I just remind myself that the people that bitch and moan on Facebook arent the people that show up. During the legislative session, there were people on those hunting and fishing FB groups complaining about the mandatory reporting bill and saying it was an infringement on their rights. Then when the bill was introduced at the legislature, not a single person testified against it.
You just wait , try to take away the birthright of the turkey day shoot and they will show up …. Mess with mule deer opportunities and people both r and nr will come out of the woodwork in opposition
They already have, they just refuse to put there name on any ideas.
This was actually a loss for FWP because they were against private land only mule deer doe tags. Just so the right people get the credit for this big accomplishment for public land mule deer
I agree with all of that, although aside from when we are in a drought (no control over that anyways) I don't think habitat is much of a limiting factor in the eastern half of the state. Improved habitat is easy to get public support for, but a lot of that is also outside of the state's control (timber harvest on NF lands, weed control, etc).
Then let’s name names. That’s going to be the biggest thing to move the needle, and whoever got it accomplished deserves the credit.
I think the biggest issue there is lawsuits against logging in western MT. The only thing to change that will be reforming the EAJA to reduce the frivolous lawsuits and allow logging and habitat management to proceed. I’d prefer to see selective harvest and not clear cutting in order to create more Savannah-type areas that aren’t prone to crown fires, but that’s just a personal wish (takes ammo away from the serial litigators) and not a true “the deer need this” thing.
We also need to give Credit to Eric and some of the other outfitters. They got that ball rolling.
That would involve at least 26 senators, and 51 representatives, and a govenor. Because its law.
We have a contradiction or two. If herds on public are "terrible" and deer are "concentrated" on private, then making B-tags valid on private only doesn't really help much. A better change would be make deer tags MD buck-only or any whitetail and stop the habit of "dumping a doe as a consolation prize" (which I think is a bigger issue than incidental take by antelope or elk hunters- although I have no data to back any of that up).
Curious - but under a LE proposal - who is getting screwed?
Part of the issue with all 3 iterations of this proposal is that it forces this idea on the majority of Montanans, who aren't ready or willing to do this yet based upon FWP's surveys. We've heard countless times that if something was a nonstarter for outfitters or landowners, then it was immediately tossed in the development of this proposal. But when something was a nonstarter for the rest of Montana's citizenry, then "screw'm this is for their own good and the majority of Montanans simply don't know what's best for them." Maybe so, but that attitude will never change the hearts and minds of the majority, who don't spend their time on forums like this one. Heck, that's probably for the best. The anger and vitriol of the people hell bent on forcing season changes onto Montanans certainly doesn't bring anyone to that side of the cause.
I haven't tried to keep up with the various proposals - all are better that the current mess. Under an LE proposal you limit space. A large numbers of Rs are adamantly against not being able to hunt across 4/5ths of the state at their whim. It's why FWP doesn't listen to the idea until the data is overwhelming in that direction. You could just do LE it to NR tags. Screwing NRs is a core Montana value. But honestly, it won't matter much in the results. Most NRs pick a specific time and place to hunt. They are not randomly driving around every weekend seeing if they can find a deer that wandered too close to the road.
Just to play devil's advocate, is it really though? It's certainly a common complaint from Montanans, but one that the legislature and FWP have actually done very little to address. The money is too good. They are too dependent on NR dollars to want to shift those costs or reduce NRs in any meaningful way. Most other states are far more restrictive than Montana, we're just the last ones to try and catch up.
Anytime there is a problem and something needs to be done, the first response is to do it to NRs. Mostly it revolves around $$$.
Again, it's about $$$. I'm sure there are a ton of paying NRs hunting those private land sanctuaries. BM losses are because they can get the same payment with less hassle (and damage) from a few hunters (R and NR alike). Habitat loss is a a bit of a straw man. Can an animal that needs to put on fat for the winter be blamed for spending its time on a pivot?
