2015 Private lands Leased to Outfitters map

[Eric Albus]

straight, yes there have been several instances of outfitters forgetting to writing down a doe, duck, pheasant, and have had punitive actions levied against them resulting in fines and probation.

 

[dexnrex]

It took 60 posts to get there but the above post is the best ideas I've heard in regard to game management in MT. With the available technology mandatory reporting should not be a problem. I have done it in other states. After a 2 minute phone call in Iowa they knew exactly what I shot and when and where I shot it. An automated reporting system would free up a lot of man power at FWP which now goes to the permanent game check stations and the phone surveys. Ingomar, if you can get someone to carry the legislation I will do all I can to support it.

 

[Eric Albus]

Vito, as long as it is a fair and balanced, and used to start managing deer/elk BIOLOGICALLY, I would have no problem with it.

 

[billy banger]

Joe, I don't know how we got off on late season cow hunts, but you brought it up, so I am going to throw in my two cents worth. I am mainly a meat hunter and I was appalled when you and the MSA and MWF opposed the late season cow hunt bill and I don't stand alone here. Most of my friends agree we would have loved the opportunity to hunt during a late season hunt cow hunt to harvest a cow in order to help feed our families, but Bullock Vetoed the bill for you. You, the MSA & MWF kept saying that you didn't want the crumbs from the table and that was why you opposed the late season cow hunts. Well let me tell you we don't agree, and you don't represent us. I think all you and your groups want to do is force landowners into allowing free access to private property during the general season, but you should know by now that doesn't work and it is only closing more and more land down to us that really depend on the access that landowners provide. We don't care if it is during the general season or late season, access is access! This is only helping to divide the landowners and hunters, so please stop. It is high time you and your groups start working with landowners.

 

[billy banger]

katganna-you are missing Eric's point, all he is saying is that the Map and the reporting of harvest data serves no purpose. I agree that outfitters should report their acreage as public information, and they do as required by law. But the reporting the harvest data is simply a waste of time and money, because it serves no management purpose.
As I stated in my earlier post I heard that Joe was the pushing the Board and pushing hard to get the Map and now after reading your post; "I sent it to Joe and asked, as a council member, if he could push for this map?" it appears that you were the one that was pushing Joe as a PLPW member to get the Map. My question is why do you want the Map so bad, unless you want to use it against outfitters. In the past your attacks on the outfitting industry are well known, and I must ask you why you have such disdain for the outfitting industry. I have seen it when you used the earlier Outfitter Maps in order to give the outfitting industry a black eye, so I think the only reason you and Joe want the Map so bad is to use it against the outfitters and to what gain? I have to agree with Vito; "This brings us back to the current controversy regarding Maps produced by the Montana Board of Outfitters which attempt to show the lands currently leased by outfitters in Montana. This mapping endeavor is a total waste of time!"

 

[billy banger]

Vito-I have to agree with you 100% about mandatory reporting of harvest. Now this would truly server as a management tool. I think both of your posts, even if you weren't going to post again, were excellent. Glad you did!

 

[antlerradar]

Vito, I agree that we could use mandatory reporting. Would gather much better data and could help with poaching.

 

[shoots-straight]

Joe, I don't know how we got off on late season cow hunts, but you brought it up, so I am going to throw in my two cents worth. I am mainly a meat hunter and I was appalled when you and the MSA and MWF opposed the late season cow hunt bill and I don't stand alone here. Most of my friends agree we would have loved the opportunity to hunt during a late season hunt cow hunt to harvest a cow in order to help feed our families, but Bullock Vetoed the bill for you. You, the MSA & MWF kept saying that you didn't want the crumbs from the table and that was why you opposed the late season cow hunts. Well let me tell you we don't agree, and you don't represent us. I think all you and your groups want to do is force landowners into allowing free access to private property during the general season, but you should know by now that doesn't work and it is only closing more and more land down to us that really depend on the access that landowners provide. We don't care if it is during the general season or late season, access is access! This is only helping to divide the landowners and hunters, so please stop. It is high time you and your groups start working with landowners.

Billy, what hunt did you miss because Joe, MSA and the MWF pushed to veto HB 245?

In reality, Bullock Vetoed HB 245 because it didn't go far enough. If killing elk is what you live for then you should be happy as a pig in chit over this deal. Next year there will be tags galore, a 6 month season. This "shoulder season" the Department came up with is so far past what HB 245 did, it's not funny. The outfitters got their deal, and land owners should be set for the next push, "Ranching for Wildlife". That one will make sure all of us get will get nothing be crumbs. If your happy and content with antlerless animals, great, but those antlered and antlerless, animals are all of ours, and I feel that the resource belongs to all Montanan's, not just wealthy landowners, and outfitters.

Oh, and BTW, what do you suppose will happen when the achieved Elk populations get down where the objectives are? Hummm......... Hows the opportunity to kill anterless elk going to go after this slaughter is done? Think a little farther down the road if that's at all possible. I wonder if you think the "Good Old Days" of cow killing can last forever? I live in Western Montana, and know for a fact that there's limits to this and ramifications for game reductions, especially in areas that have large predators. I certainly hope the areas you hunt don't have that little wrinkle to deal with, because you might be crying loudly after losing that cow tag.

 

[shoots-straight]

Vito, as long as it is a fair and balanced, and used to start managing deer/elk BIOLOGICALLY, I would have no problem with it.

I would support mandatory reporting. The Department is dead set against it. They love the phone surveys.

 

[katqanna]

In the past your attacks on the outfitting industry are well known, and I must ask you why you have such disdain for the outfitting industry. I have seen it when you used the earlier Outfitter Maps in order to give the outfitting industry a black eye, so I think the only reason you and Joe want the Map so bad is to use it against the outfitters and to what gain?

Billy, I have stated before, I dont have a problem with the occupation of outfitting or guiding as a principle. I have had family members that hired guides to equip and get them to areas that they were not familiar with, for an opportunity to hunt in an area or a species they did not live by and did not have or make the time to explore in depth, such as another state. Nor did they own horses to get them deeper to lands not permissible by vehicles (big roadless fan). I also have friends that are wilderness outfitters and guides, who are also hunters. So I see a general principle benefit to outfitting and guiding, but like everything else you can have some bad apples.

Such as websites that I looked into this summer dealing with the elk shoulder season/objectives bs. I dont agree with outfitters that bait/lure wildlife (against the law) so lazy ass people can step out their cabin door and shoot themselves a trophy animal, calling it "hunting" (that part is a matter of personal ethics). And I have a serious problem with certain landowners or outfitters harboring wildlife to increase their fish in a barrel success rate (also advertised on some websites), affecting objectives, politicizing them, causing public land wildlife to be hammered, instead of removing those harbored wildlife from the counts. I have a serious problem with certain outfitters and guides hazing wildlife from public lands and public lands hunters, again, against the law, but hardly enforced.

So if little ole me, publicly discussing these sacred cow subjects and providing proof of the issues, to try and get our public trust wildlife to be managed by science, instead of bs politics and greedy special interests, gives the outfitting industry a black eye, what does that say for the industry? Cause I certainly dont have a pink radioactive stuffed bear to unleash at a "special interest greed, wildlife attacking" @#)(# fight. I am doing what I can, with the resources available, for the public trust, that is what I gain. So in the words of Mark Watney, "In the face of overwhelming odds, Im left with only one option, Im gonna have to science the shit out of this."

 

[Deleted member 20812]

Vito and Art are pretty much spot on here.

Until you can shitcan the EMP and repeal Debbie Barrett's death knell to elk hunters (HB42), this map or any other variant of it isn't worth wiping your ass with.

 

[Eric Albus]

kat, the "science(aka BIOLOGY)" is not being applied when it comes to management of deer/elk in general season areas. Were BIOLOGY applied to the scenario the rest would fall into place.

 

[katqanna]

Eric, I agree, that is what I have been saying and advocating for years.

 

[billy banger]

Kat
Did I see that you supported the FWP following their Elk Management Plan when making decisions related to elk management?

 

[shoots-straight]

Billy, you going to answer the question:

Billy, what hunt did you miss because Joe, MSA and the MWF pushed to veto HB 245?

The EMP needs to be looked at according to more biologic logic, and less social concerns. Address those concerns, but leave animals on public lands for all.

 

[Eric Albus]

shoots, It appears to me that the use of shoulder seasons and late cow hunts is doing the right thing biologically.

I am an outsider looking in when it comes to elk hunting... and I would much rather see the antlerless elk harvested after the general season than not at all.....to me access to a cow elk is better than no access at all.

 

[shoots-straight]

shoots, It appears to me that the use of shoulder seasons and late cow hunts is doing the right thing biologically.

I am an outsider looking in when it comes to elk hunting... and I would much rather see the antlerless elk harvested after the general season than not at all.....to me access to a cow elk is better than no access at all.

Biologically speaking, where is this taking place? Show me one place the elk herd is over the capacity of the range and showing signs of degradation? Name a spot in the state that picked objectives based on biology?

I'm sure you would rather see antlerless elk harvest after season, that way it doesn't interfere with paid trophy hunts. Toss the peasants the crumbs and they will be happy.

 

[billy banger]

Billy, you going to answer the question:

The EMP needs to be looked at according to more biologic logic, and less social concerns. Address those concerns, but leave animals on public lands for all.

Shoots-sorry got busy, but with the rain and I can't go fishing, I thought I'd check in. Well I heard the those groups got Bullock to vetoed the bill, and it would have opened up a lot of access to hunt cow elk after the regular season. This would have been much better than getting on the game damage roster, because I have never have been selected to hunt and I have been putting in for years, guess I'm not lucky. My understanding of the late hunts was that all we had to do is ask permission from landowners, I had also heard that a lot of landowners were willing to open their gates to everyone. So, I felt it would have been a great opportunity for hunters like myself to help feed my family. I also heard that those individuals that opposed it because they want to force landowners to open up during the regular season.

 

[shoots-straight]

So you really didn't answer my question. I asked what hunting opportunity did you lose? The answer is none. You lost no hunting opportunity because of the veto of HB 245. In fact your going to have a bunch more opportunity that what HB 245 afforded. The "Shoulder Seasons" are set up far more liberal in structure than HB 245. I think the veto of HB 245 was done because it didn't go far enough to satisfy the large landowners, or the top brass at the department.

My next question will be asked in several years to those "opportunists" hunters and that will be something like, "Now that the elk have been reduced by 50,000 head, and cow seasons curtailed, with less than a 5 week season structure, how are you guys doing feeding your family's now"?

 

[Straight Arrow]

"Now that the elk have been reduced by 50,000 head, and cow seasons curtailed, with less than a 5 week season .... "

Now choose your weapon, choose your week ... that is if you get a permit every seven years.