This is not a single post closed from discussion. Heck if that is what people think - this is the wrong venue! Haha! I believe most have agreed this proposal has a lot of great value and appreciate the work/effort placed. Though, as with any proposal, as shared by local Montana rod and gun clubs to National conservation organizations, all are subject to opinions whether you agree or disagree - this is not a forum, regardless some viewers belief, for the sole purpose to praise the preacher.
Montana General Season Structure Proposal
- Thread starter Gerald Martin
- Start date
Going to permits would possibly put a wrinkle in that, particularly in the beginning with a lot of residents already sitting on a bunch of bonus points ready to be applied to new permit only districts. It could be 5-6 years before the existing bonus point holdings are washed through the system. It possible thats why MOGA wants to avoid permit only at all costs, its a deal breaker for NR return clients.
huntin24/7
Well-known member
As hilarious and ridiculous as this is, it shows how many people either don’t understand the effect we’re having on the resources as hunters and that many flat out don’t care about it as long as they get all the opportunity they want.Hi Jed!
PS. No Californians in our group either.
Unless @Eric Albus isn’t shooting straight with us.
View attachment 324715
Alabama
Active member
I want to start by saying I've never hunted deer or elk in Montana so this is an outsider's perspective. I'm familiar with the current season structure and anecdotally the plight of MD in the state (if MT FWP made MD B tags legal only on private land, it must be bad).
This proposal seems too drastic from the status quo to gain any widespread acceptance. I understand that drastic change is needed for the health of the resource but it must be implemented in order to work. Is there an alternate proposal if this fails? Or will it be back to the same seasons?
This proposal seems too drastic from the status quo to gain any widespread acceptance. I understand that drastic change is needed for the health of the resource but it must be implemented in order to work. Is there an alternate proposal if this fails? Or will it be back to the same seasons?
cgasner1
Well-known member
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2016
- Messages
- 3,120
One issue when you create permits is it makes it easy for people to say we are trophy hunters. This isn’t about trophy quality it’s about herd quality and when you start making le tags that’s where the argument goes really quick
FREAK
Well-known member
- Joined
- Sep 29, 2022
- Messages
- 1,083
Along the same lines as the technology concerns...The introduction of Onx and other mapping systems have made it really easy for guys to share information quickly and efficiently. I know the regulations say it's illegal to use cellular devices to assist in harvesting of game but it's difficult to enforce and can be a bit gray at times. I've ran into guys going in after a bull they were informed of from a guy that found it deer hunting. They're able to provide pinpoint locations on where the animal is and where the best spot to approach it from. Seems like this wasn't as much of a thing even 10 years ago.
I'd also be interested in come mandatory reporting time. If you shoot a 2 point or less your subject to a 15 dollar fee. Us even as humans value a youngsters life more then say the 90 year old man.... but a animal is fair game... Since it's mandatory those extra fees could be set to mule deer and whitetail individually and set those funds aside for each species habitats or research. Don't do a point restriction per say but a might be looking a little harder for a 3 or 4 point and only way to have the fee waived would be to have the deer aged and it was a older then 3 or something. I dunno that would be weird I guess and tricky. But a possible extra source and solution for people hunting a little harder. And if your willing to pay the extra fee your still able to shoot a forkie.
8andcounting
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 16, 2013
- Messages
- 3,404
This is my concern also .
Sioux33
Well-known member
See post #363, I did post my plan if it were up to me. I agree changes are way overdue, but not bringing up valid concerns for discussion and living in an echo chamber isn't a great way to approach change.
Last edited:
Straight Arrow
Well-known member
Thank-you. Yes, I now see you did. However, I thought your points based on the misconception that the proposals increased pressure.
You said, "I'm not sure how that happens when it increases the number of huntable days, has no "dead" period to give public lands a break, and increases the amount of time rifles are cracking on public."
It had then been pointed out that the above was not the case, in fact fewer hunting days.
antlerradar
Well-known member
If your goal is bigger deer, we should be paying people to shoot bucks with less then four points.
8andcounting
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 16, 2013
- Messages
- 3,404
What about a regional cap for NR only . Shitcan the come home to hunt and college and native licenses for NR . Take the 17000 NR combos - and for deer take whatever the number of deer tags and set regional caps make us NR apply for a region and if we don’t get that region then we get another region . And 0 b tags for NR . Let a group such as this mule deer group decide the # for the regional caps . It would be a start. FWP would still get their $ and residents would maybe like it and feel less crowded by NR
Like I said not really a point restriction.. they prove to be worthless.. it's just based on let the 1-2 year olds get a pass it's probably not a good idea all around the way I said it because Im not for point restrictions... but it could maybe help bring some age varieties, if people had to pay a little extra for the young animals or old animals I guess I'm not sure what would be more valuable probably does... and maybe that alters year to year to get age structure? Just a idea really more or less for habitats and more research opportunities... I honestly don't care what guys shoot 2points or 4+.. I think another big complaint is just age classes... figuring out a fee that maybe changes year to year on what that restriction looks like for what points you pay a little extra for.. or does... whatever it may be... to help build a extra funding source for each species. Wt and mulies. Not so much just bigger deer.. I belive they grow until they grow big, average, or small.... I just think the argument people have is wanting to see a little more age class and more deer. So maybe a little extra incentive to lay off some class bucks.. or does.. in general maybe a little more money generating for them too.... and it could just be a complete garbage idea... I do try and keep alot of my ideas funding based because I do think alot of help could be gained from our department from funding... so it's just my way of trying to come up with something that could possible deture someone from shooting 1 buck vs another or not buying 5 doe tags.... a increased fee in does since they are likely going to be the most valuable asset to recovery.. Could also deture from so many doe tag sales and only depredation tags for does would be what they are now. I don't really have that answer I know that... more or less tossing another idea out... could be garbage... I was just thinking since mandatory reporting is being implemented we could maybe get a little extra for something that could be used for a habitat type fund.
antlerradar
Well-known member
I think both could be true. A strict LE system would put some outfitters out of business. Before we all start agreeing to go to LE to get even with the big bad outfitters, I think that there would likely be some unintended consequences.
First LE is not going to open up much privet land to the public. Lease rates would likely drop because less opportunity is less value. Maybe lower rates would entice some landowners to look at BM, but I am going to bet the most landowners in BM are not in it for the money. I doubt that many would switch from outfitters/hunt clubs to BM.
LE would likely favor hunt clubs over outfitters. Hunt club members are leasing for the total outdoor experience, buck deer are only part of that experience. Outfitter on the other hand are going broke with out reliable buck deer clients in eastern MT. Other opportunities like antlerless and bird hunting might cover your variable costs, but without reliable buck deer you can't turn a profit. I am not an outfitter so I could be wrong. Some of the outfitters would know better.
Tags would still be essentially OTC in some units. Take 704 and 702. 704 contains the Custer and quite a bit of accessible BLM and State land, 702 is almost entirety private land. Demand for 704 would be high and it is likely you would be waiting several years for a tag. In 702 it is likely you could pick up a tag 2nd or 3 rd choice. The pressure on the small amount of public would be intense and any BM rancher would likely react by restricting hunter numbers or dropping out of BM. A NR looking to hunt with an outfitter could maybe still buy a leftover tag in 702.
I am not aware of any states that have a strict LE system. Most if not all have some form of wealth, outfitter or transferable landowner tags. I doubt if MT went to LE that we would be spared and once you put a crack in that dam it is hard to stop the flood.
antlerradar
Well-known member
Not my goal but better than nothing.
8andcounting
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 16, 2013
- Messages
- 3,404
I think it would be easier to convince FWP of something like this vs the current proposal . And would make most residents happy that in over crowded areas would be less NR . And NR would have at most 2 tags , a general elk and deer tag .
Gerald Martin
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2009
- Messages
- 8,685
One thought on my mind this afternoon is that a lot of the suggestions/objections/concerns about some of the biological aspects of our proposal are valid and deserve discussion. There could be various biological strategies implemented to achieve similar goals as what we’re hoping to achieve.
However, and it’s a huge however is that social values are a major factor in what change can be achieved. What we can get implemented is determined by the values and expectations of the folks who advocate for change or for status quo.
There’s a lot of suggestions of what we could do that would work, but because they are outside the parameters of acceptance with Montana hunters’ social values they would never be allowed to remain even if we could force implementing them.
This whole process is going to be a process of taking feedback and honing our management strategies within the boundaries of what can work biologically as well as be acceptable socially.
I feel like as a group we captured a pretty good amount of what needs to happen and balanced it with what can happen because of the experience of the members, the diversity of defending the particular needs of individual regions, resources , and user groups. The willingness to compromise personal preferences to achieve a common goal let us collectively explore how to best achieve common goals in a collaborative fashion rather than in conflict.
There’s no doubt that as we consider feedback we’re going to identify areas that we’ll want to tweak. Other folks lobbying the persons entrusted with making the final policy decisions will affect our proposal as well.
I’m also convinced that as folks read through the proposal, understand the recommendations and reflect on the rationale and implications of how each facet links with others there’s going to be more acceptance among those folks who try to stay engaged on resource management issues.
However, and it’s a huge however is that social values are a major factor in what change can be achieved. What we can get implemented is determined by the values and expectations of the folks who advocate for change or for status quo.
There’s a lot of suggestions of what we could do that would work, but because they are outside the parameters of acceptance with Montana hunters’ social values they would never be allowed to remain even if we could force implementing them.
This whole process is going to be a process of taking feedback and honing our management strategies within the boundaries of what can work biologically as well as be acceptable socially.
I feel like as a group we captured a pretty good amount of what needs to happen and balanced it with what can happen because of the experience of the members, the diversity of defending the particular needs of individual regions, resources , and user groups. The willingness to compromise personal preferences to achieve a common goal let us collectively explore how to best achieve common goals in a collaborative fashion rather than in conflict.
There’s no doubt that as we consider feedback we’re going to identify areas that we’ll want to tweak. Other folks lobbying the persons entrusted with making the final policy decisions will affect our proposal as well.
I’m also convinced that as folks read through the proposal, understand the recommendations and reflect on the rationale and implications of how each facet links with others there’s going to be more acceptance among those folks who try to stay engaged on resource management issues.
No more 2nd or 3rd choice on applications. You only get 1st choice. Leftover tags get put into an auction and highest bidder takes it. FWP takes their price for the tag out of the high bid and the rest of the money goes to habitat improvement/animal studies.
I know it will never come to this.
I think it would probably be easier too unfortunately for the nr. I think mt residents will always argue nr first.. and im glad for the doe sales as a extra going away... I just worry where they displace for the funding again... it's just a part of it they need is money and it should increase yearly as everyones costs go up with current times... I just think residents are going to want to see the nr have more restrictions along side them if it were to gain traction...
SAJ-99
Well-known member
I think your proposal is realistic, but I question if it would be impactful. The comment I highlight sort of shows that. People giving up something that they don't value isn't really giving.
This is where we end up (hence why I said NRs should start buying points now), but I don't think it is $$$ neutral. My back-of-the-envelope says you are cutting about 10,000 NR licenses. Just cutting B tags in 2023 due to low pops was a significant loss of revenue. The B tag is useful to FWP for management, but the revenue it generates is like cocaine.
