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

[Gulf of America]

No matter what the NR are still limited to 10% of LE permits though, correct?

Yes, but they can then increase quotas in the mostly-private HD's while keeping them low in HD's with lots of public. Sure plenty more DIY hunters will get permits, but they won't have any land to hunt.

 

[Straight Arrow]

No matter what the NR are still limited to 10% of LE permits though, correct?

At least until the 2023 Montana Legislative Session!

 

[Carnage2011]

At least until the 2023 Montana Legislative Session!

Which doesn’t matter if it’s a bundled unit or not. If it’s going to go up then it’s going to go up.

 

[Straight Arrow]

Which doesn’t matter if it’s a bundled unit or not. If it’s going to go up then it’s going to go up.

Which is the point.

 

[Carnage2011]

Which is the point.

No it’s not. If that was the point we wouldn’t have people arguing against breaking up the 900. It wouldn’t matter if that was the point.

 

[Wind Gypsy]

I don't feel like the 900 was ever difficult to draw for NR, just had to wait a few years. About on par with a WY general tag.

I'm booked with an outfitter for a private land archery elk hunt next year in 704. Going into the draw with 4 points I had pretty good odds of getting that tag. Not sure how it may change but I thought it might actually get more difficult to draw with the split.

It seems a little odd to not want to combine multiple areas into a bigger area in some locations because it limits management opportunities but also oppose breaking up a much bigger chunk like the 900-20 units. I understand the private land/outfitter component is different with the 900 tags though.

 

[Ben Lamb]

So how does the lumping of the 900 units increase access to these private lands?

I'm not trying to be an asshole here, I just don't understand the mechanics of what you all are talking about, and how it's a regulation issue.

It's about distribution of resident hunters versus NR's. Bundling those districts gave you X # of permits for the entirety of them, not just XYZ. Going back to the district specific units gives more surety for specific landowners/outfitters regarding how many hunters they can take, versus competing for the 10% 900 tags.

And you're right, the 900 didn't lead to more accessible land, but it did change the percentage of bulls being harvested so that it went back to more of an equilibrium between NR's and R's in some specific districts. The narrative from those against the permits, just like the outfitter set aside folks, is that sportsmen are trying to force access. I don't think that's the case. The case is that elk are selecting areas where they are either totally safe from hunting, or are being managed in such a way as to reduce resident hunter opportunity at harvest. Durfee Hills are a good example here. If a Landowner gets the transferable license/set aside, then he has both pools to choose from in terms of charging outfitter fees to hunt those ranches.

It's a death of a thousand cuts. First season setting to change up breaks archery to more of the wild west show (because seasons change every two years, and how many of these districts will go back to general in 24-25?). new legislation, a new EMP that favors outfitters & landowners even more than the current one and leaves the scraps for resident hunters and DIY NR's.

I don't think your an asshole. If my logic fails, then I'm not above admitting I'm wrong. Except to @wllm1313

 

[Wind Gypsy]

Also, it looks like they are proposing to make some of the units currently in 900-20 into General tag hunts. I'm not familiar with those particular areas but I'd probably oppose that if I was into quality over opportunity.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Also, it looks like they are proposing to make some of the units currently in 900-20 into General tag hunts. I'm not familiar with those particular areas but I'd probably oppose that if I was into quality over opportunity.

It would be interesting to see which outfitter will benefit in those general unit changes.

 

[bigsky2]

So how does the lumping of the 900 units increase access to these private lands?

I'm not trying to be an asshole here, I just don't understand the mechanics of what you all are talking about, and how it's a regulation issue.

I don’t think they are arguing that leaving the 900 bundle is going to increase access in any way. I think the fear is that by breaking up the units, they can start allocating tags based on the units being over objective. Take 411 for example, which is like 800% over objective. I believe they are proposing 1100 archery permits for the unit. I doubt 1100 archery hunters currently hunt 411. It’s also a unit with a relatively small amount of access, at least access to land that holds elk during hunting season. Increasing permits will benefit the wealthy landowner who bought their place for hunting, but it will be a huge detriment to the average guy hunting on public. The public hunting in units like that will be a complete shit show.
To be clear, I think breaking up the 900 bundle was a good move if they keep the permit numbers at reasonable levels. I can see a scenario where the public hunting gets much worse though.

 

[Carnage2011]

It would be interesting to see which outfitter will benefit in those general unit changes.

Im not trying to be rude but why does it matter? As of right now the non resident combo tags are capped so if anything it could spread out some hunters into other units.

 

[bigsky2]

On the 900-20 tags going back to LE individual districts, yeah, it could have been much worse, but reinstating the districts is what the UPOM and Paul Ellis crowd have been pushing for. This allows easier marketing to NR outfitted clients and helps outfitters when it comes to client management through points, etc. The main reason that 900-20 was brought in was to deal with a massive misallocation of harvested bulls in some of those districts as well as spreading out resident hunter pressure. With OTC B tags, and now a bunch of split up districts, I think it makes sense to track this and ensure that the data on harvest is kept. I'm not sure they will this time.

None of this happens in a vaccuum. With the big expansion in requests under the 454 program, increased pressure for transferable licenses, etc, eliminating the 900-20 is a first step towards increasing bull poermits in over-objectiver districts, and if FWP gets their way on getting 505 or other transferable licenses put in place, this could very easily result in resident hunters losing a ton access to lands that hold elk as leases and exclusivity become the standard operating procedure even moreso than currently.

Speaking of the 454 program, did anyone watch when they approved these during the last commission meeting? I was curious if anyone spoke in opposition. I am not totally against the program as long as the agreements are fair. The owner of the Horse Ranch in 417 didn’t draw his either sex archery permit this year, so he enrolled in the 454 program and got a permit in exchange for giving access to TWO cow hunters. I wish I had known about it before the meeting so I could have got on and spoke in opposition. It screams of corruption and is setting a really bad example if that’s the road they are going to go down.

 

[Carnage2011]

Sorry guys, I just can't wrap my head around the logic here, it's 2+2=5 to me. It sounds like we're spending way too much time worrying about the elk that we can't manage and not enough time on the accessible elk that we can control.

I'll bow out and quite derailing the thread.

I’ll bounce out as well.

 

[Straight Arrow]

No it’s not. If that was the point we wouldn’t have people arguing against breaking up the 900. It wouldn’t matter if that was the point.

Roger. I saw your point. You missed mine. I agree with you. 'Don't wish to argue. Out.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Speaking of the 454 program, did anyone watch when they approved these during the last commission meeting? I was curious if anyone spoke in opposition. I am not totally against the program as long as the agreements are fair. The owner of the Horse Ranch in 417 didn’t draw his either sex archery permit this year, so he enrolled in the 454 program and got a permit in exchange for giving access to TWO cow hunters. I wish I had known about it before the meeting so I could have got on and spoke in opposition. It screams of corruption and is setting a really bad example if that’s the road they are going to go down.

Do you have any paper on this? Statute says no fewer than 3 public hunters, and only 1 of them can be chosen by the Landowner and not charged any fee.

 

[bigsky2]

Do you have any paper on this? Statute says no fewer than 3 public hunters, and only 1 of them can be chosen by the Landowner and not charged any fee.

You’re right, he is also allowing access to one either sex archery permit holder, chosen by himself. It sounds like he picked the one local guy that he let’s hunt every year. Here is the agreement:

https://fwp.mt.gov/binaries/content/assets/fwp/commissionagendas/2021-test/august-20-2021/wildlife/2021-contractual-public-elk-hunting-access-agreements/g-gary-landowner-public-access-agreement---6.28.2021---final.pdf

 

[Ben Lamb]

Sorry guys, I just can't wrap my head around the logic here, it's 2+2=5 to me. It sounds like we're spending way too much time worrying about the elk that we can't manage and not enough time on the accessible elk that we can control.

I'll bow out and quite derailing the thread.

I’ll bounce out as well.

it's a worthy discussion to continue. Hopefully at bear camp next year.

You’re right, he is also allowing access to one either sex archery permit holder, chosen by himself. It sounds like he picked the one local guy that he let’s hunt every year. Here is the agreement:

https://fwp.mt.gov/binaries/content/assets/fwp/commissionagendas/2021-test/august-20-2021/wildlife/2021-contractual-public-elk-hunting-access-agreements/g-gary-landowner-public-access-agreement---6.28.2021---final.pdf

The way I read that, they're getting 1 LE permit in 410 for allowing only 1 ES and 2 cow hunters. Not sure that's really in the spirit of the program, but it would appear to be legal.

 

[Schaaf]

 

[antlerradar]

Sorry, I'm not following this. Can you dumb it down? The 900 tags have been very easy to draw up until now. How is it easier for the outfitters now with individual unit tags?

outfitters in the less popular units (mostly private)will have an easier time in the draw. on the other hand outfitters in units that contain lots of accessible public are going to have it rough, depending on how many tags there are,

 

[antlerradar]

Yes, but they can then increase quotas in the mostly-private HD's while keeping them low in HD's with lots of public. Sure plenty more DIY hunters will get permits, but they won't have any land to hunt.

So landowner are all of a sudden have a high tolerance for elk.