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

[lynlan1819]

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.

 

[Treeshark]

Politically DIY public land hunters are lone wanderers in the wasteland of the American Politics.

You said it, man- agreed. That is a big part of the reason that I’m critical of attempts to further fragment us by state.

 

[Cornbread]

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?

 

[Cornbread]

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.

 

[Straight Arrow]

Change this so I can take a cow with that tag on USFS land!!

No, that's how we got to the situational problem of all the cow elk on private land! Too much pressure on USFS land.

 

[Forkyfinder]

No, that's how we got to the situational problem of all the cow elk on private land! Too much pressure on USFS land.

Yup. And the elk that permanently reside on private are still there...

 

[Eric Albus]

There is limited pressure on private, making cow tags valid on private will push elk onto accessible land.

 

[Eric Albus]

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.

 

[Eric Albus]

I think objectives are low in places, not so in other places.
Objectives should be for carry capacity on accessible land, to landowner tolerance on private.

@Eric Albus - do you feel like the objectives are low for elk

 

[Dave N]

There is limited pressure on private, making cow tags valid on private will push elk onto accessible land.

So how do people get access to these private lands?

 

[Carnage2011]

So how do people get access to these private lands?

I haven’t found it that hard personally. I’ve had conversations with several landowners in units with shoulder seasons that haven’t had a single person ask.

 

[R.K.]

I haven’t found it that hard personally. I’ve had conversations with several landowners in units with shoulder seasons that haven’t had a single person ask.

Out of curiosity- how do you get in touch with them? Drive up to the house and knock? Look them up in the phone book?

 

[Carnage2011]

Out of curiosity- how do you get in touch with them? Drive up to the house and knock? Look them up in the phone book?

Ah yes, I should have clarified. Mine has been through knocking on doors or meeting people at different events. I’m fairly social and tend to meet people at random.

 

[Elky Welky]

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.

 

[Treeshark]

@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.

 

[WanderWoman]

@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.

 

[Treeshark]

@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?

 

[Forkyfinder]

@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.

 

[belshawelk]

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.

 

[WanderWoman]

@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?

This doesn’t really answer your question but this is my opinion on UPOM…

Living where UPOM kind of began, I’ve watched them rise under the guise of defending property rights while selectively trying to infringe on the rights of landowners whom they disagree with. They built their platform on claims of damages from AP, whose holdings and actions have little to no actual impact on many of their members, while ignoring the real economic and wildlife management impacts created by their own land decisions or those made by other landowners whom they completely and conveniently ignore.

A UPOM member said once in a public meeting that as an individual landowner they would not budge on any sort of public hunting or access or anything to aid in actual elk management until the breaks went back to general for archery. It’s been years, and that is a wholly unrealistic expectation to put on both FWP and the public. Hence “taking the ball and going home.” They’re welcome to have that opinion and do what they want, but their decision is not FWP’s fault.

You can agree or disagree with AP in general or FWP’s elk management all you want, but I find their particular platform and actions rather hypocritical.

I fully support private property rights, but property rights also include accepting accountability for how one exercises those rights. If I opt to not spray knapweed in my yard, it’s my own damn fault if it spreads, not the county’s. If I light a slash pile and it gets away from me and burns several properties, I’m accountable for that, too. If I was a landowner and managed my property in such a way that resulted in huge concentrations of elk that later cause damage to a neighbor, I’m not sure why I wouldn’t be accountable for that, either. There must be something there I’m completely naive and ignorant to.