Alternatives for public elk hunting access

[easternmt]

I would have to agree that fwp will have to update the elk management plan per unit or at least region as well as change season structure and quota numbers. I personally would be all right hunting every few years for elk if I could have a quality hunt and I’m not just talking about trophy potential. I think general units are just too overcrowded with other hunters for me to really enjoy them.

 

[hank4elk]

I know this talk is mostly a MT issue,BF mentioned different ideas.
NM just revamped the E-Plus system. Landowner tags.
As a participant, I was a debbie downer when I 1st reacted to it last year. But,
Ranches were cut that did not meet criteria. Unit Wide means UW and ranch is open to public to hunt too. Maps included of said ranches. Tags cut in half for program and draw tags tripled in some units. Hunts run concurant so the pinball effect works to everyones benefit or detriment. Habitat improvement program offered now.
Just downloaded the Habitat info. Got my E-plus agreement yesterday and very happy with my ranch score and outlook. Talk with head of program this morning is making me a lot more hopeful for elk & elk hunting future in NM. Wildlife in general
The $4k investment in solar pump for wildlife/livestock might just pay off sooner than expected. Same with not running stock.
Now to deal with the NM NR/R split....and deer decline.

 

[Ben Lamb]

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.

It's not just habitat alone, but the staggering of seasons mixed in with habitat manipulation that would help keep critters moving and not simply selecting the refugia alone. But yeah, 6 months of hammertime is not helping on the macro level.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

It's not just habitat alone, but the staggering of seasons mixed in with habitat manipulation that would help keep critters moving and not simply selecting the refugia alone. But yeah, 6 months of hammertime is not helping on the macro level.

I'm mixed on the season staggering being very effective.

Colorado has 5 season, archery and 4 rifle seasons. Your tag is good for 1 season only. Archery (green) and 2nd and 3rd (blue and purple) are OTC in most of the state. 1st and 4th (orange and Red) are limited draw. First season is elk only, there are a few caveats like a muzzy season during archery that runs concurrently and a few units have an early September rifle deer season.

We just had our season structure 5 year review and crowding and elk hiding on private land were two of the biggest issues.

Personally I've noticed that the deer basically pile onto private starting the beginning of 2nd season and never leave. The elk get kicked around a bit more but I think that is more due to the fact that there are OTC tags for elk so every one and their brother has a tag and deer tags are fully limited so often there is no one hunting the private including the landowner for deer because they can't get a tag.

Hence, mixed... staggering kinda works, but IMHO is no substitution for getting private landowner to work with the public on access.

 

[Ben Lamb]

I don't think you can look at one issue apart from the whole. It's not one thing that will solve the issue.

 

[Sytes]

People are able to fight the good fight for public land while still fighting the good fight for mutual value between private landowners and public opportunities.

The elk flourishing on public lands - as I understand it, and correct me if I'm wrong @Ben Lamb , for MT sake, FWP has been granted the budget for the purpose of creating a new Elk/Deer Management Program.

 

[Gerald Martin]

The only elk in MT flourishing on public lands reside in the CMR with very restrictive rifle hunting, or in areas that restrict either-sex rifle hunting by permit only, IMO. A few other exceptions might (maybe) include some regions of SW MT that have large unroaded blocks of public and adequate winter range after the general season and don't have shoulder seasons....

Areas with general seasons and wolves are NOT flourishing and it isn't all the wolves fault.

 

[Mtnhunter1]

Areas with general seasons and wolves are NOT flourishing and it isn't all the wolves fault.

GM...I 100% agree with you.

 

[Mtnhunter1]

Over the last few decades, our MTFWP folks have seemed to have given up on trying to manage elk/deer on our public lands. I agree with most of BigFin's ideas and I somewhat agree with Ben's statements also.

BUT, with the issue of, "Increasing Public Hunters access to the Private lands"? Just ain't gonna happen in any significant way unless the dollars for antlers are addressed!

Until Montana can limit the monetary value of our big game critters, nothing will change! Getting control of, and limiting, the commercialization of our wildlife is the only way to truly change the direction that we are headed. To accomplish this? We will have to completely throw out the way things have been done for the last fifty plus years! Scrap the archery and general seasons in most HD units. As with other states, manage the hunting of our biggame by HD district and make ALL either sex or antler only tags via drawing only. Make antlerless tags OTC, if needed, with the designation of private or public only, and designate the quotas according to actual game counts. Resident and nonresident land owners that wish to participate in allowing NO-FEE access to the hunting public could be allowed drawing preference but all tags would remain nontransferable. These same landowners could also apply for habitat enhancement funds and depredation assistance funds. The landowners that do not want to participate in allowing public access, their choice, would not be given any preference in the drawings and also would not be eligible for depredation funds. Also, not like our current BMA program, public means PUBLIC ACCESS, the same family and friends year after year would have to be addressed.

This is the only way that I see to increase the public/private access problem in any meaningful way. But with the majority of FWP funds coming from nonresident license sales and large landowners lining pockets, these changes will never happen.

......and for the sake of any meaningful game management, with EVERY tag that is drawn or OTC.....include a mandatory harvest report!!!

MTNHUNTER1

 

[Sytes]

@Gerald Martin , if related to my post before yours regarding my comment about elk flourishing, it related to @Randy11 's earlier post in this thread.

People here and elsewhere speak about MT FWP's need to rewrite the elk/deer management plan. I shared my understanding of the recent FWP budget request for this specific purpose and the state granted that specific budget - at least that's what I understood when I inquired with about finding that budget request with Ben.

This thread relates to the private landowner's activity with the public hunter... Not really about elk on public land though internet forums can share the commonality between apples and oranges. After all, they're both healthier than a Reece's Blizzard.

So, for those private landowners burned by dumbass, self proclaimed entitled public hunters or the private landowner who has little faith in government, none the less government running BMA's on their land, YET want to provide access to their property - Heck, good stuff!
However, Kick 'em in the nuts? That's how some come across. Pretty disappointing.

 

[Gerald Martin]

My comment wasn't really relating to anyone's specific post. Just me pontificating after being triggered by the words "elk flourishing on public lands". Here the wolves have the elk changing their patterns and spending more time on private lowlands and hunters killing nearly every raghorn that makes it to 2 1/2 years of age. That's the kick in my nuts.

 

[devon deer]

Please cut me some slack as living across the pond I understand some of your issues, but they seem pretty complex as a whole, so accept my apologies in advance if through my naivety I upset anyone, it isn’t intended that way.

So, just in case some aren’t aware there are is NO public land hunting available in the UK, it is ALL private.
A bit of history, I started deer hunting almost 30 years ago, a landowner asked me to carry out fox/deer control, he was willing to pay me for the service, of course I refused, at that time that was a common occurrence, however since then it has become very cut throat over here, money talks, and that is how deer hunters (in the main) get access to private land, often ‘kicking’ out the resident hunter.
I can’t blame the hard working farmer, the fox kills the lambs, the deer eat his crops and damage his fences, he was quick to realise that farmer ‘A' was getting money he wasn’t, so he started to charge a fee, over the years to retain (a couple I have lost) access on most of the farms I have to pay the farmer some money.
I can recover some of that outlay by selling the venison to game dealers, that then gets exported or ends up on supermarkets shelves.
My main point, at the end of the day money talks with the private landowner, they will accept all they can get, and in their position so would I.

Looking as an outsider in, (I realise some of the billionaire MT owners wouldn’t be interested) to get more access to private land for the hunter, it has to be financially attractive to the private landowner, I understand that BMA owners get remuneration, but to attract more, and retain the existing BMA owners could the payment be increased?
As a non resident the fee to obtain a deer/elk combo is over $1k, could the fee’s paid by resident hunters be raised to obtain more disposable income to be spent on BMA?

I would also be looking at the deer/elk seasons that exist in MT

I appreciate mine is an overly simplistic view, and pardon my ignorance, frankly its non of my business as I don't live US, but I was asked to give some input in relation to private land hunting in the UK.

Cheers

Richard

 

[Mallardsx2]

Some really interesting viewpoints on this thread for sure.

 

[BWALKER77]

I really cant add anything of value beyond what Randy posted. Fire for effect!

 

[antlerradar]

Over the last few decades, our MTFWP folks have seemed to have given up on trying to manage elk/deer on our public lands. I agree with most of BigFin's ideas and I somewhat agree with Ben's statements also.

BUT, with the issue of, "Increasing Public Hunters access to the Private lands"? Just ain't gonna happen in any significant way unless the dollars for antlers are addressed!

Until Montana can limit the monetary value of our big game critters, nothing will change! Getting control of, and limiting, the commercialization of our wildlife is the only way to truly change the direction that we are headed. To accomplish this? We will have to completely throw out the way things have been done for the last fifty plus years! Scrap the archery and general seasons in most HD units. As with other states, manage the hunting of our biggame by HD district and make ALL either sex or antler only tags via drawing only. Make antlerless tags OTC, if needed, with the designation of private or public only, and designate the quotas according to actual game counts. Resident and nonresident land owners that wish to participate in allowing NO-FEE access to the hunting public could be allowed drawing preference but all tags would remain nontransferable. These same landowners could also apply for habitat enhancement funds and depredation assistance funds. The landowners that do not want to participate in allowing public access, their choice, would not be given any preference in the drawings and also would not be eligible for depredation funds. Also, not like our current BMA program, public means PUBLIC ACCESS, the same family and friends year after year would have to be addressed.

This is the only way that I see to increase the public/private access problem in any meaningful way. But with the majority of FWP funds coming from nonresident license sales and large landowners lining pockets, these changes will never happen.

......and for the sake of any meaningful game management, with EVERY tag that is drawn or OTC.....include a mandatory harvest report!!!

MTNHUNTER1

A post worth reading again. Montana's long opportunity seasons may not be the reason for commercialization but they provide the "Red Flag" conditions for commercialization to thrive. In order to make real progress on getting access to private land hunters will need to chip away at the reasons landowners restrict access. Each landowner has there own reason but when you boil them down to two. Money and convenience or a combination of the two.

 

[Big Fin]

I should have added one additional sideboard to that I suspect is obvious, but I will add it here. The two management options for getting the public access to the public elk is either:

1. Provide incentive for elk to hang out on lands that are accessible to public hunting during the periods that seasons are open.

2. Provide incentive for landowners to let hunters get to elk that are on private lands.

I know that is very simplified to state the obvious. But, looking at it that way forces us to evaluate which is more effective; doing things to keep elk accessible or providing incentives to gain access to elk that are not accessible? I feel that Montana at times puts way too little focus on #1 above and seems to have defaulted #2 as the default strategy.

I might be a bight optimistic, but some states seem to have better luck focusing on strategies that keep elk accessible and when elk do become inaccessible, they allocate the scarce funds toward specific opportunities with willing landowners, resulting in far better returns on the money invested. And to their credit, some states have realized that when elk select for private lands there are times the state cannot do anything to solve that, leaving the landowners to sort it out while the state focuses their scarce resources of time/money elsewhere.

 

[beginnerhunter]

Why can't you just enact a statewide sales tax and pay landowners for access or purchase land straight up (especially those adjacent to landlocked public land)? In other states they also use some of the money for other outdoor programs to help sell it to non-hunters. Problem solved. You're welcome.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

Why can't you just enact a statewide sales tax and pay landowners for access or purchase land straight up (especially those adjacent to landlocked public land)? In other states they also use some of the money for other outdoor programs to help sell it to non-hunters. Problem solved. You're welcome.

Generally speaking no one will ever vote for more taxes.

 

[BigHornRam]

Why can't you just enact a statewide sales tax and pay landowners for access or purchase land straight up (especially those adjacent to landlocked public land)? In other states they also use some of the money for other outdoor programs to help sell it to non-hunters. Problem solved. You're welcome.

 

[beginnerhunter]

Generally speaking no one will ever vote for more taxes.

Known liberal progressive enclaves like AR, MO, MN, and IA have been able to do it. And I'll throw in the woke hippie legislature of GA. I thought the West cared about conservation?