Montana Judge Says Landowners Don’t Have ‘Absolute Freedom’ to Kill Elk, and Allowing Public Hunting Doesn’t Infringe on Their Rights

Landowners are the biggest Poachers of them all,always has been that way.
Back in the 90's had a guy in Enterprise Utah sitting behind his house shooting Deer/Antelope without a tag every single year,not one neighbor said anything.
 
This is a complex issue. I see a couple ways to resolve it.

1. Create a private land only license for permit areas grossly over objective population. This puts more pressure on the private pushing elk onto accessible areas.

2. Cow only seasons until elk are under population objectives.
The Elk B tag only allows me to take a cow on private land. Change this so I can take a cow with that tag on USFS land!! I asked Game commission,: do you think the elk know where the property boundries are? If one wonders over on to public land, why shouldn't that tag be good?
 
Last edited:
That is why i appreciate the wording of this ruling basically says the state already has programs to help their problem, if they refuse to use the programs its on them. Hopefully the access program will see a slight bump.
And more importantly, the judge said: when you bought the land, you should have known that there were elk on the land. You bought it at your own risk. That is stunningly obvious but needed to be said by the judge.
 
I took Eric's post to mean private land tags to be sold to the public, not provided to the landowners to sell or transfer. Why would a landowner suddenly open up his ranch if he had tags to sell when he could have charged an access fee without them?
I meant it nothing like the picture you’ve just painted.
 
I’m going to resurrect this thread just to let you all know that UPOM appealed this ruling to the Montana Supreme Court, arguments were held last fall, and we still don’t have a ruling from the Court.

The Chief Justice recused himself from the case, which makes for an even split court. Opinions take a long time to write, particularly if there are dissents. However, the fact that it is taking so long to get a ruling out is disconcerting.
 
@Elky Welky, any thoughts on what UPOM’s end game may be with resurrecting this?

It seems unlikely that it’s merely to combat overpopulation of elk on private land, considering there are much easier pathways to address that particular ‘problem’ imo.
 
@Elky Welky, any thoughts on what UPOM’s end game may be with resurrecting this?

It seems unlikely that it’s merely to combat overpopulation of elk on private land, considering there are much easier pathways to address that particular ‘problem’ imo.
Undermining wildlife as a public trust resource, and the adult version of ‘taking their ball and going home’ when they don’t get their way with season-setting after being largely unwilling to compromise with FWP, other landowners, and the public..

That’s my cynical interpretation anyway.
 
@WanderWoman, I bet there are elements to that to be sure- but do you think they’d spend the money challenging this without a tangible gain for their members in mind?
Yes.

Chuck Denowh is their policy director. Which is just phony tax dodging 501c language for chief lobbyist.

Hes got a long history of doing things like that here. Remember he gets paid to make the case and probably makes the same whether it works or not.
 
Landowners are the biggest Poachers of them all,always has been that way.
Back in the 90's had a guy in Enterprise Utah sitting behind his house shooting Deer/Antelope without a tag every single year,not one neighbor said anything.
Careful

I am a landowner and have always obeyed game laws. Being a landowner doesn't make you a poacher. Having a mindset of a poacher makes you a poacher. That's a very big generalization. All my neighboring landowners are the same, we follow game laws.
 

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
119,864
Messages
2,241,231
Members
39,037
Latest member
the28thsunofmonjoie
Back
Top