Montana General Season Structure Proposal

[cgasner1]

the Aug.25 start date is actually an advantage for targeting velvet mule deer bucks still in their summer patterns……

hmmmmmm seems opposite of “saving” Mule deer. But again, I think if you did Aug 25-Oct 7 and kept 6 weeks it would be easier. Remember, it’s takes longer to be successful with a bow…. And it’s very easy to see a reduced archery season will not help with overcrowding.

We know you’re not a fan of MBA but our mission is to protect the archery season. Sorry for showing there’s other options. Keep telling everyone it’s a draft… lol. This just proved you guys are set on your ways and not looking for anyone to push back. And Jess, I didn’t say I hated it. I said some of it has merit.

Takes some people longer I’ve never killed a bull on a general rifle tag

 

[BuzzH]

Takes some people longer I’ve never killed a bull on a general rifle tag

Absolutely.

If 30 days aren't enough, continue to hunt the month of November with your bow (or rifle if you choose). Can hunt whitetails at the same time with either a rifle or bow (if you choose).

I fail to see how "opportunity" to bow hunt is being trashed, have the best of both worlds and wayyyyy more opportunity than someone who only hunts with a rifle.

You guys did good work on the proposal.

 

[cgasner1]

the Aug.25 start date is actually an advantage for targeting velvet mule deer bucks still in their summer patterns……

hmmmmmm seems opposite of “saving” Mule deer. But again, I think if you did Aug 25-Oct 7 and kept 6 weeks it would be easier. Remember, it’s takes longer to be successful with a bow…. And it’s very easy to see a reduced archery season will not help with overcrowding.

We know you’re not a fan of MBA but our mission is to protect the archery season. Sorry for showing there’s other options. Keep telling everyone it’s a draft… lol. This just proved you guys are set on your ways and not looking for anyone to push back. And Jess, I didn’t say I hated it. I said some of it has merit.

Really do hate them

 

[mthuntress406]

Absolutely.

If 30 days aren't enough, continue to hunt the month of November with your bow (or rifle if you choose). Can hunt whitetails at the same time with either a rifle or bow (if you choose).

I fail to see how "opportunity" to bow hunt is being trashed, have the best of both worlds and wayyyyy more opportunity than someone who only hunts with a rifle.

You guys did good work on the proposal.

Because it will not help with overcrowding- packing the same number of people in a shorter season exasperates the problem.

 

[Gerald Martin]

Reading hunt talk, it seems they are more dug in on this specific structure then willing to move seasons or look at alternatives. I guess we will see if they took input when they release their final version to the MDCAC. I do commend the out of the box ideas and don't think everything in it is bad. I just really see a problem with the archery season reduction and completely removing elk hunting from October.

Respectfully, the idea that we’re dug in on specifics is a projection. This proposal has been submitted for public scrutiny and feedback less than a week.

A discussion over the merits of the proposal and a defense for why we think certain parts will work or are necessary is not being “dug in”.

Before we started we received back channel feedback from FWP that our ideas had to not significantly reduce funding for the department. That’s something we have to factor in.

We know MT is an opportunity state. Public perception of retained opportunity has to be factored in.

We know our proposals have to be compatible with biological realities in order to achieve our end goal of improving the health of the resource.


There’s a lot to juggle and a lot of things that can be tweaked to reach our end goal. Predictably, most folks’ initial response is for protection of their preferred opportunity. Interesting enough, some of our most vocal critics of removing opportunity in the form of shortening seasons are openly calling for LE across the state as a way of preserving long seasons. .

There’s several suggestions and alternate options that have been expressed that are being discussed among our group and will continue to be considered.

 

[mthuntress406]

At the end of the day, this sounds like it’s more in final form than a draft taking input. I know several groups are just waiting to see what the “final product” is before weighing in. Sounds like HuntTalk is the primary support group at this time.

 

[mthuntress406]

Respectfully, the idea that we’re dug in on specifics is a projection. This proposal has been submitted for public scrutiny and feedback less than a week.

A discussion over the merits of the proposal and a defense for why we think certain parts will work or are necessary is not being “dug in”.

Before we started we received back channel feedback from FWP that our ideas had to not significantly reduce funding for the department. That’s something we have to factor in.

We know MT is an opportunity state. Public perception of retained opportunity has to be factored in.

We know our proposals have to be compatible with biological realities in order to achieve our end goal of improving the health of the resource.


There’s a lot to juggle and a lot of things that can be tweaked to reach our end goal. Predictably, most folks’ initial response is for protection of their preferred opportunity. Interesting enough, some of our most vocal critics of removing opportunity in the form of shortening seasons are openly calling for LE across the state as a way of preserving long seasons. .

There’s several suggestions and alternate options that have been expressed that are being discussed among our group and will continue to be considered.

Thank you Gerald. Appreciate the response.

 

[Gerald Martin]

At the end of the day, this sounds like it’s more in final form than a draft taking input. I know several groups are just waiting to see what the “final product” is before weighing in. Sounds like HuntTalk is the primary support group at this time.

Perhaps the reason that Hunttalk is the primary support group is because we’ve hashed out a lot of these ideas ad nauseam for years.

Some of us in the group started out on opposite sides of the spectrum advocating quite strongly against each other. If a person bothered to research the user names of those of us on the group you probably wouldn’t have to dig very far to find us in heated and sometimes personally disparaging conversations.

For those folks completely opposed to our path toward the goal and think they have a better path forward, craft your own proposals and bring them to the process. If at the end of the day someone else’s proposal accomplishes our goals and benefits the health of MT wildlife resources and improves overall hunt quality, I’ll be happy to champion their proposal when it comes time for the FWP commission to make decisions for the 26/27 season.

 

[sclancy27]

Because it will not help with overcrowding- packing the same number of people in a shorter season exasperates the problem.

Exacerbates. You sound exasperated. Carry on.

 

[8andcounting]

At the end of the day, this sounds like it’s more in final form than a draft taking input. I know several groups are just waiting to see what the “final product” is before weighing in. Sounds like HuntTalk is the primary support group at this time.

I agree it sounds more like a final than a draft .

 

[Gerald Martin]

BTW, @mthuntress406,

Welcome to the fray. It’s good to have your voice added to the conversation. I’m glad we’re engaging in the debate over the merits of each component of this proposal here where the arguments are captured in a linear process. As heated or annoying as this place can get its a great venue for sorting ideas.

 

[Hunt West]

Respectfully, the idea that we’re dug in on specifics is a projection. This proposal has been submitted for public scrutiny and feedback less than a week.

A discussion over the merits of the proposal and a defense for why we think certain parts will work or are necessary is not being “dug in”.

Before we started we received back channel feedback from FWP that our ideas had to not significantly reduce funding for the department. That’s something we have to factor in.

We know MT is an opportunity state. Public perception of retained opportunity has to be factored in.

We know our proposals have to be compatible with biological realities in order to achieve our end goal of improving the health of the resource.


There’s a lot to juggle and a lot of things that can be tweaked to reach our end goal. Predictably, most folks’ initial response is for protection of their preferred opportunity. Interesting enough, some of our most vocal critics of removing opportunity in the form of shortening seasons are openly calling for LE across the state as a way of preserving long seasons. .

There’s several suggestions and alternate options that have been expressed that are being discussed among our group and will continue to be considered.

In regards to impacts on funding I think some revenue could be generated by actually splitting/getting rid of the NR big game combo. Charge the current seperate price for a deer tag And the price for an elk tag. Sell preference points for general deer license and general elk license. Once that’s done set quotas and make NRs pick a region for deer at a minimum. My biggest concern would be adding the additional hunter for every big game combo that was split.

 

[BuzzH]

Because it will not help with overcrowding- packing the same number of people in a shorter season exasperates the problem.

But it will help keep elk accessible on public land, something that absolutely needs to happen. You have to give up something.

 

[mthuntress406]

But it will help keep elk accessible on public land, something that absolutely needs to happen. You have to give up something.

Tell me again how overcrowding is going to keep elk accessible on public land? And again, why is this proposal so worried about the archery elk season? Bowhunters are not the user group stacking up mule deer. I'm simply asking for consideration to keep that first week of October and maybe add the 5 days in August as suggested. That is still "giving up something" - honestly, one of the best hunts I had this year was second week of October. Some bowhunters won't be okay with that either so I am not speaking for everyone but just myself that I would consider a season shift but not a season loss. If goal is to really reduce the pressure/number of deer killed/protect mule deer, then mule deer hunters, those who elect to chose to chase MD, then lose a week or two. Seems simple enough, if that was the case, I would choose WT...so would a lot of folks... isn't that the point? Just something to consider.

 

[Gerald Martin]

In regards to impacts on funding I think some revenue could be generated by actually splitting/getting rid of the NR big game combo. Charge the current seperate price for a deer tag And the price for an elk tag. Sell preference points for general deer license and general elk license. Once that’s done set quotas and make NRs pick a region for deer at a minimum. My biggest concern would be adding the additional hunter for every big game combo that was split.

Are you meaning that FWP should issue 17,000 elk only licenses, 17,000 deer license that are split from the elk/deer combo and the original 6,600 deer only licenses?

If so, that would certainly help with funding. However, it would also double the amount of NR boots on the ground and would be completely counterproductive to our aims of reducing hunting pressure.

We’re getting a ton of folks calling for cuts to the 17,000 Deer/Elk NR tags and 6,600 deer only tags. With NR’s license dollars (fishing included) making up over 70% of FWP’s budget that’s not going to happen unless there’s a serious financial solution figured out. We thought we were calling for about as much as could be hoped for by stopping the splitting and resale of returned deer/elk licenses at a projected 5–6 million dollar loss to the department.

That’s not even trying to tackle the incredibly politically fraught issue of trying to get rid of the additional tack ons of the Come Home to Hunt, MT Native and NR Youth licenses that Legislators passed to create their version of more opportunities. Those are all additional NR licenses that are sold at half price of the regular NR licenses.

 

[mthuntress406]

BTW, @mthuntress406,

Welcome to the fray. It’s good to have your voice added to the conversation. I’m glad we’re engaging in the debate over the merits of each component of this proposal here where the arguments are captured in a linear process. As heated or annoying as this place can get its a great venue for sorting ideas.

Thanks, I definitely feel like I waded into a shark infested pool. I appreciate your professionalism, Gerald. I never said I am totally against this proposal just would like some consideration to the bowhunting season, I feel strongly this will not help with overcrowding or keeping elk accessible. The everyone has to give something argument is not necessarily a good rebuttal. What one user group "gives" might need to look different than another's "give" if it truly is written to help with mule deer and overcrowding--- just taking a week from each user group might not be the best strategy to accomplish those two goals. I was offering feedback that might help move the needle or make this proposal more acceptable.

I think I'm gonna hop off this rabbit hole for the evening. You all have a great night and at the end of the day we are all in this together for the good of Montana- or I definitely wouldn't be on this site fighting the good fight.

 

[Carnage2011]

Can someone tell me exactly what the goal is? Also, how will we measure whether or not we met the goal?

 

[Hunt West]

Not exactly. I’m saying get rid of the combo and set acceptable quotas for each species and manage them separately. I think your current proposal could possibly add NR hunters as an unintended consequence. Example being guys returning their deer portion to be resold to another NR because they don’t want to make two trips out hunting deer in October and elk in November.

Are you meaning that FWP should issue 17,000 elk only licenses, 17,000 deer license that are split from the elk/deer combo and the original 6,600 deer only licenses?

If so, that would certainly help with funding. However, it would also double the amount of NR boots on the ground and would be completely counterproductive to our aims of reducing hunting pressure.

We’re getting a ton of folks calling for cuts to the 17,000 Deer/Elk NR tags and 6,600 deer only tags. With NR’s license dollars (fishing included) making up over 70% of FWP’s budget that’s not going to happen unless there’s a serious financial solution figured out. We thought we were calling for about as much as could be hoped for by stopping the splitting and resale of returned deer/elk licenses at a projected 5–6 million dollar loss to the department.

That’s not even trying to tackle the incredibly politically fraught issue of trying to get rid of the additional tack ons of the Come Home to Hunt, MT Native and NR Youth licenses that Legislators passed to create their version of more opportunities. Those are all additional NR licenses that are sold at half price of the regular NR licenses.

 

[BuzzH]

Tell me again how overcrowding is going to keep elk accessible on public land? And again, why is this proposal so worried about the archery elk season? Bowhunters are not the user group stacking up mule deer. I'm simply asking for consideration to keep that first week of October and maybe add the 5 days in August as suggested. That is still "giving up something" - honestly, one of the best hunts I had this year was second week of October. Some bowhunters won't be okay with that either so I am not speaking for everyone but just myself that I would consider a season shift but not a season loss. If goal is to really reduce the pressure/number of deer killed/protect mule deer, then mule deer hunters, those who elect to chose to chase MD, then lose a week or two. Seems simple enough, if that was the case, I would choose WT...so would a lot of folks... isn't that the point? Just something to consider.

Rifle hunters, who there are more than double of, are giving up time in October for rifle elk hunting. They aren't whining about over-crowding.

I fail to have sympathy for archery hunters, fair is fair. Archery hunters get a month of elk hunting, during prime time, with less than half the hunters and you're crying about over-crowding?

Not going to find a shoulder to cry on here.

Like I said elk need a break as well. Keeping constant pressure on them from September through as last as December 1 doesn't work.

Another fun fact, if you keep bull to cow ratios higher and more elk available on public land, you don't need all of September and 2/3 of October to kill a bull.

 

[rogerthat]

Rifle hunters, who there are more than double of, are giving up time in October for rifle elk hunting. They aren't whining about over-crowding.

I fail to have sympathy for archery hunters, fair is fair. Archery hunters get a month of elk hunting, during prime time, with less than half the hunters and you're crying about over-crowding?

Not going to find a shoulder to cry on here.

Like I said elk need a break as well. Keeping constant pressure on them from September through as last as December 1 doesn't work.

Another fun fact, if you keep bull to cow ratios higher and more elk available on public land, you don't need all of September and 2/3 of October to kill a bull.

You may not have sympathy for archery hunters Buzz but I will be surprised if this proposal goes anywhere with out some buy in by archery hunters. Honestly I do both so I’m not an archery hunter or a rifle hunter just a hunter. Hell last year I whipped out a blunderbuss. Anyway I’m not surprised archery specialists see this as they are taking the biggest cut. When I look at this impartially it looks like I could be hiking around with a rifle looking for mule deer and than elk for two months straight. That doesn’t seem like a cut. Something for the group to ponder on. I fully support the proposal vs status quo fyi.