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

[Gerald Martin]

Are you saying not just the current 900 units but all current general units should be unlimited but the holder has to declare the unit in the application process? Seems like all the units around urban centers (Bozeman Billings and Missoula) would get pounded by the weekend warriors. I guess FWP and hunters would quickly figure out where the hunters end up. I don’t think this helps with pressure, just makes it more transparent. The pressure problem comes from too many tags in total.

That’s not what I was saying in my post, but I would actually support having to designate a unit at the time of application or buying an OTC license and then be limited to that unit for the year.

 

[Sioux33]

FYI - I've bowhunted in Montana for almost 40 years, and not once in an area you needed a permit for. Also, I'm totally against the idea of clustering the units together (I think it was done for the benefit of outfitters so that more out of state hunters could draw a permit, and hunt just a few ranches in the eastern part of the state, to bypass the 10% rule). I just don't like the idea of drawing a permit for an area excluding you from hunting the general areas - that's not typical for how permits have been.

General areas will be the best spots in the state next year when the tens of thousands of unlimited permit bowhunters are busy with the inaugural fall elk roundup onto GG's campaign donor's ranches. Just think of all the jet fuel those guys are gonna save not having to herd up the elk themselves...

 

[YoungGun]

Still think the best approach is agree to making it general if its for cows only across the entire zone. That should kill it on the other side. Either way, hunters just need a solution to consolidate around to change the narrative.

Many of these units have been "general cow" for several years. Yet here we are "Over Objective"

@Irishman - I appreciate your perspective. I, too, am against clustering. It leads to mass-management, instead of focusing on the needs of each hunt district. As for having to hunt where you draw- I would oppose seeing that go state-wide and include general. But for LE tags, I whole-heartedly support it. That is how we manage our deer hunts in Montana, and elk should be no different. It would certainly cause more people to pause as they apply for their tags each year, and would allow more precise management of our general zones as a whole.

 

[SAJ-99]

Many of these units have been "general cow" for several years. Yet here we are "Over Objective"

Yes. But the only way an idea like this does is if the “other side” kills it. I think the only way to do that is to make it what it should be to meet the goal of reducing the population- a cow slaughter. We all agree giving out bull tags isn’t going to do anything.
I’m afraid just being “against” it will result in the same result as was seen in the legislative session. It’s going to get shoved through and hunters will be blamed for not being willing to try new ideas and not being willing to talk. People can talk about voting GG out as the only solution, but he is auditioning for the next job anyway.

 

[YoungGun]

I agree that opposing only goes so far- no where - There are a lot of good ideas that have been offered. My sarcasm stems from the fact that it could already be a cow slaughter, yet we are "over-objective". The point being that perhaps we need to re-evaluate our "objectives" as they stand today. We could kill 40% of the cows in these units, but do you really think these same vocal, large-tract, landowners will feel that we are finally "within objective"?

 

[SAJ-99]

I agree that opposing only goes so far- no where - There are a lot of good ideas that have been offered. My sarcasm stems from the fact that it could already be a cow slaughter, yet we are "over-objective". The point being that perhaps we need to re-evaluate our "objectives" as they stand today. We could kill 40% of the cows in these units, but do you really think these same vocal, large-tract, landowners will feel that we are finally "within objective"?

Absolutely not. My view is that the complaining landowners don't know or care if there are 500 elk feeding in their field or 400. They only know that there are a lot of elk eating the feed. But we have to show those landowners that they the administration doesn't care about them either. They can't "monetize" the elk because they are not there during the season (despite the season being 7 months long). It's ironic that when the Wilks throw a bone to FWP and commoners and allow cows to be shot on their ranch, it pushes the elk herd to the neighbors property faster that they would have been otherwise.

 

[shoots-straight]

That’s not what I was saying in my post, but I would actually support having to designate a unit at the time of application or buying an OTC license and then be limited to that unit for the year.

Gerald, one thing you might notice when you look around the state at HD's you see that those in the Western portion get a lot smaller than those in the East. So HD's might not have many elk until the late winter snows push them there, or they might be there during archery only to leave earlier during rifle leaving you very little options. So if you put in for a HD like HD 270 in the Root, you'd have to archery hunt that unit even though there's not many elk then. You might have a lot of people that apply there or designate that unit for the late hunts that have to hunt that unit the whole season because of that regulation. I'm not a fan of choosing your HD unless it's a limited entry unit. My .02 cents worth.

 

[SAJ-99]

Gerald, one thing you might notice when you look around the state at HD's you see that those in the Western portion get a lot smaller than those in the East. So HD's might not have many elk until the late winter snows push them there, or they might be there during archery only to leave earlier during rifle leaving you very little options. So if you put in for a HD like HD 270 in the Root, you'd have to archery hunt that unit even though there's not many elk then. You might have a lot of people that apply there or designate that unit for the late hunts that have to hunt that unit the whole season because of that regulation. I'm not a fan of choosing your HD unless it's a limited entry unit. My .02 cents worth.

You make a very good point. How about a zone?

 

[Wind Gypsy]

Sent my comments in to every reg change i could for the 900 series tags even though I've only hunted deer in that part of the state.

I didn't have much in relation to my normal elk spots in SW MT. I don't see a significant benefit to revising the areas borders i'm familiar with but don't see much of a problem either.

 

[shoots-straight]

You make a very good point. How about a zone?

I gave thought to regions, but many elk migrate from one region to another. Not sure the relevance? What are we trying to do here? Mitigate hunter pressure? Keep elk in one place or the other? You can do that with unlimited tags for a HD. You have to put in that HD first choice only. Those that wish to put in for LE won't put in for it. We've had success with those in places.

In populated areas I fear there would be larger numbers of the populous being confined there as it's closer to home. Now they usually choose a time to travel. Might be wrong though.

 

[antlerradar]

Absolutely not. My view is that the complaining landowners don't know or care if there are 500 elk feeding in their field or 400. They only know that there are a lot of elk eating the feed. But we have to show those landowners that they the administration doesn't care about them either. They can't "monetize" the elk because they are not there during the season (despite the season being 7 months long). It's ironic that when the Wilks throw a bone to FWP and commoners and allow cows to be shot on their ranch, it pushes the elk herd to the neighbors property faster that they would have been otherwise.

The landowners FWP is listening to are the ones complaining about not getting tags. The landowners getting crops eaten just play better politically.

 

[SAJ-99]

The landowners FWP is listening to are the ones complaining about not getting tags. The landowners getting crops eaten play better politically.

Agree.I think someone said before, there is a landowner vs landowner problem, and I think a hunter vs hunter problem, with wildlife caught in the middle.

 

[antlerradar]

Agree.I think someone said before, there is a landowner vs landowner problem, and I think a hunter vs hunter problem, with wildlife caught in the middle.

The way sportsman come out on top is to find solutions that improve things for the landowners concerned about crop damage without just handing out more tags to everyone.

 

[WIbiggame]

Sorry double posting, don't know who is reading which thread and feel this is important.

Just saw that some fishing regulations on the Upper Madison had 13:1 public comment for repelling and yet the FWP went ahead and implemented them. Fishing world is starting to feel it too. Time to all get on the same team here. They can't ignore all the public use crowd....Can They

The one common thing with this elk hunting I have seen in reading about the fishing, is that the outfitters and guides run this show.

 

[WIbiggame]

I am really starting to wonder if we are all looking at this wrong. I wonder if GG has some stake in wrecker/towing services. Can you imagine all the stuck vehicles in the breaks when it rains if this goes general?

 

[lifeisgoodsteve]

We can argue until we're blue in the face about what's a better way to manage the elk, tags, hunters, etc., but clearly the proposals have nothing to do with actual logic and reasoning. As incredibly knowledgeable as people are, I just don't see it helping our cause.

It seems that we need to be laser focused on how to affect policy change.

We have already learned that wise and well thought out proposals by the public will not do that.

So what will ?????

If comments are our only source of leverage, does that mean we should be talking to 5 people each to get them to write to their politicians?
Does it mean coming up with very very simple language and talking points that are easy to digest then writing letters to the Editor of our local newspapers to try to get the rest of the hunters into the game?

It just seems that our energy would be best spent on pragmatic actions vs theoretical management which will fall on deaf ears.

 

[shoots-straight]

We can argue until we're blue in the face about what's a better way to manage the elk, tags, hunters, etc., but clearly the proposals have nothing to do with actual logic and reasoning. As incredibly knowledgeable as people are, I just don't see it helping our cause.

It seems that we need to be laser focused on how to affect policy change.

We have already learned that wise and well thought out proposals will not do that.

So what will ?????

If comments are our only source of leverage, does that mean we should be talking to 5 people each to get them to write to their politicians?
Does it mean coming up with very very simple language and talking points that are easy to digest then writing letters to the Editor of our local newspapers to try to get the rest of the hunters into the game?

It just seems that our energy would be best spent on pragmatic actions vs theoretical management which will fall on deaf ears.

Maybe........................................................... INITIATIVE

 

[Irishman]

That’s not what I was saying in my post, but I would actually support having to designate a unit at the time of application or buying an OTC license and then be limited to that unit for the year.

I think you posted some photos this year hunting with your sons. They do grow up. What if they move to another part of the state? Do you not want to ever hunt with them anymore, or force one party or the other to travel a long distance? And not just sons and relatives, any friends you ever want to hunt with, would have to totally commit to hunting one area.

 

[TheTone]

I think you posted some photos this year hunting with your sons. They do grow up. What if they move to another part of the state? Do you not want to ever hunt with them anymore, or force one party or the other to travel a long distance? And not just sons and relatives, any friends you ever want to hunt with, would have to totally commit to hunting one area.

Idaho has been that way for close to 30 years now. I guess it can be a burden if you want to move around, but maybe it’s the right thing for the elk. It certainly takes away the one size fits all elk management system. I’ve hunted 4 different”zones” since Idaho went to its system and it would be more than that if I had more time off in the fall. I’ll probably add one or two more in the next five years

 

[Irishman]

Idaho has been that way for close to 30 years now. I guess it can be a burden if you want to move around, but maybe it’s the right thing for the elk. It certainly takes away the one size fits all elk management system. I’ve hunted 4 different”zones” since Idaho went to its system and it would be more than that if I had more time off in the fall. I’ll probably add one or two more in the next five years

I guess it all depends on what hunting is all about for you. Is it about spending time with family and friends doing something you love, or about trying to create areas with bigger elk?
I'll give you a personal example of why I hate these hunt here and only here regulations. I live in Region 1 in Montana, had a son in Region 2, and another in Region 3. We hunting together sometimes at a location that best suited everyone. The rest of the season I hunting in Region 1 with friends. I'm glad that I had the opportunity to hunt with my sons, and that it wasn't made difficult by limiting where we could hunt.

Anyone who thinks that putting stipulations that you can hunt here and only here will create a situation where the elk are bigger, and there chances of killing one are higher, is fooling themselves. People quote the success of the mule deer regs and how units like 270 now have big mule deer. What are the draw odds for 270? Close to zero I think. And from what I hear, finding a big buck on public land is getting tough there too.