sweetnectar
New member
I vote for Lawnboy. Stop mowing and start directing. Actually I don't vote for that curse on anyone at this point.
Selecting a MT. FWP Director
- Thread starter howler
- Start date
Lawnboy
Well-known member
BuzzH
Well-known member
I'll throw the names out there that I have heard about...I aint scared.
Mack Long (R2 Supervisor), Gary Hammond (R5 Supervisor) and Kendall Vandyke (Democratic legislator).
At least 2 of the 3 have biology backgrounds and are leaders in conservation. Dont know how that can lead to quotes like this " but suffice it to say that if both sides of the issues at hand are going to come together and find some common ground these guys rumored to be in the running will not be a help."
Unless you mean that hunters are supposed to bow down to outfitters, landowners, and a corrupt republican state legislature to "come together".
I dont see a "coming together" between the above groups and average hunters, no matter who the FWP Director is...perhaps more of a "coming to Jesus".
Just sayin'...
Also, of the candidates above, I'd rank them Mack Long, Gary Hammond, and Kendall Vandyke...in that order. But, I suggest that all Montana hunters research what each has done for wildlife conservation/biology, average hunters, etc. I'd also consider how the great republican leadership in the legislature will react toward who is appointed, they've a track record of throwing their suckers in the dirt, stomping their feet, and holding their breath when they dont get their way. Even more-so when us average guys bombard them with facts...something they seem to lack, along with the first fuggin' clue about anything to do with wildlife. Montana needs a director that can "handle" the legislature and their buddies in the outfitter and landowner lobby.
Mack Long (R2 Supervisor), Gary Hammond (R5 Supervisor) and Kendall Vandyke (Democratic legislator).
At least 2 of the 3 have biology backgrounds and are leaders in conservation. Dont know how that can lead to quotes like this " but suffice it to say that if both sides of the issues at hand are going to come together and find some common ground these guys rumored to be in the running will not be a help."
Unless you mean that hunters are supposed to bow down to outfitters, landowners, and a corrupt republican state legislature to "come together".
I dont see a "coming together" between the above groups and average hunters, no matter who the FWP Director is...perhaps more of a "coming to Jesus".
Just sayin'...
Also, of the candidates above, I'd rank them Mack Long, Gary Hammond, and Kendall Vandyke...in that order. But, I suggest that all Montana hunters research what each has done for wildlife conservation/biology, average hunters, etc. I'd also consider how the great republican leadership in the legislature will react toward who is appointed, they've a track record of throwing their suckers in the dirt, stomping their feet, and holding their breath when they dont get their way. Even more-so when us average guys bombard them with facts...something they seem to lack, along with the first fuggin' clue about anything to do with wildlife. Montana needs a director that can "handle" the legislature and their buddies in the outfitter and landowner lobby.
Last edited:
The rumor mill is a funny thing. When people were talking about whom Hill would appoint, the name that continued to rise to the top was Senator John Brenden. Then it was Bob Fanning. Both of whom would have been a poor choice. But they were unsubstantiated rumors, and I doubt any truth was behind them.
I agree with this. The legislature has been the largest negative political influence, at the behest of one side of the equation. When an elected body decides that they should be setting seasons, management objectives and population objectives for pet issues, we've entered into a realm of political management over biology. The financial bind for Block was created by the Legislature when they forgot to re-allocate funds from the returned, split NR combo tag (HB 602). That caused a serious shortfall in funding for Block Management.
We almost lost the ability to hunt wolves because of the legislature and their bills that would have negated the wolf management plan. If we're not careful, we'll lose the ability to hunt Grizzly bears too. We're about 2 years out from a sustainable delisting of Grizz in the GYE and with that means hunts. But in order to achieve that, we still have to follow the law, meaning the Endangered Species Act. If we abandon the course we're on, then we end up in court and never get to hunt the damned things, and never get to manage them.
Deer were a victim of too many B tags for far too long and EHD/Blue Tongue. Over harvest, especially on public land created bad situations in the west while lack of access and exploding populations combined with conditions ripe for an EHD outbreak caused the deer decline in the East. Coincidentally, that die off will create some whopper bucks over the next few years, so long as we can keep folks from shooting a forkie. When 150,000 hunters have the opportunity to shoot 6 does, it doesn't take long to wipe a herd out. Blaming predators is a simple solution that doesn't bear out when we look at all the facts. Elk, of course, are different. In areas with low densities of public land and low densities of public land hunters, elk are thriving. Interestingly enough, places like the Rocky Mountain Front, which is almost all protected public land where elk summer, calve and migrate, elk are far above objective, even in the face of large numbers of toothy critters. Sure predators influence ungulates, as that's how the good lord made the system work. But again, without looking at the entire picture and figuring out how to best manage all components, focusing on killing off predators will just exacerbate the situation.
As for wolves, we've taken very large steps over the last 23 months. From Jon Tester getting wolves delisted and back to state management to a wolf hunting plan that has no limits and an extended season including trapping, I think we're doing okay. Add multiple tags for hunters, E-callers, reduced NR price tags and a few other bells and whistles that have to happen at the legislative level, and I think we end up with a package of tools that work well in controlling wolf numbers. FWP has also loosened the rules on Wildlife Services and has expanded their authority to remove problem animals without a lot of red tape. While that's not enough for many, it's well within the bounds of reasonable movement on the issue.
You say that Bears are not endangered, well, legally, they are. And as a nation of laws, we have to follow ones that are inconvenient and painfully slow moving. We have to follow the law. It's part of the social contract we entered into when we joined the Union. Passing another nullification bill at the Legislature won't change any of that, and would only further set back state management.
Good luck getting predator status for Lions. When Bill Harris tried it, he met a wall of resistance from the Hound Hunters. Funny thing was, I looked down that line of 20 folks against the bill, and you had more flannel and filson than patagonia and north face. Sportsmen of MT want lions to be managed as game animals. It's been effective for both controlling lion populations and creating fantastic hunting opportunity.
Fewer predators do not equal more ungulates. Better habitat management means better game numbers. If the habitat requirements are met, then ungulates can withstand the pressure from both 4 legged and 2 legged predators. Thinking that you can create an utopia of large antlered male critters for all by killing predators ignores decades of biological evidence to the contrary, and it denies a large part of the population their ability to enjoy wildlife. If we're serious about coming together, then we need to ensure that all stakeholders feel enfranchised. If we want to fix the funding issue, then we have to look outside of the traditional funding models and look for help from non-consumptive users.
In order for non-consumptive users to want to pay, they will want to be able to feel like their voice matters.
BuzzH
Well-known member
Ben,
I usually agree with you on about 95% of your take on wildlife...but you're pretty well off the mark here:
Sportsmen of MT want lions to be managed as game animals. It's been effective for both controlling lion populations and creating fantastic hunting opportunity.
Fewer predators do not equal more ungulates. Better habitat management means better game numbers. If the habitat requirements are met, then ungulates can withstand the pressure from both 4 legged and 2 legged predators. Thinking that you can create an utopia of large antlered male critters for all by killing predators ignores decades of biological evidence to the contrary, and it denies a large part of the population their ability to enjoy wildlife.
I would agree that prior to the passing of the "trophy cat" bullshit and severely limited permit numbers, that was a true statement.
I've talked at length with the biologist in the area I've hunted whitetail in since 1979 about the issues facing the whitetail specific to Western Montana and the Blackfoot drainage in particular. He says its a predator issue, and I agree.
Some background data shows that in the 20-25 years prior to the permit only trophy cat "bright idea", there were around 100-110 lions killed in the Blackfoot drainage. The range was 90ish-115 or so on the best years.
Since I also hunted during that entire time frame and kept detailed journals, I can tell you that finding a cat track was not all that common, a few a year. That included my time spent hunting as well as trapping there. Between 1979 and 2004ish I saw a total of 3 lions, including one I killed with a friend who had hounds.
With consistent harvest of 90-110 cats per year, it also seemed to me like lion populations were NOT being negatively impacted. If they were being hunted too hard, you'd of seen harvest DECLINING over time, surely in 20-25 years if you were over-harvesting cats. Yet harvest stayed very consistant.
Now lets talk about the years since the trophy cat "idea" and how thats changed things in the area I hunt. From 2005ish to 2011 I saw 9 cats, filmed 6 of them. Its not uncommon for me to cut multiple cat tracks per day. My brother and I hunted 3 major drainages this year and cut 6 different lion tracks our first day, 5 different tracks the next, and one the last day.
The lion harvest has been reduced to about 10, from about 100. Where multiple b-tags were offered there is now basically none. In 2005 I recall shooting the 21st whitetail buck I'd seen THAT DAY that was a 4-point or better. I also saw 3 lions that day as well. That exact same hunt this year, I saw 12 deer and cut 5 sets of lion tracks. Of those deer, 2 were bucks, 7 were does, and only 3 fawns.
I agree that part of the problem, which I was a part of, was too many b-tags from 2002-2006 or so. But, its been several years since b-tags have been about zero...and the deer arent recovering.
Its not a habitat issue...its a lion issue. Lions dont feed on field mice much and when you reduce lion harvest by 90-100% for nearly a decade...there are impacts to ungulates.
I've seen it, I'm not guessing.
I usually agree with you on about 95% of your take on wildlife...but you're pretty well off the mark here:
Sportsmen of MT want lions to be managed as game animals. It's been effective for both controlling lion populations and creating fantastic hunting opportunity.
Fewer predators do not equal more ungulates. Better habitat management means better game numbers. If the habitat requirements are met, then ungulates can withstand the pressure from both 4 legged and 2 legged predators. Thinking that you can create an utopia of large antlered male critters for all by killing predators ignores decades of biological evidence to the contrary, and it denies a large part of the population their ability to enjoy wildlife.
I would agree that prior to the passing of the "trophy cat" bullshit and severely limited permit numbers, that was a true statement.
I've talked at length with the biologist in the area I've hunted whitetail in since 1979 about the issues facing the whitetail specific to Western Montana and the Blackfoot drainage in particular. He says its a predator issue, and I agree.
Some background data shows that in the 20-25 years prior to the permit only trophy cat "bright idea", there were around 100-110 lions killed in the Blackfoot drainage. The range was 90ish-115 or so on the best years.
Since I also hunted during that entire time frame and kept detailed journals, I can tell you that finding a cat track was not all that common, a few a year. That included my time spent hunting as well as trapping there. Between 1979 and 2004ish I saw a total of 3 lions, including one I killed with a friend who had hounds.
With consistent harvest of 90-110 cats per year, it also seemed to me like lion populations were NOT being negatively impacted. If they were being hunted too hard, you'd of seen harvest DECLINING over time, surely in 20-25 years if you were over-harvesting cats. Yet harvest stayed very consistant.
Now lets talk about the years since the trophy cat "idea" and how thats changed things in the area I hunt. From 2005ish to 2011 I saw 9 cats, filmed 6 of them. Its not uncommon for me to cut multiple cat tracks per day. My brother and I hunted 3 major drainages this year and cut 6 different lion tracks our first day, 5 different tracks the next, and one the last day.
The lion harvest has been reduced to about 10, from about 100. Where multiple b-tags were offered there is now basically none. In 2005 I recall shooting the 21st whitetail buck I'd seen THAT DAY that was a 4-point or better. I also saw 3 lions that day as well. That exact same hunt this year, I saw 12 deer and cut 5 sets of lion tracks. Of those deer, 2 were bucks, 7 were does, and only 3 fawns.
I agree that part of the problem, which I was a part of, was too many b-tags from 2002-2006 or so. But, its been several years since b-tags have been about zero...and the deer arent recovering.
Its not a habitat issue...its a lion issue. Lions dont feed on field mice much and when you reduce lion harvest by 90-100% for nearly a decade...there are impacts to ungulates.
I've seen it, I'm not guessing.
Last edited:
Rat Fink
Member
Right on Buzz. The permit only hunting of cats was a horrible idea. It needs to go back to the way it was before the "trophy" cat hunts to appease the houndsmen.
Buzz, to be clear, I wasn't talking about the permit system on lions, I was talking about turning lions into predators.
Secondly, you cannot place declines of ungulates solely on the backs of predators. Th Absoroka elk ecology project shows that. Nutritional content of forage on public land is suffering because of extended drought conditions. That means lowered efficacy rates. Predators only intensify that effect, but aren't the root cause, correct?
Never had a problem admitting I'm wrong, unless you are my wife. Show me the way.
BuzzH
Well-known member
Ben,
Of course predators arent the only problem that got us to the point we're at in the Blackfoot. I already stated that the OTC doe permits and multiple tags were part of the problem getting us to low deer numbers.
In the area in question, the "drought" has had no impact on whitetail numbers or fawn production. The deer are wading through browse species that are all in excellent shape. Its not a drought or habitat issues where I hunt. So we can rule that out for the lack of deer recovery there.
For the last 5 years, antlerless whitetail hunting has all but stopped. No more OTC tags, very few available in the draw.
There are no wolves, and I've yet to see a wolf track there from 1979-2012.
Despite perfect habitat, excellent forage, and deer that are healthy and as fat as I've seen in 33 years of hunting there...the deer numbers are simply not rebounding. Whats causing that? It isnt b-tags anymore. Its not wolves. Its not habitat.
Heres a few of my journal entries from 2005:
11/12/2005 Hunted T ridge saw 74 deer mostly whitetail. 15 whitetail bucks, 3 mule deer bucks. Cut 2 bear tracks and 2 lion tracks.
11/21/2005 Hunted 6-top/snowberry saw 16 whitetail bucks...tough conditions with crunchy snow. stopped counting does/fawns at 31.
11/23/2005 Hunted knob and saw 17 whitetail bucks. Conditions sucked again foggy and crunchy conditions. Biggest buck was 140-150 class.
Heres the results of the same hunts under perfect conditions this year:
11/10/2012 Hunted T ridge. Saw a total of 22 deer, all whitetail. Saw 2 small 4 points. No mule deer. Snow was about 4-5 inches and conditions were great. Very few fawns. Cut 6 different lion tracks, all less than 24 hours old.
11/11/2012 Hunted 6 top and saw 12 deer from daylight to dark, 2 bucks, one small 3 point and a 130 class 6x6 with a split g-2. Cut 5 different sets of lion tracks.
11/12/2012 Hunted main XXXXXX creek and didnt see any deer, but did see 21 elk, 2 spikes, the rest cows. Cut one set of lion tracks.Very few deer tracks.
With the doe harvest at essentially zero the last 5 years, the deer should be rebounding. But, with just the 12 cat tracks that we cut, thats over 600 deer that are being taken just by lions.
I find it absolutely ridiculous for anyone to try to tell me that lions arent severly impacting the whitetail populations that are left...and theres no question that recovery of deer populations will take decades at the current lion/deer ratios. I've my doubts that the deer will ever recover without going back to past lion harvests of 95-110 a year. The sad part is, the entire hunting district that I hunt is not even assured that a single fuggin' lion will even be harvested. Its grouped with another hunting district for a combined quota. I found more than enough lion tracks in 3 days of hunting 3 drainges to fill the entire harvest quota for both districts.
Its a great idea to make 44 lion permit holders (up from 22 the last several years) happy while deer/elk take an absolute pounding. Then the MTFWP wonders why they cant sell out their NR permits?
I'm not anti-predator, but if whitetail numbers are to rebound they have to make if further than ending up a pile of lion shit before they get the chance to reproduce. Theres a lot more deer/elk hunters than there are cat hunters...yet the current management is increasing (and favoring the minority who hunt cats) the lion populations while deer numbers are flat.
Makes perfect sense to constantly favor the minority...landowners, outfitters, and lion hunters.
Bottom line is without some significant increases in lion harvest, deer will never recover to pre-trophy lion days.
Of course predators arent the only problem that got us to the point we're at in the Blackfoot. I already stated that the OTC doe permits and multiple tags were part of the problem getting us to low deer numbers.
In the area in question, the "drought" has had no impact on whitetail numbers or fawn production. The deer are wading through browse species that are all in excellent shape. Its not a drought or habitat issues where I hunt. So we can rule that out for the lack of deer recovery there.
For the last 5 years, antlerless whitetail hunting has all but stopped. No more OTC tags, very few available in the draw.
There are no wolves, and I've yet to see a wolf track there from 1979-2012.
Despite perfect habitat, excellent forage, and deer that are healthy and as fat as I've seen in 33 years of hunting there...the deer numbers are simply not rebounding. Whats causing that? It isnt b-tags anymore. Its not wolves. Its not habitat.
Heres a few of my journal entries from 2005:
11/12/2005 Hunted T ridge saw 74 deer mostly whitetail. 15 whitetail bucks, 3 mule deer bucks. Cut 2 bear tracks and 2 lion tracks.
11/21/2005 Hunted 6-top/snowberry saw 16 whitetail bucks...tough conditions with crunchy snow. stopped counting does/fawns at 31.
11/23/2005 Hunted knob and saw 17 whitetail bucks. Conditions sucked again foggy and crunchy conditions. Biggest buck was 140-150 class.
Heres the results of the same hunts under perfect conditions this year:
11/10/2012 Hunted T ridge. Saw a total of 22 deer, all whitetail. Saw 2 small 4 points. No mule deer. Snow was about 4-5 inches and conditions were great. Very few fawns. Cut 6 different lion tracks, all less than 24 hours old.
11/11/2012 Hunted 6 top and saw 12 deer from daylight to dark, 2 bucks, one small 3 point and a 130 class 6x6 with a split g-2. Cut 5 different sets of lion tracks.
11/12/2012 Hunted main XXXXXX creek and didnt see any deer, but did see 21 elk, 2 spikes, the rest cows. Cut one set of lion tracks.Very few deer tracks.
With the doe harvest at essentially zero the last 5 years, the deer should be rebounding. But, with just the 12 cat tracks that we cut, thats over 600 deer that are being taken just by lions.
I find it absolutely ridiculous for anyone to try to tell me that lions arent severly impacting the whitetail populations that are left...and theres no question that recovery of deer populations will take decades at the current lion/deer ratios. I've my doubts that the deer will ever recover without going back to past lion harvests of 95-110 a year. The sad part is, the entire hunting district that I hunt is not even assured that a single fuggin' lion will even be harvested. Its grouped with another hunting district for a combined quota. I found more than enough lion tracks in 3 days of hunting 3 drainges to fill the entire harvest quota for both districts.
Its a great idea to make 44 lion permit holders (up from 22 the last several years) happy while deer/elk take an absolute pounding. Then the MTFWP wonders why they cant sell out their NR permits?
I'm not anti-predator, but if whitetail numbers are to rebound they have to make if further than ending up a pile of lion shit before they get the chance to reproduce. Theres a lot more deer/elk hunters than there are cat hunters...yet the current management is increasing (and favoring the minority who hunt cats) the lion populations while deer numbers are flat.
Makes perfect sense to constantly favor the minority...landowners, outfitters, and lion hunters.
Bottom line is without some significant increases in lion harvest, deer will never recover to pre-trophy lion days.
Last edited:
Rimrock
New member
Just got back from the Region 3 Citizen Advisory Council meeting, where this lion issue came up, among numerous other things. Legislators had been invited to discuss wildlife issues in the upcoming cluster, aka legislature and several GOP'ers showed up, ranging from reasonable (Flynn) to Kerry White, who says bison in the upper Gallatin and Gardiner Basin will be the end of motorized recreation!! But then Krazy Krayton Kerns says it will result in $25/gallon gas!
Incidentally, I served on the Citizen Working Group for the bison issue, and we thought we had addressed all the landowner (wait a minute, I'm one...) concerns and pretty much had consensus. Until they took it back to the Old Guard and heads exploded. What we need is better cowboy hats that prevent that!
Back on topic, though, I'm glad to see Volesky is Deputy Director at FWP. Others may disagree, but at least he's a hunter, with a string of consecutive archery elk that can no longer be counted on Tester's fingers!
So I'll stay out of recommendations for Director, since Mike doesn't want it. What got me to miss work this afternoon to attend that meeting was something we've encountered over, and over, and over again here in Region 3. In fact Gallatin Wildlife had a mediation with Region 3 administration about this many years ago, and agreed to move forward in a new spirit of transparency and communication.
Hah!! That didn't happen...
So just yesterday, thanks to Doc Mealer who forwarded the agenda to us, we learned that two of our big issues, WMA grazing and Bighorns in the Bridgers were up for discussion. Whoa, you'd think we'd have gotten some notice about that, but no...
So I'd strongly recommend against any administrators from Region 3 moving up. Unless it's to the Dept. of Motor Vehicles, or something non-wildlife related.
Incidentally, I served on the Citizen Working Group for the bison issue, and we thought we had addressed all the landowner (wait a minute, I'm one...) concerns and pretty much had consensus. Until they took it back to the Old Guard and heads exploded. What we need is better cowboy hats that prevent that!
Back on topic, though, I'm glad to see Volesky is Deputy Director at FWP. Others may disagree, but at least he's a hunter, with a string of consecutive archery elk that can no longer be counted on Tester's fingers!
So I'll stay out of recommendations for Director, since Mike doesn't want it. What got me to miss work this afternoon to attend that meeting was something we've encountered over, and over, and over again here in Region 3. In fact Gallatin Wildlife had a mediation with Region 3 administration about this many years ago, and agreed to move forward in a new spirit of transparency and communication.
Hah!! That didn't happen...
So just yesterday, thanks to Doc Mealer who forwarded the agenda to us, we learned that two of our big issues, WMA grazing and Bighorns in the Bridgers were up for discussion. Whoa, you'd think we'd have gotten some notice about that, but no...
So I'd strongly recommend against any administrators from Region 3 moving up. Unless it's to the Dept. of Motor Vehicles, or something non-wildlife related.
sweetnectar
New member
Kendall Vandyke is a definite no from me after he was trying to introduce the animal hording bill...that alone would automatically disqualify him from being able to mend any landowner relationships with the department.
In any case the title of director at this point is a curse. I would suggest someone that has public relations on their resume.
In any case the title of director at this point is a curse. I would suggest someone that has public relations on their resume.
shoots-straight
Well-known member
Of those 3 choices, I would double your comment.
wyoming556
Banned
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2010
- Messages
- 1,242
Shouldn't be too hard for the next leader to do better than the previous leaders who were responsible for the botched undercover ram sting, oversaw the creation of the native Montana hunting license, and allowed the people to vote and adjust the tag prices in such a way that they don't even sell out and in many cases have tons of combo tag holders return the elk portion of their combo tag. All of which cost the state piles of money in legal fees and lost revenue.
Fixed it. Thanks Ben.
Fixed it. Thanks Ben.
Last edited:
Buzz,
I appreciate the level of detail. I'm not disputing the fact that lions can have an impact on deer populations. All I'm saying is that the level of data does not present a case that Lions are the culprit.
Envornmental Factors have been ignored. Forage is one thing, but green up, timing and other issues are not even on the radar. Look at Brimeyer and Berger's work in GTNP and see what changing climates are doing to moose populations.
We're usually 95% together. I can live with that. I just don't see the predator only solution working.
556:
Maurier didn't botch the Lewton case. He wasn't in charge when it started in 2005. The sheep was shot in 2008, before Maurier became director. Also, FWP didn't set the price of the NR licenses, the people of MT did through a citizen's initiative.
I appreciate the level of detail. I'm not disputing the fact that lions can have an impact on deer populations. All I'm saying is that the level of data does not present a case that Lions are the culprit.
Envornmental Factors have been ignored. Forage is one thing, but green up, timing and other issues are not even on the radar. Look at Brimeyer and Berger's work in GTNP and see what changing climates are doing to moose populations.
We're usually 95% together. I can live with that. I just don't see the predator only solution working.
556:
Maurier didn't botch the Lewton case. He wasn't in charge when it started in 2005. The sheep was shot in 2008, before Maurier became director. Also, FWP didn't set the price of the NR licenses, the people of MT did through a citizen's initiative.
T
tjones
Guest
Montana Legislature created the Montana native license.
wyoming556
Banned
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2010
- Messages
- 1,242
Sounds like the legislature and citizens are partially to blame for the lost revenue. That's not good. Thanks for correcting me.
The recession was by far the biggest factor. But yes, to a certain extent that is correct.
mdunc8
Well-known member
The director has nothing to do with ballot initiatives. It's a matter of getting the signatures and letting democracy run its course. Not saying I agree or disagree with the process but you're blaming the wrong person(s).
Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't we come to the conclusion last time we had this discussion that no revenue was last because the increase in price made up for decreased number of tags sold? Either way, as many people, including myself, have stated before, if nonresidents can't afford an extra $200 for a tag, they probably shouldn't be taking off from work for a week to drive across the country to hunt elk.
I think that's one way to look at it. Here's another: Non-residents are comparing Mt. to Wy. to Idaho to whatever - and they are going elseware. More bang for their buck.
When I purchase anything I usually compare more than one option and total price is always a factor.
wyoming556
Banned
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2010
- Messages
- 1,242
If the director of the Montana FWP had absolutely nothing to do with or no involvement in native montanan tags or big game tag pricing then I stand corrected. Seems like the director of FWP might at least play a small role in the process but I could be wrong.
If having leftover big game tags and piles of returned elk tags was the goal of the new NR pricing plan residents voted for then I stand corrected as well. If canibalizing the NR combo tag sales by selling former residents cheap big game tags was part of the plan for native Montana tags then I stand corrected there as well.
Unsold/leftover NR combo tags don't cost the state $?
Returned/refunded elk portions of NR combo tags doesn't cost the state $?
Selling Non Residents cheap native Montanan tags instead of regular big game combo tags doesn't cost the state $?
Cowboy is right, it's simple supply/demand economics and other states are winning the business that MT loses. What other state has leftover general elk tags? I know WY sure doesn't. Heck the state of CO has hunt planners available to help and pays hunting TV shows to promote thier elk hunts.
Last edited:
Idaho has over 5000 nr elk tags leftover if you are looking to buy one
http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/public/licenses/?getPage=75
http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/public/licenses/?getPage=75
