Montana elk hunting is about to take a dive

[finner]

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.

I don't disagree, but you won't get very far in this state with that line of argument. I know some ranchers who take a big hit every year because of elk, and I've got sympathy for them. I also feel for the elk, who have pretty marginal browse and winter range in a lot of places because of cattle and development. Not gonna blame them for heading straight for alfalfa and haystacks. However, as McKean brings up, there's a way for ranchers and hunters to find common ground. We've done it in the past— see the initial conversation around shoulder seasons. This bill wrecks that history of collaboration and compromise.

That guy would have made a great commissioner. Shame the legislature wants to put party politics above all else.

 

[jjohnsonElknewbie]

K

?

 

[brocksw]

I don't disagree, but you won't get very far in this state with that line of argument. I know some ranchers who take a big hit every year because of elk, and I've got sympathy for them. I also feel for the elk, who have pretty marginal browse and winter range in a lot of places because of cattle and development. Not gonna blame them for heading straight for alfalfa and haystacks. However, as McKean brings up, there's a way for ranchers and hunters to find common ground. We've done it in the past— see the initial conversation around shoulder seasons. This bill wrecks that history of collaboration and compromise.

That guy would have made a great commissioner. Shame the legislature wants to put party politics above all else.

Maybe not, but that might be part of the problem. There's the idealistic approach and the pragmatic one. The problem is the pragmatic one is skewing further to privatization and monetization. Hence where we stand today.

Fyi, for perspective, It's estimated we have a million elk in the country today.

 

[finner]

Maybe not, but that might be part of the problem. There's the idealistic approach and the pragmatic one. The problem is the pragmatic one is skewing further to privatization and monetization. Hence where we stand today.

Fyi, for perspective, It's estimated we have a million elk in the country today.

Yeah, see PERC's argument at the North American Conference this year that we have to reform the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation to better serve landowners.

Our whole conversation around elk management in Montana is based on a lie: units at objective represent what the landscape can hold without adverse ecological impacts. People talk about elk objectives like they're gospel, when the fact is they're pretty much arbitrary. The idea that these "at objective" units can support additional hunting pressure and still hold good quality hunting opportunities for the public is ridiculous.

It's pretty depressing to talk to old fellas like my grandfather and other seniors who taught me how to hunt elk and realize just how far we've fallen in the last few decades. This bill is another nail in the coffin of public elk hunting in Montana.

 

[Deadfall]

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.

Yes 10 tags per landowner. The guy sponsoring this bill uses helicopters to push elk from public land to his ranch. He's not the only one. What would 10 more tags do.

Agree its not black and white.

There's a ranch by a game range that used to get bull tags. It was a drawing, every year the trespass few went up. Finally tags went away because of price and other issues.

Take this bill, add what 143 was trying to do. Plus the bill trying to put 4 landowners on a fwp commission that only has 7 seats. You can easily see the trend

 

[Deadfall]

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.

Bma incentives them as well

 

[Deadfall]

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.

Also keep in mind the guy sponsoring this thing tried it a couole years ago. So, he knows very well how the system works. And went outvof his way to bypass it and push this through. Thsyx why he wrote the bill and introduced it. Only using fwp for ideas. Because he new that if fwp introduced this bill (which is where it should come ftom) that FWP would have to hold public hearings on it. The author new that would fail.

This bill is a pile of feces that's born from lies and greed. Trying to sell it ad conservation is slap in face to everyone

 

[finner]

The House FWP committee will vote on this today or Thursday. There's a chance that this bill will die if hunters keep the pressure on. If you live in a district represented by one of the following reps, please call (don't email) and let them know that you won't support them if they support this bill.

Paul Fielder: (406) 210-5943

Jedediah Hinkle: 406 992-0703

Seth Berglee: 406 690-9329

Ross Fitzgerald: 406 467-2032
406 788-1443

Brian Putnam: 406 233-9463

Neil Duram: 406 471-2356

Linda Reksten: 406 471-8359
406 883-4454

Denley Loge: 406 649-2368
406 544-5220

 

[Deadfall]

Well hopefully enough folks chimed in to make a difference. Then maybe we can start having proper and real conversations going forward.

Who knowd

 

[Legend]

Anyone know if they took action on this bill today? I joined the meeting too late.

 

[finner]

Anyone know if they took action on this bill today? I joined the meeting too late.

Thursday. Still time to get people to make calls

 

[Legend]

It's not too late. It takes 15 minutes to call and tell them an FWP bill should come through the appropriate process.​

Phalen, Bob (R)	[email protected]	(406) 939-1187	Lindsey
Mitchell, Braxton (R)	[email protected]	(406) 200-8384	Columbia Falls
Putnam, Brian (R)	[email protected]	(406) 233-9463	Kalispell
Loge, Denley (R)	[email protected]	(406) 649-2368	St Regis
Hinkle, Jedediah (R)	[email protected]	(406) 992-0703	Belgrade
Seekins‑Crowe, Kerri (R)	[email protected]	(406) 208-6587	Billings
Duram, Neil (R)	[email protected]	(406) 471-2356	Eureka
Fielder, Paul (R)	[email protected]	(406) 210-5943	Thonpson Falls
Reksten, Linda (R)	[email protected]	(406) 471-8359	Polson
Knudsen, Rhonda (R)	[email protected]	(406) 489-5253	Culbertson
Fitzgerald, Ross (R)	[email protected]	(406) 788-1443	Fairfield
Berglee, Seth (R)	[email protected]	(406) 690-9329	Joliet

 

[Chesapeake173]

A lot of this reminds me of Michigan deer. Farmers get hit by deer in their crops all summer long. It hurts their bottom line I have no doubt. DNR issues crop damage permits and the farmers shoot them all summer , sometimes at night. Ok, fine I guess.

Come October try knocking on a door to get permission to hunt. Good luck. I can also assure you that not too many antlerless deer get shot during regular season as they all hold out for big bucks. IMO if they get crop damage in the summer they should be made to allow some public access to kill the extra antlerless deer.

Not exactly the same but similar.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[jjohnsonElknewbie]

A lot of this reminds me of Michigan deer. Farmers get hit by deer in their crops all summer long. It hurts their bottom line I have no doubt. DNR issues crop damage permits and the farmers shoot them all summer , sometimes at night. Ok, fine I guess.

Come October try knocking on a door to get permission to hunt. Good luck. I can also assure you that not too many antlerless deer get shot during regular season as they all hold out for big bucks. IMO if they get crop damage in the summer they should be made to allow some public access to kill the extra antlerless deer.

Not exactly the same but similar.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That is really interesting about Michigan's deer predation program. In Iowa, farmers can get predation tags, but the DNR comes out to their place to survey the damage and calculate how many tags would be appropriate to better manage the herd. Predation tags are also doe-only, not any sex, and the deer can only be taken during regular seasons, not spring or summer. I also don't think that predation tags count against the overall county antlerless quotas.

After sleeping on this thread, here are my thoughts as an uneducated NR.

If MT has a static number of R and NR elk tags every season, allocation of those tags should come on a first come first serve basis within the current points system, without special allocations to any special interest group- outiffters, land owners, etc...

If ranchers have predation problems, the DNR should come out and perform an assessment and issue species-specific tags appropriately (are elk, deer, or antelope responsible for x% of the loss?). Back in the 80s my Dad antelope hunted near Lusk, WY, and the ranchers hated antelope. Apparently they kept the alfalfa mowed down and munched on the bales whenever they could. Predation tags should be issued IN ADDITION TO the overall static tags and should not reduce tags/opportunities for R and NR hunters.

 

[grizz_bait]

House FWP committee: 406-444-4800. Call this number and put in a NO vote for HB 505. Super easy.

 

[Legend]

House FWP committee: 406-444-4800. Call this number and put in a NO vote for HB 505. Super easy.

I just called and it is super easy. 444-4800....let them know your position!

 

[jjohnsonElknewbie]

I just called and it is super easy. 444-4800....let them know your position!

Done.

 

[Deadfall]

Hopefully everyone calls. Who knows

 

[EJFS]

Private land owners play an important part in conservation, the problem is they want to have their cake and eat it too. Graze your livestock on public land at subsidized rates then want to get paid when wildlife gets pushed onto private, get landowner tags valid for the entire unit that you can sell to the highest bidder, block off access to huge chunks of public land, etc. If you get to put cows on public land you should have to allow easements for the public to access landlocked areas, land owner tags should be valid for that property only IMO.

 

[Deadfall]

Giving the general public a chance to brainstorm ideas would be a good starting point. Would take some time and lots of public hearings, at least everyone would feel involved. I know communication sure goes along way in the rest of my life. Not sure why it wouldn't work here.

If everyone is worried about revenue why not change the amount of fines. Base it off a percentage of annual income. trespassing a set percentage, hazing with aircraft, poaching, hunting without a license, waste of game. Basing off a percentage levels the playing field across the board.

10,000 bucks for hazing isn't much for people who make millions a year. Even though it is to someone like me. 40 percent sure is a deterrent. Same for poaching or trespassing. Have some kind of stipulation for first offense, second and so on.

If landowners want tags I completely understand that. Some places there should be tags. I have no problem with landowners having tags. Let it be a draw, and make it illegal for landowners to charge any kind of fee. If hunters violate the private land, make the penalty severe. Also make sure the landowners can't violate the hunters, as that penalty should be severe. Put the extra 300 bucks on these tags and send that money into the BMA fund.

Put more money into BMA and pay landowners who participate in BMA more money. If they don't want to participate in BMA that's their right.

BMA seems to work for Sieben, hutterites and many others.

All outfitters should have to be licensed through state whether on public or private. Let outfitters that work on private land pay fees just like the public land guys do. Throw that money into the pot.

All said and done maybe game wardens could even have a raise as they have one of the most thankless jobs there is.

Whatever happens it needs to be public generated and conservation based. Not this back room whispering nonsense.