Montana General Season Structure Proposal

[Shed God]

I only bring unlimited up for the landowners, outfitters, non resident.

 

[cgasner1]

Cgasner1 I would continue on the current course. Why ruin decent otc public land elk hunting for little to no change. Even with a October mule deer season it is not managed. They will just sell a ton of tags. Private land and outfitters will do well. Public will not change to Wyoming. LE forces fwp to actually manage. Just my opinion.

Ben lamb appreciate your input but feel u are bias. As iam I.

Ok I got another question. Do you think everyone that helped with this is an outfitter or land owner? The goal of the group was to include everyone and give everyone a voice. A couple guys may outfit or own a ranch but this wasn’t the main factor for this. You can see from @antlerradar comments he had to approach this from a couple different angles being a land owner and a sportsman.

 

[Shed God]

LE provides everything that would work for everyone. But would need to be looked at unit by unit. Basically

 

[SAJ-99]

Saj99 what compromise is there. With your proposal. We are giving non resident, landowners, outfitters the exact same thing with little benefit for mule deer on public land. And an October mule deer season greatly effects a Nov elk season.

Appreciate Ben and just don't agree with everything he stated. I fully understand this is politics. Money and landowners. 2024 hunting is $ and politicians. Regardless of state.

Yes archery season does push elk to private. Once again understand that is not managed by fwp as well. They sell tags opurtunity. Not for the public but for the landowners and non residents. But u are out of you God dam mind if u think General mule deer season will not have a huge impact on general Nov elk. It's $*)Q!#@$ unbelievable to me very few c this.

So basically do the proposal. Archery elk otc public land will be no secret best hunting a guy like me will get but it's cut short. Otc mule deer Oct. Fwp still selling a shit load of tags and not managing the mule deer anyway so the public will suck. Private manages so there loving it. A shit ton of elk, more than currently will be pressured onto private because a bunch of dipshits hunting 2 to 4 yr old bucks in October. SO otc elk comes around and less than half the elk currently I predict on public. But some land owners will allow massacres for cow elk. Disgusting. I think. But all those raghorns that Gerald brags about living with proposal will die on private otc hunts.

Hey let's do it because it's change. And it looks good. Sounds good. But most importantly it works for who will profit off it. They getting mule deer still and more elk. Public getting phucked

I agree that pressure has to be reduced, ultimately, but not changing anything doesn't change pressure at all. Any direct change to full LE across the state is dead on arrival. Period. End of story. I think this is what happens eventually, but it is not an option. Maybe only for NR? I'm an advocate for this, are you? MT is an opportunity state and while hating it for others, you clearly don't want to give up anything yourself and instead find some contrived negative scenario that hurts you ("the public") and not the "opponents" (apparently landowners, outfitters, and FWP). Any legit points you have are quickly being swamped by this position.

And I guess I'm out of my God damn mind because I doubt it will change the location of elk much. They are on private at the start of rifle anyway ($hit, they are on private 4 days into archery). Maybe elk that migrate from elevation (USFS) to winter range might be pushed? Maybe? Would be nice to find out. I think you are talking about a your very specific situation, that we don't have any info on because you won't share it because the unit is an NSA secret or something. This isn't about what benefits or harms any individual hunter. It is about a compromise on changes that helps mule deer. No one knows exactly what the result would be, but it doesn't mean something shouldn't be tried.

I congratulate you on finding the comma button on your computer. Use it more.

 

[cgasner1]

I only bring unlimited up for the landowners, outfitters, non resident.

I’d be willing to bet the entire group would be opposed to that. None of us want to see one group take precedence over another be it public-private r-nr archery-rifle the goal was to spread it across the board evenly

 

[Shed God]

No I think u have a variety of peers. But I don't think alot of things were seriously discust. It makes sense otc October mule deer. But in my opinion bad idea.

 

[Shed God]

Elk problems. Everywhere there is large private land. Compound that with Oct mule deer season.

Well private, outfitters, non resident have to get there's first. Then the public.

I want actually managed LE. Based off of science, herd numbers. But LE unlimited takes care of alot of things.

If you talking baby steps LE unlimited the way to go.

 

[Straight Arrow]

This thread is becoming confusingly redundant. How about circling back to the group's agreed upon proposal and revisiting its merits.

 

[Alabama]

Serious question: What the hell are you guys talking about limited entry unlimited?

That makes no sense. How can something be unlimited and limited at the same time?

 

[rogerthat]

Serious question: What the hell are you guys talking about limited entry unlimited?

That makes no sense. How can something be unlimited and limited at the same time?

In Montana we have unit permits for a critter but an unlimited quota of them are issued. So basically you get the permit if you apply for it.

 

[Rie Bread]

In Montana we have unit permits for a critter but an unlimited quota of them are issued. So basically you get the permit if you apply for it.

But you can ONLY hunt said unit. I think this would be more impactful than choose your region. Naturally though the units with crazy amounts of unlimited tag given out would most likely get a quota.

 

[Luis]

As a resident, I do not have a problem with increasing the fees for my hunting licenses and or tags.

What I don't think is fair, is the archery hunters. If they do not harvest during archery season, they hunt again during general season with a rifle. End that - make them chose their weapon. That would lessen pressure on the big game, if you really want to lessen pressure on the animals.

I chose to live in MT where I don't make high wages like people from some areas outside of Montana. Stop pandering to the nonresidents and reduce the number of NR licenses. NR choose to live outside of MT where they make higher wages, they need to understand they can't get everything they want in MT if they don't choose to live here. Reducing the NR tags would lessen pressure on the big game, if you really want to reduce the pressure on the animals.

 

[DFS]

In Montana we have unit permits for a critter but an unlimited quota of them are issued. So basically you get the permit if you apply for it.

It would be a good way for fwp to acknowledge where and how many people are hunting a unit or region.

 

[Forkyfinder]

As a resident, I do not have a problem with increasing the fees for my hunting licenses and or tags.

What I don't think is fair, is the archery hunters. If they do not harvest during archery season, they hunt again during general season with a rifle. End that - make them chose their weapon. That would lessen pressure on the big game, if you really want to lessen pressure on the animals.

I chose to live in MT where I don't make high wages like people from some areas outside of Montana. Stop pandering to the nonresidents and reduce the number of NR licenses. NR choose to live outside of MT where they make higher wages, they need to understand they can't get everything they want in MT if they don't choose to live here. Reducing the NR tags would lessen pressure on the big game, if you really want to reduce the pressure on the animals.

Sounds like you should just shoot a bow