Hb 285

[sweetnectar]

Howler, I'm a resident and did not draw the archery permit. My hunting opportunity was decreased. Please provide documentation that the majority of people supported the limited permits. And please help me understand how the outfitting industry benefits from having unlimited archery permits. Are we even talking about the same bill?

 

[Horn Seeker]

Howler,

I think its documented that over 70% of public opinion was opposed to limited permits outside the breaks. I guess I can dig that up somewhere, but I think we've discussed it very thoroughly over the last 2 years.

I am a resident and my hunting opportunity was decreased, because there were areas I wanted to hunt, that I believe should be general draw, and I could NOT hunt them because I was limited to just a couple units in the eastern districts...

Sweet, the outfitters would benefit from unlimited archery tags because it would throw the nonres cap of 10% out, allowing them to book as many archery clients as they could, because if a client was interested in hunting with them, they would just have to put in and would be guaranteed a tag... at least, that is my take on this.

Howler, I think the diff is, that 285 is going to ruin some of the "Premium" hunts that FWP has managed for for many years.... while 361 does not have any effect on those hunts.

I think.....

 

[sweetnectar]

Thanks Horn Seeker....too many bills to keep straight.

 

[howler]

give Ron Aasheim a call and ask him to send you the report they have to justify the commissions actions for the 23OD...Or we could ask moga to give us some info

 

[Horn Seeker]

Will do, would like to see that Steve. If you have it, cant you just send it to me??

 

[Ben Lamb]

I've got a copy of the summary from FWP on the permit discussion, but not the original comments. You can get those through FWP. Here's the summary of the public comment:

Limited Archery Elk--Missouri Breaks

Unlike Fixed Dates, limited archery permits had variable support/nonsupport across the state and user groups. In nearly unanimous fashion, commenting outfitters, landowners, businesses, commerce, local governments and non-resident hunters adamantly opposed limited permits. Arguments included:

- deleterious financial impacts to local economies, ranches, businesses and FWP programs with an advocacy for nonresident over resident financial inputs
- reduced hunter opportunity (especially nonresident—to include public land opportunities) when elk numbers are robust
- reduced elk population control
- perceived threats to landowner rights and/or property values/tax base
- reduced flexibility for landowner
- questions to the issues of crowding and access and the proposal’s effectiveness or need to those ends
- worsened landowner-sportsmen relations and access
- unfriendly message to nonresidents
- pursue other options to include working groups, choose your weapon/area or phased approach
- no season restriction could or should take place without landowner support or initiation


Among resident hunters, strong support was articulated for limited permits in the Breaks. The bulk of this support centered on:

- crowding as it relates to hunt quality and harvest opportunity/animal distribution-- many spoke to a history of hunting in the Breaks and seeing the quality of that experience erode over time
- equity between user groups and appropriately permitting such high quality opportunity
- residents also spoke to their financial contributions throughout the year and challenged the notion that hunting season structure changes violated private property rights

Limited Archery Elk—Outside Missouri Breaks

In nearly unanimous fashion, commenting outfitters, landowners, businesses, commerce, local governments and non-resident hunters adamantly opposed limited permits. Arguments included:

- deleterious financial impacts to local economies, ranches, businesses and FWP programs with an advocacy for nonresident over resident financial inputs
- reduced hunter opportunity (especially nonresident—to include public land opportunities) when elk numbers are robust
- reduced elk population control
- perceived threats to landowner rights and/or property values/tax base
- reduced flexibility for landowner to include hunting
- questions to the issues of crowding and access and the proposal’s effectiveness or need to those ends
- worsened landowner-sportsmen relations and access
- does not measure landowner commitments to wildlife and tolerance for damage
- unfriendly message to nonresidents
- pursue other options to include working groups, choose your weapon/area, phased approach or different geographic boundaries
- no season restriction could or should take place without landowner support or initiation

Unlike limited permits in the Missouri River Breaks, resident hunters expressed only limited support for this proposal from a statewide perspective. That said, there appeared a ”geography” of comments with stronger support coming from south central and southeast Montana. Comments were:

- at times careful not to dismiss specific (crowding) issues in the Breaks or other individual districts and efforts to address them, but reluctant to expand those changes to other areas that do not or may not share the same issues
- concern for lost hunter opportunity and, from that, concern about hunter redistribution to the west
- concern that the season change would not help access but may worsen it along with landowner-sportsmen relations
- support based upon limiting the hunter shift out of the Breaks into other limited entry rifle permits areas and opposition to the commercialization of wildlife resources—particularly in the absence of public access
- some saw this (positively) as a proactive step
- residents also spoke to their financial contributions throughout the year and challenged the notion that hunting season structure changes violated private property rights

 

[howler]

I spoke in error about the 23OD I was at the time only thinking about the breaks, That is the trouble with these 2 bills,, (HB361, HB 285), most people are only thinking about he 23 OD and are willing to throw the breaks under the bus,, I'd be willing to bet that there are at lest 2 times maybe 3 times the number of bowhunters hunting the breaks as the 23OD's and yet we are going to sacrifice the majority to help a few. that don't seem right to me...

 

[Horn Seeker]

You are right about that Steve...

Thanks Ben.

 

[Lawnboy]

I spoke in error about the 23OD I was at the time only thinking about the breaks, That is the trouble with these 2 bills,, (HB361, HB 285), most people are only thinking about he 23 OD and are willing to throw the breaks under the bus,, I'd be willing to bet that there are at lest 2 times maybe 3 times the number of bowhunters hunting the breaks as the 23OD's and yet we are going to sacrifice the majority to help a few. that don't seem right to me...

You just said it. There are 2 to 3 times more there. Sounds like they do have a problem that the others don't. I am all for fixing an area like that even though I don't hunt it but why couldn't the commission (professionals) realize all of this?