That's one way to get around land owner tags

[Missoulaz28]

FWP proposes new, limited elk season structure to commission

content.govdelivery.com

If they can't get land owners transferable tags I guess they are just going to make everyones tag valid.

 

[Ben Lamb]

FWP proposes new, limited elk season structure to commission

content.govdelivery.com

If they can't get land owners transferable tags I guess they are just going to make everyones tag valid.

Public land hunters will still be under the LE permit structure. It's just the dudes who pay to hunt private that have a gauranteed bull tag in those districts.

But I'm sure there won't be any confusion about this at all.

 

[MTLabrador]

Public land hunters will still be under the LE permit structure. It's just the dudes who pay to hunt private that have a gauranteed bull tag in those districts.

But I'm sure there won't be any confusion about this at all.

It’s been pretty clear since the beginning that paying clients would get to hunt all the bulls they want one way or another.

 

[Missoulaz28]

Public land hunters will still be under the LE permit structure. It's just the dudes who pay to hunt private that have a gauranteed bull tag in those districts.

But I'm sure there won't be any confusion about this at all.

100% this.
I have no doubt that I won't be able to hunt any of those areas. I'm missing a few to many zeros in the bank account.

 

[Ben Lamb]

100% this.
I have no doubt that I won't be able to hunt any of those areas. I'm missing a few to many zeros in the bank account.

.
This is the comment to make during public testimony. This is literally the UPOM proposal.

 

[Nameless Range]

The discussion of "objectives" is a red-herring. Population numbers and curtailing them are functionally unrelated to why the hell LE Bull permits are involved.

 

[Ben Lamb]

The discussion of "objectives" is a red-herring. Population numbers and curtailing them are functionally unrelated to why the hell LE Bull permits are involved.

If it were about elk populations, then it would be cow only in these districts.

We all know this. This is about selling bull elk to sports and not giving 2 shits about anything else.

 

[Pagosa]

This will allow landowners and outfitted hunters hunt trophy bulls on a general tag, while the public land hunters compete over half the number tags. Draw odds in Southeastern Montana will be less than half than previous years.

 

[Big Fin]

I'm sitting in Duluth trying to read this on my phone. So, this is a response to elk numbers being too high? Maybe my screen is cutting some of it off, but how does granting unlimited bull elk permits to one group, based on property ownership/access do anything for population numbers, while making the serfs enter a limited entry drawing for the rare chance to get a limited entry bull tag?

I'll be back at a computer later and hopefully I will find I am just missing something here.

 

[Ben Lamb]

I'm sitting in Duluth trying to read this on my phone. So, this is a response to elk numbers being too high? Maybe my screen is cutting some of it off, but how does granting unlimited bull elk permits to one group, based on property ownership/access do anything for population numbers, while making the serfs enter a limited entry drawing for the rare chance to get a limited entry bull tag?

I'll be back at a computer later and hopefully I will find I am just missing something here.

It's what UPOM proposed.

 

[rogerthat]

And if you know anything about the public in those units the public lands are not big enough and/or rough enough to harbor many elk during the general season with full on deer hunter pressure pushing most elk off. Might as well make the whole unit general. Absolutely aweful proposal

 

[Arrowslinger]

I would say this is a direct slap to the face of public land elk hunters. Just crazy and would be laughable if wasn’t so evil. Just my opinion mind you.

 

[WapitiBob]

If Elk numbers are over objective in a unit or district, and that area is mostly private, the most efficient way to decrease the numbers on that private is with capped general tags valid on private. You would also need to limit the Bull harvest but, since that isn't happening this isn't about herd management, as noted above.

 

[Browning Rifles]

I totally agree with this proposal. The landowners needed another good reason to lease to a poor starving outfitter. Or better yet, a reason to skip the middle man and just charge $1,000.00 per bull. Win/Win. Reduce the bull population and get rich.
The only problem I see in this proposal is that there was not a free unlimited supply of gas so the landowners and guides can roar around in their side by sides and hoard the elk back on their land before the can make a break for the public land. This is not fair to them at all….

 

[WapitiBob]

I think you missed a zero in that tag price.

 

[GLA-FLA]

This proposal is downright criminal.

Transferable landowner tags here we come!

 

[BirdManMike]

I think you missed a zero in that tag price.

No way. $1k per bull - or, better, for trespass - to any and every slob with a general tag willing to pay is better for the landowner than what the outfitters is willing to pay for a lease. Guaranteed.

 

[Badlandcat]

I think you missed a zero in that tag price.

most of the hunts in those areas go for 12K to 14K and the last I heard the governors tag hunt starts at 20k

 

[Roadgoat]

This will be the end of some of the best elk hunting in the state. A few select ranches will have an age class for years after; however, these bulls move 10-30 miles to rut some years. There isn’t a ranch large enough in SE MT to manage for an older age class even if they tried.

 

[Gerald Martin]

This will be the end of some of the best elk hunting in the state. A few select ranches will have an age class for years after; however, these bulls move 10-30 miles to rut some years. There isn’t a ranch large enough in SE MT to manage for an older age class even if they tried.

It’s just intended to reduce over population of elk in over objective areas…

Like unit 700. With an objective of 2-300. And a population of @1250.