Montana should get in line with Idaho

[BenInMT]

I really like what Idaho did with their tags this year. I think we should make non-residents declare a HD for deer and a HD for elk, and maybe in doing so they could be allowed to hunt any general district that borders the one they choose since our districts are smaller. I think this would do well to spread people out but also keep them contained. No more old men with Washington plates road hunting their way across half the districts in the state.

I also think we should make people front the money for the tags like we used to. With the advent of all these services, podcasts, apps, social media teaching people how to game all these drawing processes- there are so many losers out there who think that drawing a tag is more of a trophy than the thing they hang the tag on. It’s become a sick culture of people who literally haven’t ever shot an elk yet are unwilling to hunt a general district because let‘s be honest here, they have no idea what this is all about and some influencer douche is telling them they’ve got no shot unless they get the hero tag. I’m kind of ok with them continuing to feel like they have no chance in a general but they’re going to be passing on 350” all day long on some hero tag. Bottom line, rase the cost of admission to where you’ve got to be more than a casual onlooker buying a powerball ticket for a couple bucks.

I also think that we need to move our draw earlier in the year. Why are we the last resort for the galavanting western hunter who didn’t draw somewhere else? If we’re just the place to settle, well I don’t care if you just don’t come at all.

I am open to other suggestions that would allow those who really want to come here to hunt to have better opportunity while reducing the overall number of people who are putting in for this state. Any thoughts?

 

[WIbiggame]

I also think we should make people front the money for the tags like we used to

This happens already.

As a NR who only archery hunts I would like to see tags be for rifle or archery. I do like the idea of limiting a tag to a unit or 2-3unit chunk too.

Montana is a great state and for the price to allow someone the ability to hunt for 3 months still blows my mind.

I don't think moving the draw up is going to change much. A lot of people are applying in a lot of states and if you go first or last, you will still get the same number of elk hunters 17000 as every year.

 

[BWALKER77]

Let's cut back archery tags by 50% for both resident and NR. Given the wounding rates, hunting elk when they are in the rut, etc I think this is appropriate.

 

[tjones]

Let's cut back archery tags by 50% for both resident and NR. Given the wounding rates, hunting elk when they are in the rut, etc I think this is appropriate.

Curious what documentation or studies you have showing wounding loss in Montana during archery season.
Please share.

 

[BWALKER77]

There was a study done in the Madison, which I dont have handy. You can surely look it up.

 

[tjones]

There was a study done in the Madison, which I dont have handy. You can surely look it up.

I see.

 

[BWALKER77]

I see.

The wounding rate was something around 51% of animals hit and not recovered.
This certainly gives with many study's done on deer. If anything 51% wounding rate is understating the problem.

 

[tjones]

The wounding rate was something around 51% of animals hit and not recovered.
This certainly gives with many study's done on deer. If anything 51% wounding rate is understating the problem.

I can't find that study, figured since you quoted it you had it.

What percentage of wounded actually died?

 

[WIbiggame]

The wounding rate was something around 51% of animals hit and not recovered

How can they figure this with any accuracy when they can't even get an accurate harvest number?

 

[WIbiggame]

I really hope you aren't using this study that I found. 1988 come on man.

Edit: page 4 middle of page is where I found the information

 

[BWALKER77]

How can they figure this with any accuracy when they can't even get an accurate harvest number?

Have you read the study? Or the plethora of other studies that suggest the same thing?
And no, that's not a source I was referring to. But it should give you an idea that bowhunting has given the antis a good amount of ammo.

 

[WIbiggame]

Have you read the study? Or the plethora of other studies that suggest the same thing?

I didn't because a 1988 study was irrelevant 23 years ago. I read few. But read just as many stating the opposite. And the vast majority of the studies are 20+ years old.

 

[timmy]

Have you read the study? Or the plethora of other studies that suggest the same thing?
And no, that's not a source I was referring to. But it should give you an idea that bowhunting has given the antis a good amount of ammo.

Long range rifle hunting is surely better.

 

[WIbiggame]

And no, that's not a source I was referring to.

So please share the study yoy are citing.

 

[BWALKER77]

Long range rifle hunting is surely better.

Certainly better than a bow, but I am not a fan of that either.

 

[BWALKER77]

I didn't because a 1988 study was irrelevant 23 years ago. I read few. But read just as many stating the opposite. And the vast majority of the studies are 20+ years old.

When the study was done doesnt mean it wasnt accurate. By stating g the opposite do you mean bow hunters have lower sounding tastes than rifle hunters? If you believe that your on drugs.

 

[timmy]

Certainly better than a bow, but I am not a fan of that either.

Plenty of good bow hunters and rifle hunters if you know your limits. Both are just as bad when they don’t. I see more unethical stuff being done during rifle in my experience. Certainly not a study. Trust the science.

 

[antlerradar]

Long range rifle hunting is surely better.

If you are too lazy to walk the 500+ yards to follow up on your shot you don't have to admit to wounding animals.

 

[WIbiggame]

When the study was done doesnt mean it wasnt accurate. By stating g the opposite do you mean bow hunters have lower sounding tastes than rifle hunters? If you believe that your on drugs.

Didn't say it was in accurate but irrelevant yes. Took several classes in how to read studies and what is a good study etc and 10yrs is the limit.

And I was actually going to post Its not that is disagree with just stating that you used a very broad brush. Like Timmy mentioned above good and bad in both.

And no drugs here I am pretty certain archery wounds more. By how much idk. I do know of several rifle hunters who are of the mind if it didn't drop I missed so how many of those animals are hit and never found?

The manner in which every study about archery wounding was conducted would lead one to believe that if rifle studies were done the same way, rifle would be grossly under reported because like mentioned some might not even go look and just assume. Where as archery it's pretty easy to walk the short distance to see if you hit or not.

 

[HighWildFree]

Unsworth, J. W., Kuck, L., Scott, M. D., & Garton, E. O. (1993). Elk mortality in the Clearwater drainage of northcentral Idaho. The Journal of wildlife management, 495-502.

Right in the abstract: 43 elk killed by rifle, 8 wounded and lost. 4 killed by archery, 2 wounded and lost.

50% wounding rate for archery, but 4 times as many elk were wounded and lost with a rifle than bow. Pick you stat to fit your bias.