Choose Your Weapon law

[shoots-straight]

SS, This is an honest question so take it as me looking for more education. Why is the EMP fraudulent in your opinion and how could it be made better?

If you look at Ben Lambs post #22, he posts the law that Debbie Barrett got passed in 2003. That law had a profound effect on Elk objective numbers that our Department picked for each HD. Right after that legislation, (HB 43) our state called an "Elk Summit" to address social concerns for the Ag community. After this "Summit" the local Bio's went back to their areas and started working on picking Elk Objectives for each Hd in the state. It seems that most were directed to look back in time several years and pick where we were then. No science at all. No biology. In the Missouri River Breaks region for example, the EMU there had 4000 head of elk. They picked 2000 because of social considerations from the Ag community. In the Root, were I live, we have just a few average to large cattle operations. Of course they were screaming, there's too many elk. Like every one in the state was, but by and large we don't have a huge livestock concern.

Our local Bio, (lets call him killer) picked 6000 head of elk for our EMU. Our club being the active group we are, pushed that number up to like 7700. We could have really had a lot more. The fires of 2000 burn 300,000 acres in the Root, most of that on and near the lower winter ranges. It opened up the country. More people like elk here, than hate them by a huge margin, Realtors love selling land with pictures of elk herds on them.

So the stage was set, all Hd's in the state were sitting at higher numbers than the EMP called for, except the NW area that was still dealing with the winter of 96 and 03. Liberal seasons were put in place all over state and the elk were massacred, especially in areas that had public lands with access

. We read (certain people in Ravalli County Fish & Wildlife ass.) the EMP over and over and found page 55.(Thank you Hamlin) It basically was written as a safe guard to help keep elk populatons on public lands. We have one big ranch where half the elk from one area reside. So page 55 lets us subtract those numbers from the total counted each year. So we haven't been in liberal season structures for a while.

The predators were following the elk populations upward. We started reducing those numbers and the predators raced past the prey base. IMO, (no science involved) This forced those predators (lion, bears, wolves ect.) to remove more of the calf crop than normal. This is exactly what happened in the Gallatin. Our computer model followed that area to a tee, just on a smaller scale. We got the kill slowed down here, but not until we got rid of killer. Hope this makes sense.

All elk hunters were enjoying long liberal seasons, and didn't pay attention to what was going on. Happy hunters are complacent hunters. We have been screaming for you fellas in region 3 to wake up for 6 years now. I hope it isn't too late.

 

[shoots-straight]

How it could be made better:

Get someone to carry legislation to over turn Debbie (hunter hater) Barrett's 2003 legislation. Then re address the EMP. In areas that are less susceptible to depredation from the elk herds, we need to bump them up to a biological number. (If possible) Predators are a determining factor now. In areas that have more public lands we need to work deals with the local Ag community to boost numbers upward. The sooner that happens the quicker we can stop the bleeding.

Oh, without a lot of hunters standing with us, this doesn't have a whore's house chance in he!! of getting anywhere.

 

[onpoint]

If you look at Ben Lambs post #22, he posts the law that Debbie Barrett got passed in 2003. That law had a profound effect on Elk objective numbers that our Department picked for each HD. Right after that legislation, (HB 43) our state called an "Elk Summit" to address social concerns for the Ag community. After this "Summit" the local Bio's went back to their areas and started working on picking Elk Objectives for each Hd in the state. It seems that most were directed to look back in time several years and pick where we were then. No science at all. No biology. In the Missouri River Breaks region for example, the EMU there had 4000 head of elk. They picked 2000 because of social considerations from the Ag community. In the Root, were I live, we have just a few average to large cattle operations. Of course they were screaming, there's too many elk. Like every one in the state was, but by and large we don't have a huge livestock concern.

Our local Bio, (lets call him killer) picked 6000 head of elk for our EMU. Our club being the active group we are, pushed that number up to like 7700. We could have really had a lot more. The fires of 2000 burn 300,000 acres in the Root, most of that on and near the lower winter ranges. It opened up the country. More people like elk here, than hate them by a huge margin, Realtors love selling land with pictures of elk herds on them.

So the stage was set, all Hd's in the state were sitting at higher numbers than the EMP called for, except the NW area that was still dealing with the winter of 96 and 03. Liberal seasons were put in place all over state and the elk were massacred, especially in areas that had public lands with access

. We read (certain people in Ravalli County Fish & Wildlife ass.) the EMP over and over and found page 55.(Thank you Hamlin) It basically was written as a safe guard to help keep elk populatons on public lands. We have one big ranch where half the elk from one area reside. So page 55 lets us subtract those numbers from the total counted each year. So we haven't been in liberal season structures for a while.

The predators were following the elk populations upward. We started reducing those numbers and the predators raced past the prey base. IMO, (no science involved) This forced those predators (lion, bears, wolves ect.) to remove more of the calf crop than normal. This is exactly what happened in the Gallatin. Our computer model followed that area to a tee, just on a smaller scale. We got the kill slowed down here, but not until we got rid of killer. Hope this makes sense.

All elk hunters were enjoying long liberal seasons, and didn't pay attention to what was going on. Happy hunters are complacent hunters. We have been screaming for you fellas in region 3 to wake up for 6 years now. I hope it isn't too late.

Some of us region three'ers have been awake for a lot longer than 6 years...and doin a little screamin ourselves. Too bad all of us didn't link up years ago and all scream together then. Sometime early 2000's I remember making phone calls to sportsmens groups around the state (in conjunction with HFGA), attempting to unite groups on some issues. You're right SS, lots of folks were very busy enjoying.......I talked to one poor SOB from the, I think, Libby Rod and Gun Club(?) who laughed and told me as the sole active member of his outfit, he supported the cause

 

[Lawnboy]

I appreciate the insight. I wish they would use that page 55 thing over here on the Bridgers. They do their deer counts and the biggest majority are on the private lands at the base of the mountain. They are living there year round along with elk now. So we have biologists setting quotas on animals that pretty much aren't being hunted. Meanwhile the public mountain range is suffering because they have allocated a crazy number of doe tags that doesn't even make sense. You couldn't even count the number of live does on the forest to equal their doe tag allocation. I would bet dinner on that. Maybe down on the private but not up high.

 

[shoots-straight]

We get together on these issues, and we'll be tough.

 

[Big Fin]

I remember sportsmen losing a battle in 2003 legislature about HB 42, sponsored by Debby Barrett (R) Dillon, a bill which I think led to the creation of current management system (EMP). Those who were around the political BS back then (Randy?, anyone else) can verify or dispute. If true, anything passed in Helena concerning sportsmen with Barrett's handprint on it is safe to call fraudulent...easy enough to research for yourself. SS can chime in and expound upon....

Yup. Almost got thrown out of the Capitol by the Sargent At Arms over that one. Was the biggest dust up ever with the Gallatin Valley legislators, until this year.

We were sold down the river on that. On a variety of occasions, we only needed one vote to kill it. Rather than kill it, it was "moderated." Those who moderated, told us all would be OK. We insisted they kill it.

Nope. Moderated. Too much political future at stake to take a stand of leadership. I still have those emails and get steamed every time I discover them while researching other issues.

So those of you who were included in the email debates of me and a couple Gallatin Valley leaders earlier this month know why I took them to task when they boasted of their ability to get some bills "moderated."

You don't moderate bad bills. You kill them. You don't tolerate or let yourself be patronized by ignorant elected officials, you get them unelected, which we did in 2004 and 2006, to the extent possible. And what we will do in 2012 and 2014 and .....

You are exactly right Onpoint about that bill setting us down the path of these stupid legislative constraints that now drive our game management plans. We could see it coming. We were sold out by the Republican guys who had come to our rod and gun club forums ( a club heavily weighted toward Republican members) and promised they would be there when we needed them. The part they forgot to mention, is they would be there for us only when convenient and only if some other group didn't need them more.

And if that bill wasn't enough damage for one session, they tried to raid FWP for about $40 million to buy out the penned shooting operations who had lost every court battle. Being handed their asses in court, they came to the legislature with hat in hand. The legislature was primed to give it to them, except for a couple of Republicans who saw the hypocrisy in their cause. Many R's were willing to sell us out on that one, also.

I compare 2003 to this session. Until this year, it was the worst session ever. This session is about five times worse than 2003.

Time to pull out the old paperwork and renew our application as a political organization. Gonna need it in 2012.

Sorry to sidetrack the Choose Your Weapon discussion with this ramble.

Carry on.

 

[belly-deep]

Why people would even want to start up a pick your weapon scheme in Montana is beyond me.

We're a few decades behind other states in terms of management policies, etc.

That give us an advantage in that we can see what kinds of mistakes other states are making and avoid those.

Pick a weapon, too many LE units, and too much ATV access is what is killing public hunting in other states. We should NOT follow suit.

 

[shoots-straight]

You don't moderate bad bills. You kill them. You don't tolerate or let yourself be patronized by ignorant elected officials, you get them unelected, which we did in 2004 and 2006, to the extent possible. And what we will do in 2012 and 2014 and .....

Exactly, and our group was negligent in the respect that we concentrate on local issues, We are reaching out to every club in the state. If they need help on a issue, all they have to do is give us a note, and we're there. We may be calling for help ourselves. If nothing else, this session has created some contacts between groups.

I'm not for EO hunting season's until the resource becomes affected.
With big dogs chasing our game around all the time, and a legislature that is just as bad,EO is the least of our solutions to any problem.Sorry!

 

[TBass]

Why people would even want to start up a pick your weapon scheme in Montana is beyond me.

We're a few decades behind other states in terms of management policies, etc.

That give us an advantage in that we can see what kinds of mistakes other states are making and avoid those.

Pick a weapon, too many LE units, and too much ATV access is what is killing public hunting in other states. We should NOT follow suit.

Huh, guess you and Eric Albus wouldn't see eye to eye. Don't know if he was speaking as a District Director for MOGA or himself when he posted the following in a Gazette blog: Wildlife management? Until Montana gets away from the North American Wildlife Model mindset we will continue to be referred to as a "third world country" by our neighboring states wildlife agencies. Mr. Albus also very much supports the idea of splitting up the current season set-ups into several shorter seasons by weapon type.

More people believing in the North American model equals more resistance to commercialization/privatization the likes of which occur in Helena every two years. As other states have moved away from supporting the NA model, their participation rates in hunting have dropped, which equates to less resistance to commercial interests. There's a reason MT has the highest participation rate of residents in the country. That reason is called opportunity.

Opportunity for all is one of the tenets of the NA model and plays a large part in the number of hunters that are recruited/retained. Which in turn will determine the future of hunting in this country. Too bad those who seek to privatize/commercialize everything are wearing these:

One of the many things I find ironic about this session is the GOP's attempt to adopt the Code of the West as the Code of MT. #9 of the code states "Remember that some things aren't for sale." Coming from a group that wants to sell trust resources that it doesn't wholly own, what could possibly not be for sale?

Another irony is HB159, which seeks to prevent any restrictions on firearms/ammunition. However, it places in statute that double-ought buckshot or rifled slugs are the only legal means of hunting deer and elk with a shotgun. Sabots, not being rifled slugs, would not be legal. So, the statute does the very thing it's trying to prevent.

As BigFin says, sorry for the ramble.

 

[onpoint]

As in TBass' post, once again the outfitter industry shows their concern for the resource...as in how it can benefit the outfitter industry. Once again it shows why hunting should not be looked at as an industry. If it wasn't for the North American Model, Albus wouldn't have the luxury of his opinions about this topic. We are inches away from the things we love being totally usurped and bastardized. I hope this MT legislative session has acted as the catalyst to finally bring the general public MT outdoorsmen together to stand up against the forces which I guarantee are not going away any time soon. These economic times only act to push natural resources more towards being looked at as $$ for short term gain. When they get managed for the greater good and for the long term, they benefit everyone FOR the long term. I don't think this discission has been off track at all....once again, thanks lamdilligaf, for starting it.

 

[shoots-straight]

Tjones and I have been trying to figure how to combat these people. Legislators, and MOGA mainly, but there's other group at times. This thread got me to thinking last night. It's (BEN) right in front of my face. Ben Lamb suggested we go after Barrett's 2003 law. That's it! We go on the offensive with legislation. A Bill to do away with the 2000 NR tags in wilderness areas (if it passes), and bill to do away with the 2300 Landowner sponsored tags. Bills to limit Outfitters to one area, and numbers of clients, Bills to protect wild sheep. etc. etc..Even if they dont go anywhere. We need to go on the offensive.... We need to start taking the war to them. They need to know that if they keep coming after our hunting heritage that we're going to go after their little piece of it.

Another thing I was thinking. All of our groups need a place to communicate with each other, and stay in contact, to run ideas back and forth. What if" Hunt Talk" had one more forum page, called Club news, or something like that, where all the sportsman's groups in the state could exchange information?

It could be administered like the political page is. You'd have to sign up to get the posts. I'd like to hear if there's any support for this idea, and if there, is how much it would cost to maintain etc. We wouldn't need to burden Fin with this, but the site is here, and many people from all over are looking. Other states could use the same forum page. Any support?

Would it even be compatible with "Hunt Talk"? Problems? Concerns? Good or Bad.

 

[onpoint]

Tjones and I have been trying to figure how to combat these people. Legislators, and MOGA mainly, but there's other group at times. This thread got me to thinking last night. It's (BEN) right in front of my face. Ben Lamb suggested we go after Barrett's 2003 law. That's it! We go on the offensive with legislation. A Bill to do away with the 2000 NR tags in wilderness areas (if it passes), and bill to do away with the 2300 Landowner sponsored tags. Bills to limit Outfitters to one area, and numbers of clients, Bills to protect wild sheep. etc. etc..Even if they dont go anywhere. We need to go on the offensive.... We need to start taking the war to them. They need to know that if they keep coming after our hunting heritage that we're going to go after their little piece of it.

Another thing I was thinking. All of our groups need a place to communicate with each other, and stay in contact, to run ideas back and forth. What if" Hunt Talk" had one more forum page, called Club news, or something like that, where all the sportsman's groups in the state could exchange information?

It could be administered like the political page is. You'd have to sign up to get the posts. I'd like to hear if there's any support for this idea, and if there, is how much it would cost to maintain etc. We wouldn't need to burden Fin with this, but the site is here, and many people from all over are looking. Other states could use the same forum page. Any support?

Would it even be compatible with "Hunt Talk"? Problems? Concerns? Good or Bad.

hmmm, when I first started posting on this site, I posted thread about the idea of a state wide sportsmen group....while not exactly the same thing.... Anyways, I think this is good idea. I'm open to anything to unite Montana sportsmen against attacks on us and our resources AND to advance ideas, legislation, etc, concerning these issues. This would be a fairly contentious site, lotsa ideas out there. The discussion(s) would be stimulating to say the least...but that's how things get done. The next voting go round we need to find/elect legislators willing to advance our causes:hump: vs. attacking us or just defending us. Be warned SS, you are entering the world (you're already in it of trying to unite hunters/fishermen AND keep them from losing site of the real goals....it can be quite lonely and frustrating....keep hunting, fishing, etc as much as possible to "smell the roses", it's what keeps me from throwing the towel in. That and being a stubborn prick.

 

[shoots-straight]

We all had are own little agendas. We need to come together as one big group. We already belong to regional clubs, so I don't think we need to recruit new members, more's better, We just need to get united with the ones that already exist. If we don't, they'll chip away at us one little pc at a time.

When we all got together in Helena on HB 309, it had a great impact.

I wish we would have known about Barrett's Bill in 03, and did something about it. I too was apathetic where it came to hunting. At least somewhat. You guys fighting Barrett's Bill in 2003 would have had a better chance had all of us (myself included) been in on the fight. Sorry, won't happen again. I was coaching girls, softball, boy's baseball, wrestling, Football, and track,running from one field to the other. My time was devoted to my kids. I lost sight of the bigger picture. If their heritage of the outdoors is gone, then those other activities will be all that's left.

Anyway, if there's a connection we could make, whether on Hunt Talk or another avenue, we need to link up.

Anyway, we have more fights to deal with in the next 30 days.

 

[onpoint]

We all had are own little agendas. We need to come together as one big group. We already belong to regional clubs, so I don't think we need to recruit new members, more's better, We just need to get united with the ones that already exist. If we don't, they'll chip away at us one little pc at a time.

When we all got together in Helena on HB 309, it had a great impact.

I wish we would have known about Barrett's Bill in 03, and did something about it. I too was apathetic where it came to hunting. At least somewhat. You guys fighting Barrett's Bill in 2003 would have had a better chance had all of us (myself included) been in on the fight. Sorry, won't happen again. I was coaching girls, softball, boy's baseball, wrestling, Football, and track,running from one field to the other. My time was devoted to my kids. I lost sight of the bigger picture. If their heritage of the outdoors is gone, then those other activities will be all that's left.

Anyway, if there's a connection we could make, whether on Hunt Talk or another avenue, we need to link up.

Anyway, we have more fights to deal with in the next 30 days.

What's done is done, just needs undoing and reassurance that it won't be done again, at least not without a lot of bloodletting. I'm with ya SS, so there's two of us, at least in writing. Maybe you oughta' start this out as a separate post, see if you get any legitimate positive response. If we keep beating the drum, maybe we can drum up some support, maybe some will get goaded into hopping on board, maybe people will tell us to quit pounding on that damn drum, maybe no one will hear the drum???? It is the most opportune time I have ever seen to get MT outdoorsmen together, where we can really be effective. Let's see if we step up or go back to our old ways. I agree also with the part about passing this onto the kids...I have none but believe this is vital.

 

[shoots-straight]

There's already more than just you and I. Our club is discussing what's next. We communicate with Hellgate Hunters and Anglers on a regular basis. We need to bring in the rest of the gang.

 

[onpoint]

There's already more than just you and I. Our club is discussing what's next. We communicate with Hellgate Hunters and Anglers on a regular basis. We need to bring in the rest of the gang.[/QUOTE

Keep me informed, I will bring this topic up....I guess it's a topic... if I can make it to the next HFGA mtg. And I will watch for the next GWA mtg to be announced and try to make it there to spread the word. Anybody on here from GWA interested in this, might pipe up. Anybody here affiliated with ANY local MT club intertested in this might pipe up.

 

[tjones]

I hate being on defense. In the not so distance future we will go on the offense.

It took 4 years for use to get page 55 in place here in HD 270. Got my teeth kicked in so many times I swallowed them like Chickletts.

 

[Riverbottom]

I enjoy hunting elk in September with my bow and hunting the whitetail rut in November with my bow. I don't know which I would choose each year, but I hope I never have to find out. I think there would be a lot less bowhunters with a choose your weapon system, but how many of the 40,000 current bowhunters are actually successful?
I'm not against using muzzleloaders, however, I do not think there should be a muzzleloader only season nor should they be allowed in September. Primitive smoke poles can easily and safely reach at least 75 yards. In-lines at least 200 yards.
I can't seem to understand the mentality of limiting the hunting experience and seasons.

 

[Sytes]

Another great opportunity to express why I value sites such as this... and take special consideration towards Hunt Talk as it fits more my impression and ethics of hunting...

My conversations with hunters is limited as I have my close friends I hunt with and otherwise - aside from convo's with co-workers occasionally and others, that is the limit of opinions on topics that greatly effect our hunting in Montana.

To have an opportunity to read other opinions beyond my circle opens much more consideration towards these type topics and gives me a better understanding of such. Not to say I would always agree with the general consensus or opinions of the many I respect for their vast knowledge - though when bills do get proposed or topics of such become discussed with my circle - I am a much more informed person.

So - thanks and cheers to another great topic some may take for granted.

 

[lamdilligaf]

In no way is this thread off topic. I brought up this subject hoping to see exactly this kind of discussion. I am definitely encouraged by the overall mindset of the individuals posting on this thread. I certainly hope that Montana can avoid increasing restrictions on our seasons. I still think FWP will be addressing the impact of archery hunting pressure in certain areas of the state. Especially when taken into context of how it contributes to an ever increasing demand on a struggling resource (at least in this area). SS is right on target. Offense!