eatsleephunt

I'm glad you posted that as I hadn't seen the actual "specs" on the new regulation proposals, and I have not had time to totally digest this info enough to make up my mind on whether or not I agree with them.

I am not so sure that this is not a good thing though. Under the current proposal resident archery hunters would obtain a tag 90% of the time if I read that correctly, so that pretty much guarantees us a tag if we choose to hunt Eastern. I also understand that non-residents will be limited to 10% of these tags, which I really like because it would cut down the amount of archery preassure in the Breaks and the Bulls, etc.

With reduced preassure comes afew of long term bonus' for residents. One would be increased quality, two would be less preassured/more patternable/more numerousanimals and thirdly the outfitters won't have quite so many high dollar clientel choices on the "guaranteed" non-resident tag quota as it stands now. This may drive the cost of lease property down, as there won't be quite the demand. More folks might be apt. to enroll in block management as a result.

Curtailed general opportunity always leads to higher quality, which I am definitely a fan of. I've been saying this for years, but I wish Montana would go to weapon selection for elk. You choose archery or rifle. They have done it already with antelope, and there is no lack of opportunity there. Our 900 antelope archery tags allow for good antelope rut hunting anywhere in the state versus having a rifle tag which allows you to hunt in only one district under tremendous pressure from other hunters on public land and much block management.

I know that anytime opportunity is reduced in a "manage for meat" state, that it doesn't go over very well, but our population is getting bigger every year. The huntable populations of critters we have now are nothing compared to what they were in the past, and to keep the status quo where everyone can have a quality experience of multiple species harvest, we have to give up a little here and there.

Take Idaho for example. The average Joe over there can archery hunt elk, then limitedly rifle or muzzleload after that, but your big bull opp. is definitely with a bow unless you draw a limited entry rifle tag or hunt the back country. You basically are limited to hunting antelope with a bow only(unless you draw one of the 2-3000 or so unit specific limited entry gun permits), and you can have one buck deer tag and maybe a doe tag. You can purchase a second buck tag for general season there if they are not sold out by season, and you must pay non-resident fees to do so. You may also buy an extra elk tag for non-resident prices, once again if there are any left over. Moose sheep and goat are once in a lifetime.

Idaho has roughlya third of the land mass of Montana and 1.5 times the population. There is simply more pressure on less resources for the residents of Idaho. In Montana, as of a couple of years ago, you could harvest as many does as you wanted to buy tags for, and up to 4 antelope does as well. This year and last year it was limited to 7 doe tags total for deer and two antelope does. I havn't heard a single complaint about that, as 7 does is simply more than the average guy wants to shoot anyway. However, I'm sure it did affect some individuals who had the need or desire to harvest a few more. In a few years we may see the doe deer harvest dropped to lower minimums? Who knows.

I think that with current info. and argumentsavailable to me, I would have to agree with limiting the Eastern Montana archery elk hunt.