Yeti

UPOM suing FWP over elk regulations

Big Shooter

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 15, 2008
Messages
453
I applaud Eric for stating the last two weeks of the season being cow only. I think something was said about possibly giving an additional bonus point to landowners for some sort of cooperation? I missed that part of the discussion yesterday. Would you be willing to explain that a bit more?
We were discussing how to improve/increase participation in BM. One idea was giving landowners an either sex permit good only on their private land. At that point I brought up an extra bonus point instead of handing out more either sex permits. Just a thought. We left it alone.
 

Ben Lamb

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 6, 2010
Messages
17,033
Location
Cedar, MI
When I stated that drifter and you were both correct…what I meant was that you were right that we should not have been arguing with you guys during a meeting and that he was correct that we don’t care what people think of me/us. I wasn‘t saying that I didn’t care about anyone’s opinion. Just so that’s cleared up Ben. I would feel terrible if you were upset with me.
bring-it-in-hug-it-out.gif
 

Ben Lamb

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 6, 2010
Messages
17,033
Location
Cedar, MI
We were discussing how to improve/increase participation in BM. One idea was giving landowners an either sex permit good only on their private land. At that point I brought up an extra bonus point instead of handing out more either sex permits. Just a thought. We left it alone.

The tax break concept is a solid one. I like that alot. We shouldn't be taxing cooperators on payments if they're for impacts from hunters.
 

Ben Lamb

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 6, 2010
Messages
17,033
Location
Cedar, MI
Ben, you may hold the coalition in high regard and that’s your prerogative. I need to sit and talk with them to see who and what they’re about. At this point I look at them about like I would look at myself and some of my like minded buddies forming a “citizens mule deer coalition”….how much credence would or should I have?

Let's make that happen then. Happy to facilitate the discussion.
 

antlerradar

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 23, 2012
Messages
2,622
Location
SE Montana
One other question, if ranchers have to “manage” their numbers so they don’t get too big for the environment, what do you feel is such a tough task to manage the elk so they don’t get too populated for the given areas?
The problem with elk is they don't say on your property for long after the management starts.
 

Eric Albus

Well-known member
Joined
May 24, 2012
Messages
1,228
As to 454 as a management tool, I could see it working as such. Especially if the only way to receive an elk permit for the landowner is by having “Y” number of cow elk taken.
I personally could care less who shoots what. I care about proper management of the resource.
 

DougStickney

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2022
Messages
602
As to 454 as a management tool, I could see it working as such. Especially if the only way to receive an elk permit for the landowner is by having “Y” number of cow elk taken.
I personally could care less who shoots what. I care about proper management of the resource.
Wouldn’t the first step in this process be to update objectives? Or should we just start giving out bull tags first?
 

drifter52

Active member
Joined
May 15, 2022
Messages
102
Make it so the land owner is eligible for COW ELK pernits only make them non transferable and good only on deeded ground NOT unit wide and
NOT eithier sex and sportsman/woman might get behind this administration and the director more.
but at this point they have proven they are bought and paid for by moga & rich land owners
 

bigsky2

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 17, 2016
Messages
671
Location
MONTANA
As to 454 as a management tool, I could see it working as such. Especially if the only way to receive an elk permit for the landowner is by having “Y” number of cow elk taken.
I personally could care less who shoots what. I care about proper management of the resource.
Do you think it was intended to be a management tool or are you just saying it could be a management tool if changed to something like you mentioned?
 

drifter52

Active member
Joined
May 15, 2022
Messages
102
I should have specified i guess my thought is
it depend on how the landowner wants them managed. Some might not want any on their ranch while some might not mind 5,000
so imo the amount of management /,pressure from hunting would Depend on what each land owner conciders the herds being in check on their ranch
 

Straight Arrow

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 10, 2009
Messages
4,827
Location
Gallatin Gateway, MT
I care about proper management of the resource.
Bless you Eric, as a landowner and outfitter. You are a refreshing anomaly, since it seems most others are motivated only by compensation of some sort and "proper management of the resource" is a low priority, as long as they or their client can shoot a bull or a buck.
 

bigsky2

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 17, 2016
Messages
671
Location
MONTANA
And here is the problem, Even if most of the landowners want to keep elk numbers steady, Not much they can do if shortly after the shooting starts the elk all run to the out of state billionaires ranch.
And now we’re giving those billionaires bull permits through the 454 program. Seems to be counter intuitive if we’re trying to get elk numbers down.
 

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
100,950
Messages
1,604,809
Members
31,632
Latest member
Sand Meadows
Top