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

To increase Limited Entry rifle bull Permits by 50% and make archery hunting an unlimited permit.
What kind of crack cocaine are these folks on? Is the goal NOT to make an impact on "objective numbers"? Both those ideas will have the opposite affect, just as the original bad idea.

Don't bother with cows, let's stay focused on culling the trophy bull elk. Let's make the best elk hunting in MT a commodity and while we're at it, let's make sure none of them are alive on public land, and that the cows continue to be horded on private as bait for a small portion of the bull hunters..
 
What kind of crack cocaine are these folks on? Is the goal NOT to make an impact on "objective numbers"? Both those ideas will have the opposite affect, just as the original bad idea.

Don't bother with cows, let's stay focused on culling the trophy bull elk. Let's make the best elk hunting in MT a commodity and while we're at it, let's make sure none of them are alive on public land, and that the cows continue to be horded on private as bait for a small portion of the bull hunters..

If you kill all the bulls, then no cow gets pregnant.

DUH.
 
Well, I'm not a member of any political party. They're both not worth joining.

But we we were pushing them on the EMP not being enforced, pushing them to go cow only in over-objective units, asking them to raise objectives, supported increased harvest opportunities, trying to get other programs instituted that would have improved public land habitats, defied them on the PAL Act which they didn't want, but we did & got it done w/ Sen,. Blasdel (R-Big Fork)etc. We were hammering them on shoulder seasons, season setting, etc.

There's a deeper issue here that is just being laid bare by how far the pendulum has swung.
I get it. Thank you for elaborating. Well done.
 
Who knows how all of this will ultimately unfold, but from my perspective it was really good to hear the resounding support for the rank and file MT FWP employees that are trying to be honest brokers by balancing the differing public interests at play. I can’t even imagine how low the morale must have been amongst these MT FWP employees, especially over the last few weeks.
 
This is not the time to let up. We have the attention of a lot of the players involved.

There is a comment period coming up, and as was mentioned this morning, you should comment through FWP to get your comments on record when the time comes. Nothing says you cant also email and call the commissioners and we should, write letters to the editor, get folks on board.


We've seen incompetence and borderline corruption lately, and a cynical view is perfectly justified. I think there are commissioners who would be bothered by that to some degree, and I also think these "not as bad" chit sandwiches FWP is chucking at the wall are fairly easily debunked and refuted with logic and are easily shown to be contra The Will of The People.

People don't like to be played or manipulated, but what I heard today, even if it was a lie to not look as foolish, was a statement saying that the director of FWP purposefully riled folks up to "get folks talking". I don't know any Montanan for whom that is acceptable behavior from a bureaucrat. If it was a genuine proposal we should be pissed about it. If it was a disingenuous act of trolling, we should pissed about it.

I don't know. I think we can still make headway. We are powerful. Let's see if we are powerful enough.
 
Last edited:
Is the goal NOT to make an impact on "objective numbers"?
That is exactly a goal- not to make an impact. You can't sell as many bull elk hunts if you reduce the elk numbers by 1/3rd. While Hank tells hunters to "get to know some private landowners" if they want to hunt, I'm sure he is telling the landowners complaining about elk damage "you better start leasing to outfitters" to compensate for the loss.
 
I almost think there needs to be a push for a special session before the February meeting. I can already see it. The commission narrowly approves unlimited archery permits and 50% more rifle tags, because they "ran out of time and had to try something different". If there's a way to pull that option off the table before the February meeting, I think that's the best way to avoid at least 2 years of all out assault on these units.
 
Exactly. That hurts residents and helps NRs that use a guide and NR landowners in that district. Same effect, under the guise of "simplification".
I just want them to reverse the 900 tag bundling, full stop. We used to archery hunt a mediocre unit right by a family cabin, that is no longer reasonable draw odds for archery. The unit doesn't have a ton of elk, but it's where my dad got his first shot at a bull with his bow, and the last place I bow hunted with my grandpa. bundling it with the 900 tag made it much more desirable in the draw, even though the unit isn't one anyone would hunt on that 900 tag.
 
I do think we need to ask this commission to shoot for some percentage increase in access as a part of this proposal. For example, if HD 530 has 18% public land plus say another 6% BMA, then we should ask FWP to creatively figure out how to increase access by another 5%, for a total of 30% access. Could be through damage hunts, increased BMA $$$ in HDs that are 200% over which increases BMA participation, or other means. Without addressing the access problem as a portion of the solution, we're all just standing in Livingston pissing in to the wind.
 
Anyone interested in a good read about the history of elk in Montana, a Hunt Talk friend shared this with me many years ago. I happened to come across this while listening to / watching the "wonderful" commission meeting.

A public coalition is almost a circle of life for Montanans and our elk.

 
More opportunity!!! Love it!! 41 years!! More opportunity!! Where and when will this end. Unf'ing believable
 
SITKA Gear

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
113,567
Messages
2,025,360
Members
36,235
Latest member
Camillelynn
Back
Top