2022/23 Montana Season Setting Meetings

[SAJ-99]

The email I just received shows they are already cutting off one argument as a difference in opinion. Bolding is mine.

Earlier this fall, Fish, Wildlife & Parks biologists offered science-based regulations proposals that combine some hunting districts, reduce some license and permit types, and eliminate hunting district portions...

 

[AlaskaHunter]

Internet chatter is fine, but does not count....
Your written comments hopefully will count.
The deadline for your input is Jan 21...Friday.
Written input with well-reasoned rationale can be entered at:
https://fwp.mt.gov/aboutfwp/public-comment-opportunities/reg-proposals

 

[Nameless Range]

The email I just received shows they are already cutting off one argument as a difference in opinion. Bolding is mine.

Earlier this fall, Fish, Wildlife & Parks biologists offered science-based regulations proposals that combine some hunting districts, reduce some license and permit types, and eliminate hunting district portions...

What's hilarious is there was literal wordage in some of the scoping documents that said, "There is no biological justification for this change"

But I suppose political science is still science....

Get yer friends to comment.

 

[Irrelevant]

MWF comments attached.

MTBHA comments: https://www.backcountryhunters.org/...oaBsoNz8KVUBomCn9mbrdlkccwJv65gyLiyIaHTeLYHlE

I like this line from BHAs:
Shoulder seasons were implemented in 2015 as a three-year experiment; seven years later, they have proven to be as divisive as they are useless at reducing over-objective elk populations.

 

[Unlucky]

Remember when they allowed bulls to be killed after the general season. Damage hunt. Makes me wonder is it educated idiots in charge. Or does nothing really matter and politics and huge money behind this. Idk things i have heard which is hearsay. Millionaires and billionaires behind the privatization of of wildlife in mt. If thats the case, i dont know who is worse, a poacher difined by fwp law or a hunting pimp. My opionon fwp needs to reach puberty and grow some balls. Which will not happen. So i guess, whatever they decide. There will be rewards and consequences for there actions. Greed and power means nothing to working stiffs. Fwp leo continue to patrol the private. Fucj the public. Only can ignore a problem so long until its your problem.

 

[Gerald Martin]

My revised comments submitted on the public comment page and to each commissioner individually. Today is the last day to comment folks.


Dear Commissioner,



As the public comment period for the proposed changes to the 2022/23 hunting regulations comes to a close, I am asking you to take a deep breath and stop to consider the effects of changes you are about to approve or reject.

The proposed changes on this season setting agenda are some of the most extensive that I have ever seen and the effects of those changes will extend for years to come. As commissioners, you have a responsibility to the residents of Montana and the public wildlife that will be affected by your decisions to make wise choices regarding the management of wildlife resources.

Throughout this process, FWP Director Worsech has explicitly expressed that the intention of proposed changes is to simplify confusing regulation.

FWP’s web page inviting public comment directly states and I quote, “Earlier this fall, Fish, Wildlife & Parks biologists offered science-based regulations proposals that combine some hunting districts, reduce some license and permit types, and eliminate hunting district portions. FWP staff held informational meetings around the state, and the public was invited to submit comments on those initial proposals. FWP adjusted the proposals based on public comment and presented them to the commission.”

I strongly disagree that the sum total of proposals before the committee this session is science based and in harmony with the biological recommendations of FWP regional biologists. In fact, I would assert that many of the most controversial proposals are political in nature and have no biological justification for wildlife management.

Director Worsech has also repeatedly expressed the need to address population numbers of elk herds in certain units deemed over objective. Throughout the past year, several proposals that evoked the most intense public opposition have been presented by the Director. As recently as Dec. 13, the commission expressed your sensitivity to opposition to the Director’s proposal and told him not to present it for your consideration.

The following day at the Dec. 14 commission meeting significant portions of the rejected proposal was repackaged and presented to the commission in different form by way of unbundling the 900 series units and making them either general or unlimited permits. This change does nothing to address the stated goal of reducing over objective elk. Additional proposals thrown in for consideration and approval were hastily concocted and not vetted with various user groups who have conflicting interests.

Director Worsech has stated publicly that “the same old thing isn’t working” and “trying the same old thing and expecting different results, is insanity,” and that he’s putting these proposals “out there to get the conversation started”.

If I may speak bluntly, my perception and the perception of many other Montana resident hunters is that Director Worsech is throwing manure against the wall to see what sticks. Many of these proposals illustrate and reinforce the perception that FWP leadership is out of touch with the biological needs of deer and elk herds and out of touch with what Montana residents expect from the department they have entrusted to wisely manage Montana’s wildlife resources.

Montana Fish, Wildlife, and Parks is mandated to manage for the health of Montana’s wildlife, not to serve as a political candy machine dolling out favors for those who have connections and paid lobbyists to ensure that they are first in line to benefit from increased exploitation of wildlife.

There has been an incredible amount of work put forth by various groups to try and find consensus and working solutions to many of the problems that have historically caused contention among various user groups and landowners. FWP has coordinated many of those meetings and compiled recommendations based on input from hunters, landowners and outfitters. That extensive input is not included in the proposals presented for your approval this session. Why would you want to pass proposals presented to you without the input of these diverse groups of public trust shareholders?

The proposals that you are being requested to approve will have far reaching consequences in the future health of Montana deer and elk herds and the hunting experiences of Montana residents who place great value on healthy deer and elk herds. It is my opinion that almost all of the late amendments and proposals will have a negative effect and will generate widespread dissatisfaction among affected MT hunters.

I am requesting that you would approve only those proposals that have a clear biological justification endorsed by regional biologists as being in the best interest of MT’s wildlife. Please reject those proposals that are social or political in nature and attempt to change the status quo on the allocation of tags and permits or access to wildlife.

I am also requesting that you question and carefully consider the controversy surrounding elk “objectives” and MT FWP management policies in those areas deemed “over objective”. Those units deemed over objective nearly all feature two common traits; low objective numbers and lack of public access to elk in those districts. Adding additional either-sex hunting permits in those areas will not help lower the overall population of elk. Nor, will additional either-sex hunting permits improve public access to elk on private property in those units. Unbundling the 900 series permits and adding additional either-sex permits in the proposed units only ensures that even more hunting pressure is placed on bull elk. The effect of that additional pressure will be lower bull to cow ratios, younger age class among bulls and increased conflict among public trust shareholders.

Many of the proposals before you at the next commission meeting do not meet the qualifications given by Director Worsech. If adopted, these proposals will actually exacerbate the conflicts they were intended to address.

For the sake of Montana’s wildlife and the residents of Montana who are entrusting you to enact FWP’s declaration of “science-based management”; please prioritize the health of our wildlife over commercial interests and user groups who seek increased assess to exploit Montana’s public trust resources.

Sincerely,

Gerald Martin

 

[bigsky2]

My revised comments submitted on the public comment page and to each commissioner individually. Today is the last day to comment folks.


Dear Commissioner,



As the public comment period for the proposed changes to the 2022/23 hunting regulations comes to a close, I am asking you to take a deep breath and stop to consider the effects of changes you are about to approve or reject.

The proposed changes on this season setting agenda are some of the most extensive that I have ever seen and the effects of those changes will extend for years to come. As commissioners, you have a responsibility to the residents of Montana and the public wildlife that will be affected by your decisions to make wise choices regarding the management of wildlife resources.

Throughout this process, FWP Director Worsech has explicitly expressed that the intention of proposed changes is to simplify confusing regulation.

FWP’s web page inviting public comment directly states and I quote, “Earlier this fall, Fish, Wildlife & Parks biologists offered science-based regulations proposals that combine some hunting districts, reduce some license and permit types, and eliminate hunting district portions. FWP staff held informational meetings around the state, and the public was invited to submit comments on those initial proposals. FWP adjusted the proposals based on public comment and presented them to the commission.”

I strongly disagree that the sum total of proposals before the committee this session is science based and in harmony with the biological recommendations of FWP regional biologists. In fact, I would assert that many of the most controversial proposals are political in nature and have no biological justification for wildlife management.

Director Worsech has also repeatedly expressed the need to address population numbers of elk herds in certain units deemed over objective. Throughout the past year, several proposals that evoked the most intense public opposition have been presented by the Director. As recently as Dec. 13, the commission expressed your sensitivity to opposition to the Director’s proposal and told him not to present it for your consideration.

The following day at the Dec. 14 commission meeting significant portions of the rejected proposal was repackaged and presented to the commission in different form by way of unbundling the 900 series units and making them either general or unlimited permits. This change does nothing to address the stated goal of reducing over objective elk. Additional proposals thrown in for consideration and approval were hastily concocted and not vetted with various user groups who have conflicting interests.

Director Worsech has stated publicly that “the same old thing isn’t working” and “trying the same old thing and expecting different results, is insanity,” and that he’s putting these proposals “out there to get the conversation started”.

If I may speak bluntly, my perception and the perception of many other Montana resident hunters is that Director Worsech is throwing manure against the wall to see what sticks. Many of these proposals illustrate and reinforce the perception that FWP leadership is out of touch with the biological needs of deer and elk herds and out of touch with what Montana residents expect from the department they have entrusted to wisely manage Montana’s wildlife resources.

Montana Fish, Wildlife, and Parks is mandated to manage for the health of Montana’s wildlife, not to serve as a political candy machine dolling out favors for those who have connections and paid lobbyists to ensure that they are first in line to benefit from increased exploitation of wildlife.

There has been an incredible amount of work put forth by various groups to try and find consensus and working solutions to many of the problems that have historically caused contention among various user groups and landowners. FWP has coordinated many of those meetings and compiled recommendations based on input from hunters, landowners and outfitters. That extensive input is not included in the proposals presented for your approval this session. Why would you want to pass proposals presented to you without the input of these diverse groups of public trust shareholders?

The proposals that you are being requested to approve will have far reaching consequences in the future health of Montana deer and elk herds and the hunting experiences of Montana residents who place great value on healthy deer and elk herds. It is my opinion that almost all of the late amendments and proposals will have a negative effect and will generate widespread dissatisfaction among affected MT hunters.

I am requesting that you would approve only those proposals that have a clear biological justification endorsed by regional biologists as being in the best interest of MT’s wildlife. Please reject those proposals that are social or political in nature and attempt to change the status quo on the allocation of tags and permits or access to wildlife.

I am also requesting that you question and carefully consider the controversy surrounding elk “objectives” and MT FWP management policies in those areas deemed “over objective”. Those units deemed over objective nearly all feature two common traits; low objective numbers and lack of public access to elk in those districts. Adding additional either-sex hunting permits in those areas will not help lower the overall population of elk. Nor, will additional either-sex hunting permits improve public access to elk on private property in those units. Unbundling the 900 series permits and adding additional either-sex permits in the proposed units only ensures that even more hunting pressure is placed on bull elk. The effect of that additional pressure will be lower bull to cow ratios, younger age class among bulls and increased conflict among public trust shareholders.

Many of the proposals before you at the next commission meeting do not meet the qualifications given by Director Worsech. If adopted, these proposals will actually exacerbate the conflicts they were intended to address.

For the sake of Montana’s wildlife and the residents of Montana who are entrusting you to enact FWP’s declaration of “science-based management”; please prioritize the health of our wildlife over commercial interests and user groups who seek increased assess to exploit Montana’s public trust resources.

Sincerely,

Gerald Martin

Well done.

 

[rogerthat]

The email I just received shows they are already cutting off one argument as a difference in opinion. Bolding is mine.

Earlier this fall, Fish, Wildlife & Parks biologists offered science-based regulations proposals that combine some hunting districts, reduce some license and permit types, and eliminate hunting district portions...

This question was straight up asked at the Region 7 season setting meeting, Question: "what is the science in the region 7 elk proposals? Answer and I quote "The science was the justifications that the region staff put together, Bio's, wildlife managers, etc" but Question "what about the current proposal?" Answer: "Well you would have to ask the director and the commissioners".... Question " So no science?!" Commissioner Lane was sitting right there and actually stood up and spoke after this question. Pretty funny exchange. I have never watched the youtube to see if and how it came across via zoom.

 

[SAJ-99]

This question was straight up asked at the Region 7 season setting meeting, Question: "what is the science in the region 7 elk proposals? Answer and I quote "The science was the justifications that the region staff put together, Bio's, wildlife managers, etc" but Question "what about the current proposal?" Answer: "Well you would have to ask the director and the commissioners".... Question " So no science?!" Commissioner Lane was sitting right there and actually stood up and spoke after this question. Pretty funny exchange. I have never watched the youtube to see if and how it came across via zoom.

That is one of those statements where Hank thinks "It's true because I say it's true and if I repeat it enough I can convince people of its truthiness". I wish it didn't work, but it does. Other statements that fall into that category are "Hunters never bring us reasonable solutions to the problem, only complaints.", and "we hear from a lot of hunters that they agree with what we are doing".

 

[Tomahawk]

Leaked video from Hank and Greg discussing their 'science based solutions':

 

[Big Fin]

My cover letter with 9 pages of comments. I also went to the online portal to address the statewide proposals.
____________________________________________________________________________

January 20, 2022


RE: Comments on Proposed 2022-2023 Hunting Regulations

Dear Commissioners of the Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks Commission:

Included herein are comments related to the proposed hunting season structures that have been published by Fish Wildlife and Parks for the 2022-2023 season setting period.

It is worth mentioning ARM 12.2.301 as context to my summary comments here.

(1) Participation of the public is to be provided for, encouraged, and assisted to the fullest extent practicable, consistent with other requirements of state law and the rights and requirements of personal privacy. The major objectives of such participation include greater responsiveness of governmental actions to public concerns and priorities, and improved public understanding of official programs and actions. Although the primary responsibility for wildlife management, outdoor recreation, and other functions of the Department of Fish, Wildlife, and Parks is vested in the department, active public involvement in and scrutiny of the decision making process is desirable to accomplish these objectives. The intent of these regulations is to foster a spirit of openness and a sense of mutual trust and understanding between the public and the department in efforts to maintain and enhance Montana wildlife resources and outdoor recreation opportunities.​

The Department and the Commission are required to provide, encourage, and assist public participation to the fullest extent practicable. That has not happened here. This hastily forced process with ever-changing proposals has hindered the public’s ability to provide comment and has not fostered a “spirit of openness and a sense of mutual trust.”

The process of the last two months has forced hunters to comment on proposals that nobody asked for. The proposals that were withdrawn on December 13th were not asked for by hunters. That evening in your Commission working session, the proposals we spent a month discussing were pulled. By the next morning, a mere 10 hours, a completely new set of proposals, without input from the public, were presented to the Commission, a derivative of which we are now being asked to comment.

Many of the proposals that have been provided for public consideration have no supporting rationale for how these new proposals are intended to address sustainable game populations per MCA 87-1-321---325. Again, these new and hastily adopted proposals were not asked for by hunters and had no transparency as to how the new proposals were arrived at.

I sat through the entire Region 3 Zoom call meeting. There were multiple situations where the presented season proposal on the Zoom call were different from the “Draft Regulations” and different from the Region 3 “Master List” posted on the FWP website. Due to those last-minute changes, it is not completely clear what proposals I should comment on or what FWP is actually proposing. Are we commenting on that found in the posted “Draft Regulations,” that on the “Master Lists,” or that presented on the Zoom calls?

I’ve been involved in season setting processes for 30 years and this is the most confusing and poorly conducted season setting process I have been involved in. The fact that we are on the precipice of making the greatest changes to Montana hunting in three decades, based on completely new and unvetted proposals crafted in the wee hours of December 13th, does nothing to give hunters confidence that the Department is listening to our comments and concerns.

A result of this poorly administered season setting process has been erosion of trust in the Department of Fish Wildlife & Parks, and collaterally, trust in the FWP Commission. Transparency and responsiveness to comments from hunters is the only way to restore what trust is left in the Department, the Commission, and the processes by which we manage wildlife in Montana.

Sincerely,


Randy Newberg

 

[Unlucky]

I actually want some feed back. Fwp has allowed the public lands to be over hunted which in turns forces the wildlife onto private. In many areas. Mule deer population on public is just beyond comprehension. Outside of LE units which are poorly managed. Elk on public get hammered. Which naturally benifits the private. Which in turn they dont allow hunting. But complain. So where i c it going is pay $3,000 or $10,000. And u can kill any buck or bull. But the public which follows fwp laws kills everything. Ruining public lands because they are allowed too. Not management. But say a adult, kid, who ever shoots a buck or bull in a LE unit or off of private ( poaching). Many reasons, not justifying just saying. Big elk and deer is what this is about. Trophys. What is worse. The rich, landowners, people willing too pay for it. Or a poacher based off fwp laws. Which fwp laws have allowed all this to happen. And ranchers, the rich, politics have controlled these ruled and laws. Me i view as paying for sex. No thanks. But my opionon that is what will happen. The public will break laws.

 

[Unlucky]

My point is this, look at utah. Poaching numbers. I would say it is ego, privatization of wildlife, and no opportunity or hope of hunting a trophy animal, unless u pay. All politics and money. Shouldnt be that way. I honestly think if public lands and hunters were respected and managed, for everyone. That being wildlife, public, private worked together it could be the good old days.

 

[TN_Rifle_Junkie]

Leaked video from Hank and Greg discussing their 'science based solutions':

Pretty sure he was a "sitting Senator" from the great state of Montana... Until he took a bullet in the head at his cabin.

 

[AlaskaHunter]

As a part time resident, wintering in MT I only bird hunt but hunt every weekday of the season.
So my main concern was extending the upland season to the end of January.
I wrote to the Commissioner chair and the website with the following comments:

I oppose the proposal to extend the upland bird hunting season to end of January.

First, from a land owner perspective, it is nice that Block Management contracts expire
the end of December, concurrently with the current upland bird season.
Ask the ranching community...most of the ranchers I know prefer to give the birds a
break and have had enough interaction with bird hunters by the end of the year.

Second, I know many trappers that begin to set their snares on January so they do not snare hunting dogs.
By extending the season to the end of January has the potential for increased conflict between
bird hunters whose dogs got snared and trappers. Hunters and trappers must stick together for the greater good.

Third, pheasants use dense woody cover for winter refuge...
much warmer microclimate, abundant berries for food, and protection from predators.
By hunting in January, hens would be flushed from this dense woody cover and
could be stressed and more vulnerable to predators such as owls, hawks, bobcats, foxes and coyotes.
Why risk increased mortality of next fall's crop?

Thanks for all your hard work on the Commission!

 

[Irishman]

It's clear to me that the proposed changes are being driven by politicians and the Governor's appointed Commission. Not for the benefit of the average hunter, and not based on the recommendations of FWP biologists. So, when people send in comments blaming FWP and its director, how will it be received by the people who are actually making the decisions? They might think that a success.

 

[Eric Albus]

Remember when they allowed bulls to be killed after the general season. Damage hunt. Makes me wonder is it educated idiots in charge. Or does nothing really matter and politics and huge money behind this. Idk things i have heard which is hearsay. Millionaires and billionaires behind the privatization of of wildlife in mt. If thats the case, i dont know who is worse, a poacher difined by fwp law or a hunting pimp. My opionon fwp needs to reach puberty and grow some balls. Which will not happen. So i guess, whatever they decide. There will be rewards and consequences for there actions. Greed and power means nothing to working stiffs. Fwp leo continue to patrol the private. Fucj the public. Only can ignore a problem so long until its your problem.

Under whose watch did this happen? Certainly wasn’t current administration.

 

[Beignet]

Did @Eric Albus just use an emoji? Ha!

 

[Unlucky]

2007 or 2008 bull elk hunts in december southwest mt

 

[Eric Albus]

My cover letter with 9 pages of comments. I also went to the online portal to address the statewide proposals.
____________________________________________________________________________

January 20, 2022


RE: Comments on Proposed 2022-2023 Hunting Regulations

Dear Commissioners of the Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks Commission:

Included herein are comments related to the proposed hunting season structures that have been published by Fish Wildlife and Parks for the 2022-2023 season setting period.

It is worth mentioning ARM 12.2.301 as context to my summary comments here.

(1) Participation of the public is to be provided for, encouraged, and assisted to the fullest extent practicable, consistent with other requirements of state law and the rights and requirements of personal privacy. The major objectives of such participation include greater responsiveness of governmental actions to public concerns and priorities, and improved public understanding of official programs and actions. Although the primary responsibility for wildlife management, outdoor recreation, and other functions of the Department of Fish, Wildlife, and Parks is vested in the department, active public involvement in and scrutiny of the decision making process is desirable to accomplish these objectives. The intent of these regulations is to foster a spirit of openness and a sense of mutual trust and understanding between the public and the department in efforts to maintain and enhance Montana wildlife resources and outdoor recreation opportunities.​

The Department and the Commission are required to provide, encourage, and assist public participation to the fullest extent practicable. That has not happened here. This hastily forced process with ever-changing proposals has hindered the public’s ability to provide comment and has not fostered a “spirit of openness and a sense of mutual trust.”

The process of the last two months has forced hunters to comment on proposals that nobody asked for. The proposals that were withdrawn on December 13th were not asked for by hunters. That evening in your Commission working session, the proposals we spent a month discussing were pulled. By the next morning, a mere 10 hours, a completely new set of proposals, without input from the public, were presented to the Commission, a derivative of which we are now being asked to comment.

Many of the proposals that have been provided for public consideration have no supporting rationale for how these new proposals are intended to address sustainable game populations per MCA 87-1-321---325. Again, these new and hastily adopted proposals were not asked for by hunters and had no transparency as to how the new proposals were arrived at.

I sat through the entire Region 3 Zoom call meeting. There were multiple situations where the presented season proposal on the Zoom call were different from the “Draft Regulations” and different from the Region 3 “Master List” posted on the FWP website. Due to those last-minute changes, it is not completely clear what proposals I should comment on or what FWP is actually proposing. Are we commenting on that found in the posted “Draft Regulations,” that on the “Master Lists,” or that presented on the Zoom calls?

I’ve been involved in season setting processes for 30 years and this is the most confusing and poorly conducted season setting process I have been involved in. The fact that we are on the precipice of making the greatest changes to Montana hunting in three decades, based on completely new and unvetted proposals crafted in the wee hours of December 13th, does nothing to give hunters confidence that the Department is listening to our comments and concerns.

A result of this poorly administered season setting process has been erosion of trust in the Department of Fish Wildlife & Parks, and collaterally, trust in the FWP Commission. Transparency and responsiveness to comments from hunters is the only way to restore what trust is left in the Department, the Commission, and the processes by which we manage wildlife in Montana.

Sincerely,


Randy Newberg

I am

Did @Eric Albus just use an emoji? Ha!

had help