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

[SAJ-99]

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

I agree. But I will say I pointed out the most obvious example with BM. Public access can be allowed but severely limited. Either way, why not try to modify it? Because FWP can just keep on with shoulder seasons (while simultaneously legislators scream they don’t work). Landowners can get friends and family to shoot a few elk and move them off a field for a week. FWP could allow hazing of problem elk with noise cannons and such, but I don’t sense that gets used much.

I am mostly frustrated when I see suggestions aimed at trying to reduce the elk numbers. Many legislators argue, correctly I think, that Hunters always want more access. I don’t think more access is ever going to happen without it being attached to bull tags for the landowner. But the reality is that shows elk numbers aren’t the problem. Elk permits and how they are allocated are.

 

[WIbiggame]

Here is another "un" expected outcome from making these units unlimited or general.

Let's make premium units general that have huge access problems. Pile more hunters onto smaller land parcels pushing more elk onto private lands that can be leased, outfitted etc. Oh yeah and outfitted clients get 2 PP when they apply for their general tag.

I suppose it shouldn't be a surprise that UPOM and MOGA back it.

I did the 700 units first because those seem to be the most brought up on here:

900-20 Units Private land:
Unit 701: 81% private
Unit 702: 86.8% private
Unit 703: 83.3% private
Unit 704: 69.1% private
Unit 705: 69.5% private
Unit 400: 85.4% is private
Unit 401: 90.4% private
Unit 403: 88% private
Unit 411: 80.7% private
Unit 412: 84 3% private
Unit 426: 79.1% private
Unit 447: 78.2% private
Unit 450: 79.2% private
Unit 455: 1.1% private
Unit 500: 92.7% private
Unit 502: 88.2% private
Unit 510: 29.5% private
Unit 511: 84.9% private
Unit 520: 26.7% private
Unit 530: 81.9% private
Unit 570: 92.2% private
Unit 575: 94.5% private
Unit 580: 78% private
Unit 590: 89.4% private

900-20 elk units average land that is privately owned is 75.6%. If you throw out Unit 455 the percentage goes to 78.8%.

Edit: I included all the 900-20 Units I should've in regards to 100% transparency just done the ones proposed to go unlimited or general and to my knowledge they are:
700, 701, 702, 703, 704, 705, 426, 450, 500, 580. I might have missed a couple (color blind) those average out to 79.9% privately owned.

If those numbers don't make it obvious what they are looking at doing I am not sure what else will.

 

[mtnkid85]

Here is another "un" expected outcome from making these units unlimited or general.

Let's make premium units general that have huge access problems. Pile more hunters onto smaller land parcels pushing more elk onto private lands that can be leased, outfitted etc. Oh yeah and outfitted clients get 2 PP when they apply for their general tag.

I suppose it shouldn't be a surprise that UPOM and MOGA back it.

I did the 700 units first because those seem to be the most brought up on here:

900-20 Units Private land:
Unit 701: 81% private
Unit 702: 86.8% private
Unit 703: 83.3% private
Unit 704: 69.1% private
Unit 705: 69.5% private
Unit 400: 85.4% is private
Unit 401: 90.4% private
Unit 403: 88% private
Unit 411: 80.7% private
Unit 412: 84 3% private
Unit 426: 79.1% private
Unit 447: 78.2% private
Unit 450: 79.2% private
Unit 455: 1.1% private
Unit 500: 92.7% private
Unit 502: 88.2% private
Unit 510: 29.5% private
Unit 511: 84.9% private
Unit 520: 26.7% private
Unit 530: 81.9% private
Unit 570: 92.2% private
Unit 575: 94.5% private
Unit 580: 78% private
Unit 590: 89.4% private

900-20 elk units average land that is privately owned is 75.6%. If you throw out Unit 455 the percentage goes to 78.8%.

Edit: I included all the 900-20 Units I should've in regards to 100% transparency just done the ones proposed to go unlimited or general and to my knowledge they are:
700, 701, 702, 703, 704, 705, 426, 450, 500, 580. I might have missed a couple (color blind) those average out to 79.9% privately owned.

If those numbers don't make it obvious what they are looking at doing I am not sure what else will.

What would be even more interesting is what percentage of that remaining public is actually accessible? Lots of checkerboard/landlocked in most of that country. You might need to bring your own rock to stand on out there.

 

[WIbiggame]

What would be even more interesting is what percentage of that remaining public is actually accessible? Lots of checkerboard/landlocked in most of that country. You might need to bring your own rock to stand on out there.

I was going to really dig into it and try and find that information, landlocked stuff, but to tired and dumbfounded at these ideas at the moment.

 

[mtnkid85]

I was going to really dig into it and try and find that information, landlocked stuff, but to tired and dumbfounded at these ideas at the moment.

Good job on those numbers you did post. It is eye opening.

 

[featherman]

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.

N Bar is on the SE side of the Snowies if I’m not mistaken.

Not that I dispute they are part of the problem, I just never miss an opportunity to be right on the internet.

 

[Sytes]

On my “do not waste time” list, but I had to see what you were questioning. I am not easily humored, but it was a laugh out loud moment.

Yes it was considering it was a laugh out loud post.

 

[Brad W]

Yes this is correct

I brought this up because commissioner Bayorth mentioned early in the discussion that he was concerned about the prospect of unlimited archery tags leading to overcrowding. The fact that the limited permit system was enacted to solve that problem is worth pointing out during this comment period. If you don’t know your history you are doomed to repeat it.

 

[Brad W]

is it fair to summarize at this point that we should be pushing for the acceptance of the “unlimited B tags on private ground in over objective units” motion and reject all the other amendments, ie maintain the status quo, until the new elk management plan comes out?

 

[Sioux33]

Here is another "un" expected outcome from making these units unlimited or general.

Let's make premium units general that have huge access problems. Pile more hunters onto smaller land parcels pushing more elk onto private lands that can be leased, outfitted etc. Oh yeah and outfitted clients get 2 PP when they apply for their general tag.

I suppose it shouldn't be a surprise that UPOM and MOGA back it.

I did the 700 units first because those seem to be the most brought up on here:

900-20 Units Private land:
Unit 701: 81% private
Unit 702: 86.8% private
Unit 703: 83.3% private
Unit 704: 69.1% private
Unit 705: 69.5% private
Unit 400: 85.4% is private
Unit 401: 90.4% private
Unit 403: 88% private
Unit 411: 80.7% private
Unit 412: 84 3% private
Unit 426: 79.1% private
Unit 447: 78.2% private
Unit 450: 79.2% private
Unit 455: 1.1% private
Unit 500: 92.7% private
Unit 502: 88.2% private
Unit 510: 29.5% private
Unit 511: 84.9% private
Unit 520: 26.7% private
Unit 530: 81.9% private
Unit 570: 92.2% private
Unit 575: 94.5% private
Unit 580: 78% private
Unit 590: 89.4% private

900-20 elk units average land that is privately owned is 75.6%. If you throw out Unit 455 the percentage goes to 78.8%.

Edit: I included all the 900-20 Units I should've in regards to 100% transparency just done the ones proposed to go unlimited or general and to my knowledge they are:
700, 701, 702, 703, 704, 705, 426, 450, 500, 580. I might have missed a couple (color blind) those average out to 79.9% privately owned.

If those numbers don't make it obvious what they are looking at doing I am not sure what else will.

That's great stuff. If you only look at the portions of those units that hold elk, that shrinks the available public down big time. A lot of public in those units are flat BLM, antelope country.

 

[WanderWoman]

N Bar is on the SE side of the Snowies if I’m not mistaken.

Not that I dispute they are part of the problem, I just never miss an opportunity to be right on the internet.

This was taken from the elk plan I think. N Bar wasn’t what it was in 2005 that it is now.

 

[antlerradar]

Here is another "un" expected outcome from making these units unlimited or general.

Let's make premium units general that have huge access problems. Pile more hunters onto smaller land parcels pushing more elk onto private lands that can be leased, outfitted etc. Oh yeah and outfitted clients get 2 PP when they apply for their general tag.

I suppose it shouldn't be a surprise that UPOM and MOGA back it.

I did the 700 units first because those seem to be the most brought up on here:

900-20 Units Private land:
Unit 701: 81% private
Unit 702: 86.8% private
Unit 703: 83.3% private
Unit 704: 69.1% private
Unit 705: 69.5% private
Unit 400: 85.4% is private
Unit 401: 90.4% private
Unit 403: 88% private
Unit 411: 80.7% private
Unit 412: 84 3% private
Unit 426: 79.1% private
Unit 447: 78.2% private
Unit 450: 79.2% private
Unit 455: 1.1% private
Unit 500: 92.7% private
Unit 502: 88.2% private
Unit 510: 29.5% private
Unit 511: 84.9% private
Unit 520: 26.7% private
Unit 530: 81.9% private
Unit 570: 92.2% private
Unit 575: 94.5% private
Unit 580: 78% private
Unit 590: 89.4% private

900-20 elk units average land that is privately owned is 75.6%. If you throw out Unit 455 the percentage goes to 78.8%.

Edit: I included all the 900-20 Units I should've in regards to 100% transparency just done the ones proposed to go unlimited or general and to my knowledge they are:
700, 701, 702, 703, 704, 705, 426, 450, 500, 580. I might have missed a couple (color blind) those average out to 79.9% privately owned.

If those numbers don't make it obvious what they are looking at doing I am not sure what else will.

I think the solution could be found with reworking the landowner preference system as I described earlier. For example Set the landowner draw using this formula. Landowner portion of the draw is equal to 50% of the % private land in the unit. Using a unit that is 70% private and 200 tags, landowners would get 70 tags instead of 30. This increase of 40 tags would hurt the chances of a DIY hunter drawing tags, but this could be remedied by increasing the number of tag to around 240 because the vast majority of the people in the landowner draw would be hunting private land. By doing this you could keep DIY draw odds the same, keep pressure on public the same and have more people hunting the private at the same time.
Some Outfitters and UPOM would not like the idea because the people eligible for the landowner draw are landowners, close relatives and employees of landowners not wealthy out of state "friends".

 

[Nameless Range]

is it fair to summarize at this point that we should be pushing for the acceptance of the “unlimited B tags on private ground in over objective units” motion and reject all the other amendments, ie maintain the status quo, until the new elk management plan comes out?

I think so. Something I am trying to impress upon folks is that the simplification directive changes alone are the most changes to hunting in Montana that have occurred in a single season setting since I have been alive. It's tough enough to look them over for the whole state, think about their implications, and provide input. There are literally hundreds of changes.

These 12th hour proposals seem wildly unnecessary, rushed, poorly thought out, and seemingly arbitrary. Let's pump the brakes. Some gentleman asked the Commission if these changes were so urgent that they needed to be acted upon this go round, before the new EMP kicks off, these new citizens groups Hank says are coming convene, etc....The answer is they are not that urgent.

 

[antlerradar]

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.

We did the game damage hunt rout with a neighbor a few years back. The hunt was held just before archery. We didn't have any elk killed, but some were killed on the neighbors. Historically we don't have many cows until after the start of archery and the big push activity pushes elk out of the Custer. That is starting to change in recent years. The next year the neighbor leased and the damage hunt came to an end. The biggest push back we got was from bow hunters that were planing to hunt our property and were worried we would keep the elk off until after they hunted.

 

[Ben Lamb]

What would be even more interesting is what percentage of that remaining public is actually accessible? Lots of checkerboard/landlocked in most of that country. You might need to bring your own rock to stand on out there.

This is a key piece of the issue here, especially as we look at just what was pushed forward yesterday. Moving to unlimited and adding 50% more rifle permits really helps those folks who actively seek to block public access. There are no shortage of ranches that sit at the head of 50,000 acre swaths of public land that are either limited in access by boat or have no legal access at all.

 

[SAJ-99]

N Bar is on the SE side of the Snowies if I’m not mistaken.

Not that I dispute they are part of the problem, I just never miss an opportunity to be right on the internet.

That was posted before they bought the NBar

 

[sacountry]

Here is another "un" expected outcome from making these units unlimited or general.

Let's make premium units general that have huge access problems. Pile more hunters onto smaller land parcels pushing more elk onto private lands that can be leased, outfitted etc. Oh yeah and outfitted clients get 2 PP when they apply for their general tag.

I suppose it shouldn't be a surprise that UPOM and MOGA back it.

I did the 700 units first because those seem to be the most brought up on here:

900-20 Units Private land:
Unit 701: 81% private
Unit 702: 86.8% private
Unit 703: 83.3% private
Unit 704: 69.1% private
Unit 705: 69.5% private
Unit 400: 85.4% is private
Unit 401: 90.4% private
Unit 403: 88% private
Unit 411: 80.7% private
Unit 412: 84 3% private
Unit 426: 79.1% private
Unit 447: 78.2% private
Unit 450: 79.2% private
Unit 455: 1.1% private
Unit 500: 92.7% private
Unit 502: 88.2% private
Unit 510: 29.5% private
Unit 511: 84.9% private
Unit 520: 26.7% private
Unit 530: 81.9% private
Unit 570: 92.2% private
Unit 575: 94.5% private
Unit 580: 78% private
Unit 590: 89.4% private

900-20 elk units average land that is privately owned is 75.6%. If you throw out Unit 455 the percentage goes to 78.8%.

Edit: I included all the 900-20 Units I should've in regards to 100% transparency just done the ones proposed to go unlimited or general and to my knowledge they are:
700, 701, 702, 703, 704, 705, 426, 450, 500, 580. I might have missed a couple (color blind) those average out to 79.9% privately owned.

If those numbers don't make it obvious what they are looking at doing I am not sure what else will.

I was looking hard at those numbers Monday. I wanted to see if I could find a difference between public /private in regions 1-3 vs 4-7 relative to specific HDs that are at objective vs 100% over vs 200%. There were outliers that I couldn't account for in my ultra basic, I have to work for a living, search. HD 455 is an example. Topography might be a reason. HD 302 vs 300 is another example.

I also couldn't figure out how to factor % of BMA and just as important the productive quality of the BMA. For example, HD300 has some valley floor BMA near pivots. That might be a reason why 300 is much closer to objective than 302.

Nothing new to the idea that the east side has more private than the large swaths of public accessible National Forest in the west. I was just having a hard time getting the data I needed to make effective judgements so unlike Hank, I chose not to make them. I do however think there is plenty of good reason to pursue this data. I definitely think all BMA kills should be required to be reported. This would further aid FWP understand the BMA program better.

 

[WIbiggame]

I think the solution could be found with reworking the landowner preference system as I described earlier. For example Set the landowner draw using this formula. Landowner portion of the draw is equal to 50% of the % private land in the unit. Using a unit that is 70% private and 200 tags, landowners would get 70 tags instead of 30. This increase of 40 tags would hurt the chances of a DIY hunter drawing tags, but this could be remedied by increasing the number of tag to around 240 because the vast majority of the people in the landowner draw would be hunting private land. By doing this you could keep DIY draw odds the same, keep pressure on public the same and have more people hunting the private at the same time.
Some Outfitters and UPOM would not like the idea because the people eligible for the landowner draw are landowners, close relatives and employees of landowners not wealthy out of state "friends".

I think this is a good solution with the added line of the landowner tag is good only on your property and unless they want to change the language only for cow elk.

I say unless they change the language because if over objective is truly the reason than shooting bulls isn't the answer the cows are the only way to lower population. Now, if they want to be HONEST and tell us the REAL REASON for these BS bills, than we can maybe discuss having the ability to shoot bulls.

Also while a great idea and one as aa NR DIY guy I could stomach, this still doesn't fix the problem of inability to access PUBLIC land and would still lead to crowding on the public. But like I said a good idea.

 

[sacountry]

This is a key piece of the issue here, especially as we look at just what was pushed forward yesterday. Moving to unlimited and adding 50% more rifle permits really helps those folks who actively seek to block public access. There are no shortage of ranches that sit at the head of 50,000 acre swaths of public land that are either limited in access by boat or have no legal access at all.

Checkerboard access should be on everyone's feedback/comments to FWP. One, the more comments about access being a critical part of the solution, the more likely it'll be addressed. Two, this particular solution requires state law so light the fire under FWP to start making the case with reps now.

 

[WIbiggame]

I was looking hard at those numbers Monday. I wanted to see if I could find a difference between public /private in regions 1-3 vs 4-7 relative to specific HDs that are at objective vs 100% over vs 200%. There were outliers that I couldn't account for in my ultra basic, I have to work for a living, search. HD 455 is an example. Topography might be a reason. HD 302 vs 300 is another example.

I initially set out to find the same information and like you I have to work too so just went with the basic information. I was hoping it "atleast start a conversation"