Montana General Season Structure Proposal

[SAJ-99]

At some level the whole R vs NR conflict is a bit of a red herring.

At the most basic level the conflict is that the resource is experiencing more exploitation than it can sustain to produce a quality hunt and a healthy age structure, a reasonable buck/doe ratio and populations reflective of the biological carrying capacity of the habitat.


If the basics were in balance the conflict between user groups would be reduced.


Montana needs and wants NR’s to some degree. They also don’t need and don’t want NR’s to some degree. I think the statutory caps of 17,000 elk/deer combos and 6600 deer combos was the historic agreement of where that line intersects. The 90/10 rule for NR permit allocation was another nod to social acceptance of how much Montana resources could be granted to NR’s. Historically these served the resource and the social tolerance of Montana residents well.

Unfortunately, in my opinion the Montana Legislature caved to the desire of a very small minority for self serving preferences and allowed increases beyond that cap. This includes those licenses like come Come Home to Hunt and Montana Native. To be clear this was done at the desire of a minority of Montana residents. These legislators wanted Montana residents to get a prioritized experience for their NR family to share without having to wait in line and bear the same costs as NR’s who didn’t have qualified family to give them that priority.

FWP is also complicit in their strategies to increase revenue by the way they resale returned tags even though they technically are in harmony with regulations.

There is also some willingness to disregard the intent of public will or at least unacceptable ignorance on the ways that antlerless licenses and permits are allocated. Some areas are without quota to ensure all residents get a license or permit by choosing that area in the draw or by buying it OTC. In those areas NR’s are not restricted to the 90/10 allocations and can purchase at their discretion. This brings in additional revenue to FWP.


In my opinion if the health of the resource is taken care of first that will encourage the dispersal of NR’s across the state and ease crowding and NR selection of a couple of regions. Taking care of the health of the resource may include legal restrictions on areas and a return to socially acceptable number of NR tags issued but that’s not the end goal. The end goal must be to improve the quality and health of the resource. If that improves everyone’s experience and opportunity to harvest the surplus of the resource improves.

Why do these problems not exist for antelope? The NR v. R debate doesn't seem the same. Why does FWP manage antelope one way (unit tags, pick your weapon, pick your unit) with the R being fine with it, but MD and elk are different? tradition, ie, "we have always done it that way"? Maybe thinking about it is a starting point for MD solutions.

 

[huntin24/7]

I don’t think anyone’s wanting to get rid of NR’s. But when probably 80-90% of them are hunting regions 6 and 7, that’s a problem, not unlike the issue where a large amount of resident pressure is stacked into those same regions as well.

 

[Forkyfinder]

I don’t think anyone’s wanting to get rid of NR’s. But when probably 80-90% of them are hunting regions 6 and 7, that’s a problem, not unlike the issue where a large amount of resident pressure is stacked into those same regions as well.

It represents the easiest hunting and some of the better trophy potential. Its easy to get why. Open country hunting the rut with modern tech is easy...

 

[huntin24/7]

It represents the easiest hunting and some of the better trophy potential. Its easy to get why. Open country hunting the rut with modern tech is easy...

Oh I totally get why everyone wants to. But it’s no longer even close to feasible have such a high percentage of hunters hunting 1/3 of the state.

 

[Gerald Martin]

Why do these problems not exist for antelope? The NR v. R debate doesn't seem the same. Why does FWP manage antelope one way (unit tags, pick your weapon, pick your unit) with the R being fine with it, but MD and elk are different? tradition, ie, "we have always done it that way"? Maybe thinking about it is a starting point for MD solutions.

Simple. Everyone’s expectations are adjusted to understand that we can’t all hunt antelope every year. We accept the fact that the resource is not adequate to sustain the pressure of OTC hunting. It is not that way for deer and elk because of the baseline expectation that we can hunt deer and elk OTC every year. It’s not right but that’s the way it is.

I predict that if opportunity is restricted and there is an accompanying improvement in the perceived quality of the hunt that follows there will be widespread acceptance of those restrictions. If improved quality doesn’t follow in a reasonable amount of time there will be resentment and continuing complaint.

I believe that the downward trend in quality experience in all aspects of hunting (especially public land) has enough history to make conclusions that it will continue to decline unless there’s a drastic change in both expectations and management policies. Preservation of the status quo will not retain today’s quality. Preservation of the status quo guarantees decline of both resource and opportunity to benefit from the resource.

To me it’s a simple concept even though the factors that need to be and can be changed are complex. Delayed gratification of today’s desired benefits to reap a better benefit for ourselves and future generations.

 

[bigsky2]

Oh I totally get why everyone wants to. But it’s no longer even close to feasible have such a high percentage of hunters hunting 1/3 of the state.

A lot of them are probably packed into 1/3 of the season too.

 

[Treeshark]

Why do these problems not exist for antelope?

There is admittedly way more to it than this, but perhaps part of the reason from FWP’s perspective is that Antelope do not get CWD (as far as we know)- who knows?

I do think that public perception and tradition is likely a big part of it as well.

 

[brockel]

Why does FWP manage antelope one way (unit tags, pick your weapon, pick your unit) with the R being fine with it, but MD and elk are different?

There was a time that the resident putting in for antelope was nearly a guarantee in region 7. Go to the bar after the antelope draw comes out now and your opinion will change. A lot of residents are very pissy when they don’t draw an antelope tag. A lot think you should be able to buy over the counter or that non residents shouldn’t be getting any of the tags if residents aren’t drawing them.

 

[SAJ-99]

There was a time that the resident putting in for antelope was nearly a guarantee in region 7. Go to the bar after the antelope draw comes out now and your opinion will change. A lot of residents are very pissy when they don’t draw an antelope tag. A lot think you should be able to buy over the counter or that non residents shouldn’t be getting any of the tags if residents aren’t drawing them.

Agree, but the way FWP manages antelope is completely different. As Gerald says, it may just be because everyone is used to it. But then FWP should just say "that is the way the majority of MT R hunters want it";. No need for 3 days of video presentation or even the CAC at all. Maybe they should stop pretending that something can be done. I think the major impediment is getting hunters to accept change, but "We do it for Antelope!" seems like an appropriate response to about 80% of the arguments coming from hunters and 80% of the arguments coming from FWP (CWD being the exception).

 

[antlerradar]

Simple. Everyone’s expectations are adjusted to understand that we can’t all hunt antelope every year. We accept the fact that the resource is not adequate to sustain the pressure of OTC hunting. It is not that way for deer and elk because of the baseline expectation that we can hunt deer and elk OTC every year. It’s not right but that’s the way it is.

I predict that if opportunity is restricted and there is an accompanying improvement in the perceived quality of the hunt that follows there will be widespread acceptance of those restrictions. If improved quality doesn’t follow in a reasonable amount of time there will be resentment and continuing complaint.

I believe that the downward trend in quality experience in all aspects of hunting (especially public land) has enough history to make conclusions that it will continue to decline unless there’s a drastic change in both expectations and management policies. Preservation of the status quo will not retain today’s quality. Preservation of the status quo guarantees decline of both resource and opportunity to benefit from the resource.

To me it’s a simple concept even though the factors that need to be and can be changed are complex. Delayed gratification of today’s desired benefits to reap a better benefit for ourselves and future generations.

Well said Gerald.

 

[Sioux33]

Idaho had the same issue with elk. NR’s could go anywhere general so tons of hunters wound up in the same areas. A couple years ago they capped units for NR’s and it sounds like things have improved significantly. Doesn’t seem unreasonable.

 

[Eric Albus]

Why do these problems not exist for antelope? The NR v. R debate doesn't seem the same. Why does FWP manage antelope one way (unit tags, pick your weapon, pick your unit) with the R being fine with it, but MD and elk are different? tradition, ie, "we have always done it that way"? Maybe thinking about it is a starting point for MD solutions.

I’ve said this for years.


My hope is we avoid permits by going separate seasons for mule deer, separate license for mule deer, pick your region.

 

[Eric Albus]

Idaho had the same issue with elk. NR’s could go anywhere general so tons of hunters wound up in the same areas. A couple years ago they capped units for NR’s and it sounds like things have improved significantly. Doesn’t seem unreasonable.

Certainly is worth looking at

 

[Pagosa]

Concerning the Elk harvest, I seriously doubt if much hunting will occur in Oct on private lands. Something I have heard others say (and agree) is having a separate any elk tag valid in these over objective districts that is only valid on private for Oct or Nov, it would most likely push the Elk back onto public lands. For example like the 799-20 has a quota of 280, they could issue another 200 any Elk tags only valid on private running either before (Oct) or during the new proposed November season . It would possibly satisfy the landowner/outfitters concerns and possibly reduce the time required to draw a limited permit.
And like another individual said, make a separate pool of tags available in over objective areas for 4 or 5 point or less and valid to harvest an antlerless Elk. Similar to WY.
I don't personally think the Elk harvest is overly high in a lot of these limited districts, because it's not easy hunting and people have the wrong mind-set once they draw a permit and it's not a slam dunk.

Did anyone read the article in the Billings Gazette about this proposal?

 

[cowboy]

Did anyone read the article in the Billings Gazette about this proposal?

Anybody that gets the Gazette and is a hunter probably read it.
Nothing there that hasn’t been hashed out in this post.

 

[cgasner1]

The gazette had a typo and is working on correcting it if they have not already archery does not lose 14 days

 

[sclancy27]

Concerning the Elk harvest, I seriously doubt if much hunting will occur in Oct on private lands. Something I have heard others say (and agree) is having a separate any elk tag valid in these over objective districts that is only valid on private for Oct or Nov, it would most likely push the Elk back onto public lands. For example like the 799-20 has a quota of 280, they could issue another 200 any Elk tags only valid on private running either before (Oct) or during the new proposed November season . It would possibly satisfy the landowner/outfitters concerns and possibly reduce the time required to draw a limited permit.
And like another individual said, make a separate pool of tags available in over objective areas for 4 or 5 point or less and valid to harvest an antlerless Elk. Similar to WY.
I don't personally think the Elk harvest is overly high in a lot of these limited districts, because it's not easy hunting and people have the wrong mind-set once they draw a permit and it's not a slam dunk.

Did anyone read the article in the Billings Gazette about this proposal?

I'm not really up for increasing quota by 70%. Why even have limited elk units?

 

[DFS]

I'm not really up for increasing quota by 70%. Why even have limited elk units?

We don’t get to have nice things in Montana. If something is living we need to shoot it or blow it to private. Opportunity to carry a rifle.

 

[Pagosa]

I'm not really up for increasing quota by 70%. Why even have limited elk units?

I agree with you about not increasing tags
and they already issue over 2600 tags and I bet half of those elk do not live on FS for any significant portion of the year. It's such a vast area and after a good amount of hunting pressure they head to private. It's not a tag issue but an access issue. And a majority of hunters will never have an opportunity to hunt the island areas of elk outside of the core populations. I've hunted and worked in some of these areas since 2015 (very recent I know) and I haven't seen much game being harvested because it's not what people think a limited district should be. I wonder about the same thing for 411, 412. 447, 417, etc. I just don't see many landowners allowing access for cow elk in Oct, but hopefully I'm wrong.

 

[cgasner1]

I agree with you about not increasing tags
and they already issue over 2600 tags and I bet half of those elk do not live on FS for any significant portion of the year. It's such a vast area and after a good amount of hunting pressure they head to private. It's not a tag issue but an access issue. And a majority of hunters will never have an opportunity to hunt the island areas of elk outside of the core populations. I've hunted and worked in some of these areas since 2015 (very recent I know) and I haven't seen much game being harvested because it's not what people think a limited district should be. I wonder about the same thing for 411, 412. 447, 417, etc. I just don't see many landowners allowing access for cow elk in Oct, but hopefully I'm wrong.

The state should never issue any tags for bulls on private land only. Personally I have had zero issue killing bulls every year on public