship spots to a landowner. Not 10 spots/640 acres.

Now there are no side boards in this bill to fix the issue that some ranches are held in multiple LLC’s allowing them to get 10 landowner sponsored tags per LLC or if a landowner split their ranch per family member.

 

[mtguy]

@charvey9 it is 10 landowner sponsorship spots to a landowner. Not 10 spots/640 acres.

Now there are no side boards in this bill to fix the issue that some ranches are held in multiple LLC’s allowing them to get 10 landowner sponsored tags per LLC or if a landowner split their ranch per family member.

If it was only 10 per ranch, it would still be a horrible bill. But as it stands a family ranch, split multiple ways (son owns 640, daughter owns 640, LLC owns 640, dad owns 640) could end up with 40 tags, and they can move the goal post on objective numbers as they please. Get your voice out and be heard.

 

[jjohnsonElknewbie]

I'm am saying that incentivizing landowners to provide wildlife habitat is a good thing. More conservation dollars coming to the state that can help pay for wildlife management, access projects, and opportunities are a good thing. Weigh it all out, the issue is far from black and white....or red vs. blue.

Coming from Iowa where private land makes up 97.2% of the acres, I couldn't agree more with this statement. Incentivizing landowners in Iowa to provide public access also reduces the temptation for landowners to lease whitetail and pheasant hunting acres out to wealthy resident and NR hunters. How do ya'll think the Drury's, Jordan's, and other well connected and sponsored "professional" hunters got a foot hold in southern, IA? I've always wondered the same about how they got established in the Milk River area of MT.

I am coming to MT for my first elk hunt in September. I have 2 daughters that I would love to take out West when they're a little older. As a result, seeing bills that seek to limit NR access puts guys like me in an awkward position.

 

[finner]

Admittedly, I've been following this bill from the fringes for a few weeks.

One thing I'm not sure about, does each landowner get 10 tags per section the own....or just 10 tags total if they own more than 640 acres? There is a big difference.

Although I've never taken advantage of an LOP tag, I have lived and hunted in many states that do. I'm surprised no one from one of those states has chimed in with their experience. I personally never saw an impact when living in Oregon. I hunted on public land, and always found elk. I know several outfitters that operate on LOP tags, yet never saw that as taking away from my opportunity on public.

I'm not sure why there is the growing wave in the mainstream that demonizes private lands conservation. Well, yes I do, its because there is something to be gained from getting people riled up on either side. Of course, no matter what he situation is SOME people (landowners) will find a way to take advantage of any system, yet most I know and have worked with care as much about wildlife as anyone on this forum.

I've often recognized how hunters get tunnel vision about where the elk, deer, etc. are during their respective seasons, yet fail acknowledge the 365 day cycle wildlife need to survive. Elk don't have winter range in the mountains, they are in our valleys and often on private land at the expense of those landowners.

I've always viewed the positive side of LOP tags, since it does incentivize landowners to provide quality wildlife habitat...not just for deer and elk, but dozens (if not hundreds) of non-game species. Habitat is always the limiting factor, and better habitat equals more wildlife on public and private lands. Incentivizing habitat is the key behind some of the nations most successful conservation programs, like CRP.

I'm not saying this bill is good. I don't know how the numbers where proposed for 10 tags per section. I haven't wrapped my mind around the proposed point system changes, and do not see the benefit. The bill would likely decrease participation in our 23 million acre block management program, yet I feel like many owners who don't want to be in that program have already leased out their land.

I'm am saying that incentivizing landowners to provide wildlife habitat is a good thing. More conservation dollars coming to the state that can help pay for wildlife management, access projects, and opportunities are a good thing. Weigh it all out, the issue is far from black and white....or red vs. blue.

I absolutely agree with you that hunters, especially in Montana, tend to ignore the value of private lands as part of landscape ecology. Hell, my family owns a fair amount of land in Central Montana that is chock full of elk, and we do our best to make sure the habitat can sustain as many head as possible while still keeping cattle on during the summer. The problem with this bill is that it is entirely divorced from science, reason, and basic standards of due process for wildlife regulation. There is not a unit in the state that could handle the amount of pressure that 10 extra tags per landowner would result in and remain at objective. Plain and simple, this is about maximizing the profitability of elk herds in Montana for landowners, with no regard for the effect that this would have on public land elk herds. Just about everywhere I hunt in MT, the elk range between private and public frequently.

Two of the guys who testified in support of this last week have been known to herd elk off public onto their lands. Galt even has a slash pile fence built on his ranch to keep elk off the public. If this bill passes, we're going to see more of this kind of behavior, because it will be more profitable.

Yeah, there are issues with elk and crops in parts of Montana. However, we do have tools to manage that with shoulder seasons, the hunt roster, etc. Why aren't these reps talking about using those tools or making them better? Why do they feel compelled to reinvent the wheel? The answer is pretty clear: there's a lot more money to be made going this direction.

 

[brocksw]

I absolutely agree with you that hunters, especially in Montana, tend to ignore the value of private lands as part of landscape ecology. Hell, my family owns a fair amount of land in Central Montana that is chock full of elk, and we do our best to make sure the habitat can sustain as many head as possible while still keeping cattle on during the summer. The problem with this bill is that it is entirely divorced from science, reason, and basic standards of due process for wildlife regulation. There is not a unit in the state that could handle the amount of pressure that 10 extra tags per landowner would result in and remain at objective. Plain and simple, this is about maximizing the profitability of elk herds in Montana for landowners, with no regard for the effect that this would have on public land elk herds. Just about everywhere I hunt in MT, the elk range between private and public frequently.

Two of the guys who testified in support of this last week have been known to herd elk off public onto their lands. Galt even has a slash pile fence built on his ranch to keep elk off the public. If this bill passes, we're going to see more of this kind of behavior, because it will be more profitable.

Yeah, there are issues with elk and crops in parts of Montana. However, we do have tools to manage that with shoulder seasons, the hunt roster, etc. Why aren't these reps talking about using those tools or making them better? Why do they feel compelled to reinvent the wheel? The answer is pretty clear: there's a lot more money to be made going this direction.

You make some good points. But, I think it's also important to remember that the wildlife was living off that land before it was bought and farmed/ranched. 60 million Bison and 10 million elk didn't exist in a vacuum of space and time, the conditions that meant good ranching and farming meant they were already good for bison, elk, mule deer, etc....

Ranchers and farmers went into that deal perfectly happy to share the land and its resources with wildlife. Now, that's not saying "tough shit" to landowners, there is absolutely a balance we need to find and absolutely hunters need to remember there is a cost associated with an elk herd eating a ranchers hay. But, ranchers also need to remember the elk and bison were fine before they started bailing up their hay, in fact there were more elk and more bison across the country before it became the USA than there is now by a long shot. So, ranchers also shouldn't have some self inflated value in this system either.

 

[jjohnsonElknewbie]

Yeah, there are issues with elk and crops in parts of Montana. However, we do have tools to manage that with shoulder seasons, the hunt roster, etc. Why aren't these reps talking about using those tools or making them better? Why do they feel compelled to reinvent the wheel? The answer is pretty clear: there's a lot more money to be made going this direction.

Between tags and outfitter fees, I'm paying several thousand dollars for our NR Sept. hunt. As a result, I understand the profit side of this.

However, the big ranchers didn't get that way by being stupid, and I don't think they would be so short-sighted to decimate herds for short term gain. If this bill passes, they would have the most to lose if the elk herd was negatively impacted by overharvest. Moreover, their habitat improvements would benefit the herd and hunting for all hunters as these are animals that travel extensively.

As a NR hunter that plans to return in the future, can a resident hunter, private land or public DIY, help me understand the discrete disadvantages of this bill for NR?

 

[finner]

Between tags and outfitter fees, I'm paying several thousand dollars for our NR Sept. hunt. As a result, I understand the profit side of this.

However, the big ranchers didn't get that way by being stupid, and I don't think they would be so short-sighted to decimate herds for short term gain. If this bill passes, they would have the most to lose if the elk herd was negatively impacted by overharvest. Moreover, their habitat improvements would benefit the herd and hunting for all hunters as these are animals that travel extensively.

As a NR hunter that plans to return in the future, can a resident hunter, private land or public DIY, help me understand the discrete disadvantages of this bill for NR?

K