T
tjones
Guest
Good debate but what about Dan?
Straight Arrow
Well-known member
Sen Dave Wanzenried knows of Dan Vermillion's work and will vote for him. Sen Wanzenried responded to my message to the Senate and expressed support for Vermillion.
BuzzH
Well-known member
Lawnboy,
Whats wrong with the idea I presented?
You could still have your 6 weeks of archery in the 22 units...plus enjoy all the general rifle hunts as well.
The only cost to you is your 1st choice limited quota elk permit.
Seems more than fair to me.
Whats wrong with the idea I presented?
You could still have your 6 weeks of archery in the 22 units...plus enjoy all the general rifle hunts as well.
The only cost to you is your 1st choice limited quota elk permit.
Seems more than fair to me.
I support Commissioner Vermillion. He is a good guy and attends more of the rod and gun club meetings than any commissioner our region has ever had.
As much as I disagree with the stated rationale for the Commission decision in this case, that is not grounds for refusing to confirm him. My opinion may be in the minority, and it often is in the minority. That is not reason for me to decide that the person who made the decision should be removed. If they were doing something blatantly self-serving, or performing special favors for a small group, I might feel otherwise.
So, I sent my emails asking for him to be confirmed. I think he is a good Commissioner.
As it relates to the topic that seems to be the reason the Senate refused to confirm him, and the souce of all these comments herein, I gotta ask, "In these 22 units is reducing tags as stated, doing anything to change the access? Does it change the biological health of the herd, which is not related to bull harvest?
I would say, No, but am open to information that proves it does accomplish these objectives.
Like Buzz and Miller, I am fine with the fact that I am pretty much guaranteed the first choice if I apply as archery. That is what I will do. I have already done that for this year.
Yet, to take what previously was a big group of open units that did not restrict you to one unit, all in the sake of consistency, improving access, equity between rifle and archery hunters, when it does none of that, seems like a hard one to justify.
To this point, none of the commissioners, and no arguments I have read, tell me that reducing these tag numbers and restricting people to one archery unit does anything for biology or does anything to improve access. If the Commission has that data, I would love to see it.
I agree with most who stated decisions made should first and foremost reflect biology. I see nothing in the decision that improves the biology.
And I would expect that herd health, to whatever extent hunting can impact it, is a function of access. Just seems strange when some on the commission stated it was a bilogical issue, when nothing indicates that, and nothing shows the decision will improve that.
As far as biology, I don't see any benefits to biology provide by this decision and I don't see any detriments to how it was before. Archers will never kill enough bulls in these other 22 units to impact the overall health of the herds. They are not killing very many cows, so they are not having that impact.
Assuming we agree that access to the elk is the only way hunting can impact the biology of the herd, the biology discussion is really not what this is about. We can then focus on the other issues of opportunity, equity, etc.
These units have primarily private ground as the best elk habitat. When I say these units, I am not referring to the Breaks units, but the other 22 or 23 units. The Custer National Forest in SE MT being more like the Breaks in terms of public access being higher, and may warrant different consideration.
Tag allocation will do nothing for access to elk in those units, as the constriction on the funnel is access to the elk habitat on private ground, not necessarily access to tags. If we cut the NR tags to zero, it will not open one acre of access to these private grounds.
And having unlimited tags does not reduce access, as some have implied. I have read Commissioner Moody's long paper of how that does reduce access. None of it is supported by any fact, and I would argue is completely without merit. His paper draws that conclusion that access in these units is all about money. I disagree.
These ranches are primarily owned by out of staters who come from a place where the landowner ethic is to have NO public hunting, and in many instances, NO hunting of any sort, guided or non-guided. Tag allocations mean nothing to them, even if it provides some small amount of income from outfitting.
They really couldn't care how many elk stack up on their properties. That is a big part of why they bought the properties. Many of them do not even hunt. Many won't even let the ranch hands hunt.
They place very little value on the small change (relative to their net worth) they get from elk outfitting. The outfitters are most often engaged for helping with the trespass problems the buyers have been told to expect, or in some cases, actually experience. That is why they hire outfitters. In fact, if NR tags were cut to zero, some of these ranches are going to hire the outfitter, or someone similar, to patrol their properties during hunting season.
Terms like equity, fairness, access, and follow the money are what the commission provided in their rationale. It seems worth the discussion to see if the decision provided progress on any of those non-biological issues.
Equity between rifle hunters and archery hunters is a bad road to go down. Even though I am primarily a rifle hunter, why should the archer have his opportunity reduced/restricted because I chose a much more effective weapon, such that fewer tags can be allocated to keep age classes at the levels desired by hunters? I ain't buying that argument of equity. That is a manufactured problem that does not exist, except in the minds of the few people who are pissed that they did not draw their tag that year.
If we were really worried about equity by spreading more opportunity that has the least impact on the resource, whether bulls or the entire elk population segment, we would go to all primitive weapons like some states do for their best units. I am not advocating that, but pointing out how hollow the argument is for "equity among weapons types."
If we are talking about equity between east and west parts of the states, how equitable is it to say the guys in the east have to stick to one unit if they want to hunt close to home, but those of us in the west can hunt multiple units close to home. Before this decision, the other 22 units were pretty much like western Montana, where if you did not draw a limited entry tag, you could hunt multiple units. The Breaks always had some restrictions.
So, the decision has brought inequity to the guy in easterm/central MT who wants to hunt closer to home. Supposedly it was done to create more equity. I don't see that.
I worry that this decision is really about trying to force access to private lands, and using tag allocation to do so. If so, let's say that is what the objective is, and not provide all the other BS smoke screens that have no legs.
Tag allocation, when dealing with out of state private landowners, is not a mechanism that will work. They have virtually no need for the small income generated by out of state hunting and the outfitting operations that usually accompany such. They have a huge tolerance for wildlife. They do not use their lands for traditional agriculture production, or if they do, they do so much less intensively than the person who makes his living off the land.
Therefore we will have hordes of elk on these properties where pressure is less and habitat is better. Better than the public, better than the Block Management, and better than other private that is intensively employed for production.
The only manner that will solve the access issue is for the state to buy the property, or to purchase easements on such. That is not a good use of state funds, for the amount of opportunity that would be provided, relative to the cost of these elk infested places.
Maybe the time has come that we demand that agencies place wildlife as a higher priority in management of public lands, so the public lands can be as attractive to wildlife as the private lands. Or at least more attractive than they are now. A big part of why the wildlife is on private is because of the disparity between habitat quality.
The other part is hunting pressure. We are probably never going to change the hunting pressure part, without further restriction in hunter opportunity. I would fight against that, given the huge reduction in opportunity needed to improve wildlife presence on public lands that are not being managed as favorable to wildlife as are the adjacent private lands.
There is much more public land in those units that is not accessible. Maybe we use our funds and our energy to gain easements or deeded access to those currently inaccessible public land pieces. Those might result in some increases in access.
I might be wrong, but I see the current direction of cutting/restricting hunter opportunity resulting in no increases in access. It does reduce hunter options and maybe that is also part of what some want to see.
I want to see more access and hunter options. I just don't see cutting tag numbers as the way to do that.
As much as I disagree with the stated rationale for the Commission decision in this case, that is not grounds for refusing to confirm him. My opinion may be in the minority, and it often is in the minority. That is not reason for me to decide that the person who made the decision should be removed. If they were doing something blatantly self-serving, or performing special favors for a small group, I might feel otherwise.
So, I sent my emails asking for him to be confirmed. I think he is a good Commissioner.
As it relates to the topic that seems to be the reason the Senate refused to confirm him, and the souce of all these comments herein, I gotta ask, "In these 22 units is reducing tags as stated, doing anything to change the access? Does it change the biological health of the herd, which is not related to bull harvest?
I would say, No, but am open to information that proves it does accomplish these objectives.
Like Buzz and Miller, I am fine with the fact that I am pretty much guaranteed the first choice if I apply as archery. That is what I will do. I have already done that for this year.
Yet, to take what previously was a big group of open units that did not restrict you to one unit, all in the sake of consistency, improving access, equity between rifle and archery hunters, when it does none of that, seems like a hard one to justify.
To this point, none of the commissioners, and no arguments I have read, tell me that reducing these tag numbers and restricting people to one archery unit does anything for biology or does anything to improve access. If the Commission has that data, I would love to see it.
I agree with most who stated decisions made should first and foremost reflect biology. I see nothing in the decision that improves the biology.
And I would expect that herd health, to whatever extent hunting can impact it, is a function of access. Just seems strange when some on the commission stated it was a bilogical issue, when nothing indicates that, and nothing shows the decision will improve that.
As far as biology, I don't see any benefits to biology provide by this decision and I don't see any detriments to how it was before. Archers will never kill enough bulls in these other 22 units to impact the overall health of the herds. They are not killing very many cows, so they are not having that impact.
Assuming we agree that access to the elk is the only way hunting can impact the biology of the herd, the biology discussion is really not what this is about. We can then focus on the other issues of opportunity, equity, etc.
These units have primarily private ground as the best elk habitat. When I say these units, I am not referring to the Breaks units, but the other 22 or 23 units. The Custer National Forest in SE MT being more like the Breaks in terms of public access being higher, and may warrant different consideration.
Tag allocation will do nothing for access to elk in those units, as the constriction on the funnel is access to the elk habitat on private ground, not necessarily access to tags. If we cut the NR tags to zero, it will not open one acre of access to these private grounds.
And having unlimited tags does not reduce access, as some have implied. I have read Commissioner Moody's long paper of how that does reduce access. None of it is supported by any fact, and I would argue is completely without merit. His paper draws that conclusion that access in these units is all about money. I disagree.
These ranches are primarily owned by out of staters who come from a place where the landowner ethic is to have NO public hunting, and in many instances, NO hunting of any sort, guided or non-guided. Tag allocations mean nothing to them, even if it provides some small amount of income from outfitting.
They really couldn't care how many elk stack up on their properties. That is a big part of why they bought the properties. Many of them do not even hunt. Many won't even let the ranch hands hunt.
They place very little value on the small change (relative to their net worth) they get from elk outfitting. The outfitters are most often engaged for helping with the trespass problems the buyers have been told to expect, or in some cases, actually experience. That is why they hire outfitters. In fact, if NR tags were cut to zero, some of these ranches are going to hire the outfitter, or someone similar, to patrol their properties during hunting season.
Terms like equity, fairness, access, and follow the money are what the commission provided in their rationale. It seems worth the discussion to see if the decision provided progress on any of those non-biological issues.
Equity between rifle hunters and archery hunters is a bad road to go down. Even though I am primarily a rifle hunter, why should the archer have his opportunity reduced/restricted because I chose a much more effective weapon, such that fewer tags can be allocated to keep age classes at the levels desired by hunters? I ain't buying that argument of equity. That is a manufactured problem that does not exist, except in the minds of the few people who are pissed that they did not draw their tag that year.
If we were really worried about equity by spreading more opportunity that has the least impact on the resource, whether bulls or the entire elk population segment, we would go to all primitive weapons like some states do for their best units. I am not advocating that, but pointing out how hollow the argument is for "equity among weapons types."
If we are talking about equity between east and west parts of the states, how equitable is it to say the guys in the east have to stick to one unit if they want to hunt close to home, but those of us in the west can hunt multiple units close to home. Before this decision, the other 22 units were pretty much like western Montana, where if you did not draw a limited entry tag, you could hunt multiple units. The Breaks always had some restrictions.
So, the decision has brought inequity to the guy in easterm/central MT who wants to hunt closer to home. Supposedly it was done to create more equity. I don't see that.
I worry that this decision is really about trying to force access to private lands, and using tag allocation to do so. If so, let's say that is what the objective is, and not provide all the other BS smoke screens that have no legs.
Tag allocation, when dealing with out of state private landowners, is not a mechanism that will work. They have virtually no need for the small income generated by out of state hunting and the outfitting operations that usually accompany such. They have a huge tolerance for wildlife. They do not use their lands for traditional agriculture production, or if they do, they do so much less intensively than the person who makes his living off the land.
Therefore we will have hordes of elk on these properties where pressure is less and habitat is better. Better than the public, better than the Block Management, and better than other private that is intensively employed for production.
The only manner that will solve the access issue is for the state to buy the property, or to purchase easements on such. That is not a good use of state funds, for the amount of opportunity that would be provided, relative to the cost of these elk infested places.
Maybe the time has come that we demand that agencies place wildlife as a higher priority in management of public lands, so the public lands can be as attractive to wildlife as the private lands. Or at least more attractive than they are now. A big part of why the wildlife is on private is because of the disparity between habitat quality.
The other part is hunting pressure. We are probably never going to change the hunting pressure part, without further restriction in hunter opportunity. I would fight against that, given the huge reduction in opportunity needed to improve wildlife presence on public lands that are not being managed as favorable to wildlife as are the adjacent private lands.
There is much more public land in those units that is not accessible. Maybe we use our funds and our energy to gain easements or deeded access to those currently inaccessible public land pieces. Those might result in some increases in access.
I might be wrong, but I see the current direction of cutting/restricting hunter opportunity resulting in no increases in access. It does reduce hunter options and maybe that is also part of what some want to see.
I want to see more access and hunter options. I just don't see cutting tag numbers as the way to do that.
I think that kind of a system would be great. No reduction in hunter opportunity and no further restriction on the ability of hunters to move among units.
If a person doesn't apply for that opportunity, then they just didn't want to go elk hunting bad enough.
shoots-straight
Well-known member
Bart, I'm not criticizing you in any fashion. Your a touchy guy. I understand the situation pretty well. Our seasons are headed more restrictive in the future. We already have bit the bullet on one HD and virtually closed it down. (HD 250 25 bull tags). I see more coming and quick. I understand your frustration. It's going to get worse long before it gets better. I think that's FACT, and not any holy BS. If it is please point my errors out to me. BTW, please point any BS out in any post I've made on this thread up till now. BS in my book is lying. Just want to make sure what I'm being called.
Your right I don't know what you've got going on. Doesn't matter. Do you think Vermillion should go because of the fact that where and how you hunt got effected by the whole commissions decision? That's the issue here. I for one believe he's a very favorable commissioner and very approachable. He will listen to your concerns. Give him a call. I'm not so sure of what we're going to get if he's not confirmed.
I testified at the hearing in Helena, in front of the commission. Our club was in favor of the move to limited entry. We saw it as basically a system like what Buzz is in favor of, but put limits on numbers. We felt it was a chance to curtail leasing, and proliferation of outfitting in the area. The Outfitting was growing because of the archery season, not the rifle. Lands where being leased up by them for archery NR hunters. We knew that more bulls in many of the "BREAKS AREAS" where being killed by archers than by rifle hunters. That said, I felt it had more to do with leasing by Outfitters.
We were a minority that day. The MBA, as well as dozens of Outfitters and landowners testified against going to permits. Remember, the commission was under a lot of pressure to do something about the leasing of lands by Outfitters.
I can understand you point if you hunt in a public area that hasn't had any of that taking place, but was included.
Toss me a bone here, so I can understand how you hunt. Why is the private land only available occasionally? Do you have access through that private land to the public, all of the time? Is it accessible to anyone that wants access?
If you think I"m all cozy hunting the Root, your crazy. We are taking more hits, and soon. Take this for what it's worth. The majority of licenced hunters come from Western Montana, especially Bow Hunters. Whether you want see more hunting pressure or not, it's coming to a area near you. Areas that are open to public hunting with public access, will see a lot more activity in the near future. I for one will be with them. Sorry!
13 dash, 4 dash, 7 dash, 15 dash, are headed east.
Never type mad, just aggressive.
Your right I don't know what you've got going on. Doesn't matter. Do you think Vermillion should go because of the fact that where and how you hunt got effected by the whole commissions decision? That's the issue here. I for one believe he's a very favorable commissioner and very approachable. He will listen to your concerns. Give him a call. I'm not so sure of what we're going to get if he's not confirmed.
I testified at the hearing in Helena, in front of the commission. Our club was in favor of the move to limited entry. We saw it as basically a system like what Buzz is in favor of, but put limits on numbers. We felt it was a chance to curtail leasing, and proliferation of outfitting in the area. The Outfitting was growing because of the archery season, not the rifle. Lands where being leased up by them for archery NR hunters. We knew that more bulls in many of the "BREAKS AREAS" where being killed by archers than by rifle hunters. That said, I felt it had more to do with leasing by Outfitters.
We were a minority that day. The MBA, as well as dozens of Outfitters and landowners testified against going to permits. Remember, the commission was under a lot of pressure to do something about the leasing of lands by Outfitters.
I can understand you point if you hunt in a public area that hasn't had any of that taking place, but was included.
Toss me a bone here, so I can understand how you hunt. Why is the private land only available occasionally? Do you have access through that private land to the public, all of the time? Is it accessible to anyone that wants access?
If you think I"m all cozy hunting the Root, your crazy. We are taking more hits, and soon. Take this for what it's worth. The majority of licenced hunters come from Western Montana, especially Bow Hunters. Whether you want see more hunting pressure or not, it's coming to a area near you. Areas that are open to public hunting with public access, will see a lot more activity in the near future. I for one will be with them. Sorry!
13 dash, 4 dash, 7 dash, 15 dash, are headed east. Never type mad, just aggressive.
BuzzH
Well-known member
I really think those 22 units have only about 2 options that would be an adequate compromise to everyone without losing opportunity.
1. Make it unlimited archery permits, but you have to burn your points and first choice application to get it.
2. Make them all general units for both archery and rifle like the rest of the state.
The biggest concern I have is the guys that are wanting it all...they want their chance at a premium rifle tag, then they want to be assured an archery tag in the 22 units, and also want opportunity to hunt the 5 week rifle season in all the general units.
Sorry, thats just flat fuggin' greedy and we dont need to be setting season structures and permits for THAT much opportunity.
I dont see how its out of line to expect archery hunters to draw an unlimited permit to hunt those 22 units with their first choice in the limited elk drawing. I'd even go one step further and say they were LIMITED to those 22 units for archery elk hunting. Rifle hunting, they could fall back on the general areas with everyone else.
My proposal takes no actual hunting opportunity away...still 11 weeks no matter what happens.
Yeah, it might suck that those that made the decision to archery hunt there couldnt apply for a limited rifle tag...but thats just tough. Pick one and live with it.
1. Make it unlimited archery permits, but you have to burn your points and first choice application to get it.
2. Make them all general units for both archery and rifle like the rest of the state.
The biggest concern I have is the guys that are wanting it all...they want their chance at a premium rifle tag, then they want to be assured an archery tag in the 22 units, and also want opportunity to hunt the 5 week rifle season in all the general units.
Sorry, thats just flat fuggin' greedy and we dont need to be setting season structures and permits for THAT much opportunity.
I dont see how its out of line to expect archery hunters to draw an unlimited permit to hunt those 22 units with their first choice in the limited elk drawing. I'd even go one step further and say they were LIMITED to those 22 units for archery elk hunting. Rifle hunting, they could fall back on the general areas with everyone else.
My proposal takes no actual hunting opportunity away...still 11 weeks no matter what happens.
Yeah, it might suck that those that made the decision to archery hunt there couldnt apply for a limited rifle tag...but thats just tough. Pick one and live with it.
Sixpointbull
New member
- Joined
- Mar 2, 2011
- Messages
- 20
I dont know Dan personally, so this question isn't about him directly. I hear a lot of digruntled opinions about the commission from time to time. If they are not doing a good job overall, then isn't it a good thing if we see some new faces in the commission? How about we see someone else besides a rancher or realestate salesman? Again not pointed at Dan, but commission in general.
onpoint
Well-known member
Buzz's first rant on this thread is right on. The actual resource usually comes last in the order. Opinionated bastards......sometimes they hit the nail on the head......kudos Buzz.
on this thread is right on. The actual resource usually comes last in the order. Opinionated bastards......sometimes they hit the nail on the head......kudos Buzz.
sweetnectar
New member
I've got some data that I should post up on here of how many residents did not draw an archery tag for first choice and second choice in eastern Montana....roughly looks to be around a 1000 plus hunters that were denied an archery permit. The resources were there. These hunters where denied some of their chances to hunt these areas.
Plus I have numbers for nonresidents that were denied archery tags. When I get some time I'll post them up but have to take the wife out for a while.
I asked the poor guy at FWP that I got the data from why the quota numbers dropped for the archery permits over what was advertised and he sited they have to be able to adjust quota numbers for things like winter kill. I about peed my pants laughing to myself. Ya lots of elk die from winter in eastern Montana...
Now for Vermillion, if he will get on this site and tell us that he will work to change the blanket management approach for limiting archery and let hunters hunt the overabundant resources then I'd sure support him. Just the fact that Randy thinks he is OK says a lot...I'm sure Randy knows him a lot better than I do. However, if the commission would stop being stupid on this issue then I'm sure half of the crap legislation that came up would have never been thought up. Until then I'll encourage Vermillion to do something other than commissioner work.
Plus I have numbers for nonresidents that were denied archery tags. When I get some time I'll post them up but have to take the wife out for a while.
I asked the poor guy at FWP that I got the data from why the quota numbers dropped for the archery permits over what was advertised and he sited they have to be able to adjust quota numbers for things like winter kill. I about peed my pants laughing to myself. Ya lots of elk die from winter in eastern Montana...
Now for Vermillion, if he will get on this site and tell us that he will work to change the blanket management approach for limiting archery and let hunters hunt the overabundant resources then I'd sure support him. Just the fact that Randy thinks he is OK says a lot...I'm sure Randy knows him a lot better than I do. However, if the commission would stop being stupid on this issue then I'm sure half of the crap legislation that came up would have never been thought up. Until then I'll encourage Vermillion to do something other than commissioner work.
T
tjones
Guest
Wow,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
BuzzH
Well-known member
Unbelievable....
Lawnboy
Well-known member
First off T Jones I apologize as being one of those who hijacked your thread. I'm sure it is nearly impossible to agree 100% with every decision or person on the commission. I agree with buzz that it's better to have someone either involved in biology or hunting on that board rather than the local Joe popular who is easily swayed by popular belief and is looking for some sort of political gain. Sounds like he is the good type. I like Nectar, Fin and others don't necessarily agree with how they went about their agenda on the tag limitations . That doesn't mean that all his ideas are bad and it doesn't mean my are right either. We need to select the best we can and maybe he's one of them.
SS, I called BS on the fact that you referred to me basically as a strictly private land elk hunter when you really don't know anything about me. The reality is that it shouldn't matter where anybody hunts. What if you married into a ranch of incredible hunting opportunity. I doubt you'd look much farther than that place as it has most of everything you need. Seems reasonable. I only call holier than thous on those who begrudge people the opportunity to hunt or fish the way the see fit as long as it's all legal. I guess I felt you were referring to way I'm hunting less than yours because I get an occasional chance to hunt some private. Some get to bird hunt,fish,trap and recreate on private that I can't and that's fine. I usually would laugh at someone who'd tell me that and call them lucky suckers. I have no hard feeling toward you. As you mentioned it's easy to type mad and I might of been doing that.
Buzz your tag idea is way more thought out than what the commission sure has done and is way more reasonable.
Randy hit the nail on the head about the true intentions and the reality of private land being opened up to the commoners. Tag reduction in mine and others opinions is not going to help the issue. Just the facts. Especially with elk. They are seen as such a commodity that landowners either guard against any hunting or sometimes seek some sort of gain through leasing. Making it so NR can't lease and Outfitters have no clients isn't going to open up the land for us. It just made them madder at FWP. There are plenty of Resident rich people who will fill the gap of leasing. A hard reality is that animals will always seek a less pressured area with better feed than any other. That doesn't mean that the landowner has an obligation to let us on. Long story short is that there are plenty of options but none seemed to be presented by the commission and only one was implemented that really punished most hunters when they weren't supposed to be the target or reason.
The Breaks area sounds like it might could benefit and use some sort of additional thought and really that's how every district should be looked at. Individually what is best for the resource and then opportunity.
Well now that everyone thinks everyone else is a butthole maybe we can go on a hunt together.
SS you give me a good price on building my house and we can slip quick morning elk hunts in before work. It's on public and quite fun. You have to promise to leave bugling bulls by no later than 10:00 am so that the house can get built.
SS, I called BS on the fact that you referred to me basically as a strictly private land elk hunter when you really don't know anything about me. The reality is that it shouldn't matter where anybody hunts. What if you married into a ranch of incredible hunting opportunity. I doubt you'd look much farther than that place as it has most of everything you need. Seems reasonable. I only call holier than thous on those who begrudge people the opportunity to hunt or fish the way the see fit as long as it's all legal. I guess I felt you were referring to way I'm hunting less than yours because I get an occasional chance to hunt some private. Some get to bird hunt,fish,trap and recreate on private that I can't and that's fine. I usually would laugh at someone who'd tell me that and call them lucky suckers. I have no hard feeling toward you. As you mentioned it's easy to type mad and I might of been doing that.
Buzz your tag idea is way more thought out than what the commission sure has done and is way more reasonable.
Randy hit the nail on the head about the true intentions and the reality of private land being opened up to the commoners. Tag reduction in mine and others opinions is not going to help the issue. Just the facts. Especially with elk. They are seen as such a commodity that landowners either guard against any hunting or sometimes seek some sort of gain through leasing. Making it so NR can't lease and Outfitters have no clients isn't going to open up the land for us. It just made them madder at FWP. There are plenty of Resident rich people who will fill the gap of leasing. A hard reality is that animals will always seek a less pressured area with better feed than any other. That doesn't mean that the landowner has an obligation to let us on. Long story short is that there are plenty of options but none seemed to be presented by the commission and only one was implemented that really punished most hunters when they weren't supposed to be the target or reason.
The Breaks area sounds like it might could benefit and use some sort of additional thought and really that's how every district should be looked at. Individually what is best for the resource and then opportunity.
Well now that everyone thinks everyone else is a butthole maybe we can go on a hunt together.
SS you give me a good price on building my house and we can slip quick morning elk hunts in before work.
It's on public and quite fun. You have to promise to leave bugling bulls by no later than 10:00 am so that the house can get built.
Last edited:
sweetnectar
New member
Well, here are some numbers for those interested. I hope it helps people understand the situation. Take them for what they are worth:
Arrr can't upload an xls file. Anyone have any ideas?
Arrr can't upload an xls file. Anyone have any ideas?
Last edited:
T
tjones
Guest
Ohh there are plenty that understand and some that don't.
sweetnectar
New member
So here is the bottom line:
The total number of unsuccessful Residents that put in for first and second choice was 2234
And the total number of unsuccessful Nonresidents that put in for first and second choice was 4501.
Total number of unsuccessful/screwed over hunters was 6735
Dang I wish I could just paste them up here so people can see the quota reduction and dissect them for the areas they like to hunt in.
Long story short, blood shot out of a lot of people eyes over this move and I figure a large part of the legislative backlash came from this.
This created a lot of extra work for Ben, T Jones, and SS.
The total number of unsuccessful Residents that put in for first and second choice was 2234
And the total number of unsuccessful Nonresidents that put in for first and second choice was 4501.
Total number of unsuccessful/screwed over hunters was 6735
Dang I wish I could just paste them up here so people can see the quota reduction and dissect them for the areas they like to hunt in.
Long story short, blood shot out of a lot of people eyes over this move and I figure a large part of the legislative backlash came from this.
This created a lot of extra work for Ben, T Jones, and SS.
Last edited:
BuzzH
Well-known member
Lawnboy,
I didnt, and dont, think the discussion got out of hand...there is always a workable solution for those willing to find it.
I didnt, and dont, think the discussion got out of hand...there is always a workable solution for those willing to find it.
T
tjones
Guest
Where the heck and what the heck would have an extra 6735 guys hunted had the pemits been unlimited?
sweetnectar
New member
Good thing the success rate for harvesting an elk with a bow is only around 10%
The total advertised quota was 4220 permits
The total actual or issued permits ended up being 2833
Now remember only 10% of these quotas go to Nonresidents.
What shocked me about the numbers was how many residents were effected compared to nonresidents. I knew the nonresidents would be hit hard but didn't figure the residents would have been hit as hard as they were.
The total advertised quota was 4220 permits
The total actual or issued permits ended up being 2833
Now remember only 10% of these quotas go to Nonresidents.
What shocked me about the numbers was how many residents were effected compared to nonresidents. I knew the nonresidents would be hit hard but didn't figure the residents would have been hit as hard as they were.
shoots-straight
Well-known member
Good thing the success rate for harvesting an elk with a bow is only around 10%
The total advertised quota was 4220 permits
The total actual or issued permits ended up being 2833
Now remember only 10% of these quotas go to Nonresidents.
What shocked me about the numbers was how many residents were effected compared to nonresidents. I knew the nonresidents would be hit hard but didn't figure the residents would have been hit as hard as they were.
Here's what I got from the page 30 in the Drawing Statistics:
There were a total of 5310 apps for the archery tags. 1st choice. That's NR and R.
931 people were turned away. I think the actual was a lot more than 2833.
I would bet that the majority of the 931 was NR hunters. Sense they could only get 440 of the available 4376 that it says was given out.
The 4xx-15 are the archery only tags.
E-book version see page 30. http://fwp.mt.gov/export/hunting/regulations/eBook/2011/deerElkAntelopeRegulations/index.html
http://fwpiis.mt.gov/content/getItem.aspx?id=49474 PDF version.
I don't think many Montanans missed the opportunity to archery hunt that put in for 1st choice. Just saying.
I'm sure we'll be addressing this by next tentative session. All of us.
