Hb 361
- Thread starter Ben Lamb
- Start date
Previously we had 100% on any choice of those areas, rather than having to draw a tag. We were allowed to hunt all of the 22 units, rather than pick one of them and only hunt that area. Your data above seems to be a pretty big change to opportunity on resident hunters compared to how it used to be.
Again, none of this really affects me much. Just trying to see how all those points you make are true, or increase opportunity rather than decrease.
Thanks again for the points.
Hopefully the Commission will take up this issue again. If so, and it can be shown that these strategies impove hunter opportunity, I will be on board. Right now, I am not.
howler
Active member
The Truth,, good job you made some very good points,
Lawnboy
Well-known member
We aren't a bunch of Kool Aid drinkers over here and can have our own opinions. I could see some of what he presented but he quickly abandoned the whole hoarding issue and went on to other things. He obviously had some emotions running against landowners and outfitters that were clouding his real agenda.
I'm against the commission making us choose between the 22 units. There's no validity in doing so and nothing he presented makes me believe that the commission's decision was correct. They need to address each unit individually. It cut our previous opportunity plain and simple. I'm all for it if it is required for valid reasons whatever they may be. Anyone who thinks that having to chose 1 area out of 22 isn't reduced opportunity is smoking some of that medical weed.
I'm against the commission making us choose between the 22 units. There's no validity in doing so and nothing he presented makes me believe that the commission's decision was correct. They need to address each unit individually. It cut our previous opportunity plain and simple. I'm all for it if it is required for valid reasons whatever they may be. Anyone who thinks that having to chose 1 area out of 22 isn't reduced opportunity is smoking some of that medical weed.
I'll take the bait one more time. Lawnboy, you said, "I could see some of what he presented but he quickly abandoned the whole hoarding issue and went on to other things."
I only went on to other things because I wanted to answer more important points that some of you made. I don't need to explain hoarding and harboring to others on this forum. We all know what it means. If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, looks like a duck, it must be a duck.
Cheers!
I only went on to other things because I wanted to answer more important points that some of you made. I don't need to explain hoarding and harboring to others on this forum. We all know what it means. If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, looks like a duck, it must be a duck.
Cheers!
Lawnboy
Well-known member
Wow that was insightful
Like arguing with my brothers kids or something.
Maybe a new HB on Hoarding and Harboring of animals is in place. Wheres Ben when we need him. Maybe he can slip it in this week
Like arguing with my brothers kids or something.Maybe a new HB on Hoarding and Harboring of animals is in place. Wheres Ben when we need him. Maybe he can slip it in this week
theat
Well-known member
Not sure exactly where I stand on the 22 other units as I have never hunted elk there, but from my personal experience I feel that having permits in the breaks unit that I do hunt has improved the hunting. I am seeing about the same amount of bulls but a noticeable decrease in hunters on weekdays.
As for hoarding, I know of a landowner and an outfitter, one out east and one here in the NW part of the state that I would consider hoarders or at the very least herders. They both are well know to have chased deer off of public and neighboring private lands onto their land/lease prior to and during hunting season. This has caused quite a bit of animosity between other local landowners/hunters and the outfitter.
As for hoarding, I know of a landowner and an outfitter, one out east and one here in the NW part of the state that I would consider hoarders or at the very least herders. They both are well know to have chased deer off of public and neighboring private lands onto their land/lease prior to and during hunting season. This has caused quite a bit of animosity between other local landowners/hunters and the outfitter.
Lawnboy
Well-known member
It takes a lot of man power to hoard and harbor animals on your place. Could be a steady job for someone. There are some invisible men between Bozeman and Billings that are harboring all those whitetails along the river that are on private. We need an inquest.
Why not pack your camcorder and video these guys hazing animals. Pretty simple to get someone in trouble with video. The same goes for those that block true public access.
Lawnboy and Big Fin- both of you have stated that one size doesn't fit all and each district should be looked at on its own. What would your criteria be for having/not having permits in a district? I assume it would be how much public land is in said district. But what would the exact criteria be?
And again for you guys or anybody else who is familiar with the Elkhorns- how is the public access to private land for elk hunting in that district?
Thanks.
And again for you guys or anybody else who is familiar with the Elkhorns- how is the public access to private land for elk hunting in that district?
Thanks.
Lawnboy
Well-known member
The only reasons I see to permit an area is 1. Lack of resource (animal numbers falling) 2. Hunter densities that are creating conflicts. 3. If for some reason you just wanted to create another "Trophy Area" like the elk horns.
I'm not a huge fan of 3 because any given unit in this state can pull a record book bull so why limit something based on that criteria. Number 2 is a tough one because it is subjective to ones opinion of overcrowding. Even then people need to move around and go to other districts. The answer isn't permitting immediately. Wait and see as I mentioned earlier areas tend to go in cycles with hunter densities because people do move around.
I'm not a huge fan of 3 because any given unit in this state can pull a record book bull so why limit something based on that criteria. Number 2 is a tough one because it is subjective to ones opinion of overcrowding. Even then people need to move around and go to other districts. The answer isn't permitting immediately. Wait and see as I mentioned earlier areas tend to go in cycles with hunter densities because people do move around.
I don't necessarily have an answer to the required management strategy needed. I do think it has to consider the fact that the Breaks units have lots of public access where the elk live. The other units do not, being mostly private where the elk live.
I know guys in the Southeast part of MT who think this limited tag strategy has helped them and their hunts on the forest and BLM land down there.
My point is that is should be reflective of what works best in that unit, and what the majority of hunters want. That will only come via a series of public comment meetings.
I might have been asleep, but in the public comment meetings I went to (two of them) for these tentatives, I heard a lot of support for limiting the Breaks and not one person in support of limiting the other 22 units.
The Commission process of taking public comment needs to be done to arrive at the proper strategy. The approach they took that ended in this "One size fits all" management style across a huge area, with many differences in each unit, is not what I think is best.
Access is not going to be solved by cutting tags to residents and non-residents. The landowners in these units who have the elk habitat are not going to open up their ranches for anything they don't want.
Most let the outfitter on the property for the headache factor they handle. Many of these elk properties are absentee owners. They are not inclined toward any hunting. The only reason they have the outfitter and his hunting is because the outfitter watches over the property in their absence.
We might not like it, and I for one would love it we could find a way for access to all those ranches, but it ain't happening when the landowner really doesn't care for hunting to begin with.
The elk do get stacked in those places. That is not a function of the landowner "harboring" or "hoarding." It is a function of the landowner providing some amazing habitat and no, or very little, hunting pressure.
If a guy wants to close his ranch to hunting because where he comes from in New Jersey animals are looked at as lawn ornaments, there is nothing we can do about it. The elk are going to stack up and cutting tags does nothing to increase access to those properties.
The same with a landowner who might allow some friends or family to hunt his ground. You could cut the tags to ZERO and he is not going to allow public hunting.
The premise that these landowners restrict access for the money from outfitters is a wrong premise. The money from the outfitters is small stuff for most of these guys. Yeah, a few guys still trying to make the numbers work on cattle view the outfitter money as something worthwhile, but they are the minority of the elk habitat in these areas.
If the commission thinks that cutting tags is going to increase access, and prevent "harboring" or "hoarding" (I think those are bad word choices to reflect what is really happening, but I use them, since they were used in prior posts) they are way off base as it relates to most these units.
Maybe it will work in some of the units. I don't know.
Just because I don't buy the argument that unlimited tags are causing commercialization and privatization, doesn't mean I don't want more public hunting access. Just the opposite.
Many of us worked to kill HB 361, because it repesented legislative season setting, something the Commission has always done. Now that HB 361 is dead, it is time to revisit the issue of these unlimited permits over most of central and eastern Montana.
To your question of what is the answer, I don't know. Nobody knows, until we have another round of public comment periods.
Should be interesting, for sure.
Wapiti Warrior
New member
Truth,
you are correct on your points. Some people just don't get it.
John
you are correct on your points. Some people just don't get it.
John
Lawnboy
Well-known member
John what don't I get?
Horn Seeker
New member
Good deal, as much as I didn't want the permits in the 22OD, I didnt want even MORE the legislature making that decision...
Randy, for the "most" part, MBA members were not in support of the 23OD permits... Region 5 tended to have more support than other areas though, and evidently R7 members really did like the permits...
I am anti permit, but also think there needs to be some measure to cap NR's in certain districts that they seem to load up in....
Randy, for the "most" part, MBA members were not in support of the 23OD permits... Region 5 tended to have more support than other areas though, and evidently R7 members really did like the permits...
I am anti permit, but also think there needs to be some measure to cap NR's in certain districts that they seem to load up in....
T
tjones
Guest
How do you cap NR's without capping R's?
In my best Arnold Horshack imitation, Ooh-ooh-oooooh!
BuzzH
Well-known member
Seeing strong support for the commission to come up with regulations based on what hunters want (via hunters comments), what outfitters want (via outfitter comments), and want landowners want (via landowner comments).
At the same time seeing a huge disconnect with doing whats best for the wildlife and what the professional biologists are paid to do...
Business as usual........everyone is an expert, except the experts.
At the same time seeing a huge disconnect with doing whats best for the wildlife and what the professional biologists are paid to do...
Business as usual........everyone is an expert, except the experts.
shoots-straight
Well-known member
Unfortunately, that's how things are being done these days. The squeaky wheel gets the grease. I think that the resource should come first, followed by what the residents want and how that fits into my number 1 response. The left overs go to the outfitters, and the needs of the landowners addressed as far as depredation goes. Things need to be prioritized.
If only I were king.
Similar threads
