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

[Gerald Martin]

As far as avoiding people not being difficult… you are right. Just hunt an area that is devoid of elk and has a lot of access points.

In areas with limited access it’s not easy to outwalk or avoid other people. When you show up at a public land trailhead and there’s already 15 rigs parked and the next legal access is ten miles away with 15 more rigs parked there, avoiding people and finding elk is more difficult than some people make it sound.

 

[rogerthat]

I just like seeing different areas. Pressure is not a concern. Avoiding people is not that difficult.

Haha! Your inexperience is really showing. Not all areas are created equal. Just remember just cause your not experiencing doesn’t mean it’s not a problem.

 

[antlerradar]

The best way to keep people from hunting elk is to give them a sheep tag.

 

[The Hedgehog]

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?

Of course we need to make these hunting options extra convenient for everyone.. Just in case 5 weeks of archery doesn’t provide enough time, hunters should be able to hunt the majority of limited quota units every year, as there’s just no pressure issues.

 

[TheTone]

Any idea what % of permit holders end up filling their tag in a different unit? Or what % of the days they hunt are in the permit area vs a general unit? Or are numbers and data like that just too hard for them to come up with?

 

[rogerthat]

Any idea what % of permit holders end up filling their tag in a different unit? Or what % of the days they hunt are in the permit area vs a general unit? Or are numbers and data like that just too hard for them to come up with?

I would be surprised if they have anything like that. They struggle with the basics honestly like basic harvest and population stats. Hunter distribution stats would be next level however I have talked to a bio that whipped out a few hunter distribution stats so you never know but as a whole… no chance in my opinion

 

[Nameless Range]

A couple region three as well as a region four public comment regional meetings start tonight.

Attend if ya can. The speed with which all this is being implemented, particularly over the holiday season, is hard not to perceive as an attempt to catch hunters flat-footed. We’ve got to keep the heat on. There are essentially only three weeks left to comment.

Public Comment Opportunities | Montana FWP

Fish, Wildlife & Parks offers various opportunities for the public to comment on issues, rules, grants, environmental assessments, land acquisition, development or enhancement projects, council recommendations, hunting and fishing regulations, etc. that FWP manages.

fwp.mt.gov

 

[Irishman]

Haha! Your inexperience is really showing. Not all areas are created equal. Just remember just cause your not experiencing doesn’t mean it’s not a problem.

My inexperience?? That's funny.

 

[Irishman]

Of course we need to make these hunting options extra convenient for everyone.. Just in case 5 weeks of archery doesn’t provide enough time, hunters should be able to hunt the majority of limited quota units every year, as there’s just no pressure issues.

Actually, it's 6 weeks of archery, and I hunt all 6 of them. And the 5 weeks of rifle season too. I'm glad I don't own a muzzleloader. My question was what is the logic behind having a few, and it is just a few, permits that say you can only hunt that area and not elsewhere. If this approach makes sense then why is it just for a few units, why isn't every permit this way?
The state could take all sorts of steps to limit people's opportunities, and reduce pressure, but I'm not sure that most would like them.
I won't apply for units that say I can't hunt elsewhere. So now someone more dedicated will draw the permit. Does that really help pressure in that unit? In my opinion, one of the best things about bowhunting in Montana is the freedom to go so many different places, so why limit yourself to one spot?

 

[tjones]

Actually, it's 6 weeks of archery, and I hunt all 6 of them. And the 5 weeks of rifle season too. I'm glad I don't own a muzzleloader. My question was what is the logic behind having a few, and it is just a few, permits that say you can only hunt that area and not elsewhere. If this approach makes sense then why is it just for a few units, why isn't every permit this way?
The state could take all sorts of steps to limit people's opportunities, and reduce pressure, but I'm not sure that most would like them.
I won't apply for units that say I can't hunt elsewhere. So now someone more dedicated will draw the permit. Does that really help pressure in that unit? In my opinion, one of the best things about bowhunting in Montana is the freedom to go so many different places, so why limit yourself to one spot?

This is for both unlimited and limited bull permits and either sex permits.



Statewide Permits: Permits for either-sex elk or brow-tined bull-antlerless elk will limit the holder to hunting for antlered elk within only the designated HD for the period identified on the permit.

 

[YoungGun]

In my opinion, one of the best things about bowhunting in Montana is the freedom to go so many different places, so why limit yourself to one spot?

That seems to be everyone's favorite thing with Montana bow hunting, and that's the problem. As it stands today, you could draw a 900 archery tag along with 3999 of your best buddies. You all originally plan to hunt in different units, but a buddy, let's call him "Steve", shoots a world record bull with his bow in the Custer, so now all 4000 of you are in 704, piss pounding the same trailheads and public day in and day out. Meanwhile, because FWP chooses not to break the units up and hold hunters to the unit they draw, 411 becomes "over objective" and large landowners push for more tags in their area. But because the units are clustered, when FWP ups the tags for 900 to address an issue in 411, now you have 5000 of your best buddies in 704. They become frustrated with the crowding, and they all head down to the Gravelly's to address it during the general elk season.

Or something like that. Clearly it's an exaggeration, but clustering the tags causes FWP to paint with broad-brush strokes. Not holding tag holders to the unit they draw causes clustering in some units and decreases draw odds/increases point creep.

 

[YoungGun]

The best way to keep people from hunting elk is to give them a sheep tag.

For the sake of our elk- I'd vote for more Unlimited Sheep hunts

 

[The Hedgehog]

I have been looking over some of the changes for region 3 in preparation for the meeting on the 13th. The new combined unit of 322 will eliminate the 324-50 permit and open the whole unit to either sex mule deer. I personally would like to see a more restricted mule deer harvest for this large district.

Biologist proposed the changes due to the presence of CWD. I don’t see the value in shooting all the deer to spare them from CWD.

Curious how Wyoming and the other states that have CWD still manage for quality mule deer?

With all the elk hunter pressure in this area, and likely the majority of them carrying a deer license, you can pretty much kiss this entire herd of deer goodbye after a couple of seasons.

Thanks FWP. Let's kill all of them, before CWD can.

 

[easternmt]

With all the elk hunter pressure in this area, and likely the majority of them carrying a deer license, you can pretty much kiss this entire herd of deer goodbye after a couple of seasons.

Thanks FWP. Let's kill all of them, before CWD can.

This is exactly what has happened

 

[Irishman]

That seems to be everyone's favorite thing with Montana bow hunting, and that's the problem. As it stands today, you could draw a 900 archery tag along with 3999 of your best buddies. You all originally plan to hunt in different units, but a buddy, let's call him "Steve", shoots a world record bull with his bow in the Custer, so now all 4000 of you are in 704, piss pounding the same trailheads and public day in and day out. Meanwhile, because FWP chooses not to break the units up and hold hunters to the unit they draw, 411 becomes "over objective" and large landowners push for more tags in their area. But because the units are clustered, when FWP ups the tags for 900 to address an issue in 411, now you have 5000 of your best buddies in 704. They become frustrated with the crowding, and they all head down to the Gravelly's to address it during the general elk season.

Or something like that. Clearly it's an exaggeration, but clustering the tags causes FWP to paint with broad-brush strokes. Not holding tag holders to the unit they draw causes clustering in some units and decreases draw odds/increases point creep.

FYI - I've bowhunted in Montana for almost 40 years, and not once in an area you needed a permit for. Also, I'm totally against the idea of clustering the units together (I think it was done for the benefit of outfitters so that more out of state hunters could draw a permit, and hunt just a few ranches in the eastern part of the state, to bypass the 10% rule). I just don't like the idea of drawing a permit for an area excluding you from hunting the general areas - that's not typical for how permits have been.

 

[Gerald Martin]

FYI - I've bowhunted in Montana for almost 40 years, and not once in an area you needed a permit for. Also, I'm totally against the idea of clustering the units together (I think it was done for the benefit of outfitters so that more out of state hunters could draw a permit, and hunt just a few ranches in the eastern part of the state, to bypass the 10% rule). I just don't like the idea of drawing a permit for an area excluding you from hunting the general areas - that's not typical for how permits have been.

If you hunt general areas then you should be totally in favor of limiting permit holders to the unit they draw. It will help with overall hunting pressure in general areas.

 

[SAJ-99]

If you hunt general areas then you should be totally in favor of limiting permit holders to the unit they draw. It will help with overall hunting pressure in general areas.

Are you saying not just the current 900 units but all current general units should be unlimited but the holder has to declare the unit in the application process? Seems like all the units around urban centers (Bozeman Billings and Missoula) would get pounded by the weekend warriors. I guess FWP and hunters would quickly figure out where the hunters end up. I don’t think this helps with pressure, just makes it more transparent. The pressure problem comes from too many tags in total.

 

[Big Fin]

Under no circumstances should the 900 archery tag units go to General. Here is why.

In the past, these went from limited entry with no cap to limited entry with a cap. In both instances we knew demand, both resident and non-resident demand, based on the number of applicants. That usually could give a good indicator in trends of crowding.

If these go to general tag, we will have zero data as to how many people are actually hunting those units during those seasons. That is what some want, so if we again see a huge crowding problem (which we will), there will not be any data to support such claims.

There won't be crowding on private, so they have no incentive to have a tag structure that allows for a tracking mechanism such as a limited entry, even with no cap. But on public, where the crowding will again be extreme, at the least, hunters should want to know the level of demand for a certain hunt type in a certain unit. A general tag situation is being pushed as the solution so we lose all tracking and ability to demonstrate the crowding and demand.

If we do get this rammed down our throats, and those in the political side tell me that is what is going to happen, these tags should be like it was before, your first and only choice. And, it should require you to hunt only that unit for that season type as your elk tag. It will cause people to really think about applying there, hopefully giving more predictability as to the level of pressure that will be expressed over time. It will also give better data as to where hunting is taking place by forcing those successful applicants to hunt where they are applying and for the season type they are applying for.

Reality is, we will likely get this forced upon us. If so, we need FWP to own every part of it, right down to how they structure the season types between General and Limited Entry, restrictions, tracking of applicant demand, etc.

We need to oppose every bad idea in those packages, no matter what the political powers tell us is coming. The Department said they wanted suggestions, even though they tossed out their own terrible suggestions that the Commission scrapped in favor of another bad proposal. The current proposal was not suggested in any hunter comments I heard, yet here we are. Thus, this is another FWP proposal that they need to own to show that they are not taking public comment seriously.

Tons of good comments were provided by many people and groups. FWP, to this point, is ignoring those comments in spite of their claim that they "Want good ideas, not just opposition."

OK FWP, you got a ton of ideas, why are we being spoon fed another of your bad proposals that was cooked up among a few well-connected groups the night of your working session and dropped on us the next morning without consideration of any of the many comments you were provided before this new proposal? People put a lot of time and thought into providing you comments as requested, yet you go it alone with a proposal that is counter to what your biologists have previously stated and against the interest of those you asked to provide better ideas.

As frustrating as it may seem, those vested in the outcome to give unlimited bull tags to the folks who have largely created this problem, are hoping we give up and we don't comment. Do not let that happen. Comment and pressure your friends to comment. Commenting and showing up is paramount in the longer-term effort we have in front of us.

 

[SAJ-99]

Under no circumstances should the 900 archery tag units go to General. Here is why.

In the past, these went from limited entry with no cap to limited entry with a cap. In both instances we knew demand, both resident and non-resident demand, based on the number of applicants. That usually could give a good indicator in trends of crowding.

If these go to general tag, we will have zero data as to how many people are actually hunting those units during those seasons. That is what some want, so if we again see a huge crowding problem (which we will), there will not be any data to support such claims.

There won't be crowding on private, so they have no incentive to have a tag structure that allows for a tracking mechanism such as a limited entry, even with no cap. But on public, where the crowding will again be extreme, at the least, hunters should want to know the level of demand for a certain hunt type in a certain unit. A general tag situation is being pushed as the solution so we lose all tracking and ability to demonstrate the crowding and demand.

If we do get this rammed down our throats, and those in the political side tell me that is what is going to happen, these tags should be like it was before, your first and only choice. And, it should require you to hunt only that unit for that season type as your elk tag. It will cause people to really think about applying there, hopefully giving more predictability as to the level of pressure that will be expressed over time. It will also give better data as to where hunting is taking place by forcing those successful applicants to hunt where they are applying and for the season type they are applying for.

Reality is, we will likely get this forced upon us. If so, we need FWP to own every part of it, right down to how they structure the season types between General and Limited Entry, restrictions, tracking of applicant demand, etc.

We need to oppose every bad idea in those packages, no matter what the political powers tell us is coming. The Department said they wanted suggestions, even though they tossed out their own terrible suggestions that the Commission scrapped in favor of another bad proposal. The current proposal was not suggested in any hunter comments I heard, yet here we are. Thus, this is another FWP proposal that they need to own to show that they are not taking public comment seriously.

Tons of good comments were provided by many people and groups. FWP, to this point, is ignoring those comments in spite of their claim that they "Want good ideas, not just opposition."

OK FWP, you got a ton of ideas, why are we being spoon fed another of your bad proposals that was cooked up among a few well-connected groups the night of your working session and dropped on us the next morning without consideration of any of the many comments you were provided before this new proposal? People put a lot of time and thought into providing you comments as requested, yet you go it alone with a proposal that is counter to what your biologists have previously stated and against the interest of those you asked to provide better ideas.

As frustrating as it may seem, those vested in the outcome to give unlimited bull tags to the folks who have largely created this problem, are hoping we give up and we don't comment. Do not let that happen. Comment and pressure your friends to comment. Commenting and showing up is paramount in the longer-term effort we have in front of us.

The reality is Montanans are backed into a corner where all they can do is oppose. Then get labeled as opposing and not bringing ideas to the table, making it more likely that public comments will be ignored. Nothing gets solved in that loop until those in charge have the power to cram it down your throat.

Interesting that 900 is a bow tag but changing units to general makes them unlimited rifle too. I guess Wilks don't bow hunt? Still think the best approach is agree to making it general if its for cows only across the entire zone. That should kill it on the other side. Either way, hunters just need a solution to consolidate around to change the narrative.

 

[sacountry]

A couple region three as well as a region four public comment regional meetings start tonight.

Attend if ya can. The speed with which all this is being implemented, particularly over the holiday season, is hard not to perceive as an attempt to catch hunters flat-footed. We’ve got to keep the heat on. There are essentially only three weeks left to comment.

Public Comment Opportunities | Montana FWP

Fish, Wildlife & Parks offers various opportunities for the public to comment on issues, rules, grants, environmental assessments, land acquisition, development or enhancement projects, council recommendations, hunting and fishing regulations, etc. that FWP manages.

fwp.mt.gov

Thanks for the heads up. Frustrated that Region 1 can't put a live meeting in Kalispell. Looks like it'll be a Zoomfest on January 3