I appreciate the gesture. I'm not opposed to making necessary changes, however some of the proposals thrown out feel like nuclear options to me. In my opinion there are less extreme options to try at first. I agree 100% that we need better data. I'd hate to see us make large scale statewide...
Let's see, their proposal shortens and moves archery and general season. That is a limitation from the current season structure. Less time too kill elk/less ideal time to kill elk = less elk killed. Killing fewer elk in my area could further harm mule deer population.
Isn't your goal to address...
I hunt where elk have outcompeted MD. We had way more MD 20 years ago and not nearly as many elk. Now it's the opposite. Your MD proposal would limit elk opportunity and may make the MD situation worse.... so if I want to hunt MD I'll be heading to R6/7 :)
Or legislation that requires FWP to hold to mandated caps, eliminate carve outs, and set caps on NR unlimited opportunities :unsure:
R6 reports show resident hunter numbers have remained relatively steady since 2013, while NR numbers have doubled over that time period. I'm suspect this is...
Have you spoken to anyone in the former 900-20 archery district / Central MT about pick your district? My data is in no way scientific, just anecdotal. The many folks I know there and used to hunt with are not happy. It certainly didn't help that the FW Commission added 1500 more tags in those...
I am also the one who wrote this... "I'm not in favor of a free for all. I'm in favor of strategically moderating pressure. Off the top of my head we can start by eliminating the shoulder seasons, stop selling 3 cow tags over the counter to R's and NR's in LE districts, hold to the 17,000 cap of...
You're making wild assumptions about how I "seem to think" and jumping to incorrect conclusions.
Yikes. This is why Hunt Talk can be such a disappointing place.
That's great, we agree. I don't think anyone said limiting NRs is the only solution to all our problems... but the ever-growing NR pressure is real (see R6 & R7) and it would be silly to ignore it.
Montana Chapter of BHA has no position. We've not seen an official proposal from FW Commission to review. The org is very unlikely to weigh in on specific details of MD management like tag allocation unless there is a major violation of the NAMWM. Org participation in MD management would likely...
Haha, gotcha. Well, I enjoyed the late night discussion while I was sipping bourbon. You know my thoughts... Im not opposed to changes but I'd prefer to begin by reducing pressure by limiting NRs, implementing incremental changes to residents, collect good data, test and evaluate to make best...
I agree, Montana certainly could be better. What you perceive as tiny change may seem like large change to others. Supportive data showing the need for a certain change and forecasting potential outcome can help bridge that gap. Personally, I would look at limit NRs before accepting generational...
Those are great mule deer bucks, surely great memories, and clearly your kids are great hunters. I'm genuinely happy for you and your kids.
As you wrote, your kids drew on 1% chances as a party. LE will only diminish those odds. If MD go LE statewide other resident kids will not have those...
Mr. DFS
it's hard to take you seriously because another anonymous person making poor assumptions. I never said opportunity at all cost. Yes, let's continue.
It's nice to know a little bit more about you. I've been clear that I'm interested solving the perceived problems, open about my position and initial solutions. I agree they are not rocket science. I also know LE will make it much harder for your kids to get the opportunity to hunt.
Mr. The Hedgehog
It is difficult to take you seriously given your anonymity and previous comments.
Perceived problems = Interpreted problems
My priorities = MT resident hunters