Montana General Season Structure Proposal 3.0

[Ben Lamb]

Love that there are other proposals out there. Would be great to be able to read them and compare with the others and see if there are bits & pieces from each that can be pulled together for a better approach.

Also, this:

 

[Schaaf]

Rod's clients are not paying to hunt a place like Seven Blackfoot. They are paying to hunt private land. Take a hunter on the hike it would take to get down into Seven Blackfoot and run into a group of hunters that boated in or even foot prints and you will be hearing about it the whole way out.

 

[R.K.]

View attachment 376645

I will say, there appears to be a fair bit of sweat on that pack.

 

[antlerradar]

Respectfully, Art, there would be no reason to close the road if that was true. That would just push them to the private does your speaking of - even faster.

I can think of a few.
Every buck those Public hunters take is one the outfitter will not have a shot at later in the season.
The clients are paying for exclusive private land hunts, the outfitter is not going to want to have to explain who all the hunters are parked on the BLM even if they are not hunting the private.
The trespassing issue, Sad to say but I nice buck next to the county road will likely not last the day on our place. Close the road and that issue is eliminated.

It is hard to move mule deer with hunting pressure. They are not like elk, elk will run to private land after a few shots. Mule deer will tolerate pressure better but insistence pressure can change them. Instead of moving to private they are more likely to go nocturnal or move farther into the backcounty. Even with the road open Seven Blackfoot is not going to receive enough pressure to move mule to the private, well may be now with all the publicity it will.

 

[Forkyfinder]

I can think of a few.
Every buck those Public hunters take is one the outfitter will not have a shot at later in the season.
The clients are paying for exclusive private land hunts, the outfitter is not going to want to have to explain who all the hunters are parked on the BLM even if they are not hunting the private.
The trespassing issue, Sad to say but I nice buck next to the county road will likely not last the day on our place. Close the road and that issue is eliminated.

It is hard to move mule deer with hunting pressure. They are not like elk, elk will run to private land after a few shots. Mule deer will tolerate pressure better but insistence pressure can change them. Instead of moving to private they are more likely to go nocturnal or move farther into the backcounty. Even with the road open Seven Blackfoot is not going to receive enough pressure to move mule to the private, well may be now with all the publicity it will.

I hope the publicity brings all of what is deserved. The fact remains - a major loss of public access. The kind of property that a lot on here would want to see and hunt.

Since small minds discuss people, average minds discuss events, and great minds discuss ideas - lets get back to ideas.Where'd the "idea" come from that there can be no NR regional caps? Or the "idea" that there cant be any LE?

I'll happily post a majority of the group who attended the workshop saying those things. Where'd those "ideas" go? Did they get "facilitated" or workshopped away?


FWP has no qualms with limited entry - and didnt then.

 

[cgasner1]

I hope the publicity brings all of what is deserved. The fact remains - a major loss of public access. The kind of property that a lot on here would want to see and hunt.

Since small minds discuss people, average minds discuss events, and great minds discuss ideas - lets get back to ideas.Where'd the "idea" come from that there can be no NR regional caps? Or the "idea" that there cant be any LE?

I'll happily post a majority of the group who attended the workshop saying those things. Where'd those "ideas" go? Did they get "facilitated" or workshopped away?


FWP has no qualms with limited entry - and didnt then.

When region caps got brought up for nr in Billings they said that there is zero intrest in trying to only manage 10% of the hunting population. I know you couldn’t make the meeting but that’s how it went

 

[Forkyfinder]

When region caps got brought up for nr in Billings they said that there is zero intrest in trying to only manage 10% of the hunting population. I know you couldn’t make the meeting but that’s how it went

Im slow.

What do you mean? Also doesnt explain LE.

 

[cgasner1]

Im slow.

What do you mean?

They have zero interest in just putting regional caps on nr or at least the bios in Billings

 

[huntin24/7]

They have zero interest in just putting regional caps on nr or at least the bios in Billings

Is there any actual reason why they have no interest in nr regional caps?

 

[bigsky2]

I hope the publicity brings all of what is deserved. The fact remains - a major loss of public access. The kind of property that a lot on here would want to see and hunt.

Since small minds discuss people, average minds discuss events, and great minds discuss ideas - lets get back to ideas.Where'd the "idea" come from that there can be no NR regional caps? Or the "idea" that there cant be any LE?

I'll happily post a majority of the group who attended the workshop saying those things. Where'd those "ideas" go? Did they get "facilitated" or workshopped away?


FWP has no qualms with limited entry - and didnt then.

The number of NR deer hunters is capped for the most part (aside from the add ons like nonresident native and college students). We can probably all agree that R6 and R7 are seeing too much NR pressure. Those regions are also seeing a lot of pressure from residents from western MT. Part of that is because the country lends itself to easier hunting, but a lot of it is because mule deer are struggling in western MT. So to improve things in R6 & R7, we'd have to force more NR to hunt western MT where mule deer are already struggling. Basically we would be trying to improve eastern MT at the expense of western MT. The only way I can see improving the whole state with NR caps would be to reduce overall numbers of NR, which would require changes to the statute. I keep comparing it to what I've seen since they broke up the 900 archery elk bundle. Under the 900 bundle, southeast MT was receiving a ton of archery elk hunting pressure. Since they broke that bundle up, pressure has been reduced in the R7 districts, and it has shifted to R4 where permits are easier to draw. The same thing would happen if we implemented regional NR caps without reducing the overall number of NR.

We have never said there can't be any LE. We aren't proposing getting rid of existing LE, we just don't want to see it increase.

Not speaking for the group when I say this, but I'd rather see statewide LE than to see creep of LE districts that pushes more pressure into the remaining general areas, or a hybrid season that condenses the pressure into a two or three week general season. I also know that increased LE would likely be a huge fight with outfitters as well as the majority of R hunters.

 

[antlerradar]

I hope the publicity brings all of what is deserved. The fact remains - a major loss of public access. The kind of property that a lot on here would want to see and hunt.

Since small minds discuss people, average minds discuss events, and great minds discuss ideas - lets get back to ideas.Where'd the "idea" come from that there can be no NR regional caps? Or the "idea" that there cant be any LE?

I'll happily post a majority of the group who attended the workshop saying those things. Where'd those "ideas" go? Did they get "facilitated" or workshopped away?


FWP has no qualms with limited entry - and didnt then.

Regional caps for NR sound great, A person in seven is automatically going to think that we are going to see few NR. Step back and think about it though, the devil is in the details. FWP is still going to sell the same number of licenses. I would have to see just how the NR are going to be divided up before I jump on board.
Divide NR equally across regions. I would love that, So would people in region 6. Outfitters in 6&7 would not, neither would people in regions 1-5. Deer herds in the west are struggling. More NR is not going to make it better, Down the line this could also push more R from the west to go east to hunt. I am not going to be happy if those Washington hunters are just replaced by Bozeman hunters. I just don't see dividing up NR equally across regions ever happening. Just pisses more people off than it would make happy.
Divide NR up according to how many R are hunting the region. How do you determine how many R are hunting each region. If a R hunts multiple regions every year does that add to the NR quota for each region? If more western hunter start to hunt east, do we get more NR? What about all the strict LE districts in the west, NR are only going to get 10% of an already low number. That is bound to shift NR east. Just too many unknowns for me to decide if I like this way of distributing NR.
Divide NR up according to deer numbers. This is the way I would bet that regional caps are going to go. After all FWP is made up of biologists and this is how they will look at it. I am not sure this would do much for region 7. Might make the NR issue worse. deer numbers in the east are in the dumps and we still have more deer than other regions. What happens when deer numbers in the east get back to normal or above normal. Does our NR cap adjust accordingly? Hunters in the other regions are going to push for that and there are a lot more of them than there are of us in 6&7. Combine that with all of the LE districts in the west and we could see more NR than we do now, maybe even a lot more. Then there is the Public land issue. In the east most of the deer are on private, set the caps according to deer numbers and the public land could see even more NR hunters.
A lot of unknowns with NR region caps, so I would want to see the details before I jump on board.

 

[Forkyfinder]

I also know that increased LE would likely be a huge fight with outfitters as well as the majority of R hunters.

I think youre half wrong here - but i dont know for sure. The R i know ane have engaged on it dont fear LE - suppose thats pure anecdote though.

 

[Forkyfinder]

Regional caps for NR sound great, A person in seven is automatically going to think that we are going to see few NR. Step back and think about it though, the devil is in the details. FWP is still going to sell the same number of licenses. I would have to see just how the NR are going to be divided up before I jump on board.
Divide NR equally across regions. I would love that, So would people in region 6. Outfitters in 6&7 would not, neither would people in regions 1-5. Down the line this could also push more R from the west to go east to hunt. I am not going to be happy if those Washington hunters are just replaced by Bozeman hunters. I just don't see dividing up NR equally across regions ever happening. Just pisses more people off than it would make happy.
Divide NR up according to how many R are hunting the region. How do you determine how many R are hunting each region. If a R hunts multiple regions every year does that add to the NR quota for each region? If more western hunter start to hunt east, do we get more NR? What about all the strict LE districts in the west, NR are only going to get 10% of an already low number. That is bound to shift NR east. Just too many unknowns for me to decide if I like this way of distributing NR.
Divide NR up according to deer numbers. This is the way I would bet that regional caps are going to go. After all FWP is made up of biologists and this is how they will look at it. I am not sure this would do much for region 7. Might make the NR issue worse. deer numbers in the east are in the dumps and we still have more deer than other regions. What happens when deer numbers in the east get back to normal or above normal. Does our NR cap adjust accordingly? Hunters in the other regions are going to push for that and there are a lot more of them than there are of us in 6&7. Combine that with all of the LE districts in the west and we could see more NR than we do now, maybe even a lot more.
A lot of unknowns with NR region caps, so I would want to see the details before I jump on board.

The details are hard when there is no data - ill readily admit that. At the same time - i feel like its very necessary already and will become increasingly so. Any sort of LE or NR cap is going to be fought hard by Moga - but last i checked they aren't who wildlife is to be managed for.

 

[rogerthat]

The details are hard when there is no data - ill readily admit that. At the same time - i feel like its very necessary already and will become increasingly so. Any sort of LE or NR cap is going to be fought hard by Moga - but last i checked they aren't who wildlife is to be managed for.

Let MOGA host all the nr hunters they like… strictly on private lands only of course

 

[Forkyfinder]

Let MOGA host all the nr hunters they like… strictly on private lands only of course

That sounds nice - but why would anyone want to be in BMA then?

How do you sort out - purely hypothetical here - someone locking up 30k acres of public (and closing a public road) with 1300 acres?

 

[bigsky2]

I think youre half wrong here - but i dont know for sure. The R i know ane have engaged on it dont fear LE - suppose thats pure anecdote though.

I know quite a few people that would be ok with LE too. That is probably because you and I associate with like minded people to ourselves, and I don't think they are the majority.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Any sort of LE or NR cap is going to be fought hard by Moga - but last i checked they aren't who wildlife is to be managed for.

Part of the process for this group was to come up with something the majority stakeholders could agree on: That meant finding a path that would bring outfitters, landowners and hunters together rather than create something that would have hard battle-lines drawn in the traditional camps. The concept behind that is to recognize that those stakeholders have the most skin in the game, and that they are the primary folks that the wildlife is managed for per MCA 87-3-303. That was a big part of the reason why they settled where they did on the original version as well as the revisions. Collaborative conservation is tough and there will always be detractors because some folks aren't getting what they want, or that there is a sentiment that other stakeholders shouldn't have as much pull as their preferred interest.

 

[cgasner1]

Is there any actual reason why they have no interest in nr regional caps?

It’s only 10% of the hunters. Seems silly to try and manage it that way. People should be calling and talking to bios and showing up to meeting though and not taking the word of a internet stranger

 

[cgasner1]

The details are hard when there is no data - ill readily admit that. At the same time - i feel like its very necessary already and will become increasingly so. Any sort of LE or NR cap is going to be fought hard by Moga - but last i checked they aren't who wildlife is to be managed for.

I do believe there are outfitters that would sell the last forked horn in this state. I don’t believe that is moga as a whole. If we continue to square up with them nothing will ever change. We have outfitters that absolutely hate this idea so that should help I guess.

 

[DFS]

It’s only 10% of the hunters. Seems silly to try and manage it that way. People should be calling and talking to bios and showing up to meeting though and not taking the word of a internet stranger

10% of the hunters are shooting the majority of the bucks in region 7. Thats an easy one that should have a united front. Cap the nonresidents.