8andcounting
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 16, 2013
- Messages
- 3,288
If 410 and 417 go LE only then yes , it’s going to be hard on R6 and 7 no doubt . Like you said until it’s burnt to nothing there won’t be change
Fwp December commission meeting
- Thread starter 8andcounting
- Start date
Fish And Wildlife Commission Meeting: December 14, 2023 | Montana FWP
Fish and Wildlife Commission Meeting: December 14, 2023
fwp.mt.gov
Anyone else not see their comments show up? My black bear season comments are missing and it seems like there would have been more public comments on some of these amendments.
A few years ago I started emailing Commissioners directly as it relates to Commission actions in lieu of, and sometime in addition to, the FWP comment link. I often get replies from Commissioners when I do that.
Even when the proposed Commission action is about pheasants or bears, I comment that antlerless tags should be restricted to private land only, for all species, for all units/regions.
Even when the proposed Commission action is about pheasants or bears, I comment that antlerless tags should be restricted to private land only, for all species, for all units/regions.
D
Deleted member 48080
Guest
You don't think we should be shooting a single antlerless elk, mule deer or whitetail in the entire state on public land?
8andcounting
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 16, 2013
- Messages
- 3,288
I’m guessing he meant for b tags . And I agree
WanderWoman
Well-known member
From looking over all the comments they have posted, surprisingly few people commented this year. I’m curious how many people on this and other threads commented re: these proposed season changes.Fish And Wildlife Commission Meeting: December 14, 2023 | Montana FWP
Fish and Wildlife Commission Meeting: December 14, 2023
Anyone else not see their comments show up? My black bear season comments are missing and it seems like there would have been more public comments on some of these amendments.
Last edited:
Dont forget, any futher comments need to be at the meeting directly, and you have to register to comment by noon on the 13th
Straight Arrow
Well-known member
Yes, I agree with that and add an even more radical caveat. No tags issued for antlerless elk on public lands until statewide maximum range cap is met. It could be argued that would result in increased public hunting access on private lands, increased opportunity and success for resident and non-resident hunters, increased demand for outfitting and landowner fee opportunity, improved bull/cow ratio across the board with more trophy opportunity, increased tourism watchable wildlife values, and a myriad of other improvements and advantages.
When you consider the number of elk sustained and tolerated / loved by the smaller state of Colorado, it is appalling to the Montana elk advocate, hunter, and outfitter that Montana is so intolerant!
Last edited:
Not in the places I’ve hunted. If there’s an overabundance on public land in some places, I’d be fine with antlerless tags in that location. I just see the use of antlerless tags being applied to solve issues where the problems are on private land with little access. End result is the animals on public take the beating, which exacerbates the problem.
D
Deleted member 48080
Guest
I guess I'll just say that Montana is a very large, diverse state. Blanket management decisions like that seem a bit silly to me.
rogerthat
Well-known member
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2015
- Messages
- 2,624
Interesting. I had some comments that went missing on other amendments as well
You’re not the only one. I’m curious how many are missing. I’d email the guy handling the public comments for the commission. [email protected]
OTC and permits are different. Permitting antlerless on public in areas where human concentrations push elk, etc works. Some species at the top of their population range - absolutely.
I'm pretty much between the two Randy's (saw them open for Chris Gaines in Tulsa, little twangy but good) here. I'd love to see a hybrid where the vast majority of antlerless harvest is on private land and public land antlerless is limited or eliminated based on the resource.
It all has to come down to the resource, and what the desired conditions for the species and habitat are. If we put the resource ahead of our opportunity, we all win.
I read through the FWP season setting comments and really disappointed by the lack of responses from people I know that have been so vocal against the current management structure and only around 300 comments. The only names I recognize were Justin Schaf, Doug Stickney, Erik Albuis, Jack Ballard, and a few others. I don’t know these individuals but have read their writings and they made better comments than myself. Maybe hunters have just given up trying to communicate and/or convince the FWP that wildlife numbers are struggling. What was even more surprising was several non-residents want a decrease in tag numbers and more limited opportunities in order to have better experiences. I would say roughly half the comments were very critical of the current management of our resources. Preston Nelson
It looks like MOGA and the commission are trying to pull a fast one and increase 417-20 and 417-21 elk permits without proposing an amendment ahead of the meeting and giving the public opportunity to comment. Based on the comments below, it seems that the outfitting community knows about something that the general public doesn't. I am hearing that this could get proposed at the actual meeting on Thursday.
Permits were increased in 417 in 2020 and bull harvest on public actually increased that year. It has been somewhat of a disaster since then. Bull harvest on private stayed the same, and in the years following 2020, bull harvest dropped while the elk distribution got even more out of whack than ever. This past winter, no elk were counted north of DY Trail/Knox Ridge Rd, which is where the vast majority of the publicly accessible land is located. The number of mature bulls counted was the lowest it's been since 2015. Hunter crowding is at an all time high, and harvest is not increasing on private land where the vast majority of the elk are. To try and get elk back on public where they are supposed to be and improve hunter satisfaction, FWP reduced the quota this year. It looks like MOGA has other plans.
417 is also considered to be below objective based on the new objectives, so there's no need to keep the high quotas. Since this will likely be proposed during the commission meeting on Thursday, I'd recommend reaching out to the individual commission members before Thursday. Even if you don't hunt 417, tell your commission member you don't approve of these shady inside deals that side step the public process.
Permits were increased in 417 in 2020 and bull harvest on public actually increased that year. It has been somewhat of a disaster since then. Bull harvest on private stayed the same, and in the years following 2020, bull harvest dropped while the elk distribution got even more out of whack than ever. This past winter, no elk were counted north of DY Trail/Knox Ridge Rd, which is where the vast majority of the publicly accessible land is located. The number of mature bulls counted was the lowest it's been since 2015. Hunter crowding is at an all time high, and harvest is not increasing on private land where the vast majority of the elk are. To try and get elk back on public where they are supposed to be and improve hunter satisfaction, FWP reduced the quota this year. It looks like MOGA has other plans.
417 is also considered to be below objective based on the new objectives, so there's no need to keep the high quotas. Since this will likely be proposed during the commission meeting on Thursday, I'd recommend reaching out to the individual commission members before Thursday. Even if you don't hunt 417, tell your commission member you don't approve of these shady inside deals that side step the public process.
Last edited:
rogerthat
Well-known member
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2015
- Messages
- 2,624
Interesting. I also heard a rumor that unlimited archery antelope will be proposed at the meeting as well. I hope these rumors are not true. It seems like if true the current process is setting up to embrace corruption
Carnage2011
Well-known member
You’d think the president of MOGA would have enough brains not to expose the inside deals they have with the commission. What a piece of shit organization.
