Montana General Season Structure Proposal 3.0

[brockel]

I’ve seen plenty of solutions offered, it falls on deaf ears

This is why it didn’t break my heart that I had to cover call for a couple guys with kids in baseball on Tuesday.

 

[Wind Gypsy]

I’m all for mandatory reporting, we need to convince some representatives of that. The ignorance, or stupidity, and resistance to mandatory reporting was staggering.

Resistance to mandatory reporting just feels like intentional desire to hide the truth to me.

 

[SixPoint]

Big Hank really did the public a dirty one when he shifted the season setting meetings from winter to summer. There's a lot going on and people are busy this time of year. Until they switch it back I don't foresee attendance getting any better. Single digits at every meeting that I've heard a report on thus far. Winter meetings usually pulled 20-30.

 

[antlerradar]

Big Hank really did the public a dirty one when he shifted the season setting meetings from winter to summer. There's a lot going on and people are busy this time of year. Until they switch it back I don't foresee attendance getting any better. Single digits at every meeting that I've heard a report on thus far. Winter meetings usually pulled 20-30.

Especially for many landowners, If you have a working farm or ranch in is very tough to get away during the summer.

 

[mtmiller]

I will be at the Havre season setting on Wednesday if anyone wants to buy me a beer. If you are cheap and just want to grab one from your frig, no problem, I will bring a small cooler.

 

[Eric Albus]

Big Hank really did the public a dirty one when he shifted the season setting meetings from winter to summer. There's a lot going on and people are busy this time of year. Until they switch it back I don't foresee attendance getting any better. Single digits at every meeting that I've heard a report on thus far. Winter meetings usually pulled 20-30.

Had nothing to do with Hank changing it. Reason nobody attends is FWP has refused to listen to anyone asking for change.
Hopefully it is a new era of FWP

 

[Forkyfinder]

Had nothing to do with Hank changing it. Reason nobody attends is FWP has refused to listen to anyone asking for change.
Hopefully it is a new era of FWP

When people arent showing up in great enough numbers - we change it to a less accessible time of year? Particularily for concerned or frustrated landowners - thats the last thing id want.

Moving it to the summer sounds like pre 19th century medicine where you just cut the infected limb off in lieu of addressing the problem.

 

[SAJ-99]

When people arent showing up in great enough numbers - we change it to a less accessible time of year? Particularily for concerned or frustrated landowners - thats the last thing id want.

Moving it to the summer sounds like pre 19th century medicine where you just cut the infected limb off in lieu of addressing the problem.

I can express my issues with the process when I lived there. The calendar timing of the meeting wasn't the real problem. The issues are typically 1) you get a schedule of meetings about a month before they start and often have to rearrange your schedule. 2) There is usually no definitive agenda that attendees can look over before the meeting. (Go to FWP website and search "season setting meetings". What comes up is over 2 years old. People won't show if they don't know what is being discussed.) and 3) the meeting is dominated by those people with the biggest problems. Even if they are legit problems, they might not be relevant to that process.

Anyone that has ever worked for a large corporation knows the drill on these types of meetings. There is little structure, you have no idea what you are walking into or why, and they get derailed by something no one saw coming which is often not related to the "reason" for the meeting at all.

FWP can start with more transparency by making a website that works and providing a detailed agenda- late-winter counts, bio recommendations on changes, etc. I admit those things may exist on the website but I certainly can't find them. Compare to WYGF site. Search "season setting" there and compare.

 

[Nameless Range]

I can express my issues with the process when I lived there. The calendar timing of the meeting wasn't the real problem. The issues are typically 1) you get a schedule of meetings about a month before they start and often have to rearrange your schedule. 2) There is usually no definitive agenda that attendees can look over before the meeting. (Go to FWP website and search "season setting meetings". What comes up is over 2 years old. People won't show if they don't know what is being discussed.) and 3) the meeting is dominated by those people with the biggest problems. Even if they are legit problems, they might not be relevant to that process.

Anyone that has ever worked for a large corporation knows the drill on these types of meetings. There is little structure, you have no idea what you are walking into or why, and they get derailed by something no one saw coming which is often not related to the "reason" for the meeting at all.

FWP can start with more transparency by making a website that works and providing a detailed agenda- late-winter counts, bio recommendations on changes, etc. I admit those things may exist on the website but I certainly can't find them. Compare to WYGF site. Search "season setting" there and compare.

Good points.

This was the first in person season setting meeting I've missed in probably 15 years.

Two thoughts, I see the same folks there as I do at working group meetings, USFS public meetings, county meetings, etc. The same 10 people participate in the regional civic processes on offer, and that gets old. Also, I had a competing item on my schedule. When considering the prioritization between the two, I find I honestly have come to see the season setting meetings as just fluff - a place to get information I can get just as easy on the internet or from the biologist in an email. More inert in fact, than a candid conversation with the biologist in person at their office or over email. There was a time when I thought verbally voicing a concern or providing input in a public setting might move others to consider those points. I still kind of do, but it would be to the same 10 people I see at all the other stuff.

Call it jaded or burnt out, but I don't really know what the best way to provide input/enact change with our wildlife management is anymore - though I don't think it's the public comment process - and it's hard to spend a summer evening doing something that increasingly feels like feel-goodery turned wasted time.

 

[bigsky2]

I can express my issues with the process when I lived there. The calendar timing of the meeting wasn't the real problem. The issues are typically 1) you get a schedule of meetings about a month before they start and often have to rearrange your schedule. 2) There is usually no definitive agenda that attendees can look over before the meeting. (Go to FWP website and search "season setting meetings". What comes up is over 2 years old. People won't show if they don't know what is being discussed.) and 3) the meeting is dominated by those people with the biggest problems. Even if they are legit problems, they might not be relevant to that process.

Anyone that has ever worked for a large corporation knows the drill on these types of meetings. There is little structure, you have no idea what you are walking into or why, and they get derailed by something no one saw coming which is often not related to the "reason" for the meeting at all.

FWP can start with more transparency by making a website that works and providing a detailed agenda- late-winter counts, bio recommendations on changes, etc. I admit those things may exist on the website but I certainly can't find them. Compare to WYGF site. Search "season setting" there and compare.

I honestly kind of liked the virtual meetings during Covid for the reasons you stated. People were able to type their questions and comments in to the chat, rather than one or two loudmouths derailing the meeting and not giving anyone else a chance to speak. The region staff would then answer each question and everyone would have a chance to be heard.

 

[Schaaf]

I will be at the Havre season setting on Wednesday if anyone wants to buy me a beer. If you are cheap and just want to grab one from your frig, no problem, I will bring a small cooler.

Bring an extra beer for me. Free beer is the best beer.

 

[SixPoint]

Had nothing to do with Hank changing it. Reason nobody attends is FWP has refused to listen to anyone asking for change.
Hopefully it is a new era of FWP

Could be, but I bet there are a lot of folks who are very engaged and concerned about the state of things that would of attended across the state had it been in the winter. The other issue was the lack of notice. They need to be sending out press releases 6 weeks in advance with follow up reminders to keep it on the publics radar.

 

[sclancy27]

Could be, but I bet there are a lot of folks who are very engaged and concerned about the state of things that would of attended across the state had it been in the winter. The other issue was the lack of notice. They need to be sending out press releases 6 weeks in advance with follow up reminders to keep it on the publics radar.

They directly asked us (the meeting attendants) how they could get better public involvement. I have no idea. Maybe do an Instagram Live of the meeting to really draw out the troglodytes?

 

[cgasner1]

I honestly kind of liked the virtual meetings during Covid for the reasons you stated. People were able to type their questions and comments in to the chat, rather than one or two loudmouths derailing the meeting and not giving anyone else a chance to speak. The region staff would then answer each question and everyone would have a chance to be heard.

We had this problem in a meeting in 5 awhile back 2 guys showed up that didn’t even live in 5. One talked/complained about problems in 4 and the other complained about bear hunting in a different region. Between those 2 guys we never got to discuss anything relevant to region 5. Fwp can only do so much to steer conversation in these meetings.

 

[Gerald Martin]

Re-arranging the furniture and re-shuffling the deck isn’t going to draw more players if more folks aren’t interested in engaging.

I think that raising resident license prices needs to be on the agenda of every meeting that FWP wants public participation in whether or not they ever intend to raise prices. Folks would show up if they think they will have to pay $1.00 more for licenses….

I agree that the perception that public input doesn’t change policy is a major factor in lack of participation. Whether that’s a fair critique or not I’m not sure. I have seen regional meetings where comments in meetings I attended led to those specific changes being made to quotas so I know that public input has at least some efficacy.

In my opinion, hunter apathy is a larger factor in lack of participation than anything attributable to FWP.

 

[Sixmile]

5 people at the Livingston meet. There did seem to be more public participation when they had the meeting in the winter. Atleast in Livingston.

 

[huntin24/7]

lack of participation is probably in ways similar to how many people don’t get out and vote at elections. They don’t feel their vote/voice matters. I definitely agree with you @gerald about hunter apathy too. I hate to admit it, but I’m definitely guilty of it at times.

 

[Forkyfinder]

Re-arranging and reshifting the deck with the season dates wont change a thing if the public keeps losing more public land to hunt on.

If the top priority of this proposal was public land hunting - itd look a lot different.

 

[antlerradar]

Re-arranging and reshifting the deck with the season dates wont change a thing if the public keeps losing more public land to hunt on.

If the top priority of this proposal was public land hunting - itd look a lot different.

I think that shifting the season date is about public land hunting. Better to have the season before the mule deer go down the mountain to winter on property that is more likely to be private in the western part of the state and in the eastern part of the state bucks are leaving public because in the fall most of the does are living on the more productive private land river and creek bottoms. Limited Entry will not fix that, nor will it entice landowners to open up more access.

 

[cgasner1]

Re-arranging and reshifting the deck with the season dates wont change a thing if the public keeps losing more public land to hunt on.

If the top priority of this proposal was public land hunting - itd look a lot different.

To bad the public didn’t have another proposal to help and support them huh?