No King's Deer

[Elky Welky]

Need to define "those" and "us". Most the argument is between the Residents.

I'm trying to avoid the term "transplant" because it comes off as pejorative, and I can't fault someone moving here and sacrificing good pay and better infrastructure so they can have great hunting and fishing in their backyard. And "native" Montanan is also fraught with its own peril, given that we have real natives that probably see all of this as silly.

 

[Forkyfinder]

I guess i have to know - given all the conflict with bighorn sheep and private enterprise - why dont advocates of landowner permits want to grant them in Montana?

Considering the best producing habitat is a mixture of public land and private land in central Montana - seems like if that puts more game on the mountain it should work in that situation too.

 

[SAJ-99]

I'm trying to avoid the term "transplant" because it comes off as pejorative, and I can't fault someone moving here and sacrificing good pay and better infrastructure so they can have great hunting and fishing in their backyard. And "native" Montanan is also fraught with its own peril, given that we have real natives that probably see all of this as silly.

I'm not sure where the time frame hits where someone goes from a transplant to a native. The reality is if someone is offended when another person presents a different idea, the reason is probably foolish pride. I once asked someone at FWP if they called WYGF about how something it did was working or not and they said there was an common attitude at FWP of "we don't need suggestions from anyone in WY". I hope that is not the case, but I lived there long enough to know how people can be.

Most of these discussions on tags, access, and costs end up at debating selfish perspectives. The whole purpose of NAM was to get people to stop killing everything before it was gone for good. We all have lost that perspective.

 

[Treeshark]

Considering the best producing habitat is a mixture of public land and private land in central Montana - seems like if that puts more game on the mountain it should work in that situation too.

Great point, with the right oversight that could be a boon for the resource.

Due to the limited amount of tags available, a lottery system of some sort would probably be needed. Worth considering, but residents would probably never support it like they may for mule deer and elk.

 

[cgasner1]

Most of these discussions on tags, access, and costs end up at debating selfish perspectives. The whole purpose of NAM was to get people to stop killing everything before it was gone for good. We all have lost that perspective.

This is exactly the truth. The conversation just varies on if it’s a r/nr or a landowner if people worried a little more about the tag in their pocket and that opportunity instead of the fact someone has some elk standing in his field we would probably all be a little better off.

 

[El Jason]

Fishing season is open…so is bird season.

 

[Gerald Martin]

I'm trying to avoid the term "transplant" because it comes off as pejorative, and I can't fault someone moving here and sacrificing good pay and better infrastructure so they can have great hunting and fishing in their backyard. And "native" Montanan is also fraught with its own peril, given that we have real natives that probably see all of this as silly.

I understand you and I disagree as to the “correct” place to draw that line.

I would point out that “transplants” sometimes have a clearer vision of where things are going than “natives” may. Transplants can bring with them a sense of appreciation for what MT has to offer, a heightened sense of protection for protecting what they appreciate. They also don’t generally bring the attitude of “we’re 5th generation Montanans and have always done it this way, don’t tell us what to do” to the decision making process.

Some transplants are completely unaware of anything other than their own self interests.

The whole landowner preference because they provide habitat discussion and policies that came out of that started with MT residents. It didn’t happen just because NR LO’s suddenly discovered MT and made it their issue.

 

[TOGIE]

As a 3rd generation Coloradan I can assure everyone that it ain't NR's banging the table the loudest on maintaining 6 week nutty and rutty Montana rifle mule deer season.

 

[Frequently Banned Troll]

This elkywelky treeshart thread is maybe more useless and annoying than any transplant or maybe even those all too common entitled sniveling bitch ”I’m a MT native” residents.

 

[Elky Welky]

I would point out that “transplants” sometimes have a clearer vision of where things are going than “natives” may. Transplants can bring with them a sense of appreciation for what MT has to offer, a heightened sense of protection for protecting what they appreciate.

I'm merely a 4th Gen. But don't you tell me what to do, @Gerald Martin

 

[El Jason]

As a 3rd generation Coloradan I can assure everyone that it ain't NR's banging the table the loudest on maintaining 6 week nutty and rutty Montana rifle mule deer season.

Th current season structure and length is a product of Montana hunter requests over an over for the past few decades. The default request after unsuccessful seasons has repeatedly been to ask for extensions and longer seasons.

 

[Gerald Martin]

I'm merely a 4th Gen. But don't you tell me what to do, @Gerald Martin

Your opinion has no value for at least one more generation…

 

[Frequently Banned Troll]

Bow to the MT native, proud coauthor of the sniveling bitch manifesto of MT mule deer.

 

[Nameless Range]

 

[Frequently Banned Troll]

May I suggest a early youth elk hunt for the next FWP 4th gen request for better opportunities for all those worthy..

 

[Gerald Martin]

As a 3rd generation Coloradan I can assure everyone that it ain't NR's banging the table the loudest on maintaining 6 week nutty and rutty Montana rifle mule deer season.

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.

 

[antlerradar]

Transferable Landowner tags are the ugly step child of LE. Some people just want more than their share when the number of slices in the pie gets limited.

 

[Ben Lamb]

And this is where we fundamentally disagree--for all the reasons I've outlined from the very outset here and elsewhere. We don't owe our collective resources to people who are fortunate (or unfortunate) enough to own or purchase land. It is truly nonsensical, and betrays our sense of self-governance as opposed to swearing fealty to a king.

I'd sure love for people to start giving me free stuff in "recognition" for an ancillary benefit to what I do for a living, but I recognize that I'm not entitled to it. That kingly entitlement might make sense out east, but it has no place here.

As an aside, I'd strongly caution against saying Montanans don't understand or appreciate what we have. It rubs people with multiple generations of experience here the wrong way, and for good reason. We very much so do understand and appreciate it, that's why things are so good here. Generations of conservationists before us fought to get us to the point we are at now, which is a problem of abundance and distribution, not scarcity. And it is why we will keep fighting so hard against those who come here (for the many great opportunities we have) and then turn around and try and tell us they know what's best for us.

Jake,

respectfully, this is a bad take.

Landowner preference licensing has been a standard in western states since at least the early 1970's. Montana and Wyoming are the two Rocky Mtn states that don't have some kind of transferable license program (aside from all those lotto and auction tags everyone lobbies for) and their is no credible chance of getting those through either legislature, IMO. Montana - as a state that elected their leaders, legislators and executives, made the conscious decision to reward good stewardship of wildlife through Landowner Preference if you go to a draw (which is really when you only need LOP since a general license is guaranteed for every resident landowner). That is the democratic allocation of wildlife, even if you dislike the outcome.

If it weren't for landowners, introductions of elk in the Bitterroots, Breaks, Elkhorns, etc wouldn't have happened regardless of the clubs who ponied up the funds. It is landowners who help conserve those habitats by not subdividing them. It is private landowners who provide refuge for animals when the pressure gets to be too much. It was a private landowner in R2 that agreed to be the release site for the first sharp-tail reintroduction west of the divide in an effort to restore those historic populations. If it wasn't for landowners, R6 & R7 would likely still be over-issuing licenses for mule deer. If it wasn't for private landowners in Montana, you'd have 7 million fewer acres to recreate on. I think that kind of investment into the public trust is worthy of a license, personally on top of a payment for impacts from hunters. It's a small recognition of their stewardship, public engagement and community development. Equating LOP to "the kings deer" does both issues a grave disservice.

And because of all of that, it's private landowners who's bottom lines are negatively impacted by an abundant public trust resource. Landowner preference as MT does it is a very small token of appreciation for their outsized impact on wildlife abundance. Claiming that they seek a "kingly entitlement" is pretty tone deaf. Can it be better, absolutely. Is it an a sign of lordly entitlement? Hardly.

I have met no landowner, rich or poor, resident or non, who wants the "kings deer." To a person, they all have said that the egalitarian model is necessary and the best way to keep what we have today. But they all ask me this question, "why should I let everyone else hunt my place if I can't." I think that's a valid question. Especially when you look at the economic impacts that ranches play in rural communities (both resident and NR landowners). It may not be perfect and I think there's an unintentional downside to consolidation of ranchland in the form of raising barriers of entry for new farmers and ranchers, etc. That's all far larger than a licensing bitch, and I think that if we're honest with ourselves we'd recognize that range wars have been rolling in some form or fashion since El Chivato saddled up for Tunstall and went against Dolan in the Lincoln County wars or Tom Horn got framed for Willy Nickel.

Maybe we'd all be well served to re-read Back from the Brink as well as Roosevelt's Hunting Trips of a Ranchman and Wilderness Hunter. Our history shows that wildlife wins when we find ways to work together, not tear each other down. It's easy to fall into combat mode. There's a ton of comfort in it, and it treats us like a nice 0 degree bag on a cold night but it's a false comfort. Combat is addictive. The adrenaline rush is real but so are the lows when it wears off. But then you're always left chasing the next thing to elevate your blood and keep you fired up. I hope you get as exhausted of constant conflict as I did but I hope it doesn't take you 20 years to get there. It's counter-productive to achieving lasting results that benefit all, in my experience.

 

[antlerradar]

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.

Not a hard decision for many, what is not to like about 12 of hunting on an exclusive lease with just you and a handful of friends. Get to enjoy all the benefits of maximum opportunity and avoid most of the negatives. Nice for landowners too.

 

[Gerald Martin]

Not a hard decision for many, what is not to like about 12 of hunting on an exclusive lease with just you and a handful of friends. Get to enjoy all the benefits of maximum opportunity and avoid most of the negatives. Nice for landowners too.

Yes. I completely understand. If I owned acreage large enough to hunt and the choice was between leasing or unrestricted public access I would do the same.

God bless those landowners willing to enroll in BM and allow free hunting. I mean that sincerely.