Montana General Season Structure Proposal 3.0

[Forkyfinder]

Na - maybe once outfitters stop selling tags.

Suppose thatll be a long road - given that no one here seems to give an actual shit about losing 30k acres of public access to an outfitter.

Thats almost 2 percent of the public land in unit 700. And some of the best - obviously.

More direct damage than any influencer, rut hunter, or any nr.

I bet that alone made the season (esp with 410 LE) a lot worse than moving the season around or making it longer.

Who would want to make seasons even longer? Why would they want that? What would be the motivation? I bet itd be good for some "business"

 

[brockel]

Thats almost 2 percent of the public land in unit 700. And some of the best - obviously.

More direct damage than any influencer, rut hunter, or any nr.

I bet that alone made the season (esp with 410 LE) a lot worse than moving the season around or making it longer.

Who would want to make seasons even longer? Why would they want that? What would be the motivation? I bet itd be good for some "business"

Especially one that helped craft this proposal for hunter dispersement

 

[El Jason]

given that no one here seems to give an actual shit about losing 30k acres of public access to an outfitter.

Do you think if you repeat this enough it will be true?

 

[Gerald Martin]

When’s this proposal that gives specifics about the virtues of LE going to be released for public consumption and comment? It’s easy to take potshots at the portion of our proposal that might not be ideal.
Something doesn’t set right with me when there another proposal calling for LE that exists but it’s not released for the public to critique and comment.

Snide comments about motive of members and merit of the proposal is not the same as providing a substantive alternative for folks to accept or reject on the merits of the alternative solution.

 

[El Jason]

Those numbers are also missing 2 years that I’d bet have a lot higher numbers since everyone seems to stay home during covid

What’s also overlooked is the fact 2007 and 2008 had significant season extensions, allowing for elk hunting well into of December on a general tag.

 

[brockel]

When’s this proposal that gives specifics about the virtues of LE going to be released for public consumption and comment? It’s easy to take potshots at the portion of our proposal that might not be ideal.
Something doesn’t set right with me when there another proposal calling for LE that exists but it’s not released for the public to critique and comment.

Snide comments about motive of members and merit of the proposal is not the same as providing a substantive alternative for folks to accept or reject on the merits of the alternative solution.

The LE proposal is probably not released to the public but there’s nearly zero chance Outfitters and FWP go for LE deer hunting.

I’ve shown the newest 3.0 proposal around in my circle and most all agree it doesn’t move the needle for our area. It might work great for western Montana with mule deer not getting shot during elk season.

Nearly every landowner I shared it with is annoyed with the extra weeks of season. Even had a few landowners that are currently block management mention that they would probably pull out of block management with the additional weeks because of that much more traffic.

And I know the comments will be “well let’s see your proposal”. I don’t have a proposal out there because mine would have LE and like mentioned earlier there is zero chance MOGA and FWP goes for LE so it’s not worth wasting time on it. But if my choice is current season and the 3.0 I’m taking the current season setup just because it would be less landowner fatigue and might keep some private land enrolled in BMA.

 

[mtmuley]

I don't think "land owner fatigue" is an issue statewide. Another thing to take into consideration. mtmuley

 

[brockel]

I don't think "land owner fatigue" is an issue statewide. Another thing to take into consideration. mtmuley

Exactly. That’s why a state wide proposal doesn’t work

 

[mtmuley]

Exactly. That’s why a state wide proposal doesn’t work

Yep. Region by region is the way. And, as hard as it will be for some, unit specific. mtmuley

 

[brian flatlander]

Yep. Region by region is the way. And, as hard as it will be for some, unit specific. mtmuley

it will never change

 

[antlerradar]

Thats almost 2 percent of the public land in unit 700. And some of the best - obviously.

More direct damage than any influencer, rut hunter, or any nr.

I bet that alone made the season (esp with 410 LE) a lot worse than moving the season around or making it longer.

Who would want to make seasons even longer? Why would they want that? What would be the motivation? I bet itd be good for some "business"

Especially one that helped craft this proposal for hunter dispersement

Erik and Rod have both taken substantial incoming from other outfitters, and many outfitters are apposed.

The notion that the property on Seven Blackfoot would be better for business under the proposal got me wondering. Looked at it on Google Earth. I can see why the outfitter leased it. Not real big but strategically located. Probably has a nice resident population of does and is located between some ag field and a large amount of remote BLM. As long as the does remain, the outfitter is going to have a steady supply of bucks coming up out of Seven Blackfoot passing through to cheak the does on the field or rut with the does on the property. Outfitter is going to be able to harvest many of the bucks that live in Seven Blackfoot and never have to go into the wilderness. Looks to me that is property is a prime example of how the rut make some places very valueble. I doubt that there is enough quality resident bucks on that small of a property to pay the lease.

 

[brockel]

Erik and Rod have both taken substantial incoming from other outfitters, and many outfitters are apposed.

The notion that the property on Seven Blackfoot would be better for business under the proposal got me wondering. Looked at it on Google Earth. I can see why the outfitter leased it. Not real big but strategically located. Probably has a nice resident population of does and is located between some ag field and a large amount of remote BLM. As long as the does remain, the outfitter is going to have a steady supply of bucks coming up out of Seven Blackfoot passing through to cheak the does on the field or rut with the does on the property. Outfitter is going to be able to harvest many of the bucks that live in Seven Blackfoot and never have to go into the wilderness. Looks to me that is property is a prime example of how the rut make some places very valueble. I doubt that there is enough quality resident bucks on that small of a property to pay the lease.

That Seven Blackfoot is just as valuable to the outfitter without the rut. Leasing that small section essentially keeps the public land all to outfitters clients except for the ones with boats. That’s not even figuring the elk hunting

 

[antlerradar]

The LE proposal is probably not released to the public but there’s nearly zero chance Outfitters and FWP go for LE deer hunting.

I’ve shown the newest 3.0 proposal around in my circle and most all agree it doesn’t move the needle for our area. It might work great for western Montana with mule deer not getting shot during elk season.

Nearly every landowner I shared it with is annoyed with the extra weeks of season. Even had a few landowners that are currently block management mention that they would probably pull out of block management with the additional weeks because of that much more traffic.

And I know the comments will be “well let’s see your proposal”. I don’t have a proposal out there because mine would have LE and like mentioned earlier there is zero chance MOGA and FWP goes for LE so it’s not worth wasting time on it. But if my choice is current season and the 3.0 I’m taking the current season setup just because it would be less landowner fatigue and might keep some private land enrolled in BMA.

I don't think that there will be that much change in landowner fatigue, right now many are looking at the roughly two extra weeks of deer rifle and going oh crap, but I have thought about this and see a lot of benefits for many landowners.
We are really not adding that much, We currently have 7 weeks of rifle season in region 7. Two weeks of antelope before the five weeks of general deer/elk, we are only adding three more days.
With the popularity of archery elk landowners like me are already dealing with hunters from the first of September to well into December. Not going to matter if two more of those weeks are rifle deer.
This is where it is going to help.
It is not just to length but also the volume. Except for the overlap, I expect the volume of hunters to decrease dramatically during the other five weeks of rifle season. This is a big plus.
Many landowners are going to see a cut in their effective rifle season. For example if you property is antelope and mule deer your rifle season is cut nearly in half.
Getting the mule deer season out of the rut is huge. The guy that brings his kid out and shoots the first three point they see is not very fatiguing, the drive by poacher that shoots a buck is draining. Most of our drive by shooting happen during the rut, out side of the rut quality bucks just do not stand close to the roads and the opportunity for a drive by is just not there. This alone is worth it to me.

 

[antlerradar]

That Seven Blackfoot is just as valuable to the outfitter without the rut. Leasing that small section essentially keeps the public land all to outfitters clients except for the ones with boats. That’s not even figuring the elk hunting

The public land is valuable to you and me. Not so sure about the outfitter. The pool of outfitter clients that are physically and mentally capable of hunting five days in a place like Seven Blackfoot is very small. My father outfitted in the 60's and 70's, the number of clients that he would take on foot into the Tongue River breaks was very few. You were asking for trouble if you took many of his clients into nasty holes like Seven Blackfoot. He talks about many a big deer that they could physically not get the hunter to. Maybe outfitter clients have changed over the years with influencers like Cam Hanes, but I doubt it. A buck that is a mile in to Seven Blackfoot is inaccessible to all but a handful of clients and dad didn't have to deal with BLM requirements there are today. There is no money in taking hunters into Seven Blackfoot.
The elk are a bonus, but as limited as 700 is you are not going to pay for many leases with elk alone. The money in this lease is the bucks that come up out of Seven Blackfoot to the does on the private.

 

[brockel]

You are fooling yourself if you think Rod is not going to take advantage of having that giant chunk of land locked up to put hunters on. Especially if you guys get your proposal pushed through and outfitters can’t rely on rut hunting mule deer

 

[Forkyfinder]

You are fooling yourself if you think Rod is not going to take advantage of having that giant chunk of land locked up to put hunters on. Especially if you guys get your proposal pushed through and outfitters can’t rely on rut hunting mule deer

The same "fooling yourself" when you havent limited any of the issues that were outlined years ago. Notable things missing:

Shorter seasons
NR regional caps
Limiting "incidental" harvest

To the last point - there are MANY more antelope tags then there are elk tags in r6 and r7. Im sure the next response will be "well everyone dumps their antelope and drives home" - which is pretty well true except no one ever has anything else to hunt when it opens in the current structure - and no one sane would wait until the pumpkin army arrives during opener of general rifle to hunt antelope.

We somehow ended up with longer seasons, more early archery pressure, and no limitation of who can hunt where. Cui bono?

 

[Forkyfinder]

The public land is valuable to you and me. Not so sure about the outfitter. The pool of outfitter clients that are physically and mentally capable of hunting five days in a place like Seven Blackfoot is very small. My father outfitted in the 60's and 70's, the number of clients that he would take on foot into the Tongue River breaks was very few. You were asking for trouble if you took many of his clients into nasty holes like Seven Blackfoot. He talks about many a big deer that they could physically not get the hunter to. Maybe outfitter clients have changed over the years with influencers like Cam Hanes, but I doubt it. A buck that is a mile in to Seven Blackfoot is inaccessible to all but a handful of clients and dad didn't have to deal with BLM requirements there are today. There is no money in taking hunters into Seven Blackfoot.
The elk are a bonus, but as limited as 700 is you are not going to pay for many leases with elk alone. The money in this lease is the bucks that come up out of Seven Blackfoot to the does on the private.

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.

 

[Gerald Martin]

The issue of the landowner closing that road and Rod having the lease on his property is unrelated to this proposal.

For the record, I support efforts to determine whether or not the road can be determined to legally be considered public and re-opened if it is.

Per the arguments that Rod will benefit more from the proposal than current season structure. Currently, the mule deer rifle season is 35 days and encapsulates the entire rut. Under the proposal the mule deer rifle season is 28 days and ends at the beginning of pre-rut. I have not hunted that immediate area but I have hunted within a few miles of there and unless I am mistaken the vast majority of deer in the area are mule deer not whitetails. The idea that an outfitter is going to kill more mule deer in 28 days outside of the rut in rugged country than he would in 35 days when more of the bucks are coming in to check does on the private doesn’t make sense to me.

Criticism of the parts of the plan that might not accomplish our goals is valid. There are multiple things that we included that are not our preference if we were starting with a blank slate. However, as you see the progression from our first draft to this one, threading the needle to get enough buy in from user groups is not a simple process.

Conflation of the issue of the landowner closing down that road with us trying to change the season structure doesn’t help solve anything. Keep the issues separate when they’re separate and address each one appropriately.


The fact remains that there is a LE proposal floating around that hasn’t been released for public consideration. Whether or not the authors of that ever will remains to be seen and I guess that’s their prerogative. However, in my opinion, there haven’t been and aren’t many specifics of how LE would be implemented if it were adopted and how the real issues it would bring with it would be addressed.

Calling for implementation of a structure that is undefined and can’t be examined doesn’t seem like a serious approach to problem solving to me. Based on my conversations with FWP they hear “It should be this way….” all the time. Without specifics to evaluate and get public feedback from, those calls for how something should be are going to be like metaphorical water off a duck’s back.

 

[antlerradar]

You are fooling yourself if you think Rod is not going to take advantage of having that giant chunk of land locked up to put hunters on. Especially if you guys get your proposal pushed through and outfitters can’t rely on rut hunting mule deer

In the late 90's and outfitter leased the ranch with the best access to a large and difficult to access WSA near me. Very similar to Seven Blackfoot. I had access through a different property and was thinking he would be all over it. I was wrong, he never took one hunter hiking in the WSA, at best he glassed up in from the two tracks near the boundary. He didn't need to, He shot most of the nice bucks when they rutted on the landowners fields. I have little doubt that Rod is a better outfitter they the one was near me, but he is not dragging many clients into the bowels of Seven Blackfoot. Probably look in from the top, but not much more.

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.

 

[cgasner1]

The fact remains that there is a LE proposal floating around that hasn’t been released for public consideration. Whether or not the authors of that ever will remains to be seen and I guess that’s their prerogative. However, in my opinion, there haven’t been and aren’t many specifics of how LE would be implemented if it were adopted and how the real issues it would bring with it would be addressed.

I’ve heard that there is 4 others being floated. I find it odd that so far I’ve only been able to read 2 and one of them I helped on. Guess public opinion doesn’t matter to some folks.