MTNTOUGH - Use promo code RANDY for 30 days free

Montana Hunting season Comment period open

SAJ-99 said:
Not a fan. FWP is proposing to open public land during shoulder season. Now is time to speak up.
Click to expand...

Can you point me to the page in the proposal that mentions this? I'm missing it.

Thanks for posting this. I attached the public meeting schedule below.
 

Attachments

  • Public Meeting Schedule Jan 2020.pdf
    81.7 KB · Views: 14
The change I saw was for 410, page 99. THE CMR is not included, but the BLM in the southern part of the hunt district are. I posted the part below that people I think should read.

6. Briefly describe the contacts you have made with individual sportsmen or landowners, public groups or organizations regarding this proposal and indicate their comments (both pro and con).

Much effort from enforcement and wildlife staff has been spent towards improving relationships between landowners, FWP, and the public, and increasing access in some of the isolated “problem” areas of HD 410. Landowners in the district have varying opinions on these elk, from making the district a general season across the board for antlerless only, to harboring bad memories from the perceived “elk slaughter” that occurred when elk B license numbers were at a quota of 1200 in 2004 and 2005. Other landowners have purchased properties in this district, or lease/outfit their properties and wish to see more elk. The common thread among these landowners, particularly those outside of the BMA program, however, is a desire to have greater control of who is eligible to hunt their properties, such as locals, friends, and family members. Given the popularity of the 410-00 license, the license proves difficult for some of these individuals to draw. The intention behind this expansion of the 410-02 license in a portion of HD 410 is to provide these landowners the tool they desire, and to attract applicants who know these landowners or otherwise could gain permission on harder-to-access private lands, while deterring applicants who prefer to hunt public lands and the CMR (i.e., the “regular” 410-00 applicants). At the same time, the 410-02 license could provide hunting pressure on majority private lands in the south half of the district, thereby dispersing elk to public lands where they can be harvested by holders of the 410-00 license.
 
SAJ-99 said:
The change I saw was for 410, page 99. THE CMR is not included, but the BLM in the southern part of the hunt district are. I posted the part below that people I think should read.

6. Briefly describe the contacts you have made with individual sportsmen or landowners, public groups or organizations regarding this proposal and indicate their comments (both pro and con).

Much effort from enforcement and wildlife staff has been spent towards improving relationships between landowners, FWP, and the public, and increasing access in some of the isolated “problem” areas of HD 410. Landowners in the district have varying opinions on these elk, from making the district a general season across the board for antlerless only, to harboring bad memories from the perceived “elk slaughter” that occurred when elk B license numbers were at a quota of 1200 in 2004 and 2005. Other landowners have purchased properties in this district, or lease/outfit their properties and wish to see more elk. The common thread among these landowners, particularly those outside of the BMA program, however, is a desire to have greater control of who is eligible to hunt their properties, such as locals, friends, and family members. Given the popularity of the 410-00 license, the license proves difficult for some of these individuals to draw. The intention behind this expansion of the 410-02 license in a portion of HD 410 is to provide these landowners the tool they desire, and to attract applicants who know these landowners or otherwise could gain permission on harder-to-access private lands, while deterring applicants who prefer to hunt public lands and the CMR (i.e., the “regular” 410-00 applicants). At the same time, the 410-02 license could provide hunting pressure on majority private lands in the south half of the district, thereby dispersing elk to public lands where they can be harvested by holders of the 410-00 license.
Click to expand...

Thanks. It looks like they're proposing something similar in 417, although they're not calling it a shoulder season.
 
I wonder how long the contention over this topic can last. It hasn’t swing one way or another at some point.

I think there is going to either be a dismantling of this mess or it’s going to go to a a landowner tag/ RFW system in the next decade. My guess is in the latter.
 
Thanks SAJ-99 for posting the info and thanks Randy11 for posting the meeting schedule. We'll try and make the Butte meeting Tuesday night.
 
SAJ-99 said:
The change I saw was for 410, page 99. THE CMR is not included, but the BLM in the southern part of the hunt district are. I posted the part below that people I think should read.

6. Briefly describe the contacts you have made with individual sportsmen or landowners, public groups or organizations regarding this proposal and indicate their comments (both pro and con).

Much effort from enforcement and wildlife staff has been spent towards improving relationships between landowners, FWP, and the public, and increasing access in some of the isolated “problem” areas of HD 410. Landowners in the district have varying opinions on these elk, from making the district a general season across the board for antlerless only, to harboring bad memories from the perceived “elk slaughter” that occurred when elk B license numbers were at a quota of 1200 in 2004 and 2005. Other landowners have purchased properties in this district, or lease/outfit their properties and wish to see more elk. The common thread among these landowners, particularly those outside of the BMA program, however, is a desire to have greater control of who is eligible to hunt their properties, such as locals, friends, and family members. Given the popularity of the 410-00 license, the license proves difficult for some of these individuals to draw. The intention behind this expansion of the 410-02 license in a portion of HD 410 is to provide these landowners the tool they desire, and to attract applicants who know these landowners or otherwise could gain permission on harder-to-access private lands, while deterring applicants who prefer to hunt public lands and the CMR (i.e., the “regular” 410-00 applicants). At the same time, the 410-02 license could provide hunting pressure on majority private lands in the south half of the district, thereby dispersing elk to public lands where they can be harvested by holders of the 410-00 license.
Click to expand...

So what happens when they get those elk in the southern half of the unit in a so called "shoot out" and they run across the river losing them to 700? I am suprised the last big fire was never mentioned. Those elk are in the area now of that fire. The distribution map they provide shows the largest concentration of elk in the subdivision out in the district. In my opinion they cut too many tags from the entire unit and put way too many into the new 410-02 permit. There is access in the area south area of the unit but the number of outfitters is much higher.
 
Thanks for sharing. These are extremely valuable threads! Helps each person evaluate from the read, then review perspectives shared here. With that, much more reasonable comments are able to be shared.
Looks like I missed the Kalispell meeting... Odd, I was frequently receiving their emails though this one slipped by. I'll join the Eureka meeting. This thread slipped by when originally posted. Bummer.
 
golfer said:
So what happens when they get those elk in the southern half of the unit in a so called "shoot out" and they run across the river losing them to 700? I am suprised the last big fire was never mentioned. Those elk are in the area now of that fire. The distribution map they provide shows the largest concentration of elk in the subdivision out in the district. In my opinion they cut too many tags from the entire unit and put way too many into the new 410-02 permit. There is access in the area south area of the unit but the number of outfitters is much higher.
Click to expand...
Agree. I guess some of those elk could have come from 700, but FWP thinks they came from the CMR. The areas they are showing the elk are mostly West of the burn on pvt. There are more outfitters because there are more blocks of private land. Once you get north of 79trl most everything is BLM and what isn’t is enrolled in block management.
the solution is to have a couple of years of the general tag being cow/spike eligible. The rest of the moves are a song and dance that will never accomplish the goal. This is why I think FWP doesn’t want to reduce the number of elk and just wants to appear like they are trying.
 
SAJ-99 said:
Agree. I guess some of those elk could have come from 700, but FWP thinks they came from the CMR. The areas they are showing the elk are mostly West of the burn on pvt. There are more outfitters because there are more blocks of private land. Once you get north of 79trl most everything is BLM and what isn’t is enrolled in block management.
the solution is to have a couple of years of the general tag being cow/spike eligible. The rest of the moves are a song and dance that will never accomplish the goal. This is why I think FWP doesn’t want to reduce the number of elk and just wants to appear like they are trying.
Click to expand...

Other thing I noticed, was that the distribuiton map was during the winter. I cannot imagine that those elk don't disperse off their winter range throughout the year. So I just wonder did they get the data set they want and will now be able to support their changes with this distribution?
 
golfer said:
Other thing I noticed, was that the distribuiton map was during the winter. I cannot imagine that those elk don't disperse off their winter range throughout the year. So I just wonder did they get the data set they want and will now be able to support their changes with this distribution?
Click to expand...
Not much traditional migration in that area. The only thing I would expect to see is the groups break up. The groups of 100-300 are definitely post rut and they are congregating around grass(food)/tree(sanctuary) boundaries. What a shock (sarcasm). It will take a ton of pressure to push them back to the CMR. This change is not going to solve the “problem” and FWP knows it.
 
Thank you for sharing, was much more informational than what I had seen before. Guessing this much detail is the agenda for the meetings.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

B
USFWS - NW Montana - Supplemental EA open for comment on construction of new admin. buildings
Replies
8
Views
856
livingthedream
L
Gerald Martin
Montana General Season Structure Proposal
106 107 108
Replies
2K
Views
102K
SAJ-99
S
Big Fin
Solar Energy Comments due April 18, 2024
2 3 4
Replies
62
Views
3K
darklozz
darklozz
jphares44
My first elk
2
Replies
33
Views
1K
jphares44
jphares44
T
Much needed time in the woods (Son's first elk hunt)
Replies
17
Views
626
buxnbullz
buxnbullz
Leupold BX-4 Rangefinding Binoculars

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
113,561
Messages
2,025,122
Members
36,228
Latest member
hudsocd

Share this page

Back
Top