Ballot Initiative to End NR Big Game Hunting?

[BlazerBeam]

much much more than 3% of people in this thread are from MT.

maybe on hunttalk as a whole, but not of those who have commented on this specific thread. Maybe i'm wrong tho

 

[JLS]

Maybe i'm wrong tho

Yes, you are. I counted seven in the first two pages.

 

[RobertD]

In my opinion, the ones that are towing their 5th wheels over here and hunting the bulk of the season like a plague of locusts are just as much a part of the problem.

One potential solution that we’re probably going to end up at sooner or later- all big game hunting by non-residents will have to be guided. No more DIY non resident hunting. I have thought a lot about this and I’m not completely sure how I feel about it. I do think it’s better than what we have now, but I may be overlooking some consequences of such a system. To go along with this cut the NR tags numbers way down. Everyone gets some pie. Outfitters get another socialist handout that they like so much. Less crowds. More game? Maybe.

IDK, you're probably right about consequences but that's with everything. It seems surprising though to see support for more outfitting as that industry has had an outsized hand in so many of the problems you describe.

I would say an easier fix to implement is forcing NRs into shorter windows they have to choose from, 5-7 day windows with a weapon choice. Of course I'm aware of how valued my NR opinions are ITT

 

[Irrelevant]

You might want to redirect your scorn...

 

[BenInMT]

I don't think that its that they don't care. It is sad that they don't show up. But I think its more of that they just don't know. Or that they have never had to show up in the past. Things are slipping downhill without many of them even knowing that it is, other than "I'm seeing fewer elk and more people each year", but never thinking or learning beyond that.

It’s a death by a thousand little cuts being made by bureaucrats. They have been playing the long game for a while now, and they’re winning. The average MT hunter doesn’t have time to dive into the depths of this stuff.

 

[406dn]

I thougt my user name was a clue, maybe not.

When I-161 passed, I cheerfully signed the petition and lobbied every hunter I knew.

This pipe dream... you'll never find my name on the petition needed to get it on the ballot. Nor would I vote for it, if it made it to the ballot.

There is ZERO chance this will ever come out of the legislature.

I'd rather keep the dummassery spotlight on FWP, governor and legislature. We don't need to have it shone on resident hunters, even if it is at times, warranted.

 

[BenInMT]

IDK, you're probably right about consequences but that's with everything. It seems surprising though to see support for more outfitting as that industry has had an outsized hand in so many of the problems you describe.

I would say an easier fix to implement is forcing NRs into shorter windows they have to choose from, 5-7 day windows with a weapon choice. Of course I'm aware of how valued my NR opinions are ITT

No, not more outfitting. Maybe we take the number of outfitted sportos per year averaged over the last 5 years and whatever that number is, we say this is how many non-resident tags we are giving, no more, and all hunting by non residents is now guided only.

 

[np307]

I am cool with them residing here and paying income tax here, instead of just owning their tax shelter properties and providing little value to our communities.

Again, I remind you that non-residents are paying more of your state budget than residents are.

To borrow a quote from West Wing, "can we have it back, please?"

 

[Deleted member 40728]

So the repeat clients over the past 5 years can continue to come hunt but cap it at that. Everyone else can just pound salt.
The only NR that can continue to come hunt are the ones who support the outfitters each and every year. I thought you were against more outfitter welfare?

 

[406dn]

It's not like this is a well thought out proposal.

 

[BirdManMike]

I see 10+ MT plates glassing from roads or parked at trailheads to every out of state plate. I dont get it.

See a greater ratio of out of state plates as it pertains to upland hunting (maybe excluding the same MT plates for the retirees running the same coveys every week day all season).

 

[brockel]

See a greater ratio of out of state plates as it pertains to upland hunting (maybe excluding the same MT plates for the retirees running the same coveys every week day all season).

We have a ton of out of state bird hunters every year and I’m not exactly sure why. Our pheasants are few and far between. Not like it was 15-20 years ago when there was a lot of CRP. We do have quite a few sharpies though

 

[406dn]

We have a ton of out of state bird hunters every year and I’m not exactly sure why. Our pheasants are few and far between. Not like it was 15-20 years ago when there was a lot of CRP. We do have quite a few sharpies though

Two big reasons, I think.

One, Montana is like mecca for every hunter, fly fisherman etc.

Two, unlike the two Dakotas, our NR license is good for the entire season.

 

[theat]

maybe on hunttalk as a whole, but not of those who have commented on this specific thread. Maybe i'm wrong tho

Wasn't planning on replying to this thread as in my opinion these ideas are more of a joke than a serious solution to the multitude of problems hunting in Montana faces.

 

[BirdManMike]

Two big reasons, I think.

One, Montana is like mecca for every hunter, fly fisherman etc.

Two, unlike the two Dakotas, our NR license is good for the entire season.

Latter is a good point. In addition, ones gets a lot more value for the out of state upland license than an out of state big game tag IMO even with the loss of CRP and general decline in bird populations. Its still surprising the number of travelling hunters and sometimes more surprising the areas they often pick to spend their time.

 

[dgc1963]

BenInMT is right im a NR and should be banned from hunting in Montanna just due to the fact I dont behave well in public
I try but its never good Im sorry very sorry
I have boat loads of points can I transfer them to someone else ? someone more deserving

 

[BenInMT]

It's not like this is a well thought out proposal.

I am trying to beat the legislature at their own game.

 

[BenInMT]

BenInMT is right im a NR and should be banned from hunting in Montanna just due to the fact I dont behave well in public
I try but its never good Im sorry very sorry
I have boat loads of points can I transfer them to someone else ? someone more deserving

You can go with a guide. Or get them zeroed out because according to every other thread on this forum the points are worthless, they are a scam, you’ll have to live 3000 years to use them…..

 

[406dn]

I am trying to beat the legislature at their own game.

You might be ahead.

 

[Gerald Martin]

@BenInMT,

I was pretty dismissive of your idea with my earlier comments. I apologize. I like your passion. I still don’t think that a CI to ban NR’s is a good idea or has a snowballs chance of passing, but we can use your help to get FWP and the legislature to do what is right for protection of our natural resources. If we can have healthy resources, we can figure out fair allocation for harvest between residents and NR.

Currently, FWP under Director Worsech is managing elk and deer according to “social preferences” not the biological needs of the resource.

Fighting over who gets the scraps of mismanagement is a lose, lose for all of us.

Without reducing the pressure on the resource, hunting is going to get worse, not better. Resident hunters are going to have to be willing to limit their take before attitudes will change in this state and we can prioritize the needs of deer and elk over the wishes of hunters.

I wish I could shoot three 6x6 bulls a year. The resource can’t handle that.

In truth, there are about 150-175,000 hunters every year trying to kill the 21,000-25,000 bull elk that are alive in the whole state.

It’s a good thing that success rates aren’t any higher than @ 10%.