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

I haven’t even read the written proposals to see what changed from the confusion of the commission meetings. It’s probably going to be 30 days before they can actually craft that language and get it out.
 
Gerald Martin said:
I haven’t even read the written proposals to see what changed from the confusion of the commission meetings. It’s probably going to be 30 days before they can actually craft that language and get it out.
Click to expand...
I’m reading the “proposals” that they put out on their webpage and for the district I usually hunt in central Mt it’s still showing the change to either sex on a general on private land….wtf
 
I see in 318/335, they changed the 394 permit to a B tag with the language "may only harvest one elk within area where license is valid," which seems like the absolute opposite of making regulations simpler. So somebody gets a bull in 335, now they throw away their B tag? Permits aren't that hard and this is just doing the same thing with the addition of people hunting bulls elsewhere after they pop a cow in the Boulders.
 
MTHunter1321 said:
I’m reading the “proposals” that they put out on their webpage and for the district I usually hunt in central Mt it’s still showing the change to either sex on a general on private land….wtf
Click to expand...
I agree.
1639785799269.png
I think the regulations themselves look correct though, but maybe the 411-20 quota is wrong?

1639785908207.png
1639788114190.png

What a confusing cluster!
 
Last edited:
4ohSick said:
I see in 318/335, they changed the 394 permit to a B tag with the language "may only harvest one elk within area where license is valid," which seems like the absolute opposite of making regulations simpler. So somebody gets a bull in 335, now they throw away their B tag? Permits aren't that hard and this is just doing the same thing with the addition of people hunting bulls elsewhere after they pop a cow in the Boulders.
Click to expand...

This is how it was this year and I was incredibly confused by it. The paper regulations were different from the ones online, and if you drew the 394 tag you got a permit in the mail that said antlerless only. permits require your general public to accompany them typically.

I went in and talked to them and they told me that the paper regulations are king and that if you had a 394 tag you could shoot a bull or a cow.

This whole damn thing is a ridiculous shit show. The ineptness of the execution of this attempted change of direction is just silly.
 
brocksw said:
Are landowner tags restricted to their land? That's the hang up for me. Landowner tags should not be good unit wide.

I'd support a landowner preference systemand possibly an increase if it it's only good for their land. I think most units can't take an increase to "public land tags" as they're already crowded and under significant pressure.
Click to expand...
CO has unit wide and private land only, that’s any private not just yours. The former are stupid the later I think are fine.

You have to demonstrate species are on your property for a certain portion of the year, have a certain amount of land, and it has to be a draw for that species.

Further there is a quota and there is a draw so tags aren’t a guarantee.

For most people who own 160-1000 acres it looks like a deer or elk tag a year in a mediocre unit and maybe every 4-5 years in a decent one, a great unit 10 years.

System goes south with the giant ranches IMHO, you get awarded for additional acreage and some of those ranches get a pile of tags in 20 point units.

My impression of landowner tags, ok, but like anything can get out of hand. I don’t know if I think MT should open than can of worms.
 
Nameless Range said:
This is how it was this year and I was incredibly confused by it. The paper regulations were different from the ones online, and if you drew the 394 tag you got a permit in the mail that said antlerless only. permits require your general public to accompany them typically.

I went in and talked to them and they told me that the paper regulations are king and that if you had a 394 tag you could shoot a bull or a cow.

This whole damn thing is a ridiculous shit show. The ineptness of the execution of this attempted change of direction is just silly.
Click to expand...
I had the 394 permit last year, and it was that way too. Obviously as a permit holder, I was stoked at the opportunity to kill a bull if I saw one first, but I agree the language was confusing. This keeps the confusion and makes it worse, because as I read it, I could shoot a bull in the breaks and still use the b-tag, but a bull in park lake would void the b tag.
 
For each of my USA hunting trips I enjoy studying the different state rules and regulations and in the case of Montana have been trying to keep up with the regulations proposals, really out of interest and to also help my 2022 hunt planning. The changes seem to be all negative for both the public land hunter and wildlife management, but is there any positive changes in the proposals for the likes of us public land hunters?
 
rogerthat said:
Unit 700-100% guaranteed unit 702,704,705 - 1 in 3ish odds
Way better than the peasants applying in the draw
Click to expand...
This is true, but remember each landowner only gets one recipient in the draw. Most landowners have far more than that eligible for the draw. If we only put in the three principal owners of the ranch in on a rotating system the number of landowner preference licenses I will draw is not much better than that of the general pubic. Add in kids and employees and I am not hunting with landowner preference very often. I have had the 799-20 license three times, two I got in the general draw.
Don't take me wrong on this, I am not complaining about the landowner preference system in Montana. It has worked fine for many years. However if the goal is to get more hunters hunting private land in a unit, reworking the landowner preference system is a far better way to go than transferable landowner tags like many states or just handing out more tags by increasing quotas or going to general licenses like in the current FWP proposal.
 
Last edited:
Finally had some time to sift through some of the new region 2 proposals. The few redeeming changes were hurled out the window and the bad ideas continue to roll in, despite the biologist's good recommendations. Wipe out all the elk on public, they might be eyeing the private fields wrong, can't take any chances on them. But hey at least your bull permit will only allow you to hunt that unit and nowhere else for bulls....baby steps with the changes I suppose.
While we are at it, kill the few mule deer bucks left over here too. Amazing that we can leave some units general when just seeing a buck is rare at this point (plus now we have muzzloader season). Even the biologist said we really need to go to permit because there aren't enough mule deer! I'm sure the locals couldn't stand their chitty opportunity to be take away. What a mess. I'm still going to make comments but at this point I'm scared the changes could get worse!
 
antlerradar said:
This is true, but remember each landowner only gets one recipient in the draw. Most landowners have far more than that eligible for the draw. If we only put in the three principal owners of the ranch in on a rotating system the number of landowner preference licenses I will draw is not much better than that of the general pubic. Add in kids and employees and I am not hunting with landowner preference very often. I have had the 799-20 license three time, two I got in the general draw.
Don't take me wrong on this, I am not complaining about the landowner preference system in Montana. It has worked fine for many years. However if the goal is to get more hunters hunting private land in a unit, reworking the landowner preference system is a far better way to go than transferable landowner tags like many states or just handing out more tags by increasing quotas or going to general licenses like in the current FWP proposal.
Click to expand...
Can’t argue with you on that. I would support changing the landowner preference system if the stated goal is to get more permits out on private lands in a unit. Makes sense.

I wish we were dealing with proposals that actually addressed the stated objective and had a common sense solution instead of the garbage that got moved.
 
MTelkHuntress said:
Finally had some time to sift through some of the new region 2 proposals. The few redeeming changes were hurled out the window and the bad ideas continue to roll in, despite the biologist's good recommendations. Wipe out all the elk on public, they might be eyeing the private fields wrong, can't take any chances on them. But hey at least your bull permit will only allow you to hunt that unit and nowhere else for bulls....baby steps with the changes I suppose.
While we are at it, kill the few mule deer bucks left over here too. Amazing that we can leave some units general when just seeing a buck is rare at this point (plus now we have muzzloader season). Even the biologist said we really need to go to permit because there aren't enough mule deer! I'm sure the locals couldn't stand their chitty opportunity to be take away. What a mess. I'm still going to make comments but at this point I'm scared the changes could get worse!
Click to expand...
Yeah it’s maddening. Overall any positives are out weighed by the negatives fairly handily imo. I wish we could just hit reset at this point and stick with 20-21 season regs. Minimize damage at this point
 
I struggle trying to find the logic behind either sex elk archery permits that say permit holders cannot hunt elk anywhere else in the state. I like trying out different areas for elk, but I'm not going to limit myself to one unit, maybe something comes up and I can't travel far. Who, or what, gains from these type stipulations?
 
Irishman said:
I struggle trying to find the logic behind either sex elk archery permits that say permit holders cannot hunt elk anywhere else in the state. I like trying out different areas for elk, but I'm not going to limit myself to one unit, maybe something comes up and I can't travel far. Who, or what, gains from these type stipulations?
Click to expand...
I think choosing a unit is a great idea. Helps keep the pressure spread around
 
I could see it helping the easy to draw units and putting more pressure everywhere else. Instead of committing to one of the easy to draw units people will put in for the hard to draw units and just hunt on a general tag. So maybe it will help the custer/breaks/central mt units.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

F
FWP being systematically dismantled
2 3 4
Replies
72
Views
4K
MTLabrador
MTLabrador
Nick87
Long time coming.
5 6 7
Replies
127
Views
4K
Dave N
Dave N
Big Fin
Tired of Multiple Registrations
2
Replies
24
Views
2K
Benfromalbuquerque
Benfromalbuquerque
Big Fin
FWP Commission to change Gardiner Elk hunting
8 9 10
Replies
183
Views
24K
Shed God
S
Big Fin
Montana - Time to Shake it Up?
51 52 53
Replies
1K
Views
65K
Eric Albus
E

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
113,564
Messages
2,025,235
Members
36,231
Latest member
ChasinDoes

Share this page

Back
Top