Throw out your thoughts on HB361....

[Horn Seeker]

I value quite a few of your guys opinions on these bills and would like to hear what you think about HB361. The MBA has been torn on this one, because we, as an organization, were against limited permits in the "23 OD", but bowhunters were force fed this permit system even when statewide public comment was overwhelmingly opposed to them.

Having a stance against the permits, its hard for members and board members to make a stance "against" 361. Some members and board members have chosen to oppose it simply to keep legislation out of game and hunter management. Some simply do think the permits are the right thing. Others support 316 because they dont want to see any limitations on bowhunting, as far as where you can hunt. By calling and emailing members most board members concluded that a hard stance could not be taken in support or opposition, the members were too divided on the subject, so we decided to stay neutral but encouraged individual members to contact the legislators and voice their opinions as bowhunters.

What do you think? I am leaning towards opposition mainly because I want to support the commission and continue to build a working relationship with them AND keep these Dip stick legislators (not all of them... there are some good ones) out of the bowhunting business. However, I am completely against limiting resident bowhunters to a district or set of districts. There is no reason a guy shouldn't be able to hunt a different district every day for all bow season... at least in my opinion..

Anyhow, again, What do you think? Comment if you are a bowhunter or not, I want to see it from all sides.

 

[Ben Lamb]

For me, it's not about the permits. It's about respecting a process that works. The commission made a decision, and rather than work through the Commission, the proponents of the bill (All outfitters and landowners who spoke for it) would rather use the legislature to mandate wildlife management practices.

That should not happen.

The commission has certainly made mistakes in the past, but there are opportunities to remedy them rather than seek the quick fix and throw the North American Model out the window.

 

[mdunc8]

Not sure I know the real reasons behind this bill (although I think I have a pretty good idea), but I oppose it with what knowledge I do have for the following reasons.

1. It's not a legislative issue -- leave it to the commission
2. Increasing the number of archery permits likely isn't going to do much to reduce population growth, which is one of the proposed reasons for the bill. If population control IS REALLY the objective then they should be issuing more cow tags during rifle season.

Part of management involves creating a desired experience. I've never hunted in these areas, but it seems like they're already rather crowded during bow season. It's nice to have a few options that are relatively easy to draw every few years that provide a reasonable chance of seeing/shooting decent animals without having the crowds you might encounter if it were a general area.

 

[Lawnboy]

I guess my stance is that I support the change back to unlimited permits. After all the discussion on the subject I can see the danger in having the legislature dictate everything the commission does.
My biggest problem is that I believe the commission should be the biggest decision maker using their biologists and others to make critical decisions on the welfare of our states animals. However they obviously weren't using any of that when they went to limiting archery permits. I still don't know their exact reasoning as I've heard both that they were trying to stick it to the outfitters and landowners in hopes that this would have them not lease their lands and possibly open them up. That's complete non sense. This will not do anything to open up lands. Landowners are leasing to just as many resident "richies" as they are to non residents and if the nr goes away they will find a resident one to pay for it. Still my thoughts are if you don't have a connection to hunt a piece of private then you're just out of luck. They aren't going to just let everyone on and I don't blame them.

Secondly within the MBA many of them hunt the Breaks. That is their area and they are seeing overcrowding and wanted a change via limited permits. Well that's fine if there is true overcrowding in certain areas but don't blanket all the other units with the same restrictions when they don't have the same problems. The commission didn't listen to the public in regards to overcrowding in the other areas. They used their authority to make a bad decision which limited all us other hunters in the other units. So I disagree with this approach. I understand the frustration of the Breaks hunters but this wasn't the answer. I still go back to why can't people move to another area if "their" hot spot becomes discovered. Is crying and making it more limited the answer? or is realizing that public land is just that and you're going to have years were there are lots of people and then it will fade. Taylor"s Fork and Gardiner will be packed this season with those looking for a big easy bull. I dread seeing it but it will fade in a year or two and they will go back to other areas. I'm not demanding more permits to cut down on the numbers. I'll either hunt mid week or just try other spots until the rodeo dies down.

The solution doesn't lie in the legislature changing everything each year. The solution lies in a commission that is making sound decisions based on biology and some public opinion in regards to the issues at hand. This commission failed and now a legislature is making them pay. I hate that they(legislature) are tying the hands of those who (should) know into making decisions but maybe this will be a lesson for them as well that they need to really think things out better. That's what they are on that board for.
The downside to this is that it will take the legislature to change it back. That's not right either. We don't need armchair biologist legislators strong arming the real biologists.
We need everyone to just do their JOBS. This is a huge mess and I don't know the answer.

 

[mdunc8]

but don't blanket all the other units with the same restrictions when they don't have the same problems.

Very good point.

 

[Horn Seeker]

ABout the downside, I think the Bill sunsets in 14? which would give the commission control again... I think....

Im not sure if in your 2nd paragraph you were blaming the MBA for all the permits or not? The fact is, the MBA worked With the commission to develop a workable permit situation for the "Breaks"... once it was all settled and most people were smiling... the commish through out the 23OD bomb, giving us almost no response time. The MBA vehemently opposed the 23 OD permits...and the rest is history.

I've never hunted in these areas, but it seems like they're already rather crowded during bow season.

Mdunc... I dont hunt the breaks so can say very little about them, but I have hunted a few of the 23OD's...and with exception of a nice little fly in spot, I have never experienced or heard of ANY over crowding issues.... Matter fact, I dont think I ever saw another bowhunter..... Now... these fly in areas can get a little crazy though.... ;0)

 

[Lawnboy]

That's good to know Hornseeker about the MBA and their input to the commission. I just know a few of the local die hards over here that hunt the breaks and they are always complaining about the overcrowding. Sounds like the commish were willing to help them and unfortunately the rest of us in the other 23

I just want it to be normal in my area. Is that so wrong

 

[tjones]

Remember if it is unlimited for residents, then it will be unlimited for non residents. With elk on the decline in the west look for increased pressure from western Montana hunters heading east and also non residents that hunted the west looking for units with no wolves.

 

[Ben Lamb]

One thing to consider: in 10 years, archery tag sales have grown from roughly 10,000 to close to 40,000.

That is playing hell on the quality of the hunt and the resource. While archery success rates might be lower than rifle hunters, the number of people taking to the field with bows and arrows means significantly more harvest of those antlered males.

 

[mdunc8]

Before I comment anymore, will a few of you who have been more involved with the whole process than myself, speculate as to the REAL motive behind the bill. Not just the BS listed on the bill itself, which we all know can be very misleading.

 

[Ben Lamb]

It gives outfitters a bigger client pool since the NR's can get unlimited tags. This is a UPOM bill folks. That's the same group that's trying to kill stream access.

 

[Horn Seeker]

Ummm... this is what a guy will hear...

When the permits go away or are unlimited, then the Non-res cap will be off and it will make it easier for outfitters to book clients. So... to answer your question...$$$$

I suspect the bill was introduced for this exact reason....to help outfitters get around the losses they will take from I-161...

Ben, where can I find that document showing only 10,000 archery tags in 2001? That is an amazing amount of growth, I would have guessed it FAR less than that.... you seem to be on your game though... but I'd still like to see that documented...

 

[Ben Lamb]

I got the number from FWP. I'll see if I can track it down.

BTW - my years could certainly be off. It might be a 20 year spike in archery tags, not 10.

 

[Lawnboy]

Not trying to side with the outfitters but after cutting their gauranteed tags I'm willing to throw them a bone so that it doesn't limit our opportunities. I have NR friends and family that basically have a snowballs chance in drawing with the current system.

Ben your comment makes me even more certain that people are just hell bent to send outfitters down the tube at the whatever expense. I could care less if some NR hunttalkers are given tags via the unlimited tags scenario and then hire an outfitter. What is that hurting anybody?

 

[Ben Lamb]

Lawnboy,

I'm by no means anti-outfitter or guide. Chuck Denowh, the voice of UPOM stood up in committee told everyone that this issue is why they formed. They were also the strongest voice in support of HB 309.

Opportunity by itself denies the impact that a growing population of archers is having on bull elk. Adding 3,000 more hunters (theoretically) to those areas means more bulls taken. At what point do you put the resource ahead of opportunity? I'm all for opportunity, believe me, but I'm also for playing by the rules. That's not what's happening in Helena.

Did the commission go overboard in designating all these areas as permit? Possbily. Does the public have an opportunity to correct that decision? Absolutely - through the commission. Would the Commission fix something that's not working? Probably. In the last 2 years though, out of all the commission meetings I've been to, I've not seen these guys show up and ask for a redress of the issue.

 

[Horn Seeker]

He's only answering Mduncs question Bart... just the reason behind the bill.... $$$$

 

[Lawnboy]

Remember if it is unlimited for residents, then it will be unlimited for non residents. With elk on the decline in the west look for increased pressure from western Montana hunters heading east and also non residents that hunted the west looking for units with no wolves.

On the same token with it being limited out east your only other option for an open archery hunt is out west. I think Shoots Straight mentioned that he noticed a slight increase this year of "easterners" out your way. We are talking archery and not rifle. There's not the masses of people like we see during rifle over on the Madison.

 

[Lawnboy]

Ben I hear ya. I just would hope that the commission would make the change and given that they didn't listen to public opinion on this one makes me nervous that they wouldn't for a reversal.
I have no doubt that some areas are seeing an impact by archery hunters but come on there are areas in the 23OD that are way over objective on numbers and archery hunters are hardly going to help that come down.

I'm sure it's hard for you to support anything when you see the "finks" that are trying to weasel any and everything in. I think I would too be opposed to any bill if I thought that some in the system were just biding their time to strike again. You have a thankless job.

 

[Ben Lamb]

The cumulative effects of this session will be felt by the average hunter, resident and non-resident, for years to come.

Just got the info on archery tag sales going back to 1955 (537 tags)

I was off on my numbers:
1990 had 21,000 archery hunters
2000 had 26,500
2010 had 40,215

FWP sent me the spreadsheet showing those numbers. If any on is interested in it, please shoot me a pm w/ your email addy and I'll send it to you.

 

[Horn Seeker]

Wow...big numbers for sure! I'm sure i"ve seen them before...but didn't recall....