sacountry
Well-known member
So does anyone have an more insight as to if/how HB505 will go down tomorrow?
HB 505 - Elk Need Your Help
- Thread starter Big Fin
- Start date
Eric Albus
Well-known member
- Joined
- May 24, 2012
- Messages
- 1,619
Maybe in account of the landowner shouldering the burden of feeding and housing said elks?(knowing it is their prerogative, right wrong indifferent)
Disincentives have worked how well the last 20 yrs? Oh, not at all. Maybe, just maybe incentives have a chance to work.
I think there's been a lot of disengenous discussion around incentives versus disincentives (EDIT - Not talking about Eric, here). MT has a vibrant incentive program for landowners between easements, block mgt, damage hunts, etc. What it has always come down to is who gets to own & profit off of the wildlife.
The Supreme Court of MT has ruled in two supreme court rulings now that wildlife exist as a condition of the land, therefore belong to no-one. But, the court has also said that the agency in charge of managing that resource for all Montanans must recognize the special needs of those most affected by wildlife's existence - landowners.
I was someone who has been steadfastly opposed to game damage payments, but the more we look at how insolvable this problem is, the best thing I can think of to deal with the very real issue of crop damage is to work with those landowners to reduce the damage, and, if people allow managed hunting & are actively working with FWP to solve issues rather than cause them, allow for crop damage payments.
We all like to quote Leopold, but do we ever talk about Aldo's admonition to ensure that landowners/farmers/ranchers are part of the overall equation? FWP puts out over $5 million per year to landowners.
Between increasing payment for quality Block Mgt & Game Damage for landowners who are absolutely working to solve the issue, I would think that could be a good starting point, recognizing that a huge number of Montanans do not want to see UT or TX style management.
Carnage2011
Well-known member
Honest question here Eric. Do you think there is a chance that landowners such as the Galts allow enough access to actually lower elk numbers to objective if this passes? Or is there a much better chance that they increase the objective numbers in order to obtain their sponsored tags?
Eric Albus
Well-known member
- Joined
- May 24, 2012
- Messages
- 1,619
I do not know Galts very well, or any major players in the elk world (i live in a vacuum)so I would not attempt a guess.
I don’t think this will pass, I hope it does not.
10 bulls per 640 acre parcel is unjustifiable IMO. My thought when I originally heard about the bill is that it’d be bargained/amended down to 1-3 bull tags, some measure of public hunting allowed, or last 2 weeks general season cow only.
There has to be something in it for all concerned, wildlife, landowners and sportsmen. Again IMO it should be in that order. If we are talking Bob Marshall the equation should read “wildlife, and sportsmen” no landowners should be considered, unless migrating herds cause damages.
I don’t think this will pass, I hope it does not.
10 bulls per 640 acre parcel is unjustifiable IMO. My thought when I originally heard about the bill is that it’d be bargained/amended down to 1-3 bull tags, some measure of public hunting allowed, or last 2 weeks general season cow only.
There has to be something in it for all concerned, wildlife, landowners and sportsmen. Again IMO it should be in that order. If we are talking Bob Marshall the equation should read “wildlife, and sportsmen” no landowners should be considered, unless migrating herds cause damages.
Gerald Martin
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2009
- Messages
- 8,391
I do agree Eric.
I also have the perception that some of the affected and all of the landowners who are proponents of 505 are attempting to leverage the solutions for their benefit without regard to the consequences for other shareholders.
Otherwise instead of 505 being thrown together without input from different user groups, with unacceptable demands for “solutions” we would see FWP under this administration working to find consensus.
That isn’t happening. Shooting for the moon as “ starting the conversation” is disingenuous.
Marshian
Well-known member
This was in the Kalispell local paper recently (The Daily Interlake). Well written opinion piece by a former FWP commissioner.
dailyinterlake.com
Don’t break FWP’s bond with Montana hunters
Every two years, tens of thousands of Montana hunters gather in community centers, school cafeterias, and church basements to comment on proposed deer and elk hunting regulations.
HSi-ESi
Well-known member
Then take into consideration SB143 which followed the same strategy.
"We'll negotiate our terms" when the premise of the bill is misguided in the first place does not set the stage for a good conversation.
sacountry
Well-known member
I like shooting for the moon. Perhaps all private land in districts with over populations of elk are hereby required to allow 10 hunters on their land per day if they own over 640 contiguous acres. No overnight camping will be permitted and vehicles must remain on roads or designated parking areas.......boy I hope the tongue and cheek comes through.
rmyoung1
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jul 12, 2010
- Messages
- 2,341
Mr. McKean didn't mince words, did he? I really like everything of his I find in print. He really put it out there with that piece. Thank you, sir!This was in the Kalispell local paper recently (The Daily Interlake). Well written opinion piece by a former FWP commissioner.
Don’t break FWP’s bond with Montana hunters
Every two years, tens of thousands of Montana hunters gather in community centers, school cafeterias, and church basements to comment on proposed deer and elk hunting regulations.
T
timmy
Guest
The sooner people realize they won’t get to hunt private the better. And things shouldn’t be managed as they will.
Gerald Martin
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2009
- Messages
- 8,391
I will settle for implementation of page 55 of the EMP which instructs biologists to not include elk on inaccessible private property in the spring counts as they set and maintain objective.
I will settle for stopping all bull harvest in units over objective until objective is met.
I will settle for using the management plans already approved as my “shot for the moon.”
How’s that for where we start the conversation?
Gerald Martin
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2009
- Messages
- 8,391
Yep. I am not looking for forcing increased access.
I am looking to protect our interests on public and accessible private lands.
If landowners with too many elk want help, I am happy to help manage, but it’s time we start advocating and advancing our interests instead of deferring to the interests of the people who aren’t interested in solving the problem.
sacountry
Well-known member
Dude, you just pulled out a red ryder bb gun. You can't shoot for the moon with that.
Gerald Martin
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2009
- Messages
- 8,391
I know my opinion written on a forum will have no bearing on how this works out but an idea I had that seems to benefit everyone including the elk would be:
Keep the tags at 10 per 640 ( acres could be changed lower depending on elk numbers) with the conditions:
1) 7 of the tags had to be cow only and could only be sold at current B tag prices
a. 4 of these tags need to be sold and have an actual harvest an animal before the 3 bull tags can be used
*I don't like the earn a buck as we had it here in WI when CWD started but it made for truly awesome deer herds in the areas it was implemented.
2) 3 either sex tags could be sold at landowners discretion of price
3) Could only be used on the 640 acres they were given for
a. This would mean that if your family had 8 640acre parcels you could get 80 tags but could only use 10 on every 640 no doubling up and using all 80 on say 1 or 2 640 acre parcels
4) MANDATORY HARVEST REPORTING
Keep the tags at 10 per 640 ( acres could be changed lower depending on elk numbers) with the conditions:
1) 7 of the tags had to be cow only and could only be sold at current B tag prices
a. 4 of these tags need to be sold and have an actual harvest an animal before the 3 bull tags can be used
*I don't like the earn a buck as we had it here in WI when CWD started but it made for truly awesome deer herds in the areas it was implemented.
2) 3 either sex tags could be sold at landowners discretion of price
3) Could only be used on the 640 acres they were given for
a. This would mean that if your family had 8 640acre parcels you could get 80 tags but could only use 10 on every 640 no doubling up and using all 80 on say 1 or 2 640 acre parcels
4) MANDATORY HARVEST REPORTING
Last edited:
antlerradar
Well-known member
I think what timmy is getting at is not that hunters need to find a way to force access, but that FWP is still managing wildlife the same way as in the 1970's when hunters had access to private land.
So how will this work? Since some big ranches might not have every section (1-36) fenced off? Are you gonna allow them to use the honor system of them using the permits for which section they are specified for? For example, how hard would it be for them to fib a bit using a tag good in section 1 and the elk were actually just over the line in section 2 or 12?
I would be curious how many of these guys have every section of there place fenced off. Some may have the original section fences out there, but what happened when they re-fenced part of the place for a certain grazing application and did away from the section fences because they own so much?
Nameless Range
Well-known member
I appreciate the discussion here - particularly @Eric Albus's willingness to state his opinions regardless of the lack of folks who agree with him. It is admirable and has expanded my understanding.
This is not directed at Eric or anyone in particular, but the stat Gerald states here has been in my mind. In what world is such a management strategy acceptable? That's a serious question. Our legislature is well on its way to giving landowners 10 elk tags per 640 acres. 1.7 million acres is roughly 2,600 sections.
I don't know. Just on its face, it seems so deeply unbalanced, that may be the word deranged fits, about such a number being a reasonable amount of elk for that Montana landscape.
Just last night I looked across the drainage at Corbin Peak by my house, and herd of about 150 elk grazed. They will likely be in the general vicinity through their calving season, enjoying the shade, water, and open grassland of that 300 acre mountain. I became a bit sad, thinking I was looking at 1/4 of the desired elk that should exist across the 200+ sq miles of this district, and I looked west and could see other similar mountains and chunks of earth, and even another group of elk, and I thought of the mountains and grassy ridges beyond them all the way to the Continental Divide. I then thought of the 9 landowners owning more than 640 acres in this district, 2 of which are mining conglomerates, and I can't help but think there has gotta be a different way.
I guess the point of my post is that I will have a tough time ever believing anything other than that Montana's elk management strategy is currently being executed from first principles which are deeply sick, and maybe even irredeemable.
Last edited:
This would be the hardest part and was an idea of how to limited the loop hole of a ranch being say 12 sections with 12 "different" owners so the family could get 120 tags and use those tags on say 8 sections that held game.
Finding a way to close that loophole would be hard I think. And I agree 100% not every section is fenced so would be albeit impossible to try and enforce the way I worded it.
