They sent a correction email, this is the link:
https://mt-gov.zoom.us/j/89790906689?pwd=MVAzTVRKazNlVzZ6SU0xOS9rUm5HUT09
FWP Commission to change Gardiner Elk hunting
- Thread starter Big Fin
- Start date
https://mt-gov.zoom.us/j/89790906689?pwd=MVAzTVRKazNlVzZ6SU0xOS9rUm5HUT09
sacountry
Well-known member
Thanks! That fixed it. I'm on
sacountry
Well-known member
@Ben Lamb something came up in the Parks portion of this morning meeting regarding drones. Do you know when/if public comment would be open on that? It's a tough subject because it's a converging technology between aircraft and webcams. For several reasons ranging from ethics to enforcement, my preference would be to see drones be held to same hunting regulations as webcams. Just not sure where to express that.
Was this in the new legislation portion that Deb was talking about? I've been on the phone all morning and listening in the background.
There's a few bill drafts relative to this issue, so once those are introduced, I'd say keep an eye on the legislative website for updates, or from MWF or MTBHA alert systems. It's an issue both groups are tracking.
mtnkid85
Well-known member
It was a reference to SB84 https://leg.mt.gov/bills/2023/billpdf/LC0737.pdf
Changing the definition of "aircraft" to include manned and unmanned. Effectively including drones as aircraft.
MTelkHuntress
Well-known member
If anyone else wants to listen in. I do wish they were streaming on YouTube so I could rewind.
http://sg001-harmony.sliq.net/00309/Harmony/en/PowerBrowser/PowerBrowserV2/20221220/-1/44377
http://sg001-harmony.sliq.net/00309/Harmony/en/PowerBrowser/PowerBrowserV2/20221220/-1/44377
406dn
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 12, 2019
- Messages
- 2,036
Thank you to Randy and everyone else who rallied the troops on this issue. It appears that the motion has been withdrawn for now.
Thanks again
Thanks again
MTelkHuntress
Well-known member
My stream cut out. Was the motion for doubling permits also withdrawn? So the unit is just going to stay the same for now?
Thanks for link, listened to it from Gardiner to Hardin. BTW, spent lat three days in 313 taking pics. No brow tine bulls observed outside the Park.
Yes. The other changes were withdrawn as well.
Nice work folks, please send Commissioner Tabor a thank you for pulling his original amendment. We are often quick to criticize, so we must also be quick to thank them for doing the right thing.
FREAK
Well-known member
- Joined
- Sep 29, 2022
- Messages
- 770
Nice job by Randy and others to postpone this issue. It is troubling that Taber is painting this as an "opportunity vs. Trophy" discussion. This isn't a opportunity vs. trophy discussion it's a health of the heard/resource discussion. I liked the comments/points made by Scott Countryman and Dan Vermillion as well. Seems that the knock out drag out changes made in 15-16 are in fact working. They pointed out that the heard is stabalizing around 6K from the low of 3K with a consistent bull:cow ratio. Imagine if the change wasn't implemented back then and the free for all continued. Although the bull:cow ration may not be improving, the fact that the herd is stabilizing should be pretty conclusive that increasing the number of bulls killed won't make the health of the resource any better. The comments in agreement with the motion seemed to be short sighted and focused on opportunity, vs proper management of the resource. I will say i'm happy the commisioners took caution to increasing the cow quota as well. Glad they listened to the public and re-iterated the importance of showing up on these issues.
Gerald Martin
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2009
- Messages
- 8,305
It’s somewhat galling to consider thanking someone for not screwing the Montana public when they were the one that proposed to do so in the first place.
I know Ben’s heart is in the right place. I also know I am going to have a very difficult time not getting exceedingly angry during this legislative session.
Last edited:
No honey, it's just the sting... The more sting, the more immune one becomes and the G.A.S. meter goes toward FU more than, "hmmm, maybe worth evaluating further."
SAJ-99
Well-known member
BuzzH
Well-known member
Good work all and its good to see the commission doing the right thing even if they need to be drug through a knothole to do it.
I was busy at work and didn't catch all of it unfortunately.
What I did catch was that the commission wants to manage on science. Which I agree with, but if that's true, why even consider extending a season on a herd with 3.6 bulls per 100 cows?
I don't think any science on planet earth is going to say that's a properly managed herd.
For reference WY's recreation herd management guidelines call for 18-25 bulls per 100 cows post harvest. If they drop near 18, the season is shortened and/or spike harvest is eliminated.
Special management (most LQ areas) call for 40+ bulls per 100 cows. If the herd falls below that, the bull/any elk tags are reduced.
For reference some of the special management herds have 60+ bulls per 100 cows and some of our recreation management herds are over 40 bulls per 100 cows.
Management matters and its pretty evident when you hunt both states which place I'd rather have an elk tag for.
I was busy at work and didn't catch all of it unfortunately.
What I did catch was that the commission wants to manage on science. Which I agree with, but if that's true, why even consider extending a season on a herd with 3.6 bulls per 100 cows?
I don't think any science on planet earth is going to say that's a properly managed herd.
For reference WY's recreation herd management guidelines call for 18-25 bulls per 100 cows post harvest. If they drop near 18, the season is shortened and/or spike harvest is eliminated.
Special management (most LQ areas) call for 40+ bulls per 100 cows. If the herd falls below that, the bull/any elk tags are reduced.
For reference some of the special management herds have 60+ bulls per 100 cows and some of our recreation management herds are over 40 bulls per 100 cows.
Management matters and its pretty evident when you hunt both states which place I'd rather have an elk tag for.
sacountry
Well-known member
Just listen to the @Ben Lamb Gerald, don't think, just do ;-)
Honestly, Tabor's true colors showed brightly today when he opened by trying to refute the written comments about being pro-outfitter. His background statement in the amendment clearly established that he intended to provide quasi gov't assistance. For being an appointed official, he sure behaves like an elected one.
I do have some major concerns about Tabor and Cebull's "pro-opportunity" bent. Both seemed ready to double the amount of permits today (right up to the quota limit) for the sake of "more opportunity". Fortunately, some common sense entered the room to wait until cow surveys come in before any changes are made.
All that said, I will do as the @Lamb says.
Last edited:
Gerald Martin
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2009
- Messages
- 8,305
“Pro- opportunity” is only opportunity if there’s a surplus of the resource to harvest. The fat’s mighty thin on a 3.6/100 bull to cow ratio.
I honestly don’t understand how Tabor can advance an “opportunity” argument with a straight face.
I honestly don’t understand how Tabor can advance an “opportunity” argument with a straight face.
Sig worthy right there.
sacountry
Well-known member
;-)
