Bozeman Area Round Table

[Gerald Martin]

Landowner tags are going to happen just need to minimize the damage. The sooner people realize they will never get to hunt private the better. Public hunters are nothing but a nuisance to private land. It’s not going to work out how you think.

No one is forcing public hunting on any private landowners.

But if a private landowner wants public compensation for the damage that public trust wildlife causes they need to be willing to be part of the solution or bear the cost.

The private landowner is the one who chose to conduct his business in an area that had wildlife long before his business started. If he wants the benefit he can bear the cost.
If he wants to share the cost or have the public bear the burden for wildlife he must share the benefit.
Some ranchers and landowners are amazing stewards of wildlife and work great with the public.

Some ranchers and landowners are entitled whiners who want the benefits of wildlife and none of the cost. The latter group are the ones raising the biggest ruckus and driving the political “solutions” imposed by the MT legislature.

It’s past time that MT hunters start raising a bigger ruckus than the current ruckus raisers and advocate for our interests.

I honestly don’t care if a landowner doesn’t grant me permission to hunt. I also don’t care if the deer and elk eat that same landowner into bankruptcy.

I do sympathize with the folks who live close to sanctuary properties and suffer wildlife depredation because of their neighbor’s approach to wildlife management. However, they need to work that out with their neighbors, not ask their legislators to impose management policies that harm all the hunters in that unit without solving their depredation problems.

The hard truth is that some landowners will never be free from deer and elk damage because neighboring properties will never allow enough access to reduce populations in the immediate area.

 

[timmy]

No one is forcing public hunting on any private landowners.

But if a private landowner wants public compensation for the damage that public trust wildlife causes they need to be willing to be part of the solution or bear the cost.

The private landowner is the one who chose to conduct his business in an area that had wildlife long before his business started. If he wants the benefit he can bear the cost.
If he wants to share the cost or have the public bear the burden for wildlife he must share the benefit.
Some ranchers and landowners are amazing stewards of wildlife and work great with the public.

Some ranchers and landowners are entitled whiners who want the benefits of wildlife and none of the cost. The latter group are the ones raising the biggest ruckus and driving the political “solutions” imposed by the MT legislature.

It’s past time that MT hunters start raising a bigger ruckus than the current ruckus raisers and advocate for our interests.

I honestly don’t care if a landowner doesn’t grant me permission to hunt. I also don’t care if the deer and elk eat that same landowner into bankruptcy.

I do sympathize with the folks who live close to sanctuary properties and suffer wildlife depredation because of their neighbor’s approach to wildlife management. However, they need to work that out with their neighbors, not ask their legislators to impose management policies that harm all the hunters in that unit without solving their depredation problems.

The hard truth is that some landowners will never be free from deer and elk damage because neighboring properties will never allow enough access to reduce populations in the immediate area.

That’s a neighbor issue not a wildlife issue. And believe me I have seen both sides.

 

[Gerald Martin]

It’s ironic to me that Montana is a fence out state. If I want to ensure that a landowner’s cattle don’t trample my lawn it is my responsibility to fence my property to keep cattle out.

Yet, when elk eat a ranchers haystack, it’s the public’s fault their wildlife is eating private grass….

 

[Gerald Martin]

That’s a neighbor issue not a wildlife issue. And believe me I have seen both sides.

You are right. But it’s being treated as a wildlife issue and FWP is allowing hunters to kill elk that aren’t causing problems and calling it a solution.

The wrong elk get killed because no one is going to reduce elk populations in sanctuary areas unless the landowner want it to happen.

 

[Gerald Martin]

It’s a political answer for a human problem and wildlife and MT hunters are getting the short end of the stick.

 

[timmy]

You are right. But it’s being treated as a wildlife issue and FWP is allowing hunters to kill elk that aren’t causing problems and calling it a solution.

The wrong elk get killed because no one is going to reduce elk populations in sanctuary areas unless the landowner want it to happen.

Completely agree give private land tags to landowners that are bitching for small bulls and cows. It’s in their hands at that point. They can have at them. They can even sell them let them put the pressure on private. They won’t.

 

[antlerradar]

Give them the tags with mandatory reporting on the elk that got killed. Could really help them out for damage to their land.

Reporting with a field photo.

 

[antlerradar]

No.

Raise the price of elk tags $10 and deer tags $5. Place the extra money into a fund to compensate landowners for wildlife damages.

Tie eligibility to receive compensation to being enrolled into Type 2 Block Management. Landowners set the rules for their land just like now. FWP manages reservations on all Type 2 Block properties via a website that allows hunters to reserve available dates and lists each properties rules. (Similar to VRBO and AirBnB websites). Landowners can block out a percentage of dates for family and friends at the time of listing but will not be compensated for those user days.

Shoulder seasons are eliminated. Game damage hunts are reinstated on specific properties enrolled in the programs with the approval of area biologists. Enrolled hunters pre-book the dates they are available if a damage hunt is scheduled. Damage hunts are specific and targeted to individual local herds rather than unit populations.

Mandatory reporting of harvest.

A program like this could provide a positive incentive in the form of block management payments and also help with wildlife damage for those landowners who can’t find relief because of close proximity to sanctuary areas.

Those landowners who wish to lease to outfitters or don’t want to allow hunting for whatever reason they choose may still do whatever they choose. They will not be eligible to receive compensation because they have already benefited from the public’s wildlife.

I can agree with everything you said, but I would not going to enroll that many more in block management. Landowners limit hunting for many reasons other than money. Timmy is also right, many landowners would rather deal with the damage than the hunters for 11 weeks and soon to be more than 12 weeks of the year.

 

[Sytes]

Reporting with a field photo.

To add to Antlerradar's quote above:
Worsech (or one of his crew) described it as an FWP APP on a person's phone. Snap a pic using the app. If no service, once back in service - it will send the pic and respond w/ a confirmation #.

Also, a really cool piece of history, R1 had a 1935(?) Tag, green color, had the regs, notched tag, and stated mandatory reporting required. Tag was a card size that was folded 2x's and fit in a wallet, basically.

 

[antlerradar]

No one is forcing public hunting on any private landowners.

But if a private landowner wants public compensation for the damage that public trust wildlife causes they need to be willing to be part of the solution or bear the cost.

The private landowner is the one who chose to conduct his business in an area that had wildlife long before his business started. If he wants the benefit he can bear the cost.
If he wants to share the cost or have the public bear the burden for wildlife he must share the benefit.
Some ranchers and landowners are amazing stewards of wildlife and work great with the public.

This is not entirely true. I would argue that the game is on the landowners place because improvements the landowner has made in the form of better feed and also that the over hunting on near by public is pushing animals onto the property.

 

[Gerald Martin]

I can agree with everything you said, but I would not going to enroll that many more in block management. Landowners limit hunting for many reasons other than money. Timmy is also right, many landowners would rather deal with the damage than the hunters for 11 weeks and soon to be more than 12 weeks of the year.

I understand that many landowners would rather deal with damage than hunters. To be honest I would be the same way.

But, tying the eligibility for game damage compensation to allowing hunting via Type 2 Block allows the landowner to set the rules for his property, gives hunters access to harvest some of the over abundant wildlife and helps provide some accountability. (I think game damage compensation is already tied to allowing hunting under current rules.)
Having FWP take reservations and management the organization of hunters could alleviate some of the hassle for landowners who get tired of people calling them day in and day out.
Hunter behavior is an issue that would have to be addressed by enforcement just as it is now.


Landowners who don’t want to participate, don’t have to. They can find the solutions that work best for them within the parameters of the law. If that means leasing to an outfitter or controlling populations with the help of family or friends or by not harvesting any animals at all that’s their prerogative. They just don’t get compensation.


With a license increase the game damage fund could be large enough to provide actual financial relief for those landowners who are financially stressed by wildlife damage.

I would be in full and complete support of shortening the current season structure to ease pressure on public lands and alleviate landowner burnout.

 

[Gerald Martin]

Completely agree give private land tags to landowners that are bitching for small bulls and cows. It’s in their hands at that point. They can have at them. They can even sell them let them put the pressure on private. They won’t.

If we go down that road the conflict will become even greater. There’s no such thing as a “small bull tag” and never will be.

 

[Gerald Martin]

This is not entirely true. I would argue that the game is on the landowners place because improvements the landowner has made in the form of better feed and also that the over hunting on near by public is pushing animals onto the property.

I would agree that there is more wildlife because of improvements or that the redistribution is changed by pressure on nearby areas.

My point is mainly that the wildlife was here first and that landowners’ financial interests should not be the only factors in setting objectives and management policy.

The management “ deck” is currently stacked heavily in favor of trying to address landowner complaints rather than sound biological scientific policy like FWP claims it implements.

 

[antlerradar]

If we go down that road the conflict will become even greater. There’s no such thing as a “small bull tag” and never will be.

There may not be a small bull or buck tag, but I do not think it is a bad idea. Sometimes when people are not being completely honest about what they want (landowners that complain about crop damage, but really want licenses so they can sell trophy hunts) you can give them something to mitigate there problem and not give them what they want. I would like to offer them to some landowners just for the entertain value.

 

[timmy]

There may not be a small bull or buck tag, but I do not think it is a bad idea. Sometimes when people are not being completely honest about what they want (landowners that complain about crop damage, but really want licenses so they can sell trophy hunts) you can give them something to mitigate there problem and not give them what they want. I would like to offer them to some landowners just for the entertain value.

Spot on they are claiming game damage but it’s more about control of animals and tags. This would bring out their true intentions. The gap between public hunters and landowners is going to continue to widen with our current management and season structure.

 

[BuzzH]

Gerald,

Good on you for putting all this together and I believe you will have some good things come out of it.

Just a word or two of advice, no matter what you and this collection of people/ideas come up with, there will always be critics who don't agree.

Stay focused on 2-3 ideas that will be most impactful to address the most urgent problems with elk in Montana. We all (me included a lot of the time) like to get out in the weeds with our personal ideas, experiences, and what we're most familiar with.

There is no "perfect" solution to any single one of these problems with elk management in Montana. There are solutions that will address a majority of concerns, but its too complex to solve with one silver bullet. That silver bullet doesn't exist.

In other words, don't let perfection be the enemy of the good.

Good luck and thanks again for taking the lead on this and the good, bad, and indifferent that comes from doing so.

 

[mtnkid85]

If we go down that road the conflict will become even greater. There’s no such thing as a “small bull tag” and never will be.

It would need to be a spike only tag. Cows and spikes. But really what are the bull:cow ratios in most of these units? 20:100? Theres no reason we should be killing bulls anyway. Just give them cow tags.

 

[mtnkid85]

Gerald,

Good on you for putting all this together and I believe you will have some good things come out of it.

Just a word or two of advice, no matter what you and this collection of people/ideas come up with, there will always be critics who don't agree.

Stay focused on 2-3 ideas that will be most impactful to address the most urgent problems with elk in Montana. We all (me included a lot of the time) like to get out in the weeds with our personal ideas, experiences, and what we're most familiar with.

There is no "perfect" solution to any single one of these problems with elk management in Montana. There are solutions that will address a majority of concerns, but its too complex to solve with one silver bullet. That silver bullet doesn't exist.

In other words, don't let perfection be the enemy of the good.

Good luck and thanks again for taking the lead on this and the good, bad, and indifferent that comes from doing so.

Well stated,

I feel like concentrating on public land habitat is the base of the pyramid to supporting large healthy game populations. Bottom line elk are pushing to private for two reasons 1. Higher quality/more forage and 2. To escape hunting pressure.

We can help alleviate 1. by increasing habitat work on on public land, select timber thinning, weed control, juniper removal etc.

Number 2. Elk are like a gas, they fill constantly try to flow from a position of higher pressure to lower pressure. This has to be addressed with collaboration with the landowners, they need to be applying the "same" hunting pressure during the general season to keep the elk at "equilibrium" and move them back into the public.
Whether this is done with BMA enrollment, depredation permits or cow landowner permits needs to be worked out.

 

[Deleted member 20812]

There are solutions that will address a majority of concerns, but its too complex to solve with one silver bullet. That silver bullet doesn't exist.

Everyone should read this about 100 times.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Everyone should read this about 100 times.

I got the Silver Bullet that solves all the problems.