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

[DFS]

Last paragraph first, outfitters have little if anything to do with the equation, we are simply there by the landowners leave. We are the go between and scapegoat.

Onto the crux, you’re correct, killing bull elk does nothing to address numbers. I am for finding the right incentive package for these “billionaire” landowners, if that’s giving them 1-2-5-9(pick a number) of bull permits, and allowing X #’s of successful either sex permit hunters access(free), and “Y” number of cow hunters in(free) to begin addressing the over number problem. Maybe make each district where modified 454 plans are in place cow only last 2-3 weeks of season. Don’t over run the ranch in one year, but figure 3-5 yrs to have cows harvested to bring numbers in check. Something needs be done before disease wipes out the elk. To many wild ungulates in small areas are prone to die offs.

I struggle with Hanks push of we have to do something now. This “problem” wasn’t created over night it won’t be fixed over night. Step one is update the emp and elk objectives. I feel like it’s convenient to make this push now before objectives are updated because certain areas would no longer be over 200% objective. I would be perfectly happy if the the 454 program wasn’t used at all.

 

[Eric Albus]

I think each ranch needs be evaluated on a case by case study. Ranch “A” may be 10,000 acres with an occasional elk on it. It need not be entertained for 454.
Ranch B has 5000 elk on it pretty much all year, here we’d best sit with the landowner and figure out what’s going to work for the landowner(s), and is in the best interest of the elk herd. To many elk forced onto 15-20k acres is not in the best interest of long term herd health. Kind of like to many sportsmen pounding the accessible land. This raises blood pressure for hunters, causes stress, anxiety, and angst against the “evil land barron”. Eventually inciting class uprisings.(lol)



I don’t think landowners should be able to designate a recipient of a permit, X number of extra permits designated for family or employee’s/management ect., then the remaining hunters are picked random from successful permit holders. Landowners and their managers and sit with FWP biologists and determine a healthy number of elk, bull:cow ratios ect.. 10 immature bulls to 100 cows, like most of Mt is not acceptable. I have spoken with a couple biologists have managed large elk ranches, the best they’ve ever managed to have was a 1:1, before wolves. Post wolves they’re now at 45:100. Elk are easy to manage with proper management. Not so easy when they’re inaccessible.

 

[Eric Albus]

If I could get the initial loan I probably could. Looking at farm subsidies around me one of my local land barrens makes over twice what I do every year in subsidies alone. Who knows what he is making on actual commodities, rent on his various holdings, etc.; makes it even better to know he either inherited or married in to most of it. I know each house on hisland is bigger and nicer than what I have

Anyone pretty much qualifies for the first time farmer loans, so get after it.
After all, it’s an easy way to make a living, 1.5-2% return on investment leave TONS of room for error. Especially easy with drought, grasshoppers, hail, blizzards, high priced fuel, machinery, fertilizer, labor(Good luck finding this one). I had to stop. Just realized this is off topic again.


Oh, by the way, good luck, you’ll need it.

 

[bigsky2]

I think each ranch needs be evaluated on a case by case study. Ranch “A” may be 10,000 acres with an occasional elk on it. It need not be entertained for 454.
Ranch B has 5000 elk on it pretty much all year, here we’d best sit with the landowner and figure out what’s going to work for the landowner(s), and is in the best interest of the elk herd. To many elk forced onto 15-20k acres is not in the best interest of long term herd health. Kind of like to many sportsmen pounding the accessible land. This raises blood pressure for hunters, causes stress, anxiety, and angst against the “evil land barron”. Eventually inciting class uprisings.(lol)



I don’t think landowners should be able to designate a recipient of a permit, X number of extra permits designated for family or employee’s/management ect., then the remaining hunters are picked random from successful permit holders. Landowners and their managers and sit with FWP biologists and determine a healthy number of elk, bull:cow ratios ect.. 10 immature bulls to 100 cows, like most of Mt is not acceptable. I have spoken with a couple biologists have managed large elk ranches, the best they’ve ever managed to have was a 1:1, before wolves. Post wolves they’re now at 45:100. Elk are easy to manage with proper management. Not so easy when they’re inaccessible.

Exactly. We shouldn’t be rewarding the landowners that are harboring elk (like the N Bar and Horse Ranch) with bull permits unless they are willing to give something back that might actually moves the needle on elk numbers. I’d say that should be as many as 15 or more cows for each either sex permit in some cases. It seems like this program is going away from being a management tool. If that’s the way it’s going to be, it should be be fair to the public like it was before, where it was 4 bull hunters from the public for every bull permit for the landowner. Theres no management involved at all when the director is just rubber stamping every 454 that comes across his desk.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

I don’t think landowners should be able to designate a recipient of a permit, X number of extra permits designated for family or employee’s/management ect., then the remaining hunters are picked random from successful permit holders. Landowners and their managers and sit with FWP biologists and determine a healthy number of elk, bull:cow ratios ect.. 10 immature bulls to 100 cows, like most of Mt is not acceptable. I have spoken with a couple biologists have managed large elk ranches, the best they’ve ever managed to have was a 1:1, before wolves. Post wolves they’re now at 45:100. Elk are easy to manage with proper management. Not so easy when they’re inaccessible.

Would you be in favor of specific properties being in the draw?

So instead of applying for a permit for unit XXX, I apply for a permit on ranch XXX. Rep from Landowner + FWP Bio determine a quota for a ranch and then that goes to MFWP who set that quota for that property.

That is kinda the Ranching for Wildlife system in CO

 

[Eric Albus]

Would you be in favor of specific properties being in the draw?

So instead of applying for a permit for unit XXX, I apply for a permit on ranch XXX. Rep from Landowner + FWP Bio determine a quota for a ranch and then that goes to MFWP who set that quota for that property.

That is kinda the Ranching for Wildlife system in CO
View attachment 218286

This this could lead to ppl potentially cutting a deal with landowners prior to draw….like, if I draw this permit, you let me hunt I’ll give xyz.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

This this could lead to ppl potentially cutting a deal with landowners prior to draw….like, if I draw this permit, you let me hunt I’ll give xyz.

I think you misunderstand, in theory the system is supposed to work that landowners give permission ahead of time to anyone that draws, without payment, and the permit is only good on their property.

 

[Eric Albus]

Exactly. We shouldn’t be rewarding the landowners that are harboring elk (like the N Bar and Horse Ranch) with bull permits unless they are willing to give something back that might actually moves the needle on elk numbers. I’d say that should be as many as 15 or more cows for each either sex permit in some cases. It seems like this program is going away from being a management tool. If that’s the way it’s going to be, it should be be fair to the public like it was before, where it was 4 bull hunters from the public for every bull permit for the landowner. Theres no management involved at all when the director is just rubber stamping every 454 that comes across his desk.

To me, 4:1 is not equitable. If the landowner(s) go for it, fine. I’d be a little more generous to the key holders, with bull tags, but we have to be able to bring cow numbers down, like every bull permit to landowners 50 cow elk are taken.

 

[Ben Lamb]

To me, 4:1 is not equitable. If the landowner(s) go for it, fine. I’d be a little more generous to the key holders, with bull tags, but we have to be able to bring cow numbers down, like every bull permit to landowners 50 cow elk are taken.

Good stuff Eric, and thanks for taking the time to read everyone's material. It is appreciated.

In the past, the agency has generally negotiated at far more than the 4:1 ratio and it's been largely viewed as succesful in terms of increasing harvest to get management options. I think even when you look at past agreements with the Wilks, etc, there's a recognition that increased harvest needs to be based around the concepts of herd management as opposed to simply giving gifts to wealthy elites as it now appears to have become.

I'm all about maximum benefit for the resource, so I think statutorly going back to 4:1 with the ARM rule (which is coming on April 19th, btw) specifying that all of these agreements have to come from the ground up, be tied to actual management objectives & be shown to have a thoughtful approach is the best way forward.

Not allowing landowners to pick & choose is tough call, but I think it's the right one. I see it from the landowner's point of view where they want effective hunters, and people they know & trust being allowed to hunt, but if there is staff as has been outlined above for some of these ranches to do the handholding, then that needs to be taken in to account, or FWP needs to increase the number of staff working on hunter distribution & management of programs like this. It will be interesting to see what the budget discussion on April 19th looks like, as well as the new regulations for 454.

Fish And Wildlife Commission To Meet April 19 | Montana FWP

The Montana Fish and Wildlife Commission will meet April 19 in person at the State Capitol in room 317.

fwp.mt.gov

 

[DFS]

1. Update the elk objectives.
2 change season structure of deer and elk.
Until that happens you can come up with any bullshit program for landowners or increasing access to hunters and nothing will change. Throw as much time and money at it as you like, until 1 and 2 are fixed there is no solution.

 

[Eric Albus]

Good stuff ERic, and thanks for taking the time to read everyone's material. It is appreciated.

In the past, the agency has generally negotiated at far more than the 4:1 ratio and it's been largely viewed as succesful in terms of increasing harvest to get management options. I think even when you look at past agreements with the Wilks, etc, there's a recognition that increased harvest needs to be based around the concepts of herd management as opposed to simply giving gifts to wealthy elites as it now appears to have become.

I'm all about maximum benefit for the resource, so I think statutorly going back to 4:1 with the ARM rule (which is coming on April 19th, btw) specifying that all of these agreements have to come from the ground up, be tied to actual management objectives & be shown to have a thoughtful approach is the best way forward.

Not allowing landowners to pick & choose is tough call, but I think it's the right one. I see it from the landowner's point of view where they want effective hunters, and people they know & trust being allowed to hunt, but if there is staff as has been outlined above for some of these ranches to do the handholding, then that needs to be taken in to account, or FWP needs to increase the number of staff working on hunter distribution & management of programs like this. It will be interesting to see what the budget discussion on April 19th looks like, as well as the new regulations for 454.

Fish And Wildlife Commission To Meet April 19 | Montana FWP

The Montana Fish and Wildlife Commission will meet April 19 in person at the State Capitol in room 317.

fwp.mt.gov

As a landowner I see the point of letting an owner have some say in who some permits could be awarded to. Perhaps an allowance of 1-4 designated by the landowner permits as “payment” IF they’re providing services to the public hunters?

 

[Eric Albus]

1. Update the elk objectives.
2 change season structure of deer and elk.
Until that happens you can come up with any bullshit program for landowners or increasing access to hunters and nothing will change. Throw as much time and money at it as you like, until 1 and 2 are fixed there is no solution.

Still does not address the problem. Elk being pushed onto inaccessible lands.

If the elk in eastern Montana on private were not counted there’d be no over objective units in the east. Granted reducing pressure on accessible lands would help the elk to disperse and stay there. So, if you’re able to get the public by and large to change their hunting tactics this would work. However, until the public learns to stop chasing elk this won’t happen.

 

[Dakotakid]

The over objectives is not just eastern MT

https://fwp.mt.gov/binaries/content/assets/fwp/conservation/elk/2021_montana_elkobjective_maps.pdf

 

[Ben Lamb]

As a landowner I see the point of letting an owner have some say in who some permits could be awarded to. Perhaps an allowance of 1-4 designated by the landowner permits as “payment” IF they’re providing services to the public hunters?

The issue would still exist that you've taken a program that's about achieving better management outcomes and turning into something that encourages practices that would be counter to management goals. At the end of the day, transferable tags, or set-asides, etc are perceived as being part of the problem relative to elk distribution on public lands, just like season structure is.

Increasing payments for Block Management, via the type III idea we've been discussing, extra payments for damages (general fund, not license dollars), etc should be on the table. It seems that the magic number is $50,000 for the landowners we've talked too. The WHIP program isn't usually used up, leaving about $500K a year on the table. For Landowners looking to deal with noxious weeds, etc, it's another avenue to couple with various programs to hit that number.

Another concept that's getting some traction is adding stewardship & restoration components to Habitat Montana so landowners can get grants for improvements on their land, and on adjacent public lands to increase likelihood of habitation by wildlife. The agency is going to go down a rabbit hole of 40 year easements for access rather than habitat, and that's unfortunate because they'll take limited funds that should be put on the ground for habitat work and turn it into a program that's not as well thought out.

Still does not address the problem. Elk being pushed onto inaccessible lands.

If the elk in eastern Montana on private were not counted there’d be no over objective units in the east. Granted reducing pressure on accessible lands would help the elk to disperse and stay there. So, if you’re able to get the public by and large to change their hunting tactics this would work. However, until the public learns to stop chasing elk this won’t happen.

2023 is the next season setting opportunity. I think that if we are faithful and honest with each other now, we can find some common ground on season setting so that opportunity remains high, but we distribute hunters better to help with distribution. But 100% that's not about dealing with elk distribution today. And to that end, 454 could be good, but you still need a herd approach versus a specific landowner approach. Knowing where the elk go when pressured, focusing pressure where it needs to be, and getting neighbors to work together is the only way I can see effecting overall herd numbers, so at some level we have to recognize that it's not just hunter pressure or landowners encouraging concentrations, but that we take a piecemeal approach because it's easier than a community approach.

So as it relates to 454, having these agreements come from the biologists & local landowners is so critical to ensuring the best outcomes while rewarding landowners with a permit or license.

 

[DFS]

Still does not address the problem. Elk being pushed onto inaccessible lands.

If the elk in eastern Montana on private were not counted there’d be no over objective units in the east. Granted reducing pressure on accessible lands would help the elk to disperse and stay there. So, if you’re able to get the public by and large to change their hunting tactics this would work. However, until the public learns to stop chasing elk this won’t happen.

Agreed. The public will never self regulate. It has to be addressed with shortening and breaking up seasons. That is the start of fixing the problem. Until then all 454 looks like to me is Wilkes getting to pick some of their well connected buddies to come shoot some bulls on their giant ranch. Which seems clear to me that’s been the intentions from the start.

 

[rogerthat]

Still does not address the problem. Elk being pushed onto inaccessible lands.

If the elk in eastern Montana on private were not counted there’d be no over objective units in the east. Granted reducing pressure on accessible lands would help the elk to disperse and stay there. So, if you’re able to get the public by and large to change their hunting tactics this would work. However, until the public learns to stop chasing elk this won’t happen.

The point was that not all units even have an overpopulation problem. Some of them have an objective problem. Address the objective and you don't have an over objective elk herd. That would get rid of some of the noise so we can focus on units that are actually over objective.

 

[Eric Albus]

The point was that not all units even have an overpopulation problem. Some of them have an objective problem. Address the objective and you don't have an over objective elk herd. That would get rid of some of the noise so we can focus on units that are actually over objective.

Agreed. Some do.

Those in eastern Mt generally don’t have an objective problem though. The problem is the public pushes all the elk off accessible land onto private. We can raise the numbers to 50 elk per sq mile and still have no elk where the public can get to them.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Agreed. Some do.

Those in eastern Mt generally don’t have an objective problem though. The problem is the public pushes all the elk off accessible land onto private. We can raise the numbers to 50 elk per sq mile and still have no elk where the public can get to them.

Amen.

One of the conversations that's been had relative to shoulder seasons and landowners was from some of the folks on the north end of the Crazies where they are actively working with FWP on shoulder seasons, recognize that they're not working as well as they could, and that they had neighbors who didn't give two damns what the other folks thought about elk, because they like to watch them on their pivots in the summer. Those elk that spread out through the district after the regular season would head for that refuge the second shoulder season shooting started. So I think we can safely assume that when there's any pressure, elk move.

We can change up how we use the ground relative to hunting pressure, disperse hunters, stagger seasons, etc. I'm all for finding that better path forward that improves hunter success on public land, but we also need to think about how elk are managed across the entirety of the EMU rather than individual ranches. Landowners as well have to have some kind of tool that helps them work together for better outcomes relative to elk distribution and ensuring the harvest necessary to keep herds from becoming too problematic. 454 is one way to try and cobble that together, but I don't know that it gets you to the magic number.

At the end of the day, going back to how 454 was before it got mangled in the sausage making process is the easiest fix, but it won't address a lot of the issues that have been brought forward. We need rule changes (again, that's coming up on April 19th) along with the budget and new rules for bringing proposals forward. It would be good for PLPW members to watch that segment for the 454 rule change so you can see what the commission, director's office & the public think about them.

 

[rogerthat]

Agreed. Some do.

Those in eastern Mt generally don’t have an objective problem though. The problem is the public pushes all the elk off accessible land onto private. We can raise the numbers to 50 elk per sq mile and still have no elk where the public can get to them.

Ok. I agree with the movement of elk but why should FWP give landowners bull tags for cow tags when we don't need to be harvesting cows in these units? That is why a new EMP with new objectives has to be the first step for a lot of these units.

 

[antlerradar]

Would you be in favor of specific properties being in the draw?

So instead of applying for a permit for unit XXX, I apply for a permit on ranch XXX. Rep from Landowner + FWP Bio determine a quota for a ranch and then that goes to MFWP who set that quota for that property.

That is kinda the Ranching for Wildlife system in CO
View attachment 218286

One of the biggest positives of this would be better draw odds. The more people that put in for the individual ranches the better the odds would get on the public units.