Elk archery bill
- Thread starter Ben Lamb
- Start date
The links from that bill search site are never valid. Got a bill number?
Paul in Idaho
Well-known member
Ben, there's a space in that URL that broke it.
If I'm reading line 23 right, the politicians are writing the law to bypass the commission?
http://leg.mt.gov/bills/2017/billpdf/LC2452.pdf
bill status page
If I'm reading line 23 right, the politicians are writing the law to bypass the commission?
http://leg.mt.gov/bills/2017/billpdf/LC2452.pdf
bill status page
Schaaf
Well-known member
Layman's terms besides splitting Non-resident Archery season into two seasons?
Yes, and it sets up a statutory, bifurcated non-resident season in just the Missouri River Breaks districts and ties all management decisions to that season. Currently, that authority rests with the Fish & Wildlife Commission.
406LIFE
Well-known member
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2016
- Messages
- 3,127
I don't like requiring 10% for a trophy area for NR. Why it is the driving force of this bill?
Also Ben, can't thank you enough for keeping us in the loop on all these bills. That takes work and dedication that I am not able to give. I feel like I owe you a steak some night.
Also Ben, can't thank you enough for keeping us in the loop on all these bills. That takes work and dedication that I am not able to give. I feel like I owe you a steak some night.
BuzzH
Well-known member
Yeah, wouldn't want those pesky NR's that pay $858 for an elk tag to have a paltry 10% of the breaks tags so they have a place to hunt with a few elk around on public land. Give them all to the residents that pay a whopping $20 for a resident elk tag.
As to the why this is happening?
Pretty easy to see. Montana has absolute shit for elk management, and the few remaining places that actually hold a few elk on public land are becoming highly desirable.
I remember when the breaks didn't even require a permit of any kind for R or NR archery hunters.
Maybe instead of crying about NR's getting 140 guaranteed tags in a hunt unit that issues the remaining 1260 to Residents, put some pressure on the MTFWP, tell them to start pretending like they care about elk. Maybe be so bold as to hold them accountable for their own numbers that don't make sense (harvest, populations, bull-to-cow ratios, etc) and total lack of acceptable management. Maybe go one step further and ask them to manage elk based on science and biology for a nice change of pace.
Do that, and perhaps NR hunters will be more tempted to hunt areas other than pound the few remaining areas that actually hold elk on public land.
For the record, Wyoming assures NR's 16% of the total LQ elk tags here...not sure why the outrage over NR's being assured 10% there.
Finally, I do not like that the legislature is meddling and trying to do this via legislation rather than through the commission. For that reason alone, I would not support this legislation. But, I don't really care at this point because I'm never buying another elk tag in Montana again. I spend money for actual management, not to be party to the MTFWP choosing to eliminate elk from the areas I hunt, and ultimately from the entire state.
Bottom line . . . . I think it would be a disaster if the MT Legislature set a practice of passing bills in an attempt to manage MT's wildlife. They need to leave managing wildlife in the hands of the MT FWP Commission, who are much more qualified to make these types of decisions.
ShootsManyBullets
Well-known member
I'm assuming all this is the slippery slope to landowner tags like Colorado where 25%? of the tags go to the friends and donors to the local politicians a.k.a. landowners.
Okey dokey. MHO:
1. The legislature can and probably should set NR quotas (10%, up to 10%, etc). But probably not on a unit by unit basis. Why not a statewide policy?
2. The legislature should not be setting season structure. That's the job of the wildlife agency and its commission.
3. The only legitimate argument I have heard for splitting seasons is to reduce crowding, and that's not relevant if you are talking about NR only and a long season (archery). Why? Because NR in general only travel once. I assume they want to split the season to appease landowners/outfitters, making it easier to book hunts. Eventually you'll end up with 5 one week rifle hunts, similar to CO (we have 4 rifle hunts).
teamhoyt
Well-known member
I See the nr breaks archery season would be split into 2, 3 week seasons. I take the 10% tag allotment to be statewide for several species
teamhoyt
Well-known member
This might add a tag or 2 in a few units, but i cannot see how this would benefit a breaks hunter res or non res
mdunc8
Well-known member
I don't have a problem giving NRs 10%. Also think that should be a statewide deal rather than a handful of units. Haven't read the bill yet, so I can't comment on the rest.
Gerald Martin
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2009
- Messages
- 8,953
If they go for a split NR season with 10% guarranteed, is that 10% of the overall total applicants or 10% of the overall applicants for each season? Is it like the following scenario? 100 total applicants. 10 NR for first season. 10 NR for second season? Or is it, 100 total applicants. 5 NR for the first season, 5 NR for second season?
teamhoyt
Well-known member
Pretty sure the 10% of the tags is statewide. It's for deer, antelope, elk, bear and mtn lion.
Gerald- you have a valid question and since in the breaks there would be essentially 2 different permits I would think it would be 10% for each permit
Gerald- you have a valid question and since in the breaks there would be essentially 2 different permits I would think it would be 10% for each permit
Similar threads
