What is your take on the proposed limited archery permits in the Breaks areas? Most of the opposition I am hearing through the vine is predominately from outfitters. The proposal as I read it doesn't seem to drastically change the permit numbers immediately, but probably will as the areas garner more attention. Which is probably what this proposal is about. PM me if you'd rather. Thanks, Dale
NeMont, I have a question
- Thread starter mtmuley
- Start date
C
cedarhacker
Guest
I apologize for butting in on your post, but I have been looking for a copy of the proposal on the FWP website and haven't found it yet. Could you tell me where I can find the proposal? Thanks.
C
cedarhacker
Guest
LAST EDITED ON Jan-11-08 AT 04:13PM (MST)[p]Thanks MtMuley,
I found it. I have a call in to the area biologist. After I visit with him I'll get back with my thoughts.
I found it. I have a call in to the area biologist. After I visit with him I'll get back with my thoughts.
C
cedarhacker
Guest
mtmuley,
Finally heard back from the biologist and had a good visit with him. I asked him why the tag quota is being recommended.
The first reason is to reduce the number of hunter conflicts between hunters. Namely, fist fights.(His words)
Second, to remove the incentive toward leasing up of private lands by outfitters. The elk move to these lands and then elk are not accessable to enough hunters, so not enough elk are being killed and the elk numbers are going over objective.
Third, in some units, mainly on the south side of the river, archery hunters are killing too many bulls and the bull quality is beginning to suffer.
I agree that herd management is needed if quality is to be maintained, no matter what the species. Unfortunately for nonresidents like myself, we are the ones that will take the brunt of the proposal.
The proposal will allow an amount of tags equal to 75% of the three year average of archery tags sold during the last three years. I asked for the specfic numbers on the units north of the river and was told that the proposed quota is 1250 total. Last year in 2007, 1750 tags were sold for these areas. Of those, 1165 were residents and 550 were nonresidents. With the 10% max rule, the distribution will break down like this:
Resident tags = 1125 Nonresident tags = 125 max The biologist said they figure residents will have a 95% draw success (1165 tags vs. 1125 applicants)and these figures bear that out. Nonresidents will have about a 22% success (125 tags vs 550 applicants)
It;s easy to see why this proposal would be overwhelmingly popular with residents. It's pretty much a win win situation for them. Hopefully the issues that have caused the quota will be resolved and the residents will still get to hunt there almost anytime they want. I guess the only ones that will be squealing unfair will be us nonresidents and the outfitters. I have no comment on the outfitters position because I have always hunted public land there and the private land issue hasn't bothered me. But, as for the nonresident point of view, I think it rips that once again the nonresidents get hammered.
As food for thought. This proposal will have it's affect on some businesses in the area. Take myself for an example. I go hunting there for two weeks every year. I camp out for the first week, then I rent a cabin for the second week and eat a number of meals at the local cafe while there. Plus, I will buy alot of gas and some groceries to eat in the cabin when I don't feel like eating at the cafe. All told, I will drop from $1000 to $1500 with the local merchants. I am only one. I have met and visited with other nonresident hunters using the cabins, etc. as well. My observation has been that come friday, the number of hunters in the camping areas swells and then on Sunday, they leave. No doubt, most are residents who spend little money with the local merchants. I know the sentiment usually isn't with the nonresidents, but proposals such as this do have a wider affect on residents than might first be apparent.
I am confident that the proposal will pass. I am sad to see the area I love to hunt, basically disappear for me. Being able to hunt it once every four or five years makes it very difficult to get to know the area and the elk very well. Archery hunting is tough enough as it is. One of the best ways I know of to try to improve my odds of success is to learn the country and the game, intimately. Since I can't come up on weekends prior to the season and scout, I have to rely on information accumulated over succesive years hunts. These are my thoughts.
Finally heard back from the biologist and had a good visit with him. I asked him why the tag quota is being recommended.
The first reason is to reduce the number of hunter conflicts between hunters. Namely, fist fights.(His words)
Second, to remove the incentive toward leasing up of private lands by outfitters. The elk move to these lands and then elk are not accessable to enough hunters, so not enough elk are being killed and the elk numbers are going over objective.
Third, in some units, mainly on the south side of the river, archery hunters are killing too many bulls and the bull quality is beginning to suffer.
I agree that herd management is needed if quality is to be maintained, no matter what the species. Unfortunately for nonresidents like myself, we are the ones that will take the brunt of the proposal.
The proposal will allow an amount of tags equal to 75% of the three year average of archery tags sold during the last three years. I asked for the specfic numbers on the units north of the river and was told that the proposed quota is 1250 total. Last year in 2007, 1750 tags were sold for these areas. Of those, 1165 were residents and 550 were nonresidents. With the 10% max rule, the distribution will break down like this:
Resident tags = 1125 Nonresident tags = 125 max The biologist said they figure residents will have a 95% draw success (1165 tags vs. 1125 applicants)and these figures bear that out. Nonresidents will have about a 22% success (125 tags vs 550 applicants)
It;s easy to see why this proposal would be overwhelmingly popular with residents. It's pretty much a win win situation for them. Hopefully the issues that have caused the quota will be resolved and the residents will still get to hunt there almost anytime they want. I guess the only ones that will be squealing unfair will be us nonresidents and the outfitters. I have no comment on the outfitters position because I have always hunted public land there and the private land issue hasn't bothered me. But, as for the nonresident point of view, I think it rips that once again the nonresidents get hammered.
As food for thought. This proposal will have it's affect on some businesses in the area. Take myself for an example. I go hunting there for two weeks every year. I camp out for the first week, then I rent a cabin for the second week and eat a number of meals at the local cafe while there. Plus, I will buy alot of gas and some groceries to eat in the cabin when I don't feel like eating at the cafe. All told, I will drop from $1000 to $1500 with the local merchants. I am only one. I have met and visited with other nonresident hunters using the cabins, etc. as well. My observation has been that come friday, the number of hunters in the camping areas swells and then on Sunday, they leave. No doubt, most are residents who spend little money with the local merchants. I know the sentiment usually isn't with the nonresidents, but proposals such as this do have a wider affect on residents than might first be apparent.
I am confident that the proposal will pass. I am sad to see the area I love to hunt, basically disappear for me. Being able to hunt it once every four or five years makes it very difficult to get to know the area and the elk very well. Archery hunting is tough enough as it is. One of the best ways I know of to try to improve my odds of success is to learn the country and the game, intimately. Since I can't come up on weekends prior to the season and scout, I have to rely on information accumulated over succesive years hunts. These are my thoughts.
NeMont
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 12,632
Cedarhacker,
The economic impact on business is always used to bolster NR hunter license fees, access, rights, etc etc. What you don't take into account is that for 9 months out of the year the residents are generally the only buying anything at those businesses.
I am curious what your opinion is on crowding? Last year there was not another camping site available at James Kipp for the first week of the opener.
Nemont
The economic impact on business is always used to bolster NR hunter license fees, access, rights, etc etc. What you don't take into account is that for 9 months out of the year the residents are generally the only buying anything at those businesses.
I am curious what your opinion is on crowding? Last year there was not another camping site available at James Kipp for the first week of the opener.
Nemont
C
cedarhacker
Guest
NeMont,
I do realize that nonresident hunters are a factor to the locally economy for a short period of the year. I liken their impact to that of the Xmas season for many retail merchants. They probably could survive without it, but for many it can make the difference between a good year and a bad year.
I hunt a little later than opening weekend, so I can't comment on the crowd then. I usually drive through there at least once to refill my water jugs. I prefer to camp in one of the remote campsites, but when I have been there, I have seen it almost empty and I've also seen it more than half full. My observation has been that Friday afternoon sees a swell of campers and Sunday afternoon sees them leave and the middle of the week is pretty quiet. I try to arrive on Mondays if possible and usually have my choice of any number of good campsites.
I do realize that nonresident hunters are a factor to the locally economy for a short period of the year. I liken their impact to that of the Xmas season for many retail merchants. They probably could survive without it, but for many it can make the difference between a good year and a bad year.
I hunt a little later than opening weekend, so I can't comment on the crowd then. I usually drive through there at least once to refill my water jugs. I prefer to camp in one of the remote campsites, but when I have been there, I have seen it almost empty and I've also seen it more than half full. My observation has been that Friday afternoon sees a swell of campers and Sunday afternoon sees them leave and the middle of the week is pretty quiet. I try to arrive on Mondays if possible and usually have my choice of any number of good campsites.
>I just attended the tentatives this
>week and all I can
>say is: Stay tuned.
>There is a ton of
>confusion out there regarding the
>tentatives and even the commisioner
>who proposed the changes didn't
>agree with what was said.
>
>
>Nemont
I agree NeMont. I was surprised by some of the questions that could not be answered....or the same question answered contradictory.
Is there a four year wait after drawing a premium (odds less than 10%). Yes Is that just for that unit or any other "premium unit"? First answer yes...five minutes later no. What the hey? Is it based on odds for no points? Max points? What if the HD fluctuates above and below 10% from year to year? Seemed to be lots of unknowns.
What is the basis of the 90% for 900 tags? "Not really sure, just a number that was thrown out." Are you serious?
Other than that, it wasn't bad and their was a great turn out and there was overwhelming support for Breaks quotas and NR caps. There was one outfitter that didn't want to talk about tentatives, but did get on his soapbox and was looking for a thank you for his NR clients that fund BM and keep FWP for going broke. He forgot to mention about the properties that recently left the BM program and are now exclusively outfitted by him.
I am guessing the commissioner proposal was the set opener date?
>week and all I can
>say is: Stay tuned.
>There is a ton of
>confusion out there regarding the
>tentatives and even the commisioner
>who proposed the changes didn't
>agree with what was said.
>
>
>Nemont
I agree NeMont. I was surprised by some of the questions that could not be answered....or the same question answered contradictory.
Is there a four year wait after drawing a premium (odds less than 10%). Yes Is that just for that unit or any other "premium unit"? First answer yes...five minutes later no. What the hey? Is it based on odds for no points? Max points? What if the HD fluctuates above and below 10% from year to year? Seemed to be lots of unknowns.
What is the basis of the 90% for 900 tags? "Not really sure, just a number that was thrown out." Are you serious?
Other than that, it wasn't bad and their was a great turn out and there was overwhelming support for Breaks quotas and NR caps. There was one outfitter that didn't want to talk about tentatives, but did get on his soapbox and was looking for a thank you for his NR clients that fund BM and keep FWP for going broke. He forgot to mention about the properties that recently left the BM program and are now exclusively outfitted by him.
I am guessing the commissioner proposal was the set opener date?
NeMont
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 12,632
>
>I am guessing the commissioner proposal
>was the set opener date?
mtmiller
That would be the one.
I was surprised that neither the commissioner or the FWP personel could answer some of the basic questions. Anyway they are going to have to make their decisions soon in order to get the regs out there.
Nemont
>I am guessing the commissioner proposal
>was the set opener date?
mtmiller
That would be the one.
I was surprised that neither the commissioner or the FWP personel could answer some of the basic questions. Anyway they are going to have to make their decisions soon in order to get the regs out there.
Nemont
LAST EDITED ON Jan-19-08 AT 08:10PM (MST)[p]LAST EDITED ON Jan-19-08 AT 08:07?PM (MST)
LAST EDITED ON Jan-19-08 AT 07:40?PM (MST)
No, I am sorry. I attended our FWP meeting on the 17th, and I figured from reading your posts over the years and talking to you, you probably had a good avenue of info on the subject. I didn't want to walk into our meeting uninformed when the subject arose. And for some reason, I couldn't download the info from FWP. I will check the Montana forum every time I visit from now on. Thanks, Dale And if you just saw it yesterday, (the 18th) my calendar is #### up.
LAST EDITED ON Jan-19-08 AT 07:40?PM (MST)
No, I am sorry. I attended our FWP meeting on the 17th, and I figured from reading your posts over the years and talking to you, you probably had a good avenue of info on the subject. I didn't want to walk into our meeting uninformed when the subject arose. And for some reason, I couldn't download the info from FWP. I will check the Montana forum every time I visit from now on. Thanks, Dale And if you just saw it yesterday, (the 18th) my calendar is #### up.
D
drahthaar
Guest
The meeting in Kalispell must have been a bit different than those on the east side. Seemed like most that stood up and talked, opposed the changes in the breaks, don't know why, I think they were confused about what that meant for resident hunters. I swear, there was one guy that, if you asked him, he thought his chances of drawing a archery permit for a resident were the same as drawing an either-sex rifle permit, he just didn't get it. I tried explaining it to him, but he was just too mad to listen. He just kept yammoring on about the state limiting his hunting, his rights, limiting land for him to hunt on..... I just had to let it go.
R
Racktracker
Guest
This issue has been coming to a head for some time now. It is no secret that overcrowding is a problem every year with no end in sight. The growing number of complaints has to be addressed at some point and I think the time is now.
This proposal is unpopular with some, namely outfitters and out of state hunters. The first thing that needs to be realized is that it is not the job of the fwp to guarantee outfitters jobs. I have a hard time believing that this proposal is going to single handedly drive any outfitter out of business. The second thing is that the people that chose to live here should be entitled to a better hunting opportunity here than someone that chooses to live elsewhere. In my mind it is no different than an illegal alien coming to the US and wanting to sign up for social security. Basically wanting the benefits without paying the price of admission.
Every day we are getting closer to the point where the rich hunt and the rest of us watch it on TV. I know that this proposal is not going to stop it, but at least it is a step in the right direction.
This proposal is unpopular with some, namely outfitters and out of state hunters. The first thing that needs to be realized is that it is not the job of the fwp to guarantee outfitters jobs. I have a hard time believing that this proposal is going to single handedly drive any outfitter out of business. The second thing is that the people that chose to live here should be entitled to a better hunting opportunity here than someone that chooses to live elsewhere. In my mind it is no different than an illegal alien coming to the US and wanting to sign up for social security. Basically wanting the benefits without paying the price of admission.
Every day we are getting closer to the point where the rich hunt and the rest of us watch it on TV. I know that this proposal is not going to stop it, but at least it is a step in the right direction.
Montana Hunting Guides & Outfitters
Bearpaw Outfitters
Mule deer, whitetail, antelope, buffalo, and prairie dogs on private ranch leases totaling about 100,000 acres.
Urge 2 Hunt
We focus on trophy elk, mule deer, whitetail and antelope and manage our ranches for top quality.
Vargo Hunting
Top quality bear, antelope and free range bison hunts on the Crow Indian Res. Turkey and cougar as well.