Proposed changes Sweeping!

[BuzzH]

I don't get my way all the time either but I think it's incredibly short sighted to give up on the commission and the agency because we haven't gotten our way. Make this a fight, and give them no room to just move forward. We've stood up countless times during the session to fight for the agency. They need to continue to hear from us and remember who actually stands with them.

Ben,

Why should anyone support a commission that rubber stamps every frickin' thing that the MTFWP wants them to? There is no separation of power anymore between the commission and the MTFWP, that wasn't the case in the past. Used to be that if enough sportsmen got in the ear of the commission they had a chance to stop or change policy. Not anymore, and its been that way for a very long time.

IMO, the MTFWP no longer gives a chit about sportsmen...they just don't. Their track record proves it, show me where I was wrong on any of the items I listed. The commission ultimately approved, at the request of the MTFWP, every single one of those things without a whimper of protest, despite public comment.

So, you're wanting me to support an agency that doesn't even care enough about doing whats best for wildlife to stand up to the Governor...who in turn is too chickenchit to stand up to the Legislature...and support a commission that, not only was appointed by Captain Chickenchit, but also takes its marching orders from same?

Aint happening...I refuse to draw into a made hand...wont do it.

There needs to be fundamental change that isn't going to happen by commenting at a MTFWP public meeting...or appealing to the Commission.

To think otherwise is foolish.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Ben,

Why should anyone support a commission that rubber stamps every frickin' thing that the MTFWP wants them to? There is no separation of power anymore between the commission and the MTFWP, that wasn't the case in the past. Used to be that if enough sportsmen got in the ear of the commission they had a chance to stop or change policy. Not anymore, and its been that way for a very long time.

IMO, the MTFWP no longer gives a chit about sportsmen...they just don't. Their track record proves it, show me where I was wrong on any of the items I listed. The commission ultimately approved, at the request of the MTFWP, every single one of those things without a whimper of protest, despite public comment.

So, you're wanting me to support an agency that doesn't even care enough about doing whats best for wildlife to stand up to the Governor...who in turn is too chickenchit to stand up to the Legislature...and support a commission that, not only was appointed by Captain Chickenchit, but also takes its marching orders from same?

Aint happening...I refuse to draw into a made hand...wont do it.

There needs to be fundamental change that isn't going to happen by commenting at a MTFWP public meeting...or appealing to the Commission.

To think otherwise is foolish.

As Rob pointed out, the damage hunt rules and the shoulder seasons were changed based on sportsmen turnout. I'm not asking people to support the agency, I'm asking people to show up and kick their ass. Pulling back is bad, regardless of what you think the outcome will be.

As for the Gov - he was with us in the last two sessions, and I'm sure he'll be with us the next two. He actually did stand up and vetoed a number of bills we weren't able to kill, including shoulder seasons when he could have easily left it since it had agency support. He was a leader on transfer of public land issues, fought for sportsmen's access in budget negotiations, he found a way to get better funding for wildlife and he put the boot to anti-wildlife legislators pretty regularly. It's bs to think he's a chickenshit because he's not holding FWP's hand on elk management. We asked for an agency that's not micromanaged by the gov and we got it. Now it's up to us to fight for what we want.

 

[RobG]

Buzz, if you don't like how little FWP listens to people who speak up and hunt here, you really won't like how little they listen to people who say nothing and don't hunt here.

We also have to get the hunters listening to us... most I know have bought into the idea that we have "too many elk" and don't understand what "over objective" means. I personally am willing to help the ranchers but we seem to be getting thrown under the bus by the Legislators pushing this

 

[BuzzH]

Ben,

The people cant kick the ass of an Agency that finds cover from the Governor's office, and the Commission he appoints, whenever said agency recommends something/anything.

It isn't going to work. The only ass being kicked is Montana's wildlife resources, and Montana Sportsmen are given another lesson in pi$$ing up a rope every time they submit a public comment or talk to the commission.

What recourse do Montana sportsmen have if the Commission and MTFWP ignore public comment? What chance does the average sportsmen have when the Agency ignores its own biologists? In particular when many of the proposals made by the MTFWP are coming from the Governors office? Not sure how you come up with there isn't management decisions coming down from above??? That's not what I'm hearing.

Its not about pulling back, its about trying to turn the tide on a tsunami with a piece of plywood.

 

[BuzzH]

Buzz, if you don't like how little FWP listens to people who speak up and hunt here, you really won't like how little they listen to people who say nothing and don't hunt here.

We also have to get the hunters listening to us

They listen exactly the same in either scenario...

I've written letters, made phone calls, attended meetings, talked to biologists, talked to commissioners, etc. etc. etc. doesn't make a bit of difference. I've also purchased many thousands of dollars worth of licenses as a Resident and Non-Resident.

Its not about ME hunting, I can kill an elk and deer in Montana every year. What it is about is doing whats best for wildlife and managing, biologically, in a sustainable way, to ensure the future of both the wildlife and hunting.

I will not support an agency, through a license purchase, because you say it gives me credibility with the MTFWP.

If that's really what you, and the MTFWP believes, that I have to buy a $20 elk tag to have credibility and care about wildlife, then its pointless to even bother.

You have all the credibility with that $20 elk tag in your wallet...pack my water for a while. I'm quite sure I've paid my dues...

 

[Ben Lamb]

Ben,

The people cant kick the ass of an Agency that finds cover from the Governor's office, and the Commission he appoints, whenever said agency recommends something/anything.

It isn't going to work. The only ass being kicked is Montana's wildlife resources, and Montana Sportsmen are given another lesson in pi$$ing up a rope every time they submit a public comment or talk to the commission.

What recourse do Montana sportsmen have if the Commission and MTFWP ignore public comment? What chance does the average sportsmen have when the Agency ignores its own biologists? In particular when many of the proposals made by the MTFWP are coming from the Governors office? Not sure how you come up with there isn't management decisions coming down from above??? That's not what I'm hearing.

Its not about pulling back, its about trying to turn the tide on a tsunami with a piece of plywood.

Because I asked the gov's office exactly what they told FWP, and they showed me the letter as well as told me what their directive to the agency was - find a way to tamp down sportsmen-landowner issues and look at ways to better manage wildlife.

This is my 3rd Governor that I've dealt with face to face. I know when I'm being lied too, when I'm being misled and when I'm being told the truth. I'm also not willing to let perfect be the enemy of good. This Governor has been good for sportsmen, public land and wildlife. A series of bad decisions by an agency is no reason to through him under the bus.

One thing is for certain - if folks don't show up, then we just hand the issue over to the bad guys. I appreciate all you've done for wildlife Buzz, and I know that you do more than 10 guys. I hope that you keep the heat on your commission regarding migration corridors and your upcoming session.

 

[The Hedgehog]

Who ideas are the shoulder seasons, the full on state-wide ES for muleys, all the new B-permits for muley does? FWP biologists?

I don't really get it. I suppose I'll snag some b-tags to chew up that quota and won't use them. Surprised so many people think they have to participate. If nobody did, there wouldn't be a problem.

 

[Deleted member 20812]

It's funny how history repeats itself. When elk numbers started to climb in the early 2000's, there were a number of late season hunts that were available by permit only. Decisions were made to abolish these late hunts because there was the perception (or reality based on how you view it) that these late hunts were simply pandering to ranches that were locked up during the general season and then opened up later for the unwashed public to fill their elk tags with cows.

The late hunts were abolished and everyone was to achieve their elk management goals within the 5 week season. Has access really improved? Answer that one and I think you will find the answer to the elk population issues. I don't deny elk population issues exist, because they certainly do. However, I think many of these issues truly involve a harboring aspect that simply has not been either 1) fully addressed and 2) in any way resolved in the last 10+ years.

Instead of finding ways to work with sportsmen, it appears to me that the landowner contingent is only further polarizing themselves from the public and then demanding a solution for a problem they've created.

I haven't read all of the proposals front to back, so I won't comment on the specifics of them yet. However, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that the ONLY way any progress will be made is by significant buy in from the landowners. Unfortunately, it seems that all too many of them are content to let the elk find refuge on their land so clients can shoot them during the general season.

Anyone serious about really reducing elk numbers where there is a bona fide problem would do so by opening up a 2-3 week cow season immediately prior to the general season, and only allow cow hunting on private land. After all, it's private land elk numbers we're trying to reduce, right (sarcasm intended).

 

[belly-deep]

I'm with Buzz on this. Trying to persuade the FWP is futile.

 

[BuzzH]

Because I asked the gov's office exactly what they told FWP, and they showed me the letter as well as told me what their directive to the agency was - find a way to tamp down sportsmen-landowner issues and look at ways to better manage wildlife.

This is my 3rd Governor that I've dealt with face to face. I know when I'm being lied too, when I'm being misled and when I'm being told the truth. I'm also not willing to let perfect be the enemy of good. This Governor has been good for sportsmen, public land and wildlife. A series of bad decisions by an agency is no reason to through him under the bus.

One thing is for certain - if folks don't show up, then we just hand the issue over to the bad guys. I appreciate all you've done for wildlife Buzz, and I know that you do more than 10 guys. I hope that you keep the heat on your commission regarding migration corridors and your upcoming session.

Ben,

If 6 month shoulder seasons, unlimited b-tags, 8% hunter success rate at check station, allowing an elk management plan the MTFWP admits is not based on anything but social tolerance of elk, etc. etc. etc. is what the Governor calls looking at ways to better manage wildlife...then he should intervene and hold the Department responsible. Sportsmen can not...they cant fire the Director, nor can they appoint the commission. But I do know who can...and if that person allows the current path that the MTFWP is on, then he's as responsible for the crap that comes out of the Department as anyone.

It sucks being the captain of the ship, it sucks more when you wont even take the wheel.

That's some fine directives...coupled with ZERO accountability or over-sight to the department.

I don't see a bright future for MT's wildlife or future sportsmen.

 

[Ben Lamb]

I'm with Buzz on this. Trying to persuade the FWP is futile.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ep-xgd_eETE

 

[----]

All evidence points to Buzz being right on this. The whole system stinks, corruption from the top down.

We always talk about the corruption in Utah's wildlife management, but Montana's not far behind.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Whatever. I'll be there. You guys enjoy taking the sand out of your cracks.

 

[Nameless Range]

I don't think it is entirely futile to speak up and offer opinion. Rob and Ben are right when they point out that we have recently altered management plans for the better by doing so.

That said, it is strange when more opposition than support exists and the agency goes the way it wanted to regardless. It is definitely disheartening, and is exactly what we'd expect given the premise that public opinion is largely inert.

I value Governor Bullock's support of sportsman very much. If Schweitzer and he weren't around to veto terrible ideas for the last ten years hunting in Montana would be in drastically worse shape. The shoulder seasons would be small potatoes.

I wonder, because I've seen it first hand before, if this is just outside of his expertise as a governor. It seems consensus here that this is a bad idea but it is also a fact that these shoulder seasons seem to be popular. Additionally this is Montana, and re-election means quasi-catering to a loud and corrosive yet influential minority. I don't know. I just know it stinks.

 

[RobG]

An observation... when I lived in Idaho the Legislature did not like fish or wildlife affecting industry such as mining and Ag. They had a pretty tight reign on what shall be the IDF&G priorities. They did this two ways, 1) the IDF&G budget was reviewed frequently. 2) They had a goon squad posing as hunters convincing hunters that IDF&G mismanagement was the problem and the Legislature was needed to reign them in.

So this last session the MFWP budget review process was changed to every 4 years. Now all we need is a goon squad blaming the FWP for everything. The saying in Idaho was "Montana is what Idaho used to be." If you don't want to support FWP then you might as well just hand the keys to John Brenden, Kary, etc....

If you have been paying attention at all you would see that the Legislative clowns had a backroom meeting with FWP. Arnie Dood was suddenly out. Proposed ARM changes that took the public out of game damage/management hunts appeared at the same time these shoulder hunts appeared. In fact, the MT Outdoors article on the shoulder hunt had a quote:

Feeling pressure from landowners and lawmakers to increase elk harvest in some hunting districts, FWP has proposed a new option that adds additional seasons to firearms elk seasons. The department would use these “shoulder seasons” to pare down overabundant elk herds by giving hunters additional days afield. “We heard loud and clear from the legislature that getting these populations down to objectives is a top priority, and this proposal is meant to do that,” says [head of FWP Wildlife Division Ken] McDonald.

So protest loudly, but don't blame FWP. If anything, blame the idiots who are voting these legislators into office. How bad is it when the head of the F&G committee calls hunters "hemorrhoids" or "psuedo sportsmen." What the hell are these guys doing calling FWP's shots? That isn't a FWP problem, it is a voter problem and our problem in not educating the voters.

 

[belly-deep]

Whatever. I'll be there. You guys enjoy taking the sand out of your cracks.

Go get 'em Ben!

Seriously I appreciate your hard work.

But I really don't appreciate the condescending, hostile attitudes I've experienced at FWP meetings. The impression I get is that they've already made up their minds and dealing with the peasant class is a huge annoyance.

 

[RobG]

That said, it is strange when more opposition than support exists and the agency goes the way it wanted to regardless.

I would change that statement to be "That said, it is strange when more opposition than support exists and the agency goes the way it was instructed to regardless." The people who hold the budget hold the strings...

 

[Ben Lamb]

But I really don't appreciate the condescending, hostile attitudes I've experienced at FWP meetings. The impression I get is that they've already made up their minds and dealing with the peasant class is a huge annoyance.

I think that's actually a good thing to say, especially on Thursday.

 

[Nameless Range]

Interesting points Rob. During the last legislature it seemed moving to the four year cycle was a no brainer. That it increases the possibility of a legislative retaliation is an angle I hadn't thought of before.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Interesting points Rob. During the last legislature it seemed moving to the four year cycle was a no brainer. That it increases the possibility of a legislative retaliation is an angle I hadn't thought of before.

Legislative retaliation is always a possibility. We just had a lull this session while they regroup.

2009 - 2013 - They tried to set seasons legislatively because of the 22 bundled LE Archery permits.

2015 - They tried to strip authority to manage Sage Grouse from FWP by eliminating hunting

Continual - They try to screw us on access because they're pissed about FWP purchasing land for the public and wildlife.

It's a never ending cycle. We've become pretty dang good at holding our own, and making progress while defending this agency. FWP should remember that in their political calculations.