Montana FWP makes seismic shift in elk permits

[WIbiggame]

I am not dumb and know that things need to change. And as NR the changes I feel will be and should be felt more than a resident. We all are going to have to give up something in order to make these herds sustainable and the hunt worth it.

My idea would be this for what it's worth:
1) MANDATORY REPORTING just like AZ

2) Pick your region, pick your weapon, pick a season

3) Weapon breakdown would be archery, rifle and muzzeloader

4) Season structure would be archery broken in 2 seasons each being 14 days. Rifle would be the same 2 season 14 days each. Muzzleloader would be 9 days Saturday before Thanksgiving through Sunday after.

5) NR would need to pick 1 weapon/season

6) R would have their pick of 2 seasons, could double up archery or Rifle etc

7) As far as overobjective units make the tags unlimited for COWS ONLY

8) Setup a tax break like that of MFL or CRP (idk if that is a thing in the west we have it here in the east) and base it off of access allowed by the landowner. Say the owner has property in an area that has 10 hunters per sq mile if the hunter matches and allows 10 hunters per sq mile of "huntable land" than they get 100% of the break, if they allow 90% than 90% of break etc etc.

9) if bull tags are more precious than the tax break would be could there maybe be the same thing where let's say in Unit X 20 bull tags are given out. If a landowner allows the hunting of cow elk at a rate of the units hunters per sq mile they would get a designated number of bull tags to be used on their own property. EDIT: this would be above the 20 tags given out for other hunters. These "extra" tags would be good only on the landowners property.

I am ok with landowner tags if they are used on said property. I don't think a landowner tag should ever be allowed on public land.

 

[SAJ-99]

Any idea should be built around keeping the number of tags and the R/NR breakdown static.

How about -
Get rid of elk/deer combo and roll those tags in either elk or deer.

Split archery into two 20 day seasons, early and late. This should help distribute pressure across time.

 

[WIbiggame]

Get rid of elk/deer combo and roll those tags in either elk or deer

I am still amazed that for $1100 I can hunt both deer and elk for so long across the whole state!!

They should start having people put their "primary" weapon choice when applying so we can get an idea of percentage of people using rifle vs archery so that the tag breakdown is sufficient.

I only ever plan on archery hunting so doesn't make sense that me getting a tag affects someone who would only rifle hunt and vise versa.

 

[WIbiggame]

I live in WI and our state is broken down to units/regions and deer tags are good for a specific unit. I have my family farm in 1 County and so I need to buy doe tags for that county. I have moved for my job so if I want to hunt the public in that county have to buy another tag. Turkey is the same way, the state is broken into 6 or 7 zones. Would I like to be able to hunt out my back door and on the home farm yes but I can't so you plan accordingly.

 

[SAJ-99]

I am not dumb and know that things need to change. And as NR the changes I feel will be and should be felt more than a resident. We all are going to have to give up something in order to make these herds sustainable and the hunt worth it.

My idea would be this for what it's worth:
1) MANDATORY REPORTING just like AZ

2) Pick your region, pick your weapon, pick a season

3) Weapon breakdown would be archery, rifle and muzzeloader

4) Season structure would be archery broken in 2 seasons each being 14 days. Rifle would be the same 2 season 14 days each. Muzzleloader would be 9 days Saturday before Thanksgiving through Sunday after.

5) NR would need to pick 1 weapon/season

6) R would have their pick of 2 seasons, could double up archery or Rifle etc

7) As far as overobjective units make the tags unlimited for COWS ONLY

8) Setup a tax break like that of MFL or CRP (idk if that is a thing in the west we have it here in the east) and base it off of access allowed by the landowner. Say the owner has property in an area that has 10 hunters per sq mile if the hunter matches and allows 10 hunters per sq mile of "huntable land" than they get 100% of the break, if they allow 90% than 90% of break etc etc.

9) if bull tags are more precious than the tax break would be could there maybe be the same thing where let's say in Unit X 20 bull tags are given out. If a landowner allows the hunting of cow elk at a rate of the units hunters per sq mile they would get a designated number of bull tags to be used on their own property. EDIT: this would be above the 20 tags given out for other hunters. These "extra" tags would be good only on the landowners property.

I am ok with landowner tags if they are used on said property. I don't think a landowner tag should ever be allowed on public land.

Only issue I have is you are rewarding landowners that harbor elk.

 

[Gerald Martin]

I am not dumb and know that things need to change. And as NR the changes I feel will be and should be felt more than a resident. We all are going to have to give up something in order to make these herds sustainable and the hunt worth it.

My idea would be this for what it's worth:
1) MANDATORY REPORTING just like AZ

2) Pick your region, pick your weapon, pick a season

3) Weapon breakdown would be archery, rifle and muzzeloader

4) Season structure would be archery broken in 2 seasons each being 14 days. Rifle would be the same 2 season 14 days each. Muzzleloader would be 9 days Saturday before Thanksgiving through Sunday after.

5) NR would need to pick 1 weapon/season

6) R would have their pick of 2 seasons, could double up archery or Rifle etc

7) As far as overobjective units make the tags unlimited for COWS ONLY

8) Setup a tax break like that of MFL or CRP (idk if that is a thing in the west we have it here in the east) and base it off of access allowed by the landowner. Say the owner has property in an area that has 10 hunters per sq mile if the hunter matches and allows 10 hunters per sq mile of "huntable land" than they get 100% of the break, if they allow 90% than 90% of break etc etc.

9) if bull tags are more precious than the tax break would be could there maybe be the same thing where let's say in Unit X 20 bull tags are given out. If a landowner allows the hunting of cow elk at a rate of the units hunters per sq mile they would get a designated number of bull tags to be used on their own property. EDIT: this would be above the 20 tags given out for other hunters. These "extra" tags would be good only on the landowners property.

I am ok with landowner tags if they are used on said property. I don't think a landowner tag should ever be allowed on public land.

I like points 1-7. The last two points would need to be refined.

Implementing 1-7 would do a lot to address crowding issues across the state.

 

[SAJ-99]

I live in WI and our state is broken down to units/regions and deer tags are good for a specific unit. I have my family farm in 1 County and so I need to buy doe tags for that county. I have moved for my job so if I want to hunt the public in that county have to buy another tag. Turkey is the same way, the state is broken into 6 or 7 zones. Would I like to be able to hunt out my back door and on the home farm yes but I can't so you plan accordingly.

What seems normal and logical to you and I is an attack on freedom/opportunity for most Montanans.

 

[WIbiggame]

I like points 1-7. The last two points would need to be refined.

Implementing 1-7 would do a lot to address crowding issues across the state.

Yeah 8 and 9 would be tough. Was trying to think of a way to make landowners included too because they need to be somehow.

You guys have a special state in a lot of ways. One of those being that alot of the big ranches are out of state owned and wildlife is a commodity. Here in WI 300acres is a BIG farm. And the owners usually always live on the farm.

 

[Unlucky]

It should be this. Pick your weopon. Bow muzzy long gun. All draw. Landowners yes with alot of land should get gaurenteed tags. No 640 bull$hit. How many idk. Up for debate as well as selling those tags.

It should be based off huntable populations on public land as well in the mix no spike killing for elk. Or deer for that matter. A common ground for whats best for the elk deer moose. As it is a sport.

What is common ground for private and public. Make it all draw. Let luck play in. But elimate spike bull buck hunting help with future tags. Give out more bull buck tags.

Base it off science, counts done right after rifle season. Huntable population. Or love the idea of cow elk hunting on private only.

Stop the bullshit. Everyone wants a chance at a big bull or buck. Give land owners tags based off land owned and cooperation with true block management at cow elk whitetail does. Nbar got so many tags bull elk should have had to open up for cow elk otc tag to public.

 

[Unlucky]

I think otc draw but keep the LE draw tags we have now. So otc all draw, a liberal draw based off science and huntable populations. Then a 2nd draw at the primo tags or include it in an all 1st choice. Give land owners a percentage of all but how many idk.

Also 3 diff draws bow muzzy rifle.

So odds would be good in some and terrible in others.

Biggest thing stop killing everything on public

 

[Schaaf]

The Miles City Region 7 Zoom Meeting is scheduled for tonight from 6-8 pm. At least one Commissioner will be on the call.

Could use some reasonable voices on there.

 

[Ben Lamb]

The Wyoming model is a great one. Maybe not perfect but it works well enough for all involved.

As PLPW starts to really explore options on this, I'd urge you all to look way past the current level of thinking that is happening at the agency, commission and lobbyist levels. People will be using this time to push for ideas they've held fast too for 2 decades, regardless of the merit thereof. Too often these kinds of deals turn into payback rather than advancing honest intent.

I'd also say that FWP has done a fantastic job of showing you how not approach this issue. Just sending crap out to see what sticks & doesn't, while undermining everyone else in favor of commissioners getting what they want regardless of how the entirety of the state, the wildlife managers, etc believe is a recipe for simply increasing and pouring gasoline on the conflict.

Your job is to weed out the self-serving and select what is best for the resource and all Montanans. It's a tough job, but there's a lot of us who are willing to help. I certainly am.

 

[Eric Albus]

Ok than remove (MOGA) from my post and than it was CLEARLY YOU. Who had stated that the reason your clients should get the licenses is because your clients spend more money in the state. Thus deserve the tags. I will point out that in the open comment section on 143 your president said the same thing so I guess I was correct in saying you and MOGA. Edit: you never answered my question either. Wouldn't a 5 day season make us DIY guys even less of a financial asset to the state, thus making your clients deserve even more licenses?

I personally don’t know if anyone “deserves” license.

I can answer that a 5 day license minimizes the DIY financial impact, it also minimizes NR hunters impact on the resource. It would give R hunters weekends free from NR competition(don’t some of you waste your time lecturing me on how some of you don’t see it as competition, cause most R’s do).

I don’t know if a 5 day NR license will help, it won’t if we don’t also do something to control R hunters as well. With all the carpetbaggers moving to “the last best place” it may accomplish nothing but decreasing land values, or it may increase our state income tax base when absentee landowners wanting hunt all season establish Mt residency.

 

[Ben Lamb]

I personally don’t know if anyone “deserves” license.

I can answer that a 5 day license minimizes the DIY financial impact, it also minimizes NR hunters impact on the resource. It would give R hunters weekends free from NR competition(don’t some of you waste your time lecturing me on how some of you don’t see it as competition, cause most R’s do).

I don’t know if a 5 day NR license will help, it won’t if we don’t also do something to control R hunters as well. With all the carpetbaggers moving to “the last best place” it may accomplish nothing but decreasing land values, or it may increase our state income tax base when absentee landowners wanting hunt all season establish Mt residency.

If that 5 day license isn't tied to choose your season/weapon/district, then I don't think you do much, really. Especially when we look at NR deer hunter numbers that have exploded since the B10 change to allow returned deer portions to be resold as B11's (MOGA bill, IIRC).

The deal isn't so much who is hunting, it's how they are hunting in terms of animal distribution. A 5 day license doesn't get to the heart of the matter - having some landowners actually work with the agency to develop meaningful management prescriptions. 5 days works well for NR's and outfitters as it's a finite amount of time & most hunts are within that timeframe, correct?

This is treating a symptom, not the disease. The disease is elk being inaccessible to the largest segment of hunters: DIY resident hunters. I don't see a 5 day season, spread out over 11 weeks, doing anything to stop some folks from harboring elk, or redistributing the animals.

The Wyoming season structure model is one that PLPW could really delve into. You'll have resistance from the loudmouths on the privatize side, but you'd actually move critters around and increase harvest rates while sticking with the 90/10 split in all districts where there currently is LE permitting.

 

[shoots-straight]

I am not dumb and know that things need to change. And as NR the changes I feel will be and should be felt more than a resident. We all are going to have to give up something in order to make these herds sustainable and the hunt worth it.

My idea would be this for what it's worth:
1) MANDATORY REPORTING just like AZ

2) Pick your region, pick your weapon, pick a season

3) Weapon breakdown would be archery, rifle and muzzeloader

4) Season structure would be archery broken in 2 seasons each being 14 days. Rifle would be the same 2 season 14 days each. Muzzleloader would be 9 days Saturday before Thanksgiving through Sunday after.

5) NR would need to pick 1 weapon/season

6) R would have their pick of 2 seasons, could double up archery or Rifle etc

7) As far as overobjective units make the tags unlimited for COWS ONLY

8) Setup a tax break like that of MFL or CRP (idk if that is a thing in the west we have it here in the east) and base it off of access allowed by the landowner. Say the owner has property in an area that has 10 hunters per sq mile if the hunter matches and allows 10 hunters per sq mile of "huntable land" than they get 100% of the break, if they allow 90% than 90% of break etc etc.

9) if bull tags are more precious than the tax break would be could there maybe be the same thing where let's say in Unit X 20 bull tags are given out. If a landowner allows the hunting of cow elk at a rate of the units hunters per sq mile they would get a designated number of bull tags to be used on their own property. EDIT: this would be above the 20 tags given out for other hunters. These "extra" tags would be good only on the landowners property.

I am ok with landowner tags if they are used on said property. I don't think a landowner tag should ever be allowed on public land.

Yea, and NR licenses would be limited to no more than 10% of the resident hunters in any given season or type.

 

[Straight Arrow]

That 5 day license would be an enforcement nightmare!

 

[shoots-straight]

Your job is to weed out the self-serving and select what is best for the resource and all Montanans. It's a tough job, but there's a lot of us who are willing to help. I certainly am.

Wouldn't this be nice. Delusional but nice. All around me, at every port I see this going on.

 

[Eric Albus]

If that 5 day license isn't tied to choose your season/weapon/district, then I don't think you do much, really. Especially when we look at NR deer hunter numbers that have exploded since the B10 change to allow returned deer portions to be resold as B11's (MOGA bill, IIRC).

The deal isn't so much who is hunting, it's how they are hunting in terms of animal distribution. A 5 day license doesn't get to the heart of the matter - having some landowners actually work with the agency to develop meaningful management prescriptions. 5 days works well for NR's and outfitters as it's a finite amount of time & most hunts are within that timeframe, correct?

This is treating a symptom, not the disease. The disease is elk being inaccessible to the largest segment of hunters: DIY resident hunters. I don't see a 5 day season, spread out over 11 weeks, doing anything to stop some folks from harboring elk, or redistributing the animals.

The Wyoming season structure model is one that PLPW could really delve into. You'll have resistance from the loudmouths on the privatize side, but you'd actually move critters around and increase harvest rates while sticking with the 90/10 split in all districts where there currently is LE permitting.

The fear of "privatization and monetization" is the greatest stumbling block to overcome. I agree if we don't go pick weapon/season/area for all hunters it will not have much effect.

How about something like this? Offer landowners a transferrable permit(s) in exchange for public access. Landowner gets X number of permits according to acres/habitat/elk numbers(good on their ranch only) and has to in exchange give "Y" number of R hunters access for "Z" number of either sex, and "C" number of cows(good on said ranch only) in order to bring over objective number areas to "at or below".

Landowner "A" gets 10 transferrable either sex permits, has to give ?4?5 R hunters drawn by lottery access for either sex, and 50 cow hunters access to bring numbers down. The number given to the landowner has to equitable enough to offset his perception of what he is giving up. It can't be an equal number to the public or it will not fly.

Once numbers are at or below objective the program can be revisited and if all involved, landowners and R hunters like it tweak it where needed and let it keep working.

The only other solution I can think that will work is punitive to a degree,yr 1 last week gen. season cow only, yr 2 last 2 weeks cow only, yr 3 last 4 weeks cow only for 2yrs, yr 4 cow only all season. This can create a nightmare as well, as there are always "unintended consequences". 2-4 years of limited bull harvest will make for a lot of big bulls, could this create a sort of dilemma? Unlike a lot of folks I like to figure out "unintended consequences" ahead of time. Saves a lot of time and effort and money.

 

[Eric Albus]

That 5 day license would be an enforcement nightmare!

Not really. Color each weeks license different. Wrong colored license, loss of hunting privileges for 5 yrs.

 

[Gerald Martin]

The fear of "privatization and monetization" is the greatest stumbling block to overcome. I agree if we don't go pick weapon/season/area for all hunters it will not have much effect.

How about something like this? Offer landowners a transferrable permit(s) in exchange for public access. Landowner gets X number of permits according to acres/habitat/elk numbers(good on their ranch only) and has to in exchange give "Y" number of R hunters access for "Z" number of either sex, and "C" number of cows(good on said ranch only) in order to bring over objective number areas to "at or below".

Landowner "A" gets 10 transferrable either sex permits, has to give ?4?5 R hunters drawn by lottery access for either sex, and 50 cow hunters access to bring numbers down. The number given to the landowner has to equitable enough to offset his perception of what he is giving up. It can't be an equal number to the public or it will not fly.

Once numbers are at or below objective the program can be revisited and if all involved, landowners and R hunters like it tweak it where needed and let it keep working.

The only other solution I can think that will work is punitive to a degree,yr 1 last week gen. season cow only, yr 2 last 2 weeks cow only, yr 3 last 4 weeks cow only for 2yrs, yr 4 cow only all season. This can create a nightmare as well, as there are always "unintended consequences". 2-4 years of limited bull harvest will make for a lot of big bulls, could this create a sort of dilemma? Unlike a lot of folks I like to figure out "unintended consequences" ahead of time. Saves a lot of time and effort and money.

Your idea of transferable LO tags good only on their property and tied to the public getting a number of tags for that property as well could be a good one if those parameters are in place.

If the tags become good unit wide on public land as well as private or if the public doesn’t receive any access it’s a non starter IMO.