Here we go again in MT...

[Hoodie]

Signed.

 

[mtwarden]

a little milk toast-ish from RMEF imo; here's BHA's email that went out

Once again, Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks is considering a proposal that would separate the 'haves' and the 'have nots' when it comes to elk hunting in Montana.

If you recall, HB 417, introduced by Rep. Kassmier (R-Fort Benton), was a bill in the 2021 session that would have eliminated limited-entry elk permits in any hunting district above the socially constructed and vastly outdated elk management objectives.

Well, this idea is back at full throttle, and will be considered at next Tuesday's Fish & Wildlife Commission meeting.

BHA members sent 6,500 emails opposing this bill alone during the session, so we're guessing this idea won't be too popular amongst Montana's public land hunters, though there are subtle differences to what's being considered now.

The big difference is that in about half of the 14 districts above objective where this change would apply it'd be implemented on private lands only, while the coveted limited-entry bull permits available in these districts valid on public lands would be cut in half, further limiting the public land hunter's ability to draw these tags, largely rendering your hard-earned bonus points useless along with devaluing these permits.

The public land hunter would be penalized while the private land hunter gets to play.

It's the privatization of a public resource - the King's deer - and they're not even attempting to hide it. This will change the face of elk hunting in Montana in ways not seen in decades, catering to landowners and outfitters at the expense of our opportunity to hunt.

Montana BHA leaders attended listening sessions across the state leading up to this season-setting meeting, but never did this idea or proposal come up as something that was being considered. So where is this idea coming from at the eleventh hour? Why are Montana hunters' voices continuing to be ignored? We'll let you decide, but here's UPOM's recent request to the Commission dated November 10th.

We'd love to hear folks' thoughts on this, but more importantly, we need you to step up and let your outrage be heard!

CLICK HERE to read more about these proposals and HERE to find your regional Commissioner's email address and phone number to let them know your thoughts, concerns and solutions (these are posted below as well).

Attend the Fish & Wildlife Commission meeting next Tuesday to provide testimony; you can join in-person in Helena (most powerful) or virtually by Zoom.

The deadline to register for virtual testimony is noon on Dec 13.

Don’t let this happen to your opportunity to hunt elk! Engage now, speak up, take action and then encourage ten other Montana hunters to do the same.

Fish & Wildlife Commission Meeting
Location: Helena, Capitol Room 152
Date: December 14, 2021
Time: 8:30 a.m.

 

[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."