Eric Albus
Well-known member
- Joined
- May 24, 2012
- Messages
- 1,672
thank you for straightening me out on leg. process.....learnt sumpthin' worthwhile this morning.
Sb 245
- Thread starter Eric Albus
- Start date
My pleasure.
Might be worth reaching out to Senator Kary and letting him know you don't appreciate his amendment though.
Might be worth reaching out to Senator Kary and letting him know you don't appreciate his amendment though.
Better yet, leave it and let the bill die.
shoots-straight
Well-known member
That's my hope! If they attach that amend, it should kill it.
Ran into Senator Kary. He did put the request in, but does not support the amendment. He stated unequivocally to me that he does not support the amendment and has said so in his testimony.
The request was put in at the request of UPOM, who continues to push against the archery elk permits of 2008.
Talk about holding a grudge.
The request was put in at the request of UPOM, who continues to push against the archery elk permits of 2008.
Talk about holding a grudge.
Eric Albus
Well-known member
- Joined
- May 24, 2012
- Messages
- 1,672
Ben, you too might hold a grudge if someone were to take part of your living away. The breaks permits simply were a punitive measure against outfitters/landowners. Were UPOM able to make the jobs for lobbyists "permit only" how would you feel?
And for the record, I am not against the permits in the breaks, it just that if an area is going to be permit only, should it not be a permit worth drawing? If the permits were cut in half it might be worth drawing.
The other thing I want to say about permits is this...they should be first and only choice....if you draw that area you hunt no other.
oak, why would you want this bill to die? This bill will create a lot of access, and bring revenue to the Dept.
And for the record, I am not against the permits in the breaks, it just that if an area is going to be permit only, should it not be a permit worth drawing? If the permits were cut in half it might be worth drawing.
The other thing I want to say about permits is this...they should be first and only choice....if you draw that area you hunt no other.
oak, why would you want this bill to die? This bill will create a lot of access, and bring revenue to the Dept.
Last edited:
The Hedgehog
Well-known member
Man, if there were some wild bison to hunt out there, and legal corner crossing, I might like this half baked idea of throwing out unlimited elk permits, in trade for some crappy 2nd rate ranch land cow elk hunting access.
Last edited:
Eric Albus
Well-known member
- Joined
- May 24, 2012
- Messages
- 1,672
Nice side step. You did not answer any part of my question....
For those of us successful, the model has been built off providing an experience.
For those of us successful, the model has been built off providing an experience.
Permits for lobbyists? Why would you want to reduce the number of people engaging in democracy? There's a big difference between restoring equity in the allocation of tags back to the 90/10 instead of sticking with the inverse (which was happening in some districts) and making sure that the public trust was put ahead of profit on publicly owned wildlife.
It's akin to saying that you should have to draw a permit to vote.
You are correct though - you sell and experience. And I appreciate and value what you bring to wildlife management and to the economy of the state. I just won't place you ahead of the citizen who pays just as much in income tax, payroll tax, etc.
Your business should not give you a greater say in wildlife management. I own those critters just as much as you do. For lobbying, you have the exact same right as I do to find a client, negotiate a rate and register with the state.
I'd welcome you up here. I like smart guys, even if I think you are wrong.
Eric Albus
Well-known member
- Joined
- May 24, 2012
- Messages
- 1,672
Thanks for the laugh Ben. ...and you still have not answered my question.. I said nothing about wanting to decrease the numbers of folks engaged in the process...no matter how confused some of them are.
I have never felt that I deserved a greater say in the management of wildlife on account of my business. I have always maintained that if the wildlife were managed BIOLOGICALLY, instead of socially we would not have near the angst or envy. The things that I advocate for management of mule deer fly in the face of my outfitting business....the unbridled capitalistic part of me is very often at odds w/ the part of me that says we can't continue a 5 week long rut hunt in Reg. 6 for mule deer. 5 week season good for me, bad for mule deer bucks....oh, the Dept. has come up w/ a creative solution for in their own words "putting to much pressure on the male segment of the mule deer population, so we will make the "A" tag valid for mule deer does in 2015"....... this is management? This will take enough pressure off the bucks so that we will see a climb in buck numbers? This sounds like "chicken logic" to me....remember those tests done back in the 60's w/ the chicken? I think that method is still alive and well...
I have never felt that I deserved a greater say in the management of wildlife on account of my business. I have always maintained that if the wildlife were managed BIOLOGICALLY, instead of socially we would not have near the angst or envy. The things that I advocate for management of mule deer fly in the face of my outfitting business....the unbridled capitalistic part of me is very often at odds w/ the part of me that says we can't continue a 5 week long rut hunt in Reg. 6 for mule deer. 5 week season good for me, bad for mule deer bucks....oh, the Dept. has come up w/ a creative solution for in their own words "putting to much pressure on the male segment of the mule deer population, so we will make the "A" tag valid for mule deer does in 2015"....... this is management? This will take enough pressure off the bucks so that we will see a climb in buck numbers? This sounds like "chicken logic" to me....remember those tests done back in the 60's w/ the chicken? I think that method is still alive and well...
Thanks for the laugh Ben. ...and you still have not answered my question.. I said nothing about wanting to decrease the numbers of folks engaged in the process...no matter how confused some of them are.
I have never felt that I deserved a greater say in the management of wildlife on account of my business. I have always maintained that if the wildlife were managed BIOLOGICALLY, instead of socially we would not have near the angst or envy. The things that I advocate for management of mule deer fly in the face of my outfitting business....the unbridled capitalistic part of me is very often at odds w/ the part of me that says we can't continue a 5 week long rut hunt in Reg. 6 for mule deer. 5 week season good for me, bad for mule deer bucks....oh, the Dept. has come up w/ a creative solution for in their own words "putting to much pressure on the male segment of the mule deer population, so we will make the "A" tag valid for mule deer does in 2015"....... this is management? This will take enough pressure off the bucks so that we will see a climb in buck numbers? This sounds like "chicken logic" to me....remember those tests done back in the 60's w/ the chicken? I think that method is still alive and well...
Eric,
This is what you asked me:
I believe I answered that question. If you want to ask me a different question, then I'd be happy to answer that one as well.
Chris Smith with WMI made a very important observation a few months ago, social science is just as much a part of wildlife management as biological science. If we went jut with the biology, then I think things would be much different. As we constantly remind anti-hunters, we're part of the food chain too.
Straight Arrow
Well-known member
Ben and Eric, although your debate is interesting, informative, and entertaining, still SB 245 is widely viewed as a bad bill and, with the amendment, a terrible bill.
Respectfully, it may be more constructive to expound on why you support or oppose SB 245.
Respectfully, it may be more constructive to expound on why you support or oppose SB 245.
I don't hunt MT, so I don't have a dog in the fight. But it appears to me that MT is about 30 years behind CO in regards to their management of big game on private lands. I would hate to see them slip further down that path. Private land only tags, including some that run from August 15 to January 31, transferable unit-wide landowner vouchers, Ranching for Wildlife, etc. CPW has bent over backwards to appease the landowners, at the expense of access and quality of the hunt on public lands.
shoots-straight
Well-known member
MSA and MWF have decided to call off the dogs on this bill. SB 245 did not get the amendment attached that would have made it a really bad bill.:W:
Eric Albus
Well-known member
- Joined
- May 24, 2012
- Messages
- 1,672
straight....245 will open up a lot of access...will create revenue for FWP, will hopefully put in check a few elk herds that are over objective....and maybe it will allow me the time to take my son on a late season cow hunt...and I might just get to hunt places that I would never be able to see(some of them I used to hunt) otherwise....unlike some I do not feel that harvesting a cow is being treated 2nd rate.
Ben, you sidestepped it...the question was specifically, "how would you feel if lobbyists were by permit only for the session"....the answer should either read, "I would not like it and would hold a grudge, or I could live w/ that" ....not a rhetorical question about putting democracy to the test...
Wasn't it Chris who made another important observation, that the legislature is in charge of the Public Trust Doctrine?
shoots, I agree...were the amendment attached to it, the bill was terrible.
Ben, you sidestepped it...the question was specifically, "how would you feel if lobbyists were by permit only for the session"....the answer should either read, "I would not like it and would hold a grudge, or I could live w/ that" ....not a rhetorical question about putting democracy to the test...
Wasn't it Chris who made another important observation, that the legislature is in charge of the Public Trust Doctrine?
shoots, I agree...were the amendment attached to it, the bill was terrible.
Eric, I answered a sideways question as best I could. The premise that limiting the voice of people seeking to influence government being akin to the responsible management of a limited resource simply doesn't translate. Your premise is flawed.
As for SB 245 - I've not lobbied the bill one way or another, and maybe it's just me but I don't see the boogey man in it that so many others do. The way it is written, it only enshrines in code what the commission can already do, and does so in a way that actually enhances commission authority.
Nowhere in the bill does it force FWP to have late seasons. It doesn't remove the authority of the commission and it only codifies current rule. It say the department MAY have late season hunts, not shall.
One thing I do know is this - the climate is changing. We don't have the typical weather that we used to during the season and that can lead to lower harvest. If we want to continue to use hunting as a method of wildlife management, we have to change and adapt along with our changing climate. Late season hunts may very well not be the answer, but we do need to be thinking a little bit more creatively in terms of how increase harvest on cow elk.
And while I agree with Eric that a cow elk hunt is no less special than a 400 inch bull, I also am very guarded about ensuring the fair and equitable allocation of antlered animals as well. Public hunting is not here to pick up the scraps, and we're not here to demand all of the trophies. We have to find a balance. I think this bill does that, without over-stepping the bounds.
I am happy to be proven wrong.
As for SB 245 - I've not lobbied the bill one way or another, and maybe it's just me but I don't see the boogey man in it that so many others do. The way it is written, it only enshrines in code what the commission can already do, and does so in a way that actually enhances commission authority.
Nowhere in the bill does it force FWP to have late seasons. It doesn't remove the authority of the commission and it only codifies current rule. It say the department MAY have late season hunts, not shall.
One thing I do know is this - the climate is changing. We don't have the typical weather that we used to during the season and that can lead to lower harvest. If we want to continue to use hunting as a method of wildlife management, we have to change and adapt along with our changing climate. Late season hunts may very well not be the answer, but we do need to be thinking a little bit more creatively in terms of how increase harvest on cow elk.
And while I agree with Eric that a cow elk hunt is no less special than a 400 inch bull, I also am very guarded about ensuring the fair and equitable allocation of antlered animals as well. Public hunting is not here to pick up the scraps, and we're not here to demand all of the trophies. We have to find a balance. I think this bill does that, without over-stepping the bounds.
I am happy to be proven wrong.
Straight Arrow
Well-known member
Fair enough, Eric. I appreciate your sensible response. I also view a cow elk as a trophy and have been blessed to process one for the freezer this season. The new revenue source for FWP is certainly a plus, but otherwise the FWP Commission can set these late hunts now, if so decided.
Let me just say that "it's never enough."
CPW's desire to harvest cow elk is exactly how Colorado got to where it is today. I know MT is definitely not CO, but your post is like déjà vu all over again for me.
