The Hedgehog
Well-known member
So what you're saying is a landowner didn't get a limited quota MT bull elk rifle permit? Holy crap. How did this happen? Hank will have to answer some difficult questions.
Bulls for Billionaires - MT EQC Meeting today 1:30 PM
- Thread starter Ben Lamb
- Start date
Spoke to him this morning before I posted anything.
I’m wondering if that happened in 690? Not many permits, but quite a few 454 applicants.
This is correct.
Carnage2011
Well-known member
This is true. There were applications that exceeded 10% so not everyone was approved.
So the areas that included an extra 10% in the second draw will have no 454 tags this year?
Thanks for clarifying!
The Hedgehog
Well-known member
I heard about how this goes down for one of the FWP selected hunters who gets “access”.
As suspected - this program is a complete pile of dogshit and only a game to put tags in the right guys pockets.
The guys rallying around for this all need a few kicks right square in the balls.
As suspected - this program is a complete pile of dogshit and only a game to put tags in the right guys pockets.
The guys rallying around for this all need a few kicks right square in the balls.
Care to expand on what you heard? Just curious.
The Hedgehog
Well-known member
I'll let the hunter himself elaborate, after the season's over.
It's typical to some Type 2 BMAs where there's really no access to somebody without an in, unless you count, "Yeah i got your number, when something opens up I'll let you know, could be a few weeks or months, and maybe some random Monday or Tuesday, no bowhunting, maybe come shoot a cow elk in my haystack... just hop in your truck on a whim and head 6 hours this way..." Total win for those guys looking for some "access".
BourbonSnowCone
Well-known member
Friend of mine got drawn for one of these. Landowner got two either sex permits in a very tough to draw district. In return they let six hunters on to shoot cows with super restrictive side boards. How do they not have to let others with the permit on for bull hunting. Bizarre, broken system. Then again, that sounds exactly like our state government.
WanderWoman
Well-known member
In 2019, wording in the bill (87-2-513) that said, (2)(c) “… must have entered into a contractual public elk hunting access agreement with the department that allows public access for free public elk hunting on a landowner’s property throughout the regular hunting seasons and that includes public hunting by permitholders using permits that are valid for the hunting district…” was removed. Not sure who crossed that out; would be interesting to know.
My understanding is that in 2021 someone noticed that and capitalized on it, so that brought about the big structural changes to the program and influx of landowner participants.
In 2023 the statute added back in under (3)(b) “at least one of the public hunters must hold the equivalent license, permit, or combination of the two that is issued to the landowner…” effective in March 2024. But I think that can simply apply to the landowner-selected hunter vs. just any ‘unwashed’ member of the general public permit holders.
The bill also used to clarify “for wildlife management purposes,” which was crossed off the top in 2023. This would/should have held the department and landowners to at least some measurable amount of additional elk harvest and this management via this program. Not sure how 2 bulls and 6 cows accomplishes that.
BourbonSnowCone
Well-known member
I expect with that language being added back the number of applications goes down next year. I know one of the 2023 ranches has ~1000 acres of deeded and abuts a couple thousand acres of landlocked BLM. Rarely elk on the deeded but always on the BLM. Bet that permit gets used off the deeded ground.
Nameless Range
Well-known member
Resurrecting this thread to mention something in regard to the 454 program I heard the other day, which in my opinion is basically a 10% disaster in LE Districts.
Most landowners whether they participate in Block Management or not, allow some public access. Could be friends, neighbors, kids. In my experience it's rare to find a landowner who doesn't allow any public access.
I will not mention names because it's a friend, but a landowner I know who is participating in the 454 program will be allowing way less public access because of it. They've now got a near sure fire way to the the permit they used to wait years in between for, and allowing public access, particularly during rifle season, would mess up their opportunities to find the animal they want. So in selecting the members of the public they get to through the 454 program, and scheduling the members of the public they don't, they are focusing on getting all those required hunter days in during archery, so they have the tag and the ranch to themselves during rifle season - when the big bulls are more likely to be around anyway. When their only leverage was LO preference, they allowed a fair bit of public access when they didn't have the tag for both archery and rifle seasons.
We've largely solved the public access to private lands problem and it's called block management. We should lean into and expand that, and get rid of the game-able systems which are raw deals to the public trust.
Most landowners whether they participate in Block Management or not, allow some public access. Could be friends, neighbors, kids. In my experience it's rare to find a landowner who doesn't allow any public access.
I will not mention names because it's a friend, but a landowner I know who is participating in the 454 program will be allowing way less public access because of it. They've now got a near sure fire way to the the permit they used to wait years in between for, and allowing public access, particularly during rifle season, would mess up their opportunities to find the animal they want. So in selecting the members of the public they get to through the 454 program, and scheduling the members of the public they don't, they are focusing on getting all those required hunter days in during archery, so they have the tag and the ranch to themselves during rifle season - when the big bulls are more likely to be around anyway. When their only leverage was LO preference, they allowed a fair bit of public access when they didn't have the tag for both archery and rifle seasons.
We've largely solved the public access to private lands problem and it's called block management. We should lean into and expand that, and get rid of the game-able systems which are raw deals to the public trust.
Well that’s extremely annoying to hear as someone who puts in for archery permits but is typically not eligible to apply to hunt these properties since the landowners are usually asking for rifle permits. I guess if they aren’t required to let the public hunters go during rifle season, they might as well allow archery permit holders to have a chance to be selected too.
