Montana General Season Structure Proposal

[Sioux33]

Your opinion only, of which I disagree. Of the obviously many varied points of opposition to the highly likely improvements for hunting and for wildlife from implementation of some thoughtfully vetted proposals, "drastically" increase of annoyance to landowners by requests for access seems dubious, even trivial ... IMHO.

Well we can agree to disagree I guess then. All I know is a lot of landowners that lease out, do it in part to avoid the headache of dealing with hunters. Increasing that headache doesn't seem dubious or trivial to me, especially with how important block management is to all of us.

I do agree that this plan has some good points to it, but I also think this is the chance to air our concerns out and look for unintended consequences, which if I were a BM enrolled landowner, would be one.

 

[cgasner1]

I killed a bull mid day on the opener one year it was 103 when the arrow hit him. I watched him tip over. Guess what I had a plan prior to the release of that arrow the meat was in coolers on ice a few hours later. Elk ate just fine

 

[Big Fin]

What is becoming obvious in the short time this proposal has been put out for discussion is how hard change is to implement. And that difficulty is why I give a ton of credit to the people committing their time and effort to this cause, whatever is the final product.

It takes a lot of gumption to start the process. By starting the process this group now has the advantage in determining what ideas or changes will be adopted. "Fortune favors the bold." Whether someone agrees with all of this proposal, part of it, or none of it, it is bold to put it out there when you know there will be a ton of resistance.

What this short time of commentary also shows is the importance of taking action. Without pressure, inertia keeps these matters at rest, while a human world's impacts to wild places and wild things are changing at a rapid speed.

The group who put this out there will be driving the discussion. If they continue with a good strategy for the obstacles that will come from the legislature and Commission, much of what they propose will get implemented over time. Elected/appointed/employed trustees are not known for risk taking, so they have the inherent "institutional inertia" to take the paths of least resistance on anything that might be controversial. The final results of this effort will be dictated in how well this group can influence those trustees.

At this point of the change process, this group has the momentum. They took action. Those disagreeing, in part or in whole, will be playing catch up. Most the energy of critics will be spent commenting on social media and very little engaging in the process of change.

None of it will be perfect. Not all of it will withstand the throws of legislators or commissioners. Yet, it is refreshing to see Montanans grabbing the reins and seeking what they view as improvements, rather than relying on a legislature, commission, FWP, or the habitat groups.

Even if this first effort doesn't get adopted, the ball is rolling. I think of how long many advocated for antlerless tags being mostly used on private lands. It took over 20 years for that idea to gain traction, however modest. I look at my first trip to DC to lobby for LWCF funding. Many people worked towards that for decades, and 22 years later, it finally passed. In 1984, when there were less than 600K elk and numbers were shrinking, some thought having 1 million elk was a crazy idea. It took 30 years, but four guys formed a group that got the ball rolling and now there are 1.1 million elk. The world of hunting and conservation is filled with successes where citizens acted rather than complain.

Point being, the first steps are the most necessary steps for positive change. Nobody knows what the final product will be, but hats off to those who are pushing that seemingly immovable rock from its position to get it moving.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Well we can agree to disagree I guess then. All I know is a lot of landowners that lease out, do it in part to avoid the headache of dealing with hunters. Increasing that headache doesn't seem dubious or trivial to me, especially with how important block management is to all of us.

I do agree that this plan has some good points to it, but I also think this is the chance to air our concerns out and look for unintended consequences, which if I were a BM enrolled landowner, would be one.

If you consider the change in terms of the totality of hunting seasons in MT, this would still allow for fewer days in total, if the shoulder seasons go away in the areas where they are not working. What landowners I've talked with are saying is that they're tired of the 6 months of elk hunting and never getting any rest from hunters. If we eliminate 3 months there, and keep the December muzzleloader season and a cow season, I think landowners will like that as it fits with elk movement a bit more than the open door approach that has run it's course in terms of return on investment.

 

[Irishman]

Is there anyone who lives in NW Montana that was one of the 9 that helped come up with these proposed changes?

 

[Point Creep]

Is there anyone who lives in NW Montana that was one of the 9 that helped come up with these proposed changes?

You read the doc right? Is Trout Creek considered NW MT? You could have volunteered your time and input when they were looking for people.

 

[MTGomer]

Still it makes no sense for elk hunting, usually the first week of September it too hot to be killing an animal as big as an elk, never mind the last week of August.

They do it in NV where it’s actually hot.

 

[cgasner1]

Is there anyone who lives in NW Montana that was one of the 9 that helped come up with these proposed changes?

Every region had representatives

 

[Hamms12oz]

Overall I like the direction of the proposal, but I believe it will lead to crowding issues since everyone will be focusing on deer during October and elk during November. Also, I don't think the proposed dates will get the public's support since you are taking away their "rut hunt".
I think a compromise for hunting dates that the general public could support are as follows:

September 1 - October 10: Archery for mule deer, whitetail deer, and elk
October 15 - November 10: Rifle for mule deer
November 1 - November 30: Rifle for whitetail deer and elk
December 10 - December 20: Muzzleloader for mule deer, whitetail deer, and elk

The 6 week archery season that extends into October will please elk hunters
The 4 week rifle mule deer that extends into November is a compromise to please the average resident and nonresident hunter (shortened season but still pre-rut hunt will reduce harvest to an extent)
The 5 week rifle whitetail deer and elk will force hunters to choose between elk or mule deer for those overlapping 10 days (reduces crowding)

Maybe it's my personal preference and selfishness, but I don't like the idea of picking a region or species for tags. For mule deer I like to hunt the high country in September and timber in October, come November I prefer whitetails.

 

[Elky Welky]

I'd be really interested in knowing some of the data on how much of a real problem our current muzzleloader season really is. I understand the argument against shooting bulls on winter range, however this seems to be more of a perception than reality. I'm yet to meet an elk hunter that is sitting around doing nothing through archery and rifle just so they can go knock on doors and try to get permission in often sub-zero weather to hunt bulls on mostly private property, where the answer is almost certainly going to be "no."

Further, with shoulder seasons currently still in place, most people looking to fill a B tag are taking their rifle out for a cow. More than anything, I think most of our muzzleloader hunters are hunting whitetails with B tags.

I'm glad this proposal isn't really messing with the muzzy season (for now). And I agree that the commission should have the authority to set the muzzleloader season and that it should not have been done legislatively; but I also personally don't really want to see it any other time than where it is now, certainly not overlapping with other seasons or the elk rut like they do in CO. Again, I'd love to see some actual data on this. And I well could be wrong, but the arguments appear to be mostly reactionary and not true to what's happening on the ground.

 

[Forkyfinder]

Those without facebook - ill summarize for you so you can skip it.


Dey turk er deer season!

 

[Nunyacreek]

WP and quite a few conservation organizations and sportsmen’s groups got advance access to these proposals last week. The public draft we released today has already incorporated some changes to our original concepts based on feedback and suggestions stemming from that initial release. To date, I’m not currently aware of any formal feedback from FWP or the organizations we released drafts to but we are expecting some feedback as the general conversation expands.

Those parts of our proposal that require legislative action have already had some legwork begun to bring that into reality.

Maybe missed I missed it, but are there “next steps” For those of use who support these ideas? As a general rule I would think supporters advance it and then detractors will have an opportunity to comment or oppose it when it becomes a more concrete proposal. If there is still a developing or foundational strategy I understand that but it would be great to have some information on a specific plan of advocacy and support when that is available.

 

[Point Creep]

I love how so many folks "compromise" still involves a couple weeks of general rifle mule deer hunting in November.

 

[sscrano]

Overall I like the direction of the proposal, but I believe it will lead to crowding issues since everyone will be focusing on deer during October and elk during November. Also, I don't think the proposed dates will get the public's support since you are taking away their "rut hunt".
I think a compromise for hunting dates that the general public could support are as follows:

September 1 - October 10: Archery for mule deer, whitetail deer, and elk
October 15 - November 10: Rifle for mule deer
November 1 - November 30: Rifle for whitetail deer and elk
December 10 - December 20: Flintlock for mule deer, whitetail deer, and elk

The 6 week archery season that extends into October will please elk hunters
The 4 week rifle mule deer that extends into November is a compromise to please the average resident and nonresident hunter (shortened season but still pre-rut hunt will reduce harvest to an extent)
The 5 week rifle whitetail deer and elk will force hunters to choose between elk or mule deer for those overlapping 10 days (reduces crowding)

Maybe it's my personal preference and selfishness, but I don't like the idea of picking a region or species for tags. For mule deer I like to hunt the high country in September and timber in October, come November I prefer whitetails.

Why flintlock? The heritage season allows caplocks as well, or are you suggesting a change?

 

[Forkyfinder]

I love how so many folks "compromise" still involves a couple weeks of general rifle mule deer hunting in November.

Its hard for a lot of people trying to imagine hunting mule deer until theyre rutting.

 

[Gerald Martin]

Is there anyone who lives in NW Montana that was one of the 9 that helped come up with these proposed changes?

I represented region 1 in this discussion even though I now live in Bozeman. I lived in Trout Creek from 2002-2020 and most of my Montana hunting experience is in region 1.

 

[Hamms12oz]

Why flintlock? The heritage season allows caplocks as well, or are you suggesting a change?

I like the heritage season laws and don't suggest any change, I simply typed flintlock instead of muzzleloader by mistake and will update it, thanks!

 

[Gerald Martin]

Maybe missed I missed it, but are there “next steps” For those of use who support these ideas? As a general rule I would think supporters advance it and then detractors will have an opportunity to comment or oppose it when it becomes a more concrete proposal. If there is still a developing or foundational strategy I understand that but it would be great to have some information on a specific plan of advocacy and support when that is available.

The conversations on this forum and feedback from others are part of current next steps. As a group we’re going to be having additional meetings with ourselves and others to identify areas of our proposal that may need tweaking or improvement for acceptance or to accomplish a better outcome for the resource.

It’s a long process before FWP’s 26/27 season setting process is complete and the Commission votes on any changes they will adopt.

 

[antlerradar]

Was there any discussion on how landowners and Block participants would view a 92 day straight hunting season?

With the number of hunter complaints these days, I think the increase in the number of rifle days, which will drastically increases hunter participation and landowner complaints, needs to be taken into account.

Just not that much of an increase, an additional week of archery and hunting during the current dead week between archery and rifle. Dead week is really only four days and there are other hunting going on during these two times already.

As for BM, the current season puts a damper on one of the biggest advantages BM has over leasing to an outfitter. With BM you can get paid for access to public land. For example near me a small landowner leases to a WY outfitter. The only reason the outfitter is willing to lease the property is because of the strategic location, right between two large alfalfa fields. In Oct I doubt that you could kill more than one or two bucks from that property, During the rut though bucks are traveling back and fourth between the two fields. That small property is a big money maker. With an OCT season I think the property owner could make more money with BM providing access to the better then two sections of public the property has access to.

 

[Deleted member 53219]

I'd be really interested in knowing some of the data on how much of a real problem our current muzzleloader season really is. I understand the argument against shooting bulls on winter range, however this seems to be more of a perception than reality. I'm yet to meet an elk hunter that is sitting around doing nothing through archery and rifle just so they can go knock on doors and try to get permission in often sub-zero weather to hunt bulls on mostly private property, where the answer is almost certainly going to be "no."

Further, with shoulder seasons currently still in place, most people looking to fill a B tag are taking their rifle out for a cow. More than anything, I think most of our muzzleloader hunters are hunting whitetails with B tags.

I'm glad this proposal isn't really messing with the muzzy season (for now). And I agree that the commission should have the authority to set the muzzleloader season and that it should not have been done legislatively; but I also personally don't really want to see it any other time than where it is now, certainly not overlapping with other seasons or the elk rut like they do in CO. Again, I'd love to see some actual data on this. And I well could be wrong, but the arguments appear to be mostly reactionary and not true to what's happening on the ground.

Just curious why the 6 weeks of general rifle season and the cow shoulder seasons aren’t enough to kill something with a muzzleloader and why it needed its own season when critters are recovering from hunting pressure and breeding and gearing up for harsh environmental conditions on their winter range