Alternatives for public elk hunting access

[Big Fin]

In my only post on the thread that provided comment about the Montana Master Hunter program, I said I would start this new thread, so as to not to divert and pollute the other thread at this link - https://www.hunttalk.com/threads/discuss-master-hunter-programs-here.294277/page-4#post-2915308

A bit of repeat to my comment on that thread.

The Montana program, as I am familiar with it, was designed to open access to otherwise closed properties of landowners who wanted hunting, but had bad experiences with the chaos of Block Management and also did not want to go the outfitted route. It was a project put together between landowners who want more alternatives than BMA or leasing. It is also my understanding that landowners' concerns of BMA program and/or open public hunting is that too many of the hunters that were showing up at their doorstep were inclined to behave in a way that is not good for hunting.

Unlike most other states' advanced/master hunter programs, this Montana program is not operated by the state. If I understand correctly, that was due to the landowners not wanting it to be a state-run program. Given the benefit to hunters is access to quality properties and such access is obtained from the landowners, it seems logical why this is not a state-operated program if the landowners don't want that.

So, the term "Master" set aside for this discussion, I'd be interested to know what alternatives folks see as workable. Rather than pollute this thread with a diversion, I will start a new thread, "Alternatives for public elk hunting access" and I hope those who have provided comments here would chime in and give some thought to what solutions are practical and possible.

Easy to hammer those who are trying different ways to solve this problem of inaccessible lands/elk, a problem only getting worse and likely to be the main complication to wildlife management twenty years from now. What is harder, much harder than hammering on Hunt Talk over your morning coffee, is to stick your neck out and try to solve problems when you know there are no perfect solutions and the likelihood of criticism is high.

Given the comments on this forum seem to be pretty negative toward the Montana Master Hunter program that is a cooperative between landowners wanting responsible hunters and a non-profit group, One Montana, what are the suggestions that you have as other alternatives?

What would you do to improve elk access on lands currently closed to hunting, yet with landowners who want hunting on their property without going the outfitter route?

Looking for ideas that are practical and possible to work toward solving a very complicated problem; hunting access to elk on private lands in Montana, given the legislative and political realities. Not interested in more comments about what is wrong with the effort/experiment being discussed over on the other thread.

Ready, Set, Go!

 

[Straight Arrow]

Perhaps the program's hunting access could be expanded if each Master Hunter was referred to several recent Hunter Education graduates and their parents to mentor new hunters and introduce them to hunting through the private land access available through the program.

 

[----]

Allow elk to flourish on public lands, so we don't have to jump through hoops at the whim of landowners to get access to our wildlife.

 

[AvidIndoorsman]

Allow elk to flourish on public lands, so we don't have to jump through hoops at the whim of landowners to get access to our wildlife.

I understand where you are coming from, but geography, how elk respond to hunting pressure, and the realities of ranching is always going to make this an issue. Every western state has this issue and a number of different solutions have been tried.

I've participated in a couple of them...

Block management, I've hunted on Type I and Type II... all my experiences were extremely positive, although I did see some bad behavior from other hunters... so I empathize with landowners.

Roster Hunts, I had a great experience although the other roster hunter I was supposed to connect with ghosted me and the coordinator which was frustrating

Landowner Vouchers, I have used them in CO... I think they work ok, but I don't think you should be allowed to sell them and that they should be private land only
-I'm not sure if these are a great bridge between public hunters and landowners... I think their should be a component of allowing some access on your property


There is definitely abuse on both ends, but in my experience the problems are more on the hunter side than the land owner, again this is based on my limited experiences.

I haven't participated in

Master Hunter programs
Ranching for Wildlife
Shoulder Seasons
Colorado's Walk-in access program

I have gone the knock on door route, honestly I've done well, but it's not a solution for everyone.

 

[onpoint]

Seein' as how you asked...................
During a horrific civil war which tore America apart (sound familiar) on a fresh field of battle Lincoln said "......and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth..."
Given the political and legislative realities, as well as the sad state of Montana's F&W Mgmt agency, and the general Laissez-faire attitude of the overwhelming numbers of Montana's outdoorsfolks - MY OPINION is that nothing (non public driven) will work to fix these problems. Especially, the further erosion of the NAM via the continued commercialization of our F&W resources and the ridiculous rate at which they continue to be more of an industry.
ALL of us are responsible for that latter.
The pollyanna version is us Montana outdoorsfolk (of which there are hundreds of thousands) take the political and legislative reins, as well as the direction of FWP.
If not, The solution will be the industry, commercial enterprise, and everything else the almighty dollar.
And as far as what this very forum you own Randy is (was?) all about, well.......................................
And this stuff so many of us have had (via the work of others before us who didn't have Al Gore's interweb), cherished and fought for will".....perish from Montana"

My neck is plenty sore, maybe I'll stretch it out today on Public Land. with my master hunter dogs, a shotgun, and wild public roosters.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Thanks, @Big Fin for starting this.

Overall, I think we can look at some tweaks to existing programs, which is what has been done over the last few years with the increase in payments to Block Management cooperators, revamping the 454 program (free tags & permits for landowners who allow a specific number of hunters), Habitat Montana easement prioritization, Access Montana (Access easements), and the PAL Act, which is going to take some time to see if it gets used or not.

Many of the solutions that have been offered up lately aren't being utilized very heavily, like the MT PLAN, Tax credits for access, etc.

Overall, the access issue is only a part of the discussion that should be happening though. We're trying to change elk distribution just as much as get access to those elk. With 70% (roughly) of Montana being private property, and a lot of need to improve habitat on public lands while modifying season structures (IMO), I think we can get to a place where we have fewer depredation/harboring issues than currently exist.

Creation of refugia by landowners who don't allow hunting, or who have business interests surrounding hunting, help exacerbate the problem, especially when combined with constant pressure from September to December. But there is little that the state can do to improve access to elk on refugia beyond using the stick of regulation & punitive damages, unless we look at making access programs as profitable as leasing, which I don't think Montanans have the stomach for, and does run counter to the long held beliefs revolving around he public trust, and not turning wildlife into a commodity.

So, for tweaks to existing programs, I'd like to see:

1.) Easier way to negotiate conditions for access under block management. I've heard from multiple landowners that FWP isn't always as flexible as they'd like when it comes to enrolling in the program. There can be a dogmatic approach to the issue, depending on the person who is working on the agreement, and there are likely to be some requests that are far outside the boundaries of what FWP can do, but creating a more flexible system to designing hunting on a property could go a long way towards increasing access.

2.) Initiate rules on Type 2 BMA's that give the agency more discretion in how those hunts are booked. Running this through either a vendor who can have a call center to set up reservations and remove the stigma of friends & family only BMA's would help distribute opportunity a little more equitably. This would require an increase in expenditure by the agency, and that likely would need to be paid for through a new excise tax, or increase in fees somewhere.

3.) Improve habitat on public lands: MT is one of the few states in the RMW that doesn't have a robust habitat management program on public lands. WY and UT in particular do this, and it's been well received as having positive impacts for all species, including those we hunt and fish for. So - Reinvesting in America's Wildlife Act would help with that, but MT needs a state specific fund to create a program like this. The Montana Heritage Project is currently looking at ways to achieve this outcome.

4.) Develop new season structure: Staggering seasons, within the accepted framework of hunting from September to December (And I'm totally fine extending that to end of December in some areas) creates a more dynamic distribution than the current blanket approach. Giving critters larger expanses of land to find refuge as seasons shift means less liklihood of concentration on totally shut down lands. That will still occur, sure, but staggering seasons could help in the distribution of large numbers of elk to areas where they will be accessible within a week or two's time. It's the old concept of pressure on/pressure.

5.) Don't reward bad actors: Currently, we're suffering from the political machinations of groups like UPOM and others who simply want to privatize wildlife. Those folks are the ones who shut down access to public lands, create harboring situations, try to pass legislation that undermines the public trust, etc. We also have legislators who are harboring elk for their own outfitting business, but running legislation that would encourage the most unethical behavior in hunters. But there are no consequences for them in doing so. They continue to build their political power, and like UPOM, find wedge issues like APR to grow their power and influence, which is ultimately geared towards the privitization of wildlife. We need to quit rewarding these electeds with our votes, and we need to hold those groups who would steal what is all of ours with accountable for their actions.

At least those are my thoughts after 1 weak cup of coffee.

 

[Deleted member 18333]

I know currently we are all suppose to hate the elk feedgrounds spread throughout Western Wy but i am a firm believer that feedgrounds are a huge reason why western Wyoming does not have as significant a problem with private land harboring elk as comparable areas of MT, ID and UT have. Rather than abolishing them I would like to see them expanded in WY. Perhaps in a different manner. Not sure that piles of alfalfa pellets on a relatively small section of Nat forest is the right method but manipulation of public land in winter range to make it as attractive to elk as private hay fields could go a long way to help alleviate the problem.

 

[BigHornRam]

Support projects like this that keep working properties working and not subdivided into hundreds of private parcels. Public easements to hunt fish and recreate and to access adjacent National Forest lands.

Everyone likes to bash FWP. Here is an example where they are doing good work. Support it.

County commissioners approached about FWP conservation easement sought for Stimson land | The Montanian

By McKenzie Williams On Wednesday, June 12 the Lincoln County Board of Commissioners met for a regular session at the Lincoln County Courthouse. The major agenda item was a proposed Stimson Lumber land easement that would be held by Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks (FWP). FWP also held a meeting...

montanian.com

 

[Ben Lamb]

Stimson is a pretty good neighbor. That issue also highlights the difference in landowners across the state. What works in R1 or 2 may not work in R6 or 7.

As for feedgrounds, Wyoming enacted those specifically because landowners didn't want elk on their winter pastures, and didn't want to share the feed with native ungulates. Wyoming went down a bad road on that, and repeating that mistake elsewhere won't help on issues like Brucellosis and Chronic Wasting Disease. When you concentrate critters like that, you bring in disease that ends up either causing significant problems in other areas, or could lead to big die-offs. Focusing on the habitat works. Every state that's enacted habitat programs that seek expand winter habitat or protect it have good track records, and they help keep elk out of haystacks while giving them enough room to be wild. I think your idea of expanding the definition of "feedgrounds" to actually mean productive winter habitat is the right way to go from an on-the-ground perspective though. The Wyoming Wildlife & Natural Resource Trust Fund Account could be used to help do that, and with some modifications to statute, could be used to purchase areas for winter ground, although I doubt the Stockgrowers, Energy industry or Legislature will go along with that.

 

[Irrelevant]

I know currently we are all suppose to hate the elk feedgrounds spread throughout Western Wy but i am a firm believer that feedgrounds are a huge reason why western Wyoming does not have as significant a problem with private land harboring elk as comparable areas of MT, ID and UT have. Rather than abolishing them I would like to see them expanded in WY. Perhaps in a different manner. Not sure that piles of alfalfa pellets on a relatively small section of Nat forest is the right method but manipulation of public land in winter range to make it as attractive to elk as private hay fields could go a long way to help alleviate the problem.

I feel like the State could purchase some farm land and lease it for farming, but with certain stipulations that create high quantities of natural forage that remain for the wildlife in the fall and winter. Like the leasee can do two cutting of alfalfa but then has to leave the last cutting for the elk. Or have to cover crop with beets or winter peas. Or hell even just have the state pay someone to farm just for wildlife. You don't need to put out hay pellets to attract them.

 

[Irrelevant]

I've always liked the idea of Private Land only tags, it doesn't directly increase the access to those critters, but it can put added pressure on them to move them back to public.

 

[Schaaf]

Is there any habitat in the West that could support 3 months (6 months now with shoulder seasons) of unlimited hunting and not cause elk to leave the accessible land for private sanctuaries?

I just don't know if I believe that Montana has a habitat problem. I think elk can only pinball their way around land for so long until they finally find a place where they're not being sprayed with bullets. I'd be interested to see what would happen with these problems if Montana went to a season structure more in line with our neighboring states.

 

[Big Fin]

Here are my ideas that would be practical/possible to improve the situation of inaccessible elk (maybe even other game) in Montana. These ideas are based on decades of watching and trying to be involved in efforts, most of which we tossed in the round file. In the years of trying to be part of changes, some sideboards are obvious in Montana.

FWP has no appetite for leading the discussion.

The MT Elk Management Plan is a dinosaur and is not being followed, has not been updated, and given my discussions with FWP Directors, it will not be reopened anytime soon.

Hunt Talkers are not a good cross section of the average Montana hunter, at least in terms of engagement, advocacy, and volunteerism. That higher level of engagement by folks inclined to be on this forum results in a different perspective than those who are casually engaged, though engaged enough to raise hell when anything changes.

Those realites creating sideboards to potential solutions, here are ideas I think would help.

1. Reopen the Elk Management Plan. Complete rewrite from front to back. Opponents know hunters failed to show up 15 years ago when that plan was put in place and they don’t want to give hunters another bite at the apple. Without this change, every possible solution that gets proposed ends up DOA. Given FWP leadership refuses to do this, the legislature would be the next likely place, but they prefer the status quo. That doesn’t leave many options. If FWP has to be sued to force their hand on this, I would be open to that idea, given this is the old document is the crux of progress toward solutions.

2. Get rid of shoulder seasons. FWP pitched as an experiment to relieve legislative pressure, that it would only be in a couple units, and would not expand until a multi-year experiment was conducted and analyzed. Within a couple months, it became a full blow bail out excuse for elk management. Some of who were reluctantly recruited to drop our opposition of such, predicated on those promises, will never again trust FWP or give them cover from the legislature. Shoulder seasons are hammering all elk, not just private land elk. A lot of the migratory elk that come out of the mountains don’t know where the safe ranches are and when they show up on a ranch that is in the shoulder season program, the next morning those migratory elk (that would be public land elk if they survived) are smoked. This is going to take legislative change, a serious uphill challenge, but doable.

3. Get rid of the “one size fits all” approach Montana uses for wildlife management that results in statewide or region-wide management seasons/policies. That might have been OK in 1975, when there were fewer elk, wildlife had less financial value, when landownership was mostly working ranches, and when mule deer seemed impervious to decline. That is not the case in 2020. Every other state with a successful program manages by unit. Data is collected, analysis is done, and seasons are actually adjusted accordingly. This is going to take hunters standing up and demanding change in FWP policy. It will have some critics, as some really like the status quo and some really hate anything that represents change.

4. Rebuild the Block Management Program from the ground up. Many states followed the MT lead when this program started. I have used many programs in other states and they are miles ahead of the MT BMP, even if the MT BMP was the incentive for other states to follow. I would look at how Wyoming does their HMA/WIHA program. They do not use a “one size fits all.” Every ranch has different rules, different seasons, different species. It works to understand the landowners concerns, which in itself is often enough incentive for some landowners. The quality of hunting that WY provides for big game, even something as valued as elk, is impressive. But, they work at it. Their goals are not necessarily how many hunter-days of bird hunting, or how many acres of fallow, or how many landowners they enroll. Their goals are getting as many high-quality big game experiences as possible. And they do it with far fewer dollars than the MT BMP and they do it in large part with donations. This would require hunters to put pressure on FWP. If they resist, it would require legislative action. We are not getting a very good return on the investment in the MT BMP program if compared to most the other programs in western states.

5. Work to enhance habitat on public land and adjust seasons dates/types to allow for more elk to prefer staying on public lands. Currently, the public lands in MT struggle to compete with the habitat quality on private lands. The intense five months (if shoulder seasons are included) of hunting pressure give even less reason for elk to be on public lands when nearby private lands have very limited pressure. Elk are making these decisions based on land management and hunter management currently in place. Until those start trending a different direction, the trends we see will continue. This will require hunters putting pressure on FWP to adjust seasons dates/lengths/types. It will require more active management by public land agencies, both state and Federal. It can be augmented by support of non-profit groups that invest in better habitat.

6. Target problem elk with the greatest possible precision. Take action to remove the elk that are the problem, even if that requires more work and less opportunity. The collateral damage to the non-problem elk is huge when these blanket approaches are used. This requires hunters putting pressure on FWP for better management.

7. Help the landowners who want to be part of the solutions and quit wasting time on landowners who don't want to be part of solutions. We all respect private property rights. If someone doesn't want to participate in programs designed to reduce elk problems, that is their prerogative. Very often, these problems need to be sorted out among neighbors. By FWP interjecting themselves into the discussion or when the legislature forces FWP into the discussion, they are in a no-win situation. Let the landowners sort out among themselves problems caused by different elk tolerances. This requires FWP to quit pandering to everyone who complains about elk. Some complaints are legit and need attention. Others are people wanting to have their cake and eating it too.

Those are my ideas. Probably a lot of blind spots in my logic. All require some sort of change, possibly significant change, and history shows that change comes with a lot of resistance.

 

[Deleted member 18333]

I feel like the State could purchase some farm land and lease it for farming, but with certain stipulations that create high quantities of natural forage that remain for the wildlife in the fall and winter. Like the leasee can do two cutting of alfalfa but then has to leave the last cutting for the elk. Or have to cover crop with beets or winter peas. Or hell even just have the state pay someone to farm just for wildlife. You don't need to put out hay pellets to attract them.

I think this would be a great idea. I think there is potentially even cheaper solutions. For instance, I work at a coal mine that is currently reclaiming land that is at the very south end of the Hoback to Red Desert migration route. So trust me, its desert country. After we are done mining and have regraded and replaced topsoil we plant a native seed mixture that is both grass and shrubs. Obviously the grass thrives first with shrubs taking a significantly longer time to develop, mature and dominate. The resulting reclaimed land looks, for all intents and purposes, like a hay field until the sage and other shrubs can dominate and choke out the grasses. We do no other manipulation to the land. No fertilizer, no amendments(in most cases) and no artificial water. We do, at times, need to spray for cheat grass but this is more rare than not. Ultimately the reseeding portion and regrowth management is one of the cheapest aspects of the entire reclamation process. The elk love it! They flock to it. Almost to a nuisance level. These areas get hunted as well. I can go there right now and find two hundred elk. In the summer and fall these reclaimed pits are loaded with elk. Its one of the best aspects of my job to be able to park on one of the two tracks in September and watch multiple herds do their thing.

I could easily see this being part of a habitat manipulation strategy by the State G&F agencies. The one aspect of the Wyoming feedgrounds that works well, IMO, is that the hunters that hunt the herds that utilize the feedgrounds pay for them in the form of a feedground stamp. Keep doing that but utilize that money for habitat manipulation rather than hay bales and pellets.

Just a thought.

 

[Hilljackoutlaw]

Here are my ideas that would be practical/possible to improve the situation of inaccessible elk (maybe even other game) in Montana. These ideas are based on decades of watching and trying to be involved in efforts, most of which we tossed in the round file. In the years of trying to be part of changes, some sideboards are obvious in Montana

Number 2 and 3 would go a long long ways for improving elk herds in my opinion. Managing herds statewide instead of unit by unit is just ridiculous.
As I'm not familiar with all things montana hunting does montana have anything like Arizona does with the Land Relations Program? I'm not sure how successful this program is but I have used it. Atleast this program attaches some liability to the hunter if he or she litters, destroys property, illegally harvests animals, etc..

 

[Deleted member 18333]

5. Work to enhance habitat on public land and adjust seasons dates/types to allow for more elk to prefer staying on public lands. Currently, the public lands in MT struggle to compete with the habitat quality on private lands. The intense five months (if shoulder seasons are included) of hunting pressure give even less reason for elk to be on public lands when nearby private lands have very limited pressure. Elk are making these decisions based on land management and hunter management currently in place. Until those start trending a different direction, the trends we see will continue. This will require hunters putting pressure on FWP to adjust seasons dates/lengths/types. It will require more active management by public land agencies, both state and Federal. It can be augmented by support of non-profit groups that invest in better habitat.

I've often wondered why MT continues to have its Gen elk season so late in the year. To a great degree after elk have left the public land for potentially private land wintering grounds. For instance the typical western Wyo Gen area starts some time in Oct and ends by the end of Oct. Most years the majority of the herd has never left Nat Forest for winter range before the season ends. Some years heavy snows come early but those are getting to be fewer and farther between. Even the reduced price cow tags in these areas open in October allowing a person to hunt those cows when they are still on public land. Some of them run through November as well but the areas are typically reduced to private land. Seems to be there has to be some correlation to an earlier season and more opportunity to hunt on public land while still helping reduce the impacts of elk eating a ranchers hay.

 

[JMG]

Many years ago when I was more involved in the "politics" of hunting, primarily archery hunting. Here is an idea:

North - Northwest of Helena, MT is the Sieben and Grady Ranches. MT FWP paid those ranches a substantial amount of money (several years ago) for those ranches to allow public access on those ranches for hunting prior to the Block Management Program (BMP). If my memory is correct (and it may not be), those ranches are open to public hunting forever (perpetuity - I think). I would strongly support raising the general deer and elk license fee (or charging a hunting access fee), if a large portion of the additional fee(s) went to purchasing or securing some kind of "hunting easement" on that land. Imagine if this pot of money purchased a "hunting easement" here and there … overtime … a large block of these "hunting easements" would form a large area that eventually may butt up against one another. This "hunting easement" may allow some of these ranches to keep ranching for generations. This would certainly give the American Prairie Foundation (APR) a run for their money here in Montana. The amount of money to purchase one of these "hunting easements" is going to be in the millions of dollars, but I think that is the kind of money MT FWP paid those two ranches many years ago and it worked.

I couldn't agree more with what Randy stated that the Elk Management Plan needs to be re-visited and revised.

 

[antlerradar]

I've often wondered why MT continues to have its Gen elk season so late in the year. To a great degree after elk have left the public land for potentially private land wintering grounds. For instance the typical western Wyo Gen area starts some time in Oct and ends by the end of Oct. Most years the majority of the herd has never left Nat Forest for winter range before the season ends. Some years heavy snows come early but those are getting to be fewer and farther between. Even the reduced price cow tags in these areas open in October allowing a person to hunt those cows when they are still on public land. Some of them run through November as well but the areas are typically reduced to private land. Seems to be there has to be some correlation to an earlier season and more opportunity to hunt on public land while still helping reduce the impacts of elk eating a ranchers hay.

Because FWP is stuck in the 1970's. Back in the 70's and in to the 80's the season was ideal. Most of those landowners allowed generous amounts of hunting so hunters got in on lots of easy elk hunts. Why work hard packing an elk out of some nasty canyon on the forest in October when you could wait until later in November and get an elk you could drive to in the pickup. Now those ranches are owned by out of state billionaires that only allow a select few to hunt if any hunting at all. Montana has yet to adapt. I don't know all the solutions and nothing is going to work perfectly. There are going to be winners and losers in any solution and the losers are going to bitch loudly. I am however confident that with out changes to season structure little change is going to happen.

 

[BigHornRam]

Here is an easement project in the works in the breaks.

FWP proposes easement protection for critical bighorn sheep habitat

FWP seeking to purchase a 4,400-acre easement that would provide greater public access to one of the most important bighorn sheep habitats in Montana.

www.greatfallstribune.com

 

[hank4elk]

All very interesting and needed conversation.