Never Ending Challenge of Access

[Forkyfinder]

I’ll dig around and find it. I can’t remember if it was the USSC or Ninth Circuit. I sat in a room with then FWP director Jeff Hagener discussing the implications of it.

It wasn’t about federalizing wildlife. It was in reference to interstate commerce and the commerce clause of the USC, and if restrictions on NR licenses/tags violated the commerce clause.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/109th-congress/house-bill/1268

I'd also add - congress passed law to make it abundantly clear in 2005 based on what was happening with USO, I assume.

"(Sec. 6036) Reaffirmation of State Regulation of Resident and Nonresident Hunting and Fishing Act of 2005 - Expresses the policy of Congress that it is in the public interest for each State to continue regulating the taking for any purpose of fish and wildlife. Prohibits congressional silence from being construed as imposing a barrier under Section 8 of Article I of the Constitution (commonly referred to as the commerce clause) to such regulation by a State or Indian tribe."

 

[TheJason]

https://www.congress.gov/bill/109th-congress/house-bill/1268

I'd also add - congress passed law to make it abundantly clear in 2005 based on what was happening with USO, I assume.

"(Sec. 6036) Reaffirmation of State Regulation of Resident and Nonresident Hunting and Fishing Act of 2005 - Expresses the policy of Congress that it is in the public interest for each State to continue regulating the taking for any purpose of fish and wildlife. Prohibits congressional silence from being construed as imposing a barrier under Section 8 of Article I of the Constitution (commonly referred to as the commerce clause) to such regulation by a State or Indian tribe."

Yes, this was passed in response to the USO lawsuits.

 

[Nick87]

Thankfully, it is still illegal to pay for access,

All of a sudden I love Canada.

 

[Forkyfinder]

All of a sudden I love Canada.

Make a great 51st state

 

[Treeshark]

All of a sudden I love Canada.

For sure- I wasn’t aware of that either.

Saskatchewan is definitely on my radar now- it sounds like a paradise for DIY NRs!

 

[Nick87]

For sure- I wasn’t aware of that either.

Saskatchewan is definitely on my radar now- it sounds like a paradise for DIY NRs!

Good for the folks that live there. Which is nice to see for a change. I don't know if they have landowner tags for you or not though.

 

[Treeshark]

Not sure either. I believe they require an outfitter for all NRs, don’t they?

 

[jmcd]

After reflecting on this year, hunting public, private, and block, my thoughts are that Montana continues its downward spiral.
Quality of animals continues to get worse, number of animals gets worse, and amazingly, the number of idiots afield seems to double every few years.

I do think something has to be done with NR tags. In the public elk areas I hunted, I was a minority as a MT resident. By a significant factor….. 2 different areas. Felt like I was in the Midwest based on license plates. If half of these dudes were cut out, it wouldve still been too crowded. Cut NR tags and raise res prices.
I think too, just making hunters stick to a district/area would help immensely. Not just with game #s but landowners might stop getting overrun as much.

Our F&G and system of commission and their powers needs gutted. Never in my life have I seen such a blatant need for changes….. mule deer mgmt, block management overhaul, enforcement, etc.
Every commonsense, well meant attempt at change is met with a brick wall of apathy, pig-headed stupidity, and we-ain’t-never-done-that-beforeitis. I feel like our own biggest enemy for decent hunting in MT is, at times, MTFWP.
Even with all this problem, MT is still going to see more crowds and piss pounding pressure. Expect existing access to decrease. Good luck with any meaningful new access of any quality.
If it can be f@cked up, no one can do it better than MtFWP.

 

[Nick87]

Not sure either. I believe they require an outfitter for all NRs, don’t they?

I believe so

 

[cgasner1]

All of a sudden I love Canada.

That’s probably why it went on so long with if it wasn’t posted you could hunt it. No money to be made so the land owners didn’t care.

 

[Nick87]

That’s probably why it went on so long with if it wasn’t posted you could hunt it. No money to be made so the land owners didn’t care.

Something tells me regardless there's cash under the table somewhere.

 

[TheJason]

Something tells me regardless there's cash under the table somewhere.

Haha no way.

 

[SaskHunter]

How about we get access to our land first before trying to buy more somewhere?

The Canadian Dominion Land Survey fixed this problem for us. Every township surveyed this way has road allowances ensuring access through private land, to public.

For sure- I wasn’t aware of that either.

Saskatchewan is definitely on my radar now- it sounds like a paradise for DIY NRs!

Saskatchewan is great to its residents. We manage our herds pretty well for the most part and opportunities to residents are plentiful. For big game, NRs must use an outfitter, which I absolutely disagree with. I hate outfitter monopolies and welfare. Canadian NRs can hunt bear and apply to the whitetail draw (which gives priority to direct family), but that's pretty much it.

 

[SaskHunter]

Something tells me regardless there's cash under the table somewhere.

For sure that happens. Guys lease "hunting cabins" with exclusive access or stuff is completely under the table. But overall, I've NEVER had a Saskatchewan landowner bring up money or gifts for access.

I did get one landowner ask me to shoot every antelope I see on his land. I told him I couldn't do that, but I'd be happy to shoot one.

 

[SAJ-99]

Washington has an online system that allows hunters to sign up for dates to hunt. The positive is it helps reduce the chance of 15 people hunting the same spot on a weekend. The negative is it typically means there is constant pressure on a spot. Ie. two people every day for the whole season with little let up. The properties tend to be smaller than in MT, so you need to be lucky in timing. And for some is it reduces the ability to road hunt. Overall, it's not better or worse, just different.

 

[Elktrack]

Washington has an online system that allows hunters to sign up for dates to hunt. The positive is it helps reduce the chance of 15 people hunting the same spot on a weekend. The negative is it typically means there is constant pressure on a spot. Ie. two people every day for the whole season with little let up. The properties tend to be smaller than in MT, so you need to be lucky in timing. And for some is it reduces the ability to road hunt. Overall, it's not better or worse, just different.

MT has the same thing. Some BMA’s are very restrictive and actually difficult to get access to unless you’re lucky enough to get a spot on the list. It seems that the majority of the BMA having issues are the sign in and hunt type which is basically a free for all. It’s a bummer when you want to hunt a BMA that gets “booked “ right away. If I were a landowner with property enrolled in the program I’d definitely want it to be a limited number vs. the sign in and go.

 

[mtmuley]

MT has the same thing. Some BMA’s are very restrictive and actually difficult to get access to unless you’re lucky enough to get a spot on the list. It seems that the majority of the BMA having issues are the sign in and hunt type which is basically a free for all. It’s a bummer when you want to hunt a BMA that gets “booked “ right away. If I were a landowner with property enrolled in the program I’d definitely want it to be a limited number vs. the sign in and go.

Booked right away. Of course. mtmuley

 

[The Hedgehog]

Booked right away, friends and family only, or in the case of another I know of, only members of a certain local church get reservations. Good use of hunter dollars.

 

[SAJ-99]

MT has the same thing. Some BMA’s are very restrictive and actually difficult to get access to unless you’re lucky enough to get a spot on the list. It seems that the majority of the BMA having issues are the sign in and hunt type which is basically a free for all. It’s a bummer when you want to hunt a BMA that gets “booked “ right away. If I were a landowner with property enrolled in the program I’d definitely want it to be a limited number vs. the sign in and go.

I understand how the BMA program works. There are other differences in the WA system, but mostly the fact it is online is the most important. It allows some limitations in when and what people can sign up for. I’m not sure how Montanan addresses the problem that landowners want type II but most hunters want type I. The other conundrum is that type 2 limits pressure, which hunters want, but also limits the payout a landowner can receive when it is on a per hunter basis like type 1.