Bulls for Billionaires - MT EQC Meeting today 1:30 PM

[rogerthat]

I asked One landowner (a born/bred/raised/Mt Resident) who participated in the program his opinion of 454, and I’ll quote, “it was a pain in the ass, and not really worth it”. (he is certainly not a “billionaire” either)

Remember I’m outside looking in here as well. It appears to me the landowners are providing a lot in terms of access and service to the public.

So, what exactly are you looking? Ben, greenhorn? Give me your personal utopia in the elk debacle.

What was this landowners bull to cow tag ratio?? i.e. how many bull tags did he receive for letting the public shoot some cows? Maybe he didn't negotiate a good deal? Needs to read Trumps book maybe. Next time he could kill a yuge bull that would be worth it.

 

[MTTW]

When your a billionaire you could "buy" a big rack above the fireplace every single year and twice on Sunday in Utah, Colorado, New Mexico. Must be a little more to the story. The billionaires want to shoot it on their own land maybe? Truthfully its got to be a control thing. When you are a big shot, you call the shots...and you own the game on your land...in Texas. Or a campaign donor rewards point system

I think they might want to use elk hunts to trade favors. Invite the dinner party guests to come out and kill a bull on the ranch in Mt. They don't want to kill just 1 bull. Kind of like having a cellar full of old Scotch or Cuban cigars. Just guessing.

 

[Sytes]

Must be a little more to the story. The billionaires want to shoot it on their own land maybe?

If they are "Non-Resident" when they own vast quantities of land in the State due to their residence in another is their ownership desire to count for their own bulls, as "Resident"? I don't know how it works for landowner tags by a landowner who resides in another State.

 

[The Hedgehog]

I asked One landowner (a born/bred/raised/Mt Resident) who participated in the program his opinion of 454, and I’ll quote, “it was a pain in the ass, and not really worth it”. (he is certainly not a “billionaire” either)

But did he get a big one?

 

[Eric Albus]

No, he gave his permit to a wounded vet

 

[The Hedgehog]

No, he gave his permit to a wounded vet

I didn’t think they could be given, but chosen from list. That’s very nice. But none the less, the landowner can let a wounded vet with a permit hunt anytime he wants..

 

[Eric Albus]

I think the Utopia is that the Bulls (and deer) are "owned" by the people of Montana. The regular Joe Schmoe should have the same chance to shoot one of the publicly owned bulls as the rich billionaires, but that is not the case here and not even close.

That they(elk) are.
The private land is owned by individuals, and they control access, pay the taxes, and are feeding/housing “your” elk.

 

[DFS]

That they(elk) are.
The private land is owned by individuals, and they control access, pay the taxes, and are feeding/housing “your” elk.

Why don’t they round up a bunch of buddies all with 3 cow elk tags and take care of the problem. They have 6 months to do it. It’s a cop out to say they don’t have the tools or need bull elk tags to do it.

 

[The Hedgehog]

they control access, pay the taxes, and are feeding/housing “your” elk.

And for that they should be thankful. They can enjoy them, profit off them, hunt them, let others hunt as they see fit on their property or not. But none the less they are still not property of the landowner. I will be the last person to feel sorry for a landowner because he’s got a lot of elk. I wish I were one of those guys..

 

[Eric Albus]

Why don’t they round up a bunch of buddies all with 3 cow elk tags and take care of the problem. They have 6 months to do it. It’s a cop out to say they don’t have the tools or need bull elk tags to do it.

you completely miss the point…. The bull permit give incentive. Punitive measures have been tried, and proven to fail. Give a landowner an incentive to tolerate the public.

 

[DFS]

you completely miss the point…. The bull permit give incentive. Punitive measures have been tried, and proven to fail. Give a landowner an incentive to tolerate the public.

I grew up on a ranch. When my dad felt we had too many deer much to my dismay ( I loved the deer and never thought there were too many) he let people blast them. We fought about it a lot. Point being he took care of his problem. Now days too many deer isn’t a problem. You are in search of a solution that doesn’t exist.

 

[The Hedgehog]

you completely miss the point…. The bull permit give incentive. Punitive measures have been tried, and proven to fail. Give a landowner an incentive to tolerate the public.

The rotten intolerable public.. Hell yeah - give the landowners some bull permits for having to deal with all those pieces of shit. Makes total sense.

 

[TheTone]

That they(elk) are.
The private land is owned by individuals, and they control access, pay the taxes, and are feeding/housing “your” elk.

What a bummer. I’ll trade them my home in town straight up. Never had an elk problem, but have had a couple yard moose eating my hard earned apples

 

[bigsky2]

So, what exactly are you looking? Ben, greenhorn? Give me your personal utopia in the elk debacle.

Input from biologists would be a good start. If you look at the contracts for the 454 deals that have been around a long time, you will see that they were signed by the local biologist and the landowner. Last years contracts were signed by the landowner and Hank. I’m pretty sure the biologists in my area had no idea about the deals being made until they were waiting commission approval.

I’d like to see these deals made at the discretion of the local biologists. The biologists are aware of landowners that are harboring elk. Landowners that have caused these elk management disasters should not be rewarded with bull permits. Telling landowners “not only can you harbour elk, but we will even give you bull permits now” is a terrible precedent to be setting if we ever want to get elk numbers down.

Add the fact that there’s no limit on the permits granted through the 454 program and they are in addition to the permit quotas set by the biologists. I can see the number of 454 permits being pretty substantial if things continue in the direction they are headed.

 

[S-3 Ranch]

are Montana and Idaho communist States?
imo if someone owns the land they should be in control of who hunts on the land , Montana is already a welfare state by stealing federal funds and lands to allow residents a place to hunt ! On the the other 48’s tax funds
crazy how entitled to and covet people feel about others property

 

[DFS]

are Montana and Idaho communist States?
imo if someone owns the land they should be in control of who hunts on the land , Montana is already a welfare state by stealing federal funds and lands to allow residents a place to hunt ! On the the other 48’s tax funds
crazy how entitled people feel about others property

Texas has entered the chat.

 

[The Hedgehog]

are Montana and Idaho communist States?
imo if someone owns the land they should be in control of who hunts on the land , Montana is already a welfare state by stealing federal funds and lands to allow residents a place to hunt ! On the the other 48’s tax funds
crazy how entitled to and covet people feel about others property

You would serve well on the PLPW committee and your opinions would be welcome and valued.

 

[Ben Lamb]

I asked One landowner (a born/bred/raised/Mt Resident) who participated in the program his opinion of 454, and I’ll quote, “it was a pain in the ass, and not really worth it”. (he is certainly not a “billionaire” either)

Remember I’m outside looking in here as well. It appears to me the landowners are providing a lot in terms of access and service to the public.

So, what exactly are you looking? Ben, greenhorn? Give me your personal utopia in the elk debacle.

And we heard from several legacy landowners that they'd never put in for them either due to how poorly this round was executed. Plus, I think the landowner at EQC Tuesday did a great job talking about how generous MT is to landowners now, given that 15% of all LE permits are set aside for the Landowner Preference pool, which is about 75% or greater chance of draw, compared to the general draw, which is around 24% I think?

This white sheet (attached) was handed out to all EQC members, and I know that @406LIFE has a copy as well. The MT Elk Coalition will be presenting in Lewistown for the May PLPW meeting, so you'll get a chance to talk directly with them about their ideas as well.

454 could be a good program, but not when it's handled by Helena insiders, big money lobbyists and the director's office. Would everyone in the hunting community support 454 after this? Nope, but they're going to recommend changes rather than scrapping it. The easiest and cleanest thing would be to go back to the original model. The program wasn't promoted by the agency in the past, and I think it's certainly out of the bag now, so with a little direction from Helena to the regional offices to seek new participants, and actually make it about wildlife management and not bulls for billionaires, I think 80% of the controversy goes down.

Now, why do billionaires need trophy bull tags to let kids with cancer hunt? Hank said that they wouldn't have had that opportunity during the February 4th commission hearing.

And why wasn't the previous program where they were allowing (up to 300) in some instances good enough? To paint this whole debacle as being "for the people" is a lobbyists tale. Billionaires got caught with their hands in the cookie jar, and now they're trying to do damage control.

Again, I'm a proponent of giving landowners licenses and permits so they can hunt their own land, but it needs to be an honest, open and thoughtful process, and this administration has delivered none of that.

 

[Ben Lamb]

are Montana and Idaho communist States?
imo if someone owns the land they should be in control of who hunts on the land , Montana is already a welfare state by stealing federal funds and lands to allow residents a place to hunt ! On the the other 48’s tax funds
crazy how entitled to and covet people feel about others property

The Constitution of the State of Montana declares that wildlife exist as a condition of the land, and are owned by no-one, and are held in trust for the citizens of the state. If you don't like that, stay in Texas, and bring some of the billionaires who are trying to turn MT into TX with you.

 

[Ben Lamb]

you completely miss the point…. The bull permit give incentive. Punitive measures have been tried, and proven to fail. Give a landowner an incentive to tolerate the public.

This is UPOM talking point heaven. The only people I see using it are the ones pushing for transferable tags.