SAJ-99
Well-known member
Spot on. Any solution that asks for something without sacrificing anything is dead before it hits the table.
MT - Changes in Hunting Regs/Units/Seasons coming this month
- Thread starter Big Fin
- Start date
rogerthat
Well-known member
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2015
- Messages
- 2,601
You will have to decide if you want to hunt general units or the permit unit. It’s that simple. It will reduce limited entry permit holders from crowding up general areas when they hold the limited entry permit and it will keep people who would rather hunt general such as yourself from applying for the limited entry permit. Just a little less opportunity across the board. A baby step in the right direction. Hard to believe you can’t see that
Gerald Martin
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2009
- Messages
- 8,302
I just finished up my comments to FWP concerning the deer and elk changes. For your consideration before I send it to the commissioners and post it on the public comments page. Feel free to offer suggestions for revision or change.
Dear Commissioners,
As the public comment period for the proposed changes to the 2022/23 hunting regulations comes to a close, I am asking each one of you to take a deep breath and stop to consider the probable effects of the changes you are about to approve or reject.
The proposed changes on this season setting agenda are some of the most extensive that I have ever seen and the effects of those changes will carry on for years to come. You as commissioners individually and collectively as a committee bear responsibility to the residents of Montana and the public wildlife that will be affected by your decisions to make wise choices regarding the management of wildlife resources.
Throughout this process FWP Director Worsech has explicitly expressed the intention of proposed changes is to simplify confusing regulation.
FWP’s web page inviting public comment directly states and I quote, “Earlier this fall, Fish, Wildlife & Parks biologists offered science-based regulations proposals that combine some hunting districts, reduce some license and permit types, and eliminate hunting district portions. FWP staff held informational meetings around the state, and the public was invited to submit comments on those initial proposals. FWP adjusted the proposals based on public comment and presented them to the commission.”
I am in strong disagreement that the sum total of proposals before the committee this session is science based and in harmony with the biological recommendations of FWP regional biologists. In fact, I would assert that many of the most controversial proposals are completely political in nature and have been advanced by Director Worsech and FWP leadership either without the input of FWP regional personnel or have disregarded professional recommendations and public comment.
Director Worsech has also repeatedly expressed the need to address population numbers of elk herds in certain units deemed over objective. Throughout the past year, several proposals that evoked the most intense public opposition have been presented by the Director. As recently as Dec. 13, you as a commission expressed your sensitivity to opposition to the Director’s proposal and told him not to present it for your consideration.
The following day at the Dec. 14 commission meeting significant portions of the rejected proposal was repackaged and presented to the commission in different form by way of unbundling the 900 series units and making them either general or unlimited permits. This change does nothing to address the stated objective of reducing over objective elk. Additional proposals thrown in for consideration and approval were hastily concocted and not vetted with various user groups who have conflicting interests.
Director Worsech has stated both publicly and in conversation with me that “the same old thing isn’t working” and “trying the same old thing and expecting different results, is insanity,” and that he’s putting these proposals “out there to get the conversation started”.
If I may speak bluntly, my perception and the perception of many other Montana resident hunters is that Director Worsech is throwing manure against the wall to see what sticks. Many of these proposals illustrate and reinforce the perception that FWP leadership is out of touch with the biological needs of deer and elk herds and out of touch with what Montana residents expect from the department they have entrusted to wisely manage Montana’s wildlife resources.
Montana Fish, Wildlife, and Parks is mandated to manage for the health of Montana’s wildlife, not to serve as a political candy machine dolling out favors for those who have connections and paid lobbyists to ensure that certain interests are first in line to benefit from the commercialization of wildlife.
There has been an incredible amount of work put forth by various groups to try and find consensus and working solutions to many of the problems that have historically caused contention among various interests. FWP has coordinated many of those meetings and compiled recommendations based on input from hunters, landowners and outfitters. That extensive input is not included in the proposals presented for your approval this session. Why would you want to pass proposals presented to you without the input of these diverse user groups?
The proposals that you are being requested to approve will have far reaching consequences in the future health of Montana deer and elk herds and the hunting experiences of Montana residents who place great value on healthy deer and elk herds. It is my opinion that almost all of the late amendments and proposals will have a negative effect and will generate a lot of complaints from affected MT hunters.
The only proposal that is a good idea in this whole mess is to limit elk permit holders to the area their permit is valid for. I can support that proposal.
In summary, I am asking you to please reject the adoption of the proposals for changes to deer and elk management in 2022/23. They do not achieve the stated goals of “simplification of the regulations” or address “overpopulation of elk in over objective units.”
The idea that you can’t “do nothing” is fallacious. Implementing wrong management strategies that will have far reaching negative effects is far worse than maintaining status quo for two more years and bringing diverse user groups together to find solutions that all parties can accept.
Please make the right decision for Montana’s wildlife and the residents who are entrusting you to enact FWP’s declaration of “science-based management.”
Sincerely,
Gerald Martin
Dear Commissioners,
As the public comment period for the proposed changes to the 2022/23 hunting regulations comes to a close, I am asking each one of you to take a deep breath and stop to consider the probable effects of the changes you are about to approve or reject.
The proposed changes on this season setting agenda are some of the most extensive that I have ever seen and the effects of those changes will carry on for years to come. You as commissioners individually and collectively as a committee bear responsibility to the residents of Montana and the public wildlife that will be affected by your decisions to make wise choices regarding the management of wildlife resources.
Throughout this process FWP Director Worsech has explicitly expressed the intention of proposed changes is to simplify confusing regulation.
FWP’s web page inviting public comment directly states and I quote, “Earlier this fall, Fish, Wildlife & Parks biologists offered science-based regulations proposals that combine some hunting districts, reduce some license and permit types, and eliminate hunting district portions. FWP staff held informational meetings around the state, and the public was invited to submit comments on those initial proposals. FWP adjusted the proposals based on public comment and presented them to the commission.”
I am in strong disagreement that the sum total of proposals before the committee this session is science based and in harmony with the biological recommendations of FWP regional biologists. In fact, I would assert that many of the most controversial proposals are completely political in nature and have been advanced by Director Worsech and FWP leadership either without the input of FWP regional personnel or have disregarded professional recommendations and public comment.
Director Worsech has also repeatedly expressed the need to address population numbers of elk herds in certain units deemed over objective. Throughout the past year, several proposals that evoked the most intense public opposition have been presented by the Director. As recently as Dec. 13, you as a commission expressed your sensitivity to opposition to the Director’s proposal and told him not to present it for your consideration.
The following day at the Dec. 14 commission meeting significant portions of the rejected proposal was repackaged and presented to the commission in different form by way of unbundling the 900 series units and making them either general or unlimited permits. This change does nothing to address the stated objective of reducing over objective elk. Additional proposals thrown in for consideration and approval were hastily concocted and not vetted with various user groups who have conflicting interests.
Director Worsech has stated both publicly and in conversation with me that “the same old thing isn’t working” and “trying the same old thing and expecting different results, is insanity,” and that he’s putting these proposals “out there to get the conversation started”.
If I may speak bluntly, my perception and the perception of many other Montana resident hunters is that Director Worsech is throwing manure against the wall to see what sticks. Many of these proposals illustrate and reinforce the perception that FWP leadership is out of touch with the biological needs of deer and elk herds and out of touch with what Montana residents expect from the department they have entrusted to wisely manage Montana’s wildlife resources.
Montana Fish, Wildlife, and Parks is mandated to manage for the health of Montana’s wildlife, not to serve as a political candy machine dolling out favors for those who have connections and paid lobbyists to ensure that certain interests are first in line to benefit from the commercialization of wildlife.
There has been an incredible amount of work put forth by various groups to try and find consensus and working solutions to many of the problems that have historically caused contention among various interests. FWP has coordinated many of those meetings and compiled recommendations based on input from hunters, landowners and outfitters. That extensive input is not included in the proposals presented for your approval this session. Why would you want to pass proposals presented to you without the input of these diverse user groups?
The proposals that you are being requested to approve will have far reaching consequences in the future health of Montana deer and elk herds and the hunting experiences of Montana residents who place great value on healthy deer and elk herds. It is my opinion that almost all of the late amendments and proposals will have a negative effect and will generate a lot of complaints from affected MT hunters.
The only proposal that is a good idea in this whole mess is to limit elk permit holders to the area their permit is valid for. I can support that proposal.
In summary, I am asking you to please reject the adoption of the proposals for changes to deer and elk management in 2022/23. They do not achieve the stated goals of “simplification of the regulations” or address “overpopulation of elk in over objective units.”
The idea that you can’t “do nothing” is fallacious. Implementing wrong management strategies that will have far reaching negative effects is far worse than maintaining status quo for two more years and bringing diverse user groups together to find solutions that all parties can accept.
Please make the right decision for Montana’s wildlife and the residents who are entrusting you to enact FWP’s declaration of “science-based management.”
Sincerely,
Gerald Martin
The Hedgehog
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2000
- Messages
- 11,616
...
Last edited:
Irrelevant
Well-known member
Great comment Gerald.
thebestusernamesaretaken
Well-known member
- Joined
- Feb 19, 2021
- Messages
- 343
just my 2 cents, which is what my comments are worth. This is in my opinion, fairly well written. You have seemed to have made a significant argument here. However, you may loose your audience with some of the more adversarial language. You have good thoughts in here; I think that it may go further if it was cleaned up a bit.
Hate to say it but most non-hunting folks and many politicians generally don't really care enough about wildlife to make a difference unless it matters to them financially; or they are looking to leave a lasting legacy (ego is a real thing that can be manipulated). Similarly, people who have access to large private properties would not be as concerned for some topics as much as those who don't. People need the what's in it for me (WIFM), stated clearly.
One of our (hunters), issues is that Politicians generally do not have a whole lot of access to resident and non resident tag fees, as there use is usually restricted for specific things by State Statute. Granted, those funds free up resources that would perhaps be spent otherwise, but hunters and revenues from tag fees are a small percentage of the total.
Public land hunters could take a page from outfitters efforts in lobbing. Your voice could provide prospective by stating the amounts of money brought in by tag fees and then talk about a good faith estimate of tourism dollars at work and those residents whom those dollars benefit (i.e. small tax paying businesses). Montana tax payers seem to pay on average $3,800 per person per year in taxes; so it makes since for politicians to veer towards land holders who pay more and donate to campaigns. Democracy is for sale btw. However, they may pay more but they still need your votes to win. You need people on your side.
In your letter, I would recommend to illustrate what ever advise was provided from the professional biologists first, Money next (and spend a lot of time on this), then you could talk about the votes. Recap with the biologist recommendations (do the right thing for the right reasons), and then get the 5th column (media), to participate.
How hard is it. Put politics aside and $$$$. Do what us best for the wildlife along with what people want. It is a sport at this time, day and age. The greatest sport ever. No greater challenge in this, well my world at trying to kill a 300 bull on otc tag public. Mule deer greatest fwp failure in there history on public lands. Almost well in my opinion criminal.
Yes large landowners should get more LE tags. Whether they can sell them or ( give them to there buddies) $$$. Is questionable.
People like gritty, cam hanes make me sick. Wish i had a time machine to hunt the 90s the era i grew up in.
FWP has not done there job last 30 yrs. They need to protect the wildlife and manage huntable populations.
People make it so political, when all they have to look at is herd populations on public ground. Huntable elk and mule deer.
Yes large landowners should get more LE tags. Whether they can sell them or ( give them to there buddies) $$$. Is questionable.
People like gritty, cam hanes make me sick. Wish i had a time machine to hunt the 90s the era i grew up in.
FWP has not done there job last 30 yrs. They need to protect the wildlife and manage huntable populations.
People make it so political, when all they have to look at is herd populations on public ground. Huntable elk and mule deer.
The elk zones are not a burden in Idaho in my experience. It would be simpler, easier and a little more fun To go anywhere in the state but you can easily plan around it with family and freinds. I always loved being able to buy a tag and hunt any general unit in Montana but I think some hunters are imagining picking a zone being much worse than it is. In my experience it’s not been a huge deal. I really prefer being able to hunt the whole state but times have changed and for me it’s been a minor annoyance in Idaho.
Kiwi
Well-known member
Region 1 season setting meeting is on YouTube if anyone is interested
If anyone is bored, R6 CAC/Public Meeting is starting now.
fwp.mt.gov
Public Comment Opportunities | Montana FWP
Fish, Wildlife & Parks offers various opportunities for the public to comment on issues, rules, grants, environmental assessments, land acquisition, development or enhancement projects, council recommendations, hunting and fishing regulations, etc. that FWP manages.
fwp.mt.gov
lifeisgoodsteve
Well-known member
Anyone going to the Hamilton meeting tonight at 6?
You will have to decide if you want to hunt general units or the permit unit. It’s that simple. It will reduce limited entry permit holders from crowding up general areas when they hold the limited entry permit and it will keep people who would rather hunt general such as yourself from applying for the limited entry permit. Just a little less opportunity across the board. A baby step in the right direction. Hard to believe you can’t see that
Roger that. Can u explain. So if u apply for LE permit u cannot hunt otc or if u draw LE permit u cannot hunt otc.
Irishman
Well-known member
Unlucky, I'll be applying for a LE unit this year, just like I always do. Then probably hunting the general units. I just won't be applying for the couple of LE units that restrict you from hunting elsewhere.
