Use Promo Code Randy for 20% off OutdoorClass

FWP Proposed Changes - 2021 Season Setting

Nameless Range

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 6, 2013
Messages
4,566
Location
Western Montana
*****

I appreciated Allen's statement for RMEF regarding Shoulder Season back in '16. Anyone have the RMEF public comment w/in one of the FWP comment solicitations? i can not find it... yet. Still searching. Someone said there was an RMEF statement made within.
If you look through the public comments you can see Blake Henning's.

The Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation has consistently supported effective elk management strategies in units that are over the population objective, this has included support for shoulder hunts on private lands. In 2016 RMEF submitted comments that opposed shoulder hunts on most public lands, specifically, large blocks of USFS lands. We maintain our opposition to this proposal for the 2021 elk hunting season. Blake Henning Chief Conservation Officer RMEF Blake Henning Missoula, MT


Frankly, I wish they had done a bit more.
 

Ben Lamb

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 6, 2010
Messages
17,452
Location
Cedar, MI
IMO, using General fund money would just pollute this process. Any power the legislature has over anything to do with funds allocated to wildlife, sooner or late would be corrupted. One landowner gets on the legislature, and him and his buddies decide they don't get enough money or that the money should have certain provisions that are advantageous to them, or that any amount of damage over a certain dollar amount and that landowner and his son, brother, uncle, cousin, should get a free transferable bull tag.

Keep wildlife business out of the legislature. I am uncertain as to why anyone thinks that is an answer to any of these problems. Especially in MT when this year the legislature was the source of almost ALL the problems.

It's a well made point. But they can do that simply by changing statute relative to any damage payment system. Which is the piece of the puzzle that we're dancing around: without a solid coalition building this thing, we stand the risk of losing it all. The goal with any piece of legislation is to get to a majority. You can do that by building something that has severe political ramifications if they touch that rail.

The difference is whether they try to take it in the open through a stand alone bill or try to corrupt it through an amendment to the budget. Pick your poison.
 

Dakotakid

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 13, 2014
Messages
521
Hay is nearing $500 a ton, many ranchers are selling down livestock herds to get through the drought.

Hazing is causing neighbor conflicts because when they run they run through the neighbors fences.


But is it actually true?

If so....What is the FWP's ability to pay for damages and how are they assessed? Is it fair and just compensation? Is that supported by sportsmen? How has he supported hunting? Is he letting hunters on his land to hunt those elk? What methods if any have been taken in the past to protect his irrigated fields?

A portion of the ranch was put into conservation easement which includes public access. They have been in block for years, roughly 30 sections.
They allow upland game and big game hunting.
FWP does not compensate for damage.

I don’t know whether they are doing game damage hunts but a few removed is not going to reduce the heard or drive them off.
The hills have very little grass.
 

brocksw

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 5, 2018
Messages
857
FWP just sent me a response from my earlier request. I recieved a 2015 Performance Audit and a form to fill out if I want more info.

Some dated graphics that might be of interest. Again these are as of 2015.
Species.PNG type.PNG table1.PNG Process.PNG
 

brocksw

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 5, 2018
Messages
857
Hay is nearing $500 a ton, many ranchers are selling down livestock herds to get through the drought.

Hazing is causing neighbor conflicts because when they run they run through the neighbors fences.




A portion of the ranch was put into conservation easement which includes public access. They have been in block for years, roughly 30 sections.
They allow upland game and big game hunting.
FWP does not compensate for damage.

I don’t know whether they are doing game damage hunts but a few removed is not going to reduce the heard or drive them off.
The hills have very little grass.
It would be interesting to know how many ranchers are in that same positions and a worst case scenario (a year like this year) cost for damages.

I'm still of the opinion that hunters/FWP need to foot the bill for damages. We are the ones that want more elk...if the ranchers have to pay for damages, we should be the ones to help with that cost, not the general tax payer who doesn't give a shit how many elk are outside of yellowstone.
 

shoots-straight

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 6, 2005
Messages
6,497
Location
Bitterroot Valley
Perhaps there's 2 gorillas? The other representing FWP accountability? 90%+ of the public comments were not in support of extending shoulder seasons to public lands. Yet the commission and the FWP are not held accountable for going against the public and their resource. In addition, they are not being held accountable for moving the goal posts. The shoulder seasons started out as a tool to keep elk off private land. Why are they not being put on display for questioning as to why this is? Has any statement been made from the commission about the success or failures of the original shoulder season? The FWP should have to answer for the results of the original shoulder season and include public comment on how to move forward if the results werent satisfactory.

To me eliminating the commission would help with this.
The only way to make them accountable would be for them to be "Elected" just like the PSC members are. Each HD gets to vote for their guy, gal, person. Then those on the commission choose a director. For many reasons people hate this idea, but it has merit.
 

brocksw

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 5, 2018
Messages
857
The only way to make them accountable would be for the to be "Elected" just like the PSC are. Each HD gets to vote for their guy, gal, person. Then those on the commission choose a director. For many reasons people hate this idea, but it has merit.
If there was a way to do it right, I agree that would probably be it. But, what can that commission do that the FWP cannot? What qualifications do they have that the FWP does not? We've all agreed by supporting the NA model that collectively biologists and wildlife professionals are best suited to make decisions relevant to wildlife management on behalf of the public. No where in the NA model does it state that an elected or appointed body of politicians or joe bobs from off the street or off the farm are best suited to manage said wildlife on our behalf.

It seems obvious to me that Montana's wildlife are being managed by entities/powers other than the experts at the FWP. The commission, the legislature, lobbyists, politically appointed people placed at the top of the FWP that disregard their own agency, the work it produces, and public input (the largest and most significant stakeholder).
 

Straight Arrow

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 10, 2009
Messages
4,890
Location
Gallatin Gateway, MT
... no input from the legislature on season dates, quotas, etc... Why would this not work in MT?
It could ... but the NO INPUT FROM LEGISLATURE is the shift that is key. Presently it's a helluva lot more than "input" from the legislature. It's bills and laws concerning wildlife management enacted purely for political purposes.
 

JLS

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 26, 2012
Messages
15,802
Location
Almost Arkansas…..
We are the ones that want more elk...if the ranchers have to pay for damages, we should be the ones to help with that cost, not the general tax payer who doesn't give a shit how many elk are outside of yellowstone.
Disagree 100%. Many businesses benefit from natural resources, either directly or indirectly.
 

Gerald Martin

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 3, 2009
Messages
7,109
I'm still of the opinion that hunters/FWP need to foot the bill for damages. We are the ones that want more elk...if the ranchers have to pay for damages, we should be the ones to help with that cost, not the general tax payer who doesn't give a shit how many elk are outside of yellowstone.
I’m not sure I completely agree. Wildlife is owned by all citizens of the state not just hunters. Ranchers and city dwellers have a stake in ownership and responsibility for the care of wildlife as well.

If we are responsible for paying for the cost of wildlife then I want control over how it’s managed .
 

Gerald Martin

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 3, 2009
Messages
7,109

Gerald Martin said:
Sytes, my info is especially pertinent for region 1. With as many folks out looking for lion tracks during the late season, elk and whitetail bucks are going to face even more pressure.
Can you expand on this? I don't fully understand. I have a rough idea though... Cat season proposal or current runs longer than usual and that places pressure on the elk/deer?

Sytes, my focus is that whoever pushed the muzzleloader bill through didn’t consider that after Dec 1. most gated roads in the NW open to snowmobiles. Also you aren’t limited to staying on the road.
If you can navigate it, you can legally access it.

Running a snowmobile down a road in deep snow is a pretty easy way to get within a 100 yards of deer and elk.
 

brocksw

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 5, 2018
Messages
857
Disagree 100%. Many businesses benefit from natural resources, either directly or indirectly.

I’m not sure I completely agree. Wildlife is owned by all citizens of the state not just hunters. Ranchers and city dwellers have a stake in ownership and responsibility for the care of wildlife as well.

If we are responsible for paying for the cost of wildlife then I want control over how it’s managed .
I agree with you and JLS in principle. But are they pushing the FWP and landowners to tolerate more elk? To me this has been a movement led by hunters and the businesses are just adapting to whatever the decisions are. We are by far the loudest voice.
 

JLS

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 26, 2012
Messages
15,802
Location
Almost Arkansas…..
I agree with you and JLS in principle. But are they pushing the FWP and landowners to tolerate more elk? To me this has been a movement led by hunters and the businesses are just adapting to whatever the decisions are. We are by far the loudest voice.
Again, I disagree. The better the elk hunting is and wildlife viewing is, the more people come to MT, the more people desire jobs there, and the better the overall quality of life is.
 

Gerald Martin

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 3, 2009
Messages
7,109
Again, I disagree. The better the elk hunting is and wildlife viewing is, the more people come to MT, the more people desire jobs there, and the better the overall quality of life is.
That’s not what Chuck Denowh says….

those elks will come eat your babies in their cribs at night…
 

brocksw

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 5, 2018
Messages
857
Just to throw this out there.

So there's around 90,000 resident elk hunters in MT. I havent been able to find a breakdown, but let's just say thats 90k general or B tags purchased by nonresidents.

Doubling the cost of those tags alone is 1.8 million annually that could go to private land damage costs
 

Sytes

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 25, 2009
Messages
10,496
Location
Montana
Sytes, my focus is that whoever pushed the muzzleloader bill through didn’t consider that after Dec 1. most gated roads in the NW open to snowmobiles. Also you aren’t limited to staying on the road.
If you can navigate it, you can legally access it.
Wow! Drive thru service for something intended as a "traditional" method to hunt.
Would a patch job be to mandate muzzleloader season via motor vehicle use must sty on the road?

What would the patch fix be? Personally I'd like to see it mix w/ archery or cut the final week off archery and make a muzzy at that point though that seems too large a patch job... same w/ shutting down '22 muzzy season.
 

bigsky2

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 17, 2016
Messages
681
Location
MONTANA
Wow! Drive thru service for something intended as a "traditional" method to hunt.
Would a patch job be to mandate muzzleloader season via motor vehicle use must sty on the road?

What would the patch fix be? Personally I'd like to see it mix w/ archery or cut the final week off archery and make a muzzy at that point though that seems too large a patch job... same w/ shutting down '22 muzzy season.
Too bad the Senate F&G committee shot down Jacobsen's amendment to remove the season dates from the muzzleloader bill. It would have been nice if they would have at least let FWP decide when to hold the season.
 

Gerald Martin

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 3, 2009
Messages
7,109
Wow! Drive thru service for something intended as a "traditional" method to hunt.
Would a patch job be to mandate muzzleloader season via motor vehicle use must sty on the road?

What would the patch fix be? Personally I'd like to see it mix w/ archery or cut the final week off archery and make a muzzy at that point though that seems too large a patch job... same w/ shutting down '22 muzzy season.
No. A patch job is going to be me running up to a forked horn buck in the deepest snow I can find, shooting it in the face on video and then thanking the sponsor of that bill for giving me the opportunity to create new family traditions.
I might even mail him the testicles as a thank you present.
 

Forum statistics

Threads
101,762
Messages
1,628,800
Members
31,822
Latest member
Munchiezzz
Top