Rack Daniels
Well-known member
OK was very similar I was trippin out that I had to come up with my own cards to attach with all the pertinent info and that my one license allowed me all the deer, not individual tags. Very different for me.
No King's Deer
- Thread starter Elky Welky
- Start date
OK was very similar I was trippin out that I had to come up with my own cards to attach with all the pertinent info and that my one license allowed me all the deer, not individual tags. Very different for me.
Rack Daniels
Well-known member
belshawelk
Well-known member
LOP and public access are both important. Like I have said before on here, I don't like LOP tags going to the highest bidder just for making money. I get two every year. I give one away and I use one. I have NEVER, EVER sold one. In fact I will only give a cow tag. No bull tag. I have never even put in for a bull tag even thought I can get two. Saw 4 or 5 decent bulls this weekend a 2 really nice bulls. One great 6 point and I met around a corner. He had several satellite and spike bulls and 30 or so cows. He has one less as of Saturday morning.
BUT I do provide habitat for elk/deer that benefits public hunters. They come and winter on my place and go back up to public. Over the winter they have food, water and shelter.
SO IMO both are important IF you are willing to use it to support all someway.
BUT I do provide habitat for elk/deer that benefits public hunters. They come and winter on my place and go back up to public. Over the winter they have food, water and shelter.
SO IMO both are important IF you are willing to use it to support all someway.
Gerald Martin
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2009
- Messages
- 9,639
Ya’ll let me know when this is settled. While we’re talking about all of the “it should be such and such” ways I have something else to throw into the consideration…
When a state wildlife agency manages wildlife populations for maximum opportunity to harvest that sees available public land wildlife shot out or pressured to stay on private property sanctuary at what point does “democratic opportunity” become antithetical to other parts of the NAM that call for scientific management of wildlife resources?
I think a legitimate argument could be given that general OTC seasons are only possible because of the amount of private property that limits access in many parts of the state. In other parts, distance and difficulty of terrain provides wildlife with enough relief to sustain populations.
When does the state agency mandated to mange public trust resources violate their duty to the trustees? IMO, the erosion of quality and quantity of populations of wildlife on publicly accessible lands due to long seasons and OTC tags crosses that line.
As better technology increases harvest efficiency and hunters become concentrated onto less publicly available acreage, if management policies don’t evolve to ensure that wildlife is not overexploited on that publicly accessible land I believe we’re going to see more and more people accepting a “pay to play” model for access. Transferable LO tags are the next step in that process.
Refusal to accept “less opportunity” can at times ensure that less opportunity is available in the future.
When a state wildlife agency manages wildlife populations for maximum opportunity to harvest that sees available public land wildlife shot out or pressured to stay on private property sanctuary at what point does “democratic opportunity” become antithetical to other parts of the NAM that call for scientific management of wildlife resources?
I think a legitimate argument could be given that general OTC seasons are only possible because of the amount of private property that limits access in many parts of the state. In other parts, distance and difficulty of terrain provides wildlife with enough relief to sustain populations.
When does the state agency mandated to mange public trust resources violate their duty to the trustees? IMO, the erosion of quality and quantity of populations of wildlife on publicly accessible lands due to long seasons and OTC tags crosses that line.
As better technology increases harvest efficiency and hunters become concentrated onto less publicly available acreage, if management policies don’t evolve to ensure that wildlife is not overexploited on that publicly accessible land I believe we’re going to see more and more people accepting a “pay to play” model for access. Transferable LO tags are the next step in that process.
Refusal to accept “less opportunity” can at times ensure that less opportunity is available in the future.
cgasner1
Well-known member
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2016
- Messages
- 5,591
Ya I was thinking about this earlier today that without a somewhere to hide for a 4 weeks we probably would have a lot less game.
antlerradar
Well-known member
If you were to graph opportunity by putting opportunity on the Y axis and regulations/ restrictions on the X axis you will find that the opportunity curve is an arch. Too few restrictions and the species suffers and in the extreme, even go extinct and opportunity is zero . The passenger pigeon being the prime example of this. On the other end of the curve, too many restrictions and there is also zero opportunity. This position is currently where we are with Grizzly Bears in the lower 48. The opportunity curve is going to be different for different species. The crest of the opportunity curve for whitetail deer is going to be much higher and much closer to the Y axis that the curve for Big Horn Sheep. Ideally we as hunters would like states to manage with a level of restrictions corresponding with some were near the crest of the opportunity curve, There is more to opportunity than just the freedom to hunt with out regulations and restrictions.
Last edited:
antlerradar
Well-known member
Today's landowners will not allow what happened to the passenger pigeon to happen to today's game animals. The animals are just too valuable. If the state has too few restrictions and game populations begin to suffer, landowners will hit the breaks and impose their own restrictions. Usually by placing a price on access. Public land has no one pressing the break if the state will not.
Last edited:
Gerald Martin
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2009
- Messages
- 9,639
I’m painting with broad strokes here, but I would agree with you the the vast majority of working landowners have an intrinsic emotional connection to the land and wildlife that lives there. It can be complicated at times when wildlife has associated costs that create economic tension or hardship for folks whose livelihood is dependent on what the land can provide.
However, that wildlife is part of the land and because of that becomes part of what a person connected to the land loves as well, even if the relationship has some tension in it.
There are a lot of people who have that same sense of connection to public land and the wildlife that resides there. There are also a large number of people who take wildlife and the needs of the land for granted because they only view it through the lens of being a consumer and feel entitled to get what they want because they’ve been accustomed to relative abundance as their experience.
In my opinion the majority of MT resident hunters do not have an adequate understanding or appreciation for what the wildlife they have tags for each fall needs to survive and thrive. As such, a tag that can be obtained becomes a means to harvest an animal and little thought is given to whether or not a local population can sustain that harvest.
We’ve had a management philosophy of the law of diminishing returns to expect hunters to spread out pressure in response to lack of game in a locale. It’s similar to the age old concept that predator numbers will be dictated by the amount of game. In the natural world, predators starve or expand populations in response to prey populations.
The shear amount of private property and restricted access to much of it has allowed MT’s long seasons, generous bag limits and season dates during deer and elk’s most vulnerable times to continue for as long as it has.
However, the quantity of game and quality of a diverse age structure of wildlife on the vast majority of public lands and nearby private land has suffered in the process.
The Montana hunter of 2025 is not the Montana hunter of 1950-1990. Technological advances and increased mobility have allowed the average hunter to become more efficient at selecting and harvesting the most desirable individuals in a hunted wildlife population.
Anyone interested in tracking that curve that @antlerradar described can see that the trajectory of public hunting in MT has been trending downward for decades.
My question is why are we more concerned about retaining the scraps that we have instead of focusing on how we can improve the status quo?
More wildlife on the mountain instead of only fighting in the Legislature about how tags are allocated seems to be a parallel solution we should be talking about in the same conversation.
Wind Gypsy
Well-known member
- Joined
- Mar 12, 2017
- Messages
- 3,126
All the sour grapes about R/NR disparity is silly. If that disparity weren't there hunting in western states would absolutely not be accessible to everyone in their own state of residence. If easily accessible/affordable hunting for residents in their home state isn't prioritized they will most certainly become "the kings deer" or at least not readily accessible on a regular basis. Sure, cost disparity in MT is ridiculous compared to most of the western states but on the flip side that disparity does support making hunting accessible to basically anyone in their own state which should be a priority if we're going to keep hunting from being a rich mans sport.
Nameless Range
Well-known member
That's a great post Gerald, but I will take a whack at the bolded with some quick sentences. This is just stream of thought:
-Most Montanans view the status quo as pretty damn good. (I do).
-It seems likely and urgent that our opportunity, even if scraps, will be taken from us. Not at once, but eroded. We see it every two years in the legislature. We hear those with power talk out loud. We've seen it happen in other states.
-I don't personally look at those opportunities as scraps, but rather, placeholders, even if currently containing scraps. If we lose our placeholder (a term I am using as synonymous to tag allocation to the plebes) even if we put more wildlife on the mountain, those placeholders will be gone and a disproportionate amount of the opportunity to chase those new critters will go to the aforementioned seeking a diminishment of our opportunity all the time.
-Putting more wildlife on the mountain is time consuming. Folks thoughts of hunting and opportunity in the majority, rarely go beyond next fall.
-Putting more wildlife on the mountain is hard. There's organizations with missions to solely do just that, and their success stories seem smaller than the larger narrative of a species population. (I know the real story has so many factors it would be childish to place the blame for a trajectory of a species on an organization working for their future)
-Putting more wildlife on the mountain is complicated and expensive. Habitat discussions in the mountains around my home will have different angles based on who pays which scientist you are asking.
-Hunters have an exaggerated propensity for toy-love as well as a sense of entitlement that gets in the way of a lot of good change - much of which will require restraint, be that in time, tools,or tags.
None of the above is directed at landowners. They in fact are the crux of any meaningful change in a good direction, and the chief reason we have what we currently do. I'm also aware I proposed little to now solutions in this post. I appreciate the hard work of those who are trying.
SaskHunter
Well-known member
The continuous push to prostitute wildlife to those with thick wallets is super gross IMO.
Irrelevant
Well-known member
You can't put more wildlife on the mountain if we consistently pave over winter range with subdivisions, ranchettes, and another lane on every highway. We can't put more wildlife on the mountain when we allow 500 people to visit an alpine lake in a day, when the wealthy are allowed to buy mountains for ski lodges, when everyone absolutely must have a 4-wheeler, SxS, or jeep to access every little nook and cranny in every mountain range or river break. We can't put more wildlife on the mountain when we refuse to pay for management, or enforcement of existing regulations. And we damn sure won't put more wildlife on the mountain when we commodify, as every raffle, auction, and NR tags do.
The idea of putting more wildlife on the mountain is as big of a fallacy as the R3 effort will "help" hunters.
There will never be more wildlife on the mountain, unless that mountain is privately owned by a single person who does not need to make any more money.
antlerradar
Well-known member
Opportunity is like a government program, once opportunity is given out in the form of longer seasons, more tags etc. It is very hard to discontinue.
SAJ-99
Well-known member
It seems to me the NAM was designed to protect the animals. Not to ensure ever Tom, Dick, and Jane got a tag. Most of the discussion around being equitable or not is mostly about money? Then maybe King's Deer should be viewed as Rich Oligarch's Deer.
@Treeshark brings up New Mexico LO tags as an option (note- still waiting on the answer to @Frequently Banned Troll question on whether or not you have bought or buy NM LO tags, because I had the same question.)
The difference between NM and MT is pretty evident, mostly in terms of narrative if not in implementation. Here is a summary of NM.
New Mexico landowners receive a set number of elk and deer authorizations through the Elk Private Land Use System (EPLUS), which are separate from the public draw and can be sold to hunters. The allocation formula for private land authorizations is based on a ranch's deeded acres, elk contribution rating, and habitat quality.Landowners can then sell or transfer these authorizations, which come in two types: Ranch-only (RO) and Unit-wide (UW).
Game populations in Montana are determined by "social acceptance", which is shorthand for "whatever limits the bitching from landowners". Compared to NM, which requires a positive contribution to game populations (contribution rating), MT simply treats a lot of game as vermin. I doubt going to system of transferable LO tags would fix that. It would just let the LO get tags for connected NRs. I also find it hard to image a bio in Montana telling a LO they would not get a tag that year because the habitat quality sucked. But I admit I also might be assuming a meritocracy in NM that doesn't exist in practice.
@Treeshark brings up New Mexico LO tags as an option (note- still waiting on the answer to @Frequently Banned Troll question on whether or not you have bought or buy NM LO tags, because I had the same question.)
The difference between NM and MT is pretty evident, mostly in terms of narrative if not in implementation. Here is a summary of NM.
New Mexico landowners receive a set number of elk and deer authorizations through the Elk Private Land Use System (EPLUS), which are separate from the public draw and can be sold to hunters. The allocation formula for private land authorizations is based on a ranch's deeded acres, elk contribution rating, and habitat quality.Landowners can then sell or transfer these authorizations, which come in two types: Ranch-only (RO) and Unit-wide (UW).
Game populations in Montana are determined by "social acceptance", which is shorthand for "whatever limits the bitching from landowners". Compared to NM, which requires a positive contribution to game populations (contribution rating), MT simply treats a lot of game as vermin. I doubt going to system of transferable LO tags would fix that. It would just let the LO get tags for connected NRs. I also find it hard to image a bio in Montana telling a LO they would not get a tag that year because the habitat quality sucked. But I admit I also might be assuming a meritocracy in NM that doesn't exist in practice.
Wind Gypsy
Well-known member
- Joined
- Mar 12, 2017
- Messages
- 3,126
Especially in places where that government program has always been a given rather than constantly monitored and modified based on current state.
Last edited:
Not yet in NM. I would be interested to hear how that would impact your thoughts on the issue.
cgasner1
Well-known member
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2016
- Messages
- 5,591
The only thing I like about out the nm system is lo tags are offered in 2 flavors. One is Ranch only the other is unit wide. For a land owner to get unit wide he has to open the gate and let the public on in their version of a bma program. I get why our tags are unit wide due to how much our game can travel and elk that may winter on a ranch may not actually be on it during season
SAJ-99
Well-known member
It really doesn't. But I think that you advocate so much for the program I wonder why you don't just buy a NM LO tag every year.
There are probably multiple types of tag allocations systems that could work in any state, on paper. But there are traditions and histories in certain states, like MT, that make some ideas almost universally hated. NM elk system came from the transplant program that was in effect into the 1960's. The human population wanted more elk. In MT, hunters want more elk, landowners might not.
cgasner1
Well-known member
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2016
- Messages
- 5,591
Colorado?
Gerald Martin
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2009
- Messages
- 9,639
“. But I admit I also might be assuming a meritocracy in NM that doesn't exist in practice.“
I know nothing about New Mexico first hand. But based on the discussions I have had with a very invested and interested resident of New Mexico I would conclude that what you are describing as “meritocracy” doesn’t exist.
I think New Mexico residents are issued less than 30% of available elk tags through the draw process.
I’m in total agreement with @Frequently Banned Troll when he says “phug transferable LO tags in MT.”
I’m on board with LO preference for permits and tags in recognition for the benefits that private property habitat has for wildlife in MT. But not the additional commercial benefits that would accompany transferable tags. They already benefit from the opportunity to charge for access to their property.
I know nothing about New Mexico first hand. But based on the discussions I have had with a very invested and interested resident of New Mexico I would conclude that what you are describing as “meritocracy” doesn’t exist.
I think New Mexico residents are issued less than 30% of available elk tags through the draw process.
I’m in total agreement with @Frequently Banned Troll when he says “phug transferable LO tags in MT.”
I’m on board with LO preference for permits and tags in recognition for the benefits that private property habitat has for wildlife in MT. But not the additional commercial benefits that would accompany transferable tags. They already benefit from the opportunity to charge for access to their property.
