FWP Proposed Changes - 2021 Season Setting

[antlerradar]

The Custer is a perfect example of why increasing the size of districts is a terrible idea. It's hard to manage pressure and hunter density when you have huge districts.

When I was a teenager I used to hunt the Custer for antelope. Old hunt unit 742. It wasn't a big district and big goats were not common, but good public access, a fun hunt and you could count on drawing every two or three years. When FWP consolidated all of region 7 into one unit I was very happy as now I was going antelope hunting every year. That excitement ended about two hours into the season. Hunters were everywhere and if you weren't running and gunning in the truck you had no chance. Crowding really brought out the worst in people. I went home disgusted, with an unused tag never to return again. For a few years after that I hunted private, but it wasn't long and the increased value that always accompanies more opportunity dried up any access to quality private land antelope. I learned my lesson on consolidating hunting units a long time ago. The public gets pounded and the private gets leased. Predictable as the sun coming up in the east.

 

[GLA-FLA]

I have some serious concerns about the proposal as presently written. Am I interpreting the new LE quota minimum to 50 permits correctly?

Let’s not dance around the subject, the Gianforte administration has been a complete disaster for the “constituents” of this platform. Case in point the new muzzy season.

I’ll look forward to hearing Big Fin’s educated and rationale approach to advocating for our cause, as always.

 

[Deleted member 20812]

I know that many will want to blame the Governor and he deserves some of the blame as the buck stops at his desk. Most of the blame should land with FWP.

At the end of the day, does it matter which one loaded the gun and which one pulled the trigger?

 

[Sytes]

The legislative sessions shows that the audience can be activated. I just need to figure out how our platforms can have the greatest impact.

A type of State specific, public grass roots, non partisan organization that sticks strictly with Wildlife Commission agendas and Legislation drafted bills that evaluate the pro's / con's for each and becomes the conduit of legit information for public comments, etc.
It must dance outside politics. As soon as politics are introduced, it's trench warfare w/o any further interest in the agenda / bill. Basically, it's akin to grinding #'s vs grinding political persuasions.

A Montana Hunter's Ledger. If a bi-monthly type ledger was emailed or posted on a select HT locked thread with a direct Podcast that stays on target, people would be able to listen and, I believe, form a more robust united front. Threads still yammer about the topics though for one interested in the specific agenda w/o the political fluff, more people would have an opportunity to understand the specific issues.

These threads are great though at the same time, toxic. Better than most internet hunt forums though still, intelligent people are so peeved about the political factor, one side or the other, it's a challenge to grasp the specifics! People are more interested in screaming to their own choir versus finding a means to bridge the divide that gets larger and larger... It's counter productive for the intent.

Kinda a "Just the facts" type deal. I'm already lost as to the issues of concern due to the slick witty replies (and less than witty). I keep going back to the posts that are dealing with the potential issue.

Meh, rambling...

 

[antlerradar]

Let's not forget our friends in the Legislature. Half of what's coming along are former bills proposed by those who have consistently voted against resident hunters, access programs and wildlife conservation in general. We killed bills to eliminate the unlimited districts, we stopped bills to eliminate the ability of FWP to engage in limited entry permits in districts that were over objective, we killed attempts to privatize licenses and we stopped crossbows during archery.

all of that is coming back at the commission level.

When the body that is in charge of your budget and sets the laws sends the messages that they have over the last 16 + years, anyone is going to take notice, especially this administration. Leadership matters, as do appropriators.

I don't see anything in what Nameless posted up that is any where close to the looney toons bills proposed by the Legislature yet. Yet being the key word. I do see plenty that has been on the wish list of many of the upper level employees of FWP for a long time.
I think we need to be very carful about trying to use this proposal to score quick political points. Doing so is sure to cause people to retreat to their corners and then we who care about how this is going to effect public land and wildlife are going to lose.

 

[Ben Lamb]

I don't see anything in what Nameless posted up that is any where close to the looney toons bills proposed by the Legislature yet. Yet being the key word. I do see plenty that has been on the wish list of many of the upper level employees of FWP for a long time.
I think we need to be very carful about trying to use this proposal to score quick political points. Doing so is sure to cause people to retreat to their corners and then we who care about how this is going to effect public land and wildlife are going to lose.

There have been bills to do a lot of this over the last 20 years. I'm not trying to score political points, just pointing out that it's not simply FWP or the Governor's office, but that there is a lot of pressure applied to FWP from the legislature as well. These kinds of bills are nothing new, they're just more likely to get signed now so folks are paying attention.

For example: 2013 had a bill to eliminate the unlimited permit category. We opposed that because it should be a commission action and not up to the legislature to decide how season structure should be done.

2009-2017 there were bills galore to eliminate the ability to have LE permits in districts that were over objective, specifically tied to the Breaks bundled permits.

Ignoring that pressure from the Legislature ignores a huge amount of influence and possible outcomes based on historic efforts. Shoulder seasons, for example, were the legislature's desire. The bill from 2015 was a clear bell for FWP to step on it and get rolling, and they did. My apologies if you thought that was a partisan jab, it wasn't.

There's some of what's posted I'm not against. After listening to the Bio for the Helena area, I think consolidating some elk units does make some sense. Example: the elk that utilize the Spotted Dog also head over to the Black & Colorado Mtn areas. That's some pretty tough country to get in and around in and it's a lot of roadless country as well where elk have the kind of security necessary to hang on public lands. it spans two regions as well once you cross the divide. There should be consideration for that rather than trying to force a square peg in a round hole. Other areas I think that's a disaster waiting to happen.

For cow elk, the current mish-mash of permits, licenses and special shoulder season tags needs to be refined and more cogently put forward. The ability to purchase 2 B licenses now should help streamline that (that's not a comment on the wisdom of shoulder seasons or multiple tags for cow elk, just a Comment on what would make it easier for hunters to discern).

Similarly, the unlimited mule deer permits don't really have the effect that folks want them to. In my experience, it simply forces people into shooting the first legal deer they find and it gives the impression of a quality hunt when there likely isn't much above that 150" mark running around between the truck hunters & cow elk hunters anymore. Limited Entry for mule deer would be a better approach to this than either OTC or Unlimited.

Moving the Marias River WMA draw from where it is now to a permit system could work, but then you're just locking folks in to hunting only the WMA rather than giving them the flexibility to move across districts.

As this unfolds, it's also important for all of us to remember that regulation simplification was started under the previous administration and is being followed through and seemingly accelerated under the current one. There is place for politics in the discussion, but it's certainly not binary, and it's most assuredly not one party or another's flag to hoist.

I tend to agree with @Sytes more and more on how this gets presented. Everyone has a hair trigger these days and it takes a lot of effort to try and maintain that appearance of impartiality and not simply fall into the tired lines of political horsechit. But it also doesn't mean we ignore the history of how we got here or gloss over who is sharing responsibility. But it does mean that hunters need to put their ideas forward as to how seasons should be structured, even if folks feel like they won't be listened too. FWP is populated with public servants. 99% of them live this. A few don't.

 

[Nameless Range]

I learned my lesson on consolidating hunting units a long time ago. The public get pounded and the private gets leased. Predictable as the sun coming up in the east.

Could you expound on this? I believe you, but why?

As to the example @Ben Lamb shared about joining units as it pertains to Spotted Dog and the Black Mountain roadless area, I go the other way and think it is a good example of how joining areas into an EMU can go wrong. Bios working in HDs like those look at the distribution of a subset of elk but not all, and not the distribution of hunters. A massive influx of folks with a permit good in both 335 and 215 sent a bunch of cow tag holders from Helena to Clancy/Jefferson City for easy and quick access at a much smaller elk herd having nothing to do with the Spotted Dog WMA. This is why I am an advocate for more acute management, smaller districts, or at the very least, districts drawn around elk herds and not geographic areas necessarily. I know that is easier said than done. If an EMU were made from smaller districts, I think that would be a finer solution that could make sense. Yes, I bellyached to the bio about this years ago.

I am not defacto opposed to some of these proposals, but at this point only a sucker would be defacto charitable when it comes to FWP. We are on our heels and February wasn't that long ago.

I am hoping folks can speak to the specific proposals in the OP, and how they see those things playing out, whether for the better or worse. If something is a good idea, I think we should endorse it, as a level headed and fair response to the proposals will be far less likely to fall on deaf ears than a wholesale, "You guys are morons."

Maybe this thread was too early, and it would be best to wait for official proposals, but I lean on a lot of the folks here for their expertise when it comes to forming my own opinions.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Could you expound on this? I believe you, but why?

As to the example @Ben Lamb shared about joining units as it pertains to Spotted Dog and the Black Mountain roadless area, I go the other way and think it is a good example of how joining areas into an EMU can go wrong. Bios working in HDs like those look at the distribution of a subset of elk but not all, and not the distribution of hunters. A massive influx of folks with a permit good in both 335 and 215 sent a bunch of cow tag holders from Helena to Clancy/Jefferson City for easy and quick access at a much smaller elk herd having nothing to do with the Spotted Dog WMA. This is why I am an advocate for more acute management, smaller districts, or at the very least, districts drawn around elk herds and not geographic areas necessarily. I know that is easier said than done. If an EMU were made from smaller districts, I think that would be a finer solution that could make sense. Yes, I bellyached to the bio about this years ago.

I am not defacto opposed to some of these proposals, but at this point only a sucker would be defacto charitable when it comes to FWP. We are on our heels and February wasn't that long ago.

I am hoping folks can speak to the specific proposals in the OP, and how they see those things playing out, whether for the better or worse. If something is a good idea, I think we should endorse it, as a level headed and fair response to the proposals will be far less likely to fall on deaf ears than a wholesale, "You guys are morons."

Maybe this thread was too early, and it would be best to wait for official proposals, but I lean on a lot of the folks here for their expertise when it comes to forming my own opinions.

Good points on the fine scale. my thought was that managing the overall herd could be done on a landscape level rather than a finer scale in order to take into account movement, distribution, etc, but your points are tough to argue against.

I don't think it's premature, this thread. There's never a bad time to think through what you'd like to see and then work towards getting it implemented. You may not get it, or you may. If folks don't think it through and work out the details, then you simply cede the decision to those in charge of making it rather than help inform. This is a good thread if we can keep it out of the ditch.

 

[antlerradar]

Could you expound on this? I believe you, but why?

Good question.

When FWP consolidates units they are relying on the law of diminishing returns to distribute hunters. In a nut shell the theory is that if game numbers falter in one part of the unit hunters will self regulate to a different part of the unit with more game. Take 700 antelope. In theory if there is a bad winter north of the Yellowstone hunters will self regulate to SE MT were there are more antelope. The law of diminishing returns works if there is good access and real time information. That is simply not the conditions on the ground. Many hunters are not informed or don't care and this results in hunters are slow in self regulating. Much slower than many landowners will tolerate,(contrary to popular thought, many landowners care about the health of the game herds using their land) so landowners in hard hit parts of the unit react much quicker and start cutting back on hunter numbers and often this will involve some type leasing. (Often when a landowner has to cut back on the hunter herd there is going to internal family conflicts and politics involved. It is just more convenient to go with a third party to manage the hunting.) On the other end, landowners were there is still good game populations are getting over whelmed by hunters from places that are game poor. They will not take high hunter numbers for long and soon they too are looking for someone else to take over game management. I am not saying this is the only reason that landowners lease, but I also do not think it is coincidence that the first hunting leases in Powder River County started shortly after the very bad winter of 78-79. Once you start to lose access it snow balls and the law of diminishing returns falls apart in a hurry and public land starts to take a beating.

I will use my self as an example. When FWP consolidated the region seven antelope units, I moved to private land because the Custer was over whelmed with hunters. It wasn't long before the generous landowner was also over whelmed with hunters looking for a better experience and decided to go with an outfitter.
I had other options if I had the means. I could have leased a place also. More and more resident are using this option as the hunting experience on public land diminishes. I can think of four ranches and more than a hundred thousand acres leased by residents near me and I am sure there are others.

 

[Nameless Range]

Good question.

When FWP consolidates units they are relying on the law of diminishing returns to distribute hunters. In a nut shell the theory is that if game numbers falter in one part of the unit hunters will self regulate to a different part of the unit with more game. Take 700 antelope. In theory if there is a bad winter north of the Yellowstone hunters will self regulate to SE MT were there are more antelope. The law of diminishing returns works if there is good access and real time information. That is simply not the conditions on the ground. Many hunters are not informed or don't care and this results are hunters are slow in self regulating. Much slower than many landowners will tolerate,(contrary to popular thought, many landowners care about the heath of the game herds using their land) so landowners in hard hit parts of the unit react much quicker and start cutting back on hunter numbers and more often than this will involve some type leasing. (Often when a landowner has to cut back on the hunter herd there is going to internal family conflicts and politics involved. It is just more convenient to go with a third party to manage the hunting.) On the other end, landowners were there is still good game populations are getting over whelmed by hunters from places that are game poor. They will not take high hunter numbers for long and soon they too are looking for someone else to take over game management. I am not saying this is the only reason that landowners lease, but I also do not think it is coincidence that the first hunting leases in Powder River County started shortly after the very bad winter of 78-79. Once you start to lose access it snow balls and the law of diminishing returns falls apart in a hurry and public land starts to take a beating.

I will use my self as an example. When FWP consolidated the region seven antelope units, I moved to private land because the Custer was over whelmed with hunters. It wasn't long before the generous landowner was also over whelmed with hunters looking for a better experience and decided to go with an outfitter.
I had other options if I had the means. I could have leased a place also. More and more resident are using this option as the hunting experience on public land diminishes. I can think of four ranches and more than a hundred thousand acres leased by residents near me and I am sure there are others.

Interesting and makes sense. Thank you.

 

[rogerthat]

Simple solution, adopt Wyoming's Management System, tag system, as well as hunter access program.

No need for Montana to reinvent the wheel.

Montana isn't doing anything but trying to create a 4 sided wheel.

I got news for you, I don't care how "simple" the tag/application system is...people can't read and comprehension is ZIP for a lot of folks.

Randy and others even put stuff up on youtube, etc...they still can't figure it out. I've come to the conclusion, there's just people out there that could find a way to bend a submarine in open water.

This and what Antlerradar are saying are spot on. The overall premise of simplyfing a system that already has very little herd management built into is flawed.

 

[Gerald Martin]

The simplest management system of all was in place from back in the 30’s-90’s. Maybe we should just go back to those good ole days? Back when prime land was available for the claiming and the government wanted the settlers to shoot out the game to undermine the natives’ ability to resist progress.

I am referring to the 1830’s.
FWP wouldn’t have to worry about fielding 40,000 calls to differentiate between bonus and preference.

 

[phutch30]

With my line of work I get to know a fair number of fwp employees both bios and non bios. I heard about this coming down the pipe some time ago. I have yet to converse with a fwp employee who was in favor of more than a couple of the proposals. Across the board it's been indicated that very little of what's coming is from fwp. This is a political push without science behind it. I know a lot of you may claim fwp doesn't use science or listen to public comments. but you'd be wrong. It's hard to please everybody and it's very hard to make a strictly science-based management decision in this political climate. However I think we can all agree ... or at least most of us can ,after last year's legislative Fiasco that as a whole we are better off with fwp making Wildlife Management decisions for us rather than the governor his appointees and the legislature. I really hope I'm wrong but after seeing the BS that took place last year I really think all these public comment opportunities are so much window dressing and they will do what they want to do regardless The public's wishes

 

[Schaaf]

Anyone watching the commission meeting today?

 

[Deleted member 20812]

It's hard to please everybody and it's very hard to make a strictly science-based management decision in this political climate.

It’s basically impossible to do so when FWP was legally mandated to follow a non scientific elk management plan 17 years ago.

 

[mtmiller]

Anyone watching the commission meeting today?

When are you up?

 

[Schaaf]

When are you up?

I don’t think I’m gonna be able to talk today. I did get an email response from Mr. Simms himself though.

 

[R.K.]

On a side note-

Was reading the local newspaper here at work the other day. This specific topic had a full article, this forum was mentioned by name, and the shared documents were mentioned, as well as "confirmed by FWP, after we contacted them". Found it interesting that this thread is on the leading edge of news, and that the forum is monitored by people with a little more visibility.

 

[Kiwi]

Anyone watching the commission meeting today?

I am. Its really none of my business but I do find it fascinating.

 

[mtmiller]

I am. Its really none of my business but I do find it fascinating.

Please don't judge.