SB 380 Reconsideration of Bill!

[shoots-straight]

shoot, i am one member of a large board. We are not always in agreement on every issue.

I have never advocated "more bull tags" in the breaks, and never will. Personally I would like to see the "either-sex" rifle tags cut in half....and have an "archery either sex" tag that was very limited. I grew up hunting the breaks, and remember the quality we USED to have. The cow elk should be hunted on a quota...when the ojective number is met, season closes....or have the season bulls for the first 2 weeks, then cow only the last 3....but wait, this makes sense, as it would lead to accessing some of the private land.... perhaps I am an "idiot savant"

Eric,

I think you have a lot of "Harboring" going on in region 6 and 7. People will kill elk, first on public lands, and reduce those elk. I know this from experience living through some real mash em up seasons over here in the west. You people that hunt the Breaks need to read page 55 of the "ELK Management plan" and force the Department to act. It could also increase public hunting on some private, even if it's only cow.

Now, re-read post #39 and answer a few of my questions please!

 

[Eric Albus]

shoots...MOGA is an organization that is stretched to the limits fighting the battles it deems necessary...it is not a Defenders of Wildlife organization.

MOGA has lobbied for more archery license...that has been the directive from several outfitters affected... you can read my personal take in an above post..... however, I still think that other measures could have been taken....like limit non-res. to a 5-7 day window....maybe no non-res. hunting the 1 st and 3rd weeks of the season.... as of last year there are more residents not drawing breaks elk tags than non-res....archery seasons are more about opportunity...and bow hunters spend a lot of time and money in their pursuit....ask a local business in Jordan or Zortman how much limited permits has cost them(bars, cafe, campgrounds, ect)....but nobody cares about that...

so, most of what I hear going on in Helena is about attacking and defending...why not work on finding solutions?

 

[shoots-straight]

MOGA has lobbied for more archery license...that has been the directive from several outfitters affected... you can read my personal take in an above post..... however, I still think that other measures could have been taken....like limit non-res. to a 5-7 day window....maybe no non-res. hunting the 1 st and 3rd weeks of the season.... as of last year there are more residents not drawing breaks elk tags than non-res....archery seasons are more about opportunity...and bow hunters spend a lot of time and money in their pursuit....ask a local business in Jordan or Zortman how much limited permits has cost them(bars, cafe, campgrounds, ect)....but nobody cares about that..

Seriously Eric, resident hunters numbers have not been reduced that much compared to historical archery numbers. 1400 issued for the north side of the breaks is more hunters than what was there 10 years ago.

The resident Break tags were only slightly cut back from the all time high sales for those areas. There has to be limits, and the sky is not one of them.

You bitch about elk numbers being to high on one hand, then complain about the reduced opportunity to those elk. Which is it? You can't have it both ways.

The facts are the numbers of residents hunting the breaks is still very high, with additional tags offered this year. 77% of resident applicants received tags the last 2 years and with the additional numbers that will be higher. They offered 1400 last year on the north side, had 1560 applicants, and gave out 1214. I don't know what happened to the other 186 tags they were suppose to give out. They offered 1400 again this year. That's a lot more tags than there was hunters 10 years ago in that region.

Want more opportunity? Then change the Elk management plan and add more of the resource. They go hand in hand don't you think. How can one be reduced, and the other one added to every year?

The amount of lost hunter opportunity in the breaks is a small percentage compared to the loss in the Western part of our state. In the upper Root we had 16000 hunter trips in 2005 compared to 8000 last year. Crying over a couple hundred tags is pale.

I blame most of our problems on HB 42 passed on 2003 by Debbie Barret from Dillon.

The business can't grow unchecked without the product being increased, or resident hunters giving up our opportunity. What's it going to be?

 

[Ben Lamb]

shoots...MOGA is an organization that is stretched to the limits fighting the battles it deems necessary...it is not a Defenders of Wildlife organization.

MOGA has lobbied for more archery license...that has been the directive from several outfitters affected... you can read my personal take in an above post..... however, I still think that other measures could have been taken....like limit non-res. to a 5-7 day window....maybe no non-res. hunting the 1 st and 3rd weeks of the season.... as of last year there are more residents not drawing breaks elk tags than non-res....archery seasons are more about opportunity...and bow hunters spend a lot of time and money in their pursuit....ask a local business in Jordan or Zortman how much limited permits has cost them(bars, cafe, campgrounds, ect)....but nobody cares about that...

so, most of what I hear going on in Helena is about attacking and defending...why not work on finding solutions?

Eric,

I think the economic argument is an interesting one. Hunting economics work similarly to Wal-Mart. It's a volume business. I would imagine that there has been a decrease in the economic benefit in a lot of Eastern and Central MT over the last 10 years, but I think we'd disagree on the reason. When leasing and changing landownership patterns occur, there is less available land for the volume of hunters that exist.

Similar to what you claim in reduced opportunity for permits, the reduced opportunity by declining access for resident hunters has a negative effect on local economic input.

Look at places like the Rocky Mountain Front: $11 million per year is spent by hunters and anglers. That area is public land rich, and also has a high number of amenity owners and leased acres. But because there is still ample access, the economic driver that hunting and angling provide continue to be the second highest earner in the region behind Ag.

If you want to grow the hunting economy, resident hunters and increased access are a great way to go. The increased number of people is what drives the economic engine. Leased and outfitted economics indicate that the multiplier effect is less than the public hunting opportunity.

As for attacking and defending, I would simply point out that the resident hunters did not advance many bills this session, and one in particular, Hunters Against Hunger, it was MWF, MOGA, etc, all standing together in the bill signing. Good things can happen when people stop pushing an agenda and start talking before the session.

When your lobbyist tells people that because of I-161, all bets are off and MOGA is going to go after as many tags as they can, I don't think that's very helpful. Or when Paul Ellis comes up to people and tells them that this session was "going to be a bloodbath," tell me where the incentive to work with outfitters is?

I'm all for collaborative efforts and I think we're all tired of fighting with each other. The real question is, who's gonna step forward first?

Without action, all we're doing is arguing on the internet.

 

[Straight Arrow]

why not work on finding solutions?

Eric, your intent is right on. The problem(s) blocking solutions during the past couple of legislative sessions resulted from the sportsmen and wildlife advocates having to expend an inordinate amount of time, energy, and resources to fight bills adverse to best interests of the Montana hunting legacy, Montana resident sportsmen, and wildlife interests. The few solutions aimed at improving access for hunting and recreation were not significantly successful. On the other hand the bills supported by outfitters (or at least by MOGA) and by some landowners (as represented by Sen Brenden, etal) were clearly not in best interests of hunting, wildlife, and FWP efforts as you have advocated. And some reflected the hypocrisy and contradiction alluded to by Shoots above.

I agree that work on finding solutions is critical, but each and every side should consider the aspects that potentially benefit all ... not merely self-serving bills aimed at private special interests and at an overall seemingly vile vendetta against FWP and Montana sportsmen groups (as reflected by the "blood bath" statement). All I can say about I-161 of 2010 is "Get over it! Move on!"

 

[Eric Albus]

Ben,

Jean has "the gloves are off" mentality because she feels the trust was broken w/ passage of 161. MOGA did nothing legislatively(one of the conditions) during the tenure of the OSL. We(the outfitting community) held our end of that bargain.

I am thrilled that 161 passed. I told the whole MOGA board that we would be better off w/out the OSL, and I was right(was nearly drawn and quartered for that one). The thing about it that makes me happiest is all the "unintended consequences" I warned of came true....I really love being able to say "told you so"...kind of childish on my part, but it makes me happy to know I was right. Like arrow just said, "it's over, move on".

The bad thing is I see: the outfitting community going thru a period of growth again...just like I predicted leased acres are going back up after 161 passed(i'm getting that warm happy feeling, knowing i was right). Under the OSL we were kind of on an quota of sorts w/ our NCHU limiting us....expanding was difficult to near impossible...as evidenced by the fairly static sales of OSL. Now we still have NCHU, but all our Catagory 1 NCHU was thrown in w/ Cat. 2 NCHU(which there are a lot of, like more than there are license in the state)....so now we can easily expand, and NCHU which was expensive at one time, is now dirt cheap (supply/demand economics at work).
Not that I am very bright, but I can see problems coming in the future if something is not done to put us back on some sort of quota and stop growth(being a capitalist I really hate this part). The only thing that I know is that if we are pro-active and will work to find a solution that is tenable for all concerned we will be much better off than more ill-concieved ballot intiatives.

 

[shoots-straight]

Ben,

Jean has "the gloves are off" mentality because she feels the trust was broken w/ passage of 161. MOGA did nothing legislatively(one of the conditions) during the tenure of the OSL. We(the outfitting community) held our end of that bargain.

I am thrilled that 161 passed. I told the whole MOGA board that we would be better off w/out the OSL, and I was right(was nearly drawn and quartered for that one). The thing about it that makes me happiest is all the "unintended consequences" I warned of came true....I really love being able to say "told you so"...kind of childish on my part, but it makes me happy to know I was right. Like arrow just said, "it's over, move on".

The bad thing is I see: the outfitting community going thru a period of growth again...just like I predicted leased acres are going back up after 161 passed(i'm getting that warm happy feeling, knowing i was right). Under the OSL we were kind of on an quota of sorts w/ our NCHU limiting us....expanding was difficult to near impossible...as evidenced by the fairly static sales of OSL. Now we still have NCHU, but all our Catagory 1 NCHU was thrown in w/ Cat. 2 NCHU(which there are a lot of, like more than there are license in the state)....so now we can easily expand, and NCHU which was expensive at one time, is now dirt cheap (supply/demand economics at work).
Not that I am very bright, but I can see problems coming in the future if something is not done to put us back on some sort of quota and stop growth(being a capitalist I really hate this part). The only thing that I know is that if we are pro-active and will work to find a solution that is tenable for all concerned we will be much better off than more ill-concieved ballot intiatives.

Then why all the crying? I could care less who uses outfitters, just quit asking for special treatment. If game comes back, you'll see more competition from regular NR Joes for those tags.

At the same time, we are going after the freebee's. $4.9 million in lost revenue is too much.

 

[Eric Albus]

who is crying? i do not hear anyone crying about it...but then i live at the end of the earth..

 

[BuzzH]

Eric,

Buy Jean a box of kleenex then...pretty sure she's been wailing away about 161 for the last few years.

Just sayin'

MOGA and its membership would be wise to proceed with caution, as I'm in the neighborhood of 100% sure, that most Resident and NonResident hunters are about full up of the chit MOGA has pulled the last 2 sessions.

MOGA is on the verge of being insignificant...if they arent already.

 

[Point Creep]

Why is Block Management losing so many people? Why do a lot of folks sign up for BM then bail out after a year or 2?.

My parents are in region 6 also and that's not the trend I've seen, not by a long-shot. As a matter of fact, I think them and almost all the same neighbors in that part of the state have been enrolled since inception.

Joe, if Montana is doing such a great job "managing", why then are most of the resident sportsmen I speak w/ unhappy? Why is Montana referred to as a "third world country" by neighboring states biologists?

I'll tell you why most residents that I talk to whine about being unhappy (the sad few that I've hear whimper) it's because they can't hunt their way out of a wet paper sack. They are fat, lazy, stupid, and full of excuses as to why they shot the first two year old 3 point instead of a B&C mule deer. They blame landowner won't let them on, outfitters are ruining it for everybody, the weather, EHD, the FWP, and Obama, but don't realize there's millions of acres of great hunting just outside their window.

I've hunted the neighboring states, and MT is certainly nothing to sneeze at. Guys just want to shoot big antlered animals under a pivot, which is unfortunate. But it's good for some of you guys who are taking their money.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Ben,

Jean has "the gloves are off" mentality because she feels the trust was broken w/ passage of 161. MOGA did nothing legislatively(one of the conditions) during the tenure of the OSL. We(the outfitting community) held our end of that bargain.

I am thrilled that 161 passed. I told the whole MOGA board that we would be better off w/out the OSL, and I was right(was nearly drawn and quartered for that one). The thing about it that makes me happiest is all the "unintended consequences" I warned of came true....I really love being able to say "told you so"...kind of childish on my part, but it makes me happy to know I was right. Like arrow just said, "it's over, move on".

The bad thing is I see: the outfitting community going thru a period of growth again...just like I predicted leased acres are going back up after 161 passed(i'm getting that warm happy feeling, knowing i was right). Under the OSL we were kind of on an quota of sorts w/ our NCHU limiting us....expanding was difficult to near impossible...as evidenced by the fairly static sales of OSL. Now we still have NCHU, but all our Catagory 1 NCHU was thrown in w/ Cat. 2 NCHU(which there are a lot of, like more than there are license in the state)....so now we can easily expand, and NCHU which was expensive at one time, is now dirt cheap (supply/demand economics at work).
Not that I am very bright, but I can see problems coming in the future if something is not done to put us back on some sort of quota and stop growth(being a capitalist I really hate this part). The only thing that I know is that if we are pro-active and will work to find a solution that is tenable for all concerned we will be much better off than more ill-concieved ballot intiatives.

So how does "the gloves are off" work with "let's all work together?"

BTW- i'm not seeing many advances of the MOGA agenda at the legislature.

 

[Straight Arrow]

leased acres are going back up after 161 passed(i'm getting that warm happy feeling, knowing i was right).

Eric, is that an ego thing or are you really happy about increases in leases.

if we are pro-active and will work to find a solution that is tenable for all concerned we will be much better off than more ill-concieved ballot intiatives.

If you mean you personally working together with other Montana hunters and wildlife advocates, yes I agree. If you mean you working through your MOGA Board collaborating ... it's very doubtful at this juncture.

 

[howler]

Elk pops are shrinking in eastern Mt. not growing, I would hazard a guess we are about 50% of what the herds were 10 years ago, and all of that reduction is due to the high number of B antlerless tags being sold, FWP being required by state law to meet the objective number, which is very low.
The dilemma as I see it game management to some means managing for older class deer or bigger bucks, everyone likes to see and shoot bigger bucks, but to achieve that you have to be very restrictive and not everyone who wants to hunt will be able to. I do support a trophy area for each region. but with all the leasing going on these days whether it be the hunters themselves or a outfitter we can not restrict anymore harvest or lose the huntable lands. I do think there is some merit in equipment restrictions. with the equipment we have available these days its a wonder any deer worthy of shooting is not shot. If every one was using a 30-30 or something similar we would have some older deer for sure, that's probably not going to happen, a 200 -300 yard shot use to be a fir piece, now 500 yards plus are very common. I think is a sad direction were heading to,

 

[shoots-straight]

Good stuff from most all of you.

Eric,

If you really want to work with us, lets get that EMP revisited, demand it!

lets get HB 42 that was passed in 2003 amended to something we can live with.

Lets work on putting the resource above tag sales.

Lets get rid of the give-a-way tags.

Obviously you don't need any extra tags with all the growth coming your way, so lets just stop all attempts to add more of them.

Lets shoot-straight (sorry couldn't help it) with each other on these issues. Quit thinking your smarter than the resident hunters when you push your agenda's. There hasn't been one yet that escaped us. Not going to happen.

Have MOGA get involved in resource protection, and habitat improvements.



You might need to find new leadership to achieve those goals. The old guard isn't about to work with Montana sportsmen. We've tried, and things got derailed before they took off. Right now, there's no trust at all.

 

[Eric Albus]

shoots, that street of no trust runs both directions. MOGA is not a Defenders of Wildlife organization. MOGA is given direction by the members and is a businesss driven association.

straight...it is an ego thing...I enjoy being right. I do not think a big increase in leased acres by the outfitting community is a good thing....and we need to work on a way to curb it..I am a competetive, conservative, business minded capitalist at heart....but am smart enough to realize we are dealing w/ a public resource and have to give and take.

Ben, I think that there are issues we can work on. In order for that to happen there must be an open dialect started. Some on my side have very strong feelings toward the "opposition". Some of the oppostion are labled as "haters"....and I have seen a lot of evidence of this.

I agree on the tag issue, we did not need more tags...there are over 6100 tags left sitting in Helena right now. 6184 is a lot of $$....let's look at why the tags have not sold....any ideas?

In my opinion the reason that the license are going unsold is because of price in relation to quality. The Joe Average non-resident is not getting their dollars worth...if they were the license would sell out.

howler, the numbers of elk are increasing, especially in 410-417, and 530...and I would guess in 620-623, and 630 also. The objective numbers were set a long time ago, and are not "low". When numbers were around that 2300 on the north side of the lake we had great quality bulls in the breaks. I would like to see that again. Cut the tags for either-sex in half both archery and rifle....and run rifle elk either sex for the first 2 weeks of the general season....then the last 3 weeks cow only.

 

[Straight Arrow]

I am a competetive, conservative, business minded capitalist at heart....but am smart enough to realize we are dealing w/ a public resource and have to give and take.

Eric, that is a great acknowledgement ... open and honest. I believe you realize, in contrast, that most of us are merely Montanans who love to hunt and love our great wildlife resource. In fact, again in contrast, we spend, donate, and freely give up our money to protect our long history of a wonderful hunting legacy and to nurture our wildlife populations. We understand the economic side of it, but realize a need to not squander the resource merely to fill someone's wallet for the brief second they are on earth. The hunting legacy and the wildlife resource can go on for further generations if we wisely manage it. If you can agree with that and rally those like-minded "business minded capitalists" then perhaps there can be collaboration. But as long as your comrades follow the lead of Sen Brenden, Sen Debby Barrett, and others who advocate a legislative "blood bath" vendetta against sportsmen and wildlife ... then the stupid fight will continue to ensue.

 

[TBass]

Curious what the residents would be willing to give away, in the name of collaboration.

 

[Straight Arrow]

Curious what the residents would be willing to give away, in the name of collaboration.

Historically and continuously ... money, time, work, habitat enhancement, tourism support to draw more NR hunters, among many things. Support for farmers, ranchers, landowners continously. Support for reputable, service oriented outfitters and guides. Now a willingness by many to pay increased license fees. Support for FWP and programs.

Those are just a few historically, continuously, consistently freely offered up by Montana sportsmen and women and the organizations to which they belong. Just what did you have in mind? Or were you feebly attempting to justify the vendetta in some sarcastic way?

 

[BuzzH]

Curious what the residents would be willing to give away, in the name of collaboration.

The better question would be, what are outfitters willing to give up.

Beings how they havent given up jack chit...ever...for wildlife, anything would be a good start.

The reason DIY hunters find themselves in this current battle with the legislature/MOGA is because they compromised wayyyy too much already.

Time for someone else to compromise...I'm over it.

 

[shoots-straight]

Curious what the residents would be willing to give away, in the name of collaboration.

For one we let non residents share our resource to the tune of over 30,000 tags for deer and elk each.Some of those non residents use outfitters. Without that tag give, there would be no clients.

They are allowed to partially commercialize a public resource.

We give up a lot of opportunity (willingly) to make sure the resource doesn't go away. There's hook and bullet clubs throughout the state that look over the game animals in their areas and work hard to insure they prosper.

We give up thousands of hours of our time willingly to do all that.

Montana sportsman are watching after the resource all the time, while MOGA is trying to figure out ways to make more money off of our work.

There are resident hunters that utilize the resource too, that do nothing but bitch.

Eric, a business that utilized the resource to make it's living would do well to try and keep that resource in great shape, don't you think. Just consuming without putting anything back, it will lead to more conflicts.

howler, the numbers of elk are increasing, especially in 410-417, and 530...and I would guess in 620-623, and 630 also. The objective numbers were set a long time ago, and are not "low". When numbers were around that 2300 on the north side of the lake we had great quality bulls in the breaks. I would like to see that again. Cut the tags for either-sex in half both archery and rifle....and run rifle elk either sex for the first 2 weeks of the general season....then the last 3 weeks cow only.

Eric, do you have any data links to prove what you say is true? What science did you use to determine elk numbers in the Breaks regions? It's totally a social issue with landowners in the area.

You want the archery tags cut in half? MOGA will have a chit fit on that one.

What conflict would a either sex rifle cause with an cow hunter? What sense does that make. On the other hand, cow hunters conflict greatly with bull hunters.