Commissioner Vermillion

[WT_in_MT]

WY in MT is that correct? I figured it was the way Randy was suggesting.

That is the way I understand it as explained to me. If you want it straight from the horses mouth, call the number below.

Drawings .......... ......................406-444-2950

I guess every Tom, Dick, and Harry that applied for a second or third choice permit, but couldn't draw it because they drew their first choice, could be included. Of course that would only serve to make it look like more opportunity has been lost, when in reality it hasn't because they drew their first choice. Is that the figures you'd prefer to see?

 

[Lawnboy]

WT in MT it's not a secret. There are no secrets in hunting anymore. Not sure why you you are referring to it as secret. I didn't post up the district simply because it's not real smart to blow your horn about your unit if its good whether on private or public. Many assumed it was the Breaks and that seems to be the area with the problems.

Lamdilligaf if you think 411 only holds elk on private and landlocked you aren't trying hard enough. I have hunted both sides of the Big Snowies and gotten into elk and deer across the whole mountain. Sounds like you were looking for an easy hunt. Try the Big Mountain it's got thousands of acres of public and lots of elk as well. Most people just want to hunt small tracks down low around the ranches and complain that they can't get on. I can go out to Ashland and walk for a week hunting elk without doing so on private. There are plenty of options and it's no different than any other part of the state. Those that work harder find less people. So the times that open up for me to go on some private I'm jumping on them. You'd be stupid not too but you can still find plenty of public without overcrowding in most units. I only get 2 weekends at best out there so somehow I'm figuring out how to kill elk every year without connections and doing it on private.

WT I was simply posting his numbers for him since he asked me too. I'm not sure where he got them. Your numbers are making more sense when you explain it that way.

 

[Lawnboy]

They don't work that way. It has to go through the process. I don't know why they cut the quota from 750 to 465, maybe you fellas hunting in there should ask the local Bio that question. Instead of being P Od I'd call. At least you'd have their reasoning.

I believe what they did was advertised 750 but I remember last year when I put in they lumped us with the Mocassin units. I think it was 3 more so it almost split the 750 number with 400 something going to 411 and the two units it contains and the rest going to the Mocassins and the other units. It was a bit deceiving on their part but it was also the first year in doing this permit thing. I'm hoping that like Lamdillagaf said they can really analyze each unit separately and make whatever changes necessary to that unit and not the whole. I'm sure like you've said before it will eventually get to a point where some of this stuff is inevitable.

 

[sweetnectar]

What you are looking at on that page are the number of first choice applicants and successfuls, both resident and nonresident combined.

OK let me spell it out so everyone can understand. When you look at the successfuls on page 30 of this years regs that is the number of tags issued otherwise the the percent successful for first choice would show 100%. I know it is a pain to sort through the numbers.
Also, when you look at the numbers of unsuccessfuls, if Randy has it right, then some of those counted as unsuccesfulls drew on thier first choices and it would be wrong to interpret them all as denied.
Point is, you hurt resident hunters in the process. So if you want to get rid of the NR hunters then simply rule that way and protect your residents. Ahhhhh! I feel like I'm beating a dead horse to death.

T buddy, BTW of course!

 

[BuzzH]

Its going to be real difficult to limit NR's while not limiting R's...

I still like my solution the best, give everyone a permit that applies for it as a first choice and make the tag good for all but the breaks.

Problem solved, and you're welcome.

 

[sweetnectar]

Just looked again and saw that 401-15, 420-15, and 500-15 are showing 100% success for first choice applicants that means we don't know the actual quota numbers from that data so heads up...should reduce the number of unsuccessful...but I never even included district 401 in the numbers. This thing is going to need a really good accountant and more data to really pin it down to get a more accurate feel. I hope someone in the department can sort through this more closely and pass it on to the commission.

 

[thetruth]

OK let me spell it out so everyone can understand. When you look at the successfuls on page 30 of this years regs that is the number of tags issued otherwise the the percent successful for first choice would show 100%. I know it is a pain to sort through the numbers.
Also, when you look at the numbers of unsuccessfuls, if Randy has it right, then some of those counted as unsuccesfulls drew on thier first choices and it would be wrong to interpret them all as denied.
Point is, you hurt resident hunters in the process. So if you want to get rid of the NR hunters then simply rule that way and protect your residents. Ahhhhh! I feel like I'm beating a dead horse to death.

T buddy, BTW of course!

sweetnectar, let me spell it our for you. You are WRONG - read the darned regulations! The chart in the regulations that you are getting your numbers from only shows the FIRST CHOICE successfuls for both residents and nonresidents combined. The chart that WT_in_MT posted shows the TOTAL number of permits issued for first, second, and third choice split by residents and nonresidents. Those are the complete drawing statistics from FWP licensing.

Anyone can look at that chart and see that the drawing success for residents is 100% on first choice in most districts and 75% or better on second choice in most districts. So very few residents that want to archery hunt in these areas are being excluded, even if they apply as a second choice. What you don't like, because it affects your business, is that quite a few non-residents are excluded.

I feel like I'm beating a dead horse to death.

 

[sweetnectar]

OK so I reworked the numbers and made the quotes for the districts that showed 100% success on the first choice applicants show no actual quota reduction and I'm comming up with 1810 unsuccessful resident first and second choice applicants. Now lets say, I don't know, over half of them fit the possiblilty that they also put their first choice for an archery permit that they may have drawn. You still have over 900 residents get denied. What do you think?

 

[thetruth]

OK so I reworked the numbers and made the quotes for the districts that showed 100% success on the first choice applicants show no actual quota reduction and I'm comming up with 1810 unsuccessful resident first and second choice applicants. Now lets say, I don't know, over half of them fit the possiblilty that they also put their first choice for an archery permit that they may have drawn. You still have over 900 residents get denied. What do you think?

sweetnectar, I can't follow your fuzzy math. Are you using the chart that WT_in_MT posted? It's the only one with the final total numbers for all the districts. Please list the districts and the numbers for each for which your are making your calculations. If you average the numbers for all the districts in the east for which the regulations changed in 2008 (this excludes 690, 631, and 632 which already had limited permits prior to 2008), you get 100% success for residents first choice and 75% for residents second choice.

 

[shoots-straight]

Vermillion's a really good commissioner, and has our best interests at heart. He intended to limit NR hunters in those districts. It worked. If we need to twink a few areas, then we can do that.So far I don't see a prob. unless your an outfitter looking for more clients.

 

[tjones]

nectar, thetruth has the truth. Quit looking at the regs. Look at the chart from WT, is is quite simple.

 

[WT_in_MT]

OK so I reworked the numbers and made the quotes for the districts that showed 100% success on the first choice applicants show no actual quota reduction and I'm comming up with 1810 unsuccessful resident first and second choice applicants. Now lets say, I don't know, over half of them fit the possiblilty that they also put their first choice for an archery permit that they may have drawn. You still have over 900 residents get denied. What do you think?

I think you either have an inability to comprehend, or an ulterior motive. Which is it?

How many different people need to explain the numbers you're seeing for you to realize you're misinterpreting/misrepresenting them?

 

[bluesman]

I think you either have an inability to comprehend, or an ulterior motive. Which is it?

How many different people need to explain the numbers you're seeing for you to realize you're misinterpreting/misrepresenting them?

Well, it's obvious what his motive is. The elk archery permits are a good deal for Montana residents, not so much for non-residents. By and large, the permits are supported by a majority of resident hunters - at the Billing meeting there were 300 people, mostly all in support. People that were there said they've never seen that many turn out to support a regulation change.

This Commission is under fire because they've had the guts to take on the commercial interests for the benefit of Montana residents. Simple as that.

 

[lamdilligaf]

QUOTE
"Lamdilligaf if you think 411 only holds elk on private and landlocked you aren't trying hard enough. I have hunted both sides of the Big Snowies and gotten into elk and deer across the whole mountain. Sounds like you were looking for an easy hunt. Try the Big Mountain it's got thousands of acres of public and lots of elk as well. Most people just want to hunt small tracks down low around the ranches and complain that they can't get on. I can go out to Ashland and walk for a week hunting elk without doing so on private. There are plenty of options and it's no different than any other part of the state. Those that work harder find less people. So the times that open up for me to go on some private I'm jumping on them. You'd be stupid not too but you can still find plenty of public without overcrowding in most units. I only get 2 weekends at best out there so somehow I'm figuring out how to kill elk every year without connections and doing it on private."


Lawnboy, I probably don't have as good of a feel for that region as you do since I live on the west side of the state. But, I'm certainly not ignorant of where the major elk densities are in that region. You make claims in other posts that people are misrepresenting you because they don't actually know you. Well, you fit that bill pretty well yourself. If all I was looking for was an easy hunt then I wouldn't have taken 20+ bulls in 22 years with a bow on PUBLIC land. If all I wanted was a walk in the woods without seeing people I could do that around here. What I'm saying is that the best areas of public land for elk over there also have quite a bit of pressure; regardless of how hard you want to work. I don't begrudge you your opportunity to hunt private land. If I had the opportunity, I would do it as well. I just never have had the opportunity so I hunt where I can. If you want to ruin my record and drag me into a private honeyhole, Just let me know.

 

[Lawnboy]

Lamdillagaf, The reason it feels crowded is because everyone is kegged up along the the borders of private land trying to get some that are moving across. It's a good technique and one that can pay big but the downside is that everyone does or can do it. It happens over here on the park boundary and along Turners or any other place like that. So it's not just a problem over in the eastern units it happens everywhere. The part that bugs me is when people complain about it and aren't willing to try other spots. I can't get mad if I go up Taylors Fork over here and run into people. It's easy to access and on the right time can have great hunting. If I don't like it I don't file a complaint to FWP that it's overcrowded and ask for more permits. I'm not saying your saying this. I realize the reason and if I don't like it I can surely move to a different spot. That's all I'm saying about this whole Private problem people are having.
After my post I realized that I had done the same to you as others have done to me and I apologize. Sounds like you have a great streak going but I wouldn't think any less of it if you had snuffed a few on some pretty little piece of private. Elk don't become tame just because they are on one side of a fence. You still have to seal the deal when it counts. You just don't have some other dude ruining it for you by walking through the meadow squeezing his Hoochie Mamma
Hopefully you can see a bit of my point. I'd invite you along but it's hard enough for me to get on. The stars seem to have to just align just right and I hope for a phone call saying "Do you want to come out?" If not I go above the house or saddle the horses and have just as good as time hunting elk.