MT Archery Proposed 2008/09 Changes

[Nemont]

FWP proposes limitation on archery elk hunting
Issue will be hashed out in public meetings next month; decision due in February
By MARK HENCKEL
Gazette Outdoor Editor

HELENA - The Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks Commission voted unanimously Thursday to put a proposal to limit archery elk hunting in 31 central and Eastern Montana hunting districts on the tentative 2008-09 hunting regulations.

The decision came down to allowing Montana hunters to have their say on the idea at 44 public meetings to be held across the state in January. The commission will make a final decision at its February meeting.

The elk archery proposal drew a crowd of about 150 to the commission meeting at the Red Lion Colonial Inn. Many came to talk, and comments ran for more than two hours before the commission voted.

Most of the testimony came from outfitters who opposed the plan to limit either-sex archery elk hunting. Permit numbers would be limited to 65 percent of the average number of archers in the Missouri Breaks districts and 85 percent of the archery average in 23 other hunting districts in central and eastern portions of the state. Archery elk districts affected are those that currently allow bull hunting only to rifle hunters who draw permits.

The limits on either-sex licenses targeted crowding in the Missouri Breaks districts and increasing access problems across Eastern Montana. With reins put on the either-sex permits, nonresident hunters could be limited to 10 percent of the licenses in a district.

Sportsmen, in general, backed the either-sex elk archery cutbacks and wanted the opportunity for resident hunters to hear more about it at the public meetings.

As Darrell Olson of Shepherd put it, "Most of the people talking against this proposal have a vested financial interest in this."

"Give the public not here today a chance to comment on this proposal," said Billy Lewis, who lives in Livingston.

A long line of individual outfitters plus representatives of agricultural groups and the Montana Outfitters and Guides Association opposed the elk archery limitations, and many said they would rather see the commission pass the issue on to FWP's Public Land/Private Wildlife Advisory Council for consideration.

That council is made up of outfitters, landowners and sportsmen.

"This tentative has more to do with social issues than biology, and social issues don't have a place before the commission. I hope you don't put this tentative out for 44 meetings where three groups can fight one another," said Jean Johnson, a lobbyist for the Montana Outfitters and Guides Association.

The commission also voted to allow an unlimited number of antlerless elk archery permits for the 31 districts. Archers could apply for them as a second or third choice on the permit application so those who didn't draw a bull permit would still be able to hunt.

With the commission setting tentatives and seasons for both 2008 and 2009, outfitters then asked to defer any changes to the 2009 season because clients had been booked for the 2008 season.

On a split vote, the commission decided to go ahead with 2008 and for the department to prepare options for full refunds of clients who bought outfitter-guaranteed licenses but didn't draw the either-sex tags that would allow them to take a bull.

"I think it's important that the public be involved in this process through the 44 public meetings," said FWP Commissioner Dan Vermillion, of Livingston.

"There's value in getting to a point where people who disagree have to talk to each other, and this will provide that opportunity," said FWP Commission Chairman Steve Doherty, of Missoula.

 

[Spitz]

Cool. I don't have a problem with it. Haven't hunted the breaks but have heard about the numbers problems. The stinky part would be burning your elk points to chase bulls around with a bow.

 

[shoots-straight]

I was there, the outfitters were crying that this was going to ruin there businesses. I'm a contractor, no government agency provides clients for me.

 

[Cathunt MT]

You think its cool now but what happens to the guys that dont draw the tag do you think that they are not going to hunt???? I think It needs to be done in the breaks but to do it in other areas I think it is a bad idea.

 

[ringer]

I don't understand the issue very well but what do you mean by "if they don't draw a tag--they are going to hunt?" If they don't draw a tag they can't hunt or are you saying they will hunt anyway?

 

[Nemont]

I don't understand the issue very well but what do you mean by "if they don't draw a tag--they are going to hunt?" If they don't draw a tag they can't hunt or are you saying they will hunt anyway?

He means that the pressure that is currently on the Breaks, because of the unlimited bow permits, will be spread out to the West side of the State. The people who currently hunt in the Breaks have to first draw the license and then put in for the permit to hunt in those Breaks district.

There is no reduction in the number of licenses given just in the number of permits allowed. Same number of hunters but only so many that could now hunt in the Breaks. Bad time to be a bowhunter in Western Montana.

Nemont

 

[Oak]

I'm not familiar with the area, but isn't the Breaks hunt a relatively "easy" hunt for above average elk? Do you think the typical Breaks hunter will put in the effort it takes to find and kill an above average bull in the western part of the state? Just trying to figure out if hardcore western hunters will really see a big effect from the proposed regulations.

 

[Big Fin]

I usually go to the Breaks opening weekend of archery, but for sharptail and sage grouse hunting. I cannot beleive how many guys were there this year. NOT a quality hunt.

I am all for this proposal. I feel bad that is will reduce some opportunities for some folks. Mostly non-residents, given the tag numbers they are talking about issuing.

Too bad it has got to this point.

Ever since the outfitters got guaranteed tags for thier non-resident clients, they have been on a leasing binge. It crowds more and more people onto public lands by tying up ranches that used to allow permission or were in the Block Management Program.

The outfitters agreed that if they got guaranteed tags, they would not lease up additional ground. They have leased everything they can get a client to hunt.

I don't fault landowners for leasing. It's their land, they should be able to do what they want with it.

That doesn't mean that the state owes the outfitters any obligation to keep policies in effect that sustain outfitter profits. It is a public asset (wildlife) and the state needs to manage for the benefit of the wildlife and the citizens. If the outfitters can work within that, great. If not, well, they chose to get into a business where the business model is dependent upon the state management policies of a publicly owned asset. That is a business risk, plain and simple.

Oak: I don't think many of the guys are hard core enough to disrupt a lot of guys in western MT. Not too many residents will be displaced. And, many of the resident hunters who draw the tag are already hunting the western MT areas near where some of them live.

The outfitter screaming is at a roar today. Every newpaper blog is full of their B.S. comments.

The problem when you rely on government for a business subsidy, direct or indirect, is that government can take away your subsidy. Such is the case with private land outfitters operating under MT's favorable outfitter laws.

Happy Hunting!

 

[Spitz]

Well said.

 

[drahthaar]

I don't think there is going to be a huge influx of hunters coming to the west side, especially the nw side. Maybe at first, but once they hunt here for a week and see less than 10 elk, they will bail. The east side offers a guy at least a chance to see PILES of game. We bugle five bulls here on a weekend, we are stoked. Yeah, you laugh, just come and hunt here.

STEEP AND DEEP boys!!!!

 

[Big Sky]

They have already readjusted the percentage of the average number of tags since Nemont posted this. It's pretty insignificant. I doubt it's going to make much difference if it passes. I went to the Breaks once 5 or 6 years ago and was so turned off by the circus going on there that I never went back. I live in the Highwoods unit and it gets absolutely pounded during archery season. It would be nice to see a little less pressure here as well. When you combine nearly a two hundred thousand people (Great Falls region and Billings) and a major military base all within easy driving distance of the Highwoods and he Breaks the hunting pressure really takes a toll on the wildlife and quality of the hunt.

 

[Cathunt MT]

He means that the pressure that is currently on the Breaks, because of the unlimited bow permits, will be spread out to the West side of the State. The people who currently hunt in the Breaks have to first draw the license and then put in for the permit to hunt in those Breaks district.

There is no reduction in the number of licenses given just in the number of permits allowed. Same number of hunters but only so many that could now hunt in the Breaks. Bad time to be a bowhunter in Western Montana.

Nemont

That is what I mean... But I am talking more about the other areas they are trying to shut down. Most of the people hunting the breaks are from out of state. There are 30 more hunting areas that they are trying to do this with as well, That is where you are going to get your presser from when they dont draw. If I hunted the ares they are talking about I would be looking for a new spot right now, But I dont. What I am saying is they are not going to sell there bows and give it up they will move to another area. Then fish and game will do the same to the rest of the state, Just like CO you will have to pick a week to hunt and thats it... That sounds great|oo

 

[The Hedgehog]

I am talking more about the other areas they are trying to shut down.

What's being "shut down?"

It's a bummer for the guys who like to bounce around across multiple units in eastern MT each fall during archery season. However, for the guys that want to concentrate on a single unit, it will alleviate some hunting pressure and the leasing frenzy.

I hunt western MT, public land. I'm not concerned in the least about any of the breaks or eastern MT elk bowhunters moving in on my favorite places - not even a little bit. I'm with drahthaar's opinion of it.

 

[Cathunt MT]

What's being "shut down?"

It's a bummer for the guys who like to bounce around across multiple units in eastern MT each fall during archery season. However, for the guys that want to concentrate on a single unit, it will alleviate some hunting pressure and the leasing frenzy.

I hunt western MT, public land. I'm not concerned in the least about any of the breaks or eastern MT elk bowhunters moving in on my favorite places - not even a little bit. I'm with drahthaar's opinion of it.

Sorry I should have said "To general tags"
I will try to find the whole thing so you can read it....

 

[The Hedgehog]

Cathunt, I think the plan was to set quotas to levels that would allow a 100% draw at the current level of resident hunting. Therefore, you will be able hunt the place if you really want to.

I saw the MBA stance on the tentatives - looks like they took a great position. Supporting the limited quotas in the breaks, but not yet elsewhere in eastern MT.

 

[Cathunt MT]

So do you think they will redo the #s every year to keep it 100% ?

 

[Cathunt MT]

I saw the MBA stance on the tentatives - looks like they took a great position. Supporting the limited quotas in the breaks, but not yet elsewhere in eastern MT.

I think that is good to..

 

[Big Fin]

The tentatives will put the Breaks units at 75% of the preceeding 3 year average. The other eastern MT units will be a 90% of the preceeding 3 year average.

Given those proposed numbers, if the 2008 applicant numbers are similar to 2007, 75% of resident hunters will draw in the Breaks units and 100% would draw in the other eastern MT units.

The folks who will be hit the hardest are NRs. Fair or not, I would be surprised to see many resident hunters oppose it. Other than the Breaks units, the majority of NRs will draw in the other eastern districts.

Some are worrying about a big flux of displaced hunters coming to western MT. I doubt it. At those quotas, not many are being displaced, as some would like us to believe.

Happy Hunting!

 

[AZ402]

Edit: Some homo from Montana is staying at my house and thought he was funny, he isn't......................

 

[Bambistew]

Wonder how many more years down the road before the whole state goes on a draw?

Do you think that the majority of the resident hunters that hit the breaks hunt them exclusivly, or do they make the pilgrimage from the western part of the state? I've never hunted out there, but know quite a few people that do, and they all live in the western part of the state, and usually only hunt it for a week at most, and spend the rest of the time hunting closer to their home.

Also, are they going to set up the archry permits exclusive to that unit, meaning if you draw say unit 410, you're hunting 410 and no other unit for that season?