Reducing the Friction Between Working Landowners and Elk

[Nameless Range]

One thing said to me more than once by supporters of HB 505, or those sympathetic to the idea that we need a mass reduction of elk across the landscape, was, "Well, what's your idea to solve the problem?" Nevermind that in the face of a bill about to become law, this seems off the mark, it has got me thinking.

I think there needs to be a good faith attempt to recognize and improve the friction between Montanans whose livelihoods are dependent upon the land which they own, and I think the existence of and recognition of such an effort would very wise to have in place prior to the next bill that comes along, or the next legislative session, or during the writing of the next EMP. The Citizens Elk Group and what comes of it will hopefully be a good representation of this type of thing, but in trying to answer the question above in earnest here are a few ideas I have thought about.


In my King for a Day scenario, any model that exists in perpetuity moving forward will take into consideration a few premises I believe to be both true and mutually compatible:


1. Elk cause many landowners a large financial detriment, and in many ways landowners are subsidizing the existence of elk on the landscape. Their concerns are valid.
2. Our current EMP Objectives are unreasonably low. In spite of insanely liberal harvest over the last decade, I believe elk populations have shown us that.
3. Elk belong to all Montanans, and should not be commercialized, and equal opportunity in the tag drawing process is a principal we must not abandon, but maybe there is a bit of wiggle room.

These are all half-baked ruminations, but I am curious what folks think of them or any other solutions.

An Expanded and More Aggressive Game Damage Hunt Program

I like the game damage program because it is an acute solution(not unit wide), is typically fair, is vetted by FWP as necessary, and has a temporal window of occurrence(not an entire season.) Something that is true is that the current game damage hunts are at times marginally effective. I've seen it in action. What if after a vetting by FWP, a more aggressive solution were implemented? Something like the landowner-sponsored tags in HB 505 in addition to the current roster process. It is true that there would be a skewed aspect to this, where equal opportunity in the drawing process would be affected, as sponsored tags would be in addition to the game damage roster. These game-damage sponsored-hunter periods would be vetted as necessary, would have a temporal aspect (say two weeks, where at the end it would be assessed again), and in the spirit of the HB 505 amendments (which I appreciated) ,it would be illegal for landowners to benefit financially from sponsoring.

Financial Compensation

There is an uneasiness to this for me, as I could see it being gamed and out of control. That said, Montana sells something like 200,000 elk licenses per year at an absurdly low cost to residents. What if the price of a tag were increased by $10, or $20, and that money went in to a pot to compensate landowners for elk damage? I have no idea how much damage elk do in a monetary sense across Montana, so maybe that amount is naively insufficient. This would also require FTE at the state level to implement this program, vetting properties and assessing damage, etc. But would exist in the spirit of recognizing that much of the elk meat in our freezers came from grass owned by fellow Montanans. It would set in place a recognition that would lend itself to some realistic elk objectives in the new EMP.

Controlled Hazing

Why not just let concerned landowners haze elk off their property? I know it is unsavory, but for chrissake we are hunting them 7 months out of the year anyway. There could sideboards, and defined approved methods of hazing, and I also know this could cause friction between neighbors. Maybe a more aggressive hazing program where landowners and the state come together to plan hazing. The fact is, there are plenty of landowners who love elk on their property, and the logic that hazing elk from one property to another would cause headache between neighbors doesn't seem that much different to me than the idea that we would hunt them off one parcel to another, which is what HB 505 claimed was the intent.


Like I said, not thought out particularly well, but maybe the start of a conversation. I'm heading off grid for a couple days with my family after I hit enter. Feel free to tell me why these are bad ideas or if you have your own.

 

[SAJ-99]

One thing said to me more than once by supporters of HB 505, or those sympathetic to the idea that we need a mass reduction of elk across the landscape, was, "Well, what's your idea to solve the problem?" Nevermind that in the face of a bill about to become law, this seems off the mark, it has got me thinking.

I think there needs to be a good faith attempt to recognize and improve the friction between Montanans whose livelihoods are dependent upon the land which they own, and I think the existence of and recognition of such an effort would very wise to have in place prior to the next bill that comes along, or the next legislative session, or during the writing of the next EMP. The Citizens Elk Group and what comes of it will hopefully be a good representation of this type of thing, but in trying to answer the question above in earnest here are a few ideas I have thought about.


In my King for a Day scenario, any model that exists in perpetuity moving forward will take into consideration a few premises I believe to be both true and mutually compatible:


1. Elk cause many landowners a large financial detriment, and in many ways landowners are subsidizing the existence of elk on the landscape. Their concerns are valid.
2. Our current EMP Objectives are unreasonably low. In spite of insanely liberal harvest over the last decade, I believe elk populations have shown us that.
3. Elk belong to all Montanans, and should not be commercialized, and equal opportunity in the tag drawing process is a principal we must not abandon, but maybe there is a bit of wiggle room.

These are all half-baked ruminations, but I am curious what folks think of them or any other solutions.

An Expanded and More Aggressive Game Damage Hunt Program

I like the game damage program because it is an acute solution(not unit wide), is typically fair, is vetted by FWP as necessary, and has a temporal window of occurrence(not an entire season.) Something that is true is that the current game damage hunts are at times marginally effective. I've seen it in action. What if after a vetting by FWP, a more aggressive solution were implemented? Something like the landowner-sponsored tags in HB 505 in addition to the current roster process. It is true that there would be a skewed aspect to this, where equal opportunity in the drawing process would be affected, as sponsored tags would be in addition to the game damage roster. These game-damage sponsored-hunter periods would be vetted as necessary, would have a temporal aspect (say two weeks, where at the end it would be assessed again), and in the spirit of the HB 505 amendments (which I appreciated) ,it would be illegal for landowners to benefit financially from sponsoring.

Financial Compensation

There is an uneasiness to this for me, as I could see it being gamed and out of control. That said, Montana sells something like 200,000 elk licenses per year at an absurdly low cost to residents. What if the price of a tag were increased by $10, or $20, and that money went in to a pot to compensate landowners for elk damage? I have no idea how much damage elk do in a monetary sense across Montana, so maybe that amount is naively insufficient. This would also require FTE at the state level to implement this program, vetting properties and assessing damage, etc. But would exist in the spirit of recognizing that much of the elk meat in our freezers came from grass owned by fellow Montanans. It would set in place a recognition that would lend itself to some realistic elk objectives in the new EMP.

Controlled Hazing

Why not just let concerned landowners haze elk off their property? I know it is unsavory, but for chrissake we are hunting them 7 months out of the year anyway. There could sideboards, and defined approved methods of hazing, and I also know this could cause friction between neighbors. Maybe a more aggressive hazing program where landowners and the state come together to plan hazing. The fact is, there are plenty of landowners who love elk on their property, and the logic that hazing elk from one property to another would cause headache between neighbors doesn't seem that much different to me than the idea that we would hunt them off one parcel to another, which is what HB 505 claimed was the intent.


Like I said, not thought out particularly well, but maybe the start of a conversation. I'm heading off grid for a couple days with my family after I hit enter. Feel free to tell me why these are bad ideas or if you have your own.

I have been thinking about this too. I like the ideas. Any system can be gamed. I laugh at the amendment that prohibited landowners from getting paid. I mean seriously? Does anyone think if we codify the rule it will be followed?
I agree we either need to improve Gamd Damage hunt process and shoulder seasons or get rid of them and try something new. What I heard a lot of in that meeting was “we” and “them”. Not sure if it was LO vs hunter or R vs D. That is a different problem.

I need to think your suggestions through. I saw Montana ranchers rally to provide hay to central Montana after the 2017 fires. Hay has a market price that we can use as a starting point on compensation. You pointed out the main problem and that is quantifying the actual damage.

 

[Dakotakid]

In Montana we have optional contribution for hunters against hunger, I would like to see hunters for stewardship. A way to support the block management program and even reduce wildlife destruction. Large elk populations are brutal on fences. Old cows drag there feet to break the top wires so the calves don’t have to jump. A fund just for fencing may go a long way to earn back support.

 

[brocksw]

One thing said to me more than once by supporters of HB 505, or those sympathetic to the idea that we need a mass reduction of elk across the landscape, was, "Well, what's your idea to solve the problem?" Nevermind that in the face of a bill about to become law, this seems off the mark, it has got me thinking.

I think there needs to be a good faith attempt to recognize and improve the friction between Montanans whose livelihoods are dependent upon the land which they own, and I think the existence of and recognition of such an effort would very wise to have in place prior to the next bill that comes along, or the next legislative session, or during the writing of the next EMP. The Citizens Elk Group and what comes of it will hopefully be a good representation of this type of thing, but in trying to answer the question above in earnest here are a few ideas I have thought about.


In my King for a Day scenario, any model that exists in perpetuity moving forward will take into consideration a few premises I believe to be both true and mutually compatible:


1. Elk cause many landowners a large financial detriment, and in many ways landowners are subsidizing the existence of elk on the landscape. Their concerns are valid.
2. Our current EMP Objectives are unreasonably low. In spite of insanely liberal harvest over the last decade, I believe elk populations have shown us that.
3. Elk belong to all Montanans, and should not be commercialized, and equal opportunity in the tag drawing process is a principal we must not abandon, but maybe there is a bit of wiggle room.

These are all half-baked ruminations, but I am curious what folks think of them or any other solutions.

An Expanded and More Aggressive Game Damage Hunt Program

I like the game damage program because it is an acute solution(not unit wide), is typically fair, is vetted by FWP as necessary, and has a temporal window of occurrence(not an entire season.) Something that is true is that the current game damage hunts are at times marginally effective. I've seen it in action. What if after a vetting by FWP, a more aggressive solution were implemented? Something like the landowner-sponsored tags in HB 505 in addition to the current roster process. It is true that there would be a skewed aspect to this, where equal opportunity in the drawing process would be affected, as sponsored tags would be in addition to the game damage roster. These game-damage sponsored-hunter periods would be vetted as necessary, would have a temporal aspect (say two weeks, where at the end it would be assessed again), and in the spirit of the HB 505 amendments (which I appreciated) ,it would be illegal for landowners to benefit financially from sponsoring.

Financial Compensation

There is an uneasiness to this for me, as I could see it being gamed and out of control. That said, Montana sells something like 200,000 elk licenses per year at an absurdly low cost to residents. What if the price of a tag were increased by $10, or $20, and that money went in to a pot to compensate landowners for elk damage? I have no idea how much damage elk do in a monetary sense across Montana, so maybe that amount is naively insufficient. This would also require FTE at the state level to implement this program, vetting properties and assessing damage, etc. But would exist in the spirit of recognizing that much of the elk meat in our freezers came from grass owned by fellow Montanans. It would set in place a recognition that would lend itself to some realistic elk objectives in the new EMP.

Controlled Hazing

Why not just let concerned landowners haze elk off their property? I know it is unsavory, but for chrissake we are hunting them 7 months out of the year anyway. There could sideboards, and defined approved methods of hazing, and I also know this could cause friction between neighbors. Maybe a more aggressive hazing program where landowners and the state come together to plan hazing. The fact is, there are plenty of landowners who love elk on their property, and the logic that hazing elk from one property to another would cause headache between neighbors doesn't seem that much different to me than the idea that we would hunt them off one parcel to another, which is what HB 505 claimed was the intent.


Like I said, not thought out particularly well, but maybe the start of a conversation. I'm heading off grid for a couple days with my family after I hit enter. Feel free to tell me why these are bad ideas or if you have your own.

I just about started this identical thread yesterday morning! Very interested to see this discussion.

 

[Dakotakid]

In 2017 I hauled a pallet of cake to the Browning’s that were hit by the wildfires. That family has been very good for hunters and should be commended and recognized.

 

[HighWildFree]

I know this is not a productive view but we extirpated elk, bighorn sheep, antelope, grizzly bears, wolves, bison, prairie dogs, black-footed ferrets, and a whole host of other species to make way for ranching and farming in the West. Not to mention all the horrible things done to the native peoples in order to move them off the land to make way for cattle.

We gutted our natural heritage for ranchers and so I have a hard time getting past rancher's complaint about too much wildlife. It's like you broke into someone's home, took over their kitchen and complain when they try and get something to eat. One of the big reasons that wildlife use private lands is because it's often the most productive land, not because ranchers have some magic touch.

I'm not anti-rancher, but I have met too many who think they can do no wrong and that they are God's gift to MT. I just don't like people like that and for some reason the ranching population seems to have a high proportion of those types.

There are exemplary ranchers out there who really care for their land and wildlife and put their time and money where there mouth is; I know and work with folks like that. These are the folks that get caught in the crossfire and suffer the most.

But ranchers in general need to take off that mantle of infallibility before any real meaningful discussion can begin.

That being said, the way forward that I see is identifying and working with ranchers that have a high tolerance for wildlife and working with them to make their operation more efficient and minimize the impact of the wildlife. I'm amazed at the number of elk complaints that can be solved by fencing hay stacks. We need to increase the tolerance and intrinsic value of wildlife on private lands in a way that is not directly tied to economic incentive or payments. I fear that tying some sort of compensation or monetary incentive to wildlife only furthers the problem we are facing now.

That was probably more combative than it needed to be but I'm fired up about some other semi-related stuff.

 

[BuzzH]

I think a big hurdle, maybe even the biggest hurdle will always be between the landowners. They can't agree on jack chit when it comes to how to deal with elk.

We have everything from absentee landowners who like elk and allow no hunting on their place. You have others that lease to outfitters and the outfitters want to charge for both bull and cow hunts. You have some that allow access via Block Management under the various iterations of that program. You have some that only allow family and friends to hunt. Some that want every elk in the State dead and unlimited access. Some want to charge trespass fees.

I think a big part of the problem with elk is that without a vast majority of the landowners all being on the same sheet of music...its never going to get solved.

What more flexibility can the FWP provide past what they already have? I mean shoulder seasons with multiple tags allowed per hunter and 6 months of hunting...and yet, landowners STILL can't figure out a way to get hunters there to deal with elk.

I also believe, based on how Wyoming deals with this exact situation, that there's deeper issues with elk management in Montana. I believe in many cases this is an old grudge match and there are many in the legislature and that own land that are simply living for the feud at this point. Their positions are etched in stone and they aren't changing their minds...ever.

Its interesting how many units in Wyoming are over objective and nobody in the legislature is losing their minds over it. Landowners respond by simply allowing access. Sportsmen pay for the accessyes program, elk get shot, and life moves on. Some landowners allow access, some charge, some don't, and everyone for the most part just does what they can to control elk numbers. Nobody loses their shit about it.

Montana is about 180 degrees different...total cluster-shag. The legislature and landowners have done nothing to help anything but themselves and then blame their woes on hunters.

 

[Gerald Martin]

I think there’s some great ideas here. I also think there’s a hard reality that looking at elk as the problem ensures that the problem is never fixed.

Elk are not the problem. People are the problem.

I think that changing the conversation is going to have to be part of the long term solution.
Sportsmen have been way to trusting and sympathetic to interests who have controlled the terms and definitions of what is optimal for too long.

A long term solution is going to have to include adequate consideration for the owners of MT’s wildlife, the residents of the state.

 

[Big Fin]

I just about started this identical thread yesterday morning! Very interested to see this discussion.

Me too. Zoom had me on lock down.

Here are some ideas I see in other states, all having mixed results. None will solve all the problems, especially on a complicated and diverse landscape and ownership pattern as Montana has.

I think each idea needs to be considered in the context of what the idea is hoping to accomplish. Is the objective population reduction, financial compensation for crop and property impacts, incentive to increase elk tolerance, other?

I think it is also necessary to understand where it is truly an "uncooperative neighbor" problem and not try to solve that problem. There are just some situations where no level of incentive is going to solve the problem. In those instances it is not an elk problem, rather a neighbor problem, where a neighbor refuses to allow any management of elk by any means.

In SW Montana, we have more and more new landowners who allow no hunting, not by the public, not by friends, not by outfitters, nobody. No amount of incentive is going to work in convincing them that large accumulations of elk have problems for their neighbors who are trying to make a living on the land.

We also need to consider that the blanket approach FWP has used to date is not a solution. What works in Regions 2 or 3 isn't necessarily what works in Region 4, 5, 6 or 7. MT is too diverse to expect a "one-size-fits" all approach. This requires more work by FWP, which I think falls under the responsibility of "management."

I'm tossing out a few ideas for consideration, none of which have been completely vetted in my mind, but are an effort to look at what works in other places and see if they might work here. No order of priority, just the order in which I have them in my notes:

1. PLO - Private Land Only antlerless elk permits might work for some who are being hammered by too many elk. I would be interested in the CO and NM folks to hear how that is working for them. How the tags are issued is to be determined, likely OTC until certain harvest objectives are met.

2. General Fund funding for property damage - We have too many instances where FWP is not going solve the issue. These landowners are not going to allow elk to be managed. There are not enough financial incentives for these billionaire landowners to allow for access that will help with management. This is not a problem the neighboring landowners can solve, nor can hunter, nor can FWP. For those neighbors negatively impacted, we need to compensate them financially from the general fund. I say the general fund, as this is 5th Amendment issue related to property rights, not related to wildlife management. We cannot expect the neighboring landowners to bear the impacts of these "new age landowner's" high elk tolerance. And it is not possible for FWP to change that situation. So, I would propose it comes from the general fund, given it is not a problem specific to FWP.

3. Block Management focused more on elk and big game - Wyoming does a great job of allocating their access program money towards properties that have good elk hunting. It costs money and it results in unwanted competition in the mind of outfitters. Yet, it works in Wyoming. Through their access program, WY gets access to private lands that have great elk hunting or those private lands provide access to public lands that have great elk hunting. It also moves elk around the landscape during hunting seasons and allows for a better harvest.

4. Start killing the "problem elk," not the migratory elk - In Montana, our "one-size fits all" approach has resulted in a lot of migratory elk getting shot in these late antlerless seasons, while the elk conditioned to private lands find their sanctuary and are off-limits. This lack of precision allows higher exploitation of herds migrating down low, not knowing the safe spots, and they get toasted upon arrival to the low country. The non-migratory elk know who provides safe boundary and they have lower exploitation than the migratory elk. End results is the harvest goals might get met, but we shoot more of the "well behaved" elk that spend most their time on high ground that is public and we shoot fewer of the "problem elk" that have learned to never leave private. Over time, we get elk herds that have lost the migratory patterns and thus fewer elk on public, while seeing more private land elk that never leave.

5. Improve public land habitat - Elk select for private lands because of habitat and hunting pressure. The private landowners get accused of "harboring elk," a stupid term in my mind. They aren't harboring elk, the elk are just selecting for better habitat and less hunting pressure. If we are not going to manage public lands for wildlife and just let the land manage itself, we will have far fewer elk on public where they can be harvested.

6. Manage Seasons (hunting pressure) with more consideration of how that changes elk behavior - This ties to the point above. Elk select for habitat and safety. When we shoot the hell out of elk for months at a time, elk are going to select for places where they can get away from hunters.

7. Focus on antlerless harvest, not bull harvest - Seems simple, but we often hear about wanting bull tags. Well, we know bulls are not dropping calves in late May. It is hard to take an overpopulation concern seriously when the proposed solution is some sort of bull elk hunting.

8. Get serious about the impact bad hunter behavior has on this situation - Hunters might disagree, but I work with way too many landowners who have had their days ruined by idiots. I know there is the claim of "a few bad apples." Well, in the experience of the many landowners I interact with, there are way more bad apples than hunters are willing to admit. I'm trustee of a ranch that has a lot of public trails through it. To call it a PITA is being kind. I don't see the problem improving, rather declining. We better get serious about this if we expect credibility.

Forget any idea that can be flipped as the old rag of "hunters forcing access to private lands." I've never advocated for any such solution and I would never support such. I'm only interested in working with willing landowners. I want to reward those who are working on solutions. I want to help the working landowner, the landowner I work with in my CPA business, who is trying to make a living from his land.

I'm not interested in wasting time with those who bought their big piece of paradise and feel they have no responsibility to their neighbors. As a public land hunter and a Montana resident, I can't help with that situation. We have big enough issues to solve that we don't need to pretend we can solve the elk issue on lands owned by billionaires. If they want to be included in solutions, that's great, but let's not pretend they are concerned about their working ranch neighbors or the average Montana hunter.

Given how long this issue has been brewing, it's going to take a lot of WORK to solve it. It will take leadership and risk. Like most hunters I know, I'm willing to stick my neck out and work with any group and consider any idea, something that always comes with risk. Without the hard work and some risks taken, progress won't happen.

 

[Gerald Martin]

Me too. Zoom had me on lock down.

Here are some ideas I see in other states, all having mixed results. None will solve all the problems, especially on a complicated and diverse landscape and ownership pattern as Montana has.

I think each idea needs to be considered in the context of what the idea is hoping to accomplish. Is the objective population reduction, financial compensation for crop and property impacts, incentive to increase elk tolerance, other?

I think it is also necessary to understand where it is truly an "uncooperative neighbor" problem and not try to solve that problem. There are just some situations where no level of incentive is going to solve the problem. In those instances it is not an elk problem, rather a neighbor problem, where a neighbor refuses to allow any management of elk by any means.

In SW Montana, we have more and more new landowners who allow no hunting, not by the public, not by friends, not by outfitters, nobody. No amount of incentive is going to work in convincing them that large accumulations of elk have problems for their neighbors who are trying to make a living on the land.

We also need to consider that the blanket approach FWP has used to date is not a solution. What works in Regions 2 or 3 isn't necessarily what works in Region 4, 5, 6 or 7. MT is too diverse to expect a "one-size-fits" all approach. This requires more work by FWP, which I think falls under the responsibility of "management."

I'm tossing out a few ideas for consideration, none of which have been completely vetted in my mind, but are an effort to look at what works in other places and see if they might work here. No order of priority, just the order in which I have them in my notes:

1. PLO - Private Land Only antlerless elk permits might work for some who are being hammered by too many elk. I would be interested in the CO and NM folks to hear how that is working for them. How the tags are issued is to be determined, likely OTC until certain harvest objectives are met.

2. General Fund funding for property damage - We have too many instances where FWP is not going solve the issue. These landowners are not going to allow elk to be managed. There are not enough financial incentives for these billionaire landowners to allow for access that will help with management. This is not a problem the neighboring landowners can solve, nor can hunter, nor can FWP. For those neighbors negatively impacted, we need to compensate them financially from the general fund. I say the general fund, as this is 5th Amendment issue related to property rights, not related to wildlife management. We cannot expect the neighboring landowners to bear the impacts of these "new age landowner's" high elk tolerance. And it is not possible for FWP to change that situation. So, I would propose it comes from the general fund, given it is not a problem specific to FWP.

3. Block Management focused more on elk and big game - Wyoming does a great job of allocating their access program money towards properties that have good elk hunting. It costs money and it results in unwanted competition in the mind of outfitters. Yet, it works in Wyoming. Through their access program, WY gets access to private lands that have great elk hunting or those private lands provide access to public lands that have great elk hunting. It also moves elk around the landscape during hunting seasons and allows for a better harvest.

4. Start killing the "problem elk," not the migratory elk - In Montana, our "one-size fits all" approach has resulted in a lot of migratory elk getting shot in these late antlerless seasons, while the elk conditioned to private lands find their sanctuary and are off-limits. This lack of precision allows higher exploitation of herds migrating down low, not knowing the safe spots, and they get toasted upon arrival to the low country. The non-migratory elk know who provides safe boundary and they have lower exploitation than the migratory elk. End results is the harvest goals might get met, but we shoot more of the "well behaved" elk that spend most their time on high ground that is public and we shoot fewer of the "problem elk" that have learned to never leave private. Over time, we get elk herds that have lost the migratory patterns and thus fewer elk on public, while seeing more private land elk that never leave.

5. Improve public land habitat - Elk select for private lands because of habitat and hunting pressure. The private landowners get accused of "harboring elk," a stupid term in my mind. They aren't harboring elk, the elk are just selecting for better habitat and less hunting pressure. If we are not going to manage public lands for wildlife and just let the land manage itself, we will have far fewer elk on public where the can be harvested.

6. Manage Seasons (hunting pressure) with more consideration of how that changes elk behavior - This ties to the point above. Elk select for habitat and safety. When we shoot the hell out of elk for months at a time, elk are going to select for places where they can get away from hunters.

7. Focus on antlerless harvest, not bull harvest - Seems simple, but we often hear about wanting bull tags. Well, we know bulls are dropping calves in late May. It is hard to take an overpopulation concern seriously when the proposed solution is some sort of bull elk hunting.

8. Get serious about the impact bad hunter behavior has on this situation - Hunters might disagree, but I work with way too many landowners who have had their days ruined by idiots. I know there is the claim "a few bad apples." Well, in the experience of the many landowners I interact with, there are way more bad apples than hunters are willing to admit. I'm trustee of a ranch that has a lot of public trails through it. To call it a PITA is being kind. I don't see the problem improving, rather declining. We better get serious about this if we expect credibility.

Forget any idea that can be flipped as the old rag of "hunters forcing access to private lands." I've never advocated for any such solution and I would never support such. I'm only interested in working with willing landowners. I want to reward those who are working on solutions. I want to help the working landowner, the landowner I work with in my CPA business, who is trying to make a living from his land.

I'm not interested in wasting time with those who bought their big piece of paradise and feel they have no responsibility to their neighbors. As a public land hunter and a Montana resident, I can't help with that situation. We have big enough issues to solve that we don't need to pretend we can solve the elk issue on lands owned by billionaires. If they want to be included in solutions, that's great, but let's not pretend they are concerned about their working ranch neighbors or the average Montana hunter.

Given how long this issue has been brewing, it's going to take a lot of WORK to solve it. It will take leadership and risk. Like most hunters I know, I'm willing to stick my neck out and work with any group and consider any idea, something that always comes with risk. Without the hard work and some risks taken, progress won't happen.

Lots of good ideas here.
One important prerogative to solving problems is going to be a political environment that is serious about solving problems and gives time and space for real solutions to take hold rather than sweetheart deals for the politically connected landowners who have shown they couldn’t care less about anyone other than themselves.

 

[mtmuley]

#8 is a large problem largely overlooked. #4 is something I've seen firsthand. Getting the billionaires to cooperate with surrounding landowners that actually make a living from the land is going to be a huge hurdle. mtmuley

 

[sacountry]

Me too. Zoom had me on lock down.

Here are some ideas I see in other states, all having mixed results. None will solve all the problems, especially on a complicated and diverse landscape and ownership pattern as Montana has.

I think each idea needs to be considered in the context of what the idea is hoping to accomplish. Is the objective population reduction, financial compensation for crop and property impacts, incentive to increase elk tolerance, other?

I think it is also necessary to understand where it is truly an "uncooperative neighbor" problem and not try to solve that problem. There are just some situations where no level of incentive is going to solve the problem. In those instances it is not an elk problem, rather a neighbor problem, where a neighbor refuses to allow any management of elk by any means.

In SW Montana, we have more and more new landowners who allow no hunting, not by the public, not by friends, not by outfitters, nobody. No amount of incentive is going to work in convincing them that large accumulations of elk have problems for their neighbors who are trying to make a living on the land.

We also need to consider that the blanket approach FWP has used to date is not a solution. What works in Regions 2 or 3 isn't necessarily what works in Region 4, 5, 6 or 7. MT is too diverse to expect a "one-size-fits" all approach. This requires more work by FWP, which I think falls under the responsibility of "management."

I'm tossing out a few ideas for consideration, none of which have been completely vetted in my mind, but are an effort to look at what works in other places and see if they might work here. No order of priority, just the order in which I have them in my notes:

1. PLO - Private Land Only antlerless elk permits might work for some who are being hammered by too many elk. I would be interested in the CO and NM folks to hear how that is working for them. How the tags are issued is to be determined, likely OTC until certain harvest objectives are met.

2. General Fund funding for property damage - We have too many instances where FWP is not going solve the issue. These landowners are not going to allow elk to be managed. There are not enough financial incentives for these billionaire landowners to allow for access that will help with management. This is not a problem the neighboring landowners can solve, nor can hunter, nor can FWP. For those neighbors negatively impacted, we need to compensate them financially from the general fund. I say the general fund, as this is 5th Amendment issue related to property rights, not related to wildlife management. We cannot expect the neighboring landowners to bear the impacts of these "new age landowner's" high elk tolerance. And it is not possible for FWP to change that situation. So, I would propose it comes from the general fund, given it is not a problem specific to FWP.

Holy mouthful of good ideas Batman! That was good stuff Randy. I totally agree with you about selectively helping those ranchers who are actually working their land versus those the Californian types. I do think you hit on a key item with Option 2. If we could use some funding greater than FWP to help those ranchers with damage, I'd be totally on board. One simple caveat, that landowner would have to document allowing public Joe Hunter on to the property to help harvest elk in order to get damage $$$$. If hunting pressure doesn't help the situation then we definitely owe it to the landowner to compensate them for their losses.

 

[ccc23454]

In the end i think money will be what drives solution unfortunately. Randy#3 is perfect example, open up well funded access including antlerless tags for private (randys#1) property only. If there is financial benefit its amazing what can get done! I would also further reward at a higher level landowners that allow access who have damaged property (randys#2). This is a super complex issues that will worm hole into to many other problems but it needs a solution and some long-term leadership. There are a lot of smart people involved so thats a good start but time for kicking the can may be nearing a end, might be time for a full blown proposal with a organized backing to present and work thru as a counter to all the recent legislation.

 

[406LIFE]

I'll be following this. What I like to see more of:

1. Incentives for willing landowners. Stop waving the stick of access in exchange for help.
2. Rethinking of objectives and the metric used.
3. Hunter Behavior must be self-policed and there must be a new standard elevating our ethics.
4. Improved relationship between landowners and sportsmen. There is no dichotomy between the two groups. And I would say this rests more in the sportsmen's hands than landowners.
5. More flexible approaches to managing elk based on local dynamics.
6. A cessation of halting the process without offering solutions. Stop saying something is wrong without offering a way to address the problem.

 

[shoots-straight]

I think that the Root has been involved with this issue for longer than most areas. We were the first area that tried A-7 tags to focus on cow harvest but not put to many hunters on the ground that would run them to the private (save bulls). A-7's were hated by the Department, and I think our new Director was at the top of that list.

So we etched out smaller HD out of larger ones, so we could implement new strategies. Cow only harvest on private lands during the rifle seasons are going on here now. We have farmland HD that have 0 for Elk objectives so we can keep from overharvesting the elk on the public lands. Yes micro management is going on, and even though the department hates that, I feel it's a win win in areas of game damage.

We have rattled the cage of the Department to try and enhance the state management areas so elk will be less apt to head to private. https://ravallirepublic.com/news/local/article_a758381c-3d3b-58af-ba63-e0b9eaa7bcf9.html

We also have spent a lot of money, and man power to fence haystacks when elk and deer found them.

Lots of things have been changed here in the Root to help out with the problems that are being discussed on this thread.

I do also believe that humans are most of the problem. This thing is a huge work in progress and I don't see it ending anytime soon.

The pay to landowners that have crop damage is a tough one, and not sure how that would work. Cameras to count game damage numbers and times?

BTW, we must of brought this up a couple of hundred, but I'll say this again. Sportsmen don't get involved until it effects us. This all effected us Rooters about 20 years ago and now all over the state.

Ravalli County Fish and Wildlife president Tjones, sent out page 55 of the Elk plan to every Hook and Bullet org in the state back in 2004. We never heard a peep from one of them until now. People need to have a proactive approach to this problem, and I'm encouraged by this discussion.

 

[SAJ-99]

I think each idea needs to be considered in the context of what the idea is hoping to accomplish. Is the objective population reduction, financial compensation for crop and property impacts, incentive to increase elk tolerance, other?

^ This sentence should be in bold. We first have to define the problem. Too many elk and population out of control, as was stated in the 505 discussion? I don't really think that is it. I don't see harvest % going up, deer/elk/cattle starving from lack of food, car collisions going up, or some other metric that would show population is too high for the capacity of the land. It ends up being an argument on what the problem is. Hunters want more elk and more access, landowners want less elk and to avoid the problem hunters. No way we can find a solution if you don't know the exact problem you are trying to solve.

I agree it is multiple problems that have been pointed out by others...
1) landowners who like elk vs. landowners who don't
2) landowners who don't vs hunters (seems to be a communication breakdown here)
3) FWP not really measuring anything regarding elk expect landowner tolerance so everyone gets to make up their own data.

We have to start somewhere.
- FWP should expand game damage hunts and think of ways to utilize them more effectively. If the problems occur outside of the hunting season, then get area volunteers to put up fences around hay stacks. Also, let's puts a number on the actual damage elk cause. We compensate for losses to wolves and grizzlies, are talking about compensating for loss to brucellosis. Maybe compensation is an option, maybe not, but right now we have no idea.
- We need to finalize reasonable Elk Objectives for each zone. Loge admitted before the vote on 505 that the objective numbers were just pulled out of thin air and didn't represent actual land capacity. Over/Under don't mean anything if the number is pulled out of thin air.
- Anyone know what is the status of the Elk Management Citizens Advisory Committee? I read a news article that said they submitted something to the Governors office, but then GG came in and it has become either lost or a political football.
- Big picture, Rep Berglee talked a lot about "we" and "they" and said "we" came up with a creative solution to the problem because "they" don't. So question, anyone know how we can get a bill submitted? I suspect we just need a sponsor. We have two years until the next legislature. I could envision a process where we get BHA, MWF, and others involved, along with the landowner groups (the "we" and "they"). I probably sound idealistic, but he asked for it. I have a feeling from what I have seen, these opposing groups don't talk beforehand. I could be wrong, but if I am this process is such a cluster-F there might not be hope of working within it. It just becomes politics as usual.

 

[Walkalot]

Honestly elk have gotten comfortable coming down to pivots and low lands. That didnt happen 20 years ago. Access is the issue. Hunting pressure will elimate most elk problems. The problem is too many options and people trying to profit from wildlife. Keep it simple allow hunting true bma. If that landowner needs or qualifys for game damage allow more cow elk to be killed by game damage hunts. If the landowner chooses to lease on there own. Or no hunting on there own.

 

[brocksw]

Honestly elk have gotten comfortable coming down to pivots and low lands. That didnt happen 20 years ago. Access is the issue. Hunting pressure will elimate most elk problems. The problem is too many options and people trying to profit from wildlife. Keep it simple allow hunting true bma. If that landowner needs or qualifys for game damage allow more cow elk to be killed by game damage hunts. If the landowner chooses to lease on there own. Or no hunting on there own.

In that instance I think we'd have to be okay with longer hunting seasons. If we stop hunting in Dec or Jan, the elk will figure that out and be down there in Feb like clockwork. Then we'll be in a similar position to what we are now with 6 month seasons.

 

[Dakotakid]

Eric mentioned that outfitters are far more critical of other outfitters, and I think that is also true of hunters. In court when rapists and child abusers get zero fines and probation it is hard to see the courts holding a poacher accountable. But without accountability the damage pushes the sides farther apart. The poacher on the NBAR that received a slap on the hand, undid a bunch of progress fwp had been making.

 

[Walkalot]

Guess i should of specified game damage on private if they are a true bma.