Discuss Master Hunter programs here....

[onpoint]

*turd in a punchbowl Francis

I know it, got that one wrong.

No response to Montana's actual issues, one's which threads you love to drop in on, with no real give a shit whatsoever?

You and your minions like seinfeld, and memes, and other completely uselsess no-worth-here contributions....remember "he's a funnyF&^%er".............................?

 

[Big Fin]

Your comments flat pissed me off. Not every idea is a good one, and even the most well intended ideas come with unintended consequences. Some of mine included.

I’ve repeatedly stated I see the pluses in this type of program, but the potential pitfalls are huge. The potential impacts are public lands resources are huge. If that’s “hammering” then so be it. Your pig, your farm.

Implications of cheap seat hammering and not sticking one’s neck out were bush league.

If it pissed you off, that was not the intent and it wasn't focused at you or anyone specifically. I did not see one single suggestion in this thread about how to solve a very complicated problem and a growing problem; access to elk that are become more and more habituated to private lands and less comfortable on public lands. I saw a lot of comments that were "hammering" an effort to try solve some of the problem, however imperfect that experiment might be. If the reality of this thread having no suggestions and a lot of criticisms of others at least trying something "pisses you off," then I guess that is how it is. Surely was not the intent.

The intent was to seek suggestions from people who obviously have some strong thoughts on this topic. And to do it in a different thread that would not divert where this thread was going.

And if we are talking "bush league," especially intentionally posting in the bush league, you seem to have hit a home run with this one .....

Maybe it doesn’t count because I’m not sponsored by <insert business here>?

Carry on..........

 

[Big Fin]

Don't you mean access to elk on "private" land?

Would be just awesome to see more elk just on public land where you don't have to worry about a whole lot of the other complications, and we all have "access"

Yup, I meant private land. I agree 100% with more elk on public land where we all have access to them.

 

[noharleyyet]

I know it, got that one wrong.

No response to Montana's actual issues, one's which threads you love to drop in on, with no real give a shit whatsoever?

You and your minions like seinfeld, and memes, and other completely uselsess no-worth-here contributions....remember "he's a funnyF&^%er".............................?

*rent free

 

[onpoint]

Bush League - not of the highest quality or sophistication.
No shit.

*rent free

That's a fact.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Cabin fever is setting in early this year.

 

[noharleyyet]

Bush League - not of the highest quality or sophistication.
No shit.


That's a fact. Sir.

...and you'd mean it.

 

[onpoint]

You forgot to highlight the fact that I spelled useless incorrectly.
The bush leagueness of your pettiness is slipping.
Still waiting for Randy to ask why you have nothing useful to add to the other related thread.

 

[noharleyyet]

Crying to the headmaster not working for you?

 

[onpoint]

Yeah, Newberg's a big fan of mine.
Yer an idiot............................

 

[noharleyyet]

There it is...the wannabe brilliance I was expecting.

 

[Deleted member 20812]

If it pissed you off, that was not the intent and it wasn't focused at you or anyone specifically. I did not see one single suggestion in this thread about how to solve a very complicated problem and a growing problem; access to elk that are become more and more habituated to private lands and less comfortable on public lands. I saw a lot of comments that were "hammering" an effort to try solve some of the problem, however imperfect that experiment might be. If the reality of this thread having no suggestions and a lot of criticisms of others at least trying something "pisses you off," then I guess that is how it is. Surely was not the intent.

The intent was to seek suggestions from people who obviously have some strong thoughts on this topic. And to do it in a different thread that would not divert where this thread was going.

And if we are talking "bush league," especially intentionally posting in the bush league, you seem to have hit a home run with this one .....



Carry on..........

The thread wasn't originated to address access to elk and the increasingly nuanced difficulties of managing them. It was originated to address the potential and/or perceived formation of a caste system within hunting. The comments weren't "hammering" at the effort to solve the problem of elk management. They were to bring light to what the past has shown us with master hunter programs and what the future may hold. Therefore, I find it rather logical the thread would have no suggestions about elk management. It's not what it was intended for. Why you would expect different is beyond me.

I have a hard time believing your comments were not specifically directed at Tim and I. For all intents and purposes, it appears to be a very thinly veiled shot across the bow. Mine was not veiled, and I won't try to defend is as anything other than what it was. A direct shot based at what I perceive as the unintended consequences of being in nd a collaborative member of the hunting industry.

 

[onpoint]

I'll take it a step further.
I've had an at times very interesting, at times very entertaining, at times very informative run on HT.
Give my password the "I'm your huckleberry" treatment Randy.
There's some good stuff on here. You guys fighting the fight, thanks, and keep it up.
Good's the enemy of the best.
Not gonna' be part of the problem anymore.
You have plenty of harley's.............................

 

[The Hedgehog]

 

[Big Fin]

.......

I have a hard time believing your comments were not specifically directed at Tim and I. For all intents and purposes, it appears to be a very thinly veiled shot across the bow. Mine was not veiled, and I won't try to defend is as anything other than what it was. A direct shot based at what I perceive as the unintended consequences of being in nd a collaborative member of the hunting industry.

My comments in Post #79 weren't something done as a "thinly veiled shot across the bow." If those comments were directed at you or Tim, your prior comments would have been quoted by me in my post.

Threads can take a tone without it being any single person. This thread had evolved to a mostly negative tone that wasn't doing anything to improve the situation we are faced with in Montana. I offered a chance for discussing additional ideas that could be practical/possible improvements, in a different thread.

I've read and re-read what I posted. As much as you say you have a "hard time believing the comments were not directed at Tim and I," I have an equally hard time seeing how you found it directed at you. Be assured, when I am making a comment that replies/reubtts someone, it is obvious. You started the thread and maybe that is why you took offense to my post; none was intended.

As an aside, I'm genuinely interested to know what "unintended consequences" you see that were reason for the "direct shot." If my actions or behaviors are giving the impression that this money-losing operation is somehow being guided due to financial pressures, it would be helpful for me to know which of my actions are giving that impressions. If you want to share that here or in a PM, it would be helpful for me to understand such.

 

[Irrelevant]

As a side note, WA has a master hunter program, ran by the state, where with very little additional "testing" you can qualify for all types of additional draw tags, mostly antlerless, but also a few otherwise. What we've seen is that landowners find the MHs to be just as unethical (herd shooting) and impolite (parking in a driveway and leaving gates open) as the general public, it's just that there's fewer of them. So those landowners don't use the system and instead try to talk WDFW into allotting some damage tags for the landowner to do with as they please. That has in term meant the remaining options for MH typically aren't very good, and the draw odds amongst the MH tags is about as bad as the rest of the draw tags, so after a decade or so, we now have very few actual MHs. It's almost like a self-defeating system.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

As a side note, WA has a master hunter program, ran by the state, where with very little additional "testing" you can qualify for all types of additional draw tags, mostly antlerless, but also a few otherwise. What we've seen is that landowners find the MHs to be just as unethical (herd shooting) and impolite (parking in a driveway and leaving gates open) as the general public, it's just that there's fewer of them. So those landowners don't use the system and instead try to talk WDFW into allotting some damage tags for the landowner to do with as they please. That has in term meant the remaining options for MH typically aren't very good, and the draw odds amongst the MH tags is about as bad as the rest of the draw tags, so after a decade or so, we now have very few actual MHs. It's almost like a self-defeating system.

So the idea is not necessarily bad, but the execution?

 

[FI460]

As a side note, WA has a master hunter program, ran by the state, where with very little additional "testing" you can qualify for all types of additional draw tags, mostly antlerless, but also a few otherwise. What we've seen is that landowners find the MHs to be just as unethical (herd shooting) and impolite (parking in a driveway and leaving gates open) as the general public, it's just that there's fewer of them. So those landowners don't use the system and instead try to talk WDFW into allotting some damage tags for the landowner to do with as they please. That has in term meant the remaining options for MH typically aren't very good, and the draw odds amongst the MH tags is about as bad as the rest of the draw tags, so after a decade or so, we now have very few actual MHs. It's almost like a self-defeating system.

That's disappointing. I volunteer with the Oregon Hunters Association and we've been grappling with an equitable method for connecting our members with landowners interested in allowing access. The general consensus is that they want some sort of vetting process. This thread is pretty demonstrative of how complicated the issue is. Charging money is an affront to purists of the NAM, the average hunter is often sceptical of state agencies, and a course of education doesn't always solve the problem.

Just shows that we can only do our best to help the alleviate the situation.

 

[Irrelevant]

So the idea is not necessarily bad, but the execution?

I think it's just like others have pointed out, you're not going to be able to create a standardized test/system that actually selects for people we can all agree should actually quality for the program, so you're left with a smaller but similar subset of standard hunters, whom we can agree aren't all good. Then the system more or less falls apart, kind of a, garbage in garbage out scenario.

 

[Jmscon]

This sounds more like a private hunting club, with a “education“ requirement, that has access to private land.

In WA we used to have the Advanced Hunter Education (AHE) that, once you met the requirements, had some special permits available. We now have the Master Hunter Permit Program (MHPP) which replaced the AHE.

The MHPP is administered by Washington Dept of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW). The requirements to become a MHPP participant are 20 hours of community service (WDFW encourages conservation programs for this); a shooting proficiency which can be one of the following: 20/25 clays at trap, scoring 80 with ten shots at 100 yards on a b-3 target at rest and 60 with ten shots at 50 yards off-hand, muzzleloader 80 at 75 yards at rest and 60 at 50 yards off-hand, slug gun 35 with five shots at rest and 30 at 50 yards off-hand, pistol 80 at 50 yards off rest and 60 at 25 off-hand, bow 60 at 30 yards 70 at 20 yards and 80 at ten yards, cross bow 40 with five shots at 40 yards and 35 at 20 yards off-hand; score 80 or better on a written exam; pass a background check; sign the Master Hunter Code of Ethics; send in $50 application fee. I believe that if you have ever been convicted of a hunting/wildlife crime you are not eligible.

The permit is only good for five years but can be renewed by having volunteered for 40 more hours and send in another $50.

The benefits of this program are mostly in the form of access to a handful of special drawings (mostly they are antler-less deer and elk hunts administered by a WDFW hunt coordinator and are nuisance hunts on private land) and a few general hunts (but still antler-less and mostly on private land). And a pretty yellow card that each permit holder has to have on their person while on those hunts.

There are roughly 1500 permit holders in our state now. Are there a few bad apples? Sure. Are there some who go above and beyond? Absolutely!

I have been a part of it for over ten years and at one point (because of the suggestion of the dept.) a hunter ed instructor.

All of this has been a blast for me! I will be a hunter ed instructor again and the volunteering I have done has been a ton of fun!

I am, by no means, a master of the woods or a master hunter but I am a MHPP permit holder.

This program should be the one pushed for, not the one that you folks are talking about.

The sad part is this program is also on the chopping block because of lack of funding at WDFW. Fewer hunters and anglers and more mandates to follow.