Ya I’m sure his comment is regarding the other proposals. The article he quoted (maybe he didn’t read it) is specifically talking about the quota ranges.
It wasn’t justified. I asked the question at two of the season setting meetings. At one meeting they said they thought the commission was just wanting more control over the quotas. At the other meeting, the FWP staff basically said they’ve been asking the same question themselves.
I couldn’t agree more with you Eric.
I disagree we should not be basing our wildlife management off who is elected for governor too many other issues on the table. Each region should know what they are getting and pick qualified individuals or at least have a say in it.
Breaking up the 900 was good for your part of the state, but it sure as hell didn’t help the central MT units. They are a perfect example of what’s wrong with letting the commission set quotas. If they would have let the biologists set the quotas, those units would likely be a lot more enjoyable to hunt. It’s pretty obvious that the permit numbers were set too high when there were 400-500 surplus permits the first year. Remember, that was when they were proposing to make those units general. When quotas are that high, they might as well be general. At least if they were general, people could move to other general units when they get fed up with the crowding. The commission did outfitters a big favor by setting those permit numbers so high, but it didn’t benefit the average hunter out there on public land.
I will second this, the commission pretty much single handedly ruined the archery hunting in the central MT 900 districts. By their math, they set about 100 tags per access point in some of these units, with no other option of going anywhere else.
Quotas were set too high everywhere. That is a trend in Montana but you can’t manage wildlife over such a big area. My hope is to see the quotas come down although I’m sure that is unlikely to happen. Reasonable quotas isn’t too much to ask.
I haven’t been down to the Custer since they broke up the bundle so I can’t speak from experience, but based off of talking to other hunters, it sounds like the Custer has no more archery hunting pressure than before, if not even a little less. The pressure in the central MT units increased significantly after breaking up the 900. Maybe the quota is still too high for the Custer, but it’s a lot more reasonable than what we got up here.
I doubt the grass is much greener. Quotas were set too high. A trend that Montana is consistent on.
The unit that I hunt in has had a noticeable difference in pressure during archery season I think they could add more tags
You are lucky and I wouldn’t talk about adding tags because they will.
I really felt like they should have implemented the if you draw it you hunt this tag rule prior to the split. It would have given people the opportunity to still be able to move around a bit and made sure that people on the western side stopped drawing and taking tags from people
Hunt quality on the Custer still blows but I completely agree with what you’re saying on the central Montana 900 units. I’m sure I will get pounded for this but pondering this problem I always end back up with separate public land permits and private land permits. I don’t see any other way to keep decent public land hunting in some of these units.
Dangerous game with that one
I learned this year while in New Mexico that they issue 2 different types of land owner tags. One is valid for the entire unit if the land owners enters a bma type program. The other is only valid on their property if they keep the property from public access
