MT hunts elk for 6 months out of the year and gives out a $hit-ton of tags and still can't make a dent in over-objective units. Why? 1) because objectives are ridiculously low and 2) because most of those elk don't show up on complainer ranches until after the seasons ends. Apparently, Spring grass is delicious. Unless we are going to start threads about how to cook an unborn calf into a nice soup, the answer is going to be $$$. I get that it is unpalatable. Mostly it ends up paying one traditional rancher for his rich, a-hole neighbor that likes to "harbor" elk. I think we all need to recognize reality. This argument about access-to-solve-elk-problems is nonsense. But giving the a-hole neighbor a bull tag to let some plebes on to shoot a few cow elk is also bull$hit (IMO, of course).
The new elk plan eliminates the low objective numbers, so we've gotten away from the issues caused under #1 to a certain degree. #2 can be accomplished in a number of ways without going to damage payments, which have significant hurdles to clear in MT regarding diversion of PR funds under the USFWS decisions about a decade or so ago.
Who counts the elk? Or the grass they ate? If access and hunting aren't granted as part of the payment - whats the public paying for it getting in return? Why stop at elk - rabbits are known to eat a lot of crops?
Estimating forage loss isn't that difficult based on existing AUM rates, etc. Counting critters gets a bit more complicated. However, only a very few people are thinking that damage payments are a good idea in addressing wildlife mgt issues. There may be a bill this session on it, but the issues of diversion, and competing interests for limited funds make that push unlikely to succeed. And to be clear - damage payments only happen if a law is passed. The recent ruling in the UPOM case was also clear that landowners have to avail themselves of the suite of options that FWP has regarding access, etc. Hazing, etc is different as there's no funds that exchange hands, just the actions to help landowners deal with problematic concentrations.
The option that has the most benefit for the public and the landowner is still the 40 year lease option through Habitat MT. That provides access to the public, provides a significant financial incentive to the landowner and helps keep ranch and farmlands complete and in the family for future generations. WHIP is another solid option here, and it also requires access as a condition for approval of grant funds. PAL agreements have opened over 500,000 acres of landlocked public land since 2019. When folks talk about improving incentives, the idea is not to create a new program but to improve existing programs to ensure that the public trust obligations are being met while providing relief for landowners who are working to reduce conflict.
Why is the public getting involved in a neighbor problem?
At this point I'm confused as to what the actual problem is? Is it traditional ranchers that have too many elk or is it access to elk for the public?
It's a great question. Simple answer is that wildlife is managed by the state unless otherwise handed authority over to other entities (USDA/USFWS, etc) and therefore they have a statutory obligation to act. What people also tend to forget is that the Sackman & Rathbone cases both require the agency to work with a landowner to address issues such as over-abundance and distribution in an effort to ameliorate legitimate concerns. The more complex answer lies in who pulls you out of a ditch when it's 25 below and whipping wind with no cell service and the closest wrecker is 20 miles away. The actions of some have a negative impact on others. The state is charged with managing wildlife, so the state has to help find a better path forward to deal with that conflict. Ignoring it means the Legislature will take it on.
It seems that the only ones who benefit from any of the proposed "solutions" are the wealthy outfitting ranches that are already doubled dipping in the economics welfare ranching and public wildlife exploitation.
I would wager a guess that the people who have hunted those properties would say that they benefited from some of the solutions. But I'm cuirious as to which wealthy outfitting operations you're thinking of? Most of the owner-operators I know are still working low profit margins, have families working a couple of jobs, etc. Sure - wealthy properties benefit from programs like the 454 elk permits but the balance has been shifting towards the public benefit in that program (Last commission meeting previous detractors were supporting the program changes and increase in transparency, etc). If someone is leasing their property to a hunt club or outfitter, they are not eligible for a lot of FWP programs. Those folks have made a financial decision that works for them and their business model.
Wealthy people who have ranches don't need the financial incentive. They already can buy any tag they want. They've purchased ranches for reasons other than just sticking a bull or a buck. They want to be able to hunt their property. In some instances that leads to increased access that hasn't existed before, and in others it leads to greater community involvement.
