Crazy idea

[rogerthat]

With the upcoming commission meeting on Dec 14 and the controversy around Dir. Worsechs general season on private land proposal, one idea that has been floating around in my head for the limited entry areas is what would be wrong with splitting the quota into two draws- Limited entry public land tags and limited entry private land tags? I’m sure this has been cussed and discussed but honestly in my opinion the idea would get rid of crowding on public lands improving the quality of the hunt or at least make it manageable and distribute tags towards the private lands via draw. Outfitters clients would have to apply for these tags right along side the private hunting clubs and landowners. I get this is going down the rfw model somewhat but would be more like Colorados draw for private and public land tags. Aren’t we eventually going to end up there anyway essentially since the administration of the land is independent of each other anyway? Thoughts?

 

[brocksw]

Somebody delete this thread before worsech sees it and thinks it's a good idea.

 

[rogerthat]

Too late. Unfortunately

 

[rogerthat]

If I was king I would have the fwp determine the use of the habitat by radio collar studies from 9/1 to end of general and allocate my limited entry tags by biologist estimates of the weighted estimate of the use of this habitat-private vs public. Obviously this would change from year to year but you get the point. Grounded in math and biology. Better than the political back in forth cycle we are currently stuck in.

 

[BenInMT]

They do plan on limiting the entry on private. They are going to limit it according to how much money you can pay for a bull elk.

 

[rogerthat]

They do plan on limiting the entry on private. They are going to limit it according to how much money you can pay for a bull elk.

i can pay about $20.

 

[rogerthat]

Additionally the number one thing I would do as king is put in place a new Elk Management Plan. It’s possible that is all that needs to happen with the current tools that are in the toolbox. The objective in the unit I hunt is ridiculously out of date

 

[SAJ-99]

With the upcoming commission meeting on Dec 14 and the controversy around Dir. Worsechs general season on private land proposal, one idea that has been floating around in my head for the limited entry areas is what would be wrong with splitting the quota into two draws- Limited entry public land tags and limited entry private land tags? I’m sure this has been cussed and discussed but honestly in my opinion the idea would get rid of crowding on public lands improving the quality of the hunt or at least make it manageable and distribute tags towards the private lands via draw. Outfitters clients would have to apply for these tags right along side the private hunting clubs and landowners. I get this is going down the rfw model somewhat but would be more like Colorados draw for private and public land tags. Aren’t we eventually going to end up there anyway essentially since the administration of the land is independent of each other anyway? Thoughts?

it’s a solution in search of a problem.

The stated problem is too many elk. The real problem is political donors don’t want to participate in LE draws where they 1) get stuck with the DIY commoners and 2) might not draw a tag. By creating another LE draw, you eliminate #1, but #2 still exists. I like the idea of matching private landowner versus private landowner(outfitter), but it has zero chance of getting throw. Their answer would be that it doesn’t effectively reduce elk numbers.

Still think the best idea is to say “Great idea Hank, if all the private land tags are cow tags. Can’t reward landowners that harbor elk. Make that change and we are 100% behind it.” Watch how fast it dies.

 

[antlerradar]

Still think the best idea is to say “Great idea Hank, if all the private land tags are cow tags. Can’t reward landowners that harbor elk. Make that change and we are 100% behind it.” Watch how fast it dies.

With being able to use a general tag on a cow or a spike and B tags for cows we for the most part have this now. I bet if you were to say "Great idea Hank, if all the private land tags are only good for five point or less bulls the people pushing this would reject it.

 

[SAJ-99]

With being able to use a general tag on a cow or a spike and B tags for cows we for the most part have this now. I bet if you were to say "Great idea Hank, if all the private land tags are only good for five point or less bulls the people pushing this would reject it.

yep. It will interesting to see how MOGA reacts. Sounds like some of guys brave and honorable enough to post an opinion on HT are not big fans. MOGA opinion pulls a lot of weight at the state level. GG is clearly looking ahead to a bigger job and need to cater to donors, even if those donors don’t give a $hit about Montana or its other landowner residents.

 

[rogerthat]

it’s a solution in search of a problem.

The stated problem is too many elk. The real problem is political donors don’t want to participate in LE draws where they 1) get stuck with the DIY commoners and 2) might not draw a tag. By creating another LE draw, you eliminate #1, but #2 still exists. I like the idea of matching private landowner versus private landowner(outfitter), but it has zero chance of getting throw. Their answer would be that it doesn’t effectively reduce elk numbers.

Still think the best idea is to say “Great idea Hank, if all the private land tags are cow tags. Can’t reward landowners that harbor elk. Make that change and we are 100% behind it.” Watch how fast it dies.

A solution in search of a problem? Well the problem right now is that the tag I have drawn for the last 14 years straight is looking like it will be a 1in 4 to 1in5 type draw odds for next year if the commission passes what is in front of them. After spending the day reaching out to the commission I have no reason to believe this won’t be passed. I would be fine with the 4 to 5 year wait to hunt the bull I am waiting 4-5 years to hunt still exists but in this case he will be sluiced on private 2-3 years before I ever receive the public tag I want. So do you see the problem?

 

[antlerradar]

yep. It will interesting to see how MOGA reacts. Sounds like some of guys brave and honorable enough to post an opinion on HT are not big fans. MOGA opinion pulls a lot of weight at the state level. GG is clearly looking ahead to a bigger job and need to cater to donors, even if those donors don’t give a $hit about Montana or its other landowner residents.

Will be interesting to see how MOGA reacts. Some outfitters are likely to benefit greatly, others that are hunting in western Montana are most likely going to lose business.
One thing that I have yet to see brought up is how much this is going benefit realestate interests. Hunting big elk sells ranches, would not be surprised if some of the big land brokers are quietly pushing this elk proposal.

 

[SAJ-99]

A solution in search of a problem? Well the problem right now is that the tag I have drawn for the last 14 years straight is looking like it will be a 1in 4 to 1in5 type draw odds for next year if the commission passes what is in front of them. After spending the day reaching out to the commission I have no reason to believe this won’t be passed. I would be fine with the 4 to 5 year wait to hunt the bull I am waiting 4-5 years to hunt still exists but in this case he will be sluiced on private 2-3 years before I ever receive the public tag I want. So do you see the problem?

Yes, sorry. My point is that it doesn’t solve the stated problem. It solves YOUR problem. Too many hunters continue to think about this in terms of themselves and not about what is trying to be accomplished by the players. Don’t listen to the words, look at the actions. And always think about the $$$. I use the Wilks because they are a good example. I’m sure the Wilks neighbors generally vote R because I can see the county results. I’m also sure they hate the Wilks (because they say so.). While they might hate the Wilks and vote R, they don’t have the same pull in the national stage as the Wilks.

This is all a game. Figure out what motivates the players.

 

[rogerthat]

Yes, sorry. My point is that it doesn’t solve the stated problem. It solves YOUR problem. Too many hunters continue to think about this in terms of themselves and not about what is trying to be accomplished by the players. Don’t listen to the words, look at the actions. And always think about the $$$. I use the Wilks because they are a good example. I’m sure the Wilks neighbors generally vote R because I can see the county results. I’m also sure they hate the Wilks (because they say so.). While they might hate the Wilks and vote R, they don’t have the same pull in the national stage as the Wilks.

This is all a game. Figure out what motivates the players.

And that is where you and I differ in thought process. I agree this proposal doesn’t do anything to bring the population towards objective….because that’s not their objective.

Your own words “look at their actions not their words”. Their objective is to satisfy landowners right now. Anyone can see the actual problem is too much focused hunting pressure on the public lands while not enough on the private lands. Hence private harbors more elk less available to hunters that don’t have access. The solution is to split the hunt. Public hunters need to get it through their thick skulls they are never going to force access. Let the landowners run the show on their private how they want(cause they will) but set the system up so the landowners actions doesn’t screw up the public land hunting. I think that’s the best we will ever do

 

[SAJ-99]

And that is where you and I differ in thought process. I agree this proposal doesn’t do anything to bring the population towards objective….because that’s not their objective.

Your own words “look at their actions not their words”. Their objective is to satisfy landowners right now. Anyone can see the actual problem is too much focused hunting pressure on the public lands while not enough on the private lands. Hence private harbors more elk less available to hunters that don’t have access. The solution is to split the hunt. Public hunters need to get it through their thick skulls they are never going to force access. Let the landowners run the show on their private how they want(cause they will) but set the system up so the landowners actions doesn’t screw up the public land hunting. I think that’s the best we will ever do

I agree that is a problem, but it’s not that clear cut. Landowners are not a homogeneous group. Some of those landowners want to harbor the elk because they hunt them or lease it out to others. They don’t care that there are no elk on public ground. The landowner problems often occur when the elk jump the fence in March to the neighbors properties. They don’t want the elk, and may even have allowed hunting the previous fall. While I am perfectly fine with your solution, it will never fly with FWP because they (at least those at the top) don’t care about the problem you described.

 

[David658]

Growing up in the southeast, I find it interesting that in the west landowners have managed to gain a preference because the wildlife leaves droppings on their property. One could have a dozen monster bucks on his farm, but he gets a license for one. It has been drilled into my head since I first knew what hunting was that the wildlife belongs to all of us, regardless of where it lives. Wealthy and/or influential land owners have managed to get the regulations built in their favor - shucks, here in NM many landowners make more money on selling tags to outfitters than they do on working the land. Because of that environment, it is not surprising that landowners in MT are going to try and work things to their advantage, much to the detriment of hunting in MT. I hope you gents are able to turn this before it gets to the chute.

David
NM

 

[rogerthat]

I agree that is a problem, but it’s not that clear cut. Landowners are not a homogeneous group. Some of those landowners want to harbor the elk because they hunt them or lease it out to others. They don’t care that there are no elk on public ground. The landowner problems often occur when the elk jump the fence in March to the neighbors properties. They don’t want the elk, and may even have allowed hunting the previous fall. While I am perfectly fine with your solution, it will never fly with FWP because they (at least those at the top) don’t care about the problem you described.

Yup. And that’s probably the real problem hence why it’s a “game”.

 

[406truth]

And that is where you and I differ in thought process. I agree this proposal doesn’t do anything to bring the population towards objective….because that’s not their objective.

Your own words “look at their actions not their words”. Their objective is to satisfy landowners right now. Anyone can see the actual problem is too much focused hunting pressure on the public lands while not enough on the private lands. Hence private harbors more elk less available to hunters that don’t have access. The solution is to split the hunt. Public hunters need to get it through their thick skulls they are never going to force access. Let the landowners run the show on their private how they want(cause they will) but set the system up so the landowners actions doesn’t screw up the public land hunting. I think that’s the best we will ever

And that is where you and I differ in thought process. I agree this proposal doesn’t do anything to bring the population towards objective….because that’s not their objective.

Your own words “look at their actions not their words”. Their objective is to satisfy landowners right now. Anyone can see the actual problem is too much focused hunting pressure on the public lands while not enough on the private lands. Hence private harbors more elk less available to hunters that don’t have access. The solution is to split the hunt. Public hunters need to get it through their thick skulls they are never going to force access. Let the landowners run the show on their private how they want(cause they will) but set the system up so the landowners actions doesn’t screw up the public land hunting. I think that’s the best we will ever do

Why would anyone stay in block management if if they could sell hunts for a separate tag allocation? Look in to what has happened to the average DIY hunter in New Mexico. It’s not pretty. One of the first things we need to do is compensate block management participants more. Giving private land owners more rights than the public to OUR fish and game is never going to benefit the public. The tools to adress the problem are already in place. The fish and game are well aware of what this means to public land hunters. Special interests all the way up to Gianforte are driving this. Look at the new Wolf Regulations. Why can wolves be hunted at night by a select few? We need to open our eyes here.

 

[rogerthat]

Yeah I agree but I have seen what is happening in the unit I hunt. The public lands are super heavily pressured almost to the point it’s a waste of time. So what is the alternative solution? At least with what I am proposing the public land hunt could be managed better since access will never be forced.

 

[rogerthat]

Why would anyone stay in block management if if they could sell hunts for a separate tag allocation? Look in to what has happened to the average DIY hunter in New Mexico. It’s not pretty. One of the first things we need to do is compensate block management participants more. Giving private land owners more rights than the public to OUR fish and game is never going to benefit the public. The tools to adress the problem are already in place. The fish and game are well aware of what this means to public land hunters. Special interests all the way up to Gianforte are driving this. Look at the new Wolf Regulations. Why can wolves be hunted at night by a select few? We need to open our eyes here.

Also it really depends on the unit in New Mexico. The units that are mostly private are what you are referring to. The units that are predominantly public are hard to draw but if you do you will have a quality hunt at least. that is more a function of the demand for these western tags in my opinion. That is how Montana will eventually be as well. We can sit here and pound our bows off the ground saying the wildlife is PUBLIC but as long as it spends it’s time on private land we are going to have to come up with solutions that include the private land owner. I will even go further, the solution is really their call if the animal resides on their land. I don’t hunt for animals that live on private but understand that is just me and also not a viable solution