Montana draw
- Thread starter 174in
- Start date
EYJONAS!
Well-known member
- Joined
- Mar 17, 2017
- Messages
- 6,787
8andcounting
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 16, 2013
- Messages
- 3,414
I think some people just think about it differently. For example, in Arizona NR are not eligible for bighorn tags in units that offer one tag. If you were to put one of those units as one of your two choices, they don’t throw your entire application out. You just aren’t eligible to even be in the running for one of your choices on your application. Or in Montana, all big three tags are effectively first and only choice. It’s not the law, but they’re never going to look at a second choice. You can still put in a second and even a third choice and it has no effect on your application. I think that is what people were expecting here.
i, understanding of how the draw works, only put one choice.
3% of you are hosed! that's... that's... that's... 30 million of you if a billion people applied! Epic!
HELENA – After deer and elk permits were drawn Thursday, Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks uncovered an error in the drawing process affecting less than three percent of applications across the state in 10 hunting districts.
This year the Fish and Wildlife Commission changed several elk hunting districts to “first and only choice” for applications, meaning if hunters want to hunt any of these districts, they forfeit the option to list a second or third choice on their application.
FWP fixing error in drawing process for elk permits...
HELENA – After deer and elk permits were drawn Thursday, Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks uncovered an error in the drawing process affecting less than three percent of applications across the state in 10 hunting districts.
This year the Fish and Wildlife Commission changed several elk hunting districts to “first and only choice” for applications, meaning if hunters want to hunt any of these districts, they forfeit the option to list a second or third choice on their application.
T
tjones
Guest
Adding to the layer of confusion of the words “first and only”. Especially the “and only”
Going into the February commission meeting Hanks proposal for any permitted elk unit (LE or unlimited) if drawn that was the only unit you could hunt. This added to the “and only” confusion.
Did it mean the unbundled units along with HD 270 (which has been unlimited, first choice only for a long time but you were able to hunt elsewhere) were strictly first choice only, no second choice or first choice only with a second choice but the “and only” part meant you could not hunt other units?
Adding in HD 270 was even more confusing. It’s unlimited so no need for a second choice but the “and only”
part included it being the only unit someone with the permit could hunt.
So at the time compared to when regs were printed compared to today what did the “and only” mean verses “first choice only”?
Was “first and only” meaning first choice and only first choice-no second choice or first choice and only being able to hunt that unit?
At the time Commissioner Waller did a great job in motioning and passing removal of HD 270 from the units that were being proposed “first and only” meaning first choice only and only being able to hunt that unit.
It was a split vote. In the name of simplifying regs removing a unlimited unit from a group of limited and unlimited units that were going to require hunters to only hunt the unit they drew didn’t sit well with some commissioners. But she got it done. Wa the R2 commissioner she had heard that’s what her hunters wanted. It was a lengthy conversation between the commission at that time.
At the time it seem the commission understood “first and only” to mean first choice and you could only hunt that unit. Seems it really meant first choice only, no second choice AND you can only hunt that unit.
As you can see Hank really simplified thing. It appears no one at FWP really knew what the commission passed.
Going into the February commission meeting Hanks proposal for any permitted elk unit (LE or unlimited) if drawn that was the only unit you could hunt. This added to the “and only” confusion.
Did it mean the unbundled units along with HD 270 (which has been unlimited, first choice only for a long time but you were able to hunt elsewhere) were strictly first choice only, no second choice or first choice only with a second choice but the “and only” part meant you could not hunt other units?
Adding in HD 270 was even more confusing. It’s unlimited so no need for a second choice but the “and only”
part included it being the only unit someone with the permit could hunt.
So at the time compared to when regs were printed compared to today what did the “and only” mean verses “first choice only”?
Was “first and only” meaning first choice and only first choice-no second choice or first choice and only being able to hunt that unit?
At the time Commissioner Waller did a great job in motioning and passing removal of HD 270 from the units that were being proposed “first and only” meaning first choice only and only being able to hunt that unit.
It was a split vote. In the name of simplifying regs removing a unlimited unit from a group of limited and unlimited units that were going to require hunters to only hunt the unit they drew didn’t sit well with some commissioners. But she got it done. Wa the R2 commissioner she had heard that’s what her hunters wanted. It was a lengthy conversation between the commission at that time.
At the time it seem the commission understood “first and only” to mean first choice and you could only hunt that unit. Seems it really meant first choice only, no second choice AND you can only hunt that unit.
As you can see Hank really simplified thing. It appears no one at FWP really knew what the commission passed.
I agree but Tabor made a point of first and only choice. The regulations said 1st choice only. The people that screwed up I feel bad for and areas where there are surplus tags they should get them. They should 100% not be adding any though. Facts. As some of the people like to say on here.
Nameless Range
Well-known member
The only way that is a third-party error to me is if the “systems” are a product of a vendor Who made the mistake. Otherwise it’s just FWP messing up.
I can think of all sorts of analogies where someone providing you a service switching up the products they are using does not give them the right to say a third-party made the mistake and is to blame.
I know it’s semantics, but I think holding them accountable here, if that’s even possible, is important in the event of future 10%’s here and 10%’s there. Seems to be a trend
Wildabeest
Well-known member
I interpret the regs differently. The First Choice Only /First and Only Choice is simply geared towards the drawing itself, not what areas you can or cannot hunt if you are drawn. The regs have clear language after the “choice” part that defines the hunting part.
That’s not to say the terms weren’t co-mingled in the commission meetings. I didn’t listen to those. But when I see the word “choice”, to me that says application rule, not hunting rule.
Spartan_Eric
Active member
Not to mention the apparent fact that someone within MT FWP made the inexplicable executive decision to use two different systems for the application phase and draw phase.
Probably nothing. I might have read it wrong but what I saw said applications that ALSO selected a 2nd and 3rd choice were kicked out of the draw. Sounds like you did it right and were unsuccessful but included. Honestly I’m not really that interested me and my son drew the big game combo and we’re not selected for our le elk permit as expected. So I’m good I don’t think someone screwing up the app process should get a redraw that’s all. That’s how I read the Montana draw screw up. It’s minor in my opinion. Last year Idaho awarded sheep tags then took them back
that’s a kick in the nuts!! This is minor to me but I live in Idaho and have become numb to draw mishaps 
Irishman
Well-known member
Governor Gianforte appointed Hank and the FWP Commission. And we the voters of Montana elected Gianforte. Time to quit apportioning blame and accept responsibility for this mess we are in.
runningmt
Well-known member
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2018
- Messages
- 717
Giantforehead is among the billionaires on Hank’s short list of free bull permits, almost certainly.
If he applied last year he did not have to apply this year and can buy a pp point in the points only period. You can’t skip applying in consecutive years which means you have to enter the draw every other year.
You are wrong sorry. By applying last year he needs to apply for a tag in consecutive years thus this year would be the consecutive year. By not applying points are gone.
He is good and can buy a point this year in points only period. He has to apply NEXT year and can buy a 3 rd point and will probably be assured of drawing with 3
kwyeewyk
Well-known member
Yeah with the way they did the first choice only wording debacle who knows what they actually mean, probably get different answers from different offices cause they probably don't know either.
This one is pretty clear and I have spoken to them about it.
Consecutive: adjective. To follow continuously. In unbroken or logical sequence.
OPs brother applied in 21 he NEEDED to apply in 22 (consecutive years) or lose his points. The PP only period does not count as applying.
Incorrect. This is exhausting. It’s says if you DONT apply in consecutive years you forfeit your points. Not sure why this is so confusing. So if I DO apply every other year I have not failed to apply in 2 consecutive years in a row. You only need to apply every OTHER year which means you didn’t fail to apply in consecutive years. You are allowed to not apply for 1 year you just can’t skip applying for consecutive (2 years in a row) Please call fish and game I can’t have this conversation anymore
Similar threads
