MT proposed season changes

[----]

I'm fine with that, as I still believe that those that work the hardest should be rewarded the most, and I like the long seasons in Montana.

Are you fine with it? That's an awful long-winded agreement.
I can't argue one bit about MT shooting itself in the foot with our long seasons. Also gotta admit I'd rather hunt for three months every season and shoot a raghorn, than hunt every couple years for a mature bull. That could change as I kill more though.

I want to add on to mine, That I have no problem with Non residents knowing in spring what they drew, but that my problem is knowing so much longer than residents. I don't like it due to the fact they would get to scout the area that much longer. Brendan Burns pointed out at our meeting that they'd have all the good leases taken up by the time residents drew.
If they're going to move one up, do both.

I also can't believe nothing was included in the changes for mountain lion permit increases. Especially when they start the night off by showing how the increasing lion numbers have perfectly coincided with the decreasing deer numbers.

 

[BuzzH]

Randy,

I have no problem with long seasons in Montana...I'm a big fan in fact. But, I do realize and accept the consequences of that. Most dont...they whine.

Funny that Burns would be worried about all the good leases being gone, you have to be kidding right?

As to the lion issue...I bet I know who put that presentation together. Funny how wolves take the blame for lions in region 2.

 

[tjones]

You can thank the president of The Bitterroot Houndmen for the low permits on lions. It is basically a very small group that pushed this through, and their president does not hunt!

 

[BuzzH]

tjones,

Well aware of that...lions and lion hunters who are in the vast minority are taking precedence over deer/elk and deer/elk hunters who are in the majority.

Funny how the FWP commission folds like a cheap paper back to such a small, but vocal group. On the plus side if you draw a tag for a lion in region 2, you shouldnt have any trouble treeing several a day...with ease. I could have shot lions on back-to-back days this year while hunting in MT. Would have been cool to use my dead six point bull as a shooting rest to smoke a nice lion.

Management of MT's big-game is 100% political.

 

[mtmiller]

randy,

funny that burns would be worried about all the good leases being gone, you have to be kidding right?

:d:d:d:d:d

 

[tjones]

Buzz I am with you on the early opener for kids. Just last year FWP elimitated the OTC extra whitetail doe tag, due to declining dee numbers, this year more opportunity for youths. With declining deer numbers we sure don't need more season.

 

[Lawnboy]

Just got back from the meeting. Sat with Greenhorn and Crittergitter. I had to leave at 8:30 and it seemed they had only covered a 1/3 of the items in that time. I'll let them fill you in on any details. Pretty uneventfull (it was my first) I knew that it wasn't a real barn burner when Greenhorn leaned over and said he needed to go home and vacuum.

The best quote of the night came from Kurt Alt in regards to some management question"It was strictly a social decision not biological"

 

[The Hedgehog]

I was going to comment about how the 12-16 year old kids didn't need extra special treatment and how the MT deer take enough punishment by rifles every year, but then for purely selfish reasons.. changed my mind at the last minute. I'll be enjoying that social decision through 2021.

Gotta give kudos to the MBA rep who was there providing very good comments.

I had to leave.. couldn't take it any longer.

 

[Big Fin]

I missed this meeting. Had other commitments, so I guess I will have to give my comments via email. Thanks for going guys.

 

[shoots-straight]

Just curious, is everyone down there pretty well in support of making the west side limited entry for mule deer?

The proposal's not for the entire west side, or area 240, it's for limiting antlered buck harvest in 250 or the West Fork. I flew with the F&G the other day counting deer and buck to doe ratio's there. We counted 208 Deer on the East Fork side of 250's winter range. Only 3 bucks. 2 yearlings and 1 3 x 3. That whole area is in dire straights. around 1000 unlimited tags have been issued each year there. We did see good numbers of fawns as a bright spot. I think anyone that knows what's going on with that unit will be in favor of a reduction.

As for the A-9 tag replacing cow permits, it would be a limited number. So you would have less hunters in those districts. I feel it would save a few bulls. Is it right? I don't know. It does take opportunity away from people. Bull kill is directly linked to the amount of hunters hunting in each district I feel. That's why I've always opposed either-sex season's.But that's a whole other topic.

 

[Lawnboy]

Jesse Nelson was the MBA rep and Greenhorn is right he did speak his piece and had facts and numbers to support most of his comments. Meaning that he wasn't just spouting off without some facts. Love him or hate him he said what he thought he needed too. Hats off to him for being heard.

 

[shoots-straight]

How do you fellas feel about letting NR that have family here, buy R tags. That free's up more NR tags. Do we need more hunters getting more opportunity right now? Considering that many area's of the state are at or below objective levels.

 

[The Hedgehog]

Ha. I'd say no. But did you know that there's a mechanism in place that allows some residents to "give" free sportsman's licenses to NR family members? They don't even have to buy them.. free! I'm guiding such a person next fall - a TEXAS resident.

 

[The Hedgehog]

and yes.. it's totally legal.

 

[belly-deep]

Where did you guys see that they are thinking about making everything west of the divide draw for mule deer? I couldn't find that anywhere.

 

[tjones]

Its not west of the divide, its the West Fork of the Bitterroot HD250. It is unlimited permits for mule deer bucks now, the proposal is to go to some number of limited permits. FWP is proposing 400, but after the helicopter count from last week showin 1 1/2 bucks per 100 does in the survey area I would hope public comment would whittle that number down.

 

[belly-deep]

I just submitted my comments since I'll be working when they hold the Region 1 commentary.

I crunched a few numbers and there is something you guys need to know. That insanely stupid idea of drawing early for the non-residents is going to seriously screw with some draw odds.

As I understand it works now, non-residents are allowed up to 10% of the LE tags. And so drawing early would guarantee them 10% of the LE tags every year.

What does that do? Well for one thing, it leaves less tags available for residents to draw because in theory, residents could draw 100% of the LE tags in particular unit in a particular year.

Another thing it does is give non-residents better draw odds in some unit than the residents have.

Take 261-50 for example. Currently, the draw odds sit at 4% across the board. But if you gave the non-residents 2 guaranteed tags every year, the 40 non-residents that applied in 2008 would have had a 5% chance of drawing. Residents on the other hand, would have seen a cut in draw odds down to 3.5%.

Fight this thing, it does nothing for us and everything for the outfitters.

 

[----]

As for the A-9 tag replacing cow permits, it would be a limited number. So you would have less hunters in those districts. I feel it would save a few bulls. Is it right? I don't know. It does take opportunity away from people. Bull kill is directly linked to the amount of hunters hunting in each district I feel. That's why I've always opposed either-sex season's.But that's a whole other topic.

The way it was explained by Thompson on Tuesday was that they would use the same numbers. So say they give out 200 either sex permits for area 222 now, with this change, they would now give out 200 A9 licenses. So two hundred guys could legally tag both a cow and a bull in district 222. Having those guys still be able to be out there and pounding the hills after their bull can't help bull numbers. I hear what you're saying, but don't agree that this doesn't hurt any.

 

[shoots-straight]

The way it was explained by Thompson on Tuesday was that they would use the same numbers. So say they give out 200 either sex permits for area 222 now, with this change, they would now give out 200 A9 licenses. So two hundred guys could legally tag both a cow and a bull in district 222. Having those guys still be able to be out there and pounding the hills after their bull can't help bull numbers. I hear what you're saying, but don't agree that this doesn't hurt any.

I'll try to explain my reasoning. If hunters get into a herd of elk, the first to die are the bulls. So X number of bulls are going down any way. 90% of the elk are killed by 10% of the hunting population every year. They are going to kill a bull anyway. If you put the cow tag in some of these guys hands, they might not kill a rag horn the last week if a cow is in the freezer. I know if I had a cow tag I'd look for a shooter bull and try and shoot a cow that I could get out whole. I might not shoot a bull unless it was a good one. Regardless they'll be less hunters out and about. This means less bulls. Now you might get a higher percent of cows killed. So this will be adjusted by the permits issued. Down here the number is going to be so low it won't really matter.

 

[----]

I'll try to explain my reasoning. If hunters get into a herd of elk, the first to die are the bulls. So X number of bulls are going down any way. 90% of the elk are killed by 10% of the hunting population every year. They are going to kill a bull anyway. If you put the cow tag in some of these guys hands, they might not kill a rag horn the last week if a cow is in the freezer. I know if I had a cow tag I'd look for a shooter bull and try and shoot a cow that I could get out whole. I might not shoot a bull unless it was a good one. Regardless they'll be less hunters out and about. This means less bulls. Now you might get a higher percent of cows killed. So this will be adjusted by the permits issued. Down here the number is going to be so low it won't really matter.

Yeah, you're probably right I guess. The thinking I had was that the way it's set up now, the cow tags work for getting some of those guys out of the woods by filling their tags early. I think your scenario's probably just as likely though.
It just feels to me like, especially with the numbers so low, once you kill an elk, you should be done.

I am curious though, how do you figure there'd be less hunters out because of this? It's still the same amount of cow tags, and still open for bulls, so I'm not following this.

My units are all but completely done with cow tags also, so it really won't make a difference either way I guess.