Montana FWP makes seismic shift in elk permits
- Thread starter Ben Lamb
- Start date
seeth07
Well-known member
Thanks, that's great to hear.
I keep seeing UPOM and MOGA posted. UPOM I have learned to be United Property Owners of Montana. What is MOGA?
seeth07
Well-known member
Thanks. Just trying to get somewhat educated
Straight Arrow
Well-known member
Before asking Lamb on a public forum, I attempt to use a search engine and not embarrass myself as much.Thanks. Just trying to get somewhat educated
('Don't always learn as much as if I had asked Ben, but usually get a good idea of meaning.)
I think there is some cause for concern about increased pressure in the 900 units. I have seen some data from FWP about archery hunter participation in the various units, and if that data is fairly accurate, the new quotas will result in an increase in hunter numbers in those units. Whether that data is accurate or not is anyone's guess, but it's the best FWP has to go off of. Add to the fact that you are forced to hunt only the units on your permit, and I think that additional pressure is likely to happen. All the locals around here were big advocates for this change. "All these hunters from western MT draw the permit and only come and hunt for a weekend or two, when instead locals could be drawing the permits." Then on the other hand they bitch and complain about all the crowding in these units. I think its very possible that pressure increases if more of the permit holders are local to the unit and it is convenient for them to hunt it. I have hunted 7 or 8 different units that were in the 900 bundle. If I ran into a lot of people, I'd just go somewhere else. There are a couple units that are right in my backyard where I spend a lot of time hiking and scouting in the summer, even after work a lot of the time. I'm really going to miss hunting them, but after seeing the proposed quotas for those units, there's no way I'm committing myself to hunting units with so little public access with so many permits.
That being said, I think breaking up the 900 bundle was the right thing to do from a management standpoint. You simply can't manage where the pressure and harvest is when you make permits valid for such a big area. I wish the quotas were lower though.
That being said, I think breaking up the 900 bundle was the right thing to do from a management standpoint. You simply can't manage where the pressure and harvest is when you make permits valid for such a big area. I wish the quotas were lower though.
8andcounting
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 16, 2013
- Messages
- 3,253
He should be happy , there were only 100 available until 2 years ago it jumped up to 225 . This is a fairly small hd, it has decent amount of elky public land but there’s also thousands of 004-00 cow tags that hunters use/hunt with in 417 . Plus general is good for a cow . Every year I’ve hunted in 417 for cows(last 7-8 years) the number of public land hunters I see has skyrocketed. The elk all get pushed to the horse ranch and other sanctuary’s
Last edited:
sacountry
Well-known member
There a great many things that "only the Lamb knows"...…for everything else there is the Google.Before asking Lamb on a public forum, I attempt to use a search engine and not embarrass myself as much.
('Don't always learn as much as if I had asked Ben, but usually get a good idea of meaning.)
8andcounting
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 16, 2013
- Messages
- 3,253
I think that is the biggest concern for many folks , how do we make more elk accessible
rogerthat
Well-known member
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2015
- Messages
- 2,595
Everyone’s mileage may vary based on the specific unit but this has not been the case in the unit I have hunted for 14 years. In this unit locals were very sensitive to pressure. I used to run into them a lot a decade ago. More recently it has been western Montana hunters and out of staters that come earlier and stay longer. I’m expect the archery hunt in these units to still be crowded but this was a baby step in the right direction for all of elk archery(think permit holders not hunting general now!!)
Gerald Martin
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2009
- Messages
- 8,294
FYI, I texted @Ben Lamb a question yesterday but he didn’t know the answer so he had to ask @Schaaf before he could give me the info I wanted. So there’s another resource if Ben’s well of knowledge is running low…Before asking Lamb on a public forum, I attempt to use a search engine and not embarrass myself as much.
('Don't always learn as much as if I had asked Ben, but usually get a good idea of meaning.)
Hi guys, primarily a lurker on the site but have been following these threads very closely as of late and just wanted to thank you all for all of the comment. I live in Park County and tend to stick to region 3 for most of my hunting. I wrote several letters to FWP and the commission and a lot of the conviction to do so was stirred up by the narrative of comments on this thread, among others on the HT site. Based on what was initially proposed, it sounds like yesterday's meeting was a win. Just wanted to say thanks for not standing by to those of you that commented to FWP and the commissioners, as well as those of you who put thoughtful comment out there on the forum for people like me chew on. Also, @Big Fin, thought your podcast with the director was excellent and appreciate the time and effort you put into getting that set up.
sacountry
Well-known member
Lucky to have "Schaaf the Coiffe" and "the Lamb" as resources and steady voices of reason.
Irishman
Well-known member
I totally agree with what you are saying. It has to add pressure to the former 900 units, unless they give out fewer permits, which then decreases the draw odds.
The bundling together of units like the Sweetgrass hills, and the Custer National forest never made any sense. I was always under the impression that when the bundling together of 900 units happened it was for the benefit of outfitters on private land in a few of the units. This was because by bundling all the units together it increased the likelihood for out of state clients to draw a permit, due to the 10% rule, and then all go hunt the same one or two units. So has FWP committed to the number of tags they are giving out for each unit, and if so, where can you see this? Also, is FWP still keeping to the 10% limit for out of state applicants?
Sioux33
Well-known member
If this process taught us anything, it's that rallying together and making our collective voice heard makes a huge difference.
I just hope we can duplicate that effort when the new EMP is on the table. We're gonna need it and have much more to lose there than we can imagine, given the current administration we're dealing with.
I just hope we can duplicate that effort when the new EMP is on the table. We're gonna need it and have much more to lose there than we can imagine, given the current administration we're dealing with.
Lawnboy
Well-known member
Byorth is a man of the people. Super smart and a normal Joe. I appreciated his thoughtfulness and demeanor
Yes, they came up with quotas and the 10% will still apply for NR. Remember the 10% is based on the region though, no for each specific district. I don't know all the quotas, I just jotted down a few during the meeting yesterday.
411/412- 1000
417/426- 300
447- 400
590- 1800
799- 1000
Gerald Martin
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2009
- Messages
- 8,294
Yesterday was a W in the sense that the commission heard that hunters weren’t going to accept management policies that harm our wildlife and don’t solve problems for the landowners affected by elk.
I came away with a greater sense that stopping bad policy is not going to give us long term, durable solutions. As hunters, we need to be taking the lead in continuing to work with willing landowners to help them find solutions.
I was struck by how smoothly the fisheries decisions in the early part of the meeting went through. I attribute that in large part to the pre- meeting work done between shareholders. Elk management might always be more contentious than fisheries but if diverse shareholders can figure out water issues then why can’t we find solutions for elk management?
I had two distinctly different conversations yesterday with landowner/outfitters who at first glance, I would identify as being in the MOGA/UPOM camp.
One conversation ended with a fellow abruptly storming off when I shared my perspective of outfitters based on my experiences with public land outfitters. He said something to the effect that, “ I figured out who you are. I’ve read enough of your posts on Hunttalk that I wouldn’t have bothered talking to you if I would have known who you were.”
The other conversation was completely different in tone. I was speaking with another landowner/ outfitter about the challenges he faces because of elk and neighbors who don’t allow access. He didn’t know the answers to how he can solve access issues either. I know that he and I don’t see exactly eye to eye on acceptable solutions at our first conversation but he agreed with me that the most durable solutions are going to come from hunters and landowners working together to find acceptable solutions.
Private landowners are usually in tune with the needs and challenges of their own property and look at wildlife management policies from that perspective.
I believe public land hunters need to approach these issues from a position of understanding the needs and challenges on “our” property ( public land) and come to the table as a landowner advocating for what our property needs, not as trying to tell landowners what their property needs.
Those conversations told me one of those guys was looking for answers. One of those guys likes the thrill of the fight.
Interestingly enough, both men shared their perceptions that sportsmen’s groups like BHA and Montana Wildlife Federation and Rod and gun clubs were the biggest obstacles to them finding solutions that work for them.
That tells me that these groups have been incredibly effective at stopping bad legislation and bad policies (huge kudos) but haven’t been very effective at convincing landowners we are wanting to help them with solutions. That tells me we have a lot of bridge building to do.
I came away with a greater sense that stopping bad policy is not going to give us long term, durable solutions. As hunters, we need to be taking the lead in continuing to work with willing landowners to help them find solutions.
I was struck by how smoothly the fisheries decisions in the early part of the meeting went through. I attribute that in large part to the pre- meeting work done between shareholders. Elk management might always be more contentious than fisheries but if diverse shareholders can figure out water issues then why can’t we find solutions for elk management?
I had two distinctly different conversations yesterday with landowner/outfitters who at first glance, I would identify as being in the MOGA/UPOM camp.
One conversation ended with a fellow abruptly storming off when I shared my perspective of outfitters based on my experiences with public land outfitters. He said something to the effect that, “ I figured out who you are. I’ve read enough of your posts on Hunttalk that I wouldn’t have bothered talking to you if I would have known who you were.”
The other conversation was completely different in tone. I was speaking with another landowner/ outfitter about the challenges he faces because of elk and neighbors who don’t allow access. He didn’t know the answers to how he can solve access issues either. I know that he and I don’t see exactly eye to eye on acceptable solutions at our first conversation but he agreed with me that the most durable solutions are going to come from hunters and landowners working together to find acceptable solutions.
Private landowners are usually in tune with the needs and challenges of their own property and look at wildlife management policies from that perspective.
I believe public land hunters need to approach these issues from a position of understanding the needs and challenges on “our” property ( public land) and come to the table as a landowner advocating for what our property needs, not as trying to tell landowners what their property needs.
Those conversations told me one of those guys was looking for answers. One of those guys likes the thrill of the fight.
Interestingly enough, both men shared their perceptions that sportsmen’s groups like BHA and Montana Wildlife Federation and Rod and gun clubs were the biggest obstacles to them finding solutions that work for them.
That tells me that these groups have been incredibly effective at stopping bad legislation and bad policies (huge kudos) but haven’t been very effective at convincing landowners we are wanting to help them with solutions. That tells me we have a lot of bridge building to do.
Irishman
Well-known member
Thanks.
sacountry
Well-known member
One could say the same but in reverse about MOGA. They've been doing a good job on the legislative side but not so good at convincing sportsmen that Mac wants to help with solutions.Yesterday was a W in the sense that the commission heard that hunters weren’t going to accept management policies that harm our wildlife and don’t solve problems for the landowners affected by elk.
I came away with a greater sense that stopping bad policy is not going to give us long term, durable solutions. As hunters, we need to be taking the lead in continuing to work with willing landowners to help them find solutions.
I was struck by how smoothly the fisheries decisions in the early part of the meeting went through. I attribute that in large part to the pre- meeting work done between shareholders. Elk management might always be more contentious than fisheries but if diverse shareholders can figure out water issues then why can’t we find solutions for elk management?
I had two distinctly different conversations yesterday with landowner/outfitters who at first glance, I would identify as being in the MOGA/UPOM camp.
One conversation ended with a fellow abruptly storming off when I shared my perspective of outfitters based on my experiences with public land outfitters. He said something to the effect that, “ I figured out who you are. I’ve read enough of your posts on Hunttalk that I wouldn’t have bothered talking to you if I would have known who you were.”
The other conversation was completely different in tone. I was speaking with another landowner/ outfitter about the challenges he faces because of elk and neighbors who don’t allow access. He didn’t know the answers to how he can solve access issues either. I know that he and I don’t see exactly eye to eye on acceptable solutions at our first conversation but he agreed with me that the most durable solutions are going to come from hunters and landowners working together to find acceptable solutions.
Private landowners are usually in tune with the needs and challenges of their own property and look at wildlife management policies from that perspective.
I believe public land hunters need to approach these issues from a position of understanding the needs and challenges on “our” property ( public land) and come to the table as a landowner advocating for what our property needs, not as trying to tell landowners what their property needs.
Those conversations told me one of those guys was looking for answers. One of those guys likes the thrill of the fight.
Interestingly enough, both men shared their perceptions that sportsmen’s groups like BHA and Montana Wildlife Federation and Rod and gun clubs were the biggest obstacles to them finding solutions that work for them.
That tells me that these groups have been incredibly effective at stopping bad legislation and bad policies (huge kudos) but haven’t been very effective at convincing landowners we are wanting to help them with solutions. That tells me we have a lot of bridge building to do.
