When you have a neighbor that won’t fix fence who pays for that? (1/2 is theirs in case you don’t understand) Should the landowner that does fix fence be financially compensated? We could financially compensate for a lot of neighbor issues. At the end of the day private land owners have been given the tools to manage. They can choose to use them or not.
Bulls for Billionaires - MT EQC Meeting today 1:30 PM
- Thread starter Ben Lamb
- Start date
Pucky Freak
Well-known member
I find it so peculiar that WY has very good solutions in place to address over-objective elk in areas with a mix of public and private land, whereas you cross the invisible line into MT and it’s an entirely different situation.
I’ve talked with 3 ranchers in WY recently in 3 different counties. All are very nice folks, and all allow hunting access. The last one I talked with after my hunt said, “Thank you for killing one of our elk.”
It would be one thing if the solutions to MT’s elk management problems were untested and theoretical. I can’t decide whether it’s more comical or tragic that actual tested solutions exist, while at the same time the barriers to implement them are so high.
I’ve talked with 3 ranchers in WY recently in 3 different counties. All are very nice folks, and all allow hunting access. The last one I talked with after my hunt said, “Thank you for killing one of our elk.”
It would be one thing if the solutions to MT’s elk management problems were untested and theoretical. I can’t decide whether it’s more comical or tragic that actual tested solutions exist, while at the same time the barriers to implement them are so high.
And the 454 program was exploited by Hank to give the Wilkes tags. To get things back on track. They can keep their Texas management and get in line for a bull tag like the rest of us. Don’t worry @S-3 Ranch they can elk hunt every year cow tags flow freely here and I promise we won’t turn there private into public. Also APR sucks balls there I covered everything.
Arrow, there is a shitload of sarcasm posted on some of these threads. He is not the only offender. mtmuley
Straight Arrow
Well-known member
Agreed. And I am guilty myself and get called out on it from time to time. But that's what is good about this forum. HT's don't put up with that $hit!
So your defense is like that of the kid getting called out for bad behavior, "Well, everybody's doing it!"
Have a nice day. mtmuley
I just don't see how the public can pay a rancher damages because his rich asshole neighbor keeps shitting on him. If he actually hunts the elk they just go back to the rich guy's place to return another day. It might help for a minute but it doesn't help in the long run.
There is one problem here and that is the guy harboring elk. Giving him bull tags makes it worse and when we do that then the little guy gets bought by another rich guy wanting bull tags. Unless we can buy access for the public on to the ranch that is harboring elk, throwing money or bull tags at it will make it worse, not better.
I feel for the little guy. I know a few of them and they are good people. I have seen the shoulder season work for a couple of them as after a couple of seasons the elk seldom come back. If we the public are allowed to hunt these ranches it will have the same effect.
An area that I sometimes hunt had a herd of cows on it last season for the first time in probably 8 or 10 years. I think it was because it was so dry, and up high there was some green left. There were 13 to begin with but they were taking heavy casualties. Lost about half the last week of season. If they return next year they will be exterminated. Either sex elk on public where there are rarely cow elk, how much sense does that make? Meanwhile back at the playground ranch, the population grows.
There is one problem here and that is the guy harboring elk. Giving him bull tags makes it worse and when we do that then the little guy gets bought by another rich guy wanting bull tags. Unless we can buy access for the public on to the ranch that is harboring elk, throwing money or bull tags at it will make it worse, not better.
I feel for the little guy. I know a few of them and they are good people. I have seen the shoulder season work for a couple of them as after a couple of seasons the elk seldom come back. If we the public are allowed to hunt these ranches it will have the same effect.
An area that I sometimes hunt had a herd of cows on it last season for the first time in probably 8 or 10 years. I think it was because it was so dry, and up high there was some green left. There were 13 to begin with but they were taking heavy casualties. Lost about half the last week of season. If they return next year they will be exterminated. Either sex elk on public where there are rarely cow elk, how much sense does that make? Meanwhile back at the playground ranch, the population grows.
The Hedgehog
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2000
- Messages
- 11,706
He quoted me.
Landowners can take a beating from elk. They are also in control of many options.
Where are the cow licenses difficult to come by, and have been for years, in addition to LONG seasons? There's also block management- which pays, as does leasing. There's also landowner preference in the limited quota draws for bulls. Apparently, the suggestion of increasing cow hunting and not giving bull permits to some landowners is "punitive". There's a ton of really great landowners who deserve compensation, and maybe that does somehow include bull permit. The rationale should be meeting a criteria that's based on what the landowner does for elk, his neighbors, and maybe also to owners of the elk (the public). It might not even include any hunting "access" at all. There's a lot of awesome landowners that have done a lot for elk and the public elk hunters with little to no public hunting allowed on their deeded ground.
But then there's Hank "nothing is further from the truth" Worsech. His disingenuous ideas to get trophy bull permits into a select few hands comes with the price of pushing elk to private faster than ever and causing the "problems" he's pretending to try to solve to get a lot worse.
After Hank's crusade the past year, it might be hard for anybody with 2 firing brain cells to trust him, or any of his fascinating ideas going forward. It's the price he's paid for his strategy of "trying to get people talking".
Last edited:
Gerald Martin
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2009
- Messages
- 8,389
I hope every MT hunter gets to see and experience walking up to a bull like this or bigger at some point in their life.
In the discussion of what should be done, let’s not lose sight of what can be possible with proper management.
This bull was taken from a unit that could be exponentially better than it currently is.
Is a herd objective of 200-300 elk in an area of several million acres reasonable to anyone paying attention?
Dakotakid
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2014
- Messages
- 802
Is there a consensus that these four changes could improve elk management in a given district?
Is there consensus from the biologist/ or other experts.
Is there an identifiable district that it could work in?
It would take an organized political will and likely a 3 to 5 year pilot to see statistical change.
What costs are associated with a vrbo like build?
What costs would need to be projected for investment?
Is there action to the voices?
Perhaps this has already been discussed (or maybe even exists), but maybe an “earn-a-bull” program for some of these large private holdings might work well. IE for every 5-10 cow elk taken, the landowner earns a bull tag the following season.
We had a similar program in WI for deer during the CWD era to reduce overall population, and in terms of a tool to reduce over population it worked quite well (too well in many areas imo).
We had a similar program in WI for deer during the CWD era to reduce overall population, and in terms of a tool to reduce over population it worked quite well (too well in many areas imo).
Gerald Martin
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2009
- Messages
- 8,389
Is there a consensus that these four changes could improve elk management in a given district?
Is there consensus from the biologist/ or other experts.
Is there an identifiable district that it could work in?
It’s working in Wyoming. Restructuring seasons and reducing pressure is not a “start from scratch” concept. While impossible to predict with absolute specificity exactly what will happen in each district it is a reasonable expectation that reducing pressure on cow elk on public and maintaining pressure on cow elk on private will influence future generations of elk to select public land more than they do now.
There are far less elk on public now than there were 10 years ago. In some parts of the state this is affected by predation and pressure from wolves. In the central and eastern part of the state it’s nearly entirely a function of too much hunting pressure on accessible public and private land.
Yes, it will take several years of changed pressure for elk to select public land over private. In some areas it might take decades. This is why many of us have been adamantly opposed to liberalized cow harvest and late shoulder seasons. We knew this was going to happen based on a sense of understanding elk.
You can run these ideas and similar concepts past biologists. They can confirm what we can expect from a biological perspective but they have very little control over the social and political process that determines which management policies are implemented.
Is there consensus from the biologist/ or other experts.
Is there an identifiable district that it could work in?
It’s working in Wyoming. Restructuring seasons and reducing pressure is not a “start from scratch” concept. While impossible to predict with absolute specificity exactly what will happen in each district it is a reasonable expectation that reducing pressure on cow elk on public and maintaining pressure on cow elk on private will influence future generations of elk to select public land more than they do now.
There are far less elk on public now than there were 10 years ago. In some parts of the state this is affected by predation and pressure from wolves. In the central and eastern part of the state it’s nearly entirely a function of too much hunting pressure on accessible public and private land.
Yes, it will take several years of changed pressure for elk to select public land over private. In some areas it might take decades. This is why many of us have been adamantly opposed to liberalized cow harvest and late shoulder seasons. We knew this was going to happen based on a sense of understanding elk.
You can run these ideas and similar concepts past biologists. They can confirm what we can expect from a biological perspective but they have very little control over the social and political process that determines which management policies are implemented.
In eastern and central Montana I think you’d have to look at changing the deer season as well to have any effect. Just because they aren’t being shot at by elk hunters doesn’t mean they aren’t constantly getting bumped off public by the thousands of deer hunters in our 4 months of deer hunting we have
Buffs35
Well-known member
Montana: where the only way ranchers know how to haze wildlife is with high powered rifles.
Lots of good discussion over the weekend.
1.) Damage payments: The state of Montana currently does not pay for damages caused by wildlife other than large carnivores (and that's a general fund item for the LLMB). In order for the state to make payments to landowners for loss, there needs to be several key items in place, including a funding source that is not out of the General License Account or any of the special revenue accounts for the agency, lest we end up in a diversion issue relative to Pittman Robertson or other sources of funding. The bill from last session that would have set up a damage system was running in to this. Also, if the state is going to start paying for damages, then there has to be a solid metric for ensuring that all stakeholders are working together to solve the issue, rather than simply get a payment for elk or other species hitting crops. The creep that can happen in these programs is significant if not carefully constructed early. That means no management plan with the agency - no payment. Leased your hunting rights - no payment, etc). Free market solutions to damage exist in the form of leasing and access fees, what doesn't exist is a recognition by the state that landowners can do every thing that is asked of them, and for no fault of their own they still incur damages. That deserves our shared recognition and support. In Wyoming, the damage payment program used to be well under $1 million per year. Last I looked, it was over $5 million. That kind of growth is unsustainable for a wildlife agency to support.
2.) The 454 program is savable. It just needs some curating and less political BS interfering with the work that others are doing (PLPW's change versus what happened with 637). I think that PLPW can come up with the right mix of alterations and reforms to restore the integrity to the program that has been eliminated lately.
3.) Season structure does have to change. You cannot pound the piss out of game for months on end and expect them to be in the most accessible spots. 2023 is the next season setting exercise. Hopefully the director's office has learned their lesson about top down versus bottom up when it comes to this stuff.
4.) Type I & Type II BMA's work well for some, and not for others. No need to scrap either of those options, although some metrics for quality of habitat and improving the reservation system need to happen there, as well as increasing again the payment for cooperators to come closer to the $50K/year mark that a lot of leases are paying for hunt clubs, etc. Type III that focuses on actual herd management across shared landscapes is another option - where essentially a majority of landowners within an EMU sign up together and create a management plan, hunting access plan, and have FWP staff support to implement would get to the bigger areas and while you will still have some holdout landowners, ultimately there will be enough public pressure to get them to participate (It only took a mountain of negative press to get the Wilks' back to the table on a new access agreement to the Durfees).
1.) Damage payments: The state of Montana currently does not pay for damages caused by wildlife other than large carnivores (and that's a general fund item for the LLMB). In order for the state to make payments to landowners for loss, there needs to be several key items in place, including a funding source that is not out of the General License Account or any of the special revenue accounts for the agency, lest we end up in a diversion issue relative to Pittman Robertson or other sources of funding. The bill from last session that would have set up a damage system was running in to this. Also, if the state is going to start paying for damages, then there has to be a solid metric for ensuring that all stakeholders are working together to solve the issue, rather than simply get a payment for elk or other species hitting crops. The creep that can happen in these programs is significant if not carefully constructed early. That means no management plan with the agency - no payment. Leased your hunting rights - no payment, etc). Free market solutions to damage exist in the form of leasing and access fees, what doesn't exist is a recognition by the state that landowners can do every thing that is asked of them, and for no fault of their own they still incur damages. That deserves our shared recognition and support. In Wyoming, the damage payment program used to be well under $1 million per year. Last I looked, it was over $5 million. That kind of growth is unsustainable for a wildlife agency to support.
2.) The 454 program is savable. It just needs some curating and less political BS interfering with the work that others are doing (PLPW's change versus what happened with 637). I think that PLPW can come up with the right mix of alterations and reforms to restore the integrity to the program that has been eliminated lately.
3.) Season structure does have to change. You cannot pound the piss out of game for months on end and expect them to be in the most accessible spots. 2023 is the next season setting exercise. Hopefully the director's office has learned their lesson about top down versus bottom up when it comes to this stuff.
4.) Type I & Type II BMA's work well for some, and not for others. No need to scrap either of those options, although some metrics for quality of habitat and improving the reservation system need to happen there, as well as increasing again the payment for cooperators to come closer to the $50K/year mark that a lot of leases are paying for hunt clubs, etc. Type III that focuses on actual herd management across shared landscapes is another option - where essentially a majority of landowners within an EMU sign up together and create a management plan, hunting access plan, and have FWP staff support to implement would get to the bigger areas and while you will still have some holdout landowners, ultimately there will be enough public pressure to get them to participate (It only took a mountain of negative press to get the Wilks' back to the table on a new access agreement to the Durfees).
huntin24/7
Well-known member
I wish I could take credit for this meme but I stole it from Facebook. 
I think this just won the internet today.
shrapnel
Well-known member
- Joined
- Aug 27, 2015
- Messages
- 2,354
I think that some balance has to be illustrated here.
I honestly don’t know how many billionaires have land and want special treatment vs how many ranchers that have problems with elk. Wilks keeps coming up, how many other billionaires are wanting the same treatment?
I patrol a private ranch that has thousands of acres in 2 adjoining counties. The owner allows elk hunting every day from the day the season opens until the end of the shoulder season in February.
There are 2 separate parcels they allow hunting, the second is a large chunk of ground with several sections that the public has been driving off road and abusing the property by shooting buildings and equipment.
That is the parcel I patrol, just to make sure that the property is not mistreated and that the people hunting there have permission, because they still allow hunting there.
I find a few people each fall abusing the privilege, and no charges have been filed, just keeping people where they belong and warn them of their violations.
The elk, however, as they move through and around the property, destroy more than they consume in hay. The fences are never completely up, as elk when running will jump a fence for the first 50 or so, but when they get running, will knock a fence down quite easily. You have no idea how 200-500 head of elk can destroy a fence when the get running.
The owner wants as many elk taken as possible, requiring cows to be shot, but they have never asked for bull permits beyond any they could get OTC.
People call at 5:30 in the morning, drive in all times of the day or night, even claim their ranch is state ground and shoot elk in their irrigated hay field. There is a point that hunters can create more of a problem than the elk do, and yet they still allow hunting.
I have yet to see anyone lined up at 5:30 in the morning to ask permission to help rebuild the fences the elk knock down, and I have spent many hours myself restringing wire and patching torn up fences that never get completed before the elk tear it up again. The elk aren’t only a problem during hunting season, they can tear down a fence in July as easily as October.
This may be a sample of one, but there still remains a lot of privately owned land in Montana that allow hunting and elk can and do create a serious problem. Elk hunting contributes to that problem as seen by the debacle near White Sulphur Springs last fall.
It is a big pie and everyone wants a piece, but I would like to know just how many billionaires with unearned privileges there are against the other private property that is still allowing hunting.
Good post, Shrap. Thanks for sending it!
My understanding is that 7 of the 13 agreements were done by amenity owners, but that number is likely low. Part of the problem is that those owners are the ones who fund lobbyists, etc, to game or attack the system, so they tend to have outsized influence.
Legacy ranchers, and ranches like you patrol, should always be viewed as neighbors & partners, and citizens do need to find common ground here.
Sounds like you/the ranch needs to stop giving violators the local discount and prosecute them for trespass. I bet you’d see the number of violations decrease once word gets out
