Are there any good changes to MT regulations?

[RobG]

Everything I see seems to be a big negative, or at best a wash. Was anything done that could be considered a good idea?

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

PS, good for Julie for keeping limited entry mule deer [edit, in the new 312] on USFS lands.

 

[bigsky2]

As much as I enjoyed the 900 archery elk permit, management-wise it probably makes sense to break it up. You can't control where all the pressure is when a permit is good for such a big swath of land. We will have to wait and see if it was a good move when the quotas come out. My bet is the total permit numbers will increase after breaking up the 900.

 

[MTTW]

Making 393 limited for mule deer and included in 312 is common sense, because 312 deer winter in 393 and always have. I am not generally in favor of limited entry , preferring a shorter season, but in this case I agree with the new change proposed.

 

[MTelkHuntress]

I'm still looking through but I did see elimination of some elk b tags on public land. I see way more youth opportunity.... Not sure if that's good or bad.

 

[RobG]

As much as I enjoyed the 900 archery elk permit, management-wise it probably makes sense to break it up. You can't control where all the pressure is when a permit is good for such a big swath of land. We will have to wait and see if it was a good move when the quotas come out. My bet is the total permit numbers will increase after breaking up the 900.

That's probably good. The trend seems to be the opposite: having a single elk B tag cover multiple hunting districts.

 

[Schaaf]

Everything I see seems to be a big negative, or at best a wash. Was anything done that could be considered a good idea?

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

PS, good for Julie for keeping limited entry mule deer on USFS lands.

The Region 6 changes were proposed from the local working group to help align management with surveys.
I think it’s good for R6.

 

[Carnage2011]

Everything I see seems to be a big negative, or at best a wash. Was anything done that could be considered a good idea?

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

PS, good for Julie for keeping limited entry mule deer [edit, in the new 312] on USFS lands.

Other than the 324 deer tag going away…what big negatives have you found? I don’t see anything that bad other than that.

 

[RobG]

Other than the 324 deer tag going away…what big negatives have you found? I don’t see anything that bad other than that.

I'll start another thread for that.

 

[diamond hitch]

Combining 124, 200 and 123 is likely reasonable. Now if you can remove the wolves and cats you might get some recovery. 124 burned to the dirt a few years back and will take a while to recover. Most of the elk are on private land for security. 124 and 200 in the south are all part of the same migration path.

A similar situation exists for 350 and 370 but they failed to include 318 which is largely the same elk in the Boulder area. They need a lot more kitty control if they ever want to see a huntable deer population. I was kind of thinking a $100 bounty per cat as opposed to a tag. Any kind of a B tag for deer is stupid. There aren't any left.