Limited Archery Elk--Missouri Breaks
Unlike Fixed Dates, limited archery permits had variable support/nonsupport across the state and user groups. In nearly unanimous fashion, commenting outfitters, landowners, businesses, commerce, local governments and non-resident hunters adamantly opposed limited permits. Arguments included:
- deleterious financial impacts to local economies, ranches, businesses and FWP programs with an advocacy for nonresident over resident financial inputs
- reduced hunter opportunity (especially nonresident—to include public land opportunities) when elk numbers are robust
- reduced elk population control
- perceived threats to landowner rights and/or property values/tax base
- reduced flexibility for landowner
- questions to the issues of crowding and access and the proposal’s effectiveness or need to those ends
- worsened landowner-sportsmen relations and access
- unfriendly message to nonresidents
- pursue other options to include working groups, choose your weapon/area or phased approach
- no season restriction could or should take place without landowner support or initiation
Among resident hunters, strong support was articulated for limited permits in the Breaks. The bulk of this support centered on:
- crowding as it relates to hunt quality and harvest opportunity/animal distribution-- many spoke to a history of hunting in the Breaks and seeing the quality of that experience erode over time
- equity between user groups and appropriately permitting such high quality opportunity
- residents also spoke to their financial contributions throughout the year and challenged the notion that hunting season structure changes violated private property rights
Limited Archery Elk—Outside Missouri Breaks
In nearly unanimous fashion, commenting outfitters, landowners, businesses, commerce, local governments and non-resident hunters adamantly opposed limited permits. Arguments included:
- deleterious financial impacts to local economies, ranches, businesses and FWP programs with an advocacy for nonresident over resident financial inputs
- reduced hunter opportunity (especially nonresident—to include public land opportunities) when elk numbers are robust
- reduced elk population control
- perceived threats to landowner rights and/or property values/tax base
- reduced flexibility for landowner to include hunting
- questions to the issues of crowding and access and the proposal’s effectiveness or need to those ends
- worsened landowner-sportsmen relations and access
- does not measure landowner commitments to wildlife and tolerance for damage
- unfriendly message to nonresidents
- pursue other options to include working groups, choose your weapon/area, phased approach or different geographic boundaries
- no season restriction could or should take place without landowner support or initiation
Unlike limited permits in the Missouri River Breaks, resident hunters expressed only limited support for this proposal from a statewide perspective. That said, there appeared a ”geography” of comments with stronger support coming from south central and southeast Montana. Comments were:
- at times careful not to dismiss specific (crowding) issues in the Breaks or other individual districts and efforts to address them, but reluctant to expand those changes to other areas that do not or may not share the same issues
- concern for lost hunter opportunity and, from that, concern about hunter redistribution to the west
- concern that the season change would not help access but may worsen it along with landowner-sportsmen relations
- support based upon limiting the hunter shift out of the Breaks into other limited entry rifle permits areas and opposition to the commercialization of wildlife resources—particularly in the absence of public access
- some saw this (positively) as a proactive step
- residents also spoke to their financial contributions throughout the year and challenged the notion that hunting season structure changes violated private property rights
