Montana General Season Structure Proposal 3.0

[Forkyfinder]

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.

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.

Shareholders are not the same as stakeholders.

As far as "getting what you want" - i tend to think "getting what you want" as an outfitter is, occasionally, directly in contradiction with some hunters.

Things that harm the average DIY hunter about MTs current season structure and benefit outfitting.

1. Season length
2. Multiple species harvestable during the same season
3. Lack of unchecked opportunity - for R and NR

 

[cgasner1]

Shareholders are not the same as stakeholders.

As far as "getting what you want" - i tend to think "getting what you want" as an outfitter is, occasionally, directly in contradiction with some hunters.

Things that harm the average DIY hunter about MTs current season structure and benefit outfitting.

1. Season length
2. Multiple species harvestable during the same season
3. Lack of unchecked opportunity - for R and NR

1 & 2 are your opinion. They may also be mine but they aren’t the opinion of most the state.

 

[cgasner1]

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.

Im not the one with that’s against it. Take it up with Fwp

 

[Forkyfinder]

Im not the one with that’s against it. Take it up with Fwp

Regional caps is basically LE by region, right?

 

[cgasner1]

Regional caps is basically LE by region, right?

I’m not gonna argue with you guys about this. Like I said take it up with Fwp. You can read our plan you know what we are pushing for

 

[Ben Lamb]

Shareholders are not the same as stakeholders.

As far as "getting what you want" - i tend to think "getting what you want" as an outfitter is, occasionally, directly in contradiction with some hunters.

One of the most important things I've learned in working in wildlife and natural resources for the last 23 year is this: Assume positive intent, especially from those you disagree with.

 

[Gerald Martin]

As the self-appointed representative for Region1 in our group, now living in Region 3 I have sympathetic loyalty to the issues of both regions.

I support regional caps of NR for region 1 to be set at a maximum of 1200 NR and a regional cap for region 3 at 2000 NR. Mule deer numbers in both of
those areas are not very robust and NR’s would be better suited to distribute out to other regions across the state.

I will protect the areas I’m interested in. The rest of the state can worry about itself…. #realtalk


That’s the practical reality of regional caps in simplistic terms.

 

[huntin24/7]

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

Yeah, just went to a meeting last week but this never was brought up. Just was curious on their logic. Thanks.

 

[cgasner1]

Yeah, just went to a meeting last week but this never was brought up. Just was curious on their logic. Thanks.

It does sounds like the 10% is what we see in region 5 as nr pressure and not a statewide thing. Don’t want anyone thinking I’m cooking the books

 

[huntin24/7]

It does sounds like the 10% is what we see in region 5 as nr pressure and not a statewide thing. Don’t want anyone thinking I’m cooking the books

It’s really hard to tell in region 6 overall, at least where I am. Public and bma’s is pretty easily over 50% nr hunters id guess in our area, but it’s heavily private, so I’m sure the private side is much more heavily resident pressure.

 

[cgasner1]

It’s really hard to tell in region 6 overall, at least where I am. Public and bma’s is pretty easily over 50% nr hunters id guess in our area, but it’s heavily private, so I’m sure the private side is much more heavily resident pressure.

Also consider we had a cwd outbreak in Dillion this last year so they eradicated the whitetail out of the fields. So then the mule deer moved in and then they had the cwd. While not the same it will have the same result if you start pushing nr hunters around a pick your region will have some negative effects but people don’t wanna think about the cause and effect of the whole thing

 

[rogerthat]

Put the nr back where they use to be before I 161 passed on private outfitted lands. No caps on private nr outfitter hunters or really high cap numbers for tags designated for these lands. Nr cap problem solved

 

[Carnage2011]

Put the nr back where they use to be before I 161 passed on private outfitted lands. No caps on private nr outfitter hunters or really high cap numbers for tags designated for these lands. Nr cap problem solved

F*ck that.

 

[rogerthat]

Oh snap! I just saw there’s a whole thread on this. I will take this bad-A$$ idea of mine over there

 

[MontanaMuley]

Keep as is, but implement regional caps for NR..

 

[antlerradar]

Keep as is, but implement regional caps for NR..

How would you divide up the NR between regions?

 

[SAJ-99]

Shareholders are not the same as stakeholders.

this statement makes my brain hurt.

 

[MontanaMuley]

How would you divide up the NR between regions?

To start, we’d need better harvest data. From there, biologists could set quotas based on population surveys. Adjustments could be made year to year, similar to how b tags can be adjusted.

 

[Tukudeka]

To start, we’d need better harvest data. From there, biologists could set quotas based on population surveys. Adjustments could be made year to year, similar to how b tags can be adjusted.

Harvest data for sure! Including tooth cementum annuli analysis would be helpful and allow us to set an average of harvest goal per unit.

Trouble with the latter part of your plan is Montana doesn't do population surveys for deer.

 

[Eric Albus]

Our original proposal would have solved most all these challenges being brought up.

Problem is nobody wants to give anything up, because that affects “ME” and I don’t like it.
Pick your region, separate wt tag and separate md tag. Pick your region and species when you buy, apply. If you apply for permit area and fail to draw no MD hunting that year.
NR, pick 5 day window M-F to hunt, Nov 15-29 draw only NR, unless hunting private land.