Most (all?) of the topics seem to be geared toward real or perceived opportunity, or, as put it, to 'makes game agencies look like they're doing something good'.
There is a lot of discussion about opportunity vs quality as it pertains to management in MT that happens here on the forum. It seems most here would prefer management for quality (not me, bring on the coveted whitetail doe tags!), but were I to presume, it would be to presume that the vast majority, 'unwashed masses' as you call them, would prefer more opportunity, or at least the perception of more opportunity, be it for hunting elk or shooting (stocked) birds.
Dunno, maybe that is just conjecture on my part. I said I had heard no one express a positive attitude on pheasant stocking, but I suppose I didnt account for possibility outside the (sometimes) echo chamber of like outlook I have seen or heard it discussed.
Spot on.
When talk of ending the 11 weeks of general deer & elk hunting come up, there's usually a couple of cauldrons of tar set to boil, and no pillow is safe from being defrocked. But there's also a 100 year history behind why that opportunity is so valued in MT. I think we forget that when we get wrapped around the axle of 160" mule deer bucks versus the people who value the opportunity to have that much time to hunt. I tend to go back & forth based on the species, but ultimately, the managers should be working for the resource and not one constituent or another. Shoulder seasons are well liked by folks, and stocked pheasants will be viewed positively by some.
Ultimately, putting that $1 million back into habitat management leads to more opportunity for a longer period of time. I think we forget how to effectively message that short term versus long term payout.
Opportunity is important, but just like when you're single & on the prowl, it's the kind of opportunity that you need to be looking out for, rather than the chance to dip the wick in any opportunity.
