Throw out your thoughts on HB361....

[tjones]

Is being over objective a bad thing? Is the objective even close to carrying capacity? I have found objectives were set socially and had nothing to do with biology. One also need to look at where the over objective elk live. In HD 270 we were over objective with a third of the elk population living on private ground and off limits to hunters. Elk numbers continue to rise on the private and fall on the public, yet the total population stays the same. Now 1/2 the objective in on private and off limits to hunters. Be careful what ya wish for.

 

[Gerald Martin]

Horn Seeker- I don't really know exactly what this bill will effect, but I would support a bill that makes any unit that had unlimited permits before this last rule change set numbers on them be turned back to unlimited again. With the caveat that anyone who draws a tag in a unit that requires a special draw be limited to archery hunting ONLY in that unit. You could either hunt general draw units or the special unit you drew. Areas like 380 and some others that have limited archery tags for years now would be unaffected and remain limited in number.

I think if you limited hunters to either a general tag or the areas they drew, you would alleviate the crowding problem. Let people choose where they want to hunt for the year and then limit them to that area.

Either that or choose your weapon. That would cut down on both overcrowding and overharvest in popular areas. Many hunters, myself included are able to use what we learned in archery season to good effect come rifle season.

The biggest problem as I see it is we have too many hunters hunting too long and no one is willing to admit they might have to be limited if we want our herds to remain healthy.

I don't know if I addressed any of your questions concerning HB 361 or not in this ramble. This is just some feelings I have about the current state of affairs.


While I'm on the subject of changes I'd like to to see made.... I'm totally against B tags for elk. Go back to the permit and limit people to applying only for a cow tag or an either sex tag. That would let the meat hunters hunt cows and give the trophy hunters a more reasonable chance at drawing a special tag. The way it is now its all screwed up. Last year in our district guys who didn't want to see cows shot were putting in for the B tag and holding it. Guys who wanted to kill as many elk as they could, applied for a B tag and tried to shoot two elk. Only a few guys who always put in for a cow tag because they wanted the meat were able to draw. That system serves no one well.

I sense a lot of resentment towards outfitters and must admit that I don't have too high of an opinion of many of them. However they are a legally permitted business and have had a long tradition of providing services for hunters. I don't support giving them exclusive tags at the expense of unguided hunters, but neither do I support discriminating against them.

 

[shoots-straight]

On the same token with it being limited out east your only other option for an open archery hunt is out west. I think Shoots Straight mentioned that he noticed a slight increase this year of "easterners" out your way. We are talking archery and not rifle. There's not the masses of people like we see during rifle over on the Madison.

We had a increase in Outfitter Sponsored NR hunters, I have no proof, just observations. People would rather hunt depressed wolf ridden areas than not hunt at all.

I personally think that the archery season over in that area will be a zoo, if repealed.

When this first came out as a proposal, by the commission, our club, one of the only ones in the state, came out in favor of it. Our thinking was on the lines that the resident hunters that currently hunted that area would be kept at roughly those numbers, meaning not much if any would not draw. We also knew that by limiting the Residents, that now we had a handle on the growth of NR hunters, and as such, the future leasing of lands by outfitters would slow or stop. This was at a time when leasing was growing exponentially.

Just recently, I see many archery hunters, just now realizing the benefits to this, and now aren't so sure repeal is the way to go. I don't hunt over there, but many club members did, so I did testify to the commission that our club supported limited entry.

 

[tjones]

Horn Seeker- I don't really know exactly what this bill will effect, but I would support a bill that makes any unit that had unlimited permits before this last rule change set numbers on them be turned back to unlimited again. .

Once this has been changed legislative, you take the commission out of the game. To change it to anything else will require more legislature, which is not good. If folks want it changed back, it could have been done by going to the commission. Would they have done it? Who knows. But in years to come if this passes you are looking at dealing with the legislature. Good luck.

 

[howler]

I agree with tjones, one of our biggest problems is with the numbers the Elk Managament plan came out with, The objectives were set way to low, why,, well elk compete with cattle for grass. For instance the Custer Nat'l Forest HD 704( i think) has an objective of 500 elk post season, the area can handle 10 times that amount of Elk.. I know we are getting off subject here a bit but it all fits togeather. Someone pointed out that they don't think a blanket policy should be applied, I don't think so either and in reverse of his thoughts, to apply permits to the 23OD account the breaks has them It shouldn't be I agree 100%,, but to get rid of the permits in the breaks along with the 23OD is a blanket policy that shouldn't be applied either, This thing isn't about anything other than to get rid of the 10% cap on non residents, Some may remember,, I and another MBA rep with the MBA's blessing wrote a bill last session SB 34, the bill allowed for unlimited permits in any district that was permitted but had a 10% cap on NR hunters, Using the previous years total number of applicants for the unlimted permit to find the 10% number... We testified in the Senate Fish Game committee and MOGA was there in full force. we got 1 vote from a committeee member, even our buddy Kendall Van Dyke voted against us.. IF that bill would have passed I'd bet there would be no I-161 or HB 361 or HB 285..

 

[Drake4]

Once this has been changed legislative, you take the commission out of the game. To change it to anything else will require more legislature, which is not good. If folks want it changed back, it could have been done by going to the commission. Would they have done it? Who knows. But in years to come if this passes you are looking at dealing with the legislature. Good luck.

That's the main reason I am against the bill.
I am for a permit system in the breaks but wish the other districs weren't included.

 

[howler]

I would like to point out that nobody really likes limited permits, but some realize that with the explosion of bowhunters the past 20 years something has to give.. unfortunatley,,,, but its the sign of the times i guess,

 

[Lawnboy]

I am not opposed to some of the units having permits. If that is what they need either to help herd numbers or to help with over crowding then I'm for it. I only brought up the issue of over objective because Ben was talking about the impact of the number of bowhunters would have on the bulls. So if you're going the herd reduction route then I'll call BS all day long on the unit I hunt.
I'll admit I am hunting on private and the unit has lots of that. It also has a lot of Forest. I don't believe the Forest area is suffering from over crowding nor lack of elk.

This whole thing wouldn't of happened if the commission would of just looked at the problem area, the Breaks. Maybe it needs the permit system. I don't know I don't hunt there but don't tell me that all the units are elbow to elbow with bowhunters and that the elk numbers are suffering. I don't want a Utah, so every time some new restriction is made , I want to know for what reason and is it justified.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Agree Lawnboy. They need to justify it. Folks also need to work within the system to get an equitable outcome. Not sure that folks have done that in the 3 years that these have been in place.

The deal with increase in archery hunters and objectives is specious at best. Ultimately, killing bulls won't reduce the herd size, just monkey up what's there as far as age structure, etc. But - the increase in archery hunters did have FWP nervous about that structure and what unlimited opportunity does for the trophy dynamics.

 

[Lawnboy]

I don't know about the 3 years thing. The tag limitation just went into effect last year. I think the other two years your referring to were years they were doing a study in each area as to how many archers were applying there. They did it unlimited style but still made us apply. So really they are getting the wrath and outrage from the first year of their permit system. Your right it needs to change in the commission but it sounds like it might be too late for that. I really believe all this talk about legislatures and stuff has helped educate some of us on how the process should work and the dangers of jumping the gun.

Again the whole Trophy dynamics is sounding like a Breaks issue not everywhere else.

 

[Horn Seeker]

I'm with Lawnboy...we have to be careful not to limit ourselves out of a hunt.... I'd rather hunt in marginal conditions every year than hunt some hellacious bull farm every 5 or 10 yrs like UT and AZ do...

 

[Lawnboy]

I'm with Lawnboy...we have to be careful not to limit ourselves out of a hunt.... I'd rather hunt in marginal conditions every year than hunt some hellacious bull farm every 5 or 10 yrs like UT and AZ do...

That's what is crazy awesome about hunting in our state. We might call it marginal but look at your bull, Rockies, Greenhorns and all the others that are shot each year in this "marginal" state. Those are big even in Utah and Arizona, despite what Mossback might show on videos. We live in one of the best states for opportunity and quality. Hate to see it go the other direction.

 

[sweetnectar]

I hope it goes through. Here is what the commission's bad decision did for me last year. I didn't draw an archery permit for the area were the family ranch is. So I was left with the decision to go west or don't archery hunt. So I went west and hunted near Bozeman. I encountered lots of hunters and even called an eager archery hunter out of the area that I was hoping to have a try at. (I know it was a dirty trick but he sure got an adrenaline rush thinking he was in hot pursuit of a big bull) The place I hunted was crowded. I found some elk and had a good time. However, because of the increase travel distance I didn't archery hunt as much as I normally did. I also didn't invite as many friends to the family ranch to hunt with me because I didn't have a tag to hunt with them. I also fed the state's elk $6500 in grain and of course the usual other costs that my family just bares to have wildlife around. I know we don't mind too much except for the grain loss that I could have used to pay some of my mortgage off with. Some of my friends tried to encourage me to just hunt anyway like some private landowner do. I mean just hang it up in the quonset and to hell with FWP. You fed the suckers anyway... However, I love hunting and am an honest man so that was out of the question.
As a result, hunting opportunity was taken away from everyone. Residents and nonresidents.
The way I see it, the commisioners are paid by the State of Montana and as such have to answer to our legislature, govenor. etc. for the good decisions along with the bad ones they make. So now they will be checked a bit by this bill and after that then I would susspect in a few years there will be another bill to counter act this one when they earn back the trust of the people. If they would have only listened to us in the first place.

 

[tjones]

WOW!

I am certain that when this was going through the tentitive process you sent in written commented. I am certain you traveled to Helena to testify at the Commission hearing. I am certain you wrote your area commissioner and told him how you felt. I am certain you must be a member of a sportsmen group who also let the commission know how bad this was and what you thought a couple years ago.

 

[shoots-straight]

That's what is crazy awesome about hunting in our state. We might call it marginal but look at your bull, Rockies, Greenhorns and all the others that are shot each year in this "marginal" state. Those are big even in Utah and Arizona, despite what Mossback might show on videos. We live in one of the best states for opportunity and quality. Hate to see it go the other direction.

That's what the commissioners were protecting. The quality of the hunt, and access. Some times we have to ask ourselves, "Am I doing what's right for the resource" or "AM I trying to keep something just for myself"?

 

[Lawnboy]

Sure I am thinking about how it affects my area as is Horn Seeker and other that are hunting the other 23 districts. You guys that don't hunt them have no vested interest just as I don't have for the Bitteroot. Tell me what they were protecting in my unit. Why can't anyone beside Fin admit they made a mistake? Protect the Breaks and leave the rest alone until needed.

The whole access thing is a crock. It's private we will not be allowed to hunt it period.

 

[tjones]

I sat through the commission hearings on this the main reason I remember they passed this was to get a cap on NR. I have no dog in this fight in fact if it goes unlimited there will probably be less hunters in the Bitterroot as they seek greener pastures and no wolves by heading east.

The main complaint I hear from R hunters since the change is they can't put in for LE rifle 1st choice and draw 100% archery for the breaks or the 23 2nd choice.

 

[Lawnboy]

That is my beef as well. If it needs fixing then lets do it but NR don't bother me there aren't that many spread across those 23 units in archery season.

 

[tjones]

If I remember right the law reads if R are unlimited then so must the NR. You can't have unlimited R's and limited NR permits.

 

[shoots-straight]

Your right Lawnboy, I'm just trying to point different ways of looking at the same issue. I've never elk hunted on the east side of the CD. You never know though, I might be hunting over there in the future. How about making room for another 13-. I know there's a few archery hunters starting to change their minds on this issue. Funny thing, it's a little late. Hope it works out for everybody, because I think it will become law.