Montana General Season Structure Proposal

[Elktrack]

Certain exceptions apply of course relative to non-transferable landowner licenses and permits (my opinion, others disagree).

IMO, your point of non-transferable landowner licenses doesn’t actually work. It never seems to be an honest endeavor. Like I say, I believe it’s just a misused term to make people think that it’s more of a fair system when in fact it turns into a scam. Just my personal opinion.

 

[Ben Lamb]

IMO, your point of non-transferable landowner licenses doesn’t actually work. It never seems to be an honest endeavor. Like I say, I believe it’s just a misused term to make people think that it’s more of a fair system when in fact it turns into a scam. Just my personal opinion.

I can certainly see that perspective from an Idahoan, especially after those dillholes got caught a few weeks ago. There will always be people who abuse a system, regardless of what it is. People will drive drunk despite laws against it and people will still rip tags off of mattresses they don't own, even though it's clearly against the law.

MT the game is to buy the smallest acreage possible to get landowner licenses, etc. That doesn't mean that an idea is bad to me, just that it needs some tweaking and refining. The landowner preference license in MT is an example of something that's been working well in terms of offering opportunity for landowners as a recognition of their stewardship.

 

[Ben Lamb]

I don’t disagree but I believe you need to look to the majority of resident hunters that aren’t on hunt talk. They are going to throw a chit fit. Nonresident regional caps, increase in resident prices, so Ben can keep his funding. The programs need to go for nonresidents add ons. My two cents. Good luck I will be out trying to kill the last one.

I appreciate that you see how important conservation funding is, Doug!

 

[Elktrack]

The proposal sucks for mt otc public land archery hunters. The weather blew August 25th through Sept 10th thus yr, and it will 9 out of 10 times. No way in hell I would give up my season structure that I already have for archery elk hunting for this proposal. And everybody I have talked to says the same thing.

Great idea choose whitey or muley.

Great idea mule deer doe harvest on private land only. There probably isn't anywhere in the state with a reasonable herd on public to hunt anyway.

It's pretty simple for the mule deer everyone is going to have to give up hunting them every year.

Base it off limited entry. Off of actual herd numbers. Limited entry. 80 percent to the public. 20 percent to non resident. Of that non resident 10 percent to outfitters. With that anyone of those guys that draws can choose to go with an outfitter.

To apply u buy tags up front. Lose money in the draw. Regardless if u draw or not. Raise the price of tags, for resident and nonresident to make up for the loss of doe licenses sold. Probably be a 10 percent increase in tags across the board.

Keep the season structure we got.

Besides move muzzle loader season to rifle season. The muzzle loaders they have these days are pretty good at killing. Forgot the traditional bs season.

I can never tell if you actually believe the stuff you spew forth or are just stirring the pot.

 

[Shed God]

What is wrong with what I said elktrack

 

[Elktrack]

What is wrong with what I said elktrack

Didn’t say you were wrong or correct. You are entitled to your opinion. I just disagree with you.
Some of what you post seems like you aren’t familiar with the current quotas and percentages. Your proposed quotas are in excess of the current quota (not counting all the BS tags like come home to hunt, etc).
And why in the hell would you force 10 percent of NR to use outfitters? They don’t need subsidies to ensure clients.

Anyway, I don’t want to get a pissin contest going with you. Post whatever you want.

 

[Shed God]

I know 10 percent of LE tags go to non resident. If that's what you are talking about. I would force 10 percent of non residents to use outfitters because if land owners and outfitters don't get there share of the pie. Nothing is going to change anyway.

With the committees current proposal those outfitters are getting way more than 10 percent of the non resident hunters anyway.

 

[Pagosa]

The amount of bird hunters the last couple years is unreal. Wife just sent me pictures today of the convoy of bird hunters going by our place. There’s been a group of 8 hunting the same section 3 days in a row for sharpies and Huns.

I've been working between Sidney to Ekalaka and you aren't kidding. Which influencer talked about bird hunting in eastern MT. I've seen guys from GA, MI, MN, TX so far. It's complete bullshit

 

[Rie Bread]

LandTrust: Discover, Book, and Experience the Outdoors on Private Land.

Get outdoors without the crowds. Find private land for your next great outdoor adventure, or host respectful guests on your land and earn extra money every month.

landtrust.com

Seems like this does exactly that.

My comment about NR getting PL only tags is about redistributing pressure, providing incentive for wildlife, and providing rewards for landowners.

That’s the website I was trying to think of. Which to me is a privatized model of block management and my thought is the more land owner who “ lease” to the public the cheaper it would be to access it.

 

[Rie Bread]

Is there even that much Block management that is really accessible to the general public that is worth a shit. I would be willing to bet most of it is a waste of money.

Maybe but those Giant block managements out east near miles city and the Missouri breaks seem like a good thing to me.

The state giving money to useless BLMs does seem like a waste.

 

[Rie Bread]

No disagreement on more private tags equaling less access for the public. Certain exceptions apply of course relative to non-transferable landowner licenses and permits (my opinion, others disagree).



The benefit of the state being the primary purveyor of Block is that you end up with a fair and equitable system that has to comport with wildlife management overlays. It's access plus fewer noxious weeds on the land, better landowner-agency relations, etc. The benefits are multi-faceted and it provides a metric shit-tonne of access that may not otherwise be there and it brings our wildlife managers closer to landowners - when it works right. The biggest issue of block mgt is that top end payments are tied to Type 1 systems that encourage over-use of a property in terms of the quality of hunt. However, I have had tremendous opportunities for deer, pronghorn and upland on a lot type 1 BMA's personally.

For private to provide the same level of free access (to the general public) you are looking at a non-profit that is heavily financed to get this kind of thing done. And there - unless a public service component (some kind of gov't interaction w/the ngo) you can easily find yourself in a situation that is ostensibly a hunt club on a grand scale - which will cost even more traditional access. It's not an insurmountable task - but it is Herculean.

thank youn for the perspective and insight. I too like the access BMA provided, especially type 1 places. Iv been looking into the type 2 place more but haven’t successfully gotten a spot

That land trust website is the closest thing I can think of to a private block management style system. My thought is the more private land that is opened the lower the costs would be and it would weed out the private land access that isn’t productive to wildlife or hunters

 

[Shed God]

I would like to hear eric albus and big shooters thoughts on LE statewide mule deer either sex. What percentage of resident, nonresident, land owner preference, and if any outfitter gaurenteed tags.