Bowmannate2000
Well-known member
Probably what some are wishing for.
SE Montana Elk Changes
- Thread starter Roadgoat
- Start date
The new elk plan calls for making a unit general if it is over objective for three straight years. Hopefully a lot of people objected to that when making their comments on the new EMP. I know a lot of the objective numbers are hopefully going to be increased, but I know of one district that will be considered over objective even with the new proposed objective number.
If they are concerned about over objective populations, two options would be a private land tag non-transferable tag for bulls or open up private lands to public hunters for cow elk. They can’t have it both ways. They have a quota of 500 elk for over 6500 sq/miles not including Bighorn County. Range conditions are probably better than ever with the previous wildfires and roughly 3 months of limited cattle grazing. Like everyone knows there is no security habitat available. I wouldn’t be surprised if there are not more than 500 elk in the scattered pockets east of Custer Forest.
Secondly, I spoke with the commissioner coordinator this morning and this proposal is not on the speaking agenda for Oct or Nov
Secondly, I spoke with the commissioner coordinator this morning and this proposal is not on the speaking agenda for Oct or Nov
Last edited:
You can’t really force private lands to open it up to the public tho. I’d imagine most would use it as a money making opportunity if more elk numbers did get pushed to private lands.
Just an outsiders view. I’ve Hunted region 7 a few times if that helps
. Just curious on the private land non transferable comment, is that just so it’s not sold? To reduce people trying to make a buck?
Basically would let a rancher (direct owner) hunt elk without having to wait 5 to 10 years or whatever the odds are for the landowner license. And yes not letting them sell it, like in Colorado and Utah. With the Block Management increased payments going forward would potentially open up private lands that have been controlled by a few outfitters (Mitchell Outfitters for example) and nothing personal against outfitters working private land.You can’t really force private lands to open it up to the public tho. I’d imagine most would use it as a money making opportunity if more elk numbers did get pushed to private lands.
Just an outsiders view. I’ve Hunted region 7 a few times if that helps
Just curious on the private land non transferable comment, is that just so it’s not sold? To reduce people trying to make a buck?
I’m a newcomer to Montana so I don’t know all the ends and out, but started hunting here in 95 as a nonresident and became a resident in 2013, and have worked/hunted in other western states. And with the agriculture in Montana our big game herds could be amazing with just 3-5 years of restrictive hunting and better management. Neither NV, CO, WY, or UT has the availability of good grasses/abundant forage throughout a large portion of the year like we do. The FWP seems very reckless in their approach to managing a renewable resource.
Last edited:
Ahh I see you mean still leave it a draw system and just allow landowners some bull tags to help lower the population without changing the tag to a general.
I do like the block management system seems to help open some land for sure.
The Hedgehog
Well-known member
The guys pushing this kind of crap have ZERO interest about reducing elk numbers anywhere and could give a pfhuck about any elk that could be on public land or any hunters that do.
Agree, it’s not a tag problem, but an access and season structure problem. They can issue 10k tags and still have an over-objective problem.. it doesn’t take 11 weeks to kill an elk.
cgasner1
Well-known member
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2016
- Messages
- 2,974
Landowner tags are about a 50/50 draw for them from the couple that I speak to so them drawing a tag isn’t a 10 year wait like it would be for most of us. If the elk are still over objective after the numbers are updated then the tag numbers need to be updated to get them down making it a general is ridiculous. Especially without trying to up tag numbers first we can have a uniting that’s somewhere between a 15 year draw and a general that would be ok. I also wouldn’t be opposed to seeing some either sex tags that would be issued that read outside of national forest. With that you could hunt private blm or state ground. So this doesn’t turn into just a tag for ranchers. Biggest bull I’ve ever killed I watched feed off a ranch onto public and killed it on a piece of state a tag like that would be valid for this type of hunting if a guy chose and spread some pressure out so the national isn’t getting as pounded
I will wait to hear it from the horses mouth which I haven’t. Southeast Montana can NOT saturate any more hunters no matter what they are hunting for. If there are accessible elk, deer, antelope, or birds they are being hunted every day and pushed right on to private. This certainly wasnt on the table at the first season setting meeting. If there is any truth to this at all it’s coming straight from Helena. Tags need to be cut not increased any way you slice it. Two moose tags and unlimited mule deer hunting I’m confident will happen.
