Montana Corner Crossing Updated?

I’d not be comfortable at all with the “people” deciding. Just go ask without priming most people what “corner crossing” is and you’ll find out. If all you associate with is a narrow group of the hunting crowd you’ll get a skewed view. Non hunters out number hunters significantly.
99.9 is an obvious exaggeration.
In fairness to MT’s ballot initiatives and direct democracy in the state, the voter books do a pretty good job of explaining the issue at hand from both sides and have a rebuttal for both as well. Whether folks actually read them is another thing.

A concern is which side would be better at funding advertisements around the issue. I’m sure the outdoor orgs could do well enough, but big money land interests would have a load of cash to throw at this, perhaps (hyperbolically) painting it as an all out attack on private property rights.
 
Gov. G’s pick has done more to stir the status quo than any other director in Mt history, and certainly more than in the last 16 years.
I might not agree with everything and the way it’s been done, but at least something is happening, and I have hope we will come away with some serious wins for the RESOURCE!!
Resource including public land? Resource being a marked increase in age class of the game and quality of hunting experience in the state? Or do you mean resource as in the money that lines the pockets of folks such as yourself through initiatives by MOGA to essentially have government subsidies handed to them by skewing regulations in their favor, such as the 313 elk hunt proposal. I get it, you have a living to make, and it's not personal with outfitters. But run your business better- advertise or seek out your customers instead of trying to force folks to come to you through reg changes.

I think a public ballot initiative scares landowners, scares UPOM, and, frankly, scares MOGA.
 
Resource including public land? Resource being a marked increase in age class of the game and quality of hunting experience in the state? Or do you mean resource as in the money that lines the pockets of folks such as yourself through initiatives by MOGA to essentially have government subsidies handed to them by skewing regulations in their favor, such as the 313 elk hunt proposal. I get it, you have a living to make, and it's not personal with outfitters. But run your business better- advertise or seek out your customers instead of trying to force folks to come to you through reg changes.

I think a public ballot initiative scares landowners, scares UPOM, and, frankly, scares MOGA.
I wouldn't underestimate the $$$$ those groups would throw at a ballot initiative, talking TV ad placements every other ad for 6 months. I also wouldn't underestimate the negative out of state landowner sentiment that continues to grow inside MT resident circles. There is a 3rd option which involves the court system. Just takes a few soles (boot soles :) ) to get confronted for trespassing.
 
Gov. G’s pick has done more to stir the status quo than any other director in Mt history, and certainly more than in the last 16 years.
I might not agree with everything and the way it’s been done, but at least something is happening, and I have hope we will come away with some serious wins for the RESOURCE!!

He’s definitely started some conversations. You are far more optimistic than I that he’s done or is doing anything that can be counted as a win for the resource.

I have made several trips to Helena and contacted legislators and commissioners several times to vigorously oppose Director Worsech’s proposals.

The only thing I agree with him on so far is mandatory harvest reporting but that has never been acted upon to make a proposal to be official policy.

HB 505, the pheasant stocking program, the “simplification” process which is anything but simple, the screw up of the permit draws and consequent addition of 10% more permits in several units are several negatives that Director Worsech is responsible for that come immediately to my mind.

Any wins for the resource that you can think of?
 
He’s definitely started some conversations. You are far more optimistic than I that he’s done or is doing anything that can be counted as a win for the resource.

I have made several trips to Helena and contacted legislators and commissioners several times to vigorously oppose Director Worsech’s proposals.

The only thing I agree with him on so far is mandatory harvest reporting but that has never been acted upon to make a proposal to be official policy.

HB 505, the pheasant stocking program, the “simplification” process which is anything but simple, the screw up of the permit draws and consequent addition of 10% more permits in several units are several negatives that Director Worsech is responsible for that come immediately to my mind.

Any wins for the resource that you can think of?
That fact that there is still resource to discuss might be a win given the ineptitude in Helena.
 
Resource including public land? Resource being a marked increase in age class of the game and quality of hunting experience in the state? Or do you mean resource as in the money that lines the pockets of folks such as yourself through initiatives by MOGA to essentially have government subsidies handed to them by skewing regulations in their favor, such as the 313 elk hunt proposal. I get it, you have a living to make, and it's not personal with outfitters. But run your business better- advertise or seek out your customers instead of trying to force folks to come to you through reg changes.

I think a public ballot initiative scares landowners, scares UPOM, and, frankly, scares MOGA.
The resource on public land needs taken care of and managed in a responsible manner. This is what I, unless otherwise state, am speaking to. Private is managed by the owner/lessor/outfitter and is what it is.

I did not speak to 313. I do not know enough about the area to have a right to speak on it.
I was informed later that Biologically there was no reason to oppose, was why MOGA supported going back to 5 week, biologically, it has same bull:cow ratio as other areas w/ 5 week season, and it’s public land. After hearing/learning pro-con, I would’ve spoken in favor of leaving it permit last 2 weeks. A Prominent MOGA outfitter/member (and close friend) did speak in favor of leaving it as is, permit last 2 weeks.
 
He’s definitely started some conversations. You are far more optimistic than I that he’s done or is doing anything that can be counted as a win for the resource.

I have made several trips to Helena and contacted legislators and commissioners several times to vigorously oppose Director Worsech’s proposals.

The only thing I agree with him on so far is mandatory harvest reporting but that has never been acted upon to make a proposal to be official policy.

HB 505, the pheasant stocking program, the “simplification” process which is anything but simple, the screw up of the permit draws and consequent addition of 10% more permits in several units are several negatives that Director Worsech is responsible for that come immediately to my mind.

Any wins for the resource that you can think of?
There will always be a great deal of angst with any sort of change. Do I agree with everything Hank has done/suggested? No, but he sure has the ball rolling.

We now have attention called to a lot of issues with people finally talking about how to resolve them.

A win for the resource, cutting me deer doe tag sales in 7 certainly was.
 
There will always be a great deal of angst with any sort of change. Do I agree with everything Hank has done/suggested? No, but he sure has the ball rolling.

We now have attention called to a lot of issues with people finally talking about how to resolve them.

A win for the resource, cutting me deer doe tag sales in 7 certainly was.
This is a very odd talking point I continue to hear from this administration and its supporters: "at least this FWP is getting the ball rolling," or something along those lines.

Maybe I'm in the minority, but I'd rather have an FWP do nothing than have an FWP continually making asinine proposals, causing outrage from several stakeholders, then mostly backing off their proposals. The recent controversy surrounding HD 313 does a good job of illustrating this.

Your prior post suggested the bull cow ratio in HD 313 was sufficient to allow a 5-week season. However, numerous sources cite that the bull cow ratio in HD 313 was 3.6 to 100. While there is no magic number or gold standard I am aware of that satisfies a perfect bull cow ratio, a good reference point from Wyoming's recreation herd management guidelines suggests 18-25 bulls should be harvested for every 100 cows. This outcome could not come close to being accomplished in HD 313 with its measly bull population. So, while FWP was right to back off its proposed modification to HD 313, you have to wonder why they even made the proposal to begin with.

I'll take a do-nothing FWP that offers stability and predictability year in and year out over one that has me worried about whether my kids will be able to hunt elk with the same freedom I have enjoyed when they come of age.
 
This is a very odd talking point I continue to hear from this administration and its supporters: "at least this FWP is getting the ball rolling," or something along those lines.

Maybe I'm in the minority, but I'd rather have an FWP do nothing than have an FWP continually making asinine proposals, causing outrage from several stakeholders, then mostly backing off their proposals. The recent controversy surrounding HD 313 does a good job of illustrating this.

Your prior post suggested the bull cow ratio in HD 313 was sufficient to allow a 5-week season. However, numerous sources cite that the bull cow ratio in HD 313 was 3.6 to 100. While there is no magic number or gold standard I am aware of that satisfies a perfect bull cow ratio, a good reference point from Wyoming's recreation herd management guidelines suggests 18-25 bulls should be harvested for every 100 cows. This outcome could not come close to being accomplished in HD 313 with its measly bull population. So, while FWP was right to back off its proposed modification to HD 313, you have to wonder why they even made the proposal to begin with.

I'll take a do-nothing FWP that offers stability and predictability year in and year out over one that has me worried about whether my kids will be able to hunt elk with the same freedom I have enjoyed when they come of age.
A do nothing FWP is what we have had. You liked what we’ve had? If we “continue to hunt elk with the same freedom you’ve enjoyed”…..or deer, there won’t be anything left for your children.
 
A do nothing FWP is what we have had. You liked what we’ve had? If we “continue to hunt elk with the same freedom you’ve enjoyed”…..or deer, there won’t be anything left for your children.
In my lifetime the number of elk in Montana has increased. The mix of general and limited entry districts have allowed people to enjoy both hunt opportunity and quality. In fact, most of the asinine proposals made by this FWP find foundation in their argument that elk are at or over objective populations. It appears you do not follow or understand FWP's proposals. I hope you do in the future.
 
Last edited:
I am also not to worried about limited entry permit areas. They have a whole different sort of problem to be dealt with.

I was speaking of general season areas, like the Bob Marshal complex, which in 1932 had an estimated elk herd of 32,000. Todays estimates are around 1500 hd.
 
In my lifetime the number of elk in Montana has increased. The mix of general and limited entry districts have allowed people to enjoy both hunt opportunity and quality. In fact, most of the asinine proposals made by this FWP find foundation in their argument that elk are at or over objective populations. It appears you do not follow or understand FWP's proposals. I hope you do in the future.
I have not hunted in a general season elk area in 30 yrs.. I talk with a lot of folks who do. They pretty much all say the same thing, it’s a nice armed hike/horseback ride.
What good is an over abundance of elk in a permit area? I guess the permit holder gets to see a lot of elk, generally on a place they can’t access.

In order to “enjoy the hunting opportunity and quality (gen season and permit areas) we must have population of elk to hunt. Otherwise we have to be happy with the opportunity to take a nice armed hiking excursion.
 
I have not hunted in a general season elk area in 30 yrs.. I talk with a lot of folks who do. They pretty much all say the same thing, it’s a nice armed hike/horseback ride.
What good is an over abundance of elk in a permit area? I guess the permit holder gets to see a lot of elk, generally on a place they can’t access.

In order to “enjoy the hunting opportunity and quality (gen season and permit areas) we must have population of elk to hunt. Otherwise we have to be happy with the opportunity to take a nice armed hiking excursion.
You sound just like this FWP. Just a couple of posts ago you said the FWP was in favor of extending the season in HD 313 (a general permit area) because you heard it was biologically feasible. Now you are saying there aren't any elk to hunt in general areas.

Like you, I have heard from people who complain about not seeing landscapes littered with game in general areas. However, I also know just as many people who have success in general areas every year.

As to an overabundance of elk in permitted areas, in "areas hunters can't access," I assume you are referencing elk found on large private ranches. Are you aware that elk primarily found on private land do not count toward the number of elk in the district for FWP's purposes? I.e., elk primarily found on private land are not a part of the count that decides whether the district is under, at, or over objective population.
 
Last edited:
As to an overabundance of elk in permitted areas, in "areas hunters can't access," I assume you are referencing elk found on large private ranches. Are you aware that elk primarily found on private land do not count toward the number of elk in the district for FWP's purposes? I.e., elk primarily found on private land are not a part of the count that decides whether the district is under, at, or over objective population.
Too bad FWP didn't actually use the part of the elk management plan that says that inaccessible elk did not count towards the objective numbers.
 
Too bad FWP didn't actually use the part of the elk management plan that says that inaccessible elk did not count towards the objective numbers.

And subsequently uses “over objective” numbers in permit areas and general areas with large populations of elk that exist on inaccessible private land to set management policies across the state. Those policies have extremely detrimental impacts on general areas with good access. FWP by and large ignores the mismanagement of those areas because Montana has “too many elk” according to arbitrary objectives.
 
You sound just like this FWP. Just a couple of posts ago you said the FWP was in favor of extending the season in HD 313 (a general permit area) because you heard it was biologically feasible. Now you are saying there aren't any elk to hunt in general areas.

Like you, I have heard from people who complain about not seeing landscapes littered with game in general areas. However, I also know just as many people who have success in general areas every year.

As to an overabundance of elk in permitted areas, in "areas hunters can't access," I assume you are referencing elk found on large private ranches. Are you aware that elk primarily found on private land do not count toward the number of elk in the district for FWP's purposes? I.e., elk primarily found on private land are not a part of the count that decides whether the district is under, at, or over objective population.
I said MOGA came out in favor of, not FWP.

I never stated I was in favor of changing 313’s status.
 
And subsequently uses “over objective” numbers in permit areas and general areas with large populations of elk that exist on inaccessible private land to set management policies across the state. Those policies have extremely detrimental impacts on general areas with good access. FWP by and large ignores the mismanagement of those areas because Montana has “too many elk” according to arbitrary objectives.
Agreed, but it’d be egregious to not count those elk. The elk are there, and are a problem to some traditional landowners.
The EMP needs revisited for certain, and possibly new objective numbers set.
If all else fails, my model of 4 weeks either sex, last week cow only needs tried. When numbers are not brought to “objective”, increase cow season to last 2 weeks, then 4 weeks, and finally all 5 weeks cow only.

Maybe make the general season elk license good for cow only, and ONLY on private land in permit areas, valid last 2 weeks this year, and go cow only last 2 weeks.
 
View attachment 258567
A quick look at an area Mr. Albus leases is probably the most powerful evidence as to why he doesn’t like corner crossing.
It is so easy to take cheap chickensh$t shots at people when hidden behind an anonymous moniker. Somehow I just can’t respect it.

I am on the fence about corner crossing. Growing up a pretty much 100% public land hunter I can see both sides. I understand the publics angst of not being able to access legally at corners, but I also can see the other side as well. One thing we ALL need to admit, were corner hopping legalized it’d only take about 2 weeks and those parcels/sections would be pretty much decimated by the public. Pretty much like every other publicly accessible acre.
It all comes back to this. If the public had good elk/deer hunting on large accessible tracts corner crossing wouldn’t be a topic.
Why not try to figure out how bring back the Bob Marshal back to 1930’s elk numbers? Estimate was 32,000 head in the complex, today 1500.
 

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
114,010
Messages
2,041,044
Members
36,429
Latest member
Dusky
Back
Top