Montana S/G/M results 2024

[SwaggyD]

I just emailed the Department with a question as to why the draw summaries show 10 ram tags drawn in Unit 680 and 5 in Unit 622, when the regs called for 25 and 10, respectively.

Maybe I missed something at the Commission level. Or am I reading the draw summaries incorrectly?

622 summary
View attachment 326371

680 summary
View attachment 326370

My buddy drew the 680-20 and also told me there was 25. He was surprised/excited to see only 10 successful. I will be interested in what you hear back.

edit to add: my buddy said he talked to the local GW and he stated the numbers were slightly down.

 

[Labman]

I just emailed the Department with a question as to why the draw summaries show 10 ram tags drawn in Unit 680 and 5 in Unit 622, when the regs called for 25 and 10, respectively.

Maybe I missed something at the Commission level. Or am I reading the draw summaries incorrectly?

622 summary
View attachment 326371

680 summary
View attachment 326370

Also curious as to why they issued 3 tags in both 301 and 302 when the quotas in the proclamation are 5 and 6 respectively. Less permits were issued in 100 and 123 too now that I look closer.

 

[JinNWMT]

I just emailed the Department with a question as to why the draw summaries show 10 ram tags drawn in Unit 680 and 5 in Unit 622, when the regs called for 25 and 10, respectively.

Maybe I missed something at the Commission level. Or am I reading the draw summaries incorrectly?

622 summary
View attachment 326371

680 summary
View attachment 326370

There’s a quota range in the regs so it can be anywhere in that range. It’s subject to change. With antelope it happens a lot. That’s my guess anyways. 100 was supposed to have 5 and only drew 3. It just has to be in the range and it’s prob the biologists discretion

 

[seeth07]

Wait, I thought Montana was known for giving out more tags not less? Did they screw up a draw again?

 

[Labman]

Wait, I thought Montana was known for giving out more tags not less? Did they screw up a draw again?

If they are on a witch hunt they sometimes give out 1 less.

 

[mtmiller]

Wait, I thought Montana was known for giving out more tags not less? Did they screw up a draw again?

Better entertain another Gov tag.

 

[BuzzH]

I'll be the descenting opinion, that, imo the Montana FWP did a very good job with the draw this year.

 

[SwaggyD]

I'll be the descenting opinion, that, imo the Montana FWP did a very good job with the draw this year.

…… so far…..

 

[BradA]

I just emailed the Department with a question as to why the draw summaries show 10 ram tags drawn in Unit 680 and 5 in Unit 622, when the regs called for 25 and 10, respectively.

Maybe I missed something at the Commission level. Or am I reading the draw summaries incorrectly?

622 summary
View attachment 326371

680 summary
View attachment 326370

Montana strikes again!!!! Haha

 

[brownbear932008]

…… so far…..

They would have to pry that tag outta @BuzzH dead hands.

 

[Point Creep]

I think they had low counts in 301 and lowered the permits offered in fear of what the last winter did. Not a bad call.

 

[BuzzH]

…… so far…..

I have the tag, wasn't taking chances, my praise for the FWP only goes so far.

 

[cgasner1]

I have the tag, wasn't taking chances, my praise for the FWP only goes so far.

Print 2 incase fwp tries to take the first one?

 

[Clarq]

I have the tag, wasn't taking chances, my praise for the FWP only goes so far.

I paid for my tag last year (680-31, unit where they drew 40 permits instead of 30) and asked FWP to print it. Pretty sure it was in the mail before they caught the error. I still wonder if my promptness is the reason I got to keep it...

 

[DFS]

I paid for my tag last year (680-31, unit where they drew 40 permits instead of 30) and asked FWP to print it. Pretty sure it was in the mail before they caught the error. I still wonder if my promptness is the reason I got to keep it...

Did you fill it?

 

[SwaggyD]

Did you fill it?

Dear Missouri Breaks: I'm Ready for Ewe

I just returned from my first trip to the Missouri Breaks. What a place! I have a ewe tag for the west side of 680. This journey began earlier this year when I made the decision to go after a ewe tag. I had applied for ram tags for a handful of years prior, but odds of me ever getting one in the...

www.hunttalk.com

 

[Clarq]

Did you fill it?

See the following threads if you want the story in all its bare glory:

https://www.hunttalk.com/threads/dear-missouri-breaks-im-ready-for-ewe.321001/

https://www.hunttalk.com/threads/oh-no-ewe-arent-humbled-by-the-breaks.321918/

To clarify a bit, the sequence of events was as follows:

1. I was notified that I drew the tag.
2. I logged right on and paid. I chose "FWP Print" for the tag option.
3. I got an email from FWP that essentially said, "oops, we drew too many tags, hang on." I can't remember the exact timing, maybe a day or two after results were released.
4. I spent a sleepless night wondering if my draw was legit.
5. I got an email the next day telling me that my draw was, indeed, successful.
6. Tag arrived in the mail a day or two later.

So, it appears that all was on the up-and-up and that my draw was legit. That being said, I've wondered about a possible scenario in the FWP office where I didn't actually draw in the top 30, but because they already mailed the tag, they gave it to me instead of the next guy. Probably a silly thought... I'm sure they'd have no trouble cancelling the permit.

 

[golfer]

I just emailed the Department with a question as to why the draw summaries show 10 ram tags drawn in Unit 680 and 5 in Unit 622, when the regs called for 25 and 10, respectively.

Maybe I missed something at the Commission level. Or am I reading the draw summaries incorrectly?

622 summary
View attachment 326371

680 summary
View attachment 326370

Can they not adjust msg permits like they do for cow permits within the quota range prior to the draw? I know a few times they have done that for cow elk permits.

 

[MNHunter]

Nothing for me, per usual. Congrats Buzz and everyone else

 

[Big Fin]

I got a quick response from FWP this morning. It shows I must have been asleep when the quotas for Units 622 and 680 were announced. Shame on me.

It is concerning that the sheep numbers in those two herds and 482 are down. Those have been the bright spot in an otherwise dim outlook for Montana sheep, following a lot of die offs in other areas. I give credit to FWP for adjusting the quotas as necessary, even if I wish the populations allowed for the published quotas.

Randy-

You are reading the draw summaries correctly. The either-sex ram licenses in 680 were reduced to 10 and the licenses in 622 were reduced to 5 licenses (there was also a reduction in ewe licenses in both of these districts as well). Due to the timing of the season setting process and the need to have regulations finalized, printed, and out to the public, many of the quotas listed in the regulations are often adjusted after the regulations are printed based on additional data (wildlife surveys, harvest data, weather conditions) that may not have been available when the initial quotas/regulations were approved by the commission. The quotas can be adjusted within the previously approved quota range (listed in the regulations next to the quota). Both of these populations of sheep are currently below the long-term average, which is the primary reason for the reduction in licenses. The lower sheep numbers in these districts is most likely attributed to weather conditions the past several years in these districts and not to disease outbreaks or other issues.

During the most recent season setting process, the Fish and Wildlife Commission did eliminate the use of quota ranges for bull elk and buck deer permits, but quota ranges changes are still made for licenses.