MT - Changes in Hunting Regs/Units/Seasons coming this month

[SAJ-99]

outfitters in the less popular units (mostly private)will have an easier time in the draw. on the other hand outfitters in units that contain lots of accessible public are going to have it rough, depending on how many tags there are,

@randy11,@Ben Lamb…This^
900 isn’t just outfitters and NRs. A lot of that public land in great elk areas is leased by MT residents. Billings central location in the zone is a big reason. The thinking is the public land is mostly the Custer in 700, so public land hunters without leases get pushed to 700 draw and maybe some in the Abs-beartooths. Crazies are difficult to access and most of the elk are out of the Crazies and snowies NF lands by the first week. Sure there is opportunity, but @Nameless Range hunter-days-per-elk is going to 80 for those guys. The lease holders will still have great opportunity.
I will say that FWP has been transparent about this. It says right in the 900 regs that it is mostly private and might even say you should have a place to hunt before applying. A DIY public land hunt would have to apply knowing they have to hunt the same BM the entire bow season or go to NF and make it a camping trip. That would be a tough decision knowing how much pressure those areas would get.

 

[timmy]

I’m excited for breaking up the bundle archery as long as they keep tag numbers low enough. Had an early morning and took a stroll through one of my spots this am that I hadn’t been to for several years. I was in early and when I came out I had seen 8 vehicles 14 hunters and zero elk. Out of staters and you could start at Bozeman and go west for the rest of them, no locals besides myself. It was a small drainage let’s say 4 square miles. One group of hunters parked 6 feet from my vehicle. And it was a Thursday. That’s not fun for anybody. At the end of the day hunters need to be willing to take some cuts if we want to continue doing it.

 

[timmy]

This is what happens when you manage wildlife on a large scale such as a bundle tag. Now let’s talk deer

 

[bigsky2]

Opening the flood gates on the 454 program.

 

[antlerradar]

looks like ranching for wildlife for me ( the "for me" was a typo, I was going to put "to me" but I decided to keep as "for me" might be more appropriate).
I am not against the concept of ranching for wildlife. It is not that much different than block management. Block management is cash for access and ranching for wildlife is tags for access. It is the terms of the agreement that always sucks with ranching for wildlife. The "permit holders will be selected by the ranch" is glaring red flag for me.

 

[timmy]

I may be off on the stats but where I live 70% is private and 30% is public. At this point 70% of hunters are hunting 30%. Im not for ranching for you but to keep the public good or (decent) that is not sustainable. Things would have to change.

 

[Carnage2011]

I may be off on the stats but where I live 70% is private and 30% is public. At this point 70% of hunters are hunting 30%. Im not for ranching for you but to keep the public good or (decent) that is not sustainable. Things would have to change.

That all depends on permit numbers. If they give out 10 tags then everyone could hunt the public and not feel crowded. If they give out 10k tags then its a real problem!

 

[timmy]

That all depends on permit numbers. If they give out 10 tags then everyone could hunt the public and not feel crowded. If they give out 10k tags then its a real problem!

In Montana you have to assume the 10k and it is a real problem.

 

[antlerradar]

In 2019 HD270 had 45 permits for mule deer bucks. The new proposal is to up it to 50 permits and 20 permits for 3x's.

Increase from 45 total to 70 total. Add in the poachers and the tribes take in a heavily roaded, mostly public land and hints of more permits to come in the name of CWD prevention.

More meetings coming up to formulate a plan. We are still in the fight but doesn't look good.

Within a state where were mule deer get pounded we had some little gems still hanging on from years gone by. Keeping them will be a challenge.

I don't have an issue with the three point tags. Odds are that these bucks will never grow into a buck that the 45 tag holders, poacher's and tribal hunters will be interested in pulling the trigger on. The way I look at it as this is 20 hunters that will not be pressuring western whitetails or heading east to shoot a little four point.

 

[bigsky2]

Fish & Wildlife Commission: September 24, 2021 Commission Meeting | Montana FWP

Location: Zoom Virtual Attendance-This meeting will be broadcasted on our website at: http://fwp.mt.gov/

fwp.mt.gov

Here’s the agenda and how to comment during this mornings meeting.

 

[SAJ-99]

The "permit holders will be selected by the ranch" is glaring red flag for me.

Exactly. So you are for the concept but against the planned execution of it. The devil is always in the details. I guess how I read your stand is that you are for compensating ranchers for the problems wildlife create, and the problems public hunters create in the process of hunting them (that is technically how BM is written), but you are not for deciding who gets which tags. That seems reasonable. The Wilkes agreement is obviously designed so they get the bull tags and the peasants shoot the cows. The goal is to stop the neighbors from complaining when 1500 elk move across the road after the season ends.

 

[Nameless Range]

From the proposal for the merging of 335 and 318:

"There is no biological justification to make this change. This is being recommended based on the regulations simplification directive. For elimination of antlerless elk permits: All antlerless elk permits are being eliminated under the directive to simplify regulations. The two existing districts do have biological differences: Elk bull-cow ratios are different between the two districts, and overall mule deer numbers and distribution are different between the two districts. While they are part of the same Elk Management Unit, these differences between the districts are likely the reason why there are two districts now. HD 318 has a very high road density, the highest on the Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest, which negatively affects big game security. Habitat appears to be an additional limiting factor for mule deer in HD 318.

This is being recommended based on the regulations simplification directive."

Folks can talk about how many of these changes are not that bad, but I fail to see how many at all are good. This is top-down management, and biologists doing what they must to keep their jobs, and will most certainly have unknown and predominantly negative side effects as time marches on that will reveal themselves as other top-down changes are shoved down our throats. The only plus for many of these being it is "simpler".

 

[antlerradar]

Exactly. So you are for the concept but against the planned execution of it. The devil is always in the details. I guess how I read your stand is that you are for compensating ranchers for the problems wildlife create, and the problems public hunters create in the process of hunting them (that is technically how BM is written), but you are not for deciding who gets which tags. That seems reasonable. The Wilkes agreement is obviously designed so they get the bull tags and the peasants shoot the cows. The goal is to stop the neighbors from complaining when 1500 elk move across the road after the season ends.

pretty much, landowners go into the tag for access negotiations looking to get the best deal that they can. Can not blame them for that. Game managers seam to start with the attitude that any gain in access is better than none and there for a good deal. I don't think that this is the case. Any deal that is too much in the landowners favor is sure to foster discontent with the public, tarnish a good program, make landowner/sportsman relations more strained and gut the north American model. Just look at BM and how many discussions HT has had on landowners abusing the program by filling up type 2 with family and friends before the public even gets a chance. Hard to argue that this practice is good for the BM program or long term landowner/sportsman relations. The Wilk's deal is ripe for the same type of abuse.

 

[Sytes]

Don't miss out, even though we're going to ignore you.

 

[The Hedgehog]

Got a text from a Wyoming friend with a photo an absolutely gargantuan whitetail buck archery kill (remember that crossbows are legal too).

I sent him a picture of a beautiful but essentially gameless place I was hunting this AM, excited that I’d seen 2 doe whitetails.

His reply is everything but rocket science.






View attachment 195898

 

[MTelkHuntress]

FWP issues trophy elk permits to Wilks brothers

At last, the Wilks brothers got what they wanted but money couldn’t buy: the guaranteed opportunity to hunt trophy elk on their ranch.

helenair.com

I missed the meeting but I guess it was pretty bad.......

 

[timmy]

FWP issues trophy elk permits to Wilks brothers

At last, the Wilks brothers got what they wanted but money couldn’t buy: the guaranteed opportunity to hunt trophy elk on their ranch.

helenair.com

I missed the meeting but I guess it was pretty bad.......

Yikes

 

[timmy]

Think of all the landowners waiting to get a piece of that action. That’s ugly.

 

[brockel]

Think of all the landowners waiting to get a piece of that action. That’s ugly.

Slippery slope

 

[timmy]

Slippery slope

I suspect we are headed for the bottom of the hill.