Rack Daniels
Well-known member
Me too. Oklahoma didn’t last long. Mountains are home.
HB 514 signed
- Thread starter Eric Albus
- Start date
Rack Daniels
Well-known member
I must be the Simon Cowell of Montana wildlife bills….
I don't expect a huge influx of Eastern bird hunters. mtmuley
I agree with that, can’t imagine a lot of guys would make a trek to the mountains to hunt birds from out-of-state. That’s two completely different styles of hunting, and like you said- guys from the Midwest can find good grouse hunting closer to home. Some? Sure, but probably not enough to notice.
I’d have to think most grouse being shot by guys out of state are opportunities that present themselves while elk hunting.
El Jason
Well-known member
Montana is unique in the sharptails and pheasant opportunities on the prairie.In the name of opportunity? Yes I do. If folks want to hunt Montana as they’ve always done they will adapt to the changes and find the open arms that welcome them. This bill welcomes them to the mountains instead of the plains.. Any NR that wants to hunt birds in Montana, still will. I respectfully disagree with you. Two
Mountain grouse hunting is not limited in scope. There are numerous states that have just as good, if not better mountain grouse hunting available.
Maybe the home state of those displaced youth should pick up the slack for them? Why should Montana, or any state really, cater to the recruitment of non residents?
Are you familiar with how Montana’s BMA program is funded?
We wouldn’t need BMA if we chopped the nonresidents out. Round and round we go tree shart.
El Jason
Well-known member
Bullshit.
Make it resident only. See if things are better for you in 10 years.
BMA is a huge component of public access to wildlife. Let’s see how things look without it.
Yes
BuzzH
Well-known member
I've "only" hunted Montana for 47 years and I've yet to see a single mountain grouse hunter with dogs while hunting in Western Montana. Not saying there aren't a few that do, but they aren't real common. The typical grouse hunter in Western Montana throws the twenty-two or four hundred and ten in the cab of the truck while cutting firewood or scouting for rifle season. A handful might cruise the roads picking them off, but tens of thousands of dollars worth of fancy over-under shotguns, a pack of bird dogs, camp trailers, etc. etc. etc.??? Not hardly.In the name of opportunity? Yes I do. If folks want to hunt Montana as they’ve always done they will adapt to the changes and find the open arms that welcome them. This bill welcomes them to the mountains instead of the plains.. Any NR that wants to hunt birds in Montana, still will. I respectfully disagree with you. Two
Forkyfinder
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2023
- Messages
- 5,215
You dont hunt during archery often, do you?
Ive dealt with it occassionally. Not every time but you do run into them in archery.
Respectfully disagree. That is where the monetization of hunting is coming from. It would never happen and I’m not advocating for it. Nonresidents buying land for hunting would stop. Private land is never going to be open access to all but you would see more access open up. Tree shark needs to realize it’s a privilege for nonresidents to hunt other states. You are going to see more residents like me advocate for cuts especially when the public land resource struggles.
Forkyfinder
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2023
- Messages
- 5,215
I imagine theyll just hire a lobbyist and convince useful idiots and legislators they deserve permits if NR hunting was to get less accessible here.
Money buys a lot of things in Montana, and especially Helena.
BuzzH
Well-known member
Only from 1985-2000, every single year.
El Jason
Well-known member
Respectfully disagree here as well.
If you think more access would “just open up” particularly without a funding source to pay for it, then I wonder what’s in your coffee cup this morning.
Not every bajillionaire buys a ranch for hunting.
Excluding your disagreement with Treeshark, there is absolutely no way whatsoever hunting in Montana looks better for the average guy in 10 years without a block management program.
I-161 was going to solve a lot of issues as well…
Private land is never going to magically open up. I-161 made things worse. The increase funding from nonresidents isn’t worth it. Not many landowners go through the headache of being overwhelmed by hunters for the money. The good ole boys are going to continue to be less and less and we will crowd more hunters on to the same lands. I have had several landowners tell me they would allow more access if they got asked less. The are afraid to open up the flood gates by letting anyone go. I see 3 to 1 nonresidents vs residents during November maybe worse. Anecdotal for sure so take that for what it’s worth.
El Jason
Well-known member
Back to the original thread, this should be a good stroke for resident bird hunters. NE MT bird hunting has certainly been “YouTubed” in the last 8-10 years.
Gerald Martin
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2009
- Messages
- 9,411
@El Jason , can you expand a bit on your I-161 comment? That happened at the very beginning of my awareness of competition between user groups in the conservation space and predates my active participation in the political process.
My earliest perception of I-161 was that it was a “white hat vs.black hat” battle between Joe Average hunters and the Outfitter Industry trying to carve out an unfair advantage for profit.
I suspect that if I were to approach that issue today with the experience and understanding I currently have, I would have a much more nuanced approach to the issue.
Simple solution for everyone - zero out NR hunting in all states. You don't live there, you don't hunt there. Solves NR overcrowding and NR landowner preference programs. If the states manage the wildlife for the benefit of their residents, then the residents can foot that bill.
Similar threads
