Calling all (Sportsmen) Ranchers, and or Landowners!

[Nemont]

Big Shooter,

I am sure the Cornwell you have will confirm what I said. That deal would have been a win-win for both parties but instead the property is now out of block management. Some access is still granted but not like it was.

Nemont

 

[Big Shooter]

NeMont. I hope you don't think I was doubting you as I am anxious to see what he says about it.

Shoots...that is an excuse by the department and nothing more. I will use antelope as an example over here. The past few winters hit them hard in our area, but you get down south a little further and the numbers are way higher. Personally, (which I realize my opinion doesn't mean much), I think they could have damn near cut the tags to about a quarter or less in the northern districts of 700 and it would have been about right. Deer were basically the same way. If the department thinks that the sportsman are going to do it on the honor system then they are wrong! Meaning if Tom, Dick and Harry usually hunt one area and the numbers are way down, they still probably going to hunt it again.

Just saying.

 

[sweetnectar]

These are the real issues to me:


1).Do you feel we have enough elk in the state of Montana? Should HB 42 that became law in 2003 apply to areas with lots of winter range. The Missouri Breaks northern region had over 4,000 elk in 2005 or 6. Now that herd is half that, and headed even lower. There's no wolves there, so you can't blame them. The objective levels are set at 1700-2000 there. Right now, they (MTFW&P's) have to keep the pedal down on the gas and kill more elk. Even though that region has good winter range.

2).In your opinion should we increase elk numbers, leave the plan alone, or go in another direction?

3).Do you fellas understand what "Ranching For Wildlife" is? If yes then do you support it?

4).Do you feel the state owns enough land, and that there should be no net gain in said land?

5).Do you fellas believe in our stream access laws? How do you feel about fisherman walking up the creeks and rivers that flow through your lands?

6)/Should a land owner be able to lock off a road that was historically used as public access?

These are going to be a few of the big issues that we as "Sportsman" will be needing to fix. I, like many of you would like to put some of these things to rest.

You have an opinion, so lets share it.

1. Areas vary, dynamics vary, nature as a whole varies. I think it is a good idea to manage areas accordingly. In other words there is a reason we have different hunting districts for this very purpose.
2. I haven't given much thought to that one.
3. I don't know what ranching for wildlife exactly is but if it involves ranching and hunting in a way that two parties freely and mutually agree on there are gains to be had from it.
4. I think that government lands as a whole should not increase in the state. Get access to the lands we already own whether that means purchasing access or selling landlocked pieces first. This should take priority over increasing the net amount of land government has.
5. We don't have any accessible streams where my family ranches. I enjoy fishing and use the stream access law but I'm not one to push the limits...like walk to the ordinary high water mark just because when I don't have to to fish. I'm not into pushing the limits when it comes to ditches etc. All this seems to do is drive a wedge between landowners and sportsmen. I think about the supreme court case when Montana tried to get a bunch of money out of PPL...crazy.
6. It depends on the history of it and circumstances. I wonder why the state has a right to close off the state land by my house...just because people are abusing it and all.

Hope this helps.

 

[shoots-straight]

1. Areas vary, dynamics vary, nature as a whole varies. I think it is a good idea to manage areas accordingly. In other words there is a reason we have different hunting districts for this very purpose.
2. I haven't given much thought to that one.
3. I don't know what ranching for wildlife exactly is but if it involves ranching and hunting in a way that two parties freely and mutually agree on there are gains to be had from it.
4. I think that government lands as a whole should not increase in the state. Get access to the lands we already own whether that means purchasing access or selling landlocked pieces first. This should take priority over increasing the net amount of land government has.
5. We don't have any accessible streams where my family ranches. I enjoy fishing and use the stream access law but I'm not one to push the limits...like walk to the ordinary high water mark just because when I don't have to to fish. I'm not into pushing the limits when it comes to ditches etc. All this seems to do is drive a wedge between landowners and sportsmen. I think about the supreme court case when Montana tried to get a bunch of money out of PPL...crazy.
6. It depends on the history of it and circumstances. I wonder why the state has a right to close off the state land by my house...just because people are abusing it and all.

Hope this helps.

Thanks for taking the time to answer the questions. I feel these things are going to set us (sportsman) apart from each other next year.

On question #1, you really didn't fully answer the question. We have different HD in the state, but according to HB 42 that passed in 2003, we manage those areas with the major player (Livestock Industry) telling us how many elk should be there. In areas will small amounts of private lands, should we be using this law, or should we amend it, or get rid of it all together?

On #2, where do you hunt that you never think about the elk populations? Do you hunt Elk on public lands? If yes how much of a percentage of the time?

Good question on #6. Is the state closing access, or just the road system?