The biologists have the hunter estimates and breakouts for each individual unit going back to at least 2012. They also knew the general satisfaction level for the majority of hunters in these units. There would have been no reason to set “high” quotas. They could have simply maintained the status quo or in fact improved the quality of the hunt by setting said quota below last years level if so warranted.
I didn’t know that. My thought for a high quota was to ease some of the outfitter angst over the 90/10 limit and the difficulty of clients drawing with any regularity.
The biologist in the unit I hunt had a number in mind for the new quota. It was a solid proposal and plan. He is a really good biologist. I’m not sure he ever got to pitch it to anyone except what got written in the justification document completed by the bio’s. What a bogus process.
Honestly I don’t think their is a way to throw the landowners a “bone” that’s not detrimental to the public land hunt with out some sort of landowner set aside tag whether it be increasing the landowner preference somehow or designated tags for private lands. Any increase in tags not so designated will be disproportionately hunted on the public lands making said problems worse. I say split the quota. The private can have their own draw and do things their way. They are going to anyway.
I've drawn 900-20 almost every year after 2012. I wonder how biologists know hunter (assuming you mean days) estimates, as well as "satisfaction". I've never been asked those questions. One of the big things this state needs is mandatory hunter reporting, but maybe I live in my own little vacuum.
You would have to talk to the Bio but he had estimates for total hunters that hunted on the public lands as well as satisfaction ratings. He was going to use that for setting quotas. Obviously that won't be happening. I have had the 900-20 every year since inception. I don't recall ever giving them anything short of when they cold call you so those are great questions.
I wonder how accurate the data would that a biologist would have on which units were hunted by 900 series permit holders?
Anecdotally it matched my experiences in the unit but you know how that goes. 12 guys can pile up at one trail head while the other 5 don't have anybody.
You'd think in a world of "Smartphones", FWP could pay some Bozeman Tech company to come up with an FWP App where you could access E-copies of your tags and report your harvest, to include a generalized GPS coordinate (to meet the possible request of leading a game warden back to the site of your kill upon request), report other wildlife sightings (wolves, bears, moose etc.), and complete a general survey about hunter days/quality of the hunt....
Oregon figured it out several years ago.
We can't stop hordes of hunters hammering piss head mule deer during the rut. Doubt an app would help at this point. Would be great if it was accepted. Still a lot of Montana hunters that aren't tech savvy also. mtmuley
My 87 year old grandma figured out a smart phone and a computer. I think most can figure it out or know someone that can help them
I don't understand why #'s are so challenging to FWP. Not the first aspect of FWP I don't comprehend...
Woresch specifically addressed this at the R1 meeting, a few (several?) months ago. He shared it would start voluntary with the learning curve to slope towards hopeful mandatory.
This^
