Montana FWP makes seismic shift in elk permits
- Thread starter Ben Lamb
- Start date
I believe NM levies a financial penalty if you don’t report, and will reject your application for the following year if you don’t report by March. I just had to remind my GF to log in to their game management agency’s website or owe them an extra few dollars if she applies down there again.
For those not tech savvy, plenty of other states have a system where you can call in and press a few buttons to report the harvest with an automated system. Pretty much anyone is capable of doing that.
shoots-straight
Well-known member
I've brought up mandatory reporting to the heads of region 2 every year for a long, long time. I hear how they love the super accurate phone surveys and say there's no need.
They also hate manning up check stations these days. I told them that mandatory check would make those obsolete, to a point, (law enforcement) still no movement other than in my bowels.
They also hate manning up check stations these days. I told them that mandatory check would make those obsolete, to a point, (law enforcement) still no movement other than in my bowels.
Point Creep
Well-known member
FWP & director don’t give a ($&# about mandatory reporting or much of anything else. What matters is unfettered licenses & permits for non residents, longer seasons than any other western state, & minimal obstacles for any private landowner or outfitter to make a buck on our deer and elk. Nothing else matters. Your clever ideas don’t mean shit. Keep that in mind when you might think they care about anything else.
Irrelevant
Well-known member
Is that a 3 or a +3 green can response?
So many bitter hops...
It can't be that bad, the commission clearly values the public to some extent
Point Creep
Well-known member
Regardless of beer, it is unarguable fact.
antlerradar
Well-known member
Back when I was on the last archery elk working group committee there was one member that was very concerned that if the state went in the direction of applying for individual units he would not be able to hunt all around the state any longer. After the consensus agreement that the committee came up with blew up because no one like it. (another story all in its self that does not need to be retold on a public forum) I heard from another member the member concerned about not being able to hunt the entire state lobbied the commission hard on his concerns and 900-20 is what we ended up with.
Brad W
Well-known member
- Joined
- Feb 2, 2021
- Messages
- 222
Nevada has mandatory reporting. It takes about two minutes to complete and if you don’t do it you can’t apply in the draw. It is pretty simple and clearly isn’t dissuading anyone from applying.
Gerald Martin
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2009
- Messages
- 9,657
The idea of being limited to hunting only the area for which a permit is valid if you draw a special permit was presented in discussion on Dec. 14 and received universal support among those who commented on it. There were no detractors.
I wonder if 900 were unbundled or repackaged into about four or five groups of units if it would even out hunter distribution?
Set permit numbers between the groups at
slightly higher than current first choice apps for 900. Make it available for first, second, or third choice. Amend the 90/10 NR limitation to allow a N.R. to be eligible for any second choice permits even if the 90/10 cap were reached in the first choice draw.
This would ensure no more than 10% of the first choice permits would go to N.R., but after that everyone would be on equal odds for second choice.
antlerradar
Well-known member
A good idea, as long as permit numbers do not get too high.
Gerald Martin
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2009
- Messages
- 9,657
Agreed. If 900 goes unlimited there’s going to be even more pressure on the Custer than ever.
rogerthat
Well-known member
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2015
- Messages
- 3,629
Too late. Being honest…that ship sailed 5 years ago. Quality of hunt blows
Schaaf
Well-known member
“Best we can do is unlimited”
rogerthat
Well-known member
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2015
- Messages
- 3,629
The quota in some 900 units on public needed to be set below last year…key word some. Things were getting uneven with the 900 hunter distribution. But alas we aren’t even discussing quotas anymore. We went backwards
brocksw
Well-known member
Unlimited Archery in custer
Brad W
Well-known member
- Joined
- Feb 2, 2021
- Messages
- 222
I think there is a real danger that with all the rushed changes and confusion there isn’t going to be a unified resistance to a lot of the proposed changes to Eastern MT elk. Unlimited archery tags and a 50% increase in either/sex permits simply achieves the original goal through different means. I hope those with a real voice within the larger community like @Big Fin can help coordinate a response. If the commissioners don’t hear a simple concrete alternative to the current motion that is what they will pass on Feb 4. It seemed like some of the Reps from public hunting groups who testified were so confused by the smoke and mirrors that they implicitly approved some of the disastrous elements of the motion. Unlimited archery tags were a disaster before the current permit system was enacted. Given the demographic changes and increased hunter participation numbers returning to that program will be even worse.
Shoulder seasons were a “trial” too until they weren’t.
Shoulder seasons were a “trial” too until they weren’t.
Nameless Range
Well-known member
I agree. I have been reading the threads here to try and ascertain what that message should be, and am leaning on those from eastern MT and those who hunt that country to clarify it for me. I have lots of thoughts on the simplification directive changes, season dates, etc, but I think the brunt of opposition would be best utilized to let FWP and the Commission know that these half-assed closed-door bull-inclusive concoctions are unacceptable.
rogerthat
Well-known member
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2015
- Messages
- 3,629
So than let’s overwhelm them with “if that’s the best than no reason to change from current”. It’s like when my 8 year old whips up his homework in 2 minutes and gets the big “redo” wrote at the top
This was my concern as well. At first I wasn’t sure if they were deliberately trying to overwhelm the public with so many changes at once. But after attending the meeting in Helena I realize the overwhelming amount of proposed changes likely stems from ineptitude at the top and the new director’s desire to really shake things up and make his mark with big changes (that were scarcely thought through).
sacountry
Well-known member
More than anything, I think this latest round of issues confirmed the ineptitude in Helena. Hank confirmed it for me when he asked GG if he could form a commission of stakeholders to come up with a plan for elk. That citizens group has already been formed, thanks Hank.
Regarding mandatory reporting. I've been told by someone that spoke with Jana Waller that this issue is hot right now. I bet we see something to this effect coming soon. Reality is mandatory reporting should be a prerequisite to significant decision making, if we all agree the data we have needs to be better. One side note, I don't think it needs to be a phone call. I had to do mandatory reporting last year. It's painful. There was the wait time, but then when asked questions about where the elk was taken on public vs private. I said it was taken on block and asked how that was classified. The operator replied, "what's block?" so I simply said list it as taken on private. The FWP website would be a more efficient and effective tool IMHO.
Similar threads
