SB 380 Increase Non resident tags in Montana

[Eric Albus]

Let me pose some questions to those of you who are up in arms about this.

1. When has FWP ever managed biologically for elk/deer in gen. season areas?

2. Will an extra 1500 license make one iota difference....remember we have an undersell right now, some non-res. may opt to use a "wilderness license" in lieu of a regular license(so there may be more left over general elk).

W/ this having a sunset on it, kill it and get rid of it, unless somehow everyone is happy w/ it.

I concur w/ the assesment of it being not needed....and have not "supported it" as somone claimed in an earlier post, if I was in favor of it I would have found time to be in Helena.

Finally Vito, we can agree on something. The price difference will not help a wilderness outfitter, were the license $200 it might have helped them, but $150 cheaper "wilderness license" is not going to make one iota difference.
You are way off though in the assessment of "more license gives more incentive to lease" We have left over license right now, a wilderness licenses are not going to cause a leasing frenzy.

The other thing you said that makes sense is about season lengths. I made the same suggestion to the commission as a way to allay the permits in the breaks and 22 other areas. Why not have the residents sit down and pick a season structure out for the non-residents in those areas affected? Like opening week res. only, then a 5-7 day window for non-res. followed by res...something along these lines is tenable.

If a few of us would be willing to sit down and come up w/ pro-active solutions and then have the commission act according we could stave off the inevitable for a long time. If we sit idly by and think that we can continue w/ no managment and no change in our season structure...well, we will be looking at permit only hunting w/in the next 5-10 years.

 

[shoots-straight]

If a few of us would be willing to sit down and come up w/ pro-active solutions and then have the commission act according we could stave off the inevitable for a long time. If we sit idly by and think that we can continue w/ no managment and no change in our season structure...well, we will be looking at permit only hunting w/in the next 5-10 years.

While many resident hunters are sitting down with FW&Ps personal, decreasing our opportunity to hunt, in the spirit of bringing back big game populations, MOGA is figuring ways to increase NR participation. More demand on a finite product will mean that others will have less opportunity at the same product. Do you know who that will be?

The resident hunters, and we're tired of the me, me, me attitude that comes from the outfitters camp.

I think another citizens initiative might be in the works. Lets cap the total non resident hunter numbers to 10% of total resident tag sales. MOGA has brought this upon themselves. Greed is a terrible thing!

If we don't increase the product numbers (ELk and deer) I see no increase in either group.

 

[Turboewen]

Shoots-straight you seem to take your hatred for outfitters on us non-residents. I'm fine with the ten percent of resident tags but also man up and give us the full ten percent of the special draw tags also . Right now we don't even come close to that ten percent.it seems you just want non-residents money but don't want to giveu the tags . Are there no residents that use outfitters? You seem to be taking a stand against non-residents rather than the outfitters. I feel the need for outfitters but also agree they should not be making policy

 

[ismith]

Shoots-straight you seem to take your hatred for outfitters on us non-residents. I'm fine with the ten percent of resident tags but also man up and give us the full ten percent of the special draw tags also . Right now we don't even come close to that ten percent.it seems you just want non-residents money but don't want to giveu the tags . Are there no residents that use outfitters? You seem to be taking a stand against non-residents rather than the outfitters. I feel the need for outfitters but also agree they should not be making policy

I think up to 10% is plenty. Its a cap, not a guarantee. Statisticly, if NRs aren't drawing 10%, then NRs aren't making up 10% of the drawing pool. I see no reason to give NRs better odds than residents.

 

[Bambistew]

How many resident deer/elk tags were issued last year? Be interesting to see what the overall percentage of NR hunters is compared to resident.

I wish Alaska residents were as passionate about limiting NR as you guys in MT.

 

[ismith]

How many resident deer/elk tags were issued last year? Be interesting to see what the overall percentage of NR hunters is compared to resident.

I wish Alaska residents were as passionate about limiting NR as you guys in MT.

Are you kidding? Alaska does a pretty good job of limiting NR hunters.

 

[theat]

I wish Montana would make Alaska residents hire a guide to hunt here...just kidding, but I do wish I could go on a DIY sheep hunt in the great white north.

 

[Turboewen]

It's drawing odds if they have a limit of 200 tags 20 should go to nr. But if they draw 200 resident tags then nr get zero. But if they draw 25 nr tags before they hit 200 nr still only get 20. Once again a resident that wants our money but puts the odds against us for the drawing. How about u guys pay ten percent of what it costs us right now u pay about two percent of what our tags are.

 

[The Hedgehog]

How bout if you don't like it, don't apply.

 

[Bambistew]

Are you kidding? Alaska does a pretty good job of limiting NR hunters.

How so? Because of the guide requirement? The only thing stopping you is saving the cash to go.

There are only a handful of units in the state that actually have a limit on NR permits,and another handful of river coridors and a couple units that are off limits, otherwise otherwise its unlimited OTC permits for every animal.

MT has a cap on the total number of permits sold. Not that I care, but MT does a pretty good job of limiting NR, albiet the number seems to increase ever year.

 

[ismith]

It's drawing odds if they have a limit of 200 tags 20 should go to nr. But if they draw 200 resident tags then nr get zero. But if they draw 25 nr tags before they hit 200 nr still only get 20. Once again a resident that wants our money but puts the odds against us for the drawing. How about u guys pay ten percent of what it costs us right now u pay about two percent of what our tags are.

I think most residents would much rather you take your money elsewhere.

 

[Turboewen]

I will b hunting this and every year I can up by Helena . Maybe we can get together for lunch sometime

 

[tjones]

Any news?

 

[Bambistew]

I looked up some stats to compare MT to AK, found it pretty interesting that the hunts that cost NR the most are the ones that are the biggest percentage of harvest and participation. Doesn't seem to be much of a limiting factor to me. I couldn't find the most recent data for MT easily so used what I could find for 2008.

Percentage of hunters for each species as a whole, including all male/female permits.

MT 2008
Deer
NR = 12% Killed 16% of all deer
Res = 88%

Elk
NR = 12% Killed 16% of all elk
Res = 88%

AK 2011
Caribou
NR = 10% Killed 12% of all caribou
Res = 90%

Moose
NR = 5% Killed 9% of all moose
Res = 95%

Sheep
NR = 22% Killed 42% of all sheep
Res = 78%

Brown Bear
NR = 33% Killed 72% of all brown bears
Res = 67%

Black Bear
NR = 20% Killed 37% of all black bears
Res = 80%

Goats
NR = 19% Killed 28% of all goats
Res = 81%

Deer
NR = 7% Killed 6% of all deer
Res = 93%

 

[shoots-straight]

Shoots-straight you seem to take your hatred for outfitters on us non-residents. I'm fine with the ten percent of resident tags but also man up and give us the full ten percent of the special draw tags also . Right now we don't even come close to that ten percent.it seems you just want non-residents money but don't want to giveu the tags . Are there no residents that use outfitters? You seem to be taking a stand against non-residents rather than the outfitters. I feel the need for outfitters but also agree they should not be making policy

Sorry you feel that way. I'm not attacking the non resident hunter at all. They only way to stop the commercialization of our wildlife is to limit the non resident hunter. I wish there was another way. The outfitters are using non residents as their sword and shield. I see no way to beat them back other than restrict non residents.

The leasing problem caused by outfitters in the Breaks was a huge problem.The only way we did anything positive was to restrict non residents there. That stopped some leasing and helped with a more quality hunt.

Bambie comparing Alaska to Montana is ridiculous. The cost just to get there is more than our non resident tags.

 

[webejmn]

Got an e-mail from Carlie Boland today saying she was opposed to this. She has recieved 100 emails against and 4 for it. She doesn't feel the need for more NR tags as we don't use the ones we have now.Also, and I'll quote, "There is also a study bill coming forth this interim and this bill would just add yet another license to the already looooong list. I won't be supporting the bill." Also recieved a postcard hand written from Rep Jean Price. And I'll quote."We will hear SB380 in house FWP today. As I see this bill, your opposition is on the right track." This was postmarked yesterday. So we will see!

 

[Eric Albus]

shoots, what area of the "breaks" was so leased up that access was an issue? I would like to know.
Commercialization of wildlife....just what does that mean?

 

[Turboewen]

In the breaks are they limiting the number of res tags also. Is there anywhere in Fwp that shows how many res tags are sold for big game combo and deer a. Just curious

 

[Turboewen]

Do the outfitters ever break down who is buying there service. Res vs nr. I have hunted property before then the next year it was being outfitted. Money wins every time

 

[howler]

the resident hunter is limited in the breaks and also in the 22 other elk hunting districts in eastern Mt. as far as the leasing goes Eric you know about the area's in r-6, I don't know the names in 700 but there are-were several and the same story for 410, The leasing reason is more associated with the 22 other hunting districts rather than the breaks the number one reason for the permits in the breaks is overcrowding, there were just to many people, they were loving it to death, In some of the HD's the non resident hunter were over 50% of the hunter population. the number of hunters had to be reduced. When going to the limited permit the NR was limited to 10% of the permits and that reduction alone solved the over crowding problem, the number of permits is creeping up as time goes by and I fear we will soon see the over crowding issue rise again.