They don’t have to sell anything, they will just do it
its important to note that the bios are being told they have to support and present these proposals as their own. Not sure if that’s been mentioned yet but I find that very disturbing.
MT - Changes in Hunting Regs/Units/Seasons coming this month
- Thread starter Big Fin
- Start date
They don’t have to sell anything, they will just do it
its important to note that the bios are being told they have to support and present these proposals as their own. Not sure if that’s been mentioned yet but I find that very disturbing.
Straight Arrow
Well-known member
Shoulder seasons de javu!
SAJ-99
Well-known member
The hard part is we don't even know what the proposals are. We have links to send comments, but don't know what we are commenting on yet. That said, if you want to play the political game, we need to avoid the "we need it like it was in the 90's" or, at a minimum, "keep it like it is". Evolution in these things is natural given the population increases and changing landowner dynamics. We all suggest things from a point of self-interest, but that doesn't end in a positive result. Other states don't seem to have the problems MT has. It's sad. We need to either figure out what cards we have to play (and what we can accept) or simply get ready to bend over and take it...again.
antlerradar
Well-known member
Another thing that many of these landowners may not have thought of is what happens 10,000 NR and many thousand more residents shift to there units because they are tired to dealing with Grizzlies, wolves, steep mountains and low elk numbers in many general units . In a way this seems like FWP is throwing in the towel on much of western MT and opening up other places to appease the masses.
Other states largely avoided the kind of political fomentation that MT has in terms of wildlife management. Idaho is catching up and CO is likely to jump the shark from the other direction. Each state has their own issues, but in MT there's a special mix of willful ignorance, resistance to any change, long-standing disagreements over privatization, hurt feelings on the 08 23 bundled LE permits for the break and constant drumbeat from political groups like UPOM in terms of privatization (and the ensuing donations from UPOM funders like the Wilk's Brothers). That's why every session, the DC beltway crowd send out nasty letters from the green decoy campaign and national groups with ties to one political party try to undermine legitimate local sportsmen's groups for their corporate style management philosophy. MT is a massive prize to the privateers. Even more so since game farms were eliminated.
But here's what I'd tell folks about these meetings:
FWP is holding listening sessions on the following dates, in the following towns. Now, more than ever, your voice and attention are needed to help ensure the future of Montana's hunting heritage. This heritage is based on the concept that wildlife belong to no-one, and are managed for all. There are rumors that big changes are coming, and this opportunity near you presents an opportunity to listen to what those changes may be, and comment on them. It also gives you a chance to talk directly to the director and deputy director to let them hear your thoughts on what Montana's future for hunting and fishing should look like.
Montanans spend their time, money and energy out doors. They stand up for wildlife and for the future of hunting and fishing. Now is the time to do that once again.
El Jason
Well-known member
This is a very good synopsis.
Schaaf
Well-known member
If there is one, this is the hill to die on. Buckle up for a bumpy few months.
T
timmy
Guest
If that is true the biologists need to come forward that is simply corrupt. Somebody at the fish and game needs to stand up and at minimum tell us what is about to happen. This is some shady BS.
They are/were unionized; I’m surprised we don’t here more if it’s things they truly object to. Maybe they all drink the kool aid when they accept the job?
I’ve spoke with some WYGF employees about things they deal with or are expected to do and was blown away
Gerald Martin
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2009
- Messages
- 9,643
T
timmy
Guest
From when I’ve talked to some of them they are drinking the kool-aid or simply don’t have a clue.
X13
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2017
- Messages
- 1,831
Maybe I missed it as I fast forwarded through the pages to spare myself from the "Montana is a sportsman's paradise" vs "It's a has-been desolate wasteland" argument.... do we have any idea what the changes will be?
Irrelevant
Well-known member
Because no one seems to have directly pointed it out, the back and forth on here in regards to MT quality seems to be a matter of shifting baselines. Those in the know lament the loss, the rest are still stoked at what's left. I can assure you, MT could implement whatever it wants to terms of wildlife eradication and it would still look like paradise compared to WA.
4-pnt bucks? You mean there is a place with public land, where I guy might actually see a 4-pnt buck? Somewhere that has more than just a couple of forkies? Sign me up!
4-pnt bucks? You mean there is a place with public land, where I guy might actually see a 4-pnt buck? Somewhere that has more than just a couple of forkies? Sign me up!
Under the auspices of regulation simplification, there is a push to eliminate some limited entry permits and districts and go to a more simplistic approach to killing animals versus the fine-scale approach to killing animals in the past, but the consequences are pretty dire given the rumor mill of top-down dictates and the fact that sportsmen stopped a lot of the privatization effort the second floor and legislature wanted.
There's also a pretty strange turn in that field staff seem to have been asked to come up with proposals without public input, and with the understanding that they will have to stand up and justify the elimination of permits, which internal documents state biologists & sportsmen & women prefer, for elk b licenses with high quotas regardless of elk populations or distribution.
The simplification attempts are carry-overs from Martha William's tenure although we don't know what's changed on the fine-scale side of things unless we get the internal documentation on the last 2 years from this working group, which anyone can request through a Freedom of Information Act request.
There's a lot of conjecture right now as to motivation, and folks who are very trustworthy are expressing deep concerns based on conversations they've had with staff, about the direction this will head once it leaves the biologists hands and is sent up the chain. It's important to not over-react right now or during the open houses and let FWP present what they're thinking. No need to go MSM pundit (Maddow/Carlson) on FWP until they deserve the caps lock and pointy finger of righteous anger.
It's also important for hunters to band together and decide what they want hunting to look like in MT by developing a set of priorities, policies and legislation that would deliver on those desires. The longer people let politicians do this work for them, the worse the outcomes become.
kwyeewyk
Well-known member
Dude WA is full of slammers, I've killed 4 4-pnts in the last 10 years, 5 points if you count 1 in eye guards! The biggest was about 17 inches wide, and every one of them would have been dead when they walked over the next ridge if I hadn't killed them.
MT is on the road to being like WA, just further behind in population, but start giving multiple tags to all the landowners and they'll compensate for the population pretty quick.
Irrelevant
Well-known member
Oh yes, my daughter and I killed a dandy 3-pnt opening day, it was the 4th legal buck we saw that day, all the others got killed before we could kill them...
Gerald Martin
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2009
- Messages
- 9,643
This could never happen in MT…
.Shifting slightly to a different point in the same vein of thought, I can’t comprehend the sentiment that has been expressed several times by people who say Montanans should experience hunting in a state with really bad hunting so we can appreciate what we have.
That’s kind of the whole point of why so many on this thread are so salty. Many of us have experienced what passes for “opportunity” in other states. We don’t want it here. That’s the reason so many hunters from states with worse management come to MT.
A guy thrilled with shooting a 3 1/2 year old mule deer that scores 130” because he’s only seen 1 1/2” year old spikes and forkies in his home state isn’t exactly the standard that responsible game mangers should be setting for themselves.
The attitude among some mangers that MT will always sell out their tags and there will be people waiting in line because their states are worse is terrible, especially when it comes from the top.
I don’t expect the hunters who don’t know any better to have higher expectations. That’s the responsibility of the professionals we hire to make the best biological decisions they can for the health of wildlife populations.
^^^SPOT-ON!!
and as far as the "Regional visits" the FWP management team is doing....it's just to placate the public in one hand while catering to the large landowners of the State in the other.
brownbear932008
Well-known member
I think we all know this answer. If this is the plan it is one of those ask for the moon and settle for the stars plans that is so common these days.
Gerald Martin
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2009
- Messages
- 9,643
Thanks for the info @Randy11.
Similar threads
