Montana 2025 Legislative Session

[Ben Lamb]

It sure seems like a landowner in over-objective districts where damage hunts requiring a large portion of the licensed hunters to be from the public currently take place (Madison Valley for example), the public opportunity provided by damage hunts could be limited by this change - seeing as how if the matrix allows, family, friends, (those willing to pay trespass fees?) could and probably from the perspective of a landowner would preferably be the licensed hunters as opposed to the general public.

Not trying to be difficult, but I don't see anything in the text of this bill that even references district objectives. I have lost faith in the whole concept of our Commission enough that I would be hesitant to give them more rope with which to reduce public opportunity.

Page 2, line 17: the agency gets the directive to institute the scaling matrix. It is permissive, but working with the department, this is the language they preferred.

The licensing issue would still have to go through the season setting process, and the public still has a role in how it is implemented.

The bill isn't about reducing hunter opportunity, it's about increasing options in areas that are over objective range & creating sideboards so it doesn't exploit the resource in areas where there is a need to grow herds/maintain herds.

There's a new director, so I'd give her some time before throwing the towel in on the agency or commission. I'm pretty comfortable with the sideboards and I'm pretty comfortable with the agency on this.

The real world situation is a shoulder season hunt where a hunter has the chance to take 3 elk instead of 2.

 

[Nameless Range]

Page 2, line 17: the agency gets the directive to institute the scaling matrix. It is permissive, but working with the department, this is the language they preferred.

The licensing issue would still have to go through the season setting process, and the public still has a role in how it is implemented.

The bill isn't about reducing hunter opportunity, it's about increasing options in areas that are over objective range & creating sideboards so it doesn't exploit the resource in areas where there is a need to grow herds/maintain herds.

There's a new director, so I'd give her some time before throwing the towel in on the agency or commission. I'm pretty comfortable with the sideboards and I'm pretty comfortable with the agency on this.

The real world situation is a shoulder season hunt where a hunter has the chance to take 3 elk instead of 2.

Thanks Ben, I appreciate it. I won't ever throw the towel in on anyone, because once you do you are out of the game, but I don't my breath as long with some of these contingents.

Did the agency request this? Senator Loge represents a Senate District with no hunting districts over objective and contains some below and is adjacent to some chronically below. Hard to understand where these ideas come from.

 

[Forkyfinder]

Page 2, line 17: the agency gets the directive to institute the scaling matrix. It is permissive, but working with the department, this is the language they preferred.

The licensing issue would still have to go through the season setting process, and the public still has a role in how it is implemented.

The bill isn't about reducing hunter opportunity, it's about increasing options in areas that are over objective range & creating sideboards so it doesn't exploit the resource in areas where there is a need to grow herds/maintain herds.

There's a new director, so I'd give her some time before throwing the towel in on the agency or commission. I'm pretty comfortable with the sideboards and I'm pretty comfortable with the agency on this.

The real world situation is a shoulder season hunt where a hunter has the chance to take 3 elk instead of 2.

Where do you get 3, in lieu of 2? Eliminating the cap doesnt seem to do that.

The existing options to reduce elk populations in Montana are plentiful, diverse, and are underutilized.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Thanks Ben, I appreciate it. I won't ever throw the towel in on anyone, because once you do you are out of the game, but I don't my breath as long with some of these contingents.

Did the agency request this? Senator Loge represents a Senate District with no hunting districts over objective and contains some below and is adjacent to some chronically below. Hard to understand where these ideas come from.

I asked Senator Loge if he would carry it. We were asked by members in areas that are chronically.over objective and not getting the reduction. We also wanted to avoid issues where wardens or technicians are cut loose with a ton of kill permits ala Wyoming.

Senator Loge said yes, and added the piece about the sideboards for oversubscription. A great addition. I worked with the agency to make sure we didn't overreach, but they are informational on the bill.

Loge's district is a great example in that this bill could lead to the return of the A9 permit, versus B tags opportunity. It's about helping bring some deliberate thought into how we issue B licenses as much as it is increasing the individual hunters ability to get more than 2 B tags in areas where it makes sense.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Where do you get 3, in lieu of 2? Eliminating the cap doesnt seem to do that.

The existing options to reduce elk populations in Montana are plentiful, diverse, and are underutilized.

The agency & the commission set the number based on the matrix that will be developed.

Nobody is getting 40 deer licenses. At most you could get 6. Even that has been heavily reduced by the commission as well as SB281 from last session.

 

[Forkyfinder]

The agency & the commission set the number based on the matrix that will be developed.

Nobody is getting 40 deer licenses. At most you could get 6. Even that has been heavily reduced by the commission as well as SB281 from last session.

I asked Senator Loge if he would carry it. We were asked by members in areas that are chronically.over objective and not getting the reduction. We also wanted to avoid issues where wardens or technicians are cut loose with a ton of kill permits ala Wyoming.

Senator Loge said yes, and added the piece about the sideboards for oversubscription. A great addition. I worked with the agency to make sure we didn't overreach, but they are informational on the bill.

Loge's district is a great example in that this bill could lead to the return of the A9 permit, versus B tags opportunity. It's about helping bring some deliberate thought into how we issue B licenses as much as it is increasing the individual hunters ability to get more than 2 B tags in areas where it makes sense.

Its a shame that "members in areas" ask someone in the legislative process to assist the elk problem - rather than FWP.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Its a shame that "members in areas" ask someone in the legislative process to assist the elk problem - rather than FWP.

This requires a statutory change.

These folks are offering free access during early & late season as well as some general season opportunity.

 

[Forkyfinder]

This requires a statutory change.

These folks are offering free access during early & late season as well as some general season opportunity.

I noticed you said some during general season? What do you mean by that?

 

[cgasner1]

I noticed you said some during general season? What do you mean by that?

I’ve heard some let youth and vets on to kill a few bulls but it’s limited.

 

[Forkyfinder]

Somehow all the people they let have access ran out of B tags? Or - more likely - with an unlimited number the access can be more readily sold and commodified.

There's never been a shortage of tags to control elk population. In fact, recently, a judge in lewistown shot down the inept UPOM idea of FWP exterminating elk because some well invested/connected landowners have an "abundance" of too many elk.

Looks to me like the same ideas behind a legislative curtain. Hope anyone contacts their legislator and tells them they - and our elk - should not be for sale.

 

[Nameless Range]

Somehow all the people they let have access ran out of B tags? Or - more likely - with an unlimited number the access can be more readily sold and commodified.

There's never been a shortage of tags to control elk population. In fact, recently, a judge in lewistown shot down the inept UPOM idea of FWP exterminating elk because some well invested/connected landowners have an "abundance" of too many elk.

Looks to me like the same ideas behind a legislative curtain. Hope anyone contacts their legislator and tells them they - and our elk - should not be for sale.

If I were a legislator considering this bill, I would be asking the agency:

How many Montana hunters shoot two cow elk in a year in districts where that’s possible.

How many of those hunters do so in over objective districts and how many per district?

Assuming everyone of the hunters that shot two cow elk shot three instead, how would that affect elk populations in the districts in question? I would want this data per district that is over objective, because it’s not clear to me that there’s enough hunters shooting two cow elk as it is to make a meaningful impact on elk populations in a particular district if they were to shoot three. If shooting three wouldn’t, I would wonder what’s up here.

 

[Forkyfinder]

If I were a legislator considering this bill, I would be asking the agency:

How many Montana hunters shoot two cow elk in a year in districts where that’s possible.

How many of those hunters do so in over objective districts and how many per district?

Assuming everyone of the hunters that shot two cow elk shot three instead, how would that affect elk populations in the districts in question? I would want this data per district that is over objective, because it’s not clear to me that there’s enough hunters shooting two cow elk as it is to make a meaningful impact on elk populations in a particular district if they were to shoot three. If shooting three wouldn’t, I would wonder what’s up here.

All great questions, so great i plan to plagarize them!

 

[Ben Lamb]

Somehow all the people they let have access ran out of B tags? Or - more likely - with an unlimited number the access can be more readily sold and commodified.

There's never been a shortage of tags to control elk population. In fact, recently, a judge in lewistown shot down the inept UPOM idea of FWP exterminating elk because some well invested/connected landowners have an "abundance" of too many elk.

Looks to me like the same ideas behind a legislative curtain. Hope anyone contacts their legislator and tells them they - and our elk - should not be for sale.

Respectfully, these wouldn't be unlimited licenses. They aren't transferable, so the "for sale" comment is hyperbolic and doesn't reflect the issue at hand.

The bill lifts the cap, similar to deer. There are not any unlimited deer licenses in the state, even in areas of over-abundance. So the commission will still set a level. Given the scaling matrix that would go through rulemaking, the public will get to weigh in and influence this if it passes. It actually sets up a better system for spreading hunter pressure around due to the scaling so you won't have as many cow hunters on public land, and more focused on private. It creates a finer scale management tool to make a decision based on several factors, that could include available acreage for public hunting.

It is also disingenuous to tie this to the UPOM case. This is what UPOM was advocating for: https://wyofile.com/hired-guns-unlimited-tags-wyoming-levels-up-elk-killing-efforts/

The bill talks about creating a metric that calls for the use of objective ranges and desired herd conditions to scale how many licenses would be available for a specific district. Right now we have unit wide tags that are not getting to the heart of the overpopulation issue. We also have overly broad licenses in some areas that shouldn't be OTC, but instead a permit. Having a matrix that helps spell that out in terms related to objective range and desired herd conditions can help the agency prescribe some better management scenarios.

Declaring that landowners should just enroll in Block Management or they should just allow access has been the approach for the last 20 years. In that same timeframe, we've lost over 1.5 million acres of public access to private land. Coming in with the same argument that hasn't changed in 20 years isn't going to suddenly produce new results. In fact, the argument that "we don't have an elk problem, we have an access problem" is exactly what I said at the legislature from 2009 - 2019. It hasn't produced any kind of result other than growing the divide between hunters and landowners.

I've talked with some landowners who are considering only allowing people with suppressed rifles on to hunt management seasons because a shot goes off, and the elk are gone. So it's one and done for the day as the elk move to other places that are off limits. That's due to 10 years of shoulder season hunt pressure that has educated several generations of elk to stay off private and on public until February 15th or to run when they here a gunshot. Hunter pressure remains one of the most significant issues relative to elk distribution. We know that landowners won't throw open the gates for everyone to come on for a variety of reasons. We do know that landowners are offering free public hunting during management seasons (and yes, some limited hunting during general seasons). That's how they are managing their land. If we stat where those landowners are and provide the tools they ask for to become better engaged in the process, then I don't see that are anything other than trying something different than the path that hasn't worked since the early 2000's. If it hasn't been a successful strategy in 20 years, what makes anyone think that it's going to work now? If we approach this from the point of view of landowners, being told to open up access doesn't come across as neighborly. That's been a big reason why some places are shutting down - that perceived sense of hunter entitlement.

I'd rather have licensed public hunters taking elk than sharpshooters or kill permits. The fears of unlimited tags or creating some fantasy where landowners shooting 50 elk doesn't pass the smell test. Similarly, the idea that these animals will go to waste ignores the laws in place to deal with waste of game, as well as ignoring Hunters Against Hunger, which will help pay for the processing and providing meat to food banks.

The fear of this bill has nothing to do with the actual, practical application of it.

 

[Forkyfinder]

Respectfully, these wouldn't be unlimited licenses. They aren't transferable, so the "for sale" comment is hyperbolic and doesn't reflect the issue at hand.

The bill lifts the cap, similar to deer. There are not any unlimited deer licenses in the state, even in areas of over-abundance. So the commission will still set a level. Given the scaling matrix that would go through rulemaking, the public will get to weigh in and influence this if it passes. It actually sets up a better system for spreading hunter pressure around due to the scaling so you won't have as many cow hunters on public land, and more focused on private. It creates a finer scale management tool to make a decision based on several factors, that could include available acreage for public hunting.

It is also disingenuous to tie this to the UPOM case. This is what UPOM was advocating for: https://wyofile.com/hired-guns-unlimited-tags-wyoming-levels-up-elk-killing-efforts/

The bill talks about creating a metric that calls for the use of objective ranges and desired herd conditions to scale how many licenses would be available for a specific district. Right now we have unit wide tags that are not getting to the heart of the overpopulation issue. We also have overly broad licenses in some areas that shouldn't be OTC, but instead a permit. Having a matrix that helps spell that out in terms related to objective range and desired herd conditions can help the agency prescribe some better management scenarios.

Declaring that landowners should just enroll in Block Management or they should just allow access has been the approach for the last 20 years. In that same timeframe, we've lost over 1.5 million acres of public access to private land. Coming in with the same argument that hasn't changed in 20 years isn't going to suddenly produce new results. In fact, the argument that "we don't have an elk problem, we have an access problem" is exactly what I said at the legislature from 2009 - 2019. It hasn't produced any kind of result other than growing the divide between hunters and landowners.

I've talked with some landowners who are considering only allowing people with suppressed rifles on to hunt management seasons because a shot goes off, and the elk are gone. So it's one and done for the day as the elk move to other places that are off limits. That's due to 10 years of shoulder season hunt pressure that has educated several generations of elk to stay off private and on public until February 15th or to run when they here a gunshot. Hunter pressure remains one of the most significant issues relative to elk distribution. We know that landowners won't throw open the gates for everyone to come on for a variety of reasons. We do know that landowners are offering free public hunting during management seasons (and yes, some limited hunting during general seasons). That's how they are managing their land. If we stat where those landowners are and provide the tools they ask for to become better engaged in the process, then I don't see that are anything other than trying something different than the path that hasn't worked since the early 2000's. If it hasn't been a successful strategy in 20 years, what makes anyone think that it's going to work now? If we approach this from the point of view of landowners, being told to open up access doesn't come across as neighborly. That's been a big reason why some places are shutting down - that perceived sense of hunter entitlement.

I'd rather have licensed public hunters taking elk than sharpshooters or kill permits. The fears of unlimited tags or creating some fantasy where landowners shooting 50 elk doesn't pass the smell test. Similarly, the idea that these animals will go to waste ignores the laws in place to deal with waste of game, as well as ignoring Hunters Against Hunger, which will help pay for the processing and providing meat to food banks.

The fear of this bill has nothing to do with the actual, practical application of it.

How many hunters shoot 2 elk a year in diatricts where possible? How many of those hunters do so in over objective districts and how many per district? Assuming everyone of the hunters that shot two cow elk shot three instead, how would that affect elk populations in the districts in question?

Like I promised.

 

[Nameless Range]

I've talked with some landowners who are considering only allowing people with suppressed rifles on to hunt management seasons because a shot goes off, and the elk are gone. So it's one and done for the day as the elk move to other places that are off limits. That's due to 10 years of shoulder season hunt pressure that has educated several generations of elk to stay off private and on public until February 15th or to run when they here a gunshot. Hunter pressure remains one of the most significant issues relative to elk distribution. We know that landowners won't throw open the gates for everyone to come on for a variety of reasons. We do know that landowners are offering free public hunting during management seasons (and yes, some limited hunting during general seasons). That's how they are managing their land. If we stat where those landowners are and provide the tools they ask for to become better engaged in the process, then I don't see that are anything other than trying something different than the path that hasn't worked since the early 2000's. If it hasn't been a successful strategy in 20 years, what makes anyone think that it's going to work now? If we approach this from the point of view of landowners, being told to open up access doesn't come across as neighborly. That's been a big reason why some places are shutting down - that perceived sense of hunter entitlement.

I had three elk tags in my pocket this year. My general, and two associated with a damage hunt roster. The two, I could only use on the private land on which the damage hunt was occurring.

I went down there four times - three hour trip one way. Never were there elk on the property. I understand the frustrations of landowners who engage in damage hunts because a call to a guy like me saying there’s hundreds of elk on the ranch on Sunday can yield no elk on the ranch when I get down there on Monday. Which is exactly what happened more than once. This land owner was awesome, and I had great conversations with him every time I was down there.

That said, I don’t think we should solely look at the last 30 years of discourse as a failure with no progress. The fact is, we have staved off a lot of terrible ideas, and though I certainly believe we should work with landowners, we should also know that some are going to ask for things that might be nice for them, but not for most Montanans. I’m not saying that’s what this is.

I agree with a lot of what you wrote and hope it happens, but I also think the hunting and non hunting public don’t look at elk like they look at deer and will side-eye lifting the cap without showing why it’s needed.

 

[Ben Lamb]

I had three elk tags in my pocket this year. My general, and two associated with a damage hunt roster. The two, I could only use on the private land on which the damage hunt was occurring.

I went down there four times - three hour trip one way. Never were there elk on the property. I understand the frustrations of landowners who engage in damage hunts because a call to a guy like me saying there’s hundreds of elk on the ranch on Sunday can yield no elk on the ranch when I get down there on Monday. Which is exactly what happened more than once. This land owner was awesome, and I had great conversations with him every time I was down there.

That said, I don’t think we should solely look at the last 30 years of discourse as a failure with no progress. The fact is, we have staved off a lot of terrible ideas, and though I certainly believe we should work with landowners, we should also know that some are going to ask for things that might be nice for them, but not for most Montanans.

I agree with a lot of what you wrote and hope it happens, but I also think the hunting and non hunting public don’t look at elk like they look at deer and will side-eye lifting the cap without showing why it’s needed.

And I am still sitting on 1. We didn't have any elk on the place for the week were there.

But you and I are not a large sample size.

Damage hunts are different than shoulder seasons, which are different than general season, which is different than special seasons. There are a lot of things that need to happen. The new EMP helps us find some of those things through regulation and rule, the season setting process can help as well.

SB 270 adds more tools in terms of extra tags, but just as importantly it provides a better path forward on how to decide what kind of elk B license is employed in each specific district while relying on the biologists in the region to have more control over that process. I think the Elkhorns are a good example of how you can scale that antlerless opportunity based on landowner tolerance, herd objective range and desired outcomes, and a group like the EHWG is perfectly suited to help make those calls. Same with the Devil's Kitchen working group, Sweetgrass working group, etc. Is it the only tool to use? Absolutely not. But it is one that some conscientious landowners are asking for, and one that I think makes sense instead of asking for party hunting, landowner set-asides or transferable licenses.

 

[Ben Lamb]

How many hunters shoot 2 elk a year in diatricts where possible? How many of those hunters do so in over objective districts and how many per district? Assuming everyone of the hunters that shot two cow elk shot three instead, how would that affect elk populations in the districts in question?

Like I promised.

Here is the link to the FWP Contact us page. They can get you those answers:

ABOUT FWP :: Contact Us | Montana FWP

How to contact FWP

fwp.mt.gov

 

[Gulf of America]

Respectfully, these wouldn't be unlimited licenses. They aren't transferable, so the "for sale" comment is hyperbolic and doesn't reflect the issue at hand.

I think it’s a bit disingenuous to say the tags aren’t transferable and therefore there’s nothing “for sale.” B tags aren’t subject to the NR big game combo caps, and it’s never been tags for sale. It’s always been access.

 

[Forkyfinder]

I think it’s a bit disingenuous to say the tags aren’t transferable and therefore there’s nothing “for sale.” B tags aren’t subject to the NR big game combo caps, and it’s never been tags for sale. It’s always been access.

Book the Elk Hunt at Teigen Ranch in Montana.

The Teigen Ranch is a family ranching operation, home to classic western hunting opportunities in Central Montana. The ranch is located in between Grass Range and Winnett, and offers just under 3,000 acres of wide open grasslands, hay fields, creekbottom, and pines. The property is split by...

landtrust.com

No, nothing to see here, nothing is for sale!

 

[Ben Lamb]

I think it’s a bit disingenuous to say the tags aren’t transferable and therefore there’s nothing “for sale.” B tags aren’t subject to the NR big game combo caps, and it’s never been tags for sale. It’s always been access.

The bill limits NR's to 1 cow elk license if the hunter does not hold a B10 or elk combo, or 2 if they do, so it's a slight reduction in NR hunter opportunity.