No King's Deer

[Ben Lamb]

That wasn't a subtle dig at your intentions, and if it was seen as such I sincerely apologize. I truly understand how deeply rooted the notion of us owing our gratitude to "the good stewards" is. I just don't feel the same, because at the end of the day they are just doing their jobs, or happen to be lucky/rich enough to afford land. I save my gratitude for our veterans.

If I had my druthers and to be ideologically consistent, yes. But the time to take a stand against it would have been long before me, so I have to concede that it has already existed, at least for residents, for a long time. And my own stance comes with the caveat that it does make sense if there is something being exchanged with the public that preserves the public's right to the wildlife. Mere ownership alone will never justify LP. I have said before that resident LP makes a little more sense though because these are people that do pay state taxes and are active participants in their communities. But if the deal was for a certain number of damage hunts, block mgmt, etc., I'd feel far better about the whole system. (all great questions you raised in the middle of this too, and worth thinking about hard)

If a landowner is illegally blocking public access to public land, they should absolutely be sued. If they aren't, then they shouldn't. It's not anti-landowner to say someone doing something that is illegal should face consequences. Being an advocate for the public and the public's rights does not inherently mean anti-landowner. If someone can't see the difference, that's on them, not me.

I'm just anti- further privileging people simply for already being privileged.

I appreciate that and recognize it may very easily be my own soft top knot.

Your advocacy carries farther than you realize due to your position and how it is received matters. If the landowner groups view you in a certain way then that perception is reality. It's up to you as a leader to change that to increase your effectiveness.

I'm out. Got enchiladas for dinner

 

[bigsky2]

Interestingly enough, one of the fastest growing trends towards land being locked up for exclusive use by the king and his friends is resident hunt clubs and leasing of ranches by residents to escape the crowded masses on public.

Leasing by commercial outfitters is relatively static or down from historic levels.

That's the truth. Every year it seems I find out about more residents that are leasing ground. It's an alarming trend.

 

[Elky Welky]

Your advocacy carries farther than you realize due to your position and how it is received matters. If the landowner groups view you in a certain way then that perception is reality. It's up to you as a leader to change that to increase your effectiveness.

No disagreement. But sometimes it really is just fun to stir the pot and get people thinking, and I appreciate how civil this thread has stayed 11 pages in. I'm glad my Sunday musings turned into this conversation.

Enjoy the enchiladas!

 

[Treeshark]

I think a few reasons would be:

1. Finding out if you've gotten to that point, or exceeded it, might mean missing out on money.
2. If I recall they recently raised fees on NRs, and whether they sell out or not might still be contingent on the national economy as a whole. I don't know if that is true anymore.
3. This one matters to me. I don't think we should be trying to max out how much we can skin from nonresidents. They already pay a ton more than we do, which is appropriate, but the cost of their tags has increased at a higher rate than resident ones over the last 40 years. Though I know it is expensive, I personally like the idea of some normal dude from Wisconsin who budgeted for the experience, being able to come out here with this family and hunt.

Hard to argue with any of this. Re: first and second points, my guess is there is still a lot of meat on the bone- but it’s risky for the state to guess and be wrong.

Regarding the third, I appreciate that one too.

 

[Forkyfinder]

Well, maybe one day you will have enough wisdom and experience to understand the paths that some things take.

So you thought that way, and then completely changed perspectives in 4 years? Was there something in your career, personal, or private life that would have fundamentally changed how you feel?

Typically - for someone to fundamentally change philosophy, something major is a driver. Had a friend that was in oil and gas - then went to renewable energy. His perspective on how the country should allocate resouces changed a lot. Maybe thats applicable.

More to the point though - wisdom and experience is great for sharing opinions - i asked for receipts, proof, or data the kind of things someone carrying a responsibility to oversee a trust should be asking.

Edit:Would you look at that - journalists did somework for us:

“Bulls for Billionaires.” Are Montana’s 454 Permits a Step Toward Privatizing the State’s Elk Herd?

Montana's 454 permits allow private landowners more opportunity to hunt bull elk, but they also create public hunting on private ranches.

www.outdoorlife.com

65 elk, 45 of which were bulls, killed in 2024 access program hunts

Last year’s 38 agreements provided 67 free elk tags. Out of the 61 who responded to a request for information, FWP found almost 61% killed an elk.

billingsgazette.com

 

[SAJ-99]

It's been an awesome 4 years.

And yet people continue to complain. With such progress and no resolution, it makes wonder if the right “problem” was identified.

 

[Irrelevant]

That's about $50 a day per hunter - a hell of an exchange relative to what a day of hunting goes for on the private market.

Interesting that $50 a day is a good deal, but it only costs $14 a year for a deer tag (r)? Those don't seem consistent.

 

[Irrelevant]

there's been a pile of great work done in MT for wildlife.

It's been an awesome 4 years.

Has there? Why is it that the same issues are still ever-present and appear to continue to worsen? Is that incorrect? Is mule deer hunting better, what about public land elk hunting? Is the bird hunting better? What exactly is better? Because I apparently only hear/know about the not-better parts.

 

[cgasner1]

Has there? Why is it that the same issues are still ever-present and appear to continue to worsen? Is that incorrect? Is mule deer hunting better, what about public land elk hunting? Is the bird hunting better? What exactly is better? Because I apparently only hear/know about the not-better parts.

This was my first year really paying attention to this stuff. What I learned was that there is way to much politics in game management we don’t manage game because it’s the right things to do. As in the all politics some of them can just push a stupid idea like 139 trying to protect hunting mule deer in the rut. I talked to people who voted on that bill that didn’t even know what a mule deer was yet she had a say on how we hunt them. I personally heard @Elky Welky say last session had significantly less bullshit that one’s prior. It’s little wins. Also Ben did mention a bunch of good stuff that got done that hasn’t gone into effect yet.

 

[Forkyfinder]

Interesting - has that worked out for the wilkes ranch and access? Or anywhere else?

As a trustee - if you were to "invest" in something to "hope" for a return - how is that doing a good job?

I thought on this a bit more. If we are talking about an investment, return, and comparing - the investments im referring to arent just sketchy penny stocks.

Theyre penny stocks that no one can see a balance sheet. No one knows the product. No company history. Making a deicison based on pure hope like thats gambling, not investing. How could anyone say they carefully weighed the options - theres nothing to consider?

In addition to being wreckless - its without logic or reason. Ive not met anyone successful who doesnt make sound choices based on good information. The words earlier were essentially - give something and blindly hope to get something in return. At best arguing for that kind of approach is incredibly intellectually deficient and at worst morally corrupt.

Take part of your asset (or the one you are responsible for managing), give it away to someone for nothing and hope in the world of people doing the right thing - more comes back than what you took out. That sounds like a religious philosophy. A way to conduct yourself with friends. Maybe its the mark of a truly generous person. Its utter incompetence at managing a trust as a trustee though. Unless of course its being done with unclaimed benefits paid out here and there to trustees and not the trust (the word for that is corrupt)

 

[Forkyfinder]

Ah jeez. Just saw a good post on crossbows/ethics/good old boys clubs just disappear.

If theres a good old boys club someones worried about though, id be looking at fake 5013c conservation orgs for clues.

Speaking of which - you guys know that you cant spend a majority of your time as a 5013c lobbying? I guess its obviously immoral - but its breaking the law. Just like poaching - i hope both sets of criminals are caught.

 

[Nameless Range]

Interesting that $50 a day is a good deal, but it only costs $14 a year for a deer tag (r)? Those don't seem consistent.

One is for access to an individual’s private property and the other is for the opportunity to harvest a deer within the bounds of the regulations. Not necessarily apples to apples. I think the closest thing to apples to apples would be what it would cost you to walk up to some landowner who sells access to their property and see what they charge. The ones I am aware of in region seven charge a hell of a lot more than that.

That said, as I mentioned earlier, I think residents should pay a bit more.

In 1983, the cost of a nonresident Deer and Elk Combo was $275 dollars. Today, that same item is $1278 – a 365% increase.

Conversely, in 1983, a Resident Montana Sportsmen License (Conservation, Deer A, Elk, Black bear, upland birds, and fishing) cost $35. Today, that same license is $77 – a 120% increase. Put another way, $35 in 1983 would be equivalent to $114 today.

To your point, the resident cost of hunting licenses is a hell of a deal.A goddamn steal. In fact, it might be the best bang for any Montanan’s buck going, and it’s ridiculous that any mention of increasing the cost of those generates whingeing from the populous.

 

[Irrelevant]

One is for access to an individual’s private property and the other is for the opportunity to harvest a deer within the bounds of the regulations. Not necessarily apples to apples. I think the closest thing to apples to apples would be what it would cost you to walk up to some landowner who sells access to their property and see what they charge. The ones I am aware of in region seven charge a hell of a lot more than that.

That said, as I mentioned earlier, I think residents should pay a bit more.

In 1983, the cost of a nonresident Deer and Elk Combo was $275 dollars. Today, that same item is $1278 – a 365% increase.

Conversely, in 1983, a Resident Montana Sportsmen License (Conservation, Deer A, Elk, Black bear, upland birds, and fishing) cost $35. Today, that same license is $77 – a 120% increase. Put another way, $35 in 1983 would be equivalent to $114 today.

To your point, the resident cost of hunting licenses is a hell of a deal.A goddamn steal. In fact, it might be the best bang for any Montanan’s buck going, and it’s ridiculous that any mention of increasing the cost of those generates whingeing from the populous.

View attachment 389913

But it sorta is apples to apples. Both costs are enabling you to "have fun" and potentially shoot a deer. But one restricts you to a single day and a relatively small area while the other grants you 6+ weeks and access to ~30 million acres.

It's not just a "good deal" it's borderline fraud.

 

[Nameless Range]

But it sorta is apples to apples. Both costs are enabling you to "have fun" and potentially shoot a deer. But one restricts you to a single day and a relatively small area while the other grants you 6+ weeks and access to ~30 million acres.

It's not just a "good deal" it's borderline fraud.

Comparing the public trust that is Montana's wildlife and the ability to pursue it on the public trust that is public lands is just not equivalent to allowing any member of the public with a hunting license onto private property. I think anyone who owns private property suitable for hunting could tell you the many reasons there's a big difference.

I don't see it as "borderline fraud", but just for the sake of me drinking my coffee, something similar could be said about American use of Public Lands in general - whether someone hunts or not. It's an interesting thing to think about.

Roughly, between the USFS, BLM, NPS, and USFWS you're looking at 13.9 billion dollars in appropriations. According the Google Machine, they receive roughly 427 million visitor days combined. About $32 a visitor day. I think it just speaks to the power of a collective public trust, and how that can be beneficial on-net vs privatization - be that in land or beast.

I really do think Montanans need to pay more for their hunting opportunities, which would shrink the delta between the two, but it would still look paltry relative to the ability to hunt public land for dang near any western state with public lands on offer. Just something else for context.

Deer Licenses:

Idaho Deer Tag: ~$20

Wyoming Deer Tag: ~$40

Colorado Deer Tag: ~$50

California: ~$41

Nevada: ~$30

We definitely got it good, and frankly we should have it good, but there's thresholds and room for improvement under our constitution and law.

Constitution of Montana -- Article IX -- ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES Section 7.

Preservation of harvest heritage. The opportunity to harvest wild fish and wild game animals is a heritage that shall forever be preserved to the individual citizens of the state and does not create a right to trespass on private property or diminution of other private rights.

Montana Code Annotated

87-3-303. Policy toward nonresident big game hunters. It is the policy of this state to protect and preserve game animals primarily for the citizens of this state while welcoming nonresidents licensed to hunt in Montana to enjoy the state's public wildlife resources and acknowledging nonresidents' financial contribution to Montana's wildlife management and tourism industry.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Has there? Why is it that the same issues are still ever-present and appear to continue to worsen? Is that incorrect? Is mule deer hunting better, what about public land elk hunting? Is the bird hunting better? What exactly is better? Because I apparently only hear/know about the not-better parts.

There's a hole that's been dug for over 20 years. It takes time to fill it. So here is what I'd say have been the crowning achievements going back to 2019:

1.) Public Access to Lands Act passes: in the 5 operational years of this program, and combined with block management, over 1 million acres of landlocked public land have been opened for public access.
2.) Hundreds of thousands of acres of new access through Habitat leasing and Conservation Easements despite a land board that has strong reservations about permanent easements and fee title acquisition.
3.) 2021 saw a good increase in both the dollar amount and acreage requirement necessary to move a HM decision to the Land board. We went from $250L and 100 acres to $1 million and 500 acres which allowed for the recent Stafford Ferry easement to be approved by the commission only.
4.) Doe licenses anyone? In 2022, the agency cut a ton of tags, the Commission eliminated doe hunting in R6 & 7 on public lands, in 2025 they reduced the number of licenses and put a cap on them, in 23 SB 283 was passed that has removed over 5,000 B tags from NR hands.
5.) New Elk Management Plan that is miles ahead of the previous one
6.) Significant investments in FWP's staff for hunter ed/technical services and law enforcement (14 new full time employees - not all the way there yet but getting close)
7.) Criminal trespass reform and establishment of authority for FWP to have shed hunting seasons on WMA's.
8.) Increase in cap payment and hunter day payment on block management as well as SB 83 & 441 from last session that creates better enforcement for landowners and wardens on FWP access program enrolled land.
9.) Dedicated funding stream to Block Management (NR Base hunting license - 80% goes to Hunter Access Enhancement Fund).
10.) Sage Grouse conservation easement program (that's 2015) is continuing and doing solid work despite funding challenges
11.) Grizzly Bear legislation in 2023 was pretty progressive considering the make up of the legislature. MT is the only state that has non-lethal management as a preferred option for first response.
12.) Alternative funding for FWP: In 2020, the rec MJ ballot helped establish the path for what became HB 701 which allocated a percentage of rec MJ funds to habitat conservation, nongame, trails and parks. In 2023, when that funding was threatened, a massive coalition of natural resource groups, conservation, healthcare and ag came together to build the 442 coalition, signaling growing support for conservation funding. In 2025, HB 932 did the same thing with some changes in how the funding would be split to include both the improved WHIP program in 442 as well as including water storage work, a new, fast action habitat restoration program (think fish kills and habitat work that should get done, weed remediation post-fire, etc - great addition by FWP). That bill was passed overwhelmingly and signed by the Governor. That in and of itself represents roughly $30 million a biennium to help offset costs to those programs, and increase spending on habitat conservation.
13.) Codified the BMA corridor program that had been shuttered previously. This would allow landowners to enter into a BMA that allows for access to public land during hunting seasons only.
14.) 2025: 10 day resident priority for upland seasons, and the new bird dog training program along with more funding for the Upland program through increased fees from NR's.
15.) Wildlife Crossing legislation & Funding in 2025: A bill that established the fund to collect revenue for wildlife crossings was passed and signed, and a portion of the 932 funds will go to the crossings. This is a major milestone in conservation, personally. TRCP and company deserve a ton of credit for getting this done.

I'm sure there's a ton that I'm forgetting. Yes, some bad got through. It always does. But on the aggregate, and on a more extended timeline - these changes set MT up to be successful in the future. You will never eliminate the challenges and people who have differing ideas than you on policy work, hunting regs, etc. How you deal with that conflict sets you up for success or failure.

 

[Irrelevant]

Comparing the public trust that is Montana's wildlife and the ability to pursue it on the public trust that is public lands is just not equivalent to allowing any member of the public with a hunting license onto private property. I think anyone who owns private property suitable for hunting could tell you the many reasons there's a big difference.

I don't see it as "borderline fraud", but just for the sake of me drinking my coffee, something similar could be said about American use of Public Lands in general - whether someone hunts or not. It's an interesting thing to think about.

Roughly, between the USFS, BLM, NPS, and USFWS you're looking at 13.9 billion dollars in appropriations. According the Google Machine, they receive roughly 427 million visitor days combined. About $32 a visitor day. I think it just speaks to the power of a collective public trust, and how that can be beneficial on-net vs privatization - be that in land or beast.

I really do think Montanans need to pay more for their hunting opportunities, which would shrink the delta between the two, but it would still look paltry relative to the ability to hunt public land for dang near any western state with public lands on offer. Just something else for context.

Deer Licenses:

Idaho Deer Tag: ~$20

Wyoming Deer Tag: ~$40

Colorado Deer Tag: ~$50

California: ~$41

Nevada: ~$30

We definitely got it good, and frankly we should have it good, but there's thresholds and room for improvement under our constitution and law.

Constitution of Montana -- Article IX -- ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES Section 7.

Preservation of harvest heritage. The opportunity to harvest wild fish and wild game animals is a heritage that shall forever be preserved to the individual citizens of the state and does not create a right to trespass on private property or diminution of other private rights.

Montana Code Annotated

87-3-303. Policy toward nonresident big game hunters. It is the policy of this state to protect and preserve game animals primarily for the citizens of this state while welcoming nonresidents licensed to hunt in Montana to enjoy the state's public wildlife resources and acknowledging nonresidents' financial contribution to Montana's wildlife management and tourism industry.

I stand by both claims.

Neither of those numbers is right. Heck, neither the FS nor BLM has the institutional infrastructure to determine how many user days they have. And you would have to dive way deeper into the dollars. But there's not a chance in hell that it's $32 per user day.

But I'll double down and change potential fraud to negligence.

MT is changing less than 50% of the already subsidized rates of the other states. Is there any debate that another $2 million in state resources would help mt mule deer? What about 4 million? If not, then why are you clearly proud of that lack of funding?

Let's add
Washington $62
Oregon $35
Arizona $45
Utah $46
New Mexico $41

 

[Nameless Range]

I stand by both claims.

Neither of those numbers is right. Heck, neither the FS nor BLM has the institutional infrastructure to determine how many user days they have. And you would have to dive way deeper into the dollars. But there's not a chance in hell that it's $32 per user day.

But I'll double down and change potential fraud to negligence.

MT is changing less than 50% of the already subsidized rates of the other states. Is there any debate that another $2 million in state resources would help mt mule deer? What about 4 million? If not, then why are you clearly proud of that lack of funding?

Let's add
Washington $62
Oregon $35
Arizona $45
Utah $46
New Mexico $41

Clearly proud? I've only said in 3 posts now that I think Montana hunters should pay more.

As to the first claim, public access to public lands vs public access to private lands aren't commensurate from an economic standpoint. Just facts.

As to user days, DOI and others be they federal agencies or organizations produce reports you can gander upon yourself if you want to quibble with them. Though not definitive, they are what's out there. I'm not making a claim of certainty. As I said, I don't think public access to public lands figures into a comparison with BM. Just an interesting thought experiment.

https://www.blm.gov/sites/default/files/docs/2024-08/Public-Land-Statistics-2023_508.pdf

https://www.tpl.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/TPL-Special-Report_We-Need-More-Public-Lands-Not-Less_Final.pdf

etc..

 

[Irrelevant]

There's a hole that's been dug for over 20 years. It takes time to fill it. So here is what I'd say have been the crowning achievements going back to 2019:

1.) Public Access to Lands Act passes: in the 5 operational years of this program, and combined with block management, over 1 million acres of landlocked public land have been opened for public access.
2.) Hundreds of thousands of acres of new access through Habitat leasing and Conservation Easements despite a land board that has strong reservations about permanent easements and fee title acquisition.
3.) 2021 saw a good increase in both the dollar amount and acreage requirement necessary to move a HM decision to the Land board. We went from $250L and 100 acres to $1 million and 500 acres which allowed for the recent Stafford Ferry easement to be approved by the commission only.
4.) Doe licenses anyone? In 2022, the agency cut a ton of tags, the Commission eliminated doe hunting in R6 & 7 on public lands, in 2025 they reduced the number of licenses and put a cap on them, in 23 SB 283 was passed that has removed over 5,000 B tags from NR hands.
5.) New Elk Management Plan that is miles ahead of the previous one
6.) Significant investments in FWP's staff for hunter ed/technical services and law enforcement (14 new full time employees - not all the way there yet but getting close)
7.) Criminal trespass reform and establishment of authority for FWP to have shed hunting seasons on WMA's.
8.) Increase in cap payment and hunter day payment on block management as well as SB 83 & 441 from last session that creates better enforcement for landowners and wardens on FWP access program enrolled land.
9.) Dedicated funding stream to Block Management (NR Base hunting license - 80% goes to Hunter Access Enhancement Fund).
10.) Sage Grouse conservation easement program (that's 2015) is continuing and doing solid work despite funding challenges
11.) Grizzly Bear legislation in 2023 was pretty progressive considering the make up of the legislature. MT is the only state that has non-lethal management as a preferred option for first response.
12.) Alternative funding for FWP: In 2020, the rec MJ ballot helped establish the path for what became HB 701 which allocated a percentage of rec MJ funds to habitat conservation, nongame, trails and parks. In 2023, when that funding was threatened, a massive coalition of natural resource groups, conservation, healthcare and ag came together to build the 442 coalition, signaling growing support for conservation funding. In 2025, HB 932 did the same thing with some changes in how the funding would be split to include both the improved WHIP program in 442 as well as including water storage work, a new, fast action habitat restoration program (think fish kills and habitat work that should get done, weed remediation post-fire, etc - great addition by FWP). That bill was passed overwhelmingly and signed by the Governor. That in and of itself represents roughly $30 million a biennium to help offset costs to those programs, and increase spending on habitat conservation.
13.) Codified the BMA corridor program that had been shuttered previously. This would allow landowners to enter into a BMA that allows for access to public land during hunting seasons only.
14.) 2025: 10 day resident priority for upland seasons, and the new bird dog training program along with more funding for the Upland program through increased fees from NR's.
15.) Wildlife Crossing legislation & Funding in 2025: A bill that established the fund to collect revenue for wildlife crossings was passed and signed, and a portion of the 932 funds will go to the crossings. This is a major milestone in conservation, personally. TRCP and company deserve a ton of credit for getting this done.

I'm sure there's a ton that I'm forgetting. Yes, some bad got through. It always does. But on the aggregate, and on a more extended timeline - these changes set MT up to be successful in the future. You will never eliminate the challenges and people who have differing ideas than you on policy work, hunting regs, etc. How you deal with that conflict sets you up for success or failure.

Maybe. There are some good things on that list.

I'll use an analogy that I know well. Here in WA, we want more salmon. We established several reaches of poor quality habitat as "Intensely Monitored Watersheds". Then invested a ton of money in projects to restore the habitat, tens of millions. Prior to every project, we performed several years of surveys to gather accurate baseline data on how many fish and where they were located, then completed the projects, and continued surveys for 6 years to document the difference. The results were that more fish used the best habitat created by projects, but... there was the same overall number of fish as the pre-project baseline! The projects were a complete flop at achieving the goal. The point is, you can do a lot of things that "make sense", that should help, but the proof is in the results. If you don't get the results, then it doesn't matter how many feel good projects or efforts you implement, it was still unsuccessful.

 

[Irrelevant]

Clearly proud? I've only said in 3 posts now that I think Montana hunters should pay more.

But at the same time, "you have it good, you should have it good" those are positive affirmations.

As to the first claim, public access to public lands vs public access to private lands aren't commensurate from an economic standpoint. Just facts.

From the landowner's perspective, you're right, they're not equal. But not if you view it from the user standpoint. And the experience garnered from the fee, they are very similar.

As to user days, DOI and others be they federal agencies or organizations produce reports you can gander upon yourself if you want to quibble with them. Though not definitive, they are what's out there. I'm not making a claim of certainty. As I said, I don't think public access to public lands figures into a comparison with BM. Just an interesting thought experiment.

https://www.blm.gov/sites/default/files/docs/2024-08/Public-Land-Statistics-2023_508.pdf

https://www.tpl.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/TPL-Special-Report_We-Need-More-Public-Lands-Not-Less_Final.pdf

etc..

I agree that's what's out there, but garbage in, garbage out. Those numbers can't be accurate because they don't have any means to actually measure it.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Maybe. There are some good things on that list.

I'll use an analogy that I know well. Here in WA, we want more salmon. We established several reaches of poor quality habitat as "Intensely Monitored Watersheds". Then invested a ton of money in projects to restore the habitat, tens of millions. Prior to every project, we performed several years of surveys to gather accurate baseline data on how many fish and where they were located, then completed the projects, and continued surveys for 6 years to document the difference. The results were that more fish used the best habitat created by projects, but... there was the same overall number of fish as the pre-project baseline! The projects were a complete flop at achieving the goal. The point is, you can do a lot of things that "make sense", that should help, but the proof is in the results. If you don't get the results, then it doesn't matter how many feel good projects or efforts you implement, it was still unsuccessful.

What would those returns be like if you hadn't done that habitat work? - sure the # of salmon didn't increase as hoped, but did it decrease and if it did decrease, was the decrease slowed? What is the baseline? I agree with your point that you have to see results in order to claim a success. Everything that's been posted except the issue w/ upland and 932 has the success associated with it though.

You can extrapolate how those programs will go based on other states, however. CO, UT, WY and others have a similar approach as 932 using different funding sources, etc. Those programs have a proven track record of increasing habitat uplift and conserving critical species. The wildlife crossings work as well has parallels in other states that show remarkable drops in animal/vehicle collisions, etc.

It often seems like people are looking for a one-time, final fix for all that ails the world. Nothing works like that, especially something as complex and controversial as wildlife management & conservation. Reviewing programs that work as well as that don't work means you should constantly be looking at ways to improve based on what you've done in the past. Reintroductions are good example: The work done in the early 20th and post war years could not happen today in terms of elk transplants. Agencies would be reticent to do this due to disease issues such as brucellosis and CWD, habitat concerns etc. In the 1950's, those issues weren't nearly as prevalent as they are today, or well understood. So things change, adapt and hopefully improve.