(Sorry. I screwed up the formatting when I tried to quote
@Shed God. My previous reply is easier to read below)
Our proposal does not affect the season dates of any units designated LE that requires a permit to hunt for that specie that requires a permit.
Let’s pick hypothetical unit 123 for example. If it’s currently a general unit for deer and elk our proposal would change the dates of that unit to the season structure in our proposal. If local hunters don’t want those dates for that particular unit they could gather support and petition the FWP commission to change unit 123 from general to a permit area with whatever form of LE permit they could agree upon and get the commission to enact.
It would have to go through the season setting process just like our proposal will have to and allow for public comment and input before the commission decides.
Or, you can take your individual proposal and present it to a commissioner and ask him to enter it into the process for consideration. Individual requests don’t usually make it into the official process but there was an event a couple years ago where Commissioner Tabor presented a proposal to change pheasant seasons from an early January closure to a January 31 closure because one guy wrote him a letter asking him to. It almost passed even though there was significant testimony against it during the public comment period at the commission meeting.
I was present at local FWP public meetings in region 1 where several hundred local hunters gathered signatures and petitioned FWP to create a LE mule deer permit for an area just outside of Libby. FWP biologists were not in support of creating the permit area and recommended against it in their presentation. It did pass when the commission met due to the amount of public support in favor of it.
One thing that I think is important about our proposal is that it maintains commission authority to adjust individual units or parts of our proposal either before implementation or after the effects of implementation are known.
That’s one reason why mandatory reporting for all hunters is so important and will be introduced as a stand alone legislation independent of the rest of our season structure proposal.
We can all argue about the “best” way to manage, but without good data that we all can access and trust, our best educated guesses about how hunters affect wildlife populations will always be less educated than they could be with better data.
Mandatory reporting isn’t going to to change the needs for area biologists to continue their biological surveys and monitoring of the health of habitat and resources. However, I think they’ll be even better able to make good management decisions if they have solid data on how hunters are interacting with and affecting wildlife.