MT FWP Tentative Season setting meetings

[BuzzH]

The advanced technology we all use and desire has contributed immensely to the decline in quality big game populations, just think back to what was available if you’re old enough, to even as recently a time as the 70’s and 80’s. Just “log in” and you have information at your fingertips that old bastards like me never had, all which means more hunters in the field, better equipped, never having to wonder what the hell is over the next ridge or beyond the next canyon because google earth solved that dilemma. It is what it is, can’t uninvent technology, and none of this is an excuse for not changing management to meet the current conditions, just a reminder IMO that we all contributed somewhat to where were at..

Sure, lots of things have change and lots of things contribute(d) to where we're at...yet, if everyone knows that, why hasn't anything changed in regard to season structure since 1954? The human population in Montana has nearly doubled since then...same season structure. Better binoculars, better rifles, better bullets, better spotting scopes, better rifle scopes, more access to data, more access via roads, hardly anyone DOESNT have a 4 wheel drive, ATV's, motorcycles, snowmobiles...all better. Cell phones and cell coverage everywhere, "Hey, get your ass down here, there's elk all over". Highways and freeways that you can drive 80+ mph on...and vehicles to do it. Better clothing, better tents, lighter equipment, better backpacks. Trail cameras, google earth, aerial photos, GPS's, GPS chips, county GIS maps on-line. Leasing gone wild, more predators...and on and on and on.

Yet, as the hunting world evolved, the MTFWP stayed in 1954...I take no blame for that. That's all on the Department, adapt or die.

 

[onpoint]

why hasn't anything changed in regard to season structure since 1954? The human population in Montana has nearly doubled since then...same season structure.

Season Structure (elk, ex...) has changed since then. Shoulder seasons??? Which illustrate the point of trying to please everyone. When originally floated as an idea to the public - not real popular.
Then flying directly in the face of that unpopularity - once they began, folks seem to genuinely love 'em. As mdunc stated in an earlier post in this thread. How do you reconcile and make sense of something that is opposed to in theory but popular in reality?? Not real hard to figure out the answer to that one.................
Also, related is tjones' reply about the opinions of the vast majority of MT hunters who aren't "on" this forum.

Quit bitchin' from across the border and move "home", start a movement. Your home state could use some help......seriously

 

[JLS]

I have been watching this discussion and have no disagreement that changes would have benefits. I also miss, say, 1991..............
However, unless I missed this, just a couple of factors for instance....
Montana's population has grown from about 787,000 (1980) to 1,043,000 (2016), a 32.5% increase. How many of those are like me - outdoorsmen/women who moved here to capitalize on what is/was here? What effects have this increase in users brought to the resource? What changes can be implemented to please the largest number of folks (resident hunters, ranchers, farmers, non consumptive users - yup, they matter too, non resident hunters, etc) while benefiting the resource?
Also since, 1980 - Montana land use and the type of ownership of large tracts of land has changed dramatically. Along with that change in ownership types has come a massive change (as compared to 40 years ago) in the general public's ability to access private lands.
It's gonna take a very large amount of coordinated and organized grass roots work to orchestrate change that'll satisfy the majority of the wide range of stakeholders in this one...........

Solid points all the way around.

 

[u1299]

Sure, lots of things have change and lots of things contribute(d) to where we're at...yet, if everyone knows that, why hasn't anything changed in regard to season structure since 1954? The human population in Montana has nearly doubled since then...same season structure. Better binoculars, better rifles, better bullets, better spotting scopes, better rifle scopes, more access to data, more access via roads, hardly anyone DOESNT have a 4 wheel drive, ATV's, motorcycles, snowmobiles...all better. Cell phones and cell coverage everywhere, "Hey, get your ass down here, there's elk all over". Highways and freeways that you can drive 80+ mph on...and vehicles to do it. Better clothing, better tents, lighter equipment, better backpacks. Trail cameras, google earth, aerial photos, GPS's, GPS chips, county GIS maps on-line. Leasing gone wild, more predators...and on and on and on.

Yet, as the hunting world evolved, the MTFWP stayed in 1954...I take no blame for that. That's all on the Department, adapt or die.

I don’t disagree

 

[8andcounting]

I think the season lengths are fine . In my opinion they need to cut the b tags for both deer and elk . As far as gen tags things are fine , montana is a opportunistic state as far as hunting . Some of you want it to be a trophy state. That's not going to happen .

 

[belly-deep]

I think the season lengths are fine . In my opinion they need to cut the b tags for both deer and elk . As far as gen tags things are fine , montana is a opportunistic state as far as hunting . Some of you want it to be a trophy state. That's not going to happen .

I like an "opportunity" style management better than, say, Nevada.

But when there is so much "opportunity" that it decimates your age structures, male/female ratios, and overall big game populations, then its time to cut things back a bit.

 

[antlerradar]

I don't want to see Nevada style manage management but that is where we are going on public land if we continue the trend of the last 30 years. I could easily see a situation in which FWP manages public land with very limited permits and landowners manage game on private land. Or it could evolve in to a free for all where public land hunters hug the private boundaries in hopes of getting a buck that strays across the fence

 

[antlerradar]

I think there are advantages to the way WY works. Shorter seasons for at different dates across the state. This approach takes into account that not all parts of the state are the same. A big advantage would be that you could hold the season when the maximum number of you target animal is on public land. I have always found it idiotic that the season is so late that game has left the mountains for winter range that is often private or that includes the rut in Eastern Mt so I can hunt bucks that travel down to hay fields to rut with the large herds of does on the private. The current season may have worked well in the 70's when there was good access to that private land.
In Montana we have spent large amounts of money and time trying to keep access. There have been some successes but for the most of the state it has been one step forward and two or three back. By changing the season we could in a way move the game to where we have access instead hoping to get access to where the game is during the season.

 

[bigsky2]

Back in the 80's and 90's I could find several deer twenty inches better every year. The trend is not in the right direction.
A 165 buck is a nice buck but it could also be a three year old with good genetics.

Agreed, a 165 buck is a nice buck for sure, but there's no reason why MT shouldn't be able to produce bigger bucks. I don't think we should "settle" for that, because settling will just be more of the same of what we have now. The sad thing is most of our biologists haven't been around long enough to know what Montana is capable of. I know a biologist that flew an area and counted 4 deer per square mile. She said that was "pretty good for that type of habitat". My dad used to hunt that area 30 years ago and he says there were way more deer back then.

 

[huntin24/7]

I don't think anyone here is advocating to turn Montana into Utah, Nevada, or arizona, but its hard to argue that some change is necessary. Also, in regards to montana being an opportunity state, I think rifle hunting bucks for 3 weeks instead of 5 or catching a week of the rut instead of 4 weeks of it is still a lot of opportunity. Yeah, if you hunt hard, you can still kill a respectable buck every year. I've killed or passed on respectable 3+ year old bucks every year that I've lived here. That doesn't mean age structure and herd health is good. We don't have to go to the extreme of some other states, but we should be able to compromise some to improve the deer and elk herds.

 

[Brian in Montana]

I'm probably in the minority here, but I don't think the regs need much change. I like the brow-tine rule for bulls, but beyond that I'm just not in favor of regs that limit opportunities for a guy that's willing to put some miles under his boots and go find elk. I was leery of the mule deer buck permit system where you basically have to commit yourself to an HD, but I'm actually starting to see a few more bucks in the past couple years. The only real thing I wouldn't mind getting rid of are the early shoulder seasons, but that is mostly because I just believe early season should be for bow hunters.

 

[antlerradar]

I have also thought that a structure similar to Colorado would work. Say a general season starting the first part of Oct and running up to MEA, a four day youth season during MEA and the weekend and then two more limited draw seasons of about two weeks in length with about 20% of tags for the first and 10% for the second.

 

[8andcounting]

So wasn't the rifle season over the rut when numbers were at there highest ? I say just cut out a lot of the b tags especially on public . But leave seasons alone . Things will improve with a little luck / good winters

 

[tjones]

I'm probably in the minority here, but I don't think the regs need much change. I like the brow-tine rule for bulls, but beyond that I'm just not in favor of regs that limit opportunities for a guy that's willing to put some miles under his boots and go find elk.

If you look at flight data in a lot of units this regulation is what is causing the problems. Low BTB numbers and high cow numbers. Single digit bull/100 cow ratios. That leads to B’s and shoulder seasons.

 

[Gerald Martin]

Cutting B's isn't going to happen while units are still "over objective". Shortening seasons isn't going to happen until we as hunters demand it. Face it. At this point the squeaky wheel gets the grease and for the most part, our lobby is not the squeaky wheel.

 

[BuzzH]

Cutting B's isn't going to happen while units are still "over objective". Shortening seasons isn't going to happen until we as hunters demand it. Face it. At this point the squeaky wheel gets the grease and for the most part, our lobby is not the squeaky wheel.

What about all the areas that are at or under objective that still are issuing B tags and allowing shoulder seasons to happen?

Everything the FWP does, has a convenient excuse to kill more wildlife.

 

[Eric Albus]

Gerald, you are correct. It ain't gonna happen until hunters demand it. "It" may have to get worse, I see there are still a few here who don't want change, perhaps they are Dept. shills, but none the less they are here voicing opinion.

8andcounting....you can rely on "luck" to manage your wildlife, I would much rather rely on BIOLOGY. If I relied on "luck" to manage what I have been blessed with to hunt my landowners would boot me out.

We(hunters) who are passionate about our resource need to make our voices heard and demand management of "our wildlife". I have a very soft spot for mule deer, I can not stand coming home to Reg. 6 the last 2 weeks and watch the slaughter. I had the misfortune of being home the last 7-8 days of season, for the first time in 7 years.(had some hunters fail to draw, and some that had to cancel their hunt w/ me in Reg. 7). I was appalled at the number of out of state, and out of county pickups I saw. I was even more appalled at the number of antlerless deer and 2x2 bucks piled up in the back of pickups, and on trailers....

It is counter productive for me business wise to want to put any restriction on hunting. It will hit me square in the pocket book to shorten, permit, or otherwise mess with the seasons we have now. Management should not be done socially, or monetarily.

 

[onpoint]

I see there are still a few here who don't want change, perhaps they are Dept. shills, but none the less they are here voicing opinion.

I am in the change camp.
That being said, a couple guys voice the opinion that things are OK the way they are (which outside of people who engage on here, an opinion that may be more prevalent than not - no way of knowing without actually hearing those missing opinions) and they may be "department shills" - nice Eric. An effective tactic to stay insulated in one's own world............

 

[tjones]

To bad other outfitters don’t feel like you Eric. One only has to look back when FWP wanted to change bull seasons in HD313. The outfitters over there had a come apart even though the science shows it needs to happen.

 

[8andcounting]

Like I said some if not all b tags need to go but season lengths are fine . I do think the shoulder seasons need to go too . All the region 7 mule b tags are ridiculous ..... shouldn't be any