antlerradar
Well-known member
Lot truth to this. I predict that in five years there are more elk and a 300 inch six point is a good one even on the best private land.
That's one way to get around land owner tags
- Thread starter Missoulaz28
- Start date
rogerthat
Well-known member
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2015
- Messages
- 3,629
Yup I completely agree. The landowners and outfitters may not know it or care but these units will be just another elk unit faster than you think. The truly big bulls are not that common. It’s not going to take much to hammer the top end off with all the tags that will be floating around. Probably just a year or 2 actually
antlerradar
Well-known member
I find it beyond frustrating that when private land only doe tags are proposed, FWP gives every excuse why it is infeasible to implement. Now FWP comes up with this.
Most of the blame goes right to the top, The only thing I blame lower level FWP for is the devotion to opportunity management. Push opportunity long enough and the current proposal is what it evolves into.
Most of the blame goes right to the top, The only thing I blame lower level FWP for is the devotion to opportunity management. Push opportunity long enough and the current proposal is what it evolves into.
antlerradar
Well-known member
I think this is very likely. landowners that think that they are going to be able to sell multiple 350 bulls every year are in for a surprise. The way elk travel in eastern Montana only a handful of ranches are big enough too control bulls long enough to grow a truly big bull and most of those ranches will find it more profitable to take more hunters and shoot the bulls as soon as they get into the 300 to 330 range.
belshawelk
Well-known member
Sooooooooooooo, As a landowner in another state I totally support giving LOP tags to landowners ( most) as they are they ones that spend lots of money on shelter, food sources to help our elk and deer populations grow. BUT in Oregon you still have to put in for the draws as an LOP , yes different pool but still no guarantee. Some units like mine will give tags every year because how much private land there is and elk populations. If I want a bull tag I can probably one every year but it is only good during the same week of hunting as the non LOP tags. About 10 days. Same as deer tags. Cow tags are different and are good for 3 or 6 months ( although I personally wouldn't shoot a cow past mid January). Now, because populations are over objective they offer over the counter cow damage tags for antlerless only on private land only. You just need permission to hunt.
For me, I have never put in for a bull tag on my property, only cow tags to fill my freezer and allow friends to come and hunt. I do every year buy preference points for elk, deer and others just like everyone else. I have been doing this for 15 years. While my property has a population of bulls and some good ones, Its not a trophy unit ( by standards). I am saving all my points for one of the better units for trophy bulls. I wont feel guilty after 20 plus years of putting in for points. Same for deer.
I have written on this in the past any many private land owner haters respond, but remember many of us are good stewards of land and are actually helping all public land hunters.
For me, I have never put in for a bull tag on my property, only cow tags to fill my freezer and allow friends to come and hunt. I do every year buy preference points for elk, deer and others just like everyone else. I have been doing this for 15 years. While my property has a population of bulls and some good ones, Its not a trophy unit ( by standards). I am saving all my points for one of the better units for trophy bulls. I wont feel guilty after 20 plus years of putting in for points. Same for deer.
I have written on this in the past any many private land owner haters respond, but remember many of us are good stewards of land and are actually helping all public land hunters.
rogerthat
Well-known member
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2015
- Messages
- 3,629
Spot on. The hypocrisy is unreal.
I thought they already allow spike/cow hunting on a general tag for the rifle season in Custer, so this must not be about decreasing the herd size? But allowing the good ole boys club unlimited bull tags. This world is full of lawlessness in our current days.
Gerald Martin
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2009
- Messages
- 9,660
Qualifying landowners already have a separate pool with 25% of limited entry tags that they can apply for among themselves.
antlerradar
Well-known member
Not on the Custer, but on the surrounding private,BLM and state land. There are 600 cow tags given out for the Custer.
antlerradar
Well-known member
Twenty five % sounds a little high. I think it is less but I could be wrong.
Gerald Martin
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2009
- Messages
- 9,660
15%? I could have my number wrong.
Missoulaz28
Active member
- Joined
- May 6, 2009
- Messages
- 411
I bet those don't go away with this proposal either.
I don't think they should, and if we're honest without selves, I don't know how many of us would begrudge a landowner the opportunity to hunt on their own place. I know a few landowners who couldn't draw in some of the prime districts in R4, but they still allowed general hunting, until it got ruined by jackwagons. I'd be alright if MT gave landowners free permits good for their own land. Non-transferable & only good on their place. The 454 program, before it became a slush fund for the elite ranch owner community, could have provided a good opportunity to do so, but with the changes and the Helena political class circling the feed trough to get those licenses out, it's just another boondoggle.
Missoulaz28
Active member
- Joined
- May 6, 2009
- Messages
- 411
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.
Gerald Martin
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2009
- Messages
- 9,660
To be clear, I am totally supportive of landowner preference for drawing non- transferable tags. I think the current system is fair.
I wouldn’t even mind upping the percentage a bit of it were tied to increased elk numbers in the unit.
I could probably even support transferable tags If I had faith that the percentage of tags allocated to qualified landowners would stay a constant number say @25% and those landowners would guarantee public access to at least as many other successful applicants as the number of tags they draw.
I wouldn’t even mind upping the percentage a bit of it were tied to increased elk numbers in the unit.
I could probably even support transferable tags If I had faith that the percentage of tags allocated to qualified landowners would stay a constant number say @25% and those landowners would guarantee public access to at least as many other successful applicants as the number of tags they draw.
So what you're saying is start the bill out asking for 60% of all tags, then settle for 25% #MOGAMath
Gerald Martin
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2009
- Messages
- 9,660
Offer 5% transferable for a 300% increase in “objective”.
Settle for 20% and a 200% increase in objective.
Gerald Martin
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2009
- Messages
- 9,660
All #science is political.
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).
Similar threads
