Here's a question for all of you - if you had the ability to change the structure of the MT hunting seasons, what would you do differently? I know I would definitely make some changes, I'm just curious what everyone else would change.
MT FWP Tentative Season setting meetings
- Thread starter tjones
- Start date
Kneetopia
Active member
Thanks!
Schaaf
Well-known member
1. I wouldn't hunt elk 6 months out of the year.
2. I wouldn't let every Tom, Dick, and Harry hunt mule deer through Thanksgiving weekend.
I accept cash, check, and paypal for those ideas.
No. We should ask 10 or 20 families how many they think is appropriate, then adjust the population accordingly. Probably by 47% like we hope to do to elk, to benefit these poor souls.
Just to be clear, i don’t think we necessarily need to take steps to intentionally bring elk all the way up to that level, but unless they are getting to it, how does science support hunting them 6 months? It doesn’t. And FWP admits it.
Are you familiar with the North American Model, Mdunc? You should look up rule #9. You won’t find anything about the wants of landowners.
Are you familiar with the North American Model, Mdunc? You should look up rule #9. You won’t find anything about the wants of landowners.
antlerradar
Well-known member
Interesting question, but probably should be its own separate thread.
mdunc8
Well-known member
Do you mean #7? I think you conveniently skipped over #3 to make your point. Regardless, everyone, including those who don’t hunt, get a say in the objectives for each critter. Science should then be used to manage for those objectives. Im not familiar with any part of the North American Model that states we should manage for certain numbers. If it does state that, someone should remove it.
I like seeing, shooting, and eating elk. However, I understand the landowner issues (some genuine, some not), so am willing to work with them. I also understand there are guys that like to hunt lions, so I’m willing to work with them. I understand there are people who simply enjoying watching elk, so I’m happy to work with them.
My point about the wolves is that there are plenty of people arguing we should we leave wolves alone and let them self-regulate, which would result in a population with higher abundances that eventually stabilizes around carrying capacity. You can’t cherry pick which populations you want in high abundances AND then use the North American Model as the reasoning why you should manage that population at the level you see fit and then change the process for critters you don’t like as much.
I like seeing, shooting, and eating elk. However, I understand the landowner issues (some genuine, some not), so am willing to work with them. I also understand there are guys that like to hunt lions, so I’m willing to work with them. I understand there are people who simply enjoying watching elk, so I’m happy to work with them.
My point about the wolves is that there are plenty of people arguing we should we leave wolves alone and let them self-regulate, which would result in a population with higher abundances that eventually stabilizes around carrying capacity. You can’t cherry pick which populations you want in high abundances AND then use the North American Model as the reasoning why you should manage that population at the level you see fit and then change the process for critters you don’t like as much.
Last edited:
Bigsky2 - For example in a unit I have hunted in since 2014 the MTFWP estimates there is 1500-2000 wintering elk, and I pretty much agree with those numbers, based on the number of elk I see throughout the season. So in 2014 and before there were 25 B elk licenses available, then in 2015 it was increased to 150-175. I feel the 150-175 number is fairly accurate. Now this year the quota will be increased to 400-500, that is 25% of the entire herd. I know that only a faction will be harvested due to difficult access but that seems like a considerable amount of pressure.
My thoughts are limiting the seasons, where a resident or non-resident hunter can either hunt the archery or rifle seasons not both. Secondly, I would recommend splitting the 5 week rifle season into two 2 week periods with a week break in between the two week season. Additionally, a rifle hunter would need to chose which 2 week season they plan to hunt and they would be restricted to those 14 days.
You don't need 11 weeks to kill an elk. If you can't have a opportunity in 6-10 days its probably not happening for you.
I would allow elk to be hunted on private lands from Aug 15 - Nov 30th with rifles in any district that is over-objective. With OTC tags
Lastly, I would allow aerial shooting of wolves/coyotes from Dec. 1 - Feb. 15th. (That would be fun) Good luck getting these ideas made into laws! Preston
My thoughts are limiting the seasons, where a resident or non-resident hunter can either hunt the archery or rifle seasons not both. Secondly, I would recommend splitting the 5 week rifle season into two 2 week periods with a week break in between the two week season. Additionally, a rifle hunter would need to chose which 2 week season they plan to hunt and they would be restricted to those 14 days.
You don't need 11 weeks to kill an elk. If you can't have a opportunity in 6-10 days its probably not happening for you.
I would allow elk to be hunted on private lands from Aug 15 - Nov 30th with rifles in any district that is over-objective. With OTC tags
Lastly, I would allow aerial shooting of wolves/coyotes from Dec. 1 - Feb. 15th. (That would be fun) Good luck getting these ideas made into laws! Preston
BuzzH
Well-known member
As if that doesn't already happen with 5 weeks and 2 days? All of a sudden, 5 weeks and 4 days changes things?
Laffin'...
It’s just some people get a lot more say than others. Like at a 1:10000 ratio. But that’s all good right.
Seems like if you truly believe in what you say, you want more elk.
I don’t think it should be a democracy but if it were, I doubt you’d find much support for shooting pregnant cows in waist deep Feb snow.
It’s definitely debatable if ‘everyone gets a say’. Public input is mostly a required formality.
Last edited:
Gerald what is your take on this? I am totally unfamiliar with the unit.
Mule Deer
HD 103: A proposal from Libby-area sportsmen to make a portion of HD 103 a limited
draw permit area for mule deer bucks. FWP proposes no change from the current any
antlered buck. More information available at FWP.mt.gov
Mule Deer
HD 103: A proposal from Libby-area sportsmen to make a portion of HD 103 a limited
draw permit area for mule deer bucks. FWP proposes no change from the current any
antlered buck. More information available at FWP.mt.gov
mdunc8
Well-known member
Welcome to how the world works. It sucks, yes, but that's the reality of things. All we can do is continue to try to affect change as best we can. I encourage you and everyone else to do that even if your views differ from mine. More times than not, our requests fall on deaf ears, but that doesn't mean we should stop trying.
I want more mule deer first, bigger mule deer second, then more antelope, then bigger antelope, then more moose, then more ducks, and finally yes, more elk. However, I realize other folks might prioritize critters differently, so I respect the process though it is badly flawed and the folks implementing it aren't perfect either.
On HuntTalk? Probably not. However, on my job site, there is overwhelming support for the shoulder season.
No argument here. However, I know there are folks on HuntTalk (e.g., the Bitterroot crowd comes to mind) who can attest to seeing their requests, some of which were quite substantial, becoming reality.
mdunc8
Well-known member
Do anyone know if there's ever been a push to get a few more limited deer units in the eastern part of the state?
joelweb
Well-known member
Interesting to see how FWP used CWD as a reason to oppose this hunt, even though CWD isn't present in that part of Montana.
I have not seen anything. Always interesting at these meetings there will be guys that want HD270 and HD261 returned to general mule deer seasons.
Gerald Martin
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2009
- Messages
- 8,348
Tony, I don't have a lot of familiarity with the unit but it would have pretty good potential to grow some nice bucks. It's a lot of checkerboard timber/FS land that has a diverse patchwork of landscape with a lot of new growth and continual logging. Easily accessed with roads, some of which I assume are gated during hunting season. Local meat hunters will have a fit, it might be difficult to patrol, but won't affect most people's ability to fill a deer tag since there are already more whitetails than mule deer in the unit.
I hope it passes and will support it. The odds of killing a decent muley buck with the regs the way they currently are is very unlikely. I'm not terribly sympathetic to the NEED some people have to shoot a forked horn mountain muley from the road to fill the freezer. There's plenty of whitetails for that.
belly-deep
Active member
- Joined
- Oct 31, 2009
- Messages
- 3,459
The state doesn’t need more limited entry deer tags. It needs statewide regulation adjustment if anything. More LE units only displace more hunters, which increases pressure on the units remaining general. It creates a nasty downward spiral. Most hunters won’t quit, they will just go to another unit.
Contrary to popular belief, more draw units are not they answer to every problem, and often they create worse problems than they fix. There ain’t much good in a unit you’ll only draw a handful of times in your life. I’d much rather hunt deer every year at a disadvantageous time of the fall then hunt the rut once every 10-15 years.
Interesting. mtmuley http://www.greatfallstribune.com/st...al-deer-hunt-near-chester-possible/967120001/
mdunc8
Well-known member
Thanks for not answering my question, belly-deep.
mdunc8
Well-known member
Is belly-deep one of them?
