Reducing the Friction Between Working Landowners and Elk

[SAJ-99]

Sure we can...don't make cow tags that are valid on public, or more to the point, make cow tags private land only. WE can also demand shorter rifle seasons, shorter archery seasons, influence better habitat improvements, etc. on public lands.

There's a reason that general elk hunting units in Wyoming have 18-50 bulls per 100 cows post harvest. We don't pound on elk with general hunting for 11 weeks and limit cow hunting via permit only.

I’m in. But as others have pointed out when the idea comes up, Montana hunting tradition is hard to change. The problem, at least in the eyes of people in government, isn’t too few elk. Any changes seem to be more more more, and usually to NRs and landowners.

 

[BuzzH]

I’m in. But as others have pointed out when the idea comes up, Montana hunting tradition is hard to change. The problem, at least in the eyes of people in government, isn’t too few elk. Any changes seem to be more more more, and usually to NRs and landowners.

I think that depends on the area, and if elk spent more time on public land and less on private, you may not hear the complaining.

I mean when the FWP flies a large portion of the Bob Marshall and finds 202 elk, or when an area West of Missoula find 8 elk, I think increasing the herds in those areas wouldn't cause much grief to anyone.

Could be wrong...lots of people like to complain just for sake of complaining.

 

[Schaaf]

The commission voted to put the Elk Working Group’s Guiding Principles out for public comment.

 

[Sytes]

Interesting article relevant to this topic.

Managing Montana's elk wealth is causing heartburn for landowners, FWP and hunters

The recovery of elk populations in Montana has now led many of the state’s hunters and landowners to a crossroads, a divisive debate over how best to manage this wildlife

billingsgazette.com

 

[Irrelevant]

Interesting article relevant to this topic.

Managing Montana's elk wealth is causing heartburn for landowners, FWP and hunters

The recovery of elk populations in Montana has now led many of the state’s hunters and landowners to a crossroads, a divisive debate over how best to manage this wildlife

billingsgazette.com

I don't understand this argument about how unfair it is that landowners have to deal with wildlife. Wildlife are simply a condition of the land, if you don't want to deal with elk, then why in the hell did you buy a giant ranch in the Durfee Hills?

 

[Ben Lamb]

I don't understand this argument about how unfair it is that landowners have to deal with wildlife. Wildlife are simply a condition of the land, if you don't want to deal with elk, then why in the hell did you buy a giant ranch in the Durfee Hills?

There are a lot of landowners who are trying to work within the system to increase harvest and decrease elk prevalence on their ranches. Those folks have an undue burden placed upon them by external forces. Those landowners have every right to express their frustration about current management philosophies and practices. But the majority of talking heads who get quoted in these articles are using sympathetic language to paint all landowners as suffering from an over-abundance of critters, simply to advance their own notions of how things should be managed - i.e. ranching for wildlife.

Those solutions being offered don't do anything to get to the meat of the matter - elk distribution off of private lands and on to public lands. In fact, Ranching for Wildlife programs tend to exacerbate the issue of harboring, and as we've even had legislators themselves testify, they manage all seasons, including shoulder seasons, to increase harvest rates for their guests, and not actually follow the program.

Wildlife does exist as a condition of the land. That is clear in both the Sackman & Rathbone Supreme Court case decisions, as is the prescription that landowners work with the agency to develop mitigation plans to reduce damage. In the instance of elk damage, landowners are going to have to find a way to work together to solve elk distribution due to harboring situations on trophy ranches. If they were to engage in that, sportsmen would gladly lend a hand in whatever way is appropriate. If the solution landowners come up with once again is transferable tags, then it's back to pitched battles in the legislature.

 

[Straight Arrow]

they manage all seasons, including shoulder seasons, to increase harvest rates for their guests, and not actually follow the program.

Nor follow the Elk Management Plan, even as currently written.

 

[BenInMT]

I think the best solution is to remove grazing allotments from all public land and allow the land to recover into habitat that will keep wildlife on it.

 

[Nameless Range]

There are a lot of landowners who are trying to work within the system to increase harvest and decrease elk prevalence on their ranches. Those folks have an undue burden placed upon them by external forces. Those landowners have every right to express their frustration about current management philosophies and practices. But the majority of talking heads who get quoted in these articles are using sympathetic language to paint all landowners as suffering from an over-abundance of critters, simply to advance their own notions of how things should be managed - i.e. ranching for wildlife.

Those solutions being offered don't do anything to get to the meat of the matter - elk distribution off of private lands and on to public lands. In fact, Ranching for Wildlife programs tend to exacerbate the issue of harboring, and as we've even had legislators themselves testify, they manage all seasons, including shoulder seasons, to increase harvest rates for their guests, and not actually follow the program.

Wildlife does exist as a condition of the land. That is clear in both the Sackman & Rathbone Supreme Court case decisions, as is the prescription that landowners work with the agency to develop mitigation plans to reduce damage. In the instance of elk damage, landowners are going to have to find a way to work together to solve elk distribution due to harboring situations on trophy ranches. If they were to engage in that, sportsmen would gladly lend a hand in whatever way is appropriate. If the solution landowners come up with once again is transferable tags, then it's back to pitched battles in the legislature.

I was recently in a question and answer session with an individual at FWP. The management of elk and the changing regulatory structure was the topic.

It was stated that one can manage elk with distribution in mind, or one can manage elk with raw numbers in mind. It was said that previous commissions tried to manage the distribution of elk, and the current one is interested in managing for numbers.

Obviously this is a false dichotomy, but what I took away from that is that there is a cultural belief that exists within the bigwigs of wildlife management in Montana that the former is a failed model, and we are now engaged in a new model, and will not be returning to the old.

That doesn’t mean we can’t, or that we can’t soften the blow here, but it was eye-opening to see where they are coming from and how that may influence their openness to certain arguments.

 

[Ben Lamb]

what I took away from that is that there is a cultural belief that exists within the bigwigs of wildlife management in Montana that the former is a failed model, and we are now engaged in a new model, and will not be returning to the old.

That doesn’t mean we can’t, or that we can’t soften the blow here, but it was eye-opening to see where they are coming from and how that may influence their openness to certain arguments.

This is precisely why I keep saying that short term losses are to be expected and planned for, while we play the long game.

 

[Irrelevant]

There are a lot of landowners who are trying to work within the system to increase harvest and decrease elk prevalence on their ranches. Those folks have an undue burden placed upon them by external forces.

I'm still stuck here. No where on a land title does it say you won't have to deal with animals, it doesn't say you have will be compensated for forage lost to elk, it doesn't say that the public agencies are responsible for keeping you in the black. Land owners already have plenty of options. They simply don't like their options because they, 1. don't like people they don't know, so they won't enroll in BM 2. aren't making enough money. I don't see why the public agencies should do anything else.

 

[Nameless Range]

This is precisely why I keep saying that short term losses are to be expected and planned for, while we play the long game.

I know you are busy Ben, so no rush on the answer. But if you can, can you say more?

I can kind of imagine that what you mean by this, is that of course we are going to take some steps backward, and dislike some of what happens, but we need to be careful not to throw the baby out with the bathwater, or to quit coming up with our own solutions or working through ideas that future commissions and FWP‘s and legislatures may be more amenable to in the future. Is that kind of what you are saying?

 

[Ben Lamb]

I'm still stuck here. No where on a land title does it say you won't have to deal with animals, it doesn't say you have will be compensated for forage lost to elk, it doesn't say that the public agencies are responsible for keeping you in the black. Land owners already have plenty of options. They simply don't like their options because they, 1. don't like people they don't know, so they won't enroll in BM 2. aren't making enough money. I don't see why the public agencies should do anything else.

Current case law talks about reasonable usage of wildlife on your property, and it still says that the agency and landowner must attempt work together to resolve the conflict. That political operatives are using the legitimate needs of landowners who are being good neighbors to advance an agenda that is anathema to the North America Model and the majority of resident hunters shouldn't be shocking to anyone, nor does it give us reason to not work with landowners who are willing to sit down and figure some things out.

 

[Irrelevant]

Current case law talks about reasonable usage of wildlife on your property, and it still says that the agency and landowner must attempt work together to resolve the conflict. That political operatives are using the legitimate needs of landowners who are being good neighbors to advance an agenda that is anathema to the North America Model and the majority of resident hunters shouldn't be shocking to anyone, nor does it give us reason to not work with landowners who are willing to sit down and figure some things out.

Figure something out? If you're not granting public access during hunting season the conversation is over. If you are, and are still having issues, then sure, we can talk about additional solutions.

 

[Ben Lamb]

I know you are busy Ben, so no rush on the answer. But if you can, can you say more?

I can kind of imagine that what you mean by this, is that of course we are going to take some steps backward, and dislike some of what happens, but we need to be careful not to throw the baby out with the bathwater, or to quit coming up with our own solutions or working through ideas that future commissions and FWP‘s and legislatures may be more amenable to in the future. Is that kind of what you are saying?

That's exactly it. If you cede the argument because you think you will lose, then you've lost without ever suiting up. if we keep showing up, proposing ideas and making them say no, while we continue to approach the situation with honest intent, you may still lose, but you'll be able to look at yourself in the mirror each morning.

Figure something out? If you're not granting public access during hunting season the conversation is over. If you are, and are still having issues, then sure, we can talk about additional solutions.

There is one program in MT that offers conservation dollars without having an access component: Sage Grouse Stewardship dollars. The agency has lee way to offer assistance to those who do not allow access for whatever reason as well through fencing, hazing, brucellosis management $, etc. But nowhere does FWP say "landowners need to figure out how to influence each other when it comes to how herds are managed." The harboring issue is the prime example: N Bar sits on 1500 head of elk (or whatever the number is) all season long to control who kills what, then those elk filter out onto ranches that allowed hunting but had reduced harvest due to harboring. That's not the agency's fault nor is it the fault of the hunting public. It is specifically the fault of the landowner who wants to control those animals, or who doesn't care what the objective is or what it does to his neighbors.

Offering an incentive where collective groups of landowners within a district team up to help create a hunting plan for a specific unit could be one way to change this dynamic. Increase the payment to fit the level of collaboration rather than just hunter days, and add a damage component to it as well so that the landwoners have some kind of "crop insurance" as well.

We've heard repeatedly from landowners that the current tools aren't all that attractive due to the harboring issue, loss of freedom associated with BMA's, etc. We know that the line in the sand is transferable tags. They know their line in the sand is unfettered access. Take those two things off the table immediately and you start talking from a more honest space.

 

[Gerald Martin]

The simple answer is that the ones causing most of the problems have the most to gain by causing conflicts between wildlife and their neighbors. Landowners who harbor elk would like nothing better than the “solution” of transferable LO tags.
They cause the problems, they reap the benefits and the hunting public and neighboring working ranches who suffer depredation bear the consequences.

 

[SAJ-99]

The harboring issue is the prime example: N Bar sits on 1500 head of elk (or whatever the number is) all season long to control who kills what, then those elk filter out onto ranches that allowed hunting but had reduced harvest due to harboring. That's not the agency's fault nor is it the fault of the hunting public. It is specifically the fault of the landowner who wants to control those animals, or who doesn't care what the objective is or what it does to his neighbors.

Yes, this is an argument between landowners. Hunters, public hunters particularly, are just used as a scapegoat. The Wilks allow hunting, but many landowners that harbor elk do not. Those landowners that pay the price in the spring are the most vocal at the meetings. However, I have seen quite a few that allow hunting through BM that still have to endure the losses in late winter/early spring. Enrolling in BM isn't a fix for them. It is incredibly complex problem. You need better habitat and less pressure on public land and to compensate landowners that try to be a part of the solution. Giving the Wilks bull tags or transferable tags is exactly what they want, and doesn't solve anything. Rather it encourages them to keep it up. Eventually other landowners will say "if you can't beat 'em, join 'em" and start to lease access.

 

[Sytes]

Eventually Currently other landowners will say are saying, "if you can't beat 'em, join 'em" and start to lease access.

It's a current mix of the above with people out of state who follow examples learned... the degree this slope is angling is boosting with many out of state also moving in, excited over long seasons, etc.

Landowners own the political FWP football.

 

[SAJ-99]

It's a current mix of the above with people out of state who follow examples learned... the degree this slope is angling is boosting with many out of state also moving in, excited over long seasons, etc.

Landowners own the political FWP football.

Couldn’t agree more. But keep in mind that it’s not just the landowners that are moving in the leasing direction. There have to be hunters willing to pay. And there are plenty of those. Not throwing stones because to be honest I would live in a glass house if I could.