As Expected given this front...

From Pintails to Mallards, share your Montana duck hunting stories here in the land of the Big Sky country.

Moderator: Lawdog

As Expected given this front...

Postby pmahler » Sun Jan 22, 2012 3:32 pm

just spoke with my farmer up around Great Falls where & hunt & he literally said, "Peter, there are a BILLION birds here. Every field & pocke of water has tons of mallards & geese on it."

Looks like we need to seriously look into having a week long split or 2 week split or scratching 2 weeks in October. Id be all for it
pmahler
hunter
 
Posts: 313
Joined: Thu Oct 26, 2006 9:42 pm
Location: Missoula, MT


Re: As Expected given this front...

Postby phutch30 » Sun Jan 22, 2012 6:29 pm

Looks like we need to seriously look into having a week long split or 2 week split or scratching 2 weeks in October. Id be all for it


Screw that! I want my scoter. Cant shoot those late season!
....its like taking x-lax when you have a bad cough. It wont clear up your lungs, but it sure stops you from coughing
User avatar
phutch30
hunter
 
Posts: 2748
Joined: Tue Oct 18, 2005 4:06 pm
Location: Section 5, T.7s, R.8w, MT

Re: As Expected given this front...

Postby Deer Lodge Josh » Sun Jan 22, 2012 9:50 pm

I am sure we will see plenty of new birds now. Was an odd year. Even the saturday after close I was out at my place and naturally had greenheads trying to land on my as I was cleaning out the blind. It is usually iced up from before thanksgiving. But there was open water into January. Never though I would worry about mud into January. Even had geese fly by.
I would be up for a split. Take out last week in October and / or first week of November. Get the early season of something other than mallards and then the extra time in January for fat norther birds. Then again next year we could freeze up by november and be froze solid the rest of the season and migration over by thanksgiving. As long as I can get out and have fun it will work for me.

Saw all sorts of odd birds today. Though I am in FL. 75 sunny and bikini clad ladies on the beach here in Daytona. Have a conference and good place to be this time of year. did get a little close to a 6ft gator yesterday when I explored some hunting areas. Still season down here. Talked with a few guys. Though was 83 on saturday and I would not want to hunt in that heat. Odd site was all the bear sign. didn't realize they had that many bears down this way. Scat and fur all over the place right along the dikes. One wildlife area viewing tower was covered. dumb things are sleeping there each night.
Deer Lodge Josh
hunter
 
Posts: 55
Joined: Mon Sep 21, 2009 9:27 pm
Location: Deer Lodge

Re: As Expected given this front...

Postby Deer Lodge Josh » Mon Jan 23, 2012 5:03 pm

Got a call from a friend. He said while driving through the upper clark fork valley out by my place Sunday "there were thousands of geese in the air" Kind of glad I wasnt there to see it. Oh well always next year. Hope for a cold snap in nov/dec to bring them down during season next year.
Deer Lodge Josh
hunter
 
Posts: 55
Joined: Mon Sep 21, 2009 9:27 pm
Location: Deer Lodge

Re: As Expected given this front...

Postby wingnutty » Mon Jan 23, 2012 6:52 pm

the only week I'd be willing to give up is the 2nd week of oct. I'd never wanna give up late oct to early november, not in a million years. Besides, those are the weeks that most duck hunters are able/willing to hunt and it is important to provide opportunities to everyone. We do get a nice, long late season as it is. It isn't always perfect, but, we have it pretty good imo. The year you change it is the year you'll wish you hadn't.
wingnutty
hunter
 
Posts: 695
Joined: Sat Mar 25, 2006 12:34 pm
Location: MT

Re: As Expected given this front...

Postby 2point » Mon Jan 23, 2012 7:15 pm

On a normal year late October early November can be when the snows hit Freezeout why give that up? Just start the season later. First part of October is 70 degrees and boring after opening day.
2point
hunter
 
Posts: 154
Joined: Sun Dec 16, 2007 9:20 pm

Re: As Expected given this front...

Postby phutch30 » Mon Jan 23, 2012 9:47 pm

I be for a later opener or a split. After talking with FWP it seems that the issue has to do with landowner tolerance and BM property. I dont know why. Last day of BM is Jan 31. We could end waterfowl Jan 28. Oh well better start getting excited about hot weather, mosquitos and brown ducks next year late summer.
....its like taking x-lax when you have a bad cough. It wont clear up your lungs, but it sure stops you from coughing
User avatar
phutch30
hunter
 
Posts: 2748
Joined: Tue Oct 18, 2005 4:06 pm
Location: Section 5, T.7s, R.8w, MT

Re: As Expected given this front...

Postby phutch30 » Mon Jan 23, 2012 9:49 pm

Actually if any of you would really like to see a later opening date or split write into FWP. They probably just ignore me every year.
....its like taking x-lax when you have a bad cough. It wont clear up your lungs, but it sure stops you from coughing
User avatar
phutch30
hunter
 
Posts: 2748
Joined: Tue Oct 18, 2005 4:06 pm
Location: Section 5, T.7s, R.8w, MT

Re: As Expected given this front...

Postby Troutslayer » Mon Jan 23, 2012 10:03 pm

I remember some seasons where everything was locked up for the last couple of weeks. Goldeneyes and little else around. If FWP wants to make more hunting opportunities they should black out the dates around the big game opener. I don't know how I feel about that since I have spent some enjoyable days feeling like I was the only person in the whole state duck hunting at the time. They have already done a lot to diminish hunting opportunities in MT and I don't see this improving any time soon. What we really need is a spring snow goose season! Not that I care anymore, MT has a strong policy towards non-residents like me, that policy is: give us all your money and F-U!
User avatar
Troutslayer
hunter
 
Posts: 829
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2005 9:43 am
Location: Missoula, MT

Re: As Expected given this front...

Postby phutch30 » Tue Jan 24, 2012 4:25 pm

I remember a lot more early seasons that were a bust or really really slow than the number of late seasons that were. In fact I cant remember a late season slower than this one in the last 16 ive been in MT.

Me, I'll take the odds that 2 more weeks at the end will more than make up for anything I might miss early
....its like taking x-lax when you have a bad cough. It wont clear up your lungs, but it sure stops you from coughing
User avatar
phutch30
hunter
 
Posts: 2748
Joined: Tue Oct 18, 2005 4:06 pm
Location: Section 5, T.7s, R.8w, MT

Re: As Expected given this front...

Postby TopWop » Wed Jan 25, 2012 2:15 am

I hope that was just crazy talk about shutting down during Big Game!
I love the fact that all the casual water fowlers are out of the way
for as long as possible! I guess though it's better to know what
people are thinking though, so I can keep a closer eye and rally
against it. Start two weeks later in October add two in Jan. sounds
good.

This is all a crap shoot though. I feel and understand the frustration
that seems to be unanimous. I drove to Deerborn on Monday and saw
tons of birds from Bozo all the way there and back. Almost mocking
by where the birds were. The slough near Three Forks had about
80+ ducks, never seen that many there before. Big picture though,
we are pretty lucky. If you look at SOME States, they have short seasons
and smaller bag limits. I say close the books on this season and play the
cards we are dealt for now. Get FWP involved and they will screw it up
for sure.
Last edited by TopWop on Wed Jan 25, 2012 11:04 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
TopWop
hunter
 
Posts: 771
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 10:54 pm
Location: Bozeman/3Ville

Re: As Expected given this front...

Postby wickedmfer » Wed Jan 25, 2012 8:38 am

It's kinda sad we're afraid of our own Fish and Game dept. Those guys should be listening to the people that buy the licenses. The federal gov gives us like 105 days to hunt between sept. and march. We should be able to have some flexibility on the dates without fear of a shorter season. The hunting is always better later in the season. Personally I'd like to see the start moved back a month, ending in Feb. My point is that the government depends on our inability to act together. The game dept. does what it wants because we can't get three of us to agree on the same thing. We could get any season we wanted within reason if we acted together. I think about that a lot now as I see the big numbers of birds all over the place.
"X" <-------Best Dog...........EVER!
User avatar
wickedmfer
hunter
 
Posts: 356
Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2007 12:17 am
Location: Three Forks, MT

Re: As Expected given this front...

Postby TopWop » Wed Jan 25, 2012 11:03 am

@ Trout, I don't get what you mean about out of stater policies?
Aren't the seasons the same? Aren't you allowed the same access?
Are you saying that MT FWP has a deaf ear to what non-residents
have to say? Well, GOOD! You used to live here and I would hope
you would feel the same way. If that's not it I don't get what you
are saying.

I think all non resident licenses should come with a swift kick
in the ***.Printed on their license should say "We Want Your Money,
We Don't Want You" . Start being all nicey, nice and people get
comfortable, then they want to move here. They'll still come
believe me. Compared to other Rocky Mountain states, MT is still
a steal.

I thought FWP had the power to extend the season? That would
make most sense wouldn't it? When you have an anomaly like season
as far as weather and migration?
User avatar
TopWop
hunter
 
Posts: 771
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 10:54 pm
Location: Bozeman/3Ville

Re: As Expected given this front...

Postby phutch30 » Wed Jan 25, 2012 1:02 pm

The waterfowl season is set based on the guidlines the feds give the states. Based on that years brood counts it can be a restrictive, moderate or liberal harvest season. Here in MT in the pacific flyway we usually get the liberal season which means 107 days of hunting. Duck season cant extend beyond the end of Jan. Geese can go into march but are still restricted by the 107 days.

MT has zero authority to extend migratory birds past the 107 days.

If we want more time later we will have to give it up somewhere during the season.
....its like taking x-lax when you have a bad cough. It wont clear up your lungs, but it sure stops you from coughing
User avatar
phutch30
hunter
 
Posts: 2748
Joined: Tue Oct 18, 2005 4:06 pm
Location: Section 5, T.7s, R.8w, MT

Re: As Expected given this front...

Postby wingnutty » Wed Jan 25, 2012 7:38 pm

Those folks who constantly ridicule MTFWP tend not to know many people who work with or for MTFWP. Most of the ridicule is based on ignorance and a mis-understanding of policies and regulations and of the fact that MTFWP get's comments from all over the board: some people want to hunt later, some don't want to take days off of the early season...they can't please everyone. If you think the biologists in MTFWP don't care or don't listen, you are wrong, 100% wrong because I know for a fact that they do.

Personally, I do not want to cut days in Oct and put them in Jan. I can always find birds in Oct. and usually do very well throughout Oct. Plus, it is nice to hunt in mild weather for a bit before it gets cold.

Everyone is complaining this year because it was a light winter during dec./jan. On other years some areas of the state freeze out during those months. Take the good with the bad and realize that we have it DAMN good.
wingnutty
hunter
 
Posts: 695
Joined: Sat Mar 25, 2006 12:34 pm
Location: MT

Re: As Expected given this front...

Postby Troutslayer » Wed Jan 25, 2012 8:53 pm

TopWop wrote:I think all non resident licenses should come with a swift kick
in the ***.Printed on their license should say "We Want Your Money,
We Don't Want You" .


It just about already does say that. If you're using the "I pay taxes here and should get more and cheaper privileges" I can understand that it should be higher. But why should my license cost more than (and I'm guessing here) the entire state income tax liability for just about anyone on this forum? The silver lining- Even though non-residents are only guaranteed 10% of the drawing tags, the odds of getting the tags I want went through the freaking roof. This is likely due to anti-outfitting legislation and declining elk numbers/opportunities causing fewer and fewer non-residents to bother with Montana. Good for you (and me too for a long time), bad for anyone with a cafe, hotel, outfitting business, BMA, gas station, airport, sporting goods store, whatever.

I think it's hilarious that FWP is now talking about raising license fees to make up for shortfalls that they created by raising license fees and removing opportunity. The hunting community will continue to shrink and they'll realize that that their model is as flawed as Obama's model for fixing this economy. It's like a sinking ship right now. Good think there's oil in them hills! As champions of habitat, opportunities, access and management disappear so will all of those things- so think about it before you make some stupid statement about giving us non-residents a swift kick in the @ss.
User avatar
Troutslayer
hunter
 
Posts: 829
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2005 9:43 am
Location: Missoula, MT

Re: As Expected given this front...

Postby TopWop » Wed Jan 25, 2012 11:09 pm

I don't have the prices in front of me, last time I looked MT was still
less than other Rocky Mountain States. Idaho was cheaper I think.
I didn't see any shortage of out of state hunters this year driving
around in orange. You are right they probably drove each day to
and from Washington,California and Idaho to hunt. The economy
itself dictates how most people spend their leisure dollar. I didn't
Yellowstone lower their rates due to the economy. Actually more
people are probably choosing Montana because it is cheaper than
let's say Colorado. So move back or pony up. As far as the oil goes
it's not a matter of if just when. Nobody will be able to stop that
juggernaut. Maybe they will come up with a new state and call it
West Dakota. I was just poking a little fun at you before Trout.
Then I remembered after reading your retort that you are Nonyas
Buddy so I expected as much.

As far as Feathers And Guts (FWP) goes. I don't think they have
a clue as to what they are doing. They messed up Flathead years ago.
They have no idea how many Turkeys there are. They plant and
redistribute them all over yet only have limited tags there. Meanwhile
they domesticate and become a pest to farmers.
The biggest thing for me is the Walleye in Canyon Ferry. Like it or
not they are there, need very little to flourish and draw people.
Yet FWP wants to get rid of them. People drive from all over
for GOOD walleye tournaments. Spend a lot of money. When was the
last big Trout tourney? Maybe they should spend less time harassing
someone with their generator on after 10:00 pm and use their good
eye and get an accurate count of the wolves. Yes I know there are
different depts. and responsibilities. Don't care, I see them all with
disdain.
User avatar
TopWop
hunter
 
Posts: 771
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 10:54 pm
Location: Bozeman/3Ville

Re: As Expected given this front...

Postby Troutslayer » Wed Jan 25, 2012 11:36 pm

TopWop wrote:I didn't see any shortage of out of state hunters this year driving
around in orange.


Well then you should stop road hunting because there was a huge decline.

The non-resident tags didn't even get filled by lottery. They were selling them over the counter last year and I don't even know if they sold them all. Plenty of articles out there about declines, but here is one from the other day:
http://missoulian.com/news/state-and-re ... 3ce6c.html
User avatar
Troutslayer
hunter
 
Posts: 829
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2005 9:43 am
Location: Missoula, MT

Re: As Expected given this front...

Postby TopWop » Thu Jan 26, 2012 12:46 am

I'm not much of a big game hunter. I usually go to private land
and shoot a couple deer that's about it. If I can't shoot them from
the road that is.

I still didn't read where the price of license's was the cause of
less being sold. Not one of the major reasons anyway.
I saw that the economy,unemployment,gas etc.
From the sounds of it everyone's tags will go up if anything.
I still think Montana is a bargain compared to Colorado and
a few other states.
User avatar
TopWop
hunter
 
Posts: 771
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 10:54 pm
Location: Bozeman/3Ville

Re: As Expected given this front...

Postby Troutslayer » Thu Jan 26, 2012 2:01 am

TopWop wrote:I still think Montana is a bargain compared to Colorado and
a few other states.


Non-resident elk hunting
Colorado costs $586. Montana costs $922.

Additional fun fact: Colorado has more than twice as many elk as Montana. (2010 number) but we all know what's happened to MT elk in the last couple of years. I suspect the gap is much greater right now. So how is Montana a bargain? I'm just curious what you're basing that on because it is not the facts.
User avatar
Troutslayer
hunter
 
Posts: 829
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2005 9:43 am
Location: Missoula, MT

Re: As Expected given this front...

Postby TopWop » Thu Jan 26, 2012 2:48 am

I didn't take the time to see what the Colorado license
included. The license you are talking about is basically
an out of state sportsman's license. It includes
conservation, state lands, general deer, and general elk license and authorizes fishing and hunting of upland game birds, excluding turkey. 17,000 licenses available.

You didn't mention the Montana Born Relative license, 80 bucks.
I'm done though, have fun in Colorado.....and tell your friends!
User avatar
TopWop
hunter
 
Posts: 771
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 10:54 pm
Location: Bozeman/3Ville

Re: As Expected given this front...

Postby phutch30 » Fri Jan 27, 2012 11:51 am

MT hasnt increased resident license fees since Ive been in MT (17 years). Thier budget depends on license fees. Anyone noticed that everything has increased in price over time? Yea the non residents take it in the shorts but It doesnt matter where you go thats the case. Its cheaper to hunt a deer or elk in ID as a non resident (not much though) but for me to turkey hunt upland bird or waterfowl its more expensive. It would cost me 100 bucks for a 3 day small game license in ID to shoot coyotes. They can come and shoot ours for $10. I hunt outa state alot and the instate/outa state difference is ALLWAYS way scewed to the residents and it should be.

Now MT is letting non resident natives "come home" and hunt for 80 for elk and 60 for deer. bitch bitch bitch.

The non resident licenses all sold so who cares if they went 1st round or 2nd :no: They were more expensive for some and cheaper for others pretty much ballanced out

Ive hunted CO. Ya they got a bunch of elk but the bull to cow ratio is way,way screwed towards cows. Also almost every bull Ive seen down there was something I wouldnt shoot here most years. If you want anything older than a 2 year old you have to pull a tag that as a non res takes years for even a crappy unit. Ive got 4 CO points and still cant get into a unit with a realistic chance at a bull like Ive shot the last couple years here. If you want to see hunting pressure go to CO, then talk to me about hunting pressure. LOL


Like Top said MT's $982 gets you elk, deer, upland bird, and season fishing. CO's $586 gets you get a hunting licese and an elk tag. Deer is another 300. Its actually more if you apply for a premium tag.


Also the other western states Screw you over on the cost of Moose, sheep and goats. Some staes dont even let Non Res apply. MT does.

Ok Top I gotta disagree with just about everything you said.

First FWP DIDNT introduce turkeys to the Flathead. A local Dr. did. Second its an open unit. Problem is no one will let you hunt. I hunt up there. The reason they limit tags in some areas is usually
1.due to landowner tolerance i.e no one will let people hunt so the limit the number of hunters to allow a decent hunt and the landowners are not bombarded by people calling or knocking.

2. most of the birds live on private land which brings us back to #1

Walleye in Canyon Ferry are exhibiting the classic boom bust cycle that wester waters where they are not native typically go through. They start off really big and then stunt themselves out. They were illegally introduced into that water. The Missouri River above GF is mananaged as a cold water fishery not a warm water one. I know dozens of people who dont walleye fish there anymore cause all you catch are 10" walleye. Now they are bitching to FWP to make the fish bigger

Believe it or not FWP isnt pro wolf for the most part. They dont have many options until recently. That count is way more accurate than you think. Im getting a kick out of all the people down here who have been saying the woods a crawling with them. Yet the season is still open and no one can find any. Wolves cover HUGE amounts of country. Most wolf sigthings are the same wolf/wolves in a different area. Also there are thousands of numnuts out there who cant tell a wolf from a coyote.

Anyway, I 100% think an increase in resident license fees are over due. Its hard to manage anything when your operating budget stays the same but all expense keep increasing. Paying high Non resident fees is part of the game. If you dont like it dont play. Your license cost is pretty small when all the costs are tallied.
Last edited by phutch30 on Fri Jan 27, 2012 12:01 pm, edited 2 times in total.
....its like taking x-lax when you have a bad cough. It wont clear up your lungs, but it sure stops you from coughing
User avatar
phutch30
hunter
 
Posts: 2748
Joined: Tue Oct 18, 2005 4:06 pm
Location: Section 5, T.7s, R.8w, MT

Re: As Expected given this front...

Postby phutch30 » Fri Jan 27, 2012 11:57 am

Also not to bust on you but just for your info Trout, The draw odds for your units are not as good as you think. Non residents dont get 10% of the tags in a given unit . They get up to 10% of a REGION's tag allotment.
....its like taking x-lax when you have a bad cough. It wont clear up your lungs, but it sure stops you from coughing
User avatar
phutch30
hunter
 
Posts: 2748
Joined: Tue Oct 18, 2005 4:06 pm
Location: Section 5, T.7s, R.8w, MT

Re: As Expected given this front...

Postby TopWop » Fri Jan 27, 2012 6:43 pm

In my haste and excited state I didn't proof read my comment.
When I said Flathead, I meant Flathead Lake and the Lake Trout.
I meant to expand on it but I going to try and find more info on it.
From what I remember they planted a shrimp or something to
either help the Kokanee or Lake Trout and it messed things up.
Again, I meant to omit the Flathead part because I didn't have the right
info.

Wolves, I remember being at the bar/grill in Nine Mile watching the
news. The news reported that there were 9 wolves in that region
and two of the sheep/cattle ranchers there started laughing because they'd
each killed more than that in the last year. Things like that I guess.

Walleye, I just believe that had there been slot limits sooner and lower
catch limits the fishing wouldn't be so bad now.

Mostly it's just that I don't care for any Govt Agencies or the wanna be cops.
Nobody usually listens to my blatherings anyway. I'm sure there are many
fine people with the FWP, daily making the best and most prudent decisions
possible.
User avatar
TopWop
hunter
 
Posts: 771
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 10:54 pm
Location: Bozeman/3Ville

Re: As Expected given this front...

Postby phutch30 » Sat Jan 28, 2012 11:36 am

First-

-FWP never stocked mysis shrimp or lake trout into flathead lake. The did in other lakes within the flathead drainage which is how both got into flathead. BUT keep in mind Kokanee ARE NOT native either they came down river from a lake in Canada.

Hindsight is great, but at the time they had alot of public pressure to stock the shrimp to make bigger Koks.
In flathead the shrimp spend the day in deep water where the kokanee cant get to them and at night come up and eat the same plankton the Koks do. So strike 1 and 2 punch to the koks.

Once the shrimp got into flathead, the whitefish numbers exploded and the lake trout followed....punch 3 there out. Without the shrimp the lakers wouldnt be much of a problem.

Wolves- I have to laugh at everyone who blames FWP for wolves. They had no say or managment authority unit recently. Even now they are under a tight leash. Call your elected officials its thier fault we have them.

Walleye- your 100% wrong. They followed a well documented illegal introduction pattern that gets repeated all over the west with Walleye, pike and yellow perch. From day 1 FWP was predicting this. When first introduced, they do great because there is lots to eat and not many predators. As that starts to ballance out the predators start to get smaller. In Canyon Ferry walleyes main prey base is yellow perch. Yes there are other prey species in the lake, but where the walleye are they prey on perch in Canyon Ferry almost exclusivly.
Yellow perch need sunken brush/veg to spawn on. In these flood control resivoirs the water fluctuactes too much for good perch spawning habitat to be present. So with limited successful spawning the walleye are eating the perch as fast as they apear and get big enough to eat. Look at the difference in the perch fishing now vs 10-15 years ago.
The high bag limits are in fact the best thing for the fishery. The slot limits were only put in place to appease fisherman, not cause they work.
In reality if you want bigger fish you have to except lower numbers. It works like this
more predators = less prey = smaller predators
less predators = more prey = bigger predators

In a nutshell the walleye situation in CF has next to nothing to do with how FWP is managing them. They could have put catch and release regulations on them and the walleye population would be in the same or likly worse.

A whole nother topic would be who cares since they are non native and were ILLEGALLY introduced.
or
Wait till the dam pike get fully established in Canyon Ferry. Then people can bitch about how they used to catch 10-20lbers and now there are only 15" hammerhandles, and why did FWP scew up the great Pike fishing
....its like taking x-lax when you have a bad cough. It wont clear up your lungs, but it sure stops you from coughing
User avatar
phutch30
hunter
 
Posts: 2748
Joined: Tue Oct 18, 2005 4:06 pm
Location: Section 5, T.7s, R.8w, MT

Next

Return to Montana Duck Hunting

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests