2022/23 Montana Season Setting Meetings

[bigsky2]

Just a reminder that the Region 5 elk only meeting is tonight at 6:30 via Zoom.

Public Comment Opportunities | Montana FWP

Fish, Wildlife & Parks offers various opportunities for the public to comment on issues, rules, grants, environmental assessments, land acquisition, development or enhancement projects, council recommendations, hunting and fishing regulations, etc. that FWP manages.

fwp.mt.gov

 

[bigsky2]

Here is a summary from the Region 5 Zoom meeting last night. There were about 25 people who called in to the meeting. This meeting was only about the elk proposals.

-Concerns that the 50% increase in rifle permits and going to unlimited or general archery will result in a reduction of older age class bulls

-Concerns with crowding when going to unlimited archery permits

-It was asked why the north and south sides of the Snowies are managed separately for archery but not with rifle permits

-It was clarified that with unlimited archery permits, there is no 10% NR cap based on the district or region. If a NR is successful in drawing the general elk tag, they will be guaranteed the opportunity to hunt in an unlimited archery unit. The only limitation on non-residents is the statewide general elk tag cap, so nothing prevents a large number of NR's from hunting a select few districts

-It was requested that permits be first and only choice. This would prevent everyone from applying for rifle permits on their first choice and unlimited archery on their second choice.

-When talking about the crowding issues, one individual asked if it is possible to have permits that would only be valid on private land to prevent more crowding on public.

- Brad Molnar has been a pain in the ass when it comes to crossbows, but I give him credit for some of the other stances he has taken on shitty hunting bills, etc. Last night he called in to the meeting and pointed out that this proposal will do nothing to get elk numbers down. He then went on to criticize Gianforte's commission member selections who he said cater to big money and outfitters. He urged the public to call in to local talk radio shows and write editorials in local newspapers to get the message out there that this is bad for sportsmen. He pointed out that in all of his years in politics, he has found that to be the best way to make an impact on public officials. He said Governor Gianforte owns this proposal and he will need the support of the state's 254,000 hunters to get re-elected. He said to call your local representative and commission member to point out that this will overturn the sportsmen's initiative that was passed in 2012. He said hunters need to control the narrative.

That is all I can remember.

 

[MTHunter1321]

Here is a summary from the Region 5 Zoom meeting last night. There were about 25 people who called in to the meeting. This meeting was only about the elk proposals.

-Concerns that the 50% increase in rifle permits and going to unlimited or general archery will result in a reduction of older age class bulls

-Concerns with crowding when going to unlimited archery permits

-It was asked why the north and south sides of the Snowies are managed separately for archery but not with rifle permits

-It was clarified that with unlimited archery permits, there is no 10% NR cap based on the district or region. If a NR is successful in drawing the general elk tag, they will be guaranteed the opportunity to hunt in an unlimited archery unit. The only limitation on non-residents is the statewide general elk tag cap, so nothing prevents a large number of NR's from hunting a select few districts

-It was requested that permits be first and only choice. This would prevent everyone from applying for rifle permits on their first choice and unlimited archery on their second choice.

-When talking about the crowding issues, one individual asked if it is possible to have permits that would only be valid on private land to prevent more crowding on public.

- Brad Molnar has been a pain in the ass when it comes to crossbows, but I give him credit for some of the other stances he has taken on shitty hunting bills, etc. Last night he called in to the meeting and pointed out that this proposal will do nothing to get elk numbers down. He then went on to criticize Gianforte's commission member selections who he said cater to big money and outfitters. He urged the public to call in to local talk radio shows and write editorials in local newspapers to get the message out there that this is bad for sportsmen. He pointed out that in all of his years in politics, he has found that to be the best way to make an impact on public officials. He said Governor Gianforte owns this proposal and he will need the support of the state's 254,000 hunters to get re-elected. He said to call your local representative and commission member to point out that this will overturn the sportsmen's initiative that was passed in 2012. He said hunters need to control the narrative.

That is all I can remember.

I called the R5 office yesterday afternoon and spoke with Matt (I think) the wildlife manager. I expressed my concern regarding the Master list showing that HD 511 and 530, likely to be combined into 535, said that either sex opportunity on a general tag on private land only was proposed and that it appeared the south side of the Snowy’s were being managed different than 411. He admitted that those are mistakes and they are still going to be managed the same. The proposal for the south side should read the same as 411, increasing rifle permits from 300-450 and an unlimited archery permit valid on both. He was going to relay the mistake to whoever the person in Helena that’s in charge of the Master list.

 

[Spartan_Eric]

Here is a summary from the Region 5 Zoom meeting last night. There were about 25 people who called in to the meeting. This meeting was only about the elk proposals.

-Concerns that the 50% increase in rifle permits and going to unlimited or general archery will result in a reduction of older age class bulls

-Concerns with crowding when going to unlimited archery permits

-It was asked why the north and south sides of the Snowies are managed separately for archery but not with rifle permits

-It was clarified that with unlimited archery permits, there is no 10% NR cap based on the district or region. If a NR is successful in drawing the general elk tag, they will be guaranteed the opportunity to hunt in an unlimited archery unit. The only limitation on non-residents is the statewide general elk tag cap, so nothing prevents a large number of NR's from hunting a select few districts

-It was requested that permits be first and only choice. This would prevent everyone from applying for rifle permits on their first choice and unlimited archery on their second choice.

-When talking about the crowding issues, one individual asked if it is possible to have permits that would only be valid on private land to prevent more crowding on public.

- Brad Molnar has been a pain in the ass when it comes to crossbows, but I give him credit for some of the other stances he has taken on shitty hunting bills, etc. Last night he called in to the meeting and pointed out that this proposal will do nothing to get elk numbers down. He then went on to criticize Gianforte's commission member selections who he said cater to big money and outfitters. He urged the public to call in to local talk radio shows and write editorials in local newspapers to get the message out there that this is bad for sportsmen. He pointed out that in all of his years in politics, he has found that to be the best way to make an impact on public officials. He said Governor Gianforte owns this proposal and he will need the support of the state's 254,000 hunters to get re-elected. He said to call your local representative and commission member to point out that this will overturn the sportsmen's initiative that was passed in 2012. He said hunters need to control the narrative.

That is all I can remember.

The fact that the 10% non-resident cap will not be applied to unlimited archery elk permits (as discussed last night), will be made even worse going forward with the passage of HB 637 that allows outfitted non-resident hunting clients to buy 2 preference points per year and effectively cut to the front of the line for non-resident combination licenses.

One-time outfitter hunting licenses, changes to preference points, signed into law

In announcing Gianforte had signed the bill, the governor’s office released a companion letter it said is in response to “misinformation spread about HB 637.”

helenair.com

 

[Wes Mantooth]

I wish I was

Walsh is a soft-handed, corporate rich guy who cares mostly about your portfolio, last name or where you went to college. He spends 99% of his time on guided, very posh flyfishing trips around the world. The fact that he didn't know this doesn't surprise me at all. He has zero interest (disdain?) for DIY Montana hunters, so unless it helps rich ranchers cashing in on elk tags, he is not on board with it. (I worked for him for about 6 years, so I am biased/cynical.)

 

[MTelkHuntress]

I attended the region 3 and 2 CAC meetings on zoom. I wish there was a meeting in Missoula but I think the virtual meetings had good questions. The Region 3 meeting had way more people speaking up than Region 2 and it was nice to hear senator Pat Flowers asking good questions along with commissioner Byorth and Randy Newberg. You could definitely tell people were frustrated as were some of the biologists.

At both meetings there was a huge emphasis on getting your comments in and submit them early so they have time to read them all.

I cannot understand how getting rid of elk B tags and allowing cows to be shot on the general tag helps our situation at all. Great, more opportunity but in my opinion in the places I hunt, there's very few cows on public to begin with.

A couple points that stuck out at the region 3 meeting:

One biologist said that 3 week mule deer seasons do not increase mule deer population. And I think it was because for it to work, the whole state would have to be a 3 week season.
There's a unit now with less than 10 bucks per 100 does which is low. They hope by making it unlimited permit instead of general to avoid pressure from neighboring units that may go to 3 week seasons. Someone mentioned that going to unlimited permit is a half step that does nothing for population and that limited permits would be better.

Another unit has 10 bucks per 100 does but according to the biologist, that's ideal.

There are two units being combined where one unit is over objective, mostly private land and the other unit has better access but is below objective. With the combination of these units, there will be a more liberal season on elk so there was concern about one of the herds being heavily impacted.

There was a big discussion about how difficult the regulations actually are to understand. I don't remember who answered the question but they said every year in the FWP office, they have to answer lots of questions about licensing and the regulations and often have to walk people through the process. BUT I think a biologist chimed in and said they did a survey amongst resident hunters and basically most hunters thought the regulations were easy or very easy to understand. It seems like most issues come from the licensing process, not the regulations.

There was a question about the problem of data being lost from combining units. A biologist did say they would lose data resolution but that overall it shouldn't have a huge impact (not sure I believe that one).

The region 3 meeting was very long but lots of great points were being made and some very concerned hunters in attendance. Obviously because it was over zoom, I have no clue how many people actually attended.

There was a good joke about the gentleman that wrote to a commissioner about extending pheasant and mountain grouse season. One hunter asked if he emailed a commissioner about a sheep tag, if he could get one.

Region 2 was a bit frustrating for me because Mike Thompson and Scott Eggeman had left, there were some gaps in the knowledge of those places but I really want to commend Scott Eggeman for the changes he pushed for. He kind of went against what was being directed and tried his best to do right for the wildlife. Mike Thompson previously had put in some really needed changes as well but those were dropped.
The commissioner in our region didn't attend because she was busy but there was emphasis that she was taking comments seriously so I guess it's worth emailing her comments.

A few hunters that did chime in seemed to just care about their opportunity. One landowner was pretty annoyed about cutting deer opportunity because they keep eating his hay.

There was some discussion of habitat improvements so that was good.
Some units are being proposed to go to a 3 week season for mule deer.
I believe these units won't have a muzzloader season because of that.

One comment from a biologist really struck me though. A couple bighorn sheep units will either become closed to sheep hunting or have tags heavily reduced. This proposed change kind of put into perspective how fragile these populations can be. It was a combination of mountain lion predation and even too many sheep getting hit on a certain paved road. To me, for the biologist to point out that sheep are getting hit on this road meant that it was a problem. I understand that sheep populations can fluctuate a lot but I guess I didn't understand how the management of the species worked. Hopefully these populations can bounce back quickly.

The biologists did say that during the first round of public comment, they got rid of several proposals because there was so much hunter comment against them. So they are listening and I hope everyone submits their comments soon.

I took this picture of the elk counts, mostly because it frustrated me so much. I can't help but wonder how much these numbers are skewed by elk that never leave private land and how low our numbers actually are on public in some areas.

 

[Nameless Range]

I attended the region 3 and 2 CAC meetings on zoom. I wish there was a meeting in Missoula but I think the virtual meetings had good questions. The Region 3 meeting had way more people speaking up than Region 2 and it was nice to hear senator Pat Flowers asking good questions along with commissioner Byorth and Randy Newberg. You could definitely tell people were frustrated as were some of the biologists.

At both meetings there was a huge emphasis on getting your comments in and submit them early so they have time to read them all.

I cannot understand how getting rid of elk B tags and allowing cows to be shot on the general tag helps our situation at all. Great, more opportunity but in my opinion in the places I hunt, there's very few cows on public to begin with.

A couple points that stuck out at the region 3 meeting:

One biologist said that 3 week mule deer seasons do not increase mule deer population. And I think it was because for it to work, the whole state would have to be a 3 week season.
There's a unit now with less than 10 bucks per 100 does which is low. They hope by making it unlimited permit instead of general to avoid pressure from neighboring units that may go to 3 week seasons. Someone mentioned that going to unlimited permit is a half step that does nothing for population and that limited permits would be better.

Another unit has 10 bucks per 100 does but according to the biologist, that's ideal.

There are two units being combined where one unit is over objective, mostly private land and the other unit has better access but is below objective. With the combination of these units, there will be a more liberal season on elk so there was concern about one of the herds being heavily impacted.

There was a big discussion about how difficult the regulations actually are to understand. I don't remember who answered the question but they said every year in the FWP office, they have to answer lots of questions about licensing and the regulations and often have to walk people through the process. BUT I think a biologist chimed in and said they did a survey amongst resident hunters and basically most hunters thought the regulations were easy or very easy to understand. It seems like most issues come from the licensing process, not the regulations.

There was a question about the problem of data being lost from combining units. A biologist did say they would lose data resolution but that overall it shouldn't have a huge impact (not sure I believe that one).

The region 3 meeting was very long but lots of great points were being made and some very concerned hunters in attendance. Obviously because it was over zoom, I have no clue how many people actually attended.

There was a good joke about the gentleman that wrote to a commissioner about extending pheasant and mountain grouse season. One hunter asked if he emailed a commissioner about a sheep tag, if he could get one.

Region 2 was a bit frustrating for me because Mike Thompson and Scott Eggeman had left, there were some gaps in the knowledge of those places but I really want to commend Scott Eggeman for the changes he pushed for. He kind of went against what was being directed and tried his best to do right for the wildlife. Mike Thompson previously had put in some really needed changes as well but those were dropped.
The commissioner in our region didn't attend because she was busy but there was emphasis that she was taking comments seriously so I guess it's worth emailing her comments.

A few hunters that did chime in seemed to just care about their opportunity. One landowner was pretty annoyed about cutting deer opportunity because they keep eating his hay.

There was some discussion of habitat improvements so that was good.
Some units are being proposed to go to a 3 week season for mule deer.
I believe these units won't have a muzzloader season because of that.

One comment from a biologist really struck me though. A couple bighorn sheep units will either become closed to sheep hunting or have tags heavily reduced. This proposed change kind of put into perspective how fragile these populations can be. It was a combination of mountain lion predation and even too many sheep getting hit on a certain paved road. To me, for the biologist to point out that sheep are getting hit on this road meant that it was a problem. I understand that sheep populations can fluctuate a lot but I guess I didn't understand how the management of the species worked. Hopefully these populations can bounce back quickly.

The biologists did say that during the first round of public comment, they got rid of several proposals because there was so much hunter comment against them. So they are listening and I hope everyone submits their comments soon.

I took this picture of the elk counts, mostly because it frustrated me so much. I can't help but wonder how much these numbers are skewed by elk that never leave private land and how low our numbers actually are on public in some areas.

View attachment 208974

Thank you for this report. Very interesting.

We all gotta comment, and the sooner the better!

 

[lifeisgoodsteve]

Region 2 was a bit frustrating for me because Mike Thompson and Scott Eggeman had left, there were some gaps in the knowledge of those places but I really want to commend Scott Eggeman for the changes he pushed for. He kind of went against what was being directed and tried his best to do right for the wildlife. Mike Thompson previously had put in some really needed changes as well but those were dropped.
The commissioner in our region didn't attend because she was busy but there was emphasis that she was taking comments seriously so I guess it's worth emailing her comments.

Thanks, I was at the one in Hamilton. The most vocal hunters were certainly debating the requirement of hunting the unit you received, if not general, which in this case was 270.

A few of us asked directly about timing on the Elk Mgmt plan, and how it doesn't make sense to use outdated population objectives to justify decisions now.

A realistic challenge that a foreman of a large ranch mentioned is that while in principle unlimited cow tags could move elk off private to public, he doesn't see any increased access to hunting on most of the big private ranches he knows of, including the one he manages.

If the cow tags are there, but no increase use of them, then we may not make much progress and realistically maybe not a lot can be done about that. However...the biologist was good about at least saying that they take that into account if the landowner starts complaining about "damages" or "problems".

 

[AlaskaHunter]

The deadline for your input is Jan 21...Friday.
Written input with well-reasoned rationale can be entered at:
https://fwp.mt.gov/aboutfwp/public-comment-opportunities/reg-proposals

 

[BRI]

I attended the region 3 and 2 CAC meetings on zoom. I wish there was a meeting in Missoula but I think the virtual meetings had good questions. The Region 3 meeting had way more people speaking up than Region 2 and it was nice to hear senator Pat Flowers asking good questions along with commissioner Byorth and Randy Newberg. You could definitely tell people were frustrated as were some of the biologists.



I took this picture of the elk counts, mostly because it frustrated me so much. I can't help but wonder how much these numbers are skewed by elk that never leave private land and how low our numbers actually are on public in some areas.

Thanks for that information. It bothers me how they combine 210 and 211 into one management herd and I've repeatedly brought it up. In my 30 plus years hunting the area, those elk in the private island west of Philipsburg and East of Rock Creek get very little pressure and rarely leave. They could kill every elk in 211 and still claim it is over objective by including 210.

 

[mtnkid85]

Thanks for that information. It bothers me how they combine 210 and 211 into one management herd and I've repeatedly brought it up. In my 30 plus years hunting the area, those elk in the private island west of Philipsburg and East of Rock Creek get very little pressure and rarely leave. They could kill every elk in 211 and still claim it is over objective by including 210.

Make sure you have that in your comments. That’s not the only unit that’s happening in and it important we point it out.

 

[Unlucky]

Sounds like the story of every MT unit. The public over hunted and the private not so much. But the private will take advantage of it and claim over objective. Which most private does not allow hunting as a true block management. When does it end. Idk seems like a sharade. Same story diff bullchit. Cant help think, should i get the kings permission before i kill an elk.

 

[Unlucky]

I honestly don't understand. I get money and politics dictate everything but. Idk seems like the public hunter, buying snake oil. Fwp is an absolute joke. Ya alot if good people have careers there but are not allowed to do there job. My opionon the orange army, needs to rise. We c it, every time we go out hunting. Alot of pressure and few animals. Sometimes we get lucky. Honestly never seen a muley buck in a general unit, public land last yr. Good thing my kids can hunt private. For free. I cant but kids can. Very important kids involved. Maybe the sadest thing i ever seen was the decline of the public land mule deer. Craziest thing is the fwp does not recognize this.

 

[Unlucky]

Maybe it should be this.

Draw current otc mule deer units. Based off of actual counts. Split archery muzzy rifle. Current LE tags prob should cut 10 buck tags as is. Mule deer doe tags only on private until huntable population according to science and herd capacity without cattle grazing. Fwp the public only kills what they have a tag for. For the most part. If u restrict tags based off of management people understand and agree with science. What they c when out hunting.

Moose such low numbers. Cut tags in half as of right now. Predators aka wolves have taken a toll along with fwp management.

Sheep transplant more. Not that hard to figure out areas or demand for a sheep tag.

Elk simple. All draw arch muzzy rifle. On current otc units. Draw for bull permit based off of numbers. Stop spike bull hunting. The current LE units make them great, stop spike bull hunting. Hard draw. Cow elk simple. Cow elk tags draw on public based off of science on public. Make a cow tag good for private only in december for landowners.

Private gets x amount of tags based on x amount of acres. Up for debate. Only for family or friends. Illegal to sell them. But what ever x amount is. Half of tags alloted can be sold through an outfitter.

Non resident gaurenteed up to %15 of all tags. A draw. Welcome to mt.

Whitetail otc up to 3 tags. Landowner dictates buck or doe. Upon permission. Its basically access.

Opportunities for youth and non resident. Private land cow elk hunt in december. Whitetail up to 3 doe or buck tags based off of access. Meat hunters. Most dinks post there 3x3 muley on facebook instagrahm and claim meat buck. Well u can shoot a cow elk and get 150lbs of meat or a meat buck and get 50.

Outfitters gaurenteed 5 to 10 percent of non resident tags. Don't know enough about it to comment too much. Besides thats what it is about, selling tags and hunts. Remember draw for arch, muzzy, rifle on deer and elk. So 15 percent alot.

My thought is this. Fwp do your job. The public sees the herds mismanaged and u in favor if the private. But the public also understands if i owned half the mountain, i should get a few tags. Too simple.

 

[Unlucky]

Just an example. Take unit 410. 150 bull rifle permits. 1899 bow way too many.

Will focus on the rifle . Stop killing spikes. Up quota to 200. So 30 tags go to non res. 170 left. Private gets x number. Will say 35. 135 left for public. More than what the actual public gets now.

Arch cut it to 1000.

Muzzy 100. More than likley a smart muzzy season oct. Bulls still dumb.

What it does is burn points, draw manages herds and gives people what they want.

Draw also makes it so if u want to hunt every yr. U may have to kill a cow elk on private. Controling herds while eating back straps

 

[Nameless Range]

One more day. Comment!!

Public Comment Opportunities | Montana FWP

Fish, Wildlife & Parks offers various opportunities for the public to comment on issues, rules, grants, environmental assessments, land acquisition, development or enhancement projects, council recommendations, hunting and fishing regulations, etc. that FWP manages.

fwp.mt.gov

 

[Beignet]

Thanks for that information. It bothers me how they combine 210 and 211 into one management herd and I've repeatedly brought it up. In my 30 plus years hunting the area, those elk in the private island west of Philipsburg and East of Rock Creek get very little pressure and rarely leave. They could kill every elk in 211 and still claim it is over objective by including 210.

Anecdotally, a few years ago I hand wrote letters to about ten landowners in that area - many months before hunting season and ranch busy season asking for permission to hunt cow elk. I volunteered to spend a few weekends helping out with chores on the property in exchange for access (highlighting that I grew up in a rural area and farm chores aren't foreign to me). I got two responses. One was from a nice lady who said she used to allow access but some jerk tore up a gate a drove where he wasn't allowed then got combative with her and ruined it for everyone else (to which I apologized on behalf of all hunters and thanked her for responding). Another said that they'd let me harvest any elk I wanted for $5000. No one else responded.

So yeah, those certainly shouldn't count as huntable elk.

 

[MTelkHuntress]

One more day. Comment!!

Public Comment Opportunities | Montana FWP

Fish, Wildlife & Parks offers various opportunities for the public to comment on issues, rules, grants, environmental assessments, land acquisition, development or enhancement projects, council recommendations, hunting and fishing regulations, etc. that FWP manages.

fwp.mt.gov

I can't believe how long it took me to submit comments because there were that many changes. Hopefully enough people comment to show that some of these changes are awful.

Is it worth emailing the commissioners a short email as well? I'm not even sure what to say.

 

[Nameless Range]

I can't believe how long it took me to submit comments because there were that many changes. Hopefully enough people comment to show that some of these changes are awful.

Is it worth emailing the commissioners a short email as well? I'm not even sure what to say.

I think it is worth emailing them. That said, you don’t have to regurgitate the specific comments you sent to FWP.

I sent FWP my specific comments, but for what it’s worth, I sent the commissioners an email asking for them to hold off on these large changes until the new elk management plan comes together, until the elk working group that Hank has promised comes together, etc. I asked them to basically be conservative and judicious and not rush this and the half-baked ideas that go along with it. And maybe it’s a millennial thing, but I told him how it made me feel- how this feels like government out of control, how it seems rushed, and how it seems like the fix is in, and how I’m disappointed as a Montanan.

 

[Ben Lamb]

MWF comments attached.

MTBHA comments: https://www.backcountryhunters.org/...oaBsoNz8KVUBomCn9mbrdlkccwJv65gyLiyIaHTeLYHlE