Any guess as to what the one common denominator that exists in Western Montana and not North Eastern Montana that allows for there to be more elk in Eastern Montana????

Same scenerio exists in North Western Wyoming versus South Central Wyoming. And it isn't drought like the USF&W service and National Park Service biologists would like you to believe.

When it comes to elk in Montana there seems to be no happy medium. While some people in the western part of the state are crying foul over the drop in certain elk populations, some in northeastern Montana are angry because there are too many.

Elk populations in many of the hunting districts in and surrounding the Missouri Breaks are above Fish, Wildlife and Parks management objectives. Although the elk couldn't attend a recent hearing, they were at the center of a legislative debate when House Bill 361, sponsored by Ted Washburn, R-Bozeman, was heard. The bill would require a return to 2007 when archery-only elk permits were unlimited.

On its surface, HB361 seems to be a way to reduce the overabundance of elk — allow more hunting and fewer elk will survive, easing landowners' complaints of overpopulation. But in an open letter to Montana sportsmen, Fish, Wildlife and Parks Commissioner Ron Moody outlined several problems with turning the clock back four years:

Moody noted that where hunting permits are limited, no more than 10 percent may go to nonresidents. “Without the limit on permits, nonresidents may, and often do, obtain more than 10 percent of permits.”

Moody goes on to state that unlimited permits in a district with large numbers of valuable wildlife fuels and accelerates the commercialization of wildlife in three ways:

“By issuing unlimited permits the state is effectively facilitating and subsidizing the privatization of public wildlife when the lure of profits persuades landowners who otherwise would allow public hunting on more traditional terms to switch to commercial hunting.

“With private land access constricted by fee hunting or harboring, this multitude of hunters concentrates on the open access of public lands.

“This profit opportunity motivates some landowners to cut off public access to public lands neighboring their properties in order to enlarge and secure their control over the public game on their land.”

Moody summarizes: “The limiting of permits is not a 'cure' for any of these three factors. It is, however, a means of reducing and controlling the financial energy behind the commercialization movement to the benefit of public hunters who have a right to expect their state government to allocate use of resource equitably among all people.”

He adds: “Having said all that, I think private landowners who maintain quality wildlife habitat on their property deserve more compensation than tradition has produced for them.”

Moody was not a FWP commissioner when the limited permits were approved in 2007. He did, however, speak in favor of them as a member of the archery-hunting public.

Bozeman outfitter Paul Ellis spoke in favor of HB361. He wrote in an e-mail to The Gazette that “There are more Montana bowhunters that support HB361 than don't! The resident bowhunter has lost a lot of hunting opportunities! So this isn't just about outfitters and landowners, it's about resident bowhunters and local businesses!”

Ellis and others have put a $9.3 million price tag on the cost of lost hunting opportunity in the districts.

With 63 percent of the elk habitat in the Missouri Breaks elk management unit public land, Ellis said there is plenty of public land with adequate access. Another 30 percent of the 1.1 million acres of private land is enrolled in the Block Management Program, he wrote.

The Legislature will get the last word on this disagreement when the bill passes or fails. Hunters should make their voices heard by contacting their representatives.

I am a Montana bowhunter and don't support going to an unlimited tag system in NE and Central Montana. Only the outfitter or fee hunter will benefit. Access is hard enough to get (much of the public land is blocked by private land) and then stack more hunters into the situation and that will equal more elk on private land. Only to benefit those with $...the worse part is the people who are supposed to be representing Montanans are only doing it to support their outfitting businesses.

If there is truly an elk number problem, maybe the landowner should allow public access to resolve the problem.

quote:

If there is truly an elk number problem, maybe the landowner should allow public access to resolve the problem.

And open himself up to unlimited liability????

Bowhunting is not an effective way to actually manage excess wildlife.

Amazing, will wonders never cease!

While I have respect for archers and their choice of equipment and dedication in the use of it, I actually have to agree with smarterthanu.

Bowhunting is not an effective management tool, and I do have a problem with any hunter that openly admits to allowing themselves a 10% or so loss rate of animals shot and recovered.

Not trying to make the archers reading this angry, but when culling operations on over abundant animal population are undertaken, it is done with firearms and for a very clear, well documented reason.

I completely understand the stance residents of the various elk producing states have in regards to non-residents flooding in and creating a situation whereby the residents can not hunt for a variety of reasons, hence the fact that so many of the states have quota limits on how many licenses can be obtained by non-residents.

The problem however, is that the residents that are complaining and getting the limits put in place on non-resident hunters, are more concerned about their hunting opportunities than the overall health of the elk herd and the environment they inhabit.

Mule Deer all across the west are declining in numbers and most knowledgable people attribute that situation to the increase in elk numbers.

Which is more important in the long run, large numbers of elk, with unlimited tags for resident archery hunters, and few if any mulies, or taking steps that will bring the elk numbers more in-line with the carrying capacity of the range and reducing the competition with the dwindling mule deer numbers?

Why not issue land owner tags to problem areas.Let the Free market take care of who gets them.Bow hunting the Breaks is no slam dunk.You have to work for what ever you get.get enough people on private land and they will be pushed to the Public.A lot of the BLM is accessible,but you need to walk or use a boat.No drive by hunting wearing your cowboy boots!!!!

The free market (commercial meat hunting) is what led to the almost complete eradication of deer, elk and buffalo in the United States. I'm an avid hunter and have been for 40 plus years. The states have proven far better stewards over our big game species than the "free market" ever has.

Chuck375

by free market no one is suggesting market hunting-rather allowing landowners to profit from the wildlife that feed and water on their land. You dont oppose private ownership and business do you?


I was raised in Montana and this fight has been going on for years, it has been a constant battle to keep private propert rights there. Look at the stream access law for example-public has acess up to the high water mark on ANY flowing stream which has been defined as seasonal stream flows.

I expect Moose-drool will be over here to tell us how wise and wonderful the state game dept.s are

SSR

Why not sell all the public land and then let private landowners manage the wildlife.

quote:

Why not sell all the public land and then let private landowners manage the wildlife.

Probably the smartest thing I have heard on here in a long time. The government holds way too much land.

You ever wanted a little ranch of your own? If the government sold all of its holdings it would be possible. Land prices would plummet. Plus private land management is head and shoulders aboove government management when it comes to wildlife.

quote:

Originally posted by smarterthanu:

quote:

Why not sell all the public land and then let private landowners manage the wildlife.

Probably the smartest thing I have heard on here in a long time. The government holds way too much land.

You ever wanted a little ranch of your own? If the government sold all of its holdings it would be possible. Land prices would plummet. Plus private land management is head and shoulders aboove government management when it comes to wildlife.

Most Public(BLM )land is marginal habitat.That is why no one homesteaded it.kind of like selling swamp land in Florida.

quote:

Most Public(BLM )land is marginal habitat.That is why no one homesteaded it.kind of like selling swamp land in Florida.

Good let the private sector sink money into it and make it great habitat. We as people seperate ourselves from all other beasts becasue we can increase carrying capacity through technology.

quote:

Originally posted by smarterthanu:

quote:

Why not sell all the public land and then let private landowners manage the wildlife.

Probably the smartest thing I have heard on here in a long time. The government holds way too much land.

You ever wanted a little ranch of your own? If the government sold all of its holdings it would be possible. Land prices would plummet. Plus private land management is head and shoulders aboove government management when it comes to wildlife.

Oh, my. I sure hope you guys are kidding.

quote:

Oh, my. I sure hope you guys are kidding.

Not a bit. I would love to see you and a million more people like you with your own little ranches, and calling the shots when it comes to management of wildlife. Some would fail but many would succeed.

quote:

(much of the public land is blocked by private land)

I thought that it was illegal for private land-owners to NOT give thoroughfare to public land.

Nope this is happening every day. Often by rich landowners and/or outfitters. An old unimproved, historically used, access road is blocked or gated thus cutting off some major chunks of public land. The local county lawmakers generally do not have the resources to fight the closure. http://www.plwa.org/

Also you get landowner changes from a friendly local that allows access through their property to a rude, often absentee, landowner that no longer allows access.

I won't even comment on the horrible idea of selling public land in small chunks.

quote:

I thought that it was illegal for private land-owners to NOT give thoroughfare to public land.

That is the case here in Texas. I do not know about other states though. If you block entry to public land or even other private property you will be in very deep doody in Texas.

quote:

I won't even comment on the horrible idea of selling public land in small chunks.

It could be your chance to be one of those "rich landowners".

quote:

That is the case here in Texas. I do not know about other states though. If you block entry to public land or even other private property you will be in very deep doody in Texas.

There is land all over west Texas that is landlocked, both public and private.

There have been many scandals in the past few years especially in far west Texas where people have bought parcels of land, only to found out that there is No access to them, they are completely surrounded by larger private properties.

Unless there is/was historic public access across a piece of property, the private landowners do not have to agree to allowing access.

Remember, Texas has the strongest Private Landowner Rights laws in the country.

A landowner can not close off access to an existing, in use access point, but, they can petition to have it closed, especially if they can prove its existance is detremental in some provable way.

quote:

Originally posted by OLBIKER:
Why not issue land owner tags to problem areas.Let the Free market take care of who gets them.Bow hunting the Breaks is no slam dunk.You have to work for what ever you get.get enough people on private land and they will be pushed to the Public.A lot of the BLM is accessible,but you need to walk or use a boat.No drive by hunting wearing your cowboy boots!!!!

I don't think issuing landowner tags is going to help the situation. I hunted Montana area 622 last year and covered pretty much the entire area. The number of elk tags issued in 2010 was up considerably from 2009 so one would think the elk numbers were up. We seen very few elk and every hunter we talked to said the same. We talked to one group who had flown the area and they said there was close to three thousand elk holed up on one ranch. Apparantly the ranch owner had sold off his cattle. His hayland was all high fenced and since he didn't need the hay he just opened up the gates and let the elk in. He would not allow anyone on his property. With the elk herded up like that if a disease or a bad winter with lots of snow comes along a lot of those elk could perish. there is more snow in that country this year than they have seen in years. Conservation groups are also buying up land and restricting access. I don't have a magic answer but something has got to change.

quote:

Unless there is/was historic public access across a piece of property, the private landowners do not have to agree to allowing access.

This got challenged in Jack Co. once. The verdict was that it was against state-law to keep somebody from there property. Had to give them an entrance to their property.

quote:

Originally posted by smarterthanu:

quote:

Most Public(BLM )land is marginal habitat.That is why no one homesteaded it.kind of like selling swamp land in Florida.

Good let the private sector sink money into it and make it great habitat. We as people seperate ourselves from all other beasts becasue we can increase carrying capacity through technology.

Insanity......then only the wealthy will have access....great plan.

Free markets don't work for the common man(elk hunter in this case)when there is limited supply of a highly coveted commodity(elk).

VERY SIMPLE SOLUTION: If you want to reduce the numbers, increase the RIFLE permits accordingly. I archery hunted the Breaks last fall with a group of 11 hunters.....1 spike was killed. If I had a rifle permit I could have killed half a dozen 330+ bulls with no effort.

quote:

Insanity......then only the wealthy will have access....great plan.

Free markets don't work for the common man(elk hunter in this case)when there is limited supply of a highly coveted commodity(elk).

On the contrary this drives down the price of land plus you end up with more supply of elk through private management. One day you will have to start thinking farther than the here and now and what happens to markets when you increase supply. Free markets work exceptionaly well. Why do you think China is sneaking up on us. They are becoming a free market while we are being hamstrung by socialist thinking by people like you. Free markets are the greatest when they remain free. From milk to cars and even the hunting industry. All you need is increased supply and no government has done that as well as the private sector.

So, you are saying that public land should be sold to private landowners, and that this will give us "average joes" a chance to buy some land, and in turn will increase hunting opportunity? Just so I'm clear, you are telling me that if all the land was private, there would be more opportunity?

quote:

So, you are saying that public land should be sold to private landowners, and that this will give us "average joes" a chance to buy some land, and in turn will increase hunting opportunity? Just so I'm clear, you are telling me that if all the land was private, there would be more opportunity?

I am saying sell land to every body, not just current land owners. If average joes want land they can buy it also. This would drive down current land prices. It very well could make land affordable for average joes. You don't have to much trouble when the opportunity is on your ranch. Plus average joes are much more likely to sink money into their own investment. If you want more elk, deer, etc. visiting your new ranch develope it to do so. Now you don't have to wait for a government grant for development. You do it as you see fit. Have you ever had a wildlife problem that it just doesn't seem like the state or feds would get on the same page and resolve it? Not so much a problem now that you own the ranch.

What I am proposing is allowing the average joe to be a landowner again.

quote:

Originally posted by smarterthanu:

quote:

Insanity......then only the wealthy will have access....great plan.

Free markets don't work for the common man(elk hunter in this case)when there is limited supply of a highly coveted commodity(elk).

On the contrary this drives down the price of land plus you end up with more supply of elk through private management. One day you will have to start thinking farther than the here and now and what happens to markets when you increase supply. Free markets work exceptionaly well. Why do you think China is sneaking up on us. They are becoming a free market while we are being hamstrung by socialist thinking by people like you. Free markets are the greatest when they remain free. From milk to cars and even the hunting industry. All you need is increased supply and no government has done that as well as the private sector.

Free markets don't work when they are run by greedy individuals. Don't pretend the average hunter in MT can afford to buy a ranch.....it's not true.

And btw, your idiotic handle makes it difficult to even respond to you. You an asshat in real life or just on the internet?

quote:

This got challenged in Jack Co. once. The verdict was that it was against state-law to keep somebody from there property. Had to give them an entrance to their property.

Did not say it could not happen, the key is it has to go to court, and there are places in Texas that are so far in on private property that building a road into it, a cost that the person wanting the access has to bare, along with the lawsuit are so enormous, it is not worth the time and effort of the owners.

quote:

Free markets don't work when they are run by greedy individuals. Don't pretend the average hunter in MT can afford to buy a ranch.....it's not true.

Greedy individuals don't decide what the price is when supply rises. That's why it is called a "Buyers Market". Depending on supply and demand the price gets determined by both parties. The average hunter in Montana can't afford to buy a ranch right now, but that could change if the markets were instantly flooded by millions upon millions of acres. Have you ever sold any property Norton?

Isn't it a little early for you to start talking loser shit in this thread Norton? Try talking a little less crap and start thinking.

quote:

quote:
This got challenged in Jack Co. once. The verdict was that it was against state-law to keep somebody from there property. Had to give them an entrance to their property.


Did not say it could not happen, the key is it has to go to court, and there are places in Texas that are so far in on private property that building a road into it, a cost that the person wanting the access has to bare, along with the lawsuit are so enormous, it is not worth the time and effort of the owners.

According to the State of Texas Property Code, you cannot have a piece of property that is "land locked", as it eliminates the value of the effected property. There is a simple petition that you file with the court that grants the easement. This is a non-issue in the State of Texas (I do not know about other states).

quote:

Originally posted by smarterthanu:

quote:

Free markets don't work when they are run by greedy individuals. Don't pretend the average hunter in MT can afford to buy a ranch.....it's not true.

Greedy individuals don't decide what the price is when supply rises. That's why it is called a "Buyers Market". Depending on supply and demand the price gets determined by both parties. The average hunter in Montana can't afford to buy a ranch right now, but that could change if the markets were instantly flooded by millions upon millions of acres. Have you ever sold any property Norton?

Isn't it a little early for you to start talking loser shit in this thread Norton? Try talking a little less crap and start thinking.

So with millions of acres for sale, would you propose selling this land in tiny "affordable" chunks say 50 acres/each? At least in terms of the rocky mtn states, I don't think you have a clue what you are talking about. Your theory may work in Texas, but not around here.

quote:

Your theory may work in Texas, but not around here.

What size "ranches" would work in Margaritaville?

quote:

So with millions of acres for sale, would you propose selling this land in tiny "affordable" chunks say 50 acres/each? At least in terms of the rocky mtn states, I don't think you have a clue what you are talking about. Your theory may work in Texas, but not around here.

Actually my theory probably wouldn't work worth a darn in Texas. There is very little public land here at the moment. I would think you need to sell property at least by the section. 50 acre chunks in most cases is much to small to manage for wildlife or even develop for agriculture.

None would. The options would be to have large tracts purchased up which would be done by rich people (I have nothing against rich people), who would purchase the land as recreational properties. This is being done now all over the place. The result is often extremely limited access, and large refuge areas for elk. This is what's happening in central and eastern Wyoming, and this is a big reason there are too many elk in those areas. The other option where the "average joe" could buy land would be to divide it all into tiny chunks so everyone could have their little place in paradise, but it would have to be small lots, or it would get out of most of our price ranges. So, when we divide all the public land into these little plots, then we will all need a driveway to get to our private land. Then we will need easements to cross 2,000 other bits of private land just to get to ours. Aint going to happen. So those are the two choices that smarterthanu is proposing at least as far as I can tell. In both cases, hunters and wildllife are the losers.

quote:

None would. The options would be to have large tracts purchased up which would be done by rich people (I have nothing against rich people), who would purchase the land as recreational properties. This is being done now all over the place. The result is often extremely limited access, and large refuge areas for elk. This is what's happening in central and eastern Wyoming, and this is a big reason there are too many elk in those areas. The other option where the "average joe" could buy land would be to divide it all into tiny chunks so everyone could have their little place in paradise, but it would have to be small lots, or it would get out of most of our price ranges. So, when we divide all the public land into these little plots, then we will all need a driveway to get to our private land. Then we will need easements to cross 2,000 other bits of private land just to get to ours. Aint going to happen. So those are the two choices that smarterthanu is proposing at least as far as I can tell. In both cases, hunters and wildllife are the losers.

Why would average joes not buy the larger pieces of property?

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

So montana hunters would opt to be on welfare? Time to get your hunting stamps.

Perry

quote:

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

What do you not understand about the prices of land going through the floor. Do you understand there is not an unlimited supply of rich people and rich people money to keep land prices out of reach when the market gets flooded with supply?

I understand that prime land is limited. And as much as I have tried to look at this from both sides, I have determined that you are a goddamned idiot.

quote:

What do you not understand about the prices of land going through the floor. Do you understand there is not an unlimited supply of rich people and rich people money to keep land prices out of reach when the market gets flooded with supply?

That statement right there shows that you have no real understanding of how things are in the real world.

Land prices everywhere continue to rise, because there is no more supply, there is a set amount of land, no more can be made.

Once a piece of land is bought, it is taken out of the supply line, and it can not, will not be replaced.

quote:

According to the State of Texas Property Code, you cannot have a piece of property that is "land locked", as it eliminates the value of the effected property. There is a simple petition that you file with the court that grants the easement. This is a non-issue in the State of Texas (I do not know about other states).

Exactly!

I think you folks need to re-check your information, there has been some legislation passed in the past few years that allows just what you are saying is illegal.