Montana Legislation Continues Cocaine-Fueled Trip

[NDGuy]

Like that will happen if the herding with choppers is true this would be nothing to use them on others property.

Yep hence my sarcastic post.

 

[Deadfall]

Like that will happen if the herding with choppers is true this would be nothing to use them on others property.

Is true. I've seen other places use planes

 

[Heath Hansen]

The way the bill is currently written they would have to be used on their own land....that actually happening 100% of the time however is another story lol

View attachment 265473

Not true. It says farther down in the bill that they could be used unit wide if the commission approves.

 

[mlgc20]

10 tags for 640 acres seems like a lot. 640 acres really isn’t that much land.

 

[NDGuy]

Not true. It says farther down in the bill that they could be used unit wide if the commission approves.

Thanks for pointing that out Heath yikes!

 

[Deadfall]

Galt has even said that elk need to be pushed around some.

 

[grizz_bait]

I hope everyone that voted for Gianforte is kicking themselves in the balls over this. What else does Jersey Greg have in store?

 

[finner]

Hearing was postponed until next week. Someone needs to tell these short bus biologists what one early winter and 10 freebie tags per section would do to a herd at objective

 

[Trumpkin The Dwarf]

So to be clear I think legislating this stuff is bad. Fwp biologists should be making elk plans, not state legislatures. I agree with you all that this bill is horrible for that reason.

That said, we do have a problem in Montana where elk are WAY over objective in certain areas and they are causing problems. In most of these units the elk hang out primarily on private ground. You can say access is the problem if you want, but what's your solution? Not sure of any way other than forcing private land owners to open their land to the public which is obviously not going to happen.

I think something like adding landowner tags to help bring down elk numbers in units with over objective populations makes some sense a long as is being driven by fwp.

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

I have a solution to private land elk. Stop subsidizing ANY wildlife damages. Grizzly bear eats your cow? Sorry, you're SOL. Elk eating your hay fields? Tough shit. People will find ways to keep the elk off their hay fields.

 

[dieselchessy]

Landowner tags just incentivize landowners to work harder to keep elk on their lands.
That could be good if it’s tied to access programs and habitat programs.
This bill doesn’t look to do any of that.

 

[cgasner1]

This entire state is going to hell that became apparent the way they structured the shoulder hunts if they wanted to do a program like that it should of only been valid on ranches that do bma so that ranches like galt can’t harbor them for clients then complain after general that the elk are destroying their property


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[deerhunt1988]

Not to mention the part that would grant a hunter 5 bonus points for elk if they elected to only hunt cows for one year.

I thought you were kidding, and then read the bill. What the f.......

 

[finner]

Big picture, these picklepuffers are trying to make having elk on your land way more profitable, at the cost of MT hunters. Look at the shoulder season extension in 580, which was pushed forward by the same outfitter who has shut down access to public land on the east side Crazies. Obviously the herd will be over "objective" (laughable that people still think that's based in science) if they have thousands of acres of public land with no hunting pressure to live in all year.

Now, they can make an extra 40 grand per year, per section from Texans tourists who want to shoot a pregnant cow with their PRC. Take away limited draws, and that business model applies everywhere in the state. Expand the fish and wildlife commission to 7 and require that the majority be ag-producing landowners? Fat chance of actual hunters getting a seat at the table to say that hunting elk for six months out of the year might hurt elk populations and our perception among non hunters. Good thing Montana voters have the memory span of a fruit fly.

 

[KurtR]

I have a solution to private land elk. Stop subsidizing ANY wildlife damages. Grizzly bear eats your cow? Sorry, you're SOL. Elk eating your hay fields? Tough shit. People will find ways to keep the elk off their hay fields.

ya they will shoot them in the guts to run off and die. While there are some a hole land owners not the majority and with out the private land wildlife would be in a world of hurt. So i dont think screwing all of them would work out in the end for any one

 

[NDGuy]

ya they will shoot them in the guts to run off and die. While there are some a hole land owners not the majority and with out the private land wildlife would be in a world of hurt. So i dont think screwing all of them would work out in the end for any one

The minority (the biggest) are the ones driving these bills.

The majority needs to step up, show up in force, and not support these.

 

[NDGuy]

Stolen from another forum:

"The bill does not specify that it's only the sponsor's deeded land, but that the commission, which is currently getting stacked with outfitters & anti-access advocates, can decide that the tags can be used anywhere in the district, if they decide. So that means 380, 410, 441, etc could all be district wide tags if the commission decides it to be.

There is also no prohibition on selling the license, which means the landowner can get someone sponsored, charge them a large fee for the sponsorship, and then get the commission to allow that license to be used anywhere in the district, which means the outfitter/landowner can then use that license across the whole district, and not on the sponsoring landowner's land.

What isn't in the bill is just as important as what is in it. This is an extreme makeover of how MT issues licenses. It's pretty easy to abuse this and ensure places like White Sulphur Springs will always be over objective, which would be fine if the Galt's can make even more money off of harboring elk & hassling hunters."

 

[BuzzH]

ya they will shoot them in the guts to run off and die. While there are some a hole land owners not the majority and with out the private land wildlife would be in a world of hurt. So i dont think screwing all of them would work out in the end for any one

Look, there's already abundant opportunity and avenues for any landowner in Montana to deal with their elk "problems".

Enough bending over every time a landowner has a complaint and runs to the legislature to fix their specific problem.

There's 11 weeks of general hunting, archery and rifle, shoulder seasons that run from August 15-February 15, damage claims, leasing to outfitters, leasing to individuals, trespass fees, to name just a few avenues to decrease elk numbers and/or be compensated for elk damage.'

If a landowner can't work within the current framework, then THEY'RE the problem, not the State, not the hunters, and not the elk.

Enough is enough...I'm over it.

 

[KurtR]

Look, there's already abundant opportunity and avenues for any landowner in Montana to deal with their elk "problems".

Enough bending over every time a landowner has a complaint and runs to the legislature to fix their specific problem.

There's 11 weeks of general hunting, archery and rifle, shoulder seasons that run from August 15-February 15, damage claims, leasing to outfitters, leasing to individuals, trespass fees, to name just a few avenues to decrease elk numbers and/or be compensated for elk damage.'

If a landowner can't work within the current framework, then THEY'RE the problem, not the State, not the hunters, and not the elk.

Enough is enough...I'm over it.

exactly but taking all that away is what was said that wont help any thing

 

[jmav58]

Look, there's already abundant opportunity and avenues for any landowner in Montana to deal with their elk "problems".

Enough bending over every time a landowner has a complaint and runs to the legislature to fix their specific problem.

There's 11 weeks of general hunting, archery and rifle, shoulder seasons that run from August 15-February 15, damage claims, leasing to outfitters, leasing to individuals, trespass fees, to name just a few avenues to decrease elk numbers and/or be compensated for elk damage.'

If a landowner can't work within the current framework, then THEY'RE the problem, not the State, not the hunters, and not the elk.

Enough is enough...I'm over it.

THIS. .I live in one of those areas where there are shoulder tags that start in August and run through February, so landowners have plenty of opportunity to allow residents and nonresidents alike to go on their land and take a cow.

 

[BuzzH]

exactly but taking all that away is what was said that wont help any thing

My point is, if they want to continue with the whining , dumb ideas, and feathering their nests every legislative session... then I say solve their elk problem with government hunters and helicopters.

Bulls die first so they cant make a profit from them, then kill the rest until their elk "problem" is solved.

They wont have to complain anymore if the elk are gone. If they dont like that idea then work within the current framework. They can choose to stop with the Ranching for Wildlife, feudalistic, new way to make money off elk approach they take every legislative session...or I say get out the helo's and gov hunters.