Montana General Season Structure Proposal 3.0

[Gerald Martin]

I would say the same thing to folks who have communicated disappointment with version 3.0 because they feel 3.0 is watered down from earlier versions and doesn’t make enough change. Make sure you voice those concerns to the commission.

I think as a group if the commission chose to exercise a more conservative approach towards harvest and hunting opportunity than outlined in our proposal because of enough feedback from hunters that the resource needs more protection than our proposal offers, we would consider that to be a good thing.

 

[Gerald Martin]

I think @Shed God was onto something. Unlimited LE.

No legislation required and regional caps are in.

Just as a point of clarification. With unlimited LE there are no caps to district or region by definition. There’s just limitation to only being able to hunt that region or district. It wouldn’t change how many folks go to each area.

 

[Forkyfinder]

Just as a point of clarification. With unlimited LE there are no caps to district or region by definition. There’s just limitation to only being able to hunt that region or district. It wouldn’t change how many folks go to each area.

Itd establish NR caps. Only 10% by law. Right?

 

[brockel]

There's usually a reason for that kind of resistance.

I've hunted in several states that have mandatory reporting and its really no big deal. It literally takes about 5-10 minutes to just gather the data, which has been: 1. date of kill, Unit or county it was killed in, species, male or female, if antlered number of points.

Just the basics and I never viewed it as an inconvenience at all.

They already have this setup on the website do e-report for fur bearers. There’s no reason all species couldn’t have this option on the website.

 

[It’s Bucky]

Great job continuing to adapt the proposal as you’ve received feedback, and also in your effort to put something forward that might contribute to some measurable benefit to the resource. All while trying to make enough people happy enough that it might get support.

Not an easy task, and I applaud your efforts. Thanks for putting your necks out there for our mule deer. I hope we see some change.

 

[Gerald Martin]

Itd establish NR caps. Only 10% by law. Right?

10% of what number if it’s unlimited? The only way I could see something like this working is if you are talking about having the resident draw happening prior to the NR draw and establishing the NR district or region caps at 10% of what residents chose.

That would require legislation to change to that wouldn’t it?

 

[Hammsolo]

General deer tags are good for general districts, but they all don’t have the same regulations on allowable take. Some are either sex units, some are antlered buck only, etc. I don’t see that changing.

This I know, and I appreciate biologists adjusting for individual units. Your statement about non-residents doesn’t give enough details. Are you saying that we should have to pick only one; deer or elk? Right now NR’s can apply for deer in the combo, or deer and elk.

 

[R.K.]

This I know, and I appreciate biologists adjusting for individual units. Your statement about non-residents doesn’t give enough details. Are you saying that we should have to pick only one; deer or elk? Right now NR’s can apply for deer in the combo, or deer and elk.

Think you quoted the wrong post.

 

[Forkyfinder]

 

[Gerald Martin]

View attachment 372311

Look at you guys! Most popular thing on the board is even more restricted than our proposal.

One note, that 3 week LE needs to be based of of some percentage of buck counts, not hunter counts for it to make a positive biological impact.

 

[bigsky2]

View attachment 372311

Can you give a recap of the meeting?

 

[Archer86]

10% of what number if it’s unlimited? The only way I could see something like this working is if you are talking about having the resident draw happening prior to the NR draw and establishing the NR district or region caps at 10% of what residents chose.

That would require legislation to change to that wouldn’t it?

Idaho system. 10 percent of the resident hunter numbers in general areas is the nr tag quota. It's not that difficult

 

[Forkyfinder]

One note, that 3 week LE needs to be based of of some percentage of buck counts, not hunter counts for it to make a positive biological impact.

To be clear - you are implying your proposal - definitively - will make a biological impact?

And - this is signficantly less restrictive than the proposal. I suggested LE that reflected hunting mule deer 4 in 5 years in LE that are currently general. It would take accepting a dumpy 652 tag or winning the deer lotto with a 270, etc rare tags to otherwise hunt the rut. Montanans made clear they want to hunt often during the rut via the survey - and this maintains that.

 

[cgasner1]

View attachment 372311

Do something with that

 

[bigsky2]

View attachment 372311

I know it’s a very small sample size, but I’m still surprised to see how many of the people at the meeting would be in favor of condensing the hunting pressure into a two week general season considering how many people I’ve heard say things like “we don’t want short seasons like Colorado”.

 

[Forkyfinder]

I know it’s a very small sample size, but I’m still surprised to see how many of the people at the meeting would be in favor of condensing the hunting pressure into a two week general season considering how many people I’ve heard say things like “we don’t want short seasons like Colorado”.

I fail to see where the condensing of R pressure is if the LE qtys are generous.

In addition - the same hunting pressure could be used to decimate cwd concerns/issues. I.e. if a cwd hot zone is discovered - open it to general during the rut and let the bullets fly and the forkys fall.

 

[bigsky2]

I fail to see where the condensing of R pressure is if the LE qtys are generous.

If LE permits were generous, then R pressure might not be condensed that much. On the other hand, if we hunt through the rut with generous permit numbers, are we even going to see any meaningful change?

 

[Gerald Martin]

I fail to see where the condensing of R pressure is if the LE qtys are generous.

What type of LE quotas are being proposed? 20% of post season buck counts for the permits for unit xyz looks a lot different than 50% of hunters last year in unit xyz.

 

[Forkyfinder]

If LE permits were generous, then R pressure might not be condensed that much. On the other hand, if we hunt through the rut with generous permit numbers, are we even going to see any meaningful change?

Yeah - 50% of the harvesting populace is restricted to 10% of the tags during the rut.

 

[Forkyfinder]

What type of LE quotas are being proposed? 20% of post season buck counts for the permits for unit xyz looks a lot different than 50% of hunters last year in unit xyz.

Youd have to be an elite member of the forky proposal club to know .

Ideally - itd closely match existing R hunter numbers that those units are seeing.