Alternatives for public elk hunting access

[7 mag]

State of Wyoming already says you cannot have a game farm on your ranch.

I pay taxes too and spend money in the community. Nothing special about being a landowner

Game farms are totally different from wild Game useing my property there is, ABSALUTELY no
Comparison to the 2

elk and deer useing our fields pastures and cover for feeding bedding and Calving is there choice I don't force them onto our ranch,
it's.not my fault our ranch provides better habitat then the surrounding Public lands,

But in your mind we should not be allowed to
utilize the resources on my ranch to help pay
Some of the expenses?
That would be like the state telling you
Even though you have a licence and a vehicle and you pay taxes you can't drive on the highway because it benifits YOU
One sided and selfish attitude if I can't have it You shouldn't either.

Maybe the state should spend more money on improving the land it already has so the elk
wouldn't need to utilize my ranch.

 

[7 mag]

And no we do NOT hunt public land, we hunt 100%
Private
the reason we do so is because we don't allow the public to hunt our ranch, we DO NOT ask for or receive any help,or land owner tags or reimbursement for damages done by the 300 plus elk that utilize our ranch
We pay for all. Of it out of our own pocket

Because we do not allow any public access I do NOT feel. I have the right to hunt public land even though my taxes licence and tag fees(which we buy just like you otc) also help pay for the very same public ground you hunt.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

To keep it honest you would have to require they mail the tag in, otherwise what's to stop someone from filling thier tag and reporting it as unused.
It happens, more then most think it does

What's to keep people from lying under the current random survey system that MT and CO conduct?

The idea is that if you made ever single person file a report you would have more granular data, sure some percentage would be BS, but that percentage would likely remain consistent with the current percentage.

Case in point there are a number of units in CO that show very inaccurate data because there are under 100 hunters in that unit in a particular season, this number is so low no one ever gets surveyed. Colorado parks and wildlife really has no idea what harvest rates are like in those units.

"Big Data Analytics" is a huge buzz word across a number of industries, I tend to do a big eye roll when someone brings it up, but nevertheless looking at aggregate data has dramatically changed how thousands of companies conduct business. Wildlife departments have a tremendous opportunity to gather massive amounts of wildlife data from hunters, and at a ridiculously small cost. Not only could you collect data like harvest success, days in the field, etc, but it wouldn't be difficult to create semi-custom surveys that go to hunters in particular districts with specific questions bios are interested in eg. did you see any wolves, grizzlies, moose, etc. 10 years ago it would have been incredibly expensive to collect this data, now (especially with the new web licensing systems) it would be very cheap... the big question in my mind is why are departments so afraid of implementing these solutions.

 

[Gerald Martin]

And no we do NOT hunt public land, we hunt 100%
Private
the reason we do so is because we don't allow the public to hunt our ranch, we DO NOT ask for or receive any help,or land owner tags or reimbursement for damages done by the 300 plus elk that utilize our ranch
We pay for all. Of it out of our own pocket

Because we do not allow any public access I do NOT feel. I have the right to hunt public land even though my taxes licence and tag fees(which we buy just like you otc) also help pay for the very same public ground you hunt.

Actually, your tax dollars, not your license dollars pay for the public ground. You pay so you can hunt public like the rest of us, without shame. (Although, I can't see why you would want to with elk available on private. )

I have no problem with private landowners not allowing access to their deeded ground or leasing or outfitting it. Even though the animals that reside on that ground are public trust and owned by the residents of the state, the ground is yours and access is at your discretion. I do the same on my "massive" ten acre lot. No one has the right to tell me I have to let every Tom, Dick, or Harry access at will.

However, part of that equation that you and your family have seemed to figure out on your own is that since you benefit in some ways by restricting access, you also bear the cost of the animals that reside on your property. That is the proper outlook in my opinion to the public wildlife/private land equation.

Where the conflict lies IMO is there are other factors that make finding large scale solutions incredibly complex. Some landowners want to benefit from leasing/outfitting/ hunting themselves and still have FWP and citizens of the state bear the cost of wildlife on their property without access. This is wrong.

Some landowners allow access through BMA's or at the asking of permission. They may be bordered by other areas that allow no access and the elk find sanctuary on these off limit properties and then disperse on to accessible properties after legal seasons and cause damage or eat grass the rancher is depending on for his livelihood. I am sympathetic to their problems in this case, but I maintain they need to resolve the wildlife conflict by working with their neighbors to find solutions, not eliminate or reduce all elk in the area to keep them off their property.

With the way that current "solutions" are only hurting the public by reducing elk on public lands either by killing them or driving them to sanctuary areas and don't solve the problems for most landowners, I find my sympathy shifting to the elk and to my interests. It's not that I am not sympathetic to landowners but I feel that the emphasis of management has been weighted in the direction of their economic interests for far too long and the elk and public hunters are getting a raw deal. Current management is not working to resolve conflict.

 

[Eric Albus]

Gerald, if you told landowners "that the emphasis of management has been weighted in the direction of their economic interests for far to long" I would suggest wearing a helmet and pads. The landowners I know feel they are bearing the cost of production for the publics elk herd with little to no recourse or compensation. Elk are large ungulates that cause severe damage to pasture, fences, and crops, costing landowners in this state millions of dollars. I agree that the current system is not working, it is time to figure out what will work, for both sides. An incentive based solution is needed.


Will an incentive work for every landowner? No. Will an incentive work for some? Yes. Punitive measures against landowners will never incentivize them to allow access. If the public wishes access to "their wildlife" then figure out a way to give landowners an incentive to allow the public access.

What that incentive is I am not certain, but is going to have to be of a monetary nature(reduced property tax, etc.).

Actually, your tax dollars, not your license dollars pay for the public ground. You pay so you can hunt public like the rest of us, without shame. (Although, I can't see why you would want to with elk available on private. )

I have no problem with private landowners not allowing access to their deeded ground or leasing or outfitting it. Even though the animals that reside on that ground are public trust and owned by the residents of the state, the ground is yours and access is at your discretion. I do the same on my "massive" ten acre lot. No one has the right to tell me I have to let every Tom, Dick, or Harry access at will.

However, part of that equation that you and your family have seemed to figure out on your own is that since you benefit in some ways by restricting access, you also bear the cost of the animals that reside on your property. That is the proper outlook in my opinion to the public wildlife/private land equation.

Where the conflict lies IMO is there are other factors that make finding large scale solutions incredibly complex. Some landowners want to benefit from leasing/outfitting/ hunting themselves and still have FWP and citizens of the state bear the cost of wildlife on their property without access. This is wrong.

Some landowners allow access through BMA's or at the asking of permission. They may be bordered by other areas that allow no access and the elk find sanctuary on these off limit properties and then disperse on to accessible properties after legal seasons and cause damage or eat grass the rancher is depending on for his livelihood. I am sympathetic to their problems in this case, but I maintain they need to resolve the wildlife conflict by working with their neighbors to find solutions, not eliminate or reduce all elk in the area to keep them off their property.

With the way that current "solutions" are only hurting the public by reducing elk on public lands either by killing them or driving them to sanctuary areas and don't solve the problems for most landowners, I find my sympathy shifting to the elk and to my interests. It's not that I am not sympathetic to landowners but I feel that the emphasis of management has been weighted in the direction of their economic interests for far too long and the elk and public hunters are getting a raw deal. Current management is not working to resolve conflict.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Gerald, if you told landowners "that the emphasis of management has been weighted in the direction of their economic interests for far to long" I would suggest wearing a helmet and pads. The landowners I know feel they are bearing the cost of production for the publics elk herd with little to no recourse or compensation. Elk are large ungulates that cause severe damage to pasture, fences, and crops, costing landowners in this state millions of dollars. I agree that the current system is not working, it is time to figure out what will work, for both sides. An incentive based solution is needed.


Will an incentive work for every landowner? No. Will an incentive work for some? Yes. Punitive measures against landowners will never incentivize them to allow access. If the public wishes access to "their wildlife" then figure out a way to give landowners an incentive to allow the public access.

What that incentive is I am not certain, but is going to have to be of a monetary nature(reduced property tax, etc.).

I'm glad you weighed in, Eric. I tend to agree that it's incentive based measures that increase access to private land. The difficulty in the past has been where to draw the line between incentives & privatizing elk like some groups want. We've made good strides over the last few years to bump up Block Mgt payments, create new incentive programs (MT PLAN, PAL Act, etc). Many of those plans are severely under-utilized or are not up to speed yet as programs.

I think a decent amount of the intransigence we see on this issue is more personality based than it is the actual issue. People come at this with their armor on, waiting to get punched (both sides), rather than sitting down at the kitchen table & talking over a cup of coffee & a roll.

 

[BuzzH]

Gerald, if you told landowners "that the emphasis of management has been weighted in the direction of their economic interests for far to long" I would suggest wearing a helmet and pads. The landowners I know feel they are bearing the cost of production for the publics elk herd with little to no recourse or compensation. Elk are large ungulates that cause severe damage to pasture, fences, and crops, costing landowners in this state millions of dollars. I agree that the current system is not working, it is time to figure out what will work, for both sides. An incentive based solution is needed.


Will an incentive work for every landowner? No. Will an incentive work for some? Yes. Punitive measures against landowners will never incentivize them to allow access. If the public wishes access to "their wildlife" then figure out a way to give landowners an incentive to allow the public access.

What that incentive is I am not certain, but is going to have to be of a monetary nature(reduced property tax, etc.).

I have no problem with giving landowners an incentive, but, in many cases there is no way of incentivizing landowners that lease to outfitters.

If you want to fork over the cash for a "guided" cow hunt you get access...and the sad thing is there are hunters paying to do that. I wouldn't pay an outfitter a plug nickel to shoot a cow elk. I think outfitters should pay me to shoot a cow elk, not the other way around. Hunters being used as a management/control tool for outfitters needs to stop.

There are access programs available to landowners currently, that are monetary in nature (BM in Montana, AccessYes in Wyoming, Landowner coupons in Wyoming, etc.). What landowners are wanting is to maximize the amount they can drain from the State and Hunting public to shoot elk on their property, its that simple.

If a landowner doesn't take advantage of the current access programs, that tells me they don't think the elk are a problem...live with them and quit whining.

 

[Deleted member 20812]

I’m going to throw this out here.

As unpopular as this might sound, I think there should be areas or regions that there should be no hunting on private. Since that is their only sanctuary in most places (and wintering ground), it would make sense to leave them be. In WA the elk season runs from the first week in Sept. to mid Dec. in a lot of areas. Three of those months are after the cows have been bred. The season with the most hunters in the field is modern and right after the second estrus cycle. I think if the cow was to have a miscarriage or breeding not taking would be from the stress of being chased around those first couple of months.

A while back on the MeatEater podcast Renilla talks about a study done where the antlers of deer were directly related to the nutrients of the doe while that animal was in utero. What happens when the cow isn’t chased around for months on end.

Deer are usually hunted pre and during the rut and elk during and post.

The vast majority of one of our biggest herds is fenced off of private land and what would be (and once was) their winter range. Instead there are several feed stations to supplement their winter grazing needs.

I guess this would be for a region that was under their objective.

A lot of ideas swimming around in my head right now.....

What good would it do to stop hunting on private ground? Do you mean public? Landowners already have the option to severely limit any hunting on their property (and do, hence current issues we are seeing).

Antler size should not even be part of the conversation. That said, first and second trimesters of pregnancy are rather low cost periods in terms of energy expenditure. Many areas have late elk hunts that do not affect the calving rate, as evidenced by continued population growth. That said, you can't always extrapolate between areas with any reliability.

 

[Deleted member 20812]

Where the conflict lies IMO is there are other factors that make finding large scale solutions incredibly complex. Some landowners want to benefit from leasing/outfitting/ hunting themselves and still have FWP and citizens of the state bear the cost of wildlife on their property without access. This is wrong.

Wrong x infinity. Yet this is what is currently driving elk management in Montana IMO.

 

[Deleted member 20812]

I have no problem with giving landowners an incentive, but, in many cases there is no way of incentivizing landowners that lease to outfitters.

If you want to fork over the cash for a "guided" cow hunt you get access...and the sad thing is there are hunters paying to do that. I wouldn't pay an outfitter a plug nickel to shoot a cow elk. I think outfitters should pay me to shoot a cow elk, not the other way around. Hunters being used as a management/control tool for outfitters needs to stop.

There are access programs available to landowners currently, that are monetary in nature (BM in Montana, AccessYes in Wyoming, Landowner coupons in Wyoming, etc.). What landowners are wanting is to maximize the amount they can drain from the State and Hunting public to shoot elk on their property, its that simple.

If a landowner doesn't take advantage of the current access programs, that tells me they don't think the elk are a problem...live with them and quit whining.

Couldn't have said it better.....

I think it's also worth noting Wyoming residents have PLENTY of elk hunting opportunity within a system far different than Montana's. As @antlerradar pointed out, Montana is stuck in the 1970's and cannot adapt. It's far beyond time to move to a system that may initially seem as if it's limiting opportunity, but in the long run may provide more.

 

[Deleted member 20812]

a. Get a grip on actual wolf #'s versus sole dependency on "minimal ESA count". (example: R1)

I'm not sure why folks get their hair on fire over the minimum population counts used for wolves. In all reality, if Montana used minimum population counts for elk within the framework of the current EMP, we likely wouldn't be having this conversation. Do you really think if they used that, there would be 11 weeks of OTC/unregulated elk hunting across Regions 1 and 2?

Minimum population counts are used with the explicit understanding of the term minimum. Anyone that tries to use these as an absolute landscape level population is being incredibly dishonest. It's a minimum observed number that gives a baseline to operate from.

 

[daltrix99]

How would you enforce it?

Idaho does this electronically and it is a mandatory response

 

[Deleted member 28227]

Idaho does this electronically and it is a mandatory response

WA, OR, UT, NM, NV, AK, CA, and PA have some sort of reporting requirement for elk as well. This isn't a novel idea.

 

[BigHornRam]

WA, OR, UT, NM, NV, AK, CA, and PA have some sort of reporting requirement for elk as well. This isn't a novel idea.

Montana employees a bunch of nice old ladys to call me up every winter to see how my season went. Call me a softy, but I don't have the heart to end this old outdated way of gathering data.

 

[Sytes]

I'm not sure why folks get their hair on fire over the minimum population counts used for wolves. In all reality, if Montana used minimum population counts for elk within the framework of the current EMP, we likely wouldn't be having this conversation. Do you really think if they used that, there would be 11 weeks of OTC/unregulated elk hunting across Regions 1 and 2?

Minimum population counts are used with the explicit understanding of the term minimum. Anyone that tries to use these as an absolute landscape level population is being incredibly dishonest. It's a minimum observed number that gives a baseline to operate from.

From my perspective, minimum for wolf count is far different than minimum for elk count.
Minimum count for elk... Cool! Far more than the minimum required (if they were ESA USFWS required).
Minimum for the Apex predator of elk? Not good if we are trying to balance the predator v prey outlook for ungulate #'s.

Many ignore my constant comment of value and respect for wolves within our ecosystem however, taking Randy's comments about wolves will not self regulate... human intervention is necessary. My comments on wolves are to have a better, more accurate # to know problem areas to support culling the Apex predator to keep that balance between them and elk, moose... and unfortunately loss of caribou.

 

[Deleted member 20812]

From my perspective, minimum for wolf count is far different than minimum for elk count.
Minimum count for elk... Cool! Far more than the minimum required (if they were ESA USFWS required).
Minimum for the Apex predator of elk? Not good if we are trying to balance the predator v prey outlook for ungulate #'s.

Many ignore my constant comment of value and respect for wolves within our ecosystem however, taking Randy's comments about wolves will not self regulate... human intervention is necessary. My comments on wolves are to have a better, more accurate # to know problem areas to support culling the Apex predator to keep that balance between them and elk, moose... and unfortunately loss of caribou.

You're missing my point. Using minimum population estimates is by far more accurate than using a "projected" population estimate. How is using the minimum number of elk different than using the minimum number of wolves? If you want meaningful predator-prey relationship data, you really should be comparing apples to apples, no?

There is a minimum wolf population that would trigger ESA action. Having a minimum population count is the only accurate way of justifying the lack of ESA protections. However, this thread is not about wolf management.

Maybe Montana would be better served using a minimum elk population that would trigger changes to season structure? How novel is that? At least Idaho has figured out how to incorporate trail cam data into their Panhandle units.​

Lastly, Creel's research is not the gospel on this topic. There is data contradictory to his, that at least in my mind, suggest habitat manipulation is far more important than wolf population manipulation.

The factors that limit elk pregnancy are poorly understood in the region, so we have focused much of our attention on this issue. One potential alternative explanation for low pregnancy rates is the risk of wolf predation. A recent hypothesis for such “stress,” “fear,” or “harassment” effects is that wolves reduce elk forage intake in winter by causing elk to be vigilant or to shift into poor-quality refuge habitats, leading to reduced body-fat levels and, ultimately, to lost pregnancies. The previous research on this question used somewhat indirect, short-term measures of elk nutrition and reproduction (e.g. from fecal pellets and urine) and broad-scale indices of wolf predation risk (e.g. wolf-elk ratios). To gain more direct insights, we tracked the simultaneous movements of individual elk and wolves using GPS collars, while also monitoring elk body-fat levels and reproduction through biannual recaptures and closely observing winter elk behavior.

Our results indicate that elk in the migratory subpopulation respond to wolves, but only when wolves approach within about 1 km (about 0.6 miles). We see small increases in vigilance behavior, movement rates, and displacement in the 12-24 hours after these encounters, but no changes in elk habitat use (which is dependent mainly on the time of day). And even though migratory Clarks Fork elk experience high wolf-elk ratios compared with many other sites in the GYE, a typical migratory elk encounters a wolf within 1 km less than once a week. Together with modest behavioral responses, this relatively low encounter rate suggests we should not expect large, cumulative nutritional losses due to wolves.

Along these lines, our analysis indicates that elk body-fat losses over winter are not related to the frequency of 1-km wolf encounters. Instead, the starting body-fat levels of a cow elk in autumn – that is, the amount of fat she was able to gain on summer range – is a much stronger predictor of over-winter fat loss and March body-fat levels. We also found that the frequency of wolf encounters is not related to pregnancy status. These findings cast doubt on any link between the “fear” or “stress” of wolf predation and recent changes in the distribution, productivity, and abundance of elk. Among the elk we study (as discussed above), it seems more likely that the severe drought of the past decade, acting on an ageing elk population, has reduced elk pregnancy – and that predators, particularly bears, kill many of the newborn elk calves.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Couldn't have said it better.....

I think it's also worth noting Wyoming residents have PLENTY of elk hunting opportunity within a system far different than Montana's. As @antlerradar pointed out, Montana is stuck in the 1970's and cannot adapt. It's far beyond time to move to a system that may initially seem as if it's limiting opportunity, but in the long run may provide more.

The state of Wyoming uses sportsmen's dollars to pay landowners for crop damage.

They also gave feedgrounds to keep elk off of private land during winter months.

 

[Gerald Martin]

Gerald, if you told landowners "that the emphasis of management has been weighted in the direction of their economic interests for far to long" I would suggest wearing a helmet and pads. The landowners I know feel they are bearing the cost of production for the publics elk herd with little to no recourse or compensation. Elk are large ungulates that cause severe damage to pasture, fences, and crops, costing landowners in this state millions of dollars. I agree that the current system is not working, it is time to figure out what will work, for both sides. An incentive based solution is needed.


Will an incentive work for every landowner? No. Will an incentive work for some? Yes. Punitive measures against landowners will never incentivize them to allow access. If the public wishes access to "their wildlife" then figure out a way to give landowners an incentive to allow the public access.

What that incentive is I am not certain, but is going to have to be of a monetary nature(reduced property tax, etc.).

I am in agreement that punitive policies towards landowners are not going to help anyone in the long term. I am fine with existing positive incentives and don’t mind trying to expand them but I doubt it will make much difference.
I also realize there are significant differences between the eastern and western parts of the state. My comment s are based on my experience in the western part.

Case in point from the last two years. All names and units mentioned in this anecdote are real. Numbers of acreage and animals are from estimates and might not be exact.
Last year my son drew a youth permit for deer in 291. Before his hunt I picked up an extra elk B license in case I saw a cow on one of the several large BMAs we had permission to hunt. We hunted opening weekend and all the elk were high on the checkerboard private/ public mountains. My daughter shot a cow on public. Hunters were everywhere on the BMA’s and public.

We waited until the deer rut to return to the unit. Deer hunting was great. Still no elk on the BMA’s except for one herd of about 20 cows that would venture a couple hundred yards across the line when it would snow. The two times I saw this happen multiple parties of hunters were after them at first light. I never saw an elk shot at or killed.

We glassed across the interstate into unit 217. The D’Angelo ranch had 600-800 head of elk lounging on the hillsides. Right beside the D’Angelo ranch is the Dunkleberg Ranch. It’s an open BMA that you sign in to access several thousand acres of marginal elk habitat. Since the elk were just across the fence and our tags were good for cows we headed over to check it out. Turns out there was noon starting time on the section closest to the elk and only no hunting on certain days. From the looks of old tracks it appeared a few elk would occasionally come over at night. We went back to deer hunting since it was apparent these elk were legally and logistically inaccessible.
Never saw another elk in 291. OTC cow tags on private and shoulder seasons till Feb. 15 on some of the BMA’s.

This year we had a new plan.My youngest son drew a youth permit for either sex elk in 217. I was thinking we might be able to intercept some of those elk before they made it to private or maybe (long shot) we could get permission on the D’Angelo ranch. Several months before the season my son wrote a very respectful letter asking for permission to hunt. No reply. No problem, I assume they like the elk or have other arrangements for how they handle access. We’ll hunt public.
When hunting season came around it quickly became apparent there were VERY few elk on public property. Either sex tags are extremely difficult to draw and limited but cow tags are OTC and shoulder seasons run from August 15- Feb 15.

My takeaway from this is that I am not going to waste my time and money to hunt in this unit anymore. D’Angelo obviously doesn’t view the elk as a liability and Dunkleberg’s property is nit a viable place to kill an elk.
I am very sympathetic to Mr. Dunkleberg if the elk are coming on to his property post season and causing damage. But he needs to have a conversation with his neighbors about the access they allow rather then complain to FWP about the elk.

DAngelo has every right to outfit, lease, or allow access however he sees fit. I bear him no ill will and support his right to do so. However, he needs to be willing to bear the costs of elk on his property. (To my knowledge he does.)

If at anytime I find out D’Angelo is pushing for the lowering of elk numbers or complaining and wanting damage payments, I will be adamant against him.

Current hunting pressure in that unit ensures nearly every elk in the unit finds sanctuary on nearly one or two properties in the unit during the hunting season.
I am deaf to complaints about too many elk there any more.

 

[Schism]

WA, OR, UT, NM, NV, AK, CA, and PA have some sort of reporting requirement for elk as well. This isn't a novel idea.

I agree! In addition to your list, I've also hunted some Native American Reservations that also require a post-season survey to be completed.

 

[Deleted member 20812]

The state of Wyoming uses sportsmen's dollars to pay landowners for crop damage.

They also gave feedgrounds to keep elk off of private land during winter months.

You are correct, but I'm addressing season structures here.