Montana General Season Structure Proposal

[SAJ-99]

That’s true not everyone will . But one draft and you won’t even entertain the possibility that maybe it’s not the solution ? It very well could be . And thanks for your time and work

I think that is disingenuous. They are asking for feedback. Not one person from that group has said this is the "one and only" solution. There are a lot of variables and they tried for balance. Trying to please everyone might be a recipe for mediocrity, but that is where they are.

You and I are NRs, so we are sure to get screwed in this process. I don't mind never hunting MT again if it is for a move in the right direction. YMMV.

 

[cgasner1]

Agree. I was looking at the harvest data on FWP and just cringe when I see hunting days by region. 2023 shows more hunter days in Region 1 than in Region 7. Maybe it is correct, but I venture to guess FWP really has no idea where people are hunting. I also suspect they are afraid of more accurate data. I'm not sure what assumptions can be made from any of it. I could probably equally argue that days is directionally correct because it is easier to kill a deer in 7 than in 1?

Hard to say when people could have also been elk hunting

 

[Sytes]

I think that is disingenuous.

I believe you've intentionally overlooked or accidentally missed who the response was directed towards.

 

[8andcounting]

I think that is disingenuous. They are asking for feedback. Not one person from that group has said this is the "one and only" solution. There are a lot of variables and they tried for balance. Trying to please everyone might be a recipe for mediocrity, but that is where they are.

You and I are NRs, so we are sure to get screwed in this process. I don't mind never hunting MT again if it is for a move in the right direction. YMMV.

You totally misunderstood. And unfortunately- the Nr will be last to get screwed by FWP

 

[SAJ-99]

I believe you've intentionally overlooked or accidentally missed who the response was directed towards.

You totally misunderstood. And unfortunately- the Nr will be last to get screwed by FWP

Nope and nope. I may have misunderstood but not totally. And that might be on you as the communicator, not me as reader. As long as the $$$s work, Rs will keep their opportunity. Just watch.

 

[antlerradar]

Huh ? Le would do nothing ?

I could easily support a LE entry system with few strings attached.
It is going to run into issues with the revenue decrease unless tag quotas are set so high that everyone draws a tag which is choose your unit not limited entry.
I also have my doubts that you could get LE passed without some form of transferable landowner/outfitter tags.

 

[8andcounting]

Nope and nope. I may have misunderstood but not totally. And that might be on you as the communicator, not me as reader. As long as the $$$s work, Rs will keep their opportunity. Just watch.

Ok . R’s should be first on priority list but the $ talks . NR opportunity is going noWhere

 

[antlerradar]

You totally misunderstood. And unfortunately- the Nr will be last to get screwed by FWP

Would I like to see NR pressure and spread more evenly throughout the state, Yes, Do I want to make big cuts below the 17,000 or big NR price increases. No

 

[BuzzH]

This plan - so you’re not up for any discussion on it ? Just this is it ?

Yep, full support of the proposal. If I thought there was something better I would suggest it.

 

[antlerradar]

I could easily support a LE entry system with few strings attached.
It is going to run into issues with the revenue decrease unless tag quotas are set so high that everyone draws a tag which is choose your unit not limited entry.
I also have my doubts that you could get LE passed without some form of transferable landowner/outfitter tags.

Don't love me too much @Treeshark, Not much chance I could support transferable landowner tags, It would take a compelling argument to get me on board with private land only buck tags.

 

[8andcounting]

Yep, full support of the proposal. If I thought there was something better I would suggest it.

LE

 

[SAJ-99]

Ok . R’s should be first on priority list but the $ talks . NR opportunity is going noWhere

You may be right on NR opportunity but dont fault this group for trying or not being open to other opinions, because I think they are. But they also understand what they are facing. Eventually it is all LE, but trying that now gets the group nowhere.

The irony is that on other threads (other states) we have Rs complaining about not getting tags. Here we have Rs worried about not getting 10+wks to hunt across 30million acres.

 

[8andcounting]

You may be right on NR opportunity but dont fault this group for trying or not being open to other opinions, because I think they are. But they also understand what they are facing. Eventually it is all LE, but trying that now gets the group nowhere.

The irony is that on other threads (other states) we have Rs complaining about not getting tags. Here we have Rs worried about not getting 10+wks to hunt across 30million acres.

Not faulting . Just think there’s other ways. But I applaud them

 

[antlerradar]

Right, and the sooner the guys that remember what it used to be like, die, the sooner they can get to hammering what little is left. I bet hardly anyone slinging their thoughts and expert opinions, remembers when a hunter could kill 2 buck mule deer a year in Montana.

 

[SAJ-99]

Not faulting . Just think there’s other ways. But I applaud them

The reality is it shows you can only squeeze NRs so much. The real problem is inside the house.

 

[perma]

View attachment 324998

That’s about as authentic of a western deer hunt picture can be. Thanks for sharing.

 

[rmyoung1]

Not faulting . Just think there’s other ways. But I applaud them

It’s important to remember that the group is striving for something that actually has a chance of being accepted and implemented. That’s what makes this a tricky compromise. It’s not simply a theoretical exercise. LE might be the best thing for the state’s mule deer. Probably is. But with exactly zero chance of being accepted by the MT public and FWP, it doesn’t much matter right now.

 

[Stifler]

Right, and the sooner the guys that remember what it used to be like, die, the sooner they can get to hammering what little is left. I bet hardly anyone slinging their thoughts and expert opinions, remembers when a hunter could kill 2 buck mule deer a year in Montana.

This plan needs to pass as its proposed. Its not about region 6 or 7, its a solid plan that should have been implemented 35 years ago statewide.

To be fair in 1975, you could still hunt grizzlies. Wolverines, and elk otc opportunities almost statewide. Some things just won't ever be the same.

 

[8andcounting]

It’s important to remember that the group is striving for something that actually has a chance of being accepted and implemented. That’s what makes this a tricky compromise. It’s not simply a theoretical exercise. LE might be the best thing for the state’s mule deer. Probably is. But with exactly zero chance of being accepted by the MT public and FWP, it doesn’t much matter right now.

This doesn’t have a lot of chance …. If you think the majority of Montana R are gonna stand by and keep quiet over this your mistaken . I like some of the proposal and I commend the people involved they worked hard on it

 

[muleydude]

I get the frustrations from the montana residents, and once again, us NR are lucky to hunt your State, and will take whatever seasons are set. But, I am still failing to understand what the goals of this proposal are???

If the goal is to increase the amount of animals on the landscape, it isn't going to work. Once again, you have to have momma's and babies, and those babies have to make it through the first year, to increase the amount of animals. The egregious doe tags in Montana contributed a lot to the problem, especially when combined with a failure from the Montana fish and game to respond to the drought and winter conditions. But, they have, for the most, part curtailed those.

If anything, I think as a group, the Montana residents should never let the game and fish dept ever again have that aggressive of doe tags be allowed again.

An October season, vs what is currently in place, isn't going to increase fawn recruitment or keep does alive. Certainly, it will make it harder to harvest a buck, and even harder to harvest a more mature buck. But, in State after State in the West, October only seasons haven't really had any luck in increasing buck to doe ratio's or even increasing age structure much. And certainly, October buck seasons have not done anything to increase herds. My State hasn't had a general season Nov mule deer hunt in 30 yrs; unfortunately, we aren't being overrun with Mule deer.

I think it is worthy goal to increase the age structure of the herd and have a better range of maturities in the buck population; and, if that is the goal, then great; I do think the October only seasons could help with that. But, if the goal is increase the actual size of the herd, October seasons aren't going to do anything.

I have spent a lot of time in Western Montana, and watched it from the early 80's to were it is now. I don't know exactly what the problem there is, but, I am certain, that limiting buck harvest to only October is not going to solve the bigger problems with the herds in that area. The problem is much bigger then just if the harvest is in Nov vs Oct.

Saw a few comments above that were basically: "what were doing now isn't working and we have to do something"; I get the frustration, but, an Oct only buck season just isn't going to achieve those goals. You have to define "what" your goal is first, then design the best action to get that goal. The goal can't be simply "we have to do something so lets give this a try".