You might have read in the papers just before Christmas that the Fish Wildlife & Parks Commission has put out tentative regulations for comment that would put elk archery hunting and antelope archery hunting in your areas on limited entry permits.

The numbers of hunters granted limited entry permits on a drawing will be between 75% and 90% of the average of the past three years, depending on the area. This is a huge financial impact on your small communities.

Nonresident hunters will be limited to half or less of what they have been, due to our 10% limit on nonresidents being allowed to draw limited entry permits.

Resident hunter numbers will also be less than they have been. There is no biological reason for the proposals. In fact, elk and antelope populations in the eastern 2/3 of Montana are very high. Sixteen of the 31 disitricts included in the elk proposal had extended seasons because of elk populations over objective.

The reasoning behind the proposals is perceived overcrowding, belief that bowhunters are taking more elk than rifle hunters in some districts, and the perceived potential for loss of free public access to private lands--all being blamed on nonresidents.

The majority of archery hunters in the affected areas are NOT guided. MOST nonresident elk archery hunters hunt on the 5 million-plus acres of public land included in the proposal. The number of nonresident elk licenses is limited by law to 17,000, statewide.

Montana Outfitters and Guides Association is working to set up a working group that will address the perceived issues--are they really issues? and what are possible solutions? It will be a shame for Montana FWP to cut off a big piece of Montana tourism's nose just for spite.

We need participation and information from small town business owners who realize business
from out-of-area hunters, especially during September and early October. Could you let your memberships know about this, please? If they would like to participate, they can email moga@mt.net.

Ann,

I think Montana has a right to regulate the ammount of non-resident hunters be they bowhunters or not.

I don't know what the bowhunter versus rifle hunter percentage is in Montana. The bottom line it is based on a perceived inequality among bowhunters. The state beleives that bowhunters are just as capable.

Here's the important parts from the change.

2. Why is the proposed change necessary?

There are several problems associated with unlimited either sex elk archery permits in those areas that are currently limited entry for either sex elk rifle hunters. Many of these issues are fundamentally tied to the (typically) enhanced age structure of bull elk in these districts and the value those bulls represent.

The problems are:

Perceived inequity among hunter groups. FWP has long taken comments critical of limited entry rifle opportunities in areas with unlimited archery. Countering arguments have included the (typically) small total harvest by archers and the ability for anybody to enter the sport of bowhunting without having to sacrifice their rifle opportunities. Most recently, in some areas the relatively large archer take of bulls and identified access reductions tied to unlimited and secured archery opportunity moves the argument away from total archery harvest. As or if access restrictions extend into rifle season, unlimited archery opportunity can directly impact rifle hunting opportunity. Limited permits removes this inequity.

A high nonresident participation rate relative to the 10% cap and nonresident participation in other areas. In that sense, unlimited permits that foster a relatively high nonresident participation in specific areas are arguably counter to the cap’s intent and manifestation at the local level. While some argue that nonresident elk licenses are already limited and so should not be capped again, in truth limited elk permits across the state have long and consistently maintained a 10% cap in their drawing process. Limited permits maintains a consistent nonresident participation rate.

Hunter crowding and its influence to elk distribution and/or hunt quality. In some areas the presence of world class bull elk and unlimited permits has attracted ever increasing numbers of people—residents and nonresidents alike. With that growing hunter presence has come hunter comments speaking to eroded hunt quality and unwanted impacts to elk distribution. The limited permits structure affords the Commission the ability to adjust numbers when/where/if necessary. Additionally, a reduction in permit numbers (from current unlimited levels) can immediately speak to crowding.

The unlimited season structure easily facilitates leasing and its (typically) exclusive access to wildlife. Field observations and assessments have identified leasing as a growing component of Montana’s landscape. While such circumstances are typically first seen as a reduction in hunting access, there can also be significant impacts to management effectiveness as or if access restrictions create refuges that prevent adequate harvest. While any limited permit adoption may not reverse or prevent existing leases, the limited structure and the annual uncertainty it brings arguably facilitates leasing to a lesser degree. From that, limited permits may reduce both rate and volume of future leasing efforts. Criticisms that limited structures may impact commercial interests or gains typically do not speak to the loss of management effectiveness or to the general public’s place in Montana’s public wildlife management as it is currently defined. A permit reduction effectively magnifies the intended drawing uncertainty.

In a broader context, structural changes based upon management considerations beyond the biological arguably enhance and maximize the Department and Commission’s potential strategic role in tomorrow’s wildlife management arena. As social pressures to access finite resources continue to climb, collaborative efforts that engage all relevant parties must necessarily keep pace. As a first step towards that collaboration, the Department, reasonably as facilitator, technical advisor and steward of the Public Trust, must responsibly use available tools like season structure to maintain, illustrate and emphasize legitimate values and to articulate rationale and process for divergent parties to engage one another directly. In this case, an unlimited season structure is clearly advocated by some—but that structure’s availability just as clearly threatens the legitimate values of others. Given the indirect nature of most interactions (with perspectives typically speaking not to each other but to FWP or the Commission), it seems that only after all parties “come to the table†and are equally aware, respectful and “dependent†upon one another can effective and sincere collaboration begin. It is to that “start†this proposal and others like it also endeavor.


3. What is the current population’s status in relation to the management objectives? (i.e., state management objectives from management plan if applicable; provide current and prior years of population survey, harvest, or other pertinent information).

While individual districts vary in their population status vs. objective, the Missouri River Breaks Elk Management Unit (EMU) is perceived to be 146% of objective based upon most recent surveys. This proposal, as it focuses on either sex (“bullâ€) permits, is not intended or anticipated to inappropriately reduce antlerless harvest.

In this context, the proposal’s relationship to Elk Plan season packages needs to be addressed. To restate earlier presentations to the Commission, FWP considers elk objectives to be fixed until they are deliberately and collaboratively changed. FWP further recognizes that proposed season packages must communicate the appropriate level of potential harvest based upon population status and objective. That is to say, any proposal must appropriately be “Liberalâ€, “Standard†or “Restrictiveâ€. From this, a structure’s exact detail may reasonably change during established season setting process—but the sum of those changes must accurately reflect the “correct†level of intended harvest. In this case, the proposal—as it varies from exact Elk Plan language-- speaks not only to maintaining appropriate harvest potentials in the short term (2008 – 2009) but comprehensively in the long term as well.

4. Provide information related to any weather/habitat factors that have relevance to this change (i.e., habitat security, hunter access, vegetation surveys, weather index, snow conditions, temperature / precipitation information).

Regional staff has articulated (see attached) specific access restrictions that are seen to be facilitated by the current unlimited season structure.

5. Briefly describe the contacts you have made with individual sportsmen or landowners, public groups or organizations regarding this proposal and indicate their comments (both pro and con).

In addition to a long history of debate on this topic, staff have engaged and continue to engage the public on this proposal. Opinions vary widely on the central theme (limited vs. unlimited) and the actual numbers. In that diversity of opinion, there are both staunch supporters and detractors.

Submitted by: ___Kujala___________
Date: ___December 7, 2007_____


It's probably the first time bowhunters have been capped based on there ability to kill elk. I like it!

According to the Montana Bowhunters Assn.

There are about 30,000 folks in Montana that hunt with a bow, out of 188,299 total hunters, and 125,245 total elk hunters.

So for once the Montana Fish Wildlife and Parks made a decision to not give 30,000 people a leg up over the other 150,000 hunters.

I like it!

Ann you guys have beat me into submission before. I know you can kill all kinds of animals with a bow!

I dissagree with regulations that give bowhunters any special privliges over rifle hunters.

Arizona has been doing this for years and it's wrong. I am glad to see Montana change the way we see bowhunters.

Bowhunters are capable of killing anything that walks. Why give them the kit-gloves and free run of the forrest.

Seth,

I am only the messenger, the letter is from the Montana outfitters association. I certainly don't know where anyone gets their data, but they state game numbers are at an all time high. That means bow hunters are not affecting game populations which to me, means this would not have an effect on opportunities for any hunter, be they an archery, a muzzleloader or rifle hunter.

Their concern with the restriction appears to be loss of business to the local communities who rely on hunters coming to hunt. That would be small business owners like grocers, motel owners, gas stations, outfitters/ranchers, restaurants, etc.

Personally, I like to think states in this country wouldn't restrict people who do hunt since it also is revenue for their coffers. How often do we hear that fewer people are hunting anymore? This is a start on more restrictions to keep people from hunting.

Lack of private land access is a bigger factor I think to your delemma of elk hunting in the west than bow hunters killing all of the game. Most land owners want to be paid to allow people access to their property or, they've leased it out to an outfitter. Helps them pay the bills.

Not everyone can afford to go to Montana elk hunting and far as I know there are license quotas. The cost for an out of state resident just for the elk license is around $1000 isn't it? Then there is the cost of paying an outfitter if you are going that route, plus your travel expenses.

I've never seen Montana statistics but my guess is not even 50% of those who do go and bowhunt elk in any particular year even kill one. Anyone know what the percentage is for success? I'd like to see more data myself.

If we go restricting people for the choice of weapon they hunt with it's only a matter of time before all of it is stopped and the elk only become wolf poop.

I should add that I prefer to bowhunt because it is more challenging. It is harder, you HAVE to get closer to the game. Rifle hunting, yep I do it and love it too, but it is a heck of a lot easier. I only have to get 300 yards away to be an accurate killing machine!

On my most recent hunt, which was for deer in NY State I elected to take a muzzleloader rather than my 5 shot Rem 1100 (no rifle zone). I killed two deer and did better than the guys who brought their shotguns and who each and every one of them emptied their guns on deer and most never killed one. I am sure they wounded many but that's another story!

D99,
It is a very complex issue.
You pretty much hit that one out of the park.

quote:

So for once the Montana Fish Wildlife and Parks made a decision to not give 30,000 people a leg up over the other 150,000 hunters.

The main cause of this leg up is the advancement of modern archery equipment.

When archery season were first implemented. The bowhunters equipment leveled the playing field. The difficulty kept hunter participant & success rates low.

They are many instances of modern archery hunters killing elk and antelope at unheard of distances. I have personally spoken to archery hunters that have killed game at 100-120 yards. They do it on a regular basis.

Bottom line is this. Are the archery hunters having a detrimental impact on game populations and Montana FWP management goals?

The FWP obviously thinks so. Hence the new regulation proposals.

This exact same thing happened in South Dakota quite a few ago.

A Conservation Officer tried to implement QDM in his county by limiting rifle hunting.

It worked, and soon resident and non-resident bowhunters were traveling to his county to hunt because archery tags are unlimited in SD. The archery harvest was averaging deer two years older than the rest of the state. The rifle harvest was averaging deer 1 year older than the rest of the state.

His response was to implement a draw for archery hunting also.

It went all the way to the GFP administration and commission. The Bowhunting organization got involved, the local archery hunters got involved.

It came down to South Dakota's policy of maximum sustainable harvest. They do not have QDM or "trophy" management policy.

South Dakota could implement a QDM philosophy. We would have some tremendous deer. But then we would have the same problem as every other state with huge non-resident pressure. Big $$ for outfitting/ guiding/ leasing. Which would push out the residents. This is happening with Pheasant hunting.

So the landowners have adopted QDM, started pursueing non-resident money. Then they complain that their guys (read $$$) can't draw tags because of the non-resident cap limit.

I have contacted some of these landowners, and they don't want resident hunters, even if I am willing to pay the money. Interesting, huh?

Ann I would be willing to bet that Montana's rifle elk kill rate is well under 50%.

Montana is a big place with with a total big game population of around 1.5 million animals. You probably have twice that many deer in NH.

Ann,
One other thing to keep in perspective.

Just because someone chooses to hunt with a more primitive weapon, it doesn't entitle them to anything.

It may give them more opportunity, but that is all it is. That opportunity comes from increase difficulty, ie lower success rates, allowing more recreational hours per resource impact.

The more advanced the "primitive" weapon becomes, the more resource impact.

In South Dakota we had to basically prove that the 3000, yes 3000 deer that archery hunters harvested was not biologically significant to the 80,000 harvested annually. Now I haven't looked at those numbers lately so it may have changed in the last few years.

But if/when the archery harvest becomes significant to management, then we will go to a drawing. That is the way they manage.

I personally would rather see them limit the archery season to:
A. more primitive weapons
B. or an either/or season.

So the big question again, is if the archery hunters in Montana are having a big enough impact to affect MT FWP management goals (whatever they may be), if so then something needs to be done.

Now, the MT FWP wildlife goals may not be correct in some opinions or the the archery hunting threat may just be a percieved threat by someone who wants to do something about it.

I am very suspicious when the outfitters get involved, because it usually has more to do with money and what's mine, than true management goals.

I know for a fact the Wy outfitters assoc has some very good people in it, but they have done nothing but hinder a DIY type hunter.

and here i thought hunting was all about FAIR ..
fair chase and fair access?
goverment land is US govenment land, and there should be NO "different" restrictions, if one buys a license....

sort of like saying "oh, if you live here, you can drive in any legal lane, but it's an illegal action for another person, who is also legal to drive in the state, to drive more than 30%"

yeah.. that helps WHO?

in Texas, if you buy the license, you hunt and fish the same. PERIOD

"Montana Outfitters and Guides Association is working to set up a working group that will address the perceived issues--are they really issues?"

This is just another reason I can't stand the outfitting business in Montana. That above statement is about as stupid as anything I have read it a while. One only has to spend about 30 minutes in unit 410 to see it's totally out of control and overrun with hunters during bow season. There is no "perceived" about it! Frankly if it tick's off the outfitters in this state then it HAS TO BE GOOD!

quote:

...but they state game numbers are at an all time high. That means bow hunters are not affecting game populations which to me, means this would not have an effect on opportunities for any hunter, be they an archery, a muzzleloader or rifle hunter.

Their concern with the restriction appears to be loss of business to the local communities who rely on hunters coming to hunt. That would be small business owners like grocers, motel owners, gas stations, outfitters/ranchers, restaurants, etc.
.

You're way, way off on this particular quote:
"which to me, means this would not have an effect on opportunities for any hunter, be they an archery, a muzzleloader or rifle hunter"
Its access. A resident can't hunt if he/she doesn't have access to land to hunt on.

Unlimited archery tags = rich out of state people leasing land = less land for residents to hunt on. I don't blame ranchers for leasing, that isn't the argument. Unlimited tags have a huge impact on a Montana resident's ability to hunt in thier own state.

Also, Unlimited archer tags = residents and nonresidents hunt the CRAP out of public land during archery season which chases game onto private land = less hunting opportunities for everyone.

I actually live here and see this happen all the time. Its way worse than it was even a few years ago.

Please don't equate game populations with hunting opportunities. Flawed logic.

Also, this is a laugh:
"Their (outfitters) concern with the restriction appears to be loss of business to the local communities who rely on hunters coming to hunt. That would be small business owners like grocers, motel owners, gas stations"

Pardon me, but are you nuts? The outfitters don't give one crap about any business but their own. You know this, we all know this. They want fees from out of state hunters. Period. So would I if I were them. Seems like they have a brainless PR person on staff.

quote:

Originally posted by SDhunter:
D99,
It is a very complex issue.
You pretty much hit that one out of the park.


[QUOTE] So for once the Montana Fish Wildlife and Parks made a decision to not give 30,000 people a leg up over the other 150,000 hunters.

The main cause of this leg up is the advancement of modern archery equipment.

When archery season were first implemented. The bowhunters equipment leveled the playing field. The difficulty kept hunter participant & success rates low.

They are many instances of modern archery hunters killing elk and antelope at unheard of distances. I have personally spoken to archery hunters that have killed game at 100-120 yards. They do it on a regular basis.


That is absolute bullshit.Give me some real proof beyond what some drunk is spewing in a Bar.I do not take shots beyond 50 Yds and I have good gear.30 yds and less is more realistic.Montana has no way of knowing what the success of Archers is.Are you talking of the Postcard they send to maybe 10% of hunters???Beleive me unless they are out and out poaching success with a Bow is probably not more than 10 or 15 % at the most.

geez what a p i t a this whole thing is a mess. this is why I dont bitch about the cost of hunting in Texas, buy a licence go hunting for 3 months tag game based on county they were killed in via the little booklet you get with the licence. evryone buys the same licence in or out of state.

quote:

They are many instances of modern archery hunters killing elk and antelope at unheard of distances. I have personally spoken to archery hunters that have killed game at 100-120 yards. They do it on a regular basis.


That is absolute bullshit.Give me some real proof beyond what some drunk is spewing in a Bar.I do not take shots beyond 50 Yds and I have good gear.30 yds and less is more realistic.Montana has no way of knowing what the success of Archers is.Are you talking of the Postcard they send to maybe 10% of hunters???Beleive me unless they are out and out poaching success with a Bow is probably not more than 10 or 15 % at the most.

I am not talking about you or your personal hunting ethics. In the wide open plains, archery hunters are killing animals at long distance. In talking with some of the MT bowhunter assoc. guys. Long range archery elk shooting is a very big problem. We have the same problem here in SD with guys who draw an archery elk tag for the opportunity then go buy a bow, or better yet get a crossbow permit.

I have personally spoke to numerous archery antelope hunters that bragged to me about there 80-120 yard shots. One group was even from Wisconsin!! I just congratulated them and walked away. No sense trying to tell them it wasn't right. They were dang happy have killed their antelope and only wounded one.

Olbiker, you can call BS all you want. But you are wrong. Long range archery shooting/hunting is more prevalent than you think.

quote:

This is just another reason I can't stand the outfitting business in Montana. That above statement is about as stupid as anything I have read it a while. One only has to spend about 30 minutes in unit 410 to see it's totally out of control and overrun with hunters during bow season. There is no "perceived" about it! Frankly if it tick's off the outfitters in this state then it HAS TO BE GOOD!

I tend to agree with that statement 100%.

quote:

Beleive me unless they are out and out poaching success with a Bow is probably not more than 10 or 15 % at the most.

I do believe you... except for the fact that in most of these units there is about 8-10+ times as many bow hunters as rifle hunters. Even if rifle hunters are haveing 40% success, they're still killing far fewer elk total.

I know quite a few guys that have killed elk over 80 yard... Just because you can't/don't doesn't mean there are others that do.

Montana's FWP is and has been the laughing stock of other F&W agencies in the Rockies. I ask you all- WHERE ELSE ON THE PLANET can you hunt mulies in the rut in an UNLIMITED situation? Where else can you hunt elk for ELEVEN FREAKING WEEKS! They (FWP) simply refuse to learn from the growing pains most all the neighboring states have gone through. And here is the DIRTY LITTLE SECRET: The yearly cash infusion from non-res, outfitter set aside licenses is the departments annual heroin injection and THEY CAN"T LIVE WITHOUT IT! Without the set aside the Block Mang. Program would fall apart(maybe that would be a good thing, but thats another subject!). So all of you bashing the outfitting industry I ask: What , EXACTLY, is your solution?

quote:

Originally posted by CRUSHER:
geez what a p i t a this whole thing is a mess. this is why I dont bitch about the cost of hunting in Texas, buy a licence go hunting for 3 months tag game based on county they were killed in via the little booklet you get with the licence. evryone buys the same licence in or out of state.

yep!

Good points crane. Heroin injection is a good comparison. Thus..

Part of the EXACT solution is getting the outfitters out of the FWP's trousers. They have way too much influence, same as mining companies with the BLM, wood products with the Forest Service, etc.

I like most of the compromises the state has come up with between ranchers, outfitters and common hunting scum (like me). They're stemming the inevitable tide of ensuring that only the rich get to hunt, opening up more ranches with the Block Management program (that out of staters enjoy too), etc.

Other part of the EXACT solution: get more public access to public land. Most BLM and state land is inaccessable to the public. There's also a LOT of National Forest that's checkerboarded with no access. The stuff that is accessable is great. I just don't like the subsidies associated with farming and outfitting it for a rediculously low cost and keeping everyone else off. Having to walk in a few miles isn't the problem, its actually a good thing. It's stuff that's totally off limits to everyone who'd like to use their land (bikers, hikers, bird watchers, hunters, etc.).

Other part of EXACT solution:
Let private ranchers do what they want but don't give them a dime for crop damage unless they allow public access for hunting. Tax them everytime they bitch about high game populations.

BTW: hunting during the rut is a choice about trophy quality vs. quantity, its not Bad vs. Good. Montana has clearly chosen quantity over quality (look at the record books). Let other states do what they want. If you don't like it, hunt elsewhere. If the game populations were low it would be a different issue.

quote:

Originally posted by jeffeosso:

quote:

Originally posted by CRUSHER:
geez what a p i t a this whole thing is a mess. this is why I dont bitch about the cost of hunting in Texas, buy a licence go hunting for 3 months tag game based on county they were killed in via the little booklet you get with the licence. evryone buys the same licence in or out of state.

yep!

If Texas had more public land, didn't allow high fences or game farms, and therefor a tradition of hunters not asking for permission or paying access fees you'd have a different attitude. All states have different game, land ownership and hunting traditions. I've hunted in Texas and loved it (hope to be going again in February), its just different and doesn't deserve a direct comparison.

BTW, based on your earler post, the STATE FWP pays for game management on Federal lands. Game management, other than migratory or endangered, isn't federal (or we'd all be screwed quickly). Everyone has access to all federal land but, yes, hunting is restricted mainly to those who pay for its management (mainly state residents). In Montana's case, non-residents can hunt all small game, varmints and do some really inexpensive upland game, waterfowl hunting and trapping. The only serious restriction is bucks, rams, billies, bears and bulls. "Fixing" this and allowing everyone equal opportunity to take game on federal lands will require new federal legislation by some liberals who, I'm certain, will mess everything up.

Al- So you consider 3-5 bulls /100 cows and 2-4 mule deer bucks/100 does acceptable? That is exactly what we have in the majority of the state that FWP has controll over. I do not and either do F&W folks from EVERY OTHER state in the Rockies. But more specifically, how do we replace the $$$$ from the outfitters licenses to maintain Block Mgmt? That is the question I was asking.

I don't look a radically skewed sex ratios as a"quality vrs quanity" issue as you do. Intead, it should be viewed as POOR BIOLOGY. Politics and biology makes an ugly stew!

Montana is still a great place to live and recreate. As we approach the one million mark there are many things that need to change. I do not see the vision for change within MT FWP.

Currently, Montana residents are paying a $2 access fee which goes to Block Management and the rest on the money comes from the outfitter set aside. I spent over $500 on gas this year going elk hunting and did not go antelope hunting due to another $200 in gas.

The solution to this is a $50 access fee for resident hunters which would give the fish and game enough money to enroll another 5 to 10 million acres in Block Management. With the additional acreage hunters could hunt closer to home and have additonal opportunities.

As far as hunting elk for 11 freaking weeks something is being done right. The elk population has gone from 50,000 to between 130,000 and 160,000 animals. In the 1970's there were several seasons where I did not see an elk, today if I don't see 50 elk it's a poor day. As far as hunting mule deer in the rut this is the way it has been done since the I remember in the early 60's. I have seen the mule deer population go up and down in the last 45 years and they have always been there. I feel the residents of Montana want numbers over size and there has been and always will big bucks out there. What is better counting your perferences points in the Southwest states & hoping to draw before you are unable to physically hunt. Don't get me wrong
I want to shot the biggest mule deer there is and I have not shot a mule deer since 2000.

Pard- Good idea w/the caveat that those new BM(not bowel movement as some of the current BM) have to be managed for some quality.

D99 thanks for saving me allot of time on the keyboard. You saved me about a hour of chicken pecking out a comment. You pretty much said how myself and many other Montana residents feel. I personally have nothing against Montana Outfitters but there voice is only a small percentage of Montana outdoors. I suppose Montana FWP should and will do what the overwhelming public majority wants.
Crane as far as the comment made by the others on Montana FWP being the laughing stock of the Rocky region, I for one have to disagree. Our Big game populations have steadily increased over the years. The largest dips we see in cycles are from outbreaks of blue tongue and other natural cycles. It is surely not because we hunt deer in the Rut or hunt elk for 11 weeks.
As far as myself I spent many days in the field with my bow with very good success and 3 times that number with a rifle and I do like the direction Montana FWP is heading with the limited archery draw.
This is just my opinion and will be at the local FWP meeting they have set up for my area and many other areas around the state. I go to this same meeting every year conserning the up coming regs and every year I have seen the majority of what the FWP does is what the hunting public wants. So Crane rather than blaming the Montana FWP for what you feel is a screwed up state of affairs maybe you should direct it toward Montana sportsman and outfitters.

quote:

Originally posted by OLBIKER:

The main cause of this leg up is the advancement of modern archery equipment.

When archery season were first implemented. The bowhunters equipment leveled the playing field. The difficulty kept hunter participant & success rates low.

They are many instances of modern archery hunters killing elk and antelope at unheard of distances. I have personally spoken to archery hunters that have killed game at 100-120 yards. They do it on a regular basis.


That is absolute bullshit.Give me some real proof beyond what some drunk is spewing in a Bar.I do not take shots beyond 50 Yds and I have good gear.30 yds and less is more realistic.Montana has no way of knowing what the success of Archers is.Are you talking of the Postcard they send to maybe 10% of hunters???Beleive me unless they are out and out poaching success with a Bow is probably not more than 10 or 15 % at the most.[/QUOTE]


Ol Biker, your comments (in Blue) are accurate. I have 3 National, 1 World and over 100 state 3d archery titles to my credit. I know what bows, and more importantly the average bowhunter can do. Bowhunter success rates are always MASSIVELY lower than firearms success rates. Most hunters can't estimate the difference between 45 and 55 yards accurately enough to make lethal hits consistenly--yes even with a 300 fps rig, of which there aren't really that many afield in hunting rigs--much less shots over 60 yards. Accuracy is certainly achievable, and lasers will give you the intel to make great shots, but they are VERY rare, and VERY irresponsible IMO on game animals. The flight time of an arrow over 40 yards is extremely long. I will join you in a loud call of Bullshit!

if it is federal land the citizens from any state in the union should have an equal opportunity to hunt it.....but i suppose to some that would sound a little to much like what the founding fathers of this land had in mind.....no slam on montana intended....i hope to hunt there someday but as time goes by i will never be able to afford it although i've been paying taxes all along.....anyone in any western state should have an equal chance at a tag for any federal land hunting in the east...only trying to be american in my beliefs....regards....bearit....

Bearit read this and look up the entire case.

"Baldwin v. Montana Fish and Game Commission confirmed the ability of states to regulate hunting and fishing and environmental quality within their borders, even if such regulation is applied unequally to state residents and nonresidents.


Balwin vs The State of Montana

Appellant
Lester Baldwin, et al.
Appellee
Fish and Game Commission of Montana
Appellant's Claim
That Montana's state game regulations violated Article IV, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Chief Lawyer for Appellant
James H. Goetz
Chief Lawyer for Appellee
Paul A. Lenzini
Justices for the Court
Harry A. Blackmun (writing for the Court), Warren E. Burger, Lewis F. Powell,Jr., William H. Rehnquist, John Paul Stevens, Potter Stewart
Justices Dissenting
William J. Brennan, Jr., Thurgood Marshall, Byron R. White
Place
Washington, D.C.
Date of Decision
23 May 1978
Decision
Montana's state fish and game laws were constitutional, and the appellant wasnot entitled to any relief from them.
Significance
The ability of states to regulate hunting, fishing, and environmental protection was upheld, even if such regulation discriminated against nonresidents ofthe state in question.
The state of Montana has long been renowned for its hunting and fishing, andmaintains a thriving industry based on the outfitting and guiding of huntingand fishing parties. In the early 1970s, Lester Baldwin, a resident of Montana, was a state-licensed hunting guide specializing in the pursuit of elk. Themajority of Baldwin's clients were from other states and traveled to Montanafor the express purpose of elk hunting. In 1975, Montana's hunting regulations that required state residents pay $4 for an elk-hunting license, while nonresidents were required to purchase a combination hunting license, entitlingthem to shoot two deer and one elk, for $151.
Four of Baldwin's clients, who traveled from Minnesota to Montana each year to hunt elk, balked at the discrepancy between license fees for residents andnonresidents and, along with Baldwin, filed suit against the state in the U.S. District Court for the District of Montana. The plaintiffs sought relief from Montana licensing requirements, claiming that the state game laws violatedtheir rights as set forth in Article IV, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitutionand reiterated in the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The district court ruled against Baldwin, et al., and the group appealed theircase to the U.S. Supreme Court, which heard arguments on 5 October 1977.
Attorneys for the appellants argued that Montana's game laws, by discriminating against nonresidents in their fee structures, violated Article IV, Section2 of the Constitution, which states in part that "citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states," as well as the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which states in part that "no state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States."
The respondents countered that Montana residents already paid for game conservation and regulation programs through their state taxes, and that the stateitself, by emphasizing wildlife conservation, had sacrificed economic development for the benefit of all and was due compensation from residents of more economically developed and environmentally degraded areas. Finally, the appellees presented evidence that nonresident hunters, by virtue of their general lack of experience, were a more difficult enforcement problem for state game wardens than resident hunters.
On 23 May 1978, the Court upheld the decision of the district court. In rejecting the appellants' claim that the Montana game laws violated Article IV, Section 2 of the Constitution, the Court noted that this passage had "been interpreted to prevent a state from imposing unreasonable burdens on citizens ofother states in pursuit of their common callings within the state," and thatthe game laws as they existed posed no threat to the right to hunt elk. The Court also found that the state game laws did not violate the Equal ProtectionClause of the Fourteenth Amendment, since the laws' primary intent was the maintenance and improvement of the hunting conditions that drew the appellantsto Montana in the first place. Chief Justice Burger, in a concurring opinion, noted that the right of states to regulate and preserve wildlife for the common good had long been recognized in U.S. law.
Justices Brennan, Marshall, and White dissented, noting that states should only be allowed to discriminate against nonresidents if "the presence or activity of nonresidents was the source or cause of the problem or effect with which the state sought to deal." They added that, "the discrimination practiced against nonresidents bore a substantial relation to the problem they presented." They did not feel that the presence of nonresident hunters had caused anyextraordinary elk conservation problems for Montana.
Baldwin v. Montana Fish and Game Commission confirmed the ability of states to regulate hunting and fishing and environmental quality within their borders, even if such regulation is applied unequally to state residents andnonresidents.[Environmental and wildlife management legislation was judged tobe both a substantial state regulatory interest and a means of preserving finite resources for the public good, and as such, is beyond the purview of theEqual Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Related Cases

i'm aware of the case being estabished in more than one state for that state to control hunting on federal land.....i'm just not sold on locals be they from pennsylvania or montana having the use of that land to line their pockets at my expense....it is federal land....maybe someone should spin off a new word or term to describe the regs in some of my western states.....bearit....

quote:

Originally posted by crane:
Al- So you consider 3-5 bulls /100 cows and 2-4 mule deer bucks/100 does acceptable? That is exactly what we have in the majority of the state that FWP has controll over. I do not and either do F&W folks from EVERY OTHER state in the Rockies. But more specifically, how do we replace the $$$$ from the outfitters licenses to maintain Block Mgmt? That is the question I was asking.

I don't look a radically skewed sex ratios as a"quality vrs quanity" issue as you do. Intead, it should be viewed as POOR BIOLOGY. Politics and biology makes an ugly stew!

Montana is still a great place to live and recreate. As we approach the one million mark there are many things that need to change. I do not see the vision for change within MT FWP.

If you've got the data to support the mule deer sex ratio I can't argue with it and I would agree that its not acceptable. However, its not even close to that every place I've hunted in the state (around Boz-Angeles, Big Timber, Broadus, Big Sky, Belfry, Biddle, pretty much every place that starts with a B), not even in the ball park.

No comment on elk ratios. Again, if you've got the data no argument.

There are a bunch of nice bucks of either species to be had for anyone willing to walk and work for them. FWP has done a great job of giving everyone I know a chance to hunt a decent buck all over the state and we have a big deer population, there must be some good biology there somewhere.

I like the $50 access fee idea very much (thanks Pard), along with limitations on archery tags (thanks FWP). I also support the requirement to have someone shoot a doe if they want to shoot a buck. If they don't need the meat they donate the processed game to the food bank.

What are your thoughts on replacing the income crane? My thought is that there's not going to be a need to replace the BM money, as the outfitting business and out of state tags and their associated fees aren't going anywhere.

This has generated quite a lot of interesting input and I see where most everyone has a legitimate observation. I personally do not have a problem with tag quotas. I waited my turn (3 years) to draw an antelope tag in Wyoming. Yeah, I killed one. I will probably go elk hunting for the first time ever, in 2009. Watch out Wyoming!

The problem really isn't bowhunters it's accessibility and who is controlling access to game. Obviously the game numbers are there. Fighting amongst hunters is poor form. Archers never have the advantage, it is way easier to rifle hunt. I've been bowhunting a long time and as good of a shot as I am I would never take a shot over 30 yards. In fact, in all my time I have only taken two shots at game at that distance. The rest were UNDER 20 yards. There are too many environmental factors that affect the flight of an arrow. Especially in the west.

Some solutions....?

- eliminate the archers so everyone has to rifle hunt. Hmm, ok, so now you have THAT MANY MORE people afield at the same time wanting to pull a trigger. Well, now you just bought yourself a typical midwestern deer hunt opener! WW III! You WILL KILL MORE game in such a situation due to the shear volume of people shooting, walking, driving and pushing game about. Game numbers will suffer. You'll be even more PO'd at the amount of people killing, wounding and hunting 'your' game.

Some of you mention technology and improvement to primitive weapons, well haven't rifles also been improved considerably over time? Oops! Yes, they have. In fact now we have scopes, lasers, fancy long range calibers, big bores, etc.... Oh Yeah! So if archers should be limited to a primitive form then so should firearm hunters. Get out your flint locks.

- Make everyone pay $1000 per tag for that elk, deer, sheep, antelope, bear no matter where you live.

- Institute QDM for ALL game species. I am fortunate, here in Vermont we have antler restrictions. Nice to see some older deer out there rather than a bunch of spikes and doe fawns. In my opinion, QDM levels the field no matter your choice or method of hunting, period! Oh, and I did not get a deer this year in my home state because nothing legal came past in any of our hunting seasons.

- Institute one season, such as ten days after the rut, for all hunting, choose your weapon.

Do these solve anything? Maybe it would help level the field.

A question to the westerners who have 'issues' with hunting- access, bowhunters (what ever), is, do you personally own land you can hunt on? Or, do you rely on state and Federal land access to hunt? Does your state limit a persons ability to hunt if they only own a few acres? Or, do you not own land but just live in town or a subdivision? I am asking because I do not know how much land you must own or if it is even a requirement there.

I am a landowner and my puny piece of expensive mountain side and valley is loudly posted. I work hard to maintain it and provide natural food and cover for game and non game species alike. I am also a farmer. Wildlife can have a bad habit of killing your livestock or eating your crops. So I can understand landowner issues. Everyone and their uncle wants to come hunt but none of them are to be found when I need a hand. So no one hunts MY land but me so far.

There have been times where I wasn't a landowner but I paid for leases and busted my butt to get access. It was worth it!

Federal Land Restrictions- as citizens we all pay for it! Yet, there is no equity on who can use it if you are a hunter. No problems for hikers, etc, however, game is worth money, lots of it. Wouldn't it be more fair to make everyone pay the same amount for a license/tag to hunt on Federal land?

Outfitters- sure seems like a hated species out west based on some of the comments here. I know some of the people who read and post on A-R are employed as such. How the heck do you feel reading the negative comments written here? What would you do to solve it?

Outfitters, well I like them. In unfamiliar territory and being female, I don't want to be out there alone. Too many freaks out there. On my own land no problem, I know it almost as well as the game. So I save up for an outfitted hunt per year.

BTW- who ever told some of you they were making 100 and 120 yard accurate, killing shots with an arrow in your windy states (or anywhere else for that matter) or through brush is completely full of it! You better witness it yourself and take video, it's hearsay otherwise!

quote:

Originally posted by mt Al:
[QUOTE] ...but they state game numbers are at an all time high. That means bow hunters are not affecting game populations which to me, means this would not have an effect on opportunities for any hunter, be they an archery, a muzzleloader or rifle hunter.

/
.

Also, Unlimited archer tags = residents and nonresidents hunt the CRAP out of public land during archery season which chases game onto private land = less hunting opportunities for everyone.


Dont residents have unlimited Gun Tags for Deer and Elk?????
None Resident Archers ( When you are lucky enough to Draw) do not partake in unlimited tags.You have to draw either a Big Game Combo or Deer Combo or get a Tag from an Outfitter and Hunt with him.These tags are guaranteed,but limited.

quote:

Originally posted by mt Al:

quote:

Originally posted by jeffeosso:

quote:

Originally posted by CRUSHER:
geez what a p i t a this whole thing is a mess. this is why I dont bitch about the cost of hunting in Texas, buy a licence go hunting for 3 months tag game based on county they were killed in via the little booklet you get with the licence. evryone buys the same licence in or out of state.

yep!

If Texas had more public land, didn't allow high fences or game farms, and therefor a tradition of hunters not asking for permission or paying access fees you'd have a different attitude. All states have different game, land ownership and hunting traditions. I've hunted in Texas and loved it (hope to be going again in February), its just different and doesn't deserve a direct comparison.

BTW, based on your earler post, the STATE FWP pays for game management on Federal lands. Game management, other than migratory or endangered, isn't federal (or we'd all be screwed quickly). Everyone has access to all federal land but, yes, hunting is restricted mainly to those who pay for its management (mainly state residents). In Montana's case, non-residents can hunt all small game, varmints and do some really inexpensive upland game, waterfowl hunting and trapping. The only serious restriction is bucks, rams, billies, bears and bulls. "Fixing" this and allowing everyone equal opportunity to take game on federal lands will require new federal legislation by some liberals who, I'm certain, will mess everything up.

Yeah right when your way of hunting gets a ding we all need to bow down to your traditions while you cant even talk about hunting here without bringing up fence feed farm and for a fee.

what im saying is simple Ill call you and say lets hunt my spot in south texas on november 22 or any other day you say ok show up buy a license at one of thousands of locations and we hunt my low fence no farm no fee to you ranch and hunt whatever game is in season bucks does squirles armadillos whatever.

you call me and say come here and lets hunt maybe if the season is right if you can draw a tag if you bow hunt if you dont want a bull/buck if you if you if you if you. if that is not a great big pain in the ass you have my apologeeez.

you pay more for a license to hunt texas than I do rightfully so but huinting here is available to anyone who shows up and Texans pay the brunt of the cost of it we are glad to do so.

it is not the cost of the hunting there. the land is unavailable to me at any cost. to hunt federal land I pay for just like you do I have to draw a tag and am only able to draw from a much smaller pool than you .

you guys run it however you want and I hope you get it like you want it. not here to tell you how to do it. just saying I dont think its fare.

do what you like If I hunt there I will play by your rules and be polite about it.

IMHO Montana is experiencing growing pains. The limited entry, drawing process, staggered seasons, preference point system, etc. etc. that have been installed in other western states is finally coming to critical mass here in Montana. I don't know about the other Montana entries on this thread but someone can verify that about 15 to 20 years ago every sumbich with a horse trailer in Montana became an outfitter. Leases were taken, clients were cultivated, and in ever increasing instances access to the "RANCH" as well as the public land beyond it was controlled or denied. Montanans are not used to paying for hunting as in Texas. However, Montana has the largest population of resident hunters in the nation with, as already noted, the longest big game seasons you're marriage will tolerate.

So what happened? First, national forest lands were hit pretty hard by the "horse trailer" crowd as well as the plebes on foot or the ubiquitous 4-wheeler. If somebody is trying to kill you, where you gonna go? How about private land with a lot less people. Yep. Or maybe the wildlife will go further into the back country, but that didn't work. Again, Montanans on this thread know exactly what a rodeo elk season is in the fabled Bob Marshall, the Beartooth adjacent to Yellowstone, or wilderness south of Big Sky.

With warmer weather over the past 10 years the hunters bemoan the fact that elk hunting hasn't been any good and harvest percentages are way down. Not really, the elk and deer are there 24-7 and 365 days. We're just not good enough to root them out of the home and kill them. So, elk in particular, crowding onto private land and lack of harvest has boosted populations of elk in the state to about 150,000 head, second behind Colorado.

This first attempt at reapportioning tags doesn't have much to do with game control, but hunter control and distribution. Archery hunting in the Missouri Breaks is much worse than a rodeo. I can't say it, but it's kind of like a cluster ---k. There is a decided loss of quality, and overall bull scores are lower if that matters to most of us. Something has to be done. This year was again warm, but the elk are smart enough to have moved, in some instances 50 miles, onto private land where the pressure is quite a bit less. I didn't say locked up or posted. Some of those ranchers will allow hunting. Some charge a fee and some don't. Many will gladly let you kill every damn cow on the haystack, but here's the real rub. They don't let the plebes kill the bulls unless they're willing to pay for it. A ha ! Privatization of public resources. So many many residents want an even playing field for the bulls, never mind that there are freakin elk in places up here that haven't been here since Lewis and Clark. You start screwing with the license quotas and outfitters, who've had pretty good on private land for quite awhile start getting hit in the pocket book. BTW, the number of outfitters have declined in Montana over the past few years, mostly quitting the national forests where the crowding ruined the experience and the kill bragging rights. At one time, there were more outfitters working the Beaverhead, Gallatin, Deerlodge, and Helena N.F. than the whole state of Alaska.

So, what's the solution? I don't know, but it's going to be a painful process. As for myself, I believe a landowner has the right to manage and control his property as he sees fit. Coveted bull elk trophies are seen as a gauntlet to independent Montana hunters. I think that everyone involved in big game hunting up here needs to give all wildlife a reason to STAY ON PUBLIC LAND. How is that done? Provide good habitat and security. That means to me a change in grazing practices, rotation, planting, water sources, etc. etc. As for security? That sounds like closing roads and enforcing those closures, limiting the number of hunters either through limting tags, shortening seasons, or forcing a choose your weapon alternative.

This is part of the face of the new West. I don't like it, but then again, nobody asked me what I liked. And we're all going to have to learn to live with it.

Yellowstone,

Where the hell do you get off injecting truth, common sense and practical thinking into this thread?

Personally, I have come to value the ignorant pontificating occasionally written here and I resent your bucket of cold water/ douse of reality.

Please excuse me I'm going back to the "Russians kill everything in Alaska and the law is on their side" thread.

Ann-make no doubt about it there is some serious over crowding going on in areas of this state. Most notably the Breaks for elk and the vast majority of this is with bow hunters.

This is not perception but it is reality!

Slam dunk no question to it the Breaks has been poorly mangaged over the last decade. Too many hunters, too many bow hunters is the bottom line. Like many others have said it is a circus out there and there needs to be some control.

And make no doubt about it that the mature bull population out there has taken a hit due to it. The archers are killing way way more bulls than the rifle no doubt. I mean not even close. Now that is not to say that they're actually taking them home but they are killing them.

No doubt this issue needs some new thinking and some changes are in order.

Mark D

Yellowstone and Mark,

Great input, helps me understand the situation. How big or small an area is the Breaks? An why is it so popular to cause such problems? I was through part of that area in '05, not to elk hunt but saw no one there.

Also, with Montana getting a big influx of baby boomers who come from urban areas and do not hunt, won't that also be an up coming problem?

Ann-the Breaks is a sizeable area but when you consider how many people are hitting it each year it is just getting too much pressure.

It is home to some of the absolute best bulls in Montana and the rocky mtn west. No doubt a true trophy bull area.

They give out a relatively small amount of permits for bulls for rifle hunters and the chance to draw is about 1% or so.

But, for archery it is unlimited and no limit has been to date ever imposed on the amount of people that can hunt it.

Lets just think, an area relatively easy to hunt compared to true mountain hunting (and that isn't meant lightly as the Breaks are physical just nothing like the mtns) that has huge trophy bulls in it. It also has tons of public land and very good access.

Bottom line is name me another area in the west that has the same kind of trophy bull opportunity that allows an unlimited amount of archers in it? I surely can't think of one if there is one.

It used to be some truly wonderful hunting and yearly some very good bulls are still taken. But it is nothing like it used to be and or what it could be if it was properly managed.

I feel that the F&G of Montana is starting to take some strides in the right direction now with it.

Monday night I am going to an open F&G meeting to cuss and discuss this and other issues.

Mark D

Ann-in resonse to your question about the people moving in that are not hunters. If they're city folk, which the vast majority are they cause no issues.

Now if they come in with big money and buy ranches and turn them into "gentlemans ranches" now that is another issue.

There are parts of this state has big time issues and challenges with the elk population. IMO the three biggest challenges with this are as follows.

*the people who buy the gentlemans ranches and like to see the animals around and won't allow any hunt pressure. It creates some true preserves and as much as anyone I feel for the true rancher next door that is trying to make a living off the land.

*outfitting has done incredible things to the elk herds in parts of the state as well. In that they lease up big ranches and take a few bulls yearly and the cow herd just gets way out of control.

*some of the areas of the state the elk herd will either migrate into areas we can access them either too soon and fast and or too late. Take the Madison herd parts of it come thru very fast and early and make it to a big ranch and winter up there. And parts of the winter herd out of the Gravelies come to the same ranch but most often after the regular season is closed.

This year they extended the season for a couple of weeks in an effort to try and kill more elk. They did that a couple of years ago as well.

Traditional thinking for managing game and the elk herds just isn't working that well for our state anymore and it is time for some true out of the box thinking.

Just my 12 cents worth.

Mark D

"oh, its over hunter, oh its not fair, oh the GOVERNMENT has to do something'

Western Staters -

This is what happens when you become populate and popular. Complaining about odd accents and saying "yeah, protect the locals" doesn't fix it...

your call, be active, define things, and MAKE IT FAIR or the feds will make BLM land "fair" and then the farmers will start wanting money for hunting on their places. pretty soon, furriners will come in, buy up 5000 acres, slap NO HUNTING on it, to make certain the area aint over hunted, and montana is going to look like new york...

Fix it.. don't lay back and say "oh, this is small, they are over hunting it" .. with the THEY being non-residents... What little public land there is to hunt in Texas is open to all with a valid license... and on draw items, it's drawn from ONE pool... that's equal and fair.