MT - Changes in Hunting Regs/Units/Seasons coming this month

[brocksw]

I think the solution could be found with reworking the landowner preference system as I described earlier. For example Set the landowner draw using this formula. Landowner portion of the draw is equal to 50% of the % private land in the unit. Using a unit that is 70% private and 200 tags, landowners would get 70 tags instead of 30. This increase of 40 tags would hurt the chances of a DIY hunter drawing tags, but this could be remedied by increasing the number of tag to around 240 because the vast majority of the people in the landowner draw would be hunting private land. By doing this you could keep DIY draw odds the same, keep pressure on public the same and have more people hunting the private at the same time.
Some Outfitters and UPOM would not like the idea because the people eligible for the landowner draw are landowners, close relatives and employees of landowners not wealthy out of state "friends".

Are landowner tags restricted to their land? That's the hang up for me. Landowner tags should not be good unit wide.

I'd support a landowner preference systemand possibly an increase if it it's only good for their land. I think most units can't take an increase to "public land tags" as they're already crowded and under significant pressure.

 

[sacountry]

We did the game damage hunt rout with a neighbor a few years back. The hunt was held just before archery. We didn't have any elk killed, but some were killed on the neighbors. Historically we don't have many cows until after the start of archery and the big push activity pushes elk out of the Custer. That is starting to change in recent years. The next year the neighbor leased and the damage hunt came to an end. The biggest push back we got was from bow hunters that were planing to hunt our property and were worried we would keep the elk off until after they hunted.

I do think damage hunts, if retooled, could be highly effective. Inorder to train the elk, we should train hunters to check the FWP site daily for any new BMA thats opened up near them. Getting the information to those who can help solve the problem in timely fashion is key.

The original damage hunts were only available to those who still had a general tag at the end of the season. If you had opted in, you might get a random call in December to go somewhere to take an elk off private. It was a clunky system because I might be at work and totally unable to get to the ranch 3 hours away that day or even the next.

If we retool the damage hunt system, incorporate the website, train the boots on the ground to look for it, don't have a kill burn a general tag in districts over 200%, then I think this idea has some legs to it.

 

[sacountry]

I initially set out to find the same information and like you I have to work too so just went with the basic information. I was hoping it "atleast start a conversation"

OnX website was useful. They actually have lots of good data, but in HTML format so I could y easily drop it into Excel to do sums, etc.

 

[WIbiggame]

OnX website was useful. They actually have lots of good data, but in HTML format so I could y easily drop it into Excel to do sums, etc.

I will look into that. Thanks for the heads up

 

[Wind Gypsy]

Are landowner tags restricted to their land? That's the hang up for me. Landowner tags should not be good unit wide.

I'd support a landowner preference systemand possibly an increase if it it's only good for their land. I think most units can't take an increase to "public land tags" as they're already crowded and under significant pressure.

If it's different than say a NM landowner tag in that they'd still have to draw them, I don't feel strongly they should be restricted to their own land on roaming species like elk. Maybe just "private land only" is a better compromise and they could work out deals with neighbors? I don't have a good grasp on just how much land someone needs for landowner preference but I wonder how much public perception and world views are tainted by certain prevalent landowner examples in these situations.

[edit to add] The #'s showing 75% private land in the 900-20 zones cuts both ways IMO. If landowners are providing the bulk of the habitat for the publics wildlife, there should be some recognition and benefits going their way.

 

[brocksw]

If it's different than say a NM landowner tag in that they'd still have to draw them, I don't feel strongly they should be restricted to their own land on roaming species like elk. Maybe just "private land only" is a better compromise and they could work out deals with neighbors? I don't have a good grasp on just how much land someone needs for landowner preference but I wonder how much world views are tainted by certain prevalent landowner examples in these situations.

I'd be okay with that too. But if they want to hunt public land, they gotta get in the regular draw with everyone else.

I think it's Nebraska that asks for proof that elk actually hang out on your land. I think that's something to consider as well. If you're a landowner in SE MT and you never have elk on your land, should you even be able to get a landowner elk tag? Owning land should not be a free ticket to take from a public resource just because you own land.

 

[antlerradar]

Are landowner tags restricted to their land? That's the hang up for me. Landowner tags should not be good unit wide.

I'd support a landowner preference systemand possibly an increase if it it's only good for their land. I think most units can't take an increase to "public land tags" as they're already crowded and under significant pressure.

Currently landowner preference tags are good unit wide, likely the reason for this is that some landowners have elk on there property, but may not during season. I doubt many people that get a landowner preference tag are filling it on public.

 

[brocksw]

Currently landowner preference tags are good unit wide, likely the reason for this is that some landowners have elk on there property, but may not during season. I doubt many people that get a landowner preference tag are filling it on public.

I've heard of landowners in SE MT not being able to hunt their own land because they've leased it to an outfitter. So they end up getting a couple odd days when clients aren't in there or at the end of the season. Not trying to generalize but I think it needs to be explicit that LO tags aren't good on public land.

 

[TheTone]

I've heard of landowners in SE MT not being able to hunt their own land because they've leased it to an outfitter. So they end up getting a couple odd days when clients aren't in there or at the end of the season. Not trying to generalize but I think it needs to be explicit that LO tags aren't good on public land.

I had a landowner friend tell me something similar. He told me if I drew the tag he would take me anyways and that if the outfitter had a problem with that the lease would be cancelled

 

[Redside]

is it fair to summarize at this point that we should be pushing for the acceptance of the “unlimited B tags on private ground in over objective units” motion and reject all the other amendments, ie maintain the status quo, until the new elk management plan comes out?

I also liked the idea of restricting people to hunt only the unit the permit is good for like mule deer permits. If you draw a limited permit for an archery only season for unit X, you have to hunt that unit only. How many resident bowhunters get a breaks archery tag, hunt it for a week, then every weekend they're hunting their home units.

 

[easternmt]

I think the solution could be found with reworking the landowner preference system as I described earlier. For example Set the landowner draw using this formula. Landowner portion of the draw is equal to 50% of the % private land in the unit. Using a unit that is 70% private and 200 tags, landowners would get 70 tags instead of 30. This increase of 40 tags would hurt the chances of a DIY hunter drawing tags, but this could be remedied by increasing the number of tag to around 240 because the vast majority of the people in the landowner draw would be hunting private land. By doing this you could keep DIY draw odds the same, keep pressure on public the same and have more people hunting the private at the same time.
Some Outfitters and UPOM would not like the idea because the people eligible for the landowner draw are landowners, close relatives and employees of landowners not wealthy out of state "friends".

This isn’t too bad of a proposal however I would like to see it if you put in for a landowner preference tag it is solely used on private property. I know in a lot of districts someone that owns 640 acres of non elk inhabited country still can apply landowner preference but hunts solely on public land.

 

[Deleted member 20812]

This isn’t too bad of a proposal however I would like to see it if you put in for a landowner preference tag it is solely used on private property. I know in a lot of districts someone that owns 640 acres of non elk inhabited country still can apply landowner preference but hunts solely on public land.

Buuuut, on the flip side of that argument, look at somewhere like the Dana Ranch that is about 30% public land checkerboard within the boundaries. Are you really going to 1) make that same argument and 2) have any hopes of enforcing it?

 

[brocksw]

Buuuut, on the flip side of that argument, look at somewhere like the Dana Ranch that is about 30% public land checkerboard within the boundaries. Are you really going to 1) make that same argument and 2) have any hopes of enforcing it?

Enforcing it will be difficult in some cases for sure. But I still think LO tags should be private land only. If that landowner wants to break the law/rule than that's his choice and he can live with any of the consequences should he get caught. Considering that he's probably cutting off access to the checker board public, I don't feel sorry for him and I don't think we throw our hands up in the air and say oh well either.

 

[easternmt]

Buuuut, on the flip side of that argument, look at somewhere like the Dana Ranch that is about 30% public land checkerboard within the boundaries. Are you really going to 1) make that same argument and 2) have any hopes of enforcing it?

Would be hard to enforce agreed. However laws are laws and people for the most part observe them. If you’re going to poach your going to poach anyways. No different than jumping the fence from public to private and back to public.

 

[brocksw]

When they say restricting hunters to the permit district drawn for archery, are they saying that if you draw a limited entry archery tag you can't hunt a general unit during general season? Or is it just during the archery season that the restriction is in place?

 

[golfer]

When they say restricting hunters to the permit district drawn for archery, are they saying that if you draw a limited entry archery tag you can't hunt a general unit during general season? Or is it just during the archery season that the restriction is in place?

If you apply and get an LE archery permit you hunt that district for the archery season. Then can hunt the general areas during rifle season.

 

[Big Sky Guy]

I doubt many people that get a landowner preference tag are filling it on public.

This has not been my observation.

 

[YoungGun]

@antlerradar - As a landowner impacted by the proposed changes, and someone who probably sees an increase in fall traffic year after year, what's the general feeling of where FWP wants to head between you and your neighbors? I'm perhaps being presumptuous that you've spoken with them about this or that it is a topic of discussion at all, but I'd just be curious as any of these changes would impact your family and your neighbors more than a guy like me who passes through on occasion. Positives and negatives would be nice to hear.

I will say that your proposed landowner tag alteration would gain my support- especially with the caveat that the tag stays in the immediate family and is not transferred. I would like it even more if going in to the application period, you had to name which family member(s) would be hunting the tag prior to applying. As an addition, I think it could go a long ways for landowner recognition and appreciation if those children under the age of 16 of the ranchers had their own pool to pull from where odds were significantly higher. Help welcome the future stewards of the land and give those families something to look forward to in the fall beyond the annoyances of increased traffic. Cow tags should 100% be given to each landowner. For the sake of actually filling the tags, I could care less if these were transferred to friends, seeing as land owners most often already have freezers full of beef and a few game animals.

When I had my rifle elk tag in those parts in 2018, many of the landowners that I stopped and spoke with expressed frustration that their odds weren't much better than mine in getting the same tag, even though the elk were in their haystacks for a portion of the season. I'll add for those reading this comment that these were family ranches, not guys looking to lease or outfit etc. I do think their hunt odds need to be addressed. Either in a way that @antlerradar suggests, or perhaps in a quota system where for every X cow elk killed, they will be given Y bulls tags the following season. For some, it might incentivize letting the non-locals access a late season cow or two.

 

[Deleted member 20812]

Would be hard to enforce agreed. However laws are laws and people for the most part observe them. If you’re going to poach your going to poach anyways. No different than jumping the fence from public to private and back to public.

This really in the big picture is rather insignificant IMO and it worth planting your flag on the hill for.

Pretty sure one landowner and member on here has landlocked public land within the ranch boundary, and it’s unfenced in places. This seems like a trivia and punitive issue, and the honest ones are penalized while the rest say screw it.

 

[rogerthat]

Currently landowner preference tags are good unit wide, likely the reason for this is that some landowners have elk on there property, but may not during season. I doubt many people that get a landowner preference tag are filling it on public.

I’m fascinated by your statement that you doubt many people that get landowner preference are filling it on public. I know of a good solid number of them that do fill it on public land especially on years they don’t have the elk on them. I think it should be very specific to their land only. Fair is fair