Bulls for Billionaires - MT EQC Meeting today 1:30 PM

[The Hedgehog]

Their name is on the list they didn’t get a permit. In some of these area there were enough applications that the number of applicants was more than the total allowable for the 454 which I though was 10%. So if there were more applicants that the number of the 10% of permits those landowners were then drawn. So not everyone who was approved got a permit.

So what you're saying is a landowner didn't get a limited quota MT bull elk rifle permit? Holy crap. How did this happen? Hank will have to answer some difficult questions.

 

[golfer]

It was my understanding that they would get permits for use on their property. Here’s a shot from an application for one of the properties where FWP wasn’t sure there’d be good hunting opportunities.

Have you confirmed with your acquaintance that they didn’t receive permits even though the commission seemed to approve all applicants.

View attachment 230750

Spoke to him this morning before I posted anything.

 

[Beignet]

OK. That makes sense and is a good correction for me. Thank you. My initial statement was not entirely correct.

To correct my initial assertion, everyone who applied to a 454 agreement got a permit, except for those whose properties were in HDs where the amount of 454 applicant requests exceeded the 10% "in addition to" the permit quota. In those instances, not all applicants got a permit.

I think though, it will be safe to assume that the commission will automatically approve all agreements, until they reach that 10%, which is what I believe happened.

I’m wondering if that happened in 690? Not many permits, but quite a few 454 applicants.

 

[golfer]

OK. That makes sense and is a good correction for me. Thank you. My initial statement was not entirely correct.

To correct my initial assertion, everyone who applied to a 454 agreement got a permit, except for those whose properties were in HDs where the amount of 454 applicant requests exceeded the 10% "in addition to" the permit quota. In those instances, not all applicants got a permit.

I think though, it will be safe to assume that the commission will automatically approve all agreements, until they reach that 10%, which is what I believe happened.

This is correct.

 

[Carnage2011]

Their name is on the list they didn’t get a permit. In some of these area there were enough applications that the number of applicants was more than the total allowable for the 454 which I though was 10%. So if there were more applicants that the number of the 10% of permits those landowners were then drawn. So not everyone who was approved got a permit.

This is true. There were applications that exceeded 10% so not everyone was approved.

 

[DFS]

This is true. There were applications that exceeded 10% so not everyone was approved.

So the areas that included an extra 10% in the second draw will have no 454 tags this year?

 

[Beignet]

Spoke to him this morning before I posted anything.

Thanks for clarifying!

 

[The Hedgehog]

I heard about how this goes down for one of the FWP selected hunters who gets “access”.

As suspected - this program is a complete pile of dogshit and only a game to put tags in the right guys pockets.

The guys rallying around for this all need a few kicks right square in the balls.

 

[golfer]

I heard about how this goes down for one of the FWP selected hunters who gets “access”.

As suspected - this program is a complete pile of dogshit and only a game to put tags in the right guys pockets.

The guys rallying around for this all need a few kicks right square in the balls.

Care to expand on what you heard? Just curious.

 

[The Hedgehog]

Care to expand on what you heard? Just curious.

I'll let the hunter himself elaborate, after the season's over.

It's typical to some Type 2 BMAs where there's really no access to somebody without an in, unless you count, "Yeah i got your number, when something opens up I'll let you know, could be a few weeks or months, and maybe some random Monday or Tuesday, no bowhunting, maybe come shoot a cow elk in my haystack... just hop in your truck on a whim and head 6 hours this way..." Total win for those guys looking for some "access".

 

[BourbonSnowCone]

Friend of mine got drawn for one of these. Landowner got two either sex permits in a very tough to draw district. In return they let six hunters on to shoot cows with super restrictive side boards. How do they not have to let others with the permit on for bull hunting. Bizarre, broken system. Then again, that sounds exactly like our state government.

 

[WanderWoman]

Friend of mine got drawn for one of these. Landowner got two either sex permits in a very tough to draw district. In return they let six hunters on to shoot cows with super restrictive side boards. How do they not have to let others with the permit on for bull hunting. Bizarre, broken system. Then again, that sounds exactly like our state government.

In 2019, wording in the bill (87-2-513) that said, (2)(c) “… must have entered into a contractual public elk hunting access agreement with the department that allows public access for free public elk hunting on a landowner’s property throughout the regular hunting seasons and that includes public hunting by permitholders using permits that are valid for the hunting district…” was removed. Not sure who crossed that out; would be interesting to know.

My understanding is that in 2021 someone noticed that and capitalized on it, so that brought about the big structural changes to the program and influx of landowner participants.

In 2023 the statute added back in under (3)(b) “at least one of the public hunters must hold the equivalent license, permit, or combination of the two that is issued to the landowner…” effective in March 2024. But I think that can simply apply to the landowner-selected hunter vs. just any ‘unwashed’ member of the general public permit holders.

The bill also used to clarify “for wildlife management purposes,” which was crossed off the top in 2023. This would/should have held the department and landowners to at least some measurable amount of additional elk harvest and this management via this program. Not sure how 2 bulls and 6 cows accomplishes that.

 

[BourbonSnowCone]

In 2023 the statute added back in under (3)(b) “at least one of the public hunters must hold the equivalent license, permit, or combination of the two that is issued to the landowner…” effective in March 2024. But I think that can simply apply to the landowner-selected hunter vs. just any ‘unwashed’ member of the general public permit holders.

I expect with that language being added back the number of applications goes down next year. I know one of the 2023 ranches has ~1000 acres of deeded and abuts a couple thousand acres of landlocked BLM. Rarely elk on the deeded but always on the BLM. Bet that permit gets used off the deeded ground.