antlerradar
Well-known member
I don't think you would even have to cut that deep.
MT - Changes in Hunting Regs/Units/Seasons coming this month
- Thread starter Big Fin
- Start date
Gerald Martin
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2009
- Messages
- 9,643
The reality of FWP management policies for deer and elk in 2021 is that FWP is being used as a top down directed political tool with the intention of currying favor and repaying political support.
Guess what folks, the average public land hunter is not the targeted audience for that favor to be garnered from. Someone has the ear of those in charge but it’s not us. We have been out lobbied, out complained, out organized and in many cases it has been with the willing acceptance of those of us who support this administration’s party on other issues and don’t realize that you can disagree and lobby against policies that hurt you and your family’s interests.
Guess what folks, the average public land hunter is not the targeted audience for that favor to be garnered from. Someone has the ear of those in charge but it’s not us. We have been out lobbied, out complained, out organized and in many cases it has been with the willing acceptance of those of us who support this administration’s party on other issues and don’t realize that you can disagree and lobby against policies that hurt you and your family’s interests.
Last edited:
huntandfly
Well-known member
I am not a resident of MT and therefore can apply no pressure as a voter. Im sorry if this is information that you all have provided before, but what is the best way for a non-resident to have any type of involvement in pushing back against these types of changes being generated at the state government level?
Gerald Martin
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2009
- Messages
- 9,643
Sorry, I was typing while Big Fin was posting.
Please don’t lock this thread. It’s a great illustration of the passion that exists and different experiences and expectations that are the Montana hunting experience. It’s worth a few hurt feelings to have the truth expressed.
I am hoping some more info comes out.
Please don’t lock this thread. It’s a great illustration of the passion that exists and different experiences and expectations that are the Montana hunting experience. It’s worth a few hurt feelings to have the truth expressed.
I am hoping some more info comes out.
Those are nice deer, some of these guys are pretty spoiled from the good old days of Montana. They need to hunt some other crappy states to get a better perspective on how good they have it. It’s nothing like it was in the 80’s etc. but it’s still pretty damn good. The problem is too many new resident hunters in most of the better western states. None of the F&G departments know what to do. Millions of people pouring in because they want to hunt and fish, they are killing the very reason they are moving to Idaho and Montana especially.
Great points.
And if I had to guess, the end result of a lot of this is that might go unnoticed will be consolidation of more power to Helena and reduced influence at the seven Regional offices where the field staff is out interacting with the public, customers as we call them in the business world. We have plenty of examples to see how well that worked out for the public hunter.
antlerradar
Well-known member
I haven't seen the proposed policies but I gather from reading this thread the that doing away with many of the limited entry elk units is at the top. The driving force behind this is landowners that have difficulty getting tags for themselves and friend and clients that want to shoot the big 350+ bulls on there land.
I predict that if the limited entry units are changed to OTC the landowners will face some unintended consequences. Hunting may be great for a few years, but I predict that in a few years those same landowners will find that sub 300 bulls are the new normal and a bull better than 320 is and exception. Elk travel a long ways, In SE Montana bulls are frequently moving 10 miles or more in a matter of weeks. When you have soon to be more than 12 weeks of hunting season there is very little chance that a bull will live to 6 or 7 with out spending a fair amount of time some were that he will be in danger of getting shot. Maybe it will be by the lucky hunter that just happens to be on the right state section at the right time, or it could be on the neighboring landowner's property that is hunted by family and friends every weekend. Only the very biggest landowners will stand a chance at growing big bulls.
I predict that if the limited entry units are changed to OTC the landowners will face some unintended consequences. Hunting may be great for a few years, but I predict that in a few years those same landowners will find that sub 300 bulls are the new normal and a bull better than 320 is and exception. Elk travel a long ways, In SE Montana bulls are frequently moving 10 miles or more in a matter of weeks. When you have soon to be more than 12 weeks of hunting season there is very little chance that a bull will live to 6 or 7 with out spending a fair amount of time some were that he will be in danger of getting shot. Maybe it will be by the lucky hunter that just happens to be on the right state section at the right time, or it could be on the neighboring landowner's property that is hunted by family and friends every weekend. Only the very biggest landowners will stand a chance at growing big bulls.
Last edited:
rogerthat
Well-known member
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2015
- Messages
- 3,629
This exactly correct but I will add that 90% of the hunting pressure will be on the public land essentially rendering these lands elk less. Eastern MT lacks the thick cover and topography on public land to provide elk security with general hunting pressure. In fact most of the limited quota elk units in Montana are this way. That’s one reason they were limited quota.
SAJ-99
Well-known member
General question for discussion, What is better (or worse), elimination of LE status on units or landowner tags? Seems to me I would rather give some version of landowners tag, though it turns my stomach to type that. I realize there would have to be some limitations, but the resource is better off if the landowners have skin in the game.
antlerradar
Well-known member
I agree, The hunters that kill elk on the public land will for the most part the lucky hunter that happens to be in the right place when an elk happens to stray from private. Elk that spend most of there lives on public will be few and far between.
Gerald Martin
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2009
- Messages
- 9,643
Landowners already have skin in the game. They already have preference for LE tags.
The only version of Landowner Tag that will satisfy people pushing for a transferable tag is a unit wide tag that can be sold as a commodity.
It might start as something else but it will morph into that.
There are many landowners who are good stewards of wildlife in that wildlife prefer the habitat on their property because of the food and security it offers. They understand that costs accompany benefits.
Many of them have neighbors who view elk and deer as only costing them money and will tolerate them only to the extent that they add value to their bottom line. They aren’t concerned about the consequences of management policies beyond the land they own. They will accept profit or reduction of wildlife to the point they don’t feel the costs of having wildlife. They are not concerned about the indirect consequences of policies that they think are beneficial to them.
The attitude of the second group I have described is what is steering the management proposals we have seen coming from the legislature and from the director of FWP.
Since the night crew grew the thread, here's the list of open houses again:
Addicting
Well-known member
Anytime anyone brings up Montana and management there are a few of you on this forum that just go nuts and kicking hornets nest. It’s almost like a Pavlovian dog trick.
If you are a non-resident who wishes to comment, make sure you send those thoughts to the Director's office, the commission and the Governor's office. Non-resident hunters make up 70% of FWP's budget. That's a voice that deserves consideration when it comes to changes in LE permits, especially if you're thousands deep into points, etc.
Polite, courteous and pointed comments carry a lot more weight than caps lock & spit.
Polite, courteous and pointed comments carry a lot more weight than caps lock & spit.
BuzzH
Well-known member
There is no management and the hornets nest needs more than a kick.
SAJ-99
Well-known member
It’s because they care.
huntandfly
Well-known member
Is the expectation that our first real look at the proposed changes will be the 23rd after the Missoula meeting?
Addicting
Well-known member
If they really cared they would reread Randy’s first post and keep the comments civil and to his question. Not run a muck with tangents and be nasty to each other. We will never fix anything with bickering amongst ourselves.
T
tjones
Guest
I think the open houses will be an attempt to sell what is coming. Bios and the regions have until 9/1 to get proposals to the Wildlife Division.
I don't think the public will see any specific proposals until mid to late Sept.
Last edited by a moderator:
I'm sure that the friends of those in power are organizing turnout now, and will hope to populate these meetings with the talking points that some would like to hear. If everyone reaches out to 5-10 friends who share concerns about the future of wildlife management in MT, and asks them to come, even at 10% success, you've just doubled your effectiveness.
Rod & Gun Clubs hopefully are pushing their members to attend and voice concerns and offer suggestions relative to new season structures and possible efforts to improve management as well. Statewide groups should be hitting their membership hard on turn out.
This is when the North American Model should be working for the resident hunter as well as the non-resident. While FWP doesn't need to give any weight to public comment, the reality is that the squeakiest wheel will get the press and dominate the narrative, that puts political pressure on the Governor's office to either abandon bad ideas, or double down on them.
We hate political management of wildlife, yet that's the field we are standing on today. Time to play that game.
Similar threads
