The tag was not 100% draw. You did not apply correctly and still had a chance at it which you shouldn’t have. Nothing unfair about it. Nobody knew draw odds as the bundle was broke up and needed to be for a long time.
Montana draw
- Thread starter 174in
- Start date
Round and round we go. So you can honestly say '1st choice only' vs 'First and only choice are the same thing? I read those words very clearly in the regs before I applied. If you answer yes then there is no sense in debating this, we will get nowhere and are all wasting our time.
In all fairness I watched the commission meeting and saw exactly what happened. I do have sympathy for people that did not understand, but not as much sympathy as I have for the elk herd that is about to take a beat down this fall.
8andcounting
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 16, 2013
- Messages
- 3,404
No I’m not … you are … you , yes you , filled out the app incorrectly so you were thrown out …
SMH, it's futile. Settle down. And I too think most all big game animals in MT are hunted waaay too hard, no argument from me there. The solution should have been an entire re-draw for the units involved with the original quota, nothing added. Why would he not do this? Afraid of taking away erroneously 'awarded' permits? Anyone still in the original draw had better odds after who knows how many apps were thrown out, that was nice for some. I know it was said 'up to 10%' added but we have know idea what actually happened yesterday. We need transparency from this department.
Nameless Range
Well-known member
Folks must realize, once the 454 tag trends are established, after a few years biologists will reckon with them - outright or in the gray areas of their consideration - by reducing the quota of tags available to the public to compensate for their effect.
How could they not?
Biologists had recommendations this year too. They were ignored. That is how.
SwaggyD
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2022
- Messages
- 1,742
What’s funny is is my brother in law asked me about his second choice (rifle application), I told him not to put anything in. He had 8 points and was unsuccessful.
I think you are giving Montana management to much credit. We’ve had a steady steep decline that last couple years on mule deer surveys. I’ve heard 40% declines. Still pumping massive amounts of doe tags out.
Nameless Range
Well-known member
I guess what I’m saying is that for Elk I think when it comes down to it, the 454 tags will Eventually erode the possible quotas available to the public.
They will erode any quality of hunt they will not erode tag numbers.
What little quality that was left will he gone Be a rag horn hunt. Which most are probably alright with. No having to hike the mountains or deal with grizzlies
We are essentially making elk management the same as mule deer management. People will still line up for a chance at a spike or raghorn and any quality of animal will be left for the private land guys to manage. Just like mule deer. We just trashed any good hunt on public land that was left in Montana.
799 is 10 years behind the breaks but it will get there
Already there
rogerthat
Well-known member
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2015
- Messages
- 2,975
I agree with you. The point is once fwp decided the draw was foo-bared there was no actual fair solution other than a redo. That was the just and fair thing to do. My mileage, sometimes being just and fair requires bold unpopular action. Would have been some seriously pissed off people but it would have been just and fair and I would have respected that move. As is, I have no respect for the director, his decision making nor the fwp staff that carries his water just to keep their pitiful jobs.
Gerald Martin
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2009
- Messages
- 8,682
Because tags are essentially inflationary coupons at this point. They aren’t connected to biological realities anymore.
Nameless Range
Well-known member
Not everywhere. I have watched biologists speak up and make a difference in the last year.
