That's one way to get around land owner tags

Gerald Martin

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 3, 2009
Messages
6,457
No transfer, free licenses & permits for resident owners and increase the B-10's to 20,000. that should give most everyone what they want and it wouldn't necessarily impact the resource as much, as these would generally take care of the outfitted dudes & the people they hire to cart them around.

I'd say eliminate the landowner set aside for deer too, and just increase the B-11 to reduce NR deer hunters (It's somewhere around 30,000 right now versus the 17K for B-10).
That’s not nearly as stimulating as frothing at the mouth every time I read these ridiculous proposals and indulging fantasies of publicly tarring and feathering the ones who dream up the proposals.

That downright sounds like offering solutions. How incredibly unreasonable of you Komrade.
 

Ben Lamb

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 6, 2010
Messages
15,759
Location
Cedar, MI
That’s not nearly as stimulating as frothing at the mouth every time I read these ridiculous proposals and indulging fantasies of publicly tarring and feathering the ones who dream up the proposals.

That downright sounds like offering solutions. How incredibly unreasonable of you Komrade.

fa362801b530f9e0be15c858e49aaec1.gif
 

MTHunter1321

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 10, 2015
Messages
414
Location
Great Falls, MT
I read through the proposed recommendation and their justifications for so, and can’t believe what I read. How can FWP make these recommendations when the “consequences” from the justification section are directly opposed to it. ….

Copy and pasted directly from FWP source documents…

Recommendations:

Add antlerless opportunity valid on general license from Aug 15 to the day before archery season begins (only valid on private land). late season (day after general season to Feb 15)



**Add either sex opportunity on general license valid during archery, general, and muzzleloader seasons on private land only. **



Add Antlerless Elk B License 005-00 valid Aug 15 to the day before archery season begins (only valid on private land), during archery, general, muzzleloader, and late seasons (day after general season to Feb 15)



Increase quota of Antlerless Elk B License 411-00 from 800 to 1200 (range 100-1,200). (Valid in HDs 411 and 535)



Add Antlerless Elk B License 411-00 valid Aug15 to the day before archery season begins (only valid on private land), during archery, general, muzzleloader, and late seasons (day after general season to Feb 15)



Add Either-Sex Elk Permit 411-20 valid during archery, general, and muzzleloader seasons on public land only.



Decrease quota of Either-Sex permit 411-20 from 300 to 150 (range 50-400) valid in HDs 411 and 535 on public land only.



What would the consequences be if you removed the ES permit or liberalized bull harvest (biological, social, equitable allocation, access, crowding)?



The 411-20 Either-sex elk permit is proposed to increase from 300 to 400 permits. The last increase from 200 to 300 Either-sex permits was in 2018. Several hunters and landowners made complaints about the increase in permit numbers causing increased hunting pressure on public hunting opportunities and the increase in hunters requesting access. Some landowners have voiced support for keeping the either-sex permits to maintain the quality of bulls in these districts. Hunting district 580 is a common example used by landowners and sportsmen to describe a hunting district with either-sex general elk license regulation with a lot of bulls but not that many really big bulls. Amenity landowners are already purchasing property in these hunting districts for the elk hunting opportunity which has contributed to the increased land prices. If these hunting districts are no longer managed with an either-sex permit more amenity landowners will purchase land in these districts because of the high bull quality that would be available for a few years. What little free public hunting opportunities exist will further decrease to only those opportunities on publicly accessible public land. These public lands will be so overcrowded very few elk will be present during hunting seasons. The equitable allocation of elk hunting will be lost to the general public. Only those hunters who can afford to pay thousands of dollars for the opportunity to harvest a bull elk will have access to this public resource in these districts.


This BS is infuriating….
 

Gerald Martin

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 3, 2009
Messages
6,457
No transfer, free licenses & permits for resident owners and increase the B-10's to 20,000. that should give most everyone what they want and it wouldn't necessarily impact the resource as much, as these would generally take care of the outfitted dudes & the people they hire to cart them around.

I'd say eliminate the landowner set aside for deer too, and just increase the B-11 to reduce NR deer hunters (It's somewhere around 30,000 right now versus the 17K for B-10).

This would need to be accompanied by a dramatic increase in objective numbers and a restructuring of the amount of pressure. Otherwise it’s just an additional squeeze to the metaphorical turnip that’s all out of blood.
 

Gerald Martin

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 3, 2009
Messages
6,457
I read through the proposed recommendation and their justifications for so, and can’t believe what I read. How can FWP make these recommendations when the “consequences” from the justification section are directly opposed to it. ….

Copy and pasted directly from FWP source documents…

Recommendations:

Add antlerless opportunity valid on general license from Aug 15 to the day before archery season begins (only valid on private land). late season (day after general season to Feb 15)



**Add either sex opportunity on general license valid during archery, general, and muzzleloader seasons on private land only. **



Add Antlerless Elk B License 005-00 valid Aug 15 to the day before archery season begins (only valid on private land), during archery, general, muzzleloader, and late seasons (day after general season to Feb 15)



Increase quota of Antlerless Elk B License 411-00 from 800 to 1200 (range 100-1,200). (Valid in HDs 411 and 535)



Add Antlerless Elk B License 411-00 valid Aug15 to the day before archery season begins (only valid on private land), during archery, general, muzzleloader, and late seasons (day after general season to Feb 15)



Add Either-Sex Elk Permit 411-20 valid during archery, general, and muzzleloader seasons on public land only.



Decrease quota of Either-Sex permit 411-20 from 300 to 150 (range 50-400) valid in HDs 411 and 535 on public land only.



What would the consequences be if you removed the ES permit or liberalized bull harvest (biological, social, equitable allocation, access, crowding)?



The 411-20 Either-sex elk permit is proposed to increase from 300 to 400 permits. The last increase from 200 to 300 Either-sex permits was in 2018. Several hunters and landowners made complaints about the increase in permit numbers causing increased hunting pressure on public hunting opportunities and the increase in hunters requesting access. Some landowners have voiced support for keeping the either-sex permits to maintain the quality of bulls in these districts. Hunting district 580 is a common example used by landowners and sportsmen to describe a hunting district with either-sex general elk license regulation with a lot of bulls but not that many really big bulls. Amenity landowners are already purchasing property in these hunting districts for the elk hunting opportunity which has contributed to the increased land prices. If these hunting districts are no longer managed with an either-sex permit more amenity landowners will purchase land in these districts because of the high bull quality that would be available for a few years. What little free public hunting opportunities exist will further decrease to only those opportunities on publicly accessible public land. These public lands will be so overcrowded very few elk will be present during hunting seasons. The equitable allocation of elk hunting will be lost to the general public. Only those hunters who can afford to pay thousands of dollars for the opportunity to harvest a bull elk will have access to this public resource in these districts.


This BS is infuriating….
You ask how?? This makes it obvious you skipped the assigned reading for MT Wildlife Management Policy 101.

Admit it. You didn’t even read the director’s book, “ How Not To Give a *Censored* about MT Hunters.”
Some might recognize the textbook by its subtitle. “ Throw *Censored* on the Wall and See What Sticks”

If you had read the assignment you would know how biologists’recommendations and public input are so easily ignored.

5 minutes detention after class for you, young man. 😏
 

MTHunter1321

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 10, 2015
Messages
414
Location
Great Falls, MT
You ask how?? This makes it obvious you skipped the assigned reading for MT Wildlife Management Policy 101.

Admit it. You didn’t even read the director’s book, “ How Not To Give a *Censored* about MT Hunters.”
Some might recognize the textbook by its subtitle. “ Throw *Censored* on the Wall and See What Sticks”

If you had read the assignment you would know how biologists’recommendations and public input are so easily ignored.

5 minutes detention after class for you, young man. 😏
Just goes to show I could never work in a government role. If I was that biologist, I would MotherF Hank and anyone else who supports this BS and wind up in the unemployment line.
 

antlerradar

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 23, 2012
Messages
2,333
Location
SE Montana
I was meaning in the areas in which the permit would be for public land only. The land owner would be about to hunt there own land on there General tag.

I have little issue with landowner tags as a concept.
But see no need for them to get a portion of the tags that aren't valid for there land.
No landowner would qualify for landowner preference with a permit only good on public. To qualify for landowner preference you must own 640 acres of land in the unit used by elk. If the unit is all public no landowner will qualify.
 

Missoulaz28

Active member
Joined
May 6, 2009
Messages
403
Why would you even need them with this proposal.
You don't. Doesn't mean the land owners aren't going to want them. They'll make some sob story about losing the ability to hunt on tags they've always had access to.
 

RobertD

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 16, 2020
Messages
1,077
Location
Southwest Georgia (GA)
When all this is said and done, won't there still be 700 cows crowding into low-tolerance private land areas?

Like obviously this proposal is not designed to actually lower "problem" elk numbers. But shouldn't they design the proposal in a way that at least looks like an attempt to solve them?

Maybe I'm not cynical enough. At least I was cynical enough to not tie up a bunch of money in Montana points when I joined the ponzi scheme point game a few years ago.
 

MTHunter1321

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 10, 2015
Messages
414
Location
Great Falls, MT
For what it is worth, they are also proposing the same thing for bulls in HD 580 on the east side of Crazy Mountains. I don't know why that wasn't included in the press release.

A more detailed description of the proposal is in this article. https://www.bozemandailychronicle.c...cle_10452504-9c84-5cc6-9565-95e6ccff56e4.html
The information they have put out contradicts itself. For example, in this article they say that 511 and 530 will combine to form 535 and permits will increase from 300-400. Yet on their proposals going to the commission next week, it’s recommending combining the units, making general tag either sex, and DECREASING permits from 300 to 150 valid only on public. This proposal is such a clusterfuck that they can’t even be consistent in what they’re supposedly recommending.
 

RobG

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 10, 2010
Messages
5,279
Location
Bozeman, MT
The information they have put out contradicts itself. For example, in this article they say that 511 and 530 will combine to form 535 and permits will increase from 300-400. Yet on their proposals going to the commission next week, it’s recommending combining the units, making general tag either sex, and DECREASING permits from 300 to 150 valid only on public. This proposal is such a clusterfuck that they can’t even be consistent in what they’re supposedly recommending.
Reporter probably made a mistake. Where can you find the proposal that the commission will see?
 

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
98,382
Messages
1,516,098
Members
31,008
Latest member
coker737
Top