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

[Ben Lamb]

Did I miss something? We had all this resistance but the end result was almost the same. A ball of crap packaged a little different

They switched things up and at the last minute, Tabor & Kujala crafted this "proposal." It is worse than what was there before and it will be vigorously opposed. As folks are diving into the new tentatives (Is this version 4 or 5? I've lost track), it will be critical to maintain that opposition and show up again on February 4th.

The commission listened and reacted. They are new at this, so I give them a pass (with a couple of exceptions) that they are trying to get something accomplished that takes into account all voices.

Yesterday was a victory for the grassroots beyond simply getting the commission to pull a crazy Ivan. You showed up in force and held firm when the odds were stacked against you.

This is how we win - honest intent, kind - but firm - opposition to bad ideas.

The coalition has been flooded with donations & signups. Over 450 people have signed up already to be a part of this effort over the next few years. Let's double that. Thank you all who have put in your time, effort, money and energy to this effort.

As for Matt Rinella's comment, I'd tell him the same thing I tell you folks, but I say that because I want you to have the most impact for your statements. Although my base instincts are w/ Snoop.

 

[Gerald Martin]

As for Matt Rinella's comment, I'd tell him the same thing I tell you folks, but I say that because I want you to have the most impact for your statements. Although my base instincts are w/ Snoop.

View attachment 205521

It certainly doesn’t hurt to have a couple bulldogs back behind the courtesy and decorum.

Especially if one has great hair. Looking @Schaaf here.

 

[Ben Lamb]

It certainly doesn’t hurt to have a couple bulldogs back behind the courtesy and decorum.

Especially if one has great hair. Looking @Schaaf here.

More like a donkey w/ a harelip, but yeah.

 

[Schaaf]

More like a donkey w/ a harelip, but yeah.

Should have left you on the shores of Peck when I had the chance.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Should have left you on the shores of Peck when I had the chance.

 

[rogerthat]

They switched things up and at the last minute, Tabor & Kujala crafted this "proposal." It is worse than what was there before and it will be vigorously opposed. As folks are diving into the new tentatives (Is this version 4 or 5? I've lost track), it will be critical to maintain that opposition and show up again on February 4th.

The commission listened and reacted. They are new at this, so I give them a pass (with a couple of exceptions) that they are trying to get something accomplished that takes into account all voices.

Yesterday was a victory for the grassroots beyond simply getting the commission to pull a crazy Ivan. You showed up in force and held firm when the odds were stacked against you.

This is how we win - honest intent, kind - but firm - opposition to bad ideas.

The coalition has been flooded with donations & signups. Over 450 people have signed up already to be a part of this effort over the next few years. Let's double that. Thank you all who have put in your time, effort, money and energy to this effort.

As for Matt Rinella's comment, I'd tell him the same thing I tell you folks, but I say that because I want you to have the most impact for your statements. Although my base instincts are w/ Snoop.

View attachment 205521

Regarding the replacement of the 900 tags (which originally I thought should have been a fairly easy simplification item) if this is the best the FWP and commission can propose than status quo is better and should be preserved. I think we all need to be clear on that point since making positive changes at this stage seems fairly complicated and unlikely.

I suspect public comment won't make this clear and we are looking at next years season regs with record number of archers on public land and elk even more scarce on public in these units. In the end, the resource lost, the public hunter lost, and Montana lost. Beaten by inarguably the most inept, out of touch (probably dumbest)director in my lifetime and a commission that is short on understanding, knowledge, and care.

 

[Deleted member 20812]

Beaten by inarguably the most inept, out of touch (probably dumbest)director in my lifetime and a commission that is short on understanding, knowledge, and care.

He’s doing exactly what he was appointed to do.

I keep hoping at some point public land hunters in MT will realize when you want to all, you really aren’t getting that. Getting to hunt in multiple districts for 11 weeks is a big part of today’s problem. Can’t expect FWP to manage around that, even if they did buck the political system.

 

[300stw]

seems we have the F*** up and move up policy taking place in the world of politics,,,,

 

[Sytes]

He’s doing exactly what he was appointed to do

I had a neutral / hopeful position about him though it's absolutely inarguably an appointed position of our political spectrum.
UPOM, etc now that their pendulum swing / to use another's term, wrecking ball has reached a new swing extent.

 

[rogerthat]

He’s doing exactly what he was appointed to do.

I keep hoping at some point public land hunters in MT will realize when you want to all, you really aren’t getting that. Getting to hunt in multiple districts for 11 weeks is a big part of today’s problem. Can’t expect FWP to manage around that, even if they did buck the political system.

I second the 11 weeks in multiple districts being a big part of the problem.

 

[antlerradar]

I've heard of landowners in SE MT not being able to hunt their own land because they've leased it to an outfitter. So they end up getting a couple odd days when clients aren't in there or at the end of the season. Not trying to generalize but I think it needs to be explicit that LO tags aren't good on public land.

That sounds like an issue between outfitter and landowner. There is a reason I do not lease.

 

[antlerradar]

I know in a lot of districts someone that owns 640 acres of non elk inhabited country still can apply landowner preference but hunts solely on public land.

I think that this is an enforcement issue with FWP. The requirements for landowner preference clearly state that the 640 acres must be used by elk.

 

[MNElkNut]

I wonder if it would be a good idea to condense the talking points around science. When the commission or legislature hears testimony that is anecdotal from either side, they naturally decide whether the person is correct or not based on how well they articulate their point. Some of the....less than truthful....testimony can come across as factual if it is articulated in a smooth, confident manner. Conversely, some of the truthful testimony can seem outlandish simply based on how smooth the speaker is. And vice versa.

Maybe a listing (bullet points?) of the facts/science behind the opposition to the next bad proposal (yes, I fear there will be a "next" bad proposal), will help some coalesce their thoughts and provide science-based rebuttal before testifying.

Just a random thought I had.

 

[antlerradar]

I will say that your proposed landowner tag alteration would gain my support- especially with the caveat that the tag stays in the immediate family and is not transferred. I would like it even more if going in to the application period, you had to name which family member(s) would be hunting the tag prior to applying.

This is how landowner preference works currently, except a full time employee to is also eligible for the landowner draw.

 

[rogerthat]

I wonder if it would be a good idea to condense the talking points around science. When the commission or legislature hears testimony that is anecdotal from either side, they naturally decide whether the person is correct or not based on how well they articulate their point. Some of the....less than truthful....testimony can come across as factual if it is articulated in a smooth, confident manner. Conversely, some of the truthful testimony can seem outlandish simply based on how smooth the speaker is. And vice versa.

Maybe a listing (bullet points?) of the facts/science behind the opposition to the next bad proposal (yes, I fear there will be a "next" bad proposal), will help some coalesce their thoughts and provide science-based rebuttal before testifying.

Just a random thought I had.

Your In luck!! The commission moved forward the “next” bad proposal already

 

[sacountry]

It certainly doesn’t hurt to have a couple bulldogs back behind the courtesy and decorum.

Especially if one has great hair. Looking @Schaaf here.

Quit being so humble @Gerald Martin . Mind you @Schaaf was on some low speed, 1.5 Mb DSL connection way out there in Glasgow. Heck my hair would look that good too if it was all pixelated like his.

 

[Schaaf]

Quit being so humble @Gerald Martin . Mind you @Schaaf was on some low speed, 1.5 Mb DSL connection way out there in Glasgow. Heck my hair would look that good too if it was all pixelated like his.

Suavé Pro Staff

 

[Ben Lamb]

Maybe @Schaaf is born with it,

Maybe it's Maybelline.

 

[Gerald Martin]

Maybe @Schaaf is born with it,

Maybe it's Maybelline.

Does he or doesn’t he?

 

[Southern Elk]

Head and Shoulders is where the moneys at. Maybe you could do a commercial for “Shoulder” seasons.