Does Wyoming run into the same issues Montana is right now or does their season structures seem to help out? Or are Wyoming landowners just more tolerant of elk?
Bulls for Billionaires - MT EQC Meeting today 1:30 PM
- Thread starter Ben Lamb
- Start date
Does Wyoming run into the same issues Montana is right now or does their season structures seem to help out? Or are Wyoming landowners just more tolerant of elk?
Gerald Martin
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2009
- Messages
- 9,630
Yes, that’s what I would want. But I have done nothing to ask, demand or require FWP to change management policies to bring that desire to reality.
Opposition to FWP’s policies that aren’t working and refusing to support an expansion of those failed policies is not “demanding more elk.”
BuzzH
Well-known member
Both, lots of landowner tolerance and our access program is way better. They only hunt some of the hma's a few days a week and only allow so many hunters per day. Keeps the elk on places they can be hunted.
Wyoming has figured out elk respond to too much pressure, but if you give them a break they hang around.
Our season structure on public land general areas keep elk on public. We also have a 2 week break between archery and rifle. Month of September archery, then 14 day rifle seasons that end October 31. Some variation but in general that's how things work.
Carnage2011
Well-known member
For elk?
Carnage2011
Well-known member
As of last year they didn’t.
Correct.
Carnage2011
Well-known member
Interesting. I know that they don’t allow elk hunting on some of the ranch for sure.
Straight Arrow
Well-known member
You continue to assert that basic false premise, which then discredits your following opinions.
Most sportsmen do not "trash" landowners; some sportsmen are landowners. Most sportsmen support landowners, viable elk management and hunting private and public lands.
Question / opportunity to be forthright: Are you in some way affiliated with United Property Owners of Montana (UPOM)?
Dakotakid
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2014
- Messages
- 916
No, in no way.
And you mistake my statements.
Rather than being pedantic focus on the issue.
What is your solution to elk management.
BuzzH
Well-known member
You've already been told and won't listen.
Straight Arrow
Well-known member
Thanks for the UPOM reply.
Rather than asserting pedanticism and trashing Montana sportsmen, provide your viable solutions to elk management.
Read posts regarding elk management throughout this thread by Gerald Martin and BuzzH. They express good ideas and viable solutions to which I am in agreement.
As "Dakotakid", why are you so critical of Montana sportsmen? Where do you live? What's your background that you feel it appropriate to criticize sportsmen?
Dakotakid
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2014
- Messages
- 916
I didn’t realize the collective had concluded there was one true way and that all other opinions were verboten.
Please I beg forgiveness from the exalted one.
Yes now, if questioning the solutions definitely condescend and dismiss anyone questioning the one true path. I missed the heavens opening and the bright light leading the way to nirvana.
Please I beg forgiveness from the exalted one.
Yes now, if questioning the solutions definitely condescend and dismiss anyone questioning the one true path. I missed the heavens opening and the bright light leading the way to nirvana.
Straight Arrow
Well-known member
Extreme attitudinal sarcasm does not support didactic opinions and proposed solutions to elk management in Montana nor does it promote improved landowner - sportsmen relations.
Honest answers are a higher more helpful road.
You may ask any question of me or most other HT's on this forum and you'll get an honest forthright reply.
Honest answers are a higher more helpful road.
You may ask any question of me or most other HT's on this forum and you'll get an honest forthright reply.
Dakotakid
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2014
- Messages
- 916
1. What is S Arrow’s solution to the locked property management problem.
2. What is S Arrow’s proposed solution to sportsman supportive landowners that are negatively impacted by locked properties.
2. What is S Arrow’s proposed solution to sportsman supportive landowners that are negatively impacted by locked properties.
I haven't seen where Dakotakid has been out of line. So what if he isn't in Montana? mtmuley
BuzzH
Well-known member
You've already been told, telling you for the 12th time will be just as useless as the previous 11.
Private land only cow permits. Provide names and phone numbers to landowners suffering damage. That way you kill the actual elk causing damage versus pounding in elk that are using public that are not causing damage.
Encourage responsible block management, with regulations on those properties to actually kill elk.
Keeping elk on public via very limited cow seasons and shorter bull seasons.
Support APR like landowners as they want elk on their property and allow access.
Essentially copy Wyoming's elk management, as there is no need to reinvent the wheel.
Hunting Wife
Well-known member
Numerous people have laid out potential solutions to these exact points in this very thread, and you’ve dismissed them all thus far. I honestly can’t follow what you are advocating for.
Sportsmen already work closely with many of the landowners being impacted by elk coming off the neighbors who are harboring. No one is bashing those landowners. But increasing pressure on accessible land, whether public or private, has made the problem worse not better. It isn’t working.
Since you seem to know better than everyone else here, what do you suggest be done to remedy this issue, which is an issue between neighbors, not sportsmen and landowners? Please provide specific actions, as @Gerald Martin and @BuzzH have done.
Straight Arrow
Well-known member
Good questions, albeit very complex, as expressed throughout this thread. I will attempt at simple response.
1. Continued efforts by FWP supported land owner - sportsmen groups. More assistance and money to support mitigation of locked property owners' problems / issues.
2. Same efforts as above. Also, collaborative mitigation efforts bringing locked property owners and sportsmen supportive landowners together for mutual solutions. I advocate for such efforts to be promulgated not only by FWP and sportsmen's groups but also by landowner and agricultural interests based organizations.
There is so much, much more to solutions to your complex questions, but that's a start, IMO.
No one stated he was "out of line".
However, if the sarcasm is not seen in the following, then our understanding of common rhetoric differs significantly.
"I didn’t realize the collective had concluded there was one true way and that all other opinions were verboten.
Please I beg forgiveness from the exalted one.
Yes now, if questioning the solutions definitely condescend and dismiss anyone questioning the one true path. I missed the heavens opening and the bright light leading the way to nirvana."
Straight Arrow
Well-known member
It's not residency that is the intent of the questions. It's the background and basis for perspective. In particular, it would be good to learn of the basis for the "sportsman trashing landowners" assertion in a discussion regarding solutions to elk management.
The afore mentioned elk management solutions expressed by Gerald Martin and BuzzH are more strongly considered if you know their backgrounds, experiences, expertise, knowledge, and longtime direct involvement in advocating for wildlife and promoting the highly valued hunting legacy we all enjoy.
Buzz lives in Laramie, Wyoming, and we try not to hold that against him.
Dakotakid
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2014
- Messages
- 916
Thank you for your comments. I do not agree with the hive speak as some are expressing. Gerald Martin made a comment that was reasoned. It seemed a starting point that should be discussed. And your comment is reasoned and articulate. It to seems a starting point to discuss. But to claim either are the final say in a very complex management problem is short sighted by sportsman. To claim that it is now the unspoken consensus of the board, again minimizes the complexity.
A huge outcome of this thread is an apparent recognition that neighboring landowners [that allow public access] to locked property should be financially supported for impacts. That has not been ever done to my knowledge. My understanding is that fwp cannot financial compensate for impacts.
I am going to remain above the 4th grade fray.
Last edited:
