Leupold BX-4 Rangefinding Binoculars

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

I don't think the commission can control that directly. If FWP could negotiate some agreement for an easement then the commission would be asked to approve. 530's problem is 411 and 411's problem is the NBar. 530 actually has quite a bit in Block mgmt surrounding the NBar.
A search of past distance past showed this from HuntScore on unit 411 from 2002-2003. There will be no changes because nothing has changed except now there is that big ranch on the east end that also doesn't allow public hunting and is all in favor of raising more elk (which is primarily why the population exploded). None of this is about too many elk. It is about the easy of getting permits for privileged and connected (translation:rich).

At least 85% of elk harvest occurs on private lands. During the hunting season (archery and rifle), at least 80% of the elk in the Snowy EMU occur on 2 large ranches in the Little Snowy Mountains, 1 large ranch on the west end of the Big Snowy Mountains, and 3 large ranches on the northeast end of the Judith Mountains. Access to these ranches is very restricted. The ranches that are located peripheral to these large ranches provide most of the hunter access.
The access situation in the Snowy EMU has remained relatively stable over the past 10 years.
The observed elk populations (2002-2003 winter aerial surveys) in the Snowy EMU were as follows: Big Snowy Mountains - 473; Little Snowy Mountains - 874; Judith Mountains (including the North and South Moccasin Mountains) - 360. Observed numbers of elk have steadily increased and have almost doubled in the past 10 years (Figures 1 and 2). The most significant increases in elk numbers have occurred in the Big and Little Snowy Mountains.; Over the past decade, numerous adjustments have been made to the hunting of elkin this EMU.
 
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 might have to put him to the test on the second one.
 
Am I correct in remembering that the whole limited entry archery elk permit system in the eastern part of the state was created largely because of serious overcrowding complaints from public land hunters?
 
I don't think the commission can control that directly. If FWP could negotiate some agreement for an easement then the commission would be asked to approve. 530's problem is 411 and 411's problem is the NBar. 530 actually has quite a bit in Block mgmt surrounding the NBar.
A search of past distance past showed this from HuntScore on unit 411 from 2002-2003. There will be no changes because nothing has changed except now there is that big ranch on the east end that also doesn't allow public hunting and is all in favor of raising more elk (which is primarily why the population exploded). None of this is about too many elk. It is about the easy of getting permits for privileged and connected (translation:rich).

At least 85% of elk harvest occurs on private lands. During the hunting season (archery and rifle), at least 80% of the elk in the Snowy EMU occur on 2 large ranches in the Little Snowy Mountains, 1 large ranch on the west end of the Big Snowy Mountains, and 3 large ranches on the northeast end of the Judith Mountains. Access to these ranches is very restricted. The ranches that are located peripheral to these large ranches provide most of the hunter access.
The access situation in the Snowy EMU has remained relatively stable over the past 10 years.
The observed elk populations (2002-2003 winter aerial surveys) in the Snowy EMU were as follows: Big Snowy Mountains - 473; Little Snowy Mountains - 874; Judith Mountains (including the North and South Moccasin Mountains) - 360. Observed numbers of elk have steadily increased and have almost doubled in the past 10 years (Figures 1 and 2). The most significant increases in elk numbers have occurred in the Big and Little Snowy Mountains.; Over the past decade, numerous adjustments have been made to the hunting of elkin this EMU.
Aspects of access can be manipulated by the FWP. Moving BMA cash into districts with over populations might be one method. Running damage hunts from Agust 1 - Dec 1 while also running cow shoulder seasons on private (never been done before Hank) could be another. One other thought WOULD require state legislation and that would be to make corner crossings legal. This would open up a ton of opportunity for DYIers.
 
Last edited:
Am I correct in remembering that the whole limited entry archery elk permit system in the eastern part of the state was created largely because of serious overcrowding complaints from public land hunters?
Yes this is correct
 
Aspects of access can be manipulated by the FWP. Moving BMA cash into districts with over populations might be one method. Running damage hunts from Agust 1 - Dec 1 while also running cow shoulder seasons on private (never been done before Hank) could be another. One other thought WOULD require state legislation and that would be to make corner crossings legal. This would open up a ton of opportunity for DYIers.
Game damage hunts are the best answer IMO. That is a program that already exists. Take a guess on how many game damage hunts have been done in 411 and 530 over the last 5 years. I FOIA'd it from FWP earlier this year.

2016-zero
2017-zero
2018-zero
2019-zero
2020-2 (one was a supplemental license request in 411 and one was a damage hunt in 530)

Hard to believe that in a unit with an elk population 800% over the legislated target, there were two game damage hunts in 5 years. That tells us a lot. If the requirement to be eligible for a game damage hunt are unpalatable to landowners then fix that program. I have never seen a suggestion that addresses any shortcomings there. Again, the problem isn't too many elk.
 
Game damage hunts are the best answer IMO. That is a program that already exists. Take a guess on how many game damage hunts have been done in 411 and 530 over the last 5 years. I FOIA'd it from FWP earlier this year.

2016-zero
2017-zero
2018-zero
2019-zero
2020-2 (one was a supplemental license request in 411 and one was a damage hunt in 530)

Hard to believe that in a unit with an elk population 800% over the legislated target, there were two game damage hunts in 5 years. That tells us a lot. If the requirement to be eligible for a game damage hunt are unpalatable to landowners then fix that program. I have never seen a suggestion that addresses any shortcomings there. Again, the problem isn't too many elk.

That is fascinating information. Thank you
 
Game damage hunts are the best answer IMO. That is a program that already exists. Take a guess on how many game damage hunts have been done in 411 and 530 over the last 5 years. I FOIA'd it from FWP earlier this year.

2016-zero
2017-zero
2018-zero
2019-zero
2020-2 (one was a supplemental license request in 411 and one was a damage hunt in 530)

Hard to believe that in a unit with an elk population 800% over the legislated target, there were two game damage hunts in 5 years. That tells us a lot. If the requirement to be eligible for a game damage hunt are unpalatable to landowners then fix that program. I have never seen a suggestion that addresses any shortcomings there. Again, the problem isn't too many elk.
Haven’t shoulder seasons made game damage hunts obsolete?
 
Haven’t shoulder seasons made game damage hunts obsolete?
In many ways yes. Particularly in that shoulder season were only allowed on private land. Game damage hunts are only allowed if the landowner allowed public access- like participating in BM. What shoulder seasons did was they made obsolete the need to allow public access. Might explain why they were not all that successful, by the numbers.
 
is there a place where the proposed season setting regs are now after the meeting for the public to comment on prior to the feb commission meeting?
 
In many ways yes. Particularly in that shoulder season were only allowed on private land. Game damage hunts are only allowed if the landowner allowed public access- like participating in BM. What shoulder seasons did was they made obsolete the need to allow public access. Might explain why they were not all that successful, by the numbers.

That seems like an obvious reason that they aren’t being used.
 

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
113,567
Messages
2,025,359
Members
36,235
Latest member
Camillelynn
Back
Top