perma
Well-known member
I much prefer the cats
Endangered Grizzly Bear Photo Thread
- Thread starter BigHornRam
- Start date
520 Road Sow
Well-known member
- Joined
- Mar 17, 2017
- Messages
- 6,818
100%
With the way things have been going in a couple of the districts these past couple seasons, I'm not so sure I wouldn't be in favor of an every other year opportunity. That said it would magnify the competition in the other 3 districts probably 3 fold.
If people are gonna continuously pop 4 year old rams off the roads then it's only a matter of time until the crackdown will come. When it does it'll probably avalanche into other things. Which ultimately will encompass all 5 districts.
There's solutions out there. Pretty simple ones too. Maybe it's time to explore extra options for the uls or maybe It's just up to the agency to keep it consistent with what they've written.
Tabor is still a douche.
rogerthat
Well-known member
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2015
- Messages
- 3,705
I am. They are going to have to listen to me. I’m fed up with them making changes that don’t actually address the issues. I’m certain Tabor likely has never participated. He is another moron that thinks he knows a lot more than he does.
rogerthat
Well-known member
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2015
- Messages
- 3,705
If the issue is crowding that we are trying address, I prefer other ways to address this without going the every other year route. All otc opportunities have been getting flooded with nr. This year I didn’t run into a single other resident sheep hunting. Going every other year is just going to prolong the inevitable. NR caps will be needed at some point. Now figuring out that sweet spot for the cap is the work. I’m not suggesting setting it very low as $1200/nr for a super long shot opp is good money/resource ratio
noharleyyet
Well-known member
Lobbyists?
This is a copy/paste from someone that looked at long term numbers. Again, you have to take it with a bit of a grain of salt because it’s hard to make sure you’re getting the right number from FWP due to how tags are sold and counted but;
501
“In the last 10 years (2022), there have been 20 rams harvested, exact quota of 2 per year. Included in this are 6 confirmed migratory rams, so harvest is actually 30% under quota for the managed herd(rosebud herd), what is what the quota is set for.
While tag sales are up drastically to a record 130 in 2022, only 44% of sales hunted, 57 hunters. Only 12% higher than long term average. There were 61 in 2001, 66 in 2002, 60 in 2010.
If we want to get more units to hunt, guys have to quit complaining the system is broken. “
I think the last sentence is important. There are two areas in Montana that some of us are trying to get opened as UL. This will spread people out. We can’t say the system is broken while trying to expand that system. I think we need to push FWP to be accountable and run the system the way it is meant to be while making small improvements to adjust to modern times, such as the ability to cut unit closure times in half.
501
“In the last 10 years (2022), there have been 20 rams harvested, exact quota of 2 per year. Included in this are 6 confirmed migratory rams, so harvest is actually 30% under quota for the managed herd(rosebud herd), what is what the quota is set for.
While tag sales are up drastically to a record 130 in 2022, only 44% of sales hunted, 57 hunters. Only 12% higher than long term average. There were 61 in 2001, 66 in 2002, 60 in 2010.
If we want to get more units to hunt, guys have to quit complaining the system is broken. “
I think the last sentence is important. There are two areas in Montana that some of us are trying to get opened as UL. This will spread people out. We can’t say the system is broken while trying to expand that system. I think we need to push FWP to be accountable and run the system the way it is meant to be while making small improvements to adjust to modern times, such as the ability to cut unit closure times in half.
Or send in comments. It kind of bothers me that instead of commenting through the FWP website like usual, the comments for the amendments have to be e-mailed to the commission. I wonder if the public comments will even be released.
cgasner1
Well-known member
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2016
- Messages
- 5,903
I’ve never hunted it but yes I would show up. There is a few of these guys that have forgot more about sheep than I’ll ever know. I’d really enjoy watching them have a conversation about it with fwp. The couple guys I do know that do this live for it and I’d be happy to show up be quiet and offer my support to them
Comments are generally supplied on the website, and if not, you definitely can call and have them emailed to you. Given the outcome of the WOTR lawsuit, I would imagine FWP is very sensitive to being perceived as unable to withstand sunlight. The new process FWP has been working under for the commission is very confusing and clunky. Lots of folks have expressed their displeasure at it. Hopefully that gets either corrected or FWP puts together something to help advocates help their membership & the public.
A personal email to the commission is not a bad idea. They get a ton of form emails and those generally get discarded and counted as "some group is mad at me" rather than substantive comments that help them make better decisions. Remember, you may think these people are corrupt, sycophantic tools of an oppressive regime, but if you call them that then you can expect your comment to not make a dent in their thoughts beyond the name calling.
I've found this commission generally responds well to polite discourse.
I generally just do whatever @Oak @MTGomer & @BigHornRam tell me to do when it comes to Wild Sheep Conservation. But please don't be silent. Even if you just stand up and say "I agree with XXX who just spoke," that helps show the commission that people were passionate enough to show up and be counted. That has an impact.
Labman
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2015
- Messages
- 614
I think what is broken is the definition of a legal ram. A 3 or 4yr old should never meet the requirements to be considered a legal ram.
Alberta seems to have a general sheep season and they don’t shoot dinks. Every ram goes in a jig, not judged with bailing twine on a tailgate.
I’ve seen some great rams in UL units, the kind of sheep I wouldn’t hesitate to notch a tag on in most of the limited units. The potential for great sheep is there, but why on earth have we not revisited the requirements for a ram to be legal?!
Last edited:
I know that the public comments submitted to FWP are posted on the website. I already read through the public comments that were posted for the season setting. I just don't know if the public comments on the amendments will be posted since they have to be e-mailed to the commission.
I'm always polite when e-mailing the commission. The sad thing is, the only commissioner who ever replied to me was Pat Byorth. When you e-mail them fairly often and it's crickets from all of the current commission members, it sure makes you wonder if they are even reading them.
1.) The world is run by those who follow up. If you don't hear from them, track them down and gift them a fruitcake. Nobody wants that to happen twice, so they'll respond.
2.) Call the Division Administrator for the Wildlife Division and ask for the emailed comments. Often times they will add those comments online after the hearing as well, so keep checking.
3.) The Be Polite comment was for those who are reading. You are off the hook here.
Great question. It’s one my friends and I have brought up and there’s actually a great answer.
Harvest quotas are a percent (I don’t remember what the percent is off the top of my head) of the average number of legal rams observed in post season surveys.
An increase in the curl requirement would equal a decrease in the quota.
I personally don’t agree with shooting young rams and don’t believe that “any legal ram is a trophy” but the biologist tells me things are in balance from a population and age class standpoint under current curl requirements.
100% agree on the need for a jig. There should be zero discretion involved in determining legality by FWP. The ram should either be objectively legal and plugged or objectively sub legal, confiscated and fined.
D
Deleted member 48080
Guest
A couple questions-
Are the sublegal rams being plugged something that is verified or provable? Or were they discretion calls that are questionable?
Are the two potential new units public knowledge yet? Is there strategy to not releasing where those are until there's more clarity?
I'm glad to see so much effort being put in to protecting these hunts. With as much as Montana hunting has gone down the shitter lately, I'd hate for this opportunity to be compromised for you guys as well.
Are the sublegal rams being plugged something that is verified or provable? Or were they discretion calls that are questionable?
Are the two potential new units public knowledge yet? Is there strategy to not releasing where those are until there's more clarity?
I'm glad to see so much effort being put in to protecting these hunts. With as much as Montana hunting has gone down the shitter lately, I'd hate for this opportunity to be compromised for you guys as well.
mmw194287
Well-known member
My god.
BigHornRam
Well-known member
So if you put that 3 1/2 year old "ram" in the jig, how many "hunting" articles could Craig sell off this unlimited hunt?
