MT Legislature - Week 5

[Lawnboy]

Sorry I'm a bit ignorant but what does this mean?

HB 361 - Requiring the issuance of archery only elk permits at 2007 levels
Amended to to capture all districts included in 2008 seasonal rule
Passed 11-9

 

[shoots-straight]

The commission ruled in 2008. This bill over-turns anything they did then. It will also make it impossible for the commission to enact any limited entry areas for archery unless the populations fall below 70% of the socially acceptable low numbers they gave out. So unless the Breaks EMU fell to 1400 or less, then it's open season. Be very careful for what you wish for.

 

[wingman1]

Sorry I'm a bit ignorant but what does this mean?

HB 361 - Requiring the issuance of archery only elk permits at 2007 levels
Amended to to capture all districts included in 2008 seasonal rule
Passed 11-9

Are you thinking what I'm thinking?

 

[sweetnectar]

I'm with Lawnboy on this one. Seems to be a sore spot with me when you throw biology out the window and start taking away hunting opportunities by limiting archery tags. I also understand Ben Lambs concerns about having the legislature making decisions but the fact of the matter in this case is FWP ignored biology and started taking away hunting opportunities from all hunters. It is sad that the legislature has to put them in check. I think this bill will pass with no problems.

 

[Lawnboy]

The commission ruled in 2008. This bill over-turns anything they did then. It will also make it impossible for the commission to enact any limited entry areas for archery unless the populations fall below 70% of the socially acceptable low numbers they gave out. So unless the Breaks EMU fell to 1400 or less, then it's open season. Be very careful for what you wish for.

SS, I'm not doing jumping jacks because it got defeated. Maybe this was an important and viable decision for the Breaks area and possibly others. My problem was the giant "blanketing" they did on other districts that are a totally different dynamic than the Breaks. I never saw any studies done in regards to the other areas they decided to impose this on. I have a hard time believing that the commission is making decisions based on biology and hunter interest. Some stuff makes sense and others your wondering who's slipping them some extra goodies to make a decision.
I don't hunt the Breaks and maybe this is bad for that area but I believe it is good for the areas I hunt.
Why can't they do allocations based on needs for each district?Rather than all or nothing like just happened.

 

[shoots-straight]

I'm with Lawnboy on this one. Seems to be a sore spot with me when you throw biology out the window and start taking away hunting opportunities by limiting archery tags. I also understand Ben Lambs concerns about having the legislature making decisions but the fact of the matter in this case is FWP ignored biology and started taking away hunting opportunities from all hunters. It is sad that the legislature has to put them in check. I think this bill will pass with no problems.

I'll say it again, I have no dog in this fight. I'm just pointing chit out. It helps my areas to NOT have limited entry. More NR guys go east than west. That said, I'll ask, what science was used to limit the elk population objective,in that EMU, to 2000 head?

The only opportunity it took away, was the chance at to apply for a limited entry area, then apply for the the archery as 2ND, or 3rd choice. It took opportunity, away from the NR archery hunter. They had to hunt some where else. So I saw it as a win.

I think they saw the proliferation of leasing and wanted to do something positive for Montana hunters. It seems they didn't take all scenarios in to account. Once this is done, by the legislature, it'll take the legislature to undo it. That's why it nonsense. If the commission does it, you can propose to modify it or do away with it. I think that would be easier. I think the system is in place to deal with Fish & Game rules. The Legislature is taking up valuable time, that could be dealt with by another entity.

 

[Lawnboy]

Not trying to argue with you as I really don't have a firm grasp as to whole process both legislative or through the FWP commission. I appreciate yours and others on here that seem to be pro active in understanding and fighting issues. I can see the downside with legislatures making decisions or "overthrowing" the FWP. They aren't biologist but it seems that even the biologists opinions are not even considered with what the commission does.

You mentioned that if it stays with the commission then they can make changes but once it goes to the legislature it can only be changed by the legislature. What's your honest opinion of the current commissions ability to see the error in a decision they've made and change it? Like I said I'm not trying to be smart just wondering what you're feel of them is? Have they made decisions in the Bitteroot that don't seem to make much sense and do you think they will reverse them before it's too late?

Fin you can chime in too. I value your opinion as well on these type of issues.

 

[shoots-straight]

The first thing you have to remember, is the commission has to abide by the laws the legislature passes. The Director answers only to the Governor. In the Root, a few of us old timers could see the writing on the wall years ago. We complained to the local Bio at the time, that if he continued with his liberal seasons, and protection of predators that our elk herds would crash. He shrugged us off, time and again. The Bio we had wasn't a hunter. He was a company man, and the mandate from the legislature was to reduce elk, and by god he got it done.

The Bios do the groundwork, if they want too, and they have the biggest input. The Dept. invented what is called the "ELK WORKING GROUP", (they have other working groups now too) to give input to MTFW&PS. The Bio for the area is basically the chairman of the committee. BTW, this was designed to circumvent our clubs input IMO because we were becoming a pain in the arse. This "GROUP" is made up of one of our members, and a SCI member, then a couple of Ranchers, and some business men. They would meet once a month and give recommendations to FW&P's and this was included in the Tentative process, for the commission to approve. As a club, we would also recommend things to FW&P's but they never got to the commission, because politics were played at the local level with our Bio, and this group. Anyway we threatened to walk from the group because it was evident that the elk were being wiped out, and the commission wasn't hearing our voice's. We also started going directly to the commission. Letting them know what was going on over here. This took about 4 years of work to figure out, and plan a strategy. The Bio decided to move up north (Poor Drahthaar). So we asked if we could be part of the process to pick a new Bio. The head of MTFW&P's agreed, and so we had a member sit in on the interview process. Our main concern was that the Bio was a hunter. I think only one was, and it was Craig Jourdonnais. He has been our Bio sense then, and we love him. (Not in a physical way). Things are looking better here now, and we might get this thing turned around, with MTFW&PS help. We have stopped a lot of the liberal seasons here, started protecting the mule deer better, and are working with MTFW&PS to enact the 10j rule to remove some wolves. Finally got the lion quotas back to where they belonged, and are working to liberalize the bear seasons. (We are hopefull that we get the go ahead to remove some wolves soon) MTFW&PS did a ton of work for us on the 10j. We owe Craig a big debt of gratitude for all the work he has done for us.

Relationships are everything here. If it's not working, don't sit on the sidelines and take it. Get after the commission, if your local Bios not responsive. Get involved in your local sportsman's club. It's a big state and there's a lot of things the commissioners aren't aware of. The process is there to use if you get involved. When it goes to the legislature, it's usually a special interest group that writing the law to suit them. (Outfitters, Ranchers, Farmers, etc)

You start with taking your concern to the local Bio, then if that fails, you take it to the region head. If that doesn't get any consideration, check to see if you have a local "Elk Working Group" and sit in on the meetings. You have the right to talk, and say your piece. It really helps if you representing a sportsmans group. Then you might try you local commissioner in your region. After that write the director, and then the Governor. We have done all the above.
If your Bio, has an agenda and isn't concerned about what hunters think, then you could be in trouble.
The thing is, when the legislature makes a F&G law, it's there, and you have to live by it, for what could be forever. The only constant with wildlife is it's always changing. So I don't want F&G laws written by the legislature.

I hope I helped a little.

 

[Big Fin]

Fin you can chime in too. I value your opinion as well on these type of issues.

Two points from my perspective, and they will seem contradictory, which is why I have not chimed in until now. And these comments are not pointed at you, or anyone in particular, as I know you and others did testify at the public hearing against these 23 units being included.

First, the commission did something thad ZERO public support, as it relates to the 23 units outside the Breaks. I attended two of the public hearings and not one person was in favor of restricting the other 23 units. But, the commission did it anyhow, under the premise of conisistency. Stupid, just plain stupid.

It has been a fiasco since then, and they refuse the change their position. But, Commissioners come and go, and when a new governor is elected in 2012, we will see big changes in the Commission, maybe good and maybe bad.

So, in frustration, some people get a sypathetic legislator to carry a bill for them to address an issue that is a commission issue. Given the composition in the current legislature you can probably get someone to carry a bill to seceed from the Union or convert to communism, as screwed up as things are in Helena.

The legilsator introduces the bill, which in effect takes powers away from the commission and in effect, nueters the commission and the process by which game management has happened in Montana for 75 years.

Do we really want the legilsature mingling in fish and game issues, any more than they currently do? In this session, there have been almost 200 bills related to F&G issues, and most everyone of them are a disaster. This post probably reflect my frustration of having to send emails or testify against most of them.

I don't want the legislature messing with fish and game issues. Anyone who does, needs a better understanding of how the process works in Montana, and in most states. And anyone who does, obviously spends little time talking to legislators about fish and game issues, or they would realize how far out of their league most of these legislators are on those topics.

The benefit of them fixing the 23 units, is not enough to offset the growing precedent of legislating biology (though this particular decision was not biological). It has more costs than benefit.

Now the part that some guys aren't going to like. How much time have those who dislike this decision spent attenting commission meetings, writing to their commissioners, attending MBA meetings, calling commissioners, and interacting with department leadership about the topic? My guess would be very close to NONE.

I have been at a lot of those meetings and hearings, and whenever the topic is discussed, the commissioners say that they have heard very little about it, so they don't see it as a problem. Even when they decide to talk about it, the only group there to speak is the Montana Bowhunters Association.

If it is this big of a deal, where the hell is everyone when the commission meetings are going on? They do listen to people. They may not decide in your favor, but in my experience that process is the best way to get change. It may take a couple years, but if your position is well supported and thought out, eventually you will prevail.

Instead, we have poeple bitching and moaning in the coffee shops, complaining to any of their hunting buddies who will listen, but when it comes time to work with the process we have had for 75 years, they don't say or do crap. Hard to feel sorry when people who don't want to be invovled in the established process feel slighted because things didn't go their way.

And it is further disappointing to watch the people who choose not to be involved, then go to their local legislator, who often doesn't know a fisher from a fishing pole, with their pet issue. In the process, helping further erode the process by which we have attained some pretty damn good hunting opportunities in this state.

The only two groups I know of who have been involved in this process is MBA and UPOM. And I still cannot decipher whether MBA is officially against or for it, and I am a member. UPOM is definitely against it, but they are against anything the Commission does.

If the commission thought this was going to slow leasing and increase resident opportunity, they were drinking/smoking something. It has done nothing for that process, other than piss off a lot of landowners and make life more difficult. No one I know will support the commission on this one.

Personally, I think the commission is wrong on this one, and am more than willing to help with any group looking for change. But, I am not willing to upset the process of wildlife management that has made Montana one of the best hunting states in the west, by finding sypathetic legislators trying to make a name for themselves by becoming quasi-FWP commissioners via their legislative powers.

Summary - If you don't like it, do something about it within the process we have. If you don't do something about it, it must not be that important to you. Keep the legislature's hand out of it. What you get today from a legislator will most often be offset by some give away or subsidy they will provide contrary to your interest, someday down the road.

Do we really want the Legislature or Congress managing wildlife and wildlife policy? I don't, even if they throw me a crumb today.

 

[sweetnectar]

Sounds like the FWP commisioners screwed the hunters and will now be screwed back by the people via the legislature.
It drives me nuts when we spend all this money to increase hunter access and then take away hunting opportunities by limiting tag numbers that don't even reflect biology, game numbers, etc. I'm glad the people are trying to put FWP's commisioners straight but like SS says....once on the books it takes the legislature to get rid of it. There is no doubt that the commisioners made a mistake on this one and now this has got to happen.

 

[Ben Lamb]

The biological argument gets overblown, IMO. There's plenty of harvest opportunity on antlerless in the areas, if we're truly talking about reducing the herd.

The problem is two fold: Archers have increased from about 10,000 people in 2000 to over 40,000 in 2010 (IIRC). That leads to a huge increase on trophy quality areas like the breaks, etc. Limiting the tags was an attempt to get at social issues. The biology of over objective elk herds is easy. To reduce, shoot cows. To get to cows, more land needs to be opened up when herds get on closed ranches, and nobody can get to them. Antlerless harvest is liberal in the area. Issuing either sex tags to archers really means bull licenses. Who stands to gain the most from having these tags brought back? Is it the public land hunter, or someone else?

Randy and SS - you guys got it spot on. The bill is a bad bill not because of the tags, but because it undermines the process that has worked so well.

 

[Lawnboy]

Well from the sounds of those with experience it didn't need to just happen through the legislature. It's hard not to get emotionally worked up over an issue and demand immediate change by whatever means.
What I gather from these 2 guys is that sometimes you have to be patient and fight through the system (meaning commission not legislature) to get things done. That is why I posted the question of whether they have been able to change things in the Bitteroot through this process. It sounds like they have but with a lot of work which Fin mentioned most don't really want to do. I guess I'm guilty but mostly by ignorance of how it could possibly be done. I appreciate the incite hopefully I can be a better advocate in my area.

I guess I got excited by the "crumb" they just threw us but hopefully It won't be at a cost that will be detrimental in the end. It's comforting to know that you can actually change commission policy but most likely not instantly.

ShootStraight I do know that not every biologist is invested to the cause. Some are just biding there time till retirement. My dad was a very passionate fisheries bio for the FS but if FWP didn't have one equally nothing happened regardless of the studies done from other agencies. I didn't realize you could oust one of those guys

I would really like to see some stuff change around Bozeman in regards to Mule deer on the Bridgers. It seems like the pattern the Root was on with elk.

 

[dexnrex]

Ben's question about who will benefit from unlimited elk permits has many answers depending on the hunting district. I can only speak for 1 district in the Breaks that I have hunted for 15 yrs. In that district the public land hunter will not benefit. Until the limited permits the district was so drastically over hunted that elk were scarce on pulic land and extremely abundant on a few large private ranches. Since 90%+ of the hunters are public land hunters the country got pounded, but harvest did not reflect the higher hunter numbers.

During the last two seasons with limited permits elk are returning to the public land where they can be hunted by the pulic land hunters(90%+ of the hunters). There were still loads of elk on the private ranches for the outfitter's clients.

If this district goes back to unlimited permits the elk will move back to the private land and harvest will decrease. Now I'll ask the question, in this district does this bill accomplish it's objective of lowering population to meet FWP's objective? No. Does it benefit the public land hunter that wants to actually have a quality hunt, not just hike around in elk country? No.

For years I was involved in every aspect of the process Big Fin described asking for limited permits in this particular district. I was glad to see the commission finally agree. I just wish they would have listened to the public comment on the 23 districts outside of the Breaks and left those districts alone. FWP wants to manage with "blanket" regulations to cover many districts or even regions, but each district has it's own set of circumstances that require unique management practices.

As others have said, even though the commission did not listen to the public comment on the other 23 districts, the legislature should not be in the business of game management.

 

[Big Fin]

OK, as if I didn't have enough to do, I am in receipt of a strange email from a legislator who should stop while he is behind. I am going to share the topic with you Montana guys, and given the agruments I read on other western forums about legislators screwing hunters and anglers , I suspect something similar is going on in your state.

I post this here, as it has been my life for the last month, and will be so for the next month. I can guarantee you, that somewhere in your state, something similar is being done whenever your legislature is in session. I wish Montana convened our legislature every ten years, not every two years. And when they did so, it would be for only one day. Here is the prime example.

Montana Senate Bill 255 - Forcing the FWP Commission to give equal footing to social and econcomic issues when making decisions.

Earlier on this thread, poeple complained that a FWP Commission decision was made for social or non-biological reasons. I agree, that is a problem. But look what is coming before us next week.

Senate Bill 255 states that biology is to be on par with social and economic issues when the FWP Commission make decisions.

How you like those cookies? Absolutely stupid and ridiculous.

Here is the bill, for those of you willing to read it. Senate Bill 255

Here is part of the preamble to the bill if you don't want to read the entire thing.

WHEREAS, commission decisions should be guided by clearly stated management criteria and objectives that seek to optimize the social and economic benefits of fish and wildlife resources within biologically sustainable limits.

Note who is the sponsor - A Senator who has a track record of voting against hunter interests. His fellow party members appointed him as the CHAIRMAN of the Senate Fish and Game Committee. How does that benefit hunters and anglers? The mere appointment to the Chairman position of such a known adversary of hunters and anglers is an unfortunate statement by that party of how they feel about hunters and anglers in this state.

Fish and Game issues should not be about "R" and "D," nor about liberal or conservative. But, this legislature, more than any I have been involved with in the last fifteen years, has made it very poltical and very partisan. Appointment of people with historical track records counter to hunters and anglers, to positiond of power on a Senate Fish and Game committee, is a reflection of this disappointing trend.

Any Montana hunter who is worried about fish and game policy in this state better send an email to their legislator, or make a phone call to the Legislative desk, asking that this bill be defeated. And on the many others that have been posted on this thread in the last month.

Here is the reasoning behind this bill. Many feel that FWP Commission decisions are a takings of their property rights. So, under this bill, FWP will have to give equal consideration to the social (whatever the hell that means) issues and the economic issues, before making a decision.

The wildlife is held in trust for all citizens, by the states. To start giving certain parties legal standing in wildlife issues is flat out bad policy. It starts creating individual property rights in a public asset - wildlife, where none currently exist.

If you are a property right advocate, you have to defend public property rights, such as wildlife, with the same vigor with which you defend private property rights. This bill gives any party who can make a social or economic claim legal standing in the public property right of wildlife, by forcing the commission to give equal consideration to those social and economic issues, not just biological issues.

If that doesn't raise your blood pressure, you better sell your bows and rifles, as bills like these are unwinding all we enjoy.

So, to those who complain that the commission doesn't stick to biology, bills such as this are the reason why.

Imagine this. The wolves are decimating the elk in the Madison herd - fact. With this bill, we cannot do anything that impacts the econcomic interests of who have historically made money from the Madison hunts and we cannot do anything that affects the social issues of the historic family hunts that have been part of that herd over the last 20 years.

Or, we have a killer winter in 2010-11, and Eastern Montana has a die off of 50%, as is beign projected. We cannot adjust the antelope and deer tags, buck or doe tags, as we have to give equal consideration to the economic interests and the social interests of these hunts.

Not sure I can cite a clearer example of what damage the legislature is inflicting on Montana hunters.

Oh, and if that isn't bad enough, look at the fiscal note to the bill.

Costs to FWP - Read "paid from your hunter and angler license dollars."

2012 - $3,831,071
2013 - $3,510,671
2014 - $3,907,692
2015 - $3,652,502

Total - $14,901,936

Not paid by the economic interests we are supposed to give equal priority in this bill. Not paid by the social concerns who now have equal standing in FWP issues. PAID BY HUNTERS AND ANGLERS.

And people wonder what is happening to hunting and fishing in Montana. If you don't have time to write or call on junk legislation such as this, and work get these kind of people un-elected in November of 2012, then hunting and fishing are pretty low on your priority list.

If you want to contact the people on this committee, here are their email addresses.

John Brenden - Chairnman
Joe Balyear - Vice Chariman
Debby Barrett
Tom Facey
Steven Gallus
Greg Hinkle
Larry Jent
Jim Shockley (No email provided, call (406)444-4800)
Art Wittich
Kevin McCue (No email provided, call (406)444-4800)

Whether you are a Republican or Democrat, liberal, conservative, or somewhere in between, you need to be involved in your state politics. Hunting and fishing have become valuable assets, thanks to the work of hunters, anglers, and in many cases good private land stewards. Seeing those values, some legislators are trying their best to unwind all you have done, and in some instances, make it the property right of their friends.

This is not a political party issue. It is an struggle between hunters and anglers and those who have no use for hunters and anglers and are willing to use their political power to the benefit of others. You are on either one side or the other. No in between.

I know which side I am on.

 

[mdunc8]

You start with taking your concern to the local Bio, then if that fails, you take it to the region head.

I think that's part of your problem. IMO, you shouldn't be bothering the biologist with questions about hunting regulations at all. The biologist should be providing the best data/science for the manager to make an informed decision. It makes it tough for biologists to do their job without being influenced when they've got people in the earhole everyday. In addition, we graduate students, who eventually are the ones hired as biologists, receive almost no human dimensions training in school, which can make dealing with the public very difficult for young professionals especially when they're new to the area and aren't familiar with everyone involved. The managers have the training and experience to properly deal with the public. They should be the ones fielding your questions about harvest regulations as they're the ones that actually make the decision in the end.

I'm not saying to shut your mouth. I just think you should be directing your concerns a little higher up.

 

[shoots-straight]

Here is the reasoning behind this bill. Many feel that FWP Commission decisions are a takings of their property rights. So, under this bill, FWP will have to give equal consideration to the social (whatever the hell that means) issues and the economic issues, before making a decision.

This is in response to the idea, many of us have, that the Elk Management plan was flawed. It took social concerns and put them above biology. This bill is going to kill us if we want to re evaluate the EMP. If certain people don't like elk, then that's will be considered as important as any other reason to have them.

 

[shoots-straight]

I think that's part of your problem. IMO, you shouldn't be bothering the biologist with questions about hunting regulations at all. The biologist should be providing the best data/science for the manager to make an informed decision. It makes it tough for biologists to do their job without being influenced when they've got people in the earhole everyday. In addition, we graduate students, who eventually are the ones hired as biologists, receive almost no human dimensions training in school, which can make dealing with the public very difficult for young professionals especially when they're new to the area and aren't familiar with everyone involved. The managers have the training and experience to properly deal with the public. They should be the ones fielding your questions about harvest regulations as they're the ones that actually make the decision in the end.

I'm not saying to shut your mouth. I just think you should be directing your concerns a little higher up.

No, it starts with the local Bio. They are the ones who propose changes to existing regulations here. You'd be a fool not to be looking over his or her shoulder. If you read my post, you would have seen were the previous Bio wasn't a hunter, he proposed liberal seasons to reduce elk numbers at levels we felt would send the elk in a tail spin. We went your route and it bit us in the tushy. The only way to get what you want is to be pro-active. As the local Bio for his/hers opinion, and if it doesn't go the direction you feel you want to go then you do your own thing. If you wait until it goes to the next level , your too late. This isn't my first dance on this subject. I'm not saying its right, I"m just saying that's the way it is. Trust, but verify!

 

[mdunc8]

No, it starts with the local Bio. They are the ones who propose changes to existing regulations here. You'd be a fool not to be looking over his or her shoulder. If you read my post, you would have seen were the previous Bio wasn't a hunter, he proposed liberal seasons to reduce elk numbers at levels we felt would send the elk in a tail spin. We went your route and it bit us in the tushy. The only way to get what you want is to be pro-active. As the local Bio for his/hers opinion, and if it doesn't go the direction you feel you want to go then you do your own thing. If you wait until it goes to the next level , your too late. This isn't my first dance on this subject. I'm not saying its right, I"m just saying that's the way it is. Trust, but verify!

I'm not saying to not talk to them. I think it's important to understand the fieldwork being conducted and what that data indicates for our fisheries and wildlife populations. I'm also not suggesting to wait for anything to happen before you express your concerns. All I'm saying is you should be going straight to the manager if you'd like to discuss any kind of regulations. As you said yourself, the biologist proposes options to the manager. The manager is the one that takes the biologically relevant information, along with all the other crap that probably shouldn't be included in the process, to make a decision.

Being a hunter has nothing, absolutely nothing, to being a good biologist or not. Just because a person doesn't hunt, doesn't mean they're out to get every hunter in the state. Sure hunters have unique perceptions about our natural resources, but as many of us can attest, those perceptions are often as skewed as the people who would like to see every wolf in the West protected.

 

[shoots-straight]

No, "managers" just different dept. personal. A chain of command. The local Bio's submit their tenative proposals, and that goes to the commission. I'm sure the head of each region goes over them, but they take the local bio's input the most. Sometimes good sometimes bad. Depends on the bio.

Being a hunter has nothing, absolutely nothing, to being a good biologist or not. Just because a person doesn't hunt, doesn't mean they're out to get every hunter in the state. Sure hunters have unique perceptions about our natural resources, but as many of us can attest, those perceptions are often as skewed as the people who would like to see every wolf in the West protected.

I can assure you that if a big game bio, isn't a hunter, and have hunters interests in mind, he'll manage accordingly. If you have a hunters perspective, your likely to manage with that in mind. We had a non hunting bio, and he didn't care about managing the resource for us, the paying customer. He actually liked predators more, and was conservative with their seasons and structure. I'm thinking your understanding the process might not be very clear. Maybe I"m not explaining it very good. There is a world of difference between our last bio, and our new one. The last Bio was a non big game hunter. He did like to hunt Blue Grouse though. Getty up!

 

[onpoint]

As a new "poster", I'm diving head first. My life/work/probably downfall is hunting and fishing. I have no kids, I am married...our first date in 1983 was going fishing. I have watched this board since it's inception. Iv'e stayed off it because I'm not impressed by big bulls, the best backpacks, or other peoples' hunting stories. I am, however, passionate about my resources and how they are managed. I am currently watching the Montana GOP party attempt (it's a good thing they're fairly incompetent) to systematically dismantle my access to resources, habitat quality, and sound resource management. As hunters and fishermen/women, we need to quite blaming anti-hunters, wolves, poachers, and big government for our woes. Maybe we need to look at our own apathy and misdirected anger. Maybe we "consumptive users" need to start voting for politicians that understand and believe in the doctrine of Public Trust....if you don't know what this is, grab the remote control, turn off Colorado Buck or Bill Jurdun, and read some very important history...it applies. We need to ride herd on management agencies so the non-hunting, so-called biologists and managers (and hunting ones alike) understand what their mission is. Take a fraction of the time you spend on scouting for, pursuing, then posting picture of your 350 bull- and get your hands dirty in the resource issues....remember -America government by the people for the people. Or, like Randy hinted at in his previous post, quite whining about the poor outcomes. Actually, I posted this rant because I hope to have others join me in lying awake at 1am with their guts in a knot over battling $@%holes who want to ruin the best thing in the world. How's that for an introduction to this forum.