MT - Changes in Hunting Regs/Units/Seasons coming this month

[MTLabrador]

I’m not speaking for MOGA, but…something needs to change and as strange as this may sound, Eric and I have been discussing this and we are on the same page as many of you. We need to address the resident situation with OTC tags, we need to fight against changing the LQ elk areas over to general, and we need to focus on mule deer management. I spoke with a commissioner today and voiced my opinion strongly against the muzzleloader debacle as well as other topics. So there it is in writing.

This made me pretty happy to read. I really hope this is one fight that outfitters, residents, and nonresidents can all get behind.

Outfitters have a big voice, and I hope they use it.

 

[brocksw]

Big Fin laid it out on like page 7 or 8. Contact the governors office, contact the director, contact the commission. Submit your public comments when you can. Show up to the open houses and public meetings. That's the basics. Got to overwhelm them with opposition. Some are jaded because they been at this a long time. And the hits just keep coming.

Oh I'm aware of how it works. But it seems like we're kind of spinning wheels and the heel digging keeps us on this same path where proverbial pendulum subjects us to this back and forth policy.

I believe @Schaaf said it best in his testimony against 143 or 505....Montanans do their best work when they work together.

That can be said for any state on damn near any issue. Elk and deer management is no different. But in order for that to happen there needs to be a cooperative come to the table moment for all stakeholders. The price of admission should be checking any of "were gonna get everything we want" attitude at the door.

If that cannot be done...then we'll be having this discussion indefinitely everytine political winds change.

If GG and Worsech are gonna get chastised and opposed no matter what they do when they're trying to represent their Constituents (who are obviously frustrated with the way things are), there is no incentive to compromise or work towards balanced long term solutions.

 

[BuzzH]

change.

If GG and Worsech are gonna get chastised and opposed no matter what they do when they're trying to represent their Constituents (who are obviously frustrated with the way things are), there is no incentive to compromise or work towards balanced long term solutions.

Bolded part, no they aren't.

They're representing their donors...and that's the big, huge dead elephant in the room.

GG is Governor of ALL Montana and Worsech should be the advocate for ALL wildlife.

Both are failing, miserably.

 

[brocksw]

Bolded part, no they aren't.

They're representing their donors...and that's the big, huge dead elephant in the room.

GG is Governor of ALL Montana and Worsech should be the advocate for ALL wildlife.

Both are failing, miserably.

I could be wrong, but it sounds like the ranchers, landowners, and other more conservative segments who voted for this admin say the same about the previous regime.

 

[BuzzH]

I could be wrong, but it sounds like the ranchers, landowners, and other more conservative segments who voted for this admin say the same about the previous regime.

Probably so, but they should really consider exactly what happened.

Difference being that landowners, ranchers and conservatives lost exactly NOTHING and in fact, got their way on shoulder seasons, expanded seasons, increased predator management, etc.

Name a few things they lost...like maybe one for a good start.

What's being proposed now is letting down/harming wildlife, management, and taking away what little proper management is happening, along with advancing privatization of wildlife.

All of which a majority of Montana Residents likely oppose...but that doesn't seem to matter.

 

[Schaaf]

One thing that Worsech and many of the Legislators on the House FWP Committee expressed verbal frustration over was that we were there to stonewall and oppose rather than coming forward with suggestions or ideas. I would argue that it's hard to come forward with any ideas when you have a gun to your head in the form of a law. Put the gun down and then we can talk. I think it would be wise for many people on this forum to really put some thought into the breakdown of regulations, season structure, and start being vocal about what you would like to see.

There is a Missouri Breaks Elk Working Group meeting next week in Malta. If you're anywhere close, I would urge you to attend (@Eric Albus hope you can make it). I would imagine there will be at least one Commission member there. I'm planning to spend the next week thinking of some suggestions to lay out on the table.

 

[brocksw]

Probably so, but they should really consider exactly what happened.

Difference being that landowners, ranchers and conservatives lost exactly NOTHING and in fact, got their way on shoulder seasons, expanded seasons, increased predator management, etc.

Name a few things they lost...like maybe one for a good start.

What's being proposed now is letting down/harming wildlife, management, and taking away what little proper management is happening, along with advancing privatization of wildlife.

All of which a majority of Montana Residents likely oppose...but that doesn't seem to matter.

I don't necessarily disagree with you Buzz. The problem is that group/party is in power now and their perception is different.

 

[MTGomer]

Rumor is, the state will be conglomerated into one hunting district. Season days will run from January 1 to December 31, any elk, multiple tags available.

We are never going to get the elk population under control with these ridiculous restrictions.

 

[brocksw]

So that makes it alright?

No, just different. We all forget that their perception of these issues and how they look out for what they care about is different. Even if we think it's wrong.

 

[Gerald Martin]

To add to Buzz’s point Shoulder seasons and all the reduction of elk numbers were instituted as a result of landowner’s complaints.
They haven’t worked. The wrong elk are being killed and numbers are still increasing in areas with access limited by private landowners.

Is the solution to solve a problem doing even more of the same thing because landowners are still complaining?

I think the solution is for hunters to stand together and demand that FWP does what’s right for wildlife and let landowners work together to solve the access issue.

Killing public land elk that aren’t causing problems to alleviate landowner complaints is a serious dereliction of the responsibility entrusted to FWP.

 

[BuzzH]

I don't necessarily disagree with you Buzz. The problem is that group/party is in power now and their perception is different.

Yeah, another good point, perception and reality never intersect...ever.

Would be nice to see those representing wildlife, deal in facts, reality, and common sense in Montana.

 

[brocksw]

To add to Buzz’s point Shoulder seasons and all the reduction of elk numbers were instituted as a result of landowner’s complaints.
They haven’t worked. The wrong elk are being killed and numbers are still increasing in areas with access limited by private landowners.

Is the solution to solve a problem doing even more of the same thing because landowners are still complaining?

I think the solution is for hunters to stand together and demand that FWP does what’s right for wildlife and let landowners work together to solve the access issue.

Killing public land elk that aren’t causing problems to alleviate landowner complaints is a serious dereliction of the responsibility entrusted to FWP.

If that's the case it should be quantifiable and provable. Accumulate that data, highlight the argument you're making, submit that for comment get it to every major news publication in the state, so if GG and worsech go against their own data, at the very least everyone in MT will know about it.

 

[BuzzH]

If that's the case it should be quantifiable and provable. Accumulate that data, highlight the argument you're making, submit that for comment get it to every major news publication in the state, so if GG and worsech go against their own data, at the very least everyone in MT will know about it.

Tough to quantify when the FWP doesn't accumulate data...harvest reporting doesn't happen.

Another thing that we were promised with adoption of shoulder seasons....sound data. Remember, the first handful of shoulder season's were on a trial basis, where the FWP promised to provide analysis on the first seasons. What happened to that? I never saw anything, except expanding shoulder seasons to 44 units before we had any information on the initial units.

Go try to find that data, probably hiding somewhere under the list of things LO's lost under the last administration.

 

[brocksw]

Tough to quantify when the FWP doesn't accumulate data...harvest reporting doesn't happen.

Another thing that we were promised with adoption of shoulder seasons....sound data. Remember, the first handful of shoulder season's were on a trial basis, where the FWP promised to provide analysis on the first seasons. What happened to that? I never saw anything, except expanding shoulder seasons to 44 units before we had any information on the initial units.

Go try to find that data, probably hiding somewhere under the list of things LO's lost under the last administration.

Sounds like another relevant public comment and issue to push to the newspapers. Can't even blame GG or worsech for this one either?

Maybe a public information request to the FWP would be worthwhile.

 

[tjones]

I will say it again, the best luck our group ever had getting through proposals that made sense to hunters was to work with the bio BEFORE the proposals were due. This worked on HD270, HD261 and HD262 mule deer and a lot of other tentatives that became seasons.

Lots of years ago we sat back and waited to see what FWP proposed and then reacted in a host of ways. Mostly we got the "Thanks for your comments" and that was the end.

Hank took the option for preliminary working with bios way. We are going to get what ever they serve up. Just like shoulder seasons. Some of the proposals might make some sense. Many won't.

This time won't be any different. We have no choice but to see what they come up with and mostly that will become the new Montana. Waiting to see the proposals was never a good idea and it isn't now. Difference is now we have no choice. These proposals will have a ton of FWP work into them by the time the public sees them. That is the very reason changing them will be difficult.

 

[tjones]

If that's the case it should be quantifiable and provable. Accumulate that data, highlight the argument you're making, submit that for comment get it to every major news publication in the state, so if GG and worsech go against their own data, at the very least everyone in MT will know about it.

Tried many times by many folks.

 

[Gerald Martin]

Buzz beat me to the punch.

How do you quantity redistribution of elk?

FWP only counts the total amount of elk observed, not where they live.

 

[BuzzH]

Sounds like another relevant public comment and issue to push to the newspapers. Can't even blame GG or worsech for this one either?

Maybe a public information request to the FWP would be worthwhile.

Yeah, its all about just not being blamed for things...not about asking relevant questions before you push an agenda. Or heaven forbid, actually working for wildlife and management.

One would like to think, a person charged with running a State, and another charged with management of wildlife...would ask his own department for some information on whether or not shoulder seasons are accomplishing goals before recommending more. In particular when they want to expand them to public land. But, what do I know?

Plus, if they had data that supported or showed that the shoulder seasons were working, they'd be shoving that in everyone's face.

They aren't doing that, so....let me go out on the ragged, hairy edge and say that either the data doesn't exist (most likely), or it isn't painting the picture they want.

 

[brocksw]

To add to Buzz’s point Shoulder seasons and all the reduction of elk numbers were instituted as a result of landowner’s complaints.
They haven’t worked. The wrong elk are being killed and numbers are still increasing in areas with access limited by private landowners.

Then how do you know this?

 

[shoots-straight]

Our only tool left, at this time, is the Initiative process. How, and what we come up to combat this mess hasn't been debated. YET!