Montana General Season Structure Proposal 3.0

[Elky Welky]

I couldn't disagree more with this. The only people I talk to that don't acknowledge that there's a problem are the people that only hunt elk and whitetails. Come to think of it, most of those people hunt on private at least half the time too. Never in my life can I remember so many people being disappointed with the mule deer situation and hunter crowding.

Okay, but you live in Lewistown, Fergus Co., population 11,000 and are active in the hunting community there and talking with like-minded people, whereas I was raised in Helena, pop 75,000 where mule deer were are are still seen as a not-so-good-tasting pest because there are so many of them in the city (the city where most wildlife management decisions are ultimately made, often by people who don't hunt).

Ultimately, your disagreement is anecdotal and regional, and is not supported by FWP's statewide survey. And therein lies part of the problem I'm raising here. Montana is bigger than HT and the people you run into in the field, and you have more people to persuade than just those hunting in regions 4, 6, and 7. And those people who mostly hunt elk and whitetails (myself one of them), often don't turn down an easy shot at a mule deer, and they are citizens as well, with just as much of a right for mule deer to be managed for them as everyone else.

If you need an anecdote to support an argument, here's mine: I moved to Billings 7 years ago from Missoula, and was excited to start hunting mule deer out East simply because I never seriously had (except, of course, when I was also antelope hunting in Eastern MT), and I found it to be pretty great. I really enjoyed it and took a few mule deer bucks that I was happy with, and was surprised by the health, tastiness, and body size of the animals on this side of the State. Then I joined this forum a few years ago and found the mule deer thread. I asked some questions to try to catch up, because my personal experiences certainly didn't match all the noise there. I was lambasted and attacked for simply asking questions, but I knew I wasn't alone.

If you look at the themes in the regional meetings too, you see that predator management was raised as much or more than season length and rut hunting. Most folks advocating for changes in mule deer season don't care about predators, whereas it is pretty much the only thing lots of folks in Regions 1 and 2 care about. This state is too big and diverse to solely rely on localized anecdotes.

 

[Gerald Martin]

@Elky Welky, this is a serious question and not rhetorical.
Which NGO’s should we have conferred with before we gave suggestions?

And a follow up. Of the NGO’s we should have conferred with what parts of restructuring MT Seasons align with their mission statements and purpose? I’m not saying it wouldn’t, but I don’t see the Mule Deer Foundation or Rocky Mountain Elk foundation getting involved in crafting how FWP should manage wildlife.

In my opinion, the only thing that made a proposal like ours possible is the fact that everyone came together as an individual hunter first and then their knowledge of the groups they were involved with as well was beneficial in helping us all navigate potential redlines or possibilities as we discussed our ideas. The whole attitude and approach to implementing or abandoning ideas was to do our best in making informed guesses as to what could be achieved socially/politically and what would work biologically within the four objectives of
1. Betterment of wildlife in quality and quantity.
2. Maintain as much hunting opportunity as biologically sustainable.
3. Not hamper FWP’s ability to manage wildlife by reducing their budget.
4. Have a proposal that could be socially acceptable to give it a better chance of being implemented.

It’s my understanding that the LE proposal that has been released is authored or influenced by past and present leadership of the NGO you represent. Is this true and if so, could you give us some insight on how many other NGO or groups the folks that authored that included in their discussions?

 

[DFS]

Okay, but you live in Lewistown, Fergus Co., population 11,000 and are active in the hunting community there and talking with like-minded people, whereas I was raised in Helena, pop 75,000 where mule deer were are are still seen as a not-so-good-tasting pest because there are so many of them in the city (the city where most wildlife management decisions are ultimately made, often by people who don't hunt).

Ultimately, your disagreement is anecdotal and regional, and is not supported by FWP's statewide survey. And therein lies part of the problem I'm raising here. Montana is bigger than HT and the people you run into in the field, and you have more people to persuade than just those hunting in regions 4, 6, and 7. And those people who mostly hunt elk and whitetails (myself one of them), often don't turn down an easy shot at a mule deer, and they are citizens as well, with just as much of a right for mule deer to be managed for them as everyone else.

If you need an anecdote to support an argument, here's mine: I moved to Billings 7 years ago from Missoula, and was excited to start hunting mule deer out East simply because I never seriously had (except, of course, when I was also antelope hunting in Eastern MT), and I found it to be pretty great. I really enjoyed it and took a few mule deer bucks that I was happy with, and was surprised by the health, tastiness, and body size of the animals on this side of the State. Then I joined this forum a few years ago and found the mule deer thread. I asked some questions to try to catch up, because my personal experiences certainly didn't match all the noise there. I was lambasted and attacked for simply asking questions, but I knew I wasn't alone.

If you look at the themes in the regional meetings too, you see that predator management was raised as much or more than season length and rut hunting. Most folks advocating for changes in mule deer season don't care about predators, whereas it is pretty much the only thing lots of folks in Regions 1 and 2 care about. This state is too big and diverse to solely rely on localized anecdotes.

I have to agree western Montana is dragging us down in more ways than one. There is consensus in region 7 that changes are needed.

 

[Sioux33]

I’ve gotta say, from following all these mule deer threads, it’s great to see the passion folks on here have for this, but boy this shit’s getting ugly. Everyone’s commented that it’s great to see proposal’s out looking for change and appreciative of the effort put into it. But with that said, it should be ok for some to question it and not fall in love with it. It’s like if anyone has a gripe with it or disagrees with anything, they get torched on here. Not a great way to get buy-in. There are serious issues people are afraid of, like landowner fatigue, impacts on BM, and impacts on elk distribution. At some point, instead of worrying about who helped who craft a proposal, maybe our efforts would be better spent trying to solve issues that could prevent any change from happening.

 

[antlerradar]

Thats interesting.

Disappointing Eric couldnt win you over.

I think a lot of us like the idea, I don't hate it. We just think that mule deer need to recover more before we go there. I am a little apprehensive about number. Twenty per district in not enough to matter, But FWP has a history of inflating quotas to everyone gets a tag.

 

[Elky Welky]

Which NGO’s should we have conferred with before we gave suggestions?

That really wasn't why I raised it and frankly I think we're getting off topic, but I will answer it first:

All of them. I think every stakeholder/shareholder/hunter group etc. should have been invited to the table from the get go, and the conversation should not have been how do we fix the problem, but how do we create a united public messaging campaign to get Montanans to recognize the issue they are facing regarding mule deer. Why start with such a small tent and then try to let more in? Nobody would have a leg to stand on if they didn't make the effort to show up then as well, had they been invited in the first place.

Which in turn leads to the point I was making earlier: too many Montanans don't see the problem still, so it isn't well taken when they are told a small group of people are changing things to fix a problem many Montanans don't perceive. It actually slows the effort down, and I think the pushback from Hinkle this session was a good barometer of that error: a drastic response to what is seen as a drastic and unfounded (not my perspective, mind you) change. To use the legal phrasing, you have to lay the foundation before presenting the solution. It's how you solve what you identified as your #4:

Have a proposal that could be socially acceptable to give it a better chance of being implemented.

It’s my understanding that the LE proposal that has been released is authored or influenced by past and present leadership of the NGO you represent. Is this true and if so, could you give us some insight on how many other NGO or groups the folks that authored that included in their discussions?

I can't give any insight into that. It's not mine to give. I certainly support a more measured approach, and like you all have indicated you agree with: I commend more ideas being brought to the table. I think that other plan also lays out explicitly at the beginning that it was meant to stimulate thought and conversation, should not have been seen as a finalized solution, and was not meant to stymie ideas put forth for others. Unfortunately, that caveat was pretty quickly disregarded by many. It's a supplement, not a threat.

I also don't think there would be any need for it if the other approach had been more of what I outlined above. But for a group that has frequently stated they would like to see and would welcome other ideas and proposals, I've been pretty saddened, though not necessarily surprised, to watch how quickly that turned out not to be true.

 

[mtmuley]

I have to agree western Montana is dragging us down in more ways than one. There is consensus in region 7 that changes are needed.

Dragging us down? I have said this mule deer management has to be done unit specific. Western Montana isn't dragging down the East. mtmuley

 

[DFS]

That really wasn't why I raised it and frankly I think we're getting off topic, but I will answer it first:

All of them. I think every stakeholder/shareholder/hunter group etc. should have been invited to the table from the get go, and the conversation should not have been how do we fix the problem, but how do we create a united public messaging campaign to get Montanans to recognize the issue they are facing regarding mule deer. Why start with such a small tent and then try to let more in? Nobody would have a leg to stand on if they didn't make the effort to show up then as well, had they been invited in the first place.

Which in turn leads to the point I was making earlier: too many Montanans don't see the problem still, so it isn't well taken when they are told a small group of people are changing things to fix a problem many Montanans don't perceive. It actually slows the effort down, and I think the pushback from Hinkle this session was a good barometer of that error: a drastic response to what is seen as a drastic and unfounded (not my perspective, mind you) change. To use the legal phrasing, you have to lay the foundation before presenting the solution. It's how you solve what you identified as your #4:



I can't give any insight into that. It's not mine to give. I certainly support a more measured approach, and like you all have indicated you agree with: I commend more ideas being brought to the table. I think that other plan also lays out explicitly at the beginning that it was meant to stimulate thought and conversation, should not have been seen as a finalized solution, and was not meant to stymie ideas put forth for others. Unfortunately, that caveat was pretty quickly disregarded by many. It's a supplement, not a threat.

I also don't think there would be any need for it if the other approach had been more of what I outlined above. But for a group that has frequently stated they would like to see and would welcome other ideas and proposals, I've been pretty saddened, though not necessarily surprised, to watch how quickly that turned out not to be true.

@Elky Welky go look yourself in the mirror and say I am the problem. No good deed goes unpunished thanks to the group for putting this together maybe there is a snowball chance in hell something changes. Thirty more years of chitty hunting is my prediction.

 

[El Jason]

I have said this mule deer management has to be done unit specific.

I’d even take that a step further and say the same for elk. Or blocks of GMUs when appropriate.

Until folks are willing to sacrifice the hunt anywhere for five weeks straight, it’s pretty hard to start dialing in on units.

Wyoming sold me a NR regional deer tag. They had such a novel idea, within the region the units had different season dates and lengths. And even more novel, they shortened the season from the previous year because of winter mortality. And the hunting was good. I hardly saw a soul and killed a nice buck.

 

[DFS]

Dragging us down? I have said this mule deer management has to be done unit specific. Western Montana isn't dragging down the East. mtmuley

I don’t know who is getting the surveys but it certainly isn’t the people I talk to, granted I’m not in the population epicenter of folks who like to drive out and rape and pillage for one week out of the year. I know you are on the good side.

 

[DFS]

Pick your region and nonresident caps would be my hope out of this whole deal. It’s time for western Montana to get some skin in the game and not have their cake and eat it too.

 

[mtmuley]

Pick your region and nonresident caps would be my hope out of this whole deal. It’s time for western Montana to get some skin in the game and not have their cake and eat it too.

I invite you to Western Montana to eat some mule deer cake. Get a general tag and show me something. mtmuley

 

[Elky Welky]

@Elky Welky go look yourself in the mirror and say I am the problem. No good deed goes unpunished thanks to the group for putting this together maybe there is a snowball chance in hell something changes. Thirty more years of chitty hunting is my prediction.

I quite literally identified Montanans like myself, who had to learn that there was a problem in the first place, as the problem. So no, I don't think you're the problem.

Although your attitude and how you approach it certainly doesn't make anyone want to advocate for you. But in spite of you, I am invested in helping Montana's mule deer.

Genuine question, but do you read my posts or just respond to what you think I said? I almost always argue or acknowledge your position and am all-too-familiar with it, but then you flip it on its head or outright ignore what I write, and I have to repeat myself or bold my text to get it through to you.

 

[DFS]

I invite you to Western Montana to eat some mule deer cake. Get a general tag and show me something. mtmuley

I probably won’t make it to you but there is a good chance I won’t be in region 7.

 

[cgasner1]

That really wasn't why I raised it and frankly I think we're getting off topic, but I will answer it first:

All of them. I think every stakeholder/shareholder/hunter group etc. should have been invited to the table from the get go, and the conversation should not have been how do we fix the problem, but how do we create a united public messaging campaign to get Montanans to recognize the issue they are facing regarding mule deer. Why start with such a small tent and then try to let more in? Nobody would have a leg to stand on if they didn't make the effort to show up then as well, had they been invited in the first place.

Which in turn leads to the point I was making earlier: too many Montanans don't see the problem still, so it isn't well taken when they are told a small group of people are changing things to fix a problem many Montanans don't perceive. It actually slows the effort down, and I think the pushback from Hinkle this session was a good barometer of that error: a drastic response to what is seen as a drastic and unfounded (not my perspective, mind you) change. To use the legal phrasing, you have to lay the foundation before presenting the solution. It's how you solve what you identified as your #4:



I can't give any insight into that. It's not mine to give. I certainly support a more measured approach, and like you all have indicated you agree with: I commend more ideas being brought to the table. I think that other plan also lays out explicitly at the beginning that it was meant to stimulate thought and conversation, should not have been seen as a finalized solution, and was not meant to stymie ideas put forth for others. Unfortunately, that caveat was pretty quickly disregarded by many. It's a supplement, not a threat.

I also don't think there would be any need for it if the other approach had been more of what I outlined above. But for a group that has frequently stated they would like to see and would welcome other ideas and proposals, I've been pretty saddened, though not necessarily surprised, to watch how quickly that turned out not to be true.

Personally I have the phone numbers to 3 different people in my phone that lead ngo in Montana. No one wanted to touch this when we started because of how split their membership is on it. I’d assume your group is the same way. You guys don’t wanna risk pissong off your members and losing that money. I do think it’s fantastic another idea was brought forward and have tried to be very positive about it. My issue has been the other amount of total bullshit that has been throw at us from being bought and paid for to all sorts of other things. When you take into consideration one of the guys that “helped” with that proposal is on here spouting off about stuff that’s gonna happen when he has never hunted a day on public it kinda pisses me off. From a bunch of the complaints made about the elk pressure on here idk why we even have a rifle season apparently they are all pushed into private before rifle even opens. Oregon,Idaho, Wyoming are the 3 states that come to mind without opening up GOHUNT that all have deer season before elk season. Anyways probably time for me to just sign out again for another month and go sharpen up my pointy sticks since im
One of those guys that has a entire month off to hunt this year

 

[Elky Welky]

You guys don’t wanna risk pissong off your members and losing that money

What money? We're volunteers, and we're one of the few groups that shows up and isn't afraid to piss people off. Our prerogative isn't membership dollars.

We are talking past each other though, because my point was that before even presenting proposals, there needs to be statewide consensus that there is a problem. But yes, without knowing where members stand, groups like mine's hands are tied to FWP's surveys, as it is the best source for how all Montanans feel on issues--and they do tend to reflect how our membership feels.

We are working on a much-needed membership survey right now though. And I would expect, based on member feedback, you will see a few more definitive positions on issues.

 

[brockel]

Personally I have the phone numbers to 3 different people in my phone that lead ngo in Montana. No one wanted to touch this when we started because of how split their membership is on it. I’d assume your group is the same way. You guys don’t wanna risk pissong off your members and losing that money. I do think it’s fantastic another idea was brought forward and have tried to be very positive about it. My issue has been the other amount of total bullshit that has been throw at us from being bought and paid for to all sorts of other things. When you take into consideration one of the guys that “helped” with that proposal is on here spouting off about stuff that’s gonna happen when he has never hunted a day on public it kinda pisses me off. From a bunch of the complaints made about the elk pressure on here idk why we even have a rifle season apparently they are all pushed into private before rifle even opens. Oregon,Idaho, Wyoming are the 3 states that come to mind without opening up GOHUNT that all have deer season before elk season. Anyways probably time for me to just sign out again for another month and go sharpen up my pointy sticks since im
One of those guys that has a entire month off to hunt this year

You could sign out for 5 years and jump back on here to the same conversation going on

 

[El Jason]

You could sign out for 5 years and jump back on here to the same conversation going on

Only funny cause it’s true. Groundhog Day…

 

[cgasner1]

You could sign out for 5 years and jump back on here to the same conversation going on

Honestly I signed back on to dig some intel up on a Idaho elk hunt I got it I should just leave back out

 

[brockel]

Honestly I signed back on to dig some intel up on a Idaho elk hunt I got it I should just leave back out

No honey holes