Shangobango
Well-known member
Of all the off base assertions in this thread, this is the only one that pisses me off.
What a crock of shit.
This removes any credibility you had on this, little as it was.
Ballot Initiative to End NR Big Game Hunting?
- Thread starter BenInMT
- Start date
What a crock of shit.
This removes any credibility you had on this, little as it was.
D
Deleted member 28227
Guest
Colorado has more NR elk hunters than the entire rest of the country combined. That's not hyperbole that's a fact, Colorado also has the largest population of any western elk hunting state (WY,ID, MT, NM).
(circa 2018)
Why does the elk hunting suck so much more in MT than CO? I've been a resident of both states, I think my statement is a subjective truth, and backed up by harvest rates and days per field per hunter.
It's all because of management in MT.
Honestly go for it Ben, kick all the NR out. But 3 years from now you will have the same gripes because you haven't fixed any of the underlying problems.
If you think kicking out NR hunters out of MT is going to make NR landowners either 1. let on hunters or 2. sell their land to family who will ranch is a la previous generations you're kidding yourself
Last edited by a moderator:
T
tjones
Guest
BlazerBeam
Active member
I’m wondering from the NR’s who want to elk hunt in MT, would it be more important to you to have a better chance to hunt a limited draw unit than currently exists or just to have a general tag in your pocket more often (like how it historically has been before this outfitter deal, say every 1-3 years)?
8andcounting
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 16, 2013
- Messages
- 3,692
To me - I’d like to have a realistic chance at drawing a limited entry permit once in every 5-8 years . Not having to jump through multiple hoops would be nice
BlazerBeam
Active member
So as it sits right now you have to first draw a general before you can put your name in the hat for a limited entry? Correct?
8andcounting
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 16, 2013
- Messages
- 3,692
Yes
El Jason
Well-known member
Yes. Which is stupid.
It’s not rocket science to do away with the current system and make folks choose the area they want to hunt and then apply for that draw.
El Jason
Well-known member
Two of Montana’s neighbors seem to have a better system figured out.
CUElk
Well-known member
Honestly, I would just like to come and hunt every 3 years. Not interested in limited entry units. I enjoy hunting those mountains with my friends and family. Don’t mind the wait and I don’t mind paying even more than what I’m paying. I simply want a system that makes planning a little easier.
MTelkHuntress
Well-known member
Not like our extra long seasons aren't an issue or anything. Caught me on a bad to day see this post.
Kill em all.
Do I like seeing 5 non residents hunting the same area I am for 2 months straight? No but they can do that. Do I think they are the problem? I think we have much bigger issues (and I agree a hard cap would be better, not the capped but not deal we have).
Kill em all.
Do I like seeing 5 non residents hunting the same area I am for 2 months straight? No but they can do that. Do I think they are the problem? I think we have much bigger issues (and I agree a hard cap would be better, not the capped but not deal we have).
El Jason
Well-known member
Right now it’s a system that puts little risk in the game for a NR. Draw your general tag great. Put in for a glory unit. Don’t draw, great, you can return it or hunt general. No risk of not hunting at all, and absolutely no mechanism to distribute hunters across 40% of the state.
Make people choose. Make them prioritize. Don’t guarantee 11 (now 13) weeks of hunting simply by drawing the tag.
Montanans.... I love it here, but these people are so far disconnected from reality sometimes, it boggles the mind. They want months-long general season for big game that persist before, through, and after the breeding season, for every kind of weapon. They want better age classes, and more older animals on the landscape, but will not tolerate harvest restrictions like antler points or width. There is demand for increasing motorized access in already over-pressured areas. There is the expectation that public land can be grazed by livestock with little/no oversight or restriction. There is this notion that wild lands ideal for hunting can also be shared for general recreation purposes, like ATV riding and townies taking their off-leash dogs on walks.
Hammer the hell out of the animals for generations, shout down any voice attempting to address the problem, sell off farm and ranch land to property developers, and then blame out of staters for wrecking the place up. Genius plan, there.
Hammer the hell out of the animals for generations, shout down any voice attempting to address the problem, sell off farm and ranch land to property developers, and then blame out of staters for wrecking the place up. Genius plan, there.
BlazerBeam
Active member
Would it be fair to do away with the hoop jumping to get a limited entry and just go to a true preference point system and pick your unit to apply to, you either get it or you don’t, then within that system further divide application choices by weapon and shorten the time you can hunt? In addition cap the number that go to NR’s at a little bit lower number than it has been. Still allow resident seasons to be what they are for now.
Example: guy from Texas has 5 preference points. He wants to hunt the breaks with a bow and for the 410-limited NR first archery season September 1-8. There is a certain number of limited entry tags reserved for NRs per unit and the rest of the capped number go to general. He knows that he has approximately an 85% chance to draw before he even applies.
Another guy has 2 points, just wants to hunt the general NR first rifle season of October 28-November 6. He knows he has a 97% chance before hand.
Etc, etc.
Doing this there would theoretically be the possibility of tags that are not drawn. If so there could be a leftover draw which is completely random and no points are burned.
I see something along these lines giving NRs a feeling like they have more control over their plans as well as supplying opportunities for more quality hunts. While at the same time giving residents who have a general tag a feeling like they have an some sort of advantage on the mtn as far as length of their season. Because there is validity in the statement made earlier about the string of fifth wheels and side by sides that come out here and pitch their camp for 4 weeks and then come back in rifle if they don’t fill their tag.
Example: guy from Texas has 5 preference points. He wants to hunt the breaks with a bow and for the 410-limited NR first archery season September 1-8. There is a certain number of limited entry tags reserved for NRs per unit and the rest of the capped number go to general. He knows that he has approximately an 85% chance to draw before he even applies.
Another guy has 2 points, just wants to hunt the general NR first rifle season of October 28-November 6. He knows he has a 97% chance before hand.
Etc, etc.
Doing this there would theoretically be the possibility of tags that are not drawn. If so there could be a leftover draw which is completely random and no points are burned.
I see something along these lines giving NRs a feeling like they have more control over their plans as well as supplying opportunities for more quality hunts. While at the same time giving residents who have a general tag a feeling like they have an some sort of advantage on the mtn as far as length of their season. Because there is validity in the statement made earlier about the string of fifth wheels and side by sides that come out here and pitch their camp for 4 weeks and then come back in rifle if they don’t fill their tag.
BlazerBeam
Active member
I also think for mule deer a 4 point antler standard should be implemented.
MTLabrador
Well-known member
APRs for mule deer pretty much never have the effect that people want them to have.
El Jason
Well-known member
I’m fully supportive of going even further, and making NR hunters choose a HD (or group of) in lieu of a general tag in order to better facilitate hunter distribution. In essence, every HD is now a limited draw (even if is undersubscribed and goes to leftovers). There are oodles of changes I’ll support 110% because they would have a marked benefit for wildlife.
That said, your quote above is part of the major underlying issue. You are worried about 10% of the total hunters causing the problems. You guys want it all with no change, and because of that you’ll get no change to your end product.
PS. APR restrictions are just going to leave you further disappointed.
BlazerBeam
Active member
El Jason
Well-known member
Absolutely it’s fair. I do think it’s stupid to try and remedy the bigger issues by leveraging such a small part of the picture, but I’m not a resident. I don’t expect anyone to GAF about fairness. I’ve sat in commission meetings and have no illusion that would even be part of the equation.
And yes, it would have benefit to be wildlife. But again, you’re implementing minuscule change vs sweeping change. What do you want your outcome to be? Minuscule or sweeping?
You can’t tackle elk distribution issues when you continue to allow a huge portion of hunters to freely move wherever, whenever. Like I’ve said numerous times, you could overlay Wyoming management into Montana and see huge benefits within a few years.
Last edited by a moderator:
RobertD
Well-known member
AKA doing it correctly like Wyoming does with the A, B, C "regions" that then have their own quotas and dates
Similar threads
