Nameless Range
Well-known member
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 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.
Last edited: