WillCz

Dear Friends,

We have a battle to win for the bowhunters of Eastern Montana. It will effect every bow hunter adversely. Please send this on to everyone who will help us keep our unlimited archery permits! Ask them to flood the FWP with emails, letters and/or phone calls. The general number for FWP is 406-444-2950 - hit '0" for the person prompt. Even if you aren't a bow hunter yourself, please comment to help the rest of us. It applies to Elk & Antelope.

There is no practical reason to limit bow hunters.Bow hunters do not harvest enough animals to adversely affect thegame. There is a lot of public land and block management land to hunt as well as the elk & antelope herds are plentiful.No matter howyou feel about private land rights, don't let themtake your right to bow hunt if you so choose. Right now we need to flood the FWP with phone calls,lettersand emails that tell them to leave the licensing for archery areas as it is.

Please send your comments to: FWP – Wildlife Division, Attn: Public Comment, POB 200701, Helena MT 59620-0701 or email [email protected]. The deadline for public comment to be received is 5:00 PM on Friday, February 1, 2008. The Commission will take final action on these Tentative adoptions at its February 20, 2008 meeting in Helena.
Elk

Statewide
Adjust elk archery to limited elk archery permits where elk rifle permits are currently limited. HDs include: 410, 417, 620, 621, 622, 700, 701 (Missouri River Breaks EMU) and 401, 403, 411, 412, 420, 425, 426, 441, 447, 450, 455, 500, 502, 510, 511, portion of 520, 530, 570, 575, portion of 580, 590, 702, 704 and 705. Additionally, these areas are proposed to have area-specific unlimited antlerless elk archery permits available through the drawing. In the Missouri River Breaks districts, archery is currently available via unlimited permit. In the other areas, archery is currently available on only a general license.

Under this proposal, other season elements would remain unchanged unless specifically addressed in other proposals. Archery permit applicants would apply first, second or third choice and may hunt elk in other areas/times but may not use the archery permit in the described district during the general rifle season. Rifle permit holders may use a bow during the archery season in the described district. Proposed permit numbers would be fixed and represent 75% of average of 2005, 2006 and 2007 total permit holders (Missouri River Breaks) and 90% of average of 2004, 2005 and 2006 number of estimated total archers (2007 data unavailable).

Archery permits that represent75% of average of total permits #s from 2005-2007 are:
HD 410/417: 1800
HD 620/621/622: 1250
HD 700/701: 820

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.

WillCz

I think you might be dead wrong. History has shown that the quality of the game is greatly improved when you manage the herd. Residents hunting everywhere and shooting any deer they want will not result in a better herd than if the outfitter managed the herd for trophies.

JMHO

eatsleephunt

I agree with hunter management, but I'm not seeing how this proposal helps the outfitter any more than the common guy.

WillCz

This proposal kills the outfitter. Non residents will only get 10% of the draw and will lose all of their guaranteed elk archery tags. Out of business.!!!!!!!

Nemont

You may want to give out complete information before running off at the mouth. I know you are tight with an Outfitter so your view is pretty highly tainted an self serving. The fact is that it will not affect the overal number of NR Outfitter sponsored licenses in the State nor will it reduce the number of NRtags available to the DIY hunters.

The proposal is to address the amount of archery hunter pressure on the Missouri River Breaks elk heard and to reduce crowding. Outfitters have only themselves to blame for the current situation. I have no issue with Outfitters other then they did not keep the promises made to the resident hunters when they recieved the benefit of guaranteed Outfitter Sponsored Licenses.

You are blowing a huge smoke cloud and mixing issues where there are none. Montanan's have every right to reduce, increase or eliminate tags and licenses as they see fit. As long as we follow our rules that is the way it is. I am sorry for your precieve loss of hunting oppotunity but it is not your right as you indicated earlier.

If you wish to have the same privileges as a resident in our state then move here.

Nemont

eatsleephunt

All outfitters won't be out of business, just the ones that were flying by the seat of their pants to begin with. Guys who shouldn't be out on their own outfitting will go back to work as guides where they belong, and what outfitters are left will truly be able to provide a quality experience.

Same in the construction industry. When times are good every Tom, Diick and hammer swingin' Harry are out with their pick-up truck and a skill saw degrading the quality of work, client base and client confidence factor. Times get tough, and they go back to work for someone who can actually manage a project effectively and teach them something. As a result, general quality goes up, etc.

Now on the other hand, even the successful outfitters and contractors got started with a horse and a skill saw, just not very many of them can hack it to the finish line. It's called survival of the fittest.

beech18

I agree with Nemont. If you wish to have the same privileges as a residentof Montanathen move here to Montana. I dont see myself getting the same priveleges when I try to hunt out of state as the residents of that state.

121553

I've been hunting the breaks for about 4 years during bow season and this past sept. I saw license tags from alberta, sask., and maybe more out of staters than resident vehicle tags. People, people, people along with some atitudes also. Go to Colorado instead.

Bobby

Buckshot

The same privilages? are you nuts? just look at what we pay for tags. We already subsudise all the F/W services out in the western states. Just imagine what the cost of a resident lic. would be if it wasent for us flat landers. The hunting is what it is out west thanks to us, the non resident hunter.