Here we go again in MT...

[S.Clancy]

a little milk toast-ish from RMEF imo
[/I]

Yea, I was pretty disappointed in that response. There's obviously some big time donors or something in RMEF that think shit ideas like this are a good. That's a really scary thought

 

[finner]

Yea, I was pretty disappointed in that response. There's obviously some big time donors or something in RMEF that think shit ideas like this are a good. That's a really scary thought

They refused to engage during the legislative session when this same proposal came up. I'm actually surprised they said anything here, given that it's getting less attention than the bill got.

They'll never get any more money from me after they refused to publicly engage on HB 505 and HB 417 this spring. That pretty much showed which side their bread is buttered on.

 

[Deadfall]

Man wasn't it just a year ago when the Outfitters were bitching they can't make a living because they can't get consistent clients and need guaranteed tags? Sure seems to me they like to buy politicians in MT with all that $ they don't have.

Huh....

 

[Deadfall]

Holy cow....everyone seeing red and complaining about a proposal.
Last year should of showed everyone that there is power in numbers. FWP is literally asking for better ideas. Tells me they don't particularly like this idea.

Squeaky wheels get the grease. I.E. landowners pestering politicians and getting their ideas heard by actual policy makers. While the rest of us are batching on internet forums.

THEY ARE LITERALLY ASKING FOR BETTER IDEAS.....

THEY ARE LITERALLY ASKING FOR BETTER IDEAS.....

So instead of seeing red and batching about what others are doing. Get involved. Draw up some solutions and start pestering policy makers.

Start being the squeaking wheel, instead of just being a blow hole.

Freaking funny. Also freaking annoying.

 

[MTPipeliner]

Petition signed and email sent

 

[S.Clancy]

Holy cow....everyone seeing red and complaining about a proposal.
Last year should of showed everyone that there is power in numbers. FWP is literally asking for better ideas. Tells me they don't particularly like this idea.

Squeaky wheels get the grease. I.E. landowners pestering politicians and getting their ideas heard by actual policy makers. While the rest of us are batching on internet forums.

THEY ARE LITERALLY ASKING FOR BETTER IDEAS.....

THEY ARE LITERALLY ASKING FOR BETTER IDEAS.....

So instead of seeing red and batching about what others are doing. Get involved. Draw up some solutions and start pestering policy makers.

Start being the squeaking wheel, instead of just being a blow hole.

Freaking funny. Also freaking annoying.

It's FWPs job to come up with reasonable solutions that benefit the resource and their constituents. We can obviously help, but we shouldn't be defending against what FWP and the commission are trying to do. That said, I'll be at the meeting Tuesday, like I think a lot of others will.

 

[Deadfall]

It's FWPs job to come up with reasonable solutions that benefit the resource and their constituents. We can obviously help, but we shouldn't be defending against what FWP and the commission are trying to do. That said, I'll be at the meeting Tuesday, like I think a lot of others will.

Not defending against them. Defending against all the influence from one side.

 

[Deadfall]

It's FWPs job to come up with reasonable solutions that benefit the resource and their constituents. We can obviously help, but we shouldn't be defending against what FWP and the commission are trying to do. That said, I'll be at the meeting Tuesday, like I think a lot of others will.

I hope there are lots of folks there. Hopefully they have beneficial inputs

 

[cgasner1]

Maybe I missed it but i didn’t see any mention of the current land owner tags for these units. In Montana the land owners have a better draw odds than the general public and the tag they do draw is good for the entire unit. So are those tags going away then since they can hunt on the land with a general what happens to those draw tags?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Bojo34]

Maybe I missed it but i didn’t see any mention of the current land owner tags for these units. In Montana the land owners have a better draw odds than the general public and the tag they do draw is good for the entire unit. So are those tags going away then since they can hunt on the land with a general what happens to those draw tags?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That is not necessarily the case. I'm a non-resident landowner and didn't draw for my unit this year. Non-resident landowners first go into the general draw like everyone else. Their landowner preference is not looked at during the general draw. IF they draw a general tag (no better odds than any other non-resident), then they are considered for the unit specific permit draw and their ownership gets considered only during the HD specific draw.

I've also seen it mentioned on this forum that Non-resident landowners pull from the resident pool. That is also not the case......they get allocated out of the non-resident pool.

Not trying to be confrontational, just trying to help clarify, which isn't easy (it's taken me several phone conversations with MFWP).

 

[bsnedeker]

That is not necessarily the case. I'm a non-resident landowner and didn't draw for my unit this year. Non-resident landowners first go into the general draw like everyone else. Their landowner preference is not looked at during the general draw. IF they draw a general tag (no better odds than any other non-resident), then they are considered for the unit specific permit draw and their ownership gets considered only during the HD specific draw.

I've also seen it mentioned on this forum that Non-resident landowners pull from the resident pool. That is also not the case......they get allocated out of the non-resident pool.

Not trying to be confrontational, just trying to help clarify, which isn't easy (it's taken me several phone conversations with MFWP).

This is accurate for NR landowners. The majority of landowners in MT are residents though, so they don't need to draw a general tag, it is OTC. They immediately go into the landowner preference pool for their unit.

I know a rancher in a unit (cool guy, let's a ton of people use his piece to access an otherwise inaccessible piece of public) who draws every single year for a unit it takes me 3-5 years to draw. It's a good system I think.

 

[Bojo34]

This is accurate for NR landowners. The majority of landowners in MT are residents though, so they don't need to draw a general tag, it is OTC. They immediately go into the landowner preference pool for their unit.

I know a rancher in a unit (cool guy, let's a ton of people use his piece to access an otherwise inaccessible piece of public) who draws every single year for a unit it takes me 3-5 years to draw. It's a good system I think.

On the resident side I would agree....seems reasonable.

On the NR side not so much. I know Residents love to hate NR landowners (I have the vandalism to prove it) but from my perspective I would think residents would rather a NR tag go to a landowner who's going to hunt his/her own property, which residents aren't going to hunt anyway, than a NR from a nearby state who's going to compete with residents on public land.
Seems to me the former is a win/win/win.....state still collects the NR elevated fees which (hopefully) subsidize the management program, NR landowners get a tag to hunt their own property (seems silly to have to ask), and residents don't have to compete with NR on public.

Sorry for the derail. FWIW I think this proposal is awful as well.

 

[bsnedeker]

On the resident side I would agree....seems reasonable.

On the NR side not so much. I know Residents love to hate NR landowners (I have the vandalism to prove it) but from my perspective I would think residents would rather a NR tag go to a landowner who's going to hunt his/her own property, which residents aren't going to hunt anyway, than a NR from a nearby state who's going to compete with residents on public land.
Seems to me the former is a win/win/win.....state still collects the NR elevated fees which (hopefully) subsidize the management program, NR landowners get a tag to hunt their own property (seems silly to have to ask), and residents don't have to compete with NR on public.

Sorry for the derail. FWIW I think this proposal is awful as well.

I can see your point for sure. On the other hand, you own the land, you don't own the animals on that land. If you want the benefits that residents have you could easily become a resident of MT and pay income and vehicle registration taxes that the rest of us pay (I realize you are paying property tax) which is what entitles the rest of us to OTC tags.

I think something like allowing NR landowners to hunt cows on their own land would be very reasonable. FWP's stated goal is to get elk "at objective", giving NR's access to shoot bulls is not going to help that "problem".

Edit: And I'm sorry to hear about the vandalism on your property. That is inexcusable.

 

[Bojo34]

I can see your point for sure. On the other hand, you own the land, you don't own the animals on that land. If you want the benefits that residents have you could easily become a resident of MT and pay income and vehicle registration taxes that the rest of us pay (I realize you are paying property tax) which is what entitles the rest of us to OTC tags.

I think something like allowing NR landowners to hunt cows on their own land would be very reasonable. FWP's stated goal is to get elk "at objective", giving NR's access to shoot bulls is not going to help that "problem".

Edit: And I'm sorry to hear about the vandalism on your property. That is inexcusable.

Fair points. FWIW we're in transition and I expect to be a resident within 5 years, and we do pay vehicle registration taxes. For now I have to deal with the system as constructed. I'd also point out that, IMO, the residents don't own the animals either simply by virtue of paying income tax (the only MT tax residents pay that I don't). The state doesn't own the critters either......they're a natural resource that we all wish to share.

I wasn't suggesting increasing the number of NR tags, just saying if a reasonable case could be made that the entirety of the system (State, resident hunter & NR hunters) are all a bit better off with NR landowners receiving tags before NR who don't own in the state and will be competing with residents on public (for the most part sure there are exceptions), why not make them a priority rather than throw them into the general pool with all other NR.

Again, didn't mean to hijack. The thread's not about my personal situation but I do represent a perspective that most don't here from. We're not all enemies of the state is all I'm saying.

 

[cgasner1]

That is not necessarily the case. I'm a non-resident landowner and didn't draw for my unit this year. Non-resident landowners first go into the general draw like everyone else. Their landowner preference is not looked at during the general draw. IF they draw a general tag (no better odds than any other non-resident), then they are considered for the unit specific permit draw and their ownership gets considered only during the HD specific draw.

I've also seen it mentioned on this forum that Non-resident landowners pull from the resident pool. That is also not the case......they get allocated out of the non-resident pool.

Not trying to be confrontational, just trying to help clarify, which isn't easy (it's taken me several phone conversations with MFWP).

I know a landowner that has the place leased out to a outfitter so they can’t hunt it. Then they apply for the landowner tags and draw bull tags every year and hunt the public around the ranch it’s a 5 year draw as a resident. That does suck that you have to draw to hunt your property the problem is that those tags are good for the entire state so that’s the way it has to be. Montana didn’t come looking for you. When you bought land here could of just as easy picked a state that could of guaranteed you a tag with your land


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Bojo34]

Your outfitter lease example above is clearly a case of abuse.

Easy fix….I think landowners should only receive priority if they agree to hunt their property only. If they want to hunt the entire HD, they should go into the pool like everyone else.

 

[cgasner1]

I 100% agree it’s ridiculous a landowner tag is valid for outside of that private land


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[wind gypsy]

THEY ARE LITERALLY ASKING FOR BETTER IDEAS.....

THEY ARE LITERALLY ASKING FOR BETTER IDEAS.....

Worsech is posturing, he doesn't give a fook about your ideas.

They are swimming in ideas, but if they don't serve the governor's chronies they are not sufficient. There are wildlife professionals on staff that that understand these things but surprise surprise, they probably dont serve the governor's chronies either. I inserted a quote below that illustrates exactly that.

Lots of good info on Hunttalk in relation to how people have been trying to share ideas and why they aren't being listened to.

From user SapperJ24:

FWP wildlife biologists are fully aware that this proposal is not the way to reduce elk numbers.

From the the "Briefs for [elk] Hunting Districts that are Over Objective and Have Limited Either-Sex Permits" in the FWP Commission agenda, regarding liberalized bull harvest in 410 (which to my understanding is not included in this proposal, but to illustrate the biologist's understanding of the issue):

"Proponents of increasing the number of ES [either-sex] permits claim doing so will help reduce elk numbers of objective, however harvesting cow elk, not bull elk, is the only effective way to manage elk populations.

Much public input has been gathered over the years concerning archery and rifle hunting in this HD; a sweeping change to season-structure or increased permits beyond what are already available will likely elicit extensive public pushback."


Later in the brief, regarding HD 411, emphasis mine:


"What would the consequences be if you removed the ES permit or liberalized bull harvest (biological, social, equitable allocation, access, crowding)?

Liberalizing either-sex elk permits in these habitats would leave elk, particularly bulls, more vulnerable to harvest (especially on public lands) because given habitat conditions they are more visible and easier to find. Harvest data indicates that increasing permits without any significant increase in public hunting access stagnates hunter success; relatively few additional bull elk are harvested compared to numbers of permits available or hunters on the ground.

Specific to the Snowy Mountains, HDs 411 and 535 contain a total of 2,524,342 acres. Of that acreage, 457,513 acres are considered elk fall/winter range (18%). However, those acreages overlapped by legally accessible public lands or Block Management Areas (BMAs) amount to just 64,229 acres or 2.5% of the HDs, and over half of that primarily represents archery/early season hunting. Thus, only 2.5% of the entire Snowy Mountain HDs provide guaranteed public elk hunting opportunity, and not usually during the rifle/shoulder seasons when elk hunting for “management” occurs. Further liberalizing/generalizing the ES seasons for elk in this area will substantially increase crowding issues on public lands/BMAs that are already maxed out in regard to hunting pressure. Despite an already very liberal license structure for antlerless elk (the most effective tool for managing elk populations), elk populations are well over-objective due to a lack of free public hunting where the largest concentrations of elk exist. This is not a season-type or quota issue; it is an access issue. With an increase in archery permits valid in the Snowies via 900-20, more lands were leased/outfitted, and this trend would continue with extensive liberalization of rifle permits. Older age class bulls will always exist on inaccessible private lands, however increasing the opportunity to harvest bull elk district-wide with no concomitant increase in public hunting opportunity where the majority of elk reside (private land), will do no more than exacerbate the extirpation of elk on publicly-accessible lands during hunting season."

 

[wind gypsy]

Another very well articulated point from Newberg from his forum. Ideas have been offered, whatcha think the odds are Worsech will embrace these ideas since they don't serve the Governors ilk?

I'm still trying to figure out the logic here. Maybe that is an exercise in futility.

This spring, the Department gave us HB 505, where landowners could sponsor up to 10 hunters if their unit was at objective. We were told that the rationale was for landowners to stay at objective, as once they get above objective HB 505 would no longer allow this liberal use of sponsoring hunters. Supposedly, and incentive for landowner to get more elk killed.

Now, we get this proposal that is based on units that are way over objective. It gives every incentive to keep objectives set at artificially low number and gives no incentive to kill cows, as the units being identified for the new plan are those that are over objective. This new idea lets the real money animals, bulls, get served up to private land hunters without restriction.

So, if the department is looking for landowner incentive to get elk numbers down to objective as we were told with HB 505, why are they proposing this plan that gives landowners every financial incentive to keep number higher and above objective so that they can continue with virtually unrestricted bull elk hunting?

Seems punitive to those landowners who have worked to get elk numbers down via hunting and/or those landowners who have a higher tolerance for elk and thus higher objectives in the unit where they operate. Rather, this proposal gives way more benefit to those who have declined efforts to try manage elk by giving them an unlimited stream of bull elk tags.

Maybe that is a rhetorical question I'm trying to answer, but I'm trying to follow what seems to be a bipolar string of logic between the Department proposals and what the stated rationale is for each.

Here are the some of the ideas I've provided to the Commission and the Director in emails, phone calls, and meetings. I've share the same with some legislators who seem to be focused on elk ideas.

1. Where elk are above objective, give Private Land Only cow tags. Don't cap them. Given all cooperative landowners every chance possible to lower elk numbers.

2. Absolutely no cow elk hunting on public lands, as this only places pressure on the "wrong elk" and habituates elk to move to the private land sanctuaries. Kill the elk that are the problem elk, the ones spending most their time under irrigation pivots. Cow elk lead the herds. Drive them to private land sanctuaries and the entire herd follows. Take pressure off public land cow elk and put that pressure on private land cow elk via #1 above.

3. Shorten seasons for all elk, to include taking them out of the new muzzleloader season. This huge period of pressure only serves to condition elk to find private land sanctuaries and keep them there beyond hunting seasons. This would include getting rid of shoulder season.

4. For those landowners trying to keep numbers down and having to deal with neighbors who provide elk sanctuary during hunting season, give them financial reimbursement from the General Fund. I say General Fund as this problem has nothing to do with hunting, rather how people exercise their property rights. Given these working landowners assistance with fencing, hazing, and whatever else can reward those who are trying to solve the problems.

I could come up with a lot more, but these four, or at least the first 3, seem would be a much better experiment to try.

 

[wind gypsy]

The whole "we are obligated to manage towards objectives in the elk management plan" excuse is absurd. They disregard goals and portions of the EMP all of the time.

One part that has been repeatedly pointed out is in relation to the elk being accessible:

4. Elk populations in portions of some EMUs may be almost entirely inaccessible to
hunters during the general hunting season or accessible to only a few hunters. To
avoid over-harvest of accessible elk on public lands or private lands open to
hunting, the inaccessible elk may not be included in objective numbers. Trend
count number objectives may include only elk normally accessible to general
hunting (if they are a distinct segment), though hunter access negotiations will
continue. Elk occupying these “refuges” may be counted separately where
practical (if they are a distinct segment) and sub-objectives established that could
be operative if access negotiations are successful. If significant harvest of these
“refuge” elk is possible with special management at some times and locations,
they should be included in objective levels.

Following that portion wouldn't jive with their end goals though..