Montana PERC "Elk Rent" Program?

[Sytes]

New ‘Elk Rent’ Program to Pay Ranchers Each Day Herds Are on Their Land

A new program in Montana's Paradise Valley would subsidize ranchers and farmers with so-called elk rent payments for elk using their land.

www.outdoorlife.com

Apologies if this is listed within a diferent thread title though this article just hit my feed dated Dec 21st. Looks like PERC has been working on it for the past month. If discussed prior I'll delete the thread though share the thread link, please.

Otherwise - if not discussed... Holy chit!

 

[SixPoint]

Whitney is a good dude that is trying to help traditional ranchers which is a very worthwhile investment. That being said I don’t agree with this project and think there are already very effective tools available to landowners that have elk issues.

 

[Big Fin]

I'm not sure if this is scalable and how it would be adopted if scalable. Credit to those trying new ideas other than just "lease it out" or "shoot 'em" or "shoulder seasons for all."

Having some CPA clients in this area, the pressures on them to sell is immense. The "Yellowstone effect" has crazy money being waved in front of them. Some did sell. When they sold, it was not good for hunters or accessibility to elk.

Many of them tried the existing tools for elk on their private lands. The tools are/were not very effective when you are talking about hundreds of elk that are the confirmed vector for the only recorded positives for brucellosis in cattle. Until the APHIS rules on brucellosis are modified, the existing tools are of limited use in this area.

Looking further south to Wyoming and their feed ground issues, solutions might eventually rely on ideas that give elk places to winter and compensation to those who own the land where they winter.

Any solutions will be imperfect. I'm on board for trying new things to see what might work, even if I have some concerns on the details. We have limited choices when we combine thousands of migratory wintering elk, mostly private lands with many of the private lands having no hunting and no interest in solutions, huge demand from billionaires to purchase more of these private lands, and diseases with archaic rules such as we have with brucellosis. Makes for serious complications.

 

[Sytes]

Thanks for sharing some perspective, @SixPoint and @Big Fin . It's great to flesh out the fat from the premium pelt before expressing support or opposition as this is supported by my primary conservation organization, RMEF.

This article is much more in-depth for any interested.

A Showdown Over Elk In Paradise?

New report illuminates clash between ranchers and disease-carrying elk that has huge implications for a famous Montana valley, migrating wildlife and a scenic corridor to Yellowstone

mountainjournal.org

 

[SixPoint]

The Paradise Valley is an incredible place with tremendous wildlife value and a serious people problem. I would love nothing more than to see these multi generational ranches stay working and in local hands. I have a real hard time supporting paying landowners for the fact that elk were on their property. If it was a formal winter range lease with restrictions from human activity I would be much more supportive. That being said it’s private money not tax payer money so let’s see where it goes.

On the elk management front I’ve found that when you make an honest effort to allow public hunter’s access to hunt elk during the general season, the department will bend over backwards to help private landowners to protect hay stacks, haze elk, provide supplemental hunts starting Aug 15 and running as late as Feb 15. If a landowner is all in and dead serious about reducing elk and/ or changing behavior it can be done with the available resources from the state.

 

[Big Fin]

On the elk management front I’ve found that when you make an honest effort to allow public hunter’s access to hunt elk during the general season, the department will bend over backwards to help private landowners to protect hay stacks, haze elk, provide supplemental hunts starting Aug 15 and running as late as Feb 15. If a landowner is all in and dead serious about reducing elk and/ or changing behavior it can be done with the available resources from the state.

I agree with much of that. I add these caveats that are likely not unique to areas of migrating elk and a large number of absentee amenity landowners. These are realities facing landowners who are dead serious about reducing elk or changing elk behavior.

The majority of these elk are migratory, not arriving in many years until after seasons are over. That makes hunting a far less effective technique until elk finally arrive.

Once the elk do arrive, if seasons are open, those landowners who make an honest effort can't do anything about the elk that run to their neighbor's place and take sanctuary until the shooting stops, only to have elk come back on their ranch. Having amenity landowners who opt out of being part of the solution makes the current hunter-based tools far less effective.

This summer I talked to a person who manages a property that allows a lot of public access for elk hunting; mostly cows, though some bulls. They want to distribute elk to the public and they want to lower elk numbers, using hunters to accomplish that. A hard fact that I never thought of is the large number of people who get on their list that are not skilled enough to harvest a cow elk. So, the ranch employees spend a ton of time helping hunters. We need to accept that many of the hunters that show up are not very experienced, possibly have not taken an elk and have no idea what to do when one hits the ground, and some have less than exemplary behavior. That makes it even harder for the landowner to solve the issues with hunting, possibly creating as much/more problem than the elk create.

None of that takes into account the biggest concern for these working landowners - brucellosis. That concern rises greatly as elk congregations increase in February and March. Their neighbors who are amenity property owners have no concern about brucellosis and most opt out of being any part of a solution. Brucellosis and the fact that some of those landowners have been quarantined due to brucellosis outbreaks from elk, complicates things dramatically; sometimes making brucellosis way more of an issue than broken fences or forage competition.

I suspect we will see more and more amenity owners, all but a few of which are likely to opt out.

 

[brocksw]

I agree with much of that. I add these caveats that are likely not unique to areas of migrating elk and a large number of absentee amenity landowners. These are realities facing landowners who are dead serious about reducing elk or changing elk behavior.

The majority of these elk are migratory, not arriving in many years until after seasons are over. That makes hunting a far less effective technique until elk finally arrive.

Once the elk do arrive, if seasons are open, those landowners who make an honest effort can't do anything about the elk that run to their neighbor's place and take sanctuary until the shooting stops, only to have elk come back on their ranch. Having amenity landowners who opt out of being part of the solution makes the current hunter-based tools far less effective.

This summer I talked to a person who manages a property that allows a lot of public access for elk hunting; mostly cows, though some bulls. They want to distribute elk to the public and they want to lower elk numbers, using hunters to accomplish that. A hard fact that I never thought of is the large number of people who get on their list that are not skilled enough to harvest a cow elk. So, the ranch employees spend a ton of time helping hunters. We need to accept that many of the hunters that show up are not very experienced, possibly have not taken an elk and have no idea what to do when one hits the ground, and some have less than exemplary behavior. That makes it even harder for the landowner to solve the issues with hunting, possibly creating as much/more problem than the elk create.

None of that takes into account the biggest concern for these working landowners - brucellosis. That concern rises greatly as elk congregations increase in February and March. Their neighbors who are amenity property owners have no concern about brucellosis and most opt out of being any part of a solution. Brucellosis and the fact that some of those landowners have been quarantined due to brucellosis outbreaks from elk, complicates things dramatically; sometimes making brucellosis way more of an issue than broken fences or forage competition.

I suspect we will see more and more amenity owners, all but a few of which are likely to opt out.

Randy, trying to think out of the box, what else is there for other options? I mean, to me it’s a pipe dream to think that the USFS or FWP could buy those valley floors up and restore those areas to native grass that would support those elk. So this idea, or what sixpoint mentions above, seem like the only other logical options. Fencing em out would seem like a difficult option on multiple levels, and somewhat impractical at scale.

But I am far from being educated on the complexities and dynamics at play in paradise valley.

This issue is becoming of interest to me because here in ND, elk are starting to cause problems. It would seem prudent and wise to try and find solutions before problems get to be decades long and/or the landowners take matters in their own hands at the legislature. If the ND public wants elk, then addressing the issues they cause with landowners seems necessary. Even if the best and most logical option isn’t our favorite.

 

[BuzzH]

I agree with much of that. I add these caveats that are likely not unique to areas of migrating elk and a large number of absentee amenity landowners. These are realities facing landowners who are dead serious about reducing elk or changing elk behavior.

The majority of these elk are migratory, not arriving in many years until after seasons are over. That makes hunting a far less effective technique until elk finally arrive.

Once the elk do arrive, if seasons are open, those landowners who make an honest effort can't do anything about the elk that run to their neighbor's place and take sanctuary until the shooting stops, only to have elk come back on their ranch. Having amenity landowners who opt out of being part of the solution makes the current hunter-based tools far less effective.

This summer I talked to a person who manages a property that allows a lot of public access for elk hunting; mostly cows, though some bulls. They want to distribute elk to the public and they want to lower elk numbers, using hunters to accomplish that. A hard fact that I never thought of is the large number of people who get on their list that are not skilled enough to harvest a cow elk. So, the ranch employees spend a ton of time helping hunters. We need to accept that many of the hunters that show up are not very experienced, possibly have not taken an elk and have no idea what to do when one hits the ground, and some have less than exemplary behavior. That makes it even harder for the landowner to solve the issues with hunting, possibly creating as much/more problem than the elk create.

None of that takes into account the biggest concern for these working landowners - brucellosis. That concern rises greatly as elk congregations increase in February and March. Their neighbors who are amenity property owners have no concern about brucellosis and most opt out of being any part of a solution. Brucellosis and the fact that some of those landowners have been quarantined due to brucellosis outbreaks from elk, complicates things dramatically; sometimes making brucellosis way more of an issue than broken fences or forage competition.

I suspect we will see more and more amenity owners, all but a few of which are likely to opt out.

Agree with this post, always irritates me though when elk get blamed for brucellosis when it's a cattle disease that was transmitted to elk.

I get that elk can transmit it to cattle, but like always, no matter what, it's my wildlife that is always at fault.

Where's my compensation for cattle infecting my wildlife?

 

[SixPoint]

I agree with much of that. I add these caveats that are likely not unique to areas of migrating elk and a large number of absentee amenity landowners. These are realities facing landowners who are dead serious about reducing elk or changing elk behavior.

The majority of these elk are migratory, not arriving in many years until after seasons are over. That makes hunting a far less effective technique until elk finally arrive.

Once the elk do arrive, if seasons are open, those landowners who make an honest effort can't do anything about the elk that run to their neighbor's place and take sanctuary until the shooting stops, only to have elk come back on their ranch. Having amenity landowners who opt out of being part of the solution makes the current hunter-based tools far less effective.

This summer I talked to a person who manages a property that allows a lot of public access for elk hunting; mostly cows, though some bulls. They want to distribute elk to the public and they want to lower elk numbers, using hunters to accomplish that. A hard fact that I never thought of is the large number of people who get on their list that are not skilled enough to harvest a cow elk. So, the ranch employees spend a ton of time helping hunters. We need to accept that many of the hunters that show up are not very experienced, possibly have not taken an elk and have no idea what to do when one hits the ground, and some have less than exemplary behavior. That makes it even harder for the landowner to solve the issues with hunting, possibly creating as much/more problem than the elk create.

None of that takes into account the biggest concern for these working landowners - brucellosis. That concern rises greatly as elk congregations increase in February and March. Their neighbors who are amenity property owners have no concern about brucellosis and most opt out of being any part of a solution. Brucellosis and the fact that some of those landowners have been quarantined due to brucellosis outbreaks from elk, complicates things dramatically; sometimes making brucellosis way more of an issue than broken fences or forage competition.

I suspect we will see more and more amenity owners, all but a few of which are likely to opt out.

All good points and I tend to agree. Brucellosis is a bad deal and certainly complicates matters within the DSA. I’m fairly naive regarding brucellosis, are wintering elk the issue for potential disease transmission or is it more in June when elk are calving? I thought that cattle had to come into contact with fetal material to pick it up, but I certainly could be mistaken. I’m just trying to think about risk potential and timing and what options one might have given the time of year. Regardless when your neighbors aren’t on board it’s pretty tough to be effective.

 

[Big Fin]

Randy, trying to think out of the box, what else is there for other options? I mean, to me it’s a pipe dream to think that the USFS or FWP could buy those valley floors up and restore those areas to native grass that would support those elk. So this idea, or what sixpoint mentions above, seem like the only other logical options. Fencing em out would seem like a difficult option on multiple levels, and somewhat impractical at scale.

But I am far from being educated on the complexities and dynamics at play in paradise valley.

This issue is becoming of interest to me because here in ND, elk are starting to cause problems. It would seem prudent and wise to try and find solutions before problems get to be decades long and/or the landowners take matters in their own hands at the legislature. If the ND public wants elk, then addressing the issues they cause with landowners seems necessary. Even if the best and most logical option isn’t our favorite.

I wish I had the answers. Like you mention, if by some miracle some of these legacy landowners did decide to sell there will never be funding to buy these lands when competing with billionaires. Given that reality, a lot of the normal tools need to be expanded or new tools considered.

Political pressure to change the APHIS rules on brucellosis would be a huge first step. It would lower the risk to landowners and increase the tolerance for elk. But, it is a political football where the delegations surrounding YNP want to change the rules, but the delegations from feedlot states do not. A lot more feedlot states than the three states around YNP. Not sure those rules will ever change.

For the most part, we are talking about a window of time where the concerns exist - Dec-March, maybe into April. Solutions that can focus on that period would likely result in the best cost-benefit ratio.

There are some landowners who are willing to vacate their pastures in the winter if they can be compensated for grazing elsewhere. A few years ago an elk occupancy agreement was signed with a landowner over there to vacate some of their pastures and allow the elk to use them. That eliminated the risk of a brucellosis transmission.

The forage competition part could be solved with money - buy forage for the cattle. But, that doesn't address the disease issue.

Another thing that is hard to change is a culture in some Montana counties that any undeveloped acre is a wasted acre. If there is a benefit of these amenity landowners, most of them do not want to subdivide, thus protecting the migration corridors. Many of them want to acquire more land. Yet, Park County has not seen very many rural subdivision proposals they didn't like. Knowing the tendency for the non-billionaires to subdivide into 5-acre ranchettes causes me to be a bit tempered in my comments about the billionaires. Do we want ranchettes (permanent loss) or do we want non-participating billionaire landowners (maybe not permanent)?

One effort that is hard work, but has shown be some progress, is to work with the larger amenity landowners to show them what impacts they can have on their neighbors and the ability to manage wildlife (and disease). Arthur Blank, Co-Founder of Home Depot, has taken some bold steps to be part of the solution. He owns some of the prime properties there. They have committed to "Good Neighbor" principles. Getting to that point requires engagement with people who only spend parts of their year in the area. And it requires skills and hard work to build those relationships. A lot of people who can afford those types of properties aren't inclined to respond to something they feel is being forced on them or is outside the land ethos they brought with them. Just part of the human condition. When property deeds change hands, very often the land ethos also changes.

It is complex. Ridiculously complex. I'd love to start with something that doesn't cost money and would build a ton of good will with the ag producers who hold some of the key lands in the area - change the APHIS rules on brucellosis. After that, I think it is going to require some bold experiments, likely outside the normal programs that state or federal agencies have the authority to engage in.

Sorry I don't have a better answer. I think if we had good existing solutions, the problems would be far less. I watch with great interest, but admit I'm short on ideas that could work.

 

[ismith]

Agree with this post, always irritates me though when elk get blamed for brucellosis when it's a cattle disease that was transmitted to elk.

I get that elk can transmit it to cattle, but like always, no matter what, it's my wildlife that is always at fault.

Where's my compensation for cattle infecting my wildlife?

Guess it’s not your wildlife then?

 

[Sytes]

One query:

"Payments are variable depending on factors like time of year and whether elk are grazing native pasture or high-value crops like irrigated alfalfa."

The sour apple related to Elk Rent, "...grazing native pasture..."
From what's been shared, it sounds like good intent for a complex issue. I can wrap my thoughts around elk plowing prime time alfalfa though "native pasture"?
Sounds like a great desire to keep elk on private and get paid to enhance / include the outfitter exclusive lease agreement.

Or am I misinterpreting this to mean they will not receive payment from the likes of my donations to RMEF if "grazing native pasture"(?).

 

[BuzzH]

Guess it’s not your wildlife then?

Sure it is, if only obviously.

 

[BuzzH]

I would set the elk "rent" rate at the same fee structure as federal grazing leases. $1.35 for every 2 elk per month. Good enough compensation for livestock to graze my public land should be good enough for my elk grazing private.

 

[SAJ-99]

I would set the elk "rent" rate at the same fee structure as federal grazing leases. $1.35 for every 2 elk per month. Good enough compensation for livestock to graze my public land should be good enough for my elk grazing private.

This highlights some of the core problem, which is that valley is a traditional wintering area. The landowners want the elk to go back to public but also want to graze that public in summer. That leaves migrating animals with less to eat and consequently they move down to private. You could put pivots of alfalfa on a state block to hold those elk and I would bet ranchers would have no problem taking the brucellosis risk for the $1.35 lease. I’m not saying they are disingenuous in their concern, just that every cost/benefit can be adjusted for in $. There are no clear answers, so I don’t have a problem with trying the PERC idea.

 

[Big Fin]

This highlights some of the core problem, which is that valley is a traditional wintering area. The landowners want the elk to go back to public but also want to graze that public in summer. That leaves migrating animals with less to eat and consequently they move down to private. You could put pivots of alfalfa on a state block to hold those elk and I would bet ranchers would have no problem taking the brucellosis risk for the $1.35 lease. I’m not saying they are disingenuous in their concern, just that every cost/benefit can be adjusted for in $. There are no clear answers, so I don’t have a problem with trying the PERC idea.

A large number of those "problem" elk, probably a majority of those elk, summer in YNP, which allows no public land grazing. Many of the adjacent public lands were not active allotments, with a few of the allotments being reactivated in the recent forest planning process. And even with no public land grazing, in most years the snow levels are such that elk would have to migrate to lower elevation as they have for millennia.

The reality is, many of these operations don't lease public pasture, rather they lease mostly private pasture that is closer to $25 per AUM. And I agree, that most cost/benefit can be adjusted for in $.

Which begs the question, would/could the landowners ask to be compensated at $25 per AUM for any elk on their lands to adjust that cost/benefit in $?

Point being, there are no easy answers.

 

[SAJ-99]

A large number of those "problem" elk, probably a majority of those elk, summer in YNP, which allows no public land grazing. Many of the adjacent public lands were not active allotments, with a few of the allotments being reactivated in the recent forest planning process. And even with no public land grazing, in most years the snow levels are such that elk would have to migrate to lower elevation as they have for millennia.

The reality is, many of these operations don't lease public pasture, rather they lease mostly private pasture that is closer to $25 per AUM. And I agree, that most cost/benefit can be adjusted for in $.

Which begs the question, would/could the landowners ask to be compensated at $25 per AUM for any elk on their lands to adjust that cost/benefit in $?

Point being, there are no easy answers.

I just wonder what has changed? Brucellosis isn’t new, the northern elk herd was 2x what it is now when you moved into the area, and average snow has probably been less over the last decade. So wolves and the price per acre? I just wonder if we are fixing or making the problem worse with money?

 

[Big Fin]

I just wonder what has changed? Brucellosis isn’t new, the northern elk herd was 2x what it is now when you moved into the area, and average snow has probably been less over the last decade. So wolves and the price per acre? I just wonder if we are fixing or making the problem worse with money?

Those are true statements. Those things aren't new.

Probably the biggest change is the difficulty of making ends meet for ag operators in that area combined with the huge financial pressures to subdivide or sell, all of which change access to elk and put winter range/migration corridors at permanent risk. Add the fact that there have been actions by APHIS to quarantine one of the ranches in that area due to brucellosis, the source of which was determined to be elk. That was economically catastrophic and neighbors pay attention to that.

The other factors might stay close to constant, but the economic and political (APHIS) pressures seem to be accelerating.

I don't think we are making the problem worse by trying to work with people, whether it's money or ways to experiment. The amount of goodwill hunters could build by helping change the brucellosis penalties/risks would be far more than any goodwill we have the ability to buy with dollars.

 

[cgasner1]

Been interesting read about elk problems in the other part of the state a lot of you guys have a tremendous amount of knowledge on this. Glad to see the thread hasn’t be derailed

 

[ismith]

A conservation easement or eminent domain like they do on the path of an oil pipeline are probably the best case scenarios for the elk. Otherwise, the Paradise Valley will become one big subdivision in less than 50 years.