Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Elk Hunting Why I am hunting Colorado, not Montana, next year

The current system is not unfair; it's random. If you are lucky, you might draw a tag every year; if not, you might not draw for several years in a row. A preference point system with 1 in 2 odds means if you didn't draw one year (and bought a point) you'd be at the head of the line the following year. What makes a preference point system more fair (and less random) is that everyone who participates gets the same number of "hunts" over time. By the way, if the draw percentage is 50 percent, the odds of both drawing and not drawing five straight times is about 3 percent. If you don't know why, then I probably can't explain the statistics of bonus points in a way you'll understand.

By your response, I'm guessing I'm dead on the money about your age. Having lived outside Montana, I believe that how long you live in a place matters much less than what you do with your time. There are people who make more of difference in ten years than entire families do in ten generations. A man is no more defined by a name and a place on a birth certificate than a hunter is defined by what hangs on his wall.

Hampstead, save the preference/bonus point explanation. I know how it works. I apply in multiple states annually and hunt with non-resident hunters in MT most years. I'm also familiar with math (have an engineering degree) and with how non-residents get the shaft everywhere. However, some people prefer the possibility of drawing every time they apply. Just because it's not your way, doesn't make it "unfair." The epic whining and bitching isn't going to get you anywhere. The solution to your problem is to move to MT. Actually, I'd prefer it that you just hunt Colorado.

So what's your beef with my age? What does that have to do with anything? What's your guess - the young girls are usually way off. I drink from the fountain of youth and I look way younger than I am. I'm in my prime. haha.

In my experience, anyone who calls something "gay" as a pejorative is usually a couple of generations younger than me.

If you don't think epic bitching will change anything, you've never been to Helena or anywhere near the political process. I've been involved in enough fish and game regulatory matters to know that it's always a small number of vocal people who shape regulations. This is not to say I'll manage to change the nonresident regulations in Montana. In point of fact, the regulations may not change... but there may be a greater appreciation of Newtonian physics in some offices.

I may move back to Montana, some day. I may not. The Montana I loved was already fading 20 years ago. It's not what it once was and may never be again... and that's a damn shame. As for your age, it doesn't matter to me. I'm more concerned about maturity than chronological age. My respect is not in how much a guy hunts, but how he thoughtfully he hunts. Once you start talking about a 320 range 6x6, you've told me all I need to know about your philosophy of elk hunting. By the way, let me know if you change your mind on the math. It wouldn't be the first time I've taught statistics to an engineer.

Hampstead, keep up the bitching - we'll see how far it gets you. You know what they say - wish in one hand, [bleep] in the other...

And I stand by my words - special muzzleloader seasons are GAY. Maybe I could step into your generation (must be in your 60s) to rephrase that.. "special" muzzleloader seasons are pointless when you can put a scope on one and hit a beer can at 250 yards.

You don't know squat about me, my age, maturity, or "elk hunting philosophy." I do know that your bellyaching is annoying.

I'm going elk hunting tomorrow in MT. Have fun in Colorado.

The REAL question is, do you hunt with one in the chamber. Or hadn't you guys heard?

:-)

The "fading" of the "old" western states is indeed sad. I'm not taking sides here, it just resonated when Hampstead said that. I'm only 42 years young but the New Mexico I grew up in long, long gone... and in the 20 years I've been in Oregon now, it's changed a lot too. It has to do mostly with more people moving here/there/everywhere and changing the demographics...

Now, I will add that that's not always a bad thing in every way. The "West" had some ingrown hairs that needed to be pulled. Mainly some extremely abusive environmental practices that needed to be shut down or regulated- like some of the mining and logging practices. This is of course just my opinion, worth what you paid for it.

Also, in the 70's in New Mexico, people littered like you would not believe... I bet that's changed.

In a lot of ways, the west is like youth: the young are too young to appreciate what they've got. We didn't appreciate what we had, and it's fading fast.

-jeff

I'm just greedy... I want a tag every year!

I can deal with the way the system is, but would rather have it be an every other year type of deal, on the other hand its kind of nice to know that I could possibly hunt every year if I'm lucky.

MT has changed and will continue to do so. Just like anywhere.

Yeah, all those multi-billion dollars companies that spend millions every year on lobbyists didn't get the "greenhorn" memo. They don't realize they are wasting their time by trying to influence the legislative and regulatory process.

How many times have you testified in Helena or DC, Greenhorn? How many times have you been involved in the process to protect our right to hunt? Nah, I expect you're too busy hunting and polishing your apple to be bothered by doing a little work to preserve our hunting heritage.

As for your maturity, calling something "gay" is pretty informative about your character and maturity. What's next? Telling us how you "jewed" some guy down on a rifle or "n*gger"-rigged a broken pack? I'm done with you.

Jeff, I agree that not every change has been for the worse. We are doing a better job of managing the environment (where the USFS is not screwing up and letting tinder loads build to insane levels). While the western states are doing better, I have to take my hat off to western Canada. Compared to Montana, the place is pristine in terms of litter and junk. Truth be told, I can't imagine many place prettier than Kootenai Lake or places along the drive to Creston and points north.

Maybe it's just me, but I remember a working man's Montana where people didn't have much money but they had a whole lot of grit and pride. Now, driving through my old home town, things look run down and shabby. I just don't understand why a guy with a view of Cabinet Mountains would have a yard full of crap. I think you're right, Jeff. Youth is wasted on the young.

Well, again, I am NOT intending to get in between you and Greenhorn; I can get into my own fights, thank you very much! :-)

As to the west, I can't say for sure, not having existed at the time, but it seems like the 50 and early 60's were sort of the beginning of the end of the "old" west. Is that about right?

The yard full of junk comment is spot on. Growing up in NM, it was astounding to me how people could be living in filth, often, in the middle of some of the most gorgeous country you've ever seen in your life. They just didn't know what they had. Unfortunatly, those people have been displaced by trophy-vacation-home people and there's a whole other set of issues there, of course.

The west is gonna be loved to death. New Mexico, northern anyway, was turning into Disneyland right before my eyes. Go to the Santa Fe or Taos theme parks, for example. Gross. Eastern transplants in bolo ties pretending they belong... now, that's not a knock on people from the east, and I'm a transplant here in Oregon... but hopefully you know what I mean. People all duded up in expensive faux-western garb with half-million dollar 2nd homes and driving either a Lexus or an old beat up truck they bought off some real New Mexican.

Anyway... this is depressing...

-jeff

Hampstead,

Re: Gay. Currently (probably to the mortification of folks like GLAAD) it tends to be used instead of "pathetic" or "lame". FYI - I'm darn near 50, and I know this. Maybe you didn't get the memo? Language evolves. It would be a bit queer if it didn't, right?

Regards,
Scott

P.S. FWIW I've heard homosexuals using "gay" with it's new perjorative definition.

Come on Hampstead, just go to Colorado and quit bitchin. I have hunted in pretty much every western state and boy are you gonna love Colorada with no preference points, to hunt the quality of hunts that you can hunt in Montana is going to take you at least 12 years of applying in Colorado, by the time you get done probably 20 to 25 years. So you just go check out Colorado on first season on public land with no points, heheheheh boy are you gonna love it. By the way Greenhorn is gay. He told me so. And he wouldnt even know a 320 bull if it ran over him, hehehehe. Sheeeesh. Git go to Colorado.

Hampster, Stop the annoying bellyaching on the internet and get back to your lobbying, testifying, and saving our hunting heritage. While you're at it, can you do something about poverty, hunger, and global warming too? I've written my share of letters. If it ever comes up, thanks to you, I'll be putting in my support for the BONUS POINT system. It is such a nice thing for my non-resident friends to have a chance to draw every time. This was the second year in a row my pal from Wyoming brought his horses up. Me, me, me.. who cares about you?

Regarding the "gay" comment, I'm sorry to have offended you. I realize that there are a lot of you guys out there and it's becoming more socially accepted. I don't have a problem with you guys as long as you're not pinching my butt or anything like that..

-almost forgot.. the elk hunting here in Montana yesterday was just awesome. Trying to track down bulls in fresh snow is always so exciting.

Glad to hear that, we are on our way back over this afternoon for a few more days. Looking forward to getting back into camp and after some bulls. Hard to beat tracking elk in fresh snow.

I just returned home last night from a week in Montana hunting elk and mule deer. This time, as with a couple other times, I came home with nothing in the back of the pickup.

However, I would like to say that I appreciate it very much that the good folks of the Great State of Montana allow folks from other states to come into their state and hunt their animals and enjoy their beautiful beautiful state.

If there is anything I would bitch about in hunting elk in Montana, it would be that those Montana elk do not come out of the high country when it is warm. And they do not move around very much in that high country if one goes in after them (which I did).That makes it extremely difficult to plan a hunt. Obviously, one has to hunt in the season whether it is warm or not, and when one can only spend a week or two, one has to take what one gets with regard to weather conditions.

But then I am sure that elk are the same way everywhere else.

So, my hats off to Montana for having such a beautiful state and for the wonderful hunting experieces one can have there even if one does not take an elk or deer.

Well... not a knock on Montana, which is indeed a gorgeous state and seems to have nice people, too... but they don't "allow" us to come enjoy it. This is America. Freedom of movement between the states is a key part of our freedoms in general.

-jeff

Jeff

You are always welcome to come to Montana and enjoy it and there is no restrictions on your enjoyment. Yes, non resident elk tags are not available over the counter anymore (1973 was the last year).

Remember in Balwin vs The State of Montana, the supreme court of the United States ruled that of all your rights -- elk hunting in Montana was not one of them.

read this I wish people would stop bitching:

Page 436 U.S. 371, 390

hunting, with its opportunity for license "swapping" when the combination license system is not employed, id., at 237;[Footnote 22] the intermingling of deer and elk in the wild and the inexperienced hunter's inability to tell one from the other; the obvious limit in the elk supply; the supposition that the nonresident occasional and short-term visitor is more likely to commit game-law violations; the need to supervise hunting practices in order to prevent violations and illegal overkill; and the difficulties of supervision in the primitive areas where the elk is found during the hunting season.

All this adds up, in our view, to no irrationality in the differences the Montana Legislature has drawn in the costs of its licenses to hunt elk. The legislative choice was an economic means not unreasonably related to the preservation of a finite resource and a substantial regulatory interest of the State. It serves to limit the number of hunter days in the Montana elk country. There is, to be sure, a contrasting cost feature favorable to the resident, and, perhaps, the details and the figures might have been more precisely fixed and more closely related to basic costs to the State. But, as has been noted, appellants concede that a differential in cost between residents and nonresidents is not in itself invidious or unconstitutional. And "a statutory classification impinging upon no fundamental interest . . . need not be drawn so as to fit with precision the legitimate purposes animating it. . . . That [Montana] might have furthered its underlying purpose more artfully, more directly, or more completely, does not warrant a conclusion that the method it chose is unconstitutional." Hughes v. Alexandria Scrap Corp., 426 U.S. 794, 813 (1976).[Footnote 23]

Page 436 U.S. 371, 388


Does the distinction made by Montana between residents and nonresidents in establishing access to elk hunting threaten a basic right in a way that offends the Privileges and Immunities Clause? Merely to ask the question seems to provide the answer. We repeat much of what already has been said above: Elk hunting by nonresidents in Montana is a recreation and a sport. In itself - wholly apart from license fees - it is costly and obviously available only to the wealthy nonresident or to the one so taken with the sport that he sacrifices other values in order to indulge in it and to enjoy what it offers. It is not a means to the nonresident's livelihood. The mastery of the animal and the trophy are the ends that are sought; appellants are not totally excluded from these. The elk supply, which has been entrusted to the care of the State by the people of Montana, is finite and must be carefully tended in order to be preserved.

Appellants' interest in sharing this limited resource on more equal terms with Montana residents simply does not fall within the purview of the Privileges and Immunities Clause. Equality in access to Montana elk is not basic to the maintenance or well-being of the Union. Appellants do not - and cannot - contend that they are deprived of a means of a livelihood by the system or of access to any part of the State to which they may seek to travel. We do not decide the full range of activities that are sufficiently basic to the livelihood of the Nation that the States may not interfere with a nonresident's participation therein without similarly interfering with a resident's participation. Whatever rights or activities may be "fundamental" under the Privileges and Immunities Clause, we are persuaded, and hold, that elk hunting by nonresidents in Montana is not one of them.

Please read the last sentence over as many times as you need to to the understand it

abc,

Thanks for posting that!

-jeff

Jeff,

The loss of the culture I grew up is something I miss dearly, and very disheartening to lose.

At one time I thought that recreation was going to represent a "clean industry" compared the the traditional extraction indutries of agriculture, logging, and mining, and energy.

Although the current oil and gas drilling is indeed having a big impact, today it is exurban development in what was once ranchlands. Cabins and homes in what I used to think was public lands--often in the middle of winter habitat, the most critical of all wildlife habitat--has probably had the biggest impact on hunting--with one exception......

The road building binge on public lands and the advent of capable 4wd and then ATV's has affected hunting itself more than anything.

Couple those two things with a huge immigration of urban/suburban refugees, and the affect is, well, disheartening.

Cows or condominiums?--I'll take cows any day....

Casey

Cows or condo's... what a terrible choice to have to make.

I know what you mean about "public" lands. There were these huge tracts of basically what amounted to public land, back in the day in NM, that probably weren't but the only thing they were "good for" (hate that term) was as really crappy range for cows, so nobody cared.

But I hate cows. They used to run 'em all over in the NF in New Mexico and I for real just about got killed when I was 11 or 12 by a cow with horns (don't think it was a bull) that chased me into the Pecos and I got washed down the canyon... we were 5 miles deep on a backpack trip!

And I hate ATV's on public forest land, too. I don't care one whit about them if they stay on the trails and roads- but they don't.

-jeff

Jeff- I'm with you on the cows and the ATV's.

Both of them are great (IMO) as long as there on ranches and not on public land.

Dober

That's nice to hear, Mark. Not liking cows and ATV's on public land is a STRANGELY controversial opinion to have...

-jeff