Spring Bears With Hounds Proposed

IdahoNick

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 6, 2018
Messages
562
Right, who would be so bold to want to put the resource first and show some consideration for wildlife? Its more important that YOUR kids take a priority over biologically managing a resource correctly.

Take the emotion out of it and try to explain why and how a 2 day youth season, sandwiched between 6 weeks of archery and 5 weeks of rifle, makes any kind of biologically sense or how it makes sense at all.

In particular when there's constant crying about the quality of mule deer declining, too many deer and elk staying on private year round due to the pressure, and all the other things that Montana hunters cry about.

What I'm getting tired of, is the crybaby hound hunters running to the legislature to get their bear season. I'm tired of "concerned" parents running to the legislature to make sure precious little Johnnie can have his own special season. I'm tired of muzzleloader hunters running to the legislature to make sure they get another 9 days of pounding on deer and elk. I'm tired of landowners running to the legislature and getting shoulder seasons. I'm tired of landowners running the legislature to get 10 LQ elk tags for owning 640 acres. I',m tired of the outfitters running to the legislature to get a separate allocation of tags.

Do I goddamn need to go on, or do you get the point yet...because I could go on all day of the stupid shit that I see session after session.

I got news for you, parents wanting to take their kids out for another 2 days in Montana, is not one bit different than an outfitter wanting a set aside of tags...not a bit.

There is absolutely not one shit given by either about how their running to the legislature is going to impact the resource...they flat don't care.

I'll keep advocating for the RESOURCE first, for HABITAT first, for keeping public lands open and will not be apologizing for it...and if you don't have the stomach for it, then quit.

Priorities are jacked up in hunting for about 90% of those that participate. They think wildlife is an infinite resource and we don't impact it.
Getting kids interested and involved in hunting, through means of giving them reasonable opportunities that give them an edge, even at the expense of YOUR opportunity is a good thing for HUNTING. Maybe not for YOU, but for the sport.

Two days Buzz. You think two days is enough for a come-apart. Enough to advocate against.

Reading your posts it is clear that you advocate for you. Give the sport of hunting and youth hunters a break and save the gas next time. Stay home. Go to the bowling alley instead of the capital.

If you are actively advocating AGAINST youth opportunity you are a cancer to our sport.
 

SnowyMountaineer

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 11, 2009
Messages
3,013
Location
WY
Getting kids interested and involved in hunting, through means of giving them reasonable opportunities that give them an edge, even at the expense of YOUR opportunity is a good thing for HUNTING. Maybe not for YOU, but for the sport.

Two days Buzz. You think two days is enough for a come-apart. Enough to advocate against.

Reading your posts it is clear that you advocate for you. Give the sport of hunting and youth hunters a break and save the gas next time. Stay home. Go to the bowling alley instead of the capital.

If you are actively advocating AGAINST youth opportunity you are a cancer to our sport.
So let’s give kids a two day season and take away three weeks of rut hunting bucks on a general tag for the masses then. The problem isn’t expanded youth opportunity, the problem is it’s IN ADDITION to everything else that’s always more more more.
I thought you said you didn’t know the nuts and bolts of MT’s situation enough to comment?
I thought you wanted to keep this about hounds and bears?
 

IdahoNick

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 6, 2018
Messages
562
We can agree to disagree.

If people (not every Montanan) are actively fighting to get rid of already existing youth hunting opportunities designed to give them a slight edge (2 extra days, or an antlerless option) then the conversation about adding another means of take seems silly.

I complain that hunters cannot unite but the truth is that I am part of that problem.... because I could never stand shoulder to shoulder with someone actively fighting to get rid of existing opportunities for twelve-year-old kids and support that.

The DDD movement is in full force.
 

BuzzH

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 9, 2001
Messages
13,206
Location
Laramie, WY
Getting kids interested and involved in hunting, through means of giving them reasonable opportunities that give them an edge, even at the expense of YOUR opportunity is a good thing for HUNTING. Maybe not for YOU, but for the sport.

Two days Buzz. You think two days is enough for a come-apart. Enough to advocate against.

Reading your posts it is clear that you advocate for you. Give the sport of hunting and youth hunters a break and save the gas next time. Stay home. Go to the bowling alley instead of the capital.

If you are actively advocating AGAINST youth opportunity you are a cancer to our sport.
Like I said, take the emotion out of it.

How did kids get interested and involved in 1979 when I started hunting? We followed the exact same regulations as the adults did. No extra days, no shooting cows and does season long. Same regulations.

That's the problem, everyone thinks their kids, dogs, business etc. are special...they aren't. I'm sick of people running to the legislature every time they have a dumb idea.

I'm thankful my Parents were actually Parents, and taught us that we're no better than anyone else. Taught us that the rules and regulations apply to everyone. Taught us that we didnt need to run to the legislature every time we didn't get our way. Most importantly, taught us that putting the interest of the environment, habitat, and wildlife over the needs of running a hook or bullet through them was more important.

Finally, my Parents took the time to take us hunting, fishing, camping etc. and didn't expect extra days to take us so it wouldn't inconvenience them by taking up time they could be hunting. They sacrificed their own hunting to mentor and help us.

I do the same with my nephews, I don't run to the legislature to add another 2 days so I can take them out to slam a deer so it doesn't interfere with my own hunting. I sacrifice my time, effort, and money to mentor them. They're both going to be hunters for life, and sure as hell isn't because of a 2 day expanded deer season tacked onto 11+ weeks. Neither one of them has even bothered to hunt the 2 additional days.

These seasons are 95% about the ego of the parents, not the kids, not the resource, not the tradition of deer camp...and that's a fact. I've also not seen an increase in advocacy or kids staying involved long-term because of these seasons.
 
Last edited:

BuzzH

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 9, 2001
Messages
13,206
Location
Laramie, WY
We can agree to disagree.

If people (not every Montanan) are actively fighting to get rid of already existing youth hunting opportunities designed to give them a slight edge (2 extra days, or an antlerless option) then the conversation about adding another means of take seems silly.

I complain that hunters cannot unite but the truth is that I am part of that problem.... because I could never stand shoulder to shoulder with someone actively fighting to get rid of existing opportunities for twelve-year-old kids and support that.

The DDD movement is in full force.
Right, because your needs, and the needs of your own hunting time and kids, trump what's best for wildlife...point taken and I get it.

Same with muzzleloader seasons, crossbow seasons, shoulder seasons, outfitter allocations, landowner allocations, and the list goes on and on and on.

I won't apologize for putting the resource first, and trust me, there is no "shoulder to shoulder" unification in that advocacy.

Only time "concerned" parents and outfitters and landowners show up is when they want to take something...fact.
 

JLS

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 26, 2012
Messages
13,444
Location
Almost Arkansas…..
I don’t trust their biologists numbers. They do not document tons of wolves. I have some ranchers as friends in eastern Washington and they can’t get a documented wolf kill unless a bio literally shows up and they are eating the calf. I have seen trail cam pictures of multiple wolves in areas they claim to have zero. There are way more wolves in Washington than what is documented. I don’t know if they have more than Idaho or Montana but they have more than they claim. Regardless there population is way beyond Needing management wether the true number is higher than Idaho or Montana. That site has plenty of Liberals believe me. They were arguing the same bull propaganda that got hounds and baiting eliminated on that site. There were plenty of people praising wolves on that sight. It’s a liberal state. None of that matters really. My point is predator management vs no predator management is a Good thing. Even when we sometimes go too far for a little bit. Look at what’s happening to their ungulate population. It’s an excellent example of a pro predator state an what happens. When we have to complain about too much predator management it’s one thousand percent better problem to have to no management of predators. Go on there see what there resident hunters feel like 👍 it’s enlightening as to what happens when we go too far in protection of predators. A limited hound season would be a dream come true for most Washington deer and elk hunters. A small percentage would oppose it because it might hurt their bear hunting.
There’s a whole lot of BS in this post, however this isn’t germane to the thread at hand. I’m out. Carry-on.
 

shoots-straight

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 6, 2005
Messages
6,321
Location
Bitterroot Valley
Getting kids interested and involved in hunting, through means of giving them reasonable opportunities that give them an edge, even at the expense of YOUR opportunity is a good thing for HUNTING. Maybe not for YOU, but for the sport.

Two days Buzz. You think two days is enough for a come-apart. Enough to advocate against.

Reading your posts it is clear that you advocate for you. Give the sport of hunting and youth hunters a break and save the gas next time. Stay home. Go to the bowling alley instead of the capital.

If you are actively advocating AGAINST youth opportunity you are a cancer to our sport.
I've known Buzz long enough to know that what he's saying is an advocation for the resource first. I was raised to think you took care of the Wildlife (resource) first then "Opportunity" for everyone would just happen. 5 weeks of hunting in Montana is not a "reasonable" opportunity for you to get your kid out? Buzz is the selfish one? Come on man!

I grew up in Montana, never had a special season, special clothing, boots, gear etc. Hell even our heater in the old jeep didn't work enough to keep the windows from freezing, yet here I am still hunting after 47 years. What a miracle it must of been to be still hunting without that extra two days? My kid is still hunting too, even though he didn't get that extra two days. Oh the miracles afforded to my family that we still hunt even though we only had 35 days to hunt the general Montana hunting season. (now it's 36 because we also added another day to the opener).

Today in Montana there are far more hunters hunting than there were when I was a toddler. How did that happen considering the populations not that much more? We haven't had those extra two days of youth hunting for that long yet to have much of impact.

What is a cancer on our sport, is the mind set that the resource can keep giving at the expense of opportunity. It's a finite resource with a finite amount of land and game available. Last time I checked God isn't making anymore of the dirt those animals live on.

About a 5 years ago or so, this "Liberal Hunt talker" (who traps wolves, and runs cats with dogs.) had conversations with other "Liberal Hunt talkers" about maybe proposing a Bear Baiting season in Montana. Montana was about to add (Weird I know) two more weeks in the spring, and 2 more weeks in the fall, to the Bear season to harvest more black bear. We held off on the proposal to see what the results would be with that extra month of bear hunting. After seeing how significant the harvest was, it made little sense to try and increase the harvest. There just wasn't a good reason, as the added time had pushed the harvest up by a lot. Maybe I should have just thought about what I wanted and found a legislator that was willing to run with my Bear baiting idea and propose legislation.

When the legislature decides expand opportunity for a group, very rarely do they ask to see if the data would support such a "opportunity" or added season. I'm hopeful this hound season can support the increase kill, but won't be surprised if we see a reduction in the hunting of bears in the near future. So if that's the case and the season gets cuts, those spot and stalk hunters are going to lose "Opportunity" because we moved in another group.

Just wondering out loud, as to why we haven't added a two day youth opportunity to the bear season? Maybe that would make another thread?

Carry on.
 

IdahoNick

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 6, 2018
Messages
562
I've known Buzz long enough to know that what he's saying is an advocation for the resource first. I was raised to think you took care of the Wildlife (resource) first then "Opportunity" for everyone would just happen. 5 weeks of hunting in Montana is not a "reasonable" opportunity for you to get your kid out? Buzz is the selfish one? Come on man!

I grew up in Montana, never had a special season, special clothing, boots, gear etc. Hell even our heater in the old jeep didn't work enough to keep the windows from freezing, yet here I am still hunting after 47 years. What a miracle it must of been to be still hunting without that extra two days? My kid is still hunting too, even though he didn't get that extra two days. Oh the miracles afforded to my family that we still hunt even though we only had 35 days to hunt the general Montana hunting season. (now it's 36 because we also added another day to the opener).

Today in Montana there are far more hunters hunting than there were when I was a toddler. How did that happen considering the populations not that much more? We haven't had those extra two days of youth hunting for that long yet to have much of impact.

What is a cancer on our sport, is the mind set that the resource can keep giving at the expense of opportunity. It's a finite resource with a finite amount of land and game available. Last time I checked God isn't making anymore of the dirt those animals live on.

About a 5 years ago or so, this "Liberal Hunt talker" (who traps wolves, and runs cats with dogs.) had conversations with other "Liberal Hunt talkers" about maybe proposing a Bear Baiting season in Montana. Montana was about to add (Weird I know) two more weeks in the spring, and 2 more weeks in the fall, to the Bear season to harvest more black bear. We held off on the proposal to see what the results would be with that extra month of bear hunting. After seeing how significant the harvest was, it made little sense to try and increase the harvest. There just wasn't a good reason, as the added time had pushed the harvest up by a lot. Maybe I should have just thought about what I wanted and found a legislator that was willing to run with my Bear baiting idea and propose legislation.

When the legislature decides expand opportunity for a group, very rarely do they ask to see if the data would support such a "opportunity" or added season. I'm hopeful this hound season can support the increase kill, but won't be surprised if we see a reduction in the hunting of bears in the near future. So if that's the case and the season gets cuts, those spot and stalk hunters are going to lose "Opportunity" because we moved in another group.

Just wondering out loud, as to why we haven't added a two day youth opportunity to the bear season? Maybe that would make another thread?

Carry on.
I am not fooled by the resource argument. Here is why:

I would argue, based on what I have read on this thread and others regarding hound hunting bears in Montana, that there is not a single person who is against this proposal that would change their mind if all Montana bear hound seasons were pursuit only for the purposes of dog training.

So, if that is the case, the argument has nothing to do with resource allocation or what the resource can support. It is a "not in my backyard" argument. Sure, they will say, "hey, they will chase my bears away before I can snipe them across the canyon."...but that has nothing to do with conserving the resource.

Again, if the proposal was bear pursuit only with houndsmen killing zero bears, I venture to say the conversation will quickly go back to the grizzly bear crap, or to the, "well, it still messes my hunt up."

Hound hunters would rather be able to chase than not chase, even if they could not kill a single bear over hounds. People would still be against that...this isn't about the resource. It is about a tiny thing that may make their hunt slightly less than perfect.

They could be fishing in a lake where they can keep whatever they catch, but still be upset if another fisherman came who by law could only do catch and release.
 

BuzzH

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 9, 2001
Messages
13,206
Location
Laramie, WY
I am not fooled by the resource argument. Here is why:

I would argue, based on what I have read on this thread and others regarding hound hunting bears in Montana, that there is not a single person who is against this proposal that would change their mind if all Montana bear hound seasons were pursuit only for the purposes of dog training.

So, if that is the case, the argument has nothing to do with resource allocation or what the resource can support. It is a "not in my backyard" argument. Sure, they will say, "hey, they will chase my bears away before I can snipe them across the canyon."...but that has nothing to do with conserving the resource.

Again, if the proposal was bear pursuit only with houndsmen killing zero bears, I venture to say the conversation will quickly go back to the grizzly bear crap, or to the, "well, it still messes my hunt up."

Hound hunters would rather be able to chase than not chase, even if they could not kill a single bear over hounds. People would still be against that...this isn't about the resource. It is about a tiny thing that may make their hunt slightly less than perfect.

They could be fishing in a lake where they can keep whatever they catch, but still be upset if another fisherman came who by law could only do catch and release.
Grasping at the strawman...and the only fishing is for the oh-too-common red herring.

Yeah, but...

Carry on.
 

RobertD

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 16, 2020
Messages
865
Location
Southwest Georgia (GA)
Region 7. Up to 7 mule deer doe tags, 2 whitetail doe tags, plus your A tag. Sure wish we could see some of that reducing tags

I've never hunted Montana, only visited, but seeing things like this give a lot of credence to the hunters who argue that Montana is just bleeding it to the bone... seven mule deer doe tags? Smdh.
 

IdahoNick

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 6, 2018
Messages
562
Grasping at the strawman...and the only fishing is for the oh-too-common red herring.

Yeah, but...

Carry on.
Ok...would you support this proposal if hound hunters could only pursue bears but not kill any?

Not a single bear would be killed over hounds in Montana.

You are all about preserving the resource...

What will be your reason against that? Would it be too mentally stressful for the bears? Will we go back to the grizzly bear nonsense?

Or will you just come out and tell the truth...it won't benefit you so you are against it.
 

IdahoNick

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 6, 2018
Messages
562
It is a fair question...really gets to the motivations.

Is it resource...or himself.
 

brockel

Well-known member
Joined
May 13, 2016
Messages
2,375
Location
Baker,MT
I've never hunted Montana, only visited, but seeing things like this give a lot of credence to the hunters who argue that Montana is just bleeding it to the bone... seven mule deer doe tags? Smdh.
This year there’s 11,000 mule deer doe tags for region 7. Fwp is either to lazy or to ignorant to break region 7 down into its districts and manage by that. All 11,000 does could potentially be shot in the same county the way it is managed now. Fwp claims hunters will disperse themselves

here’s the size of region 7
42B031F8-58A4-459A-BD45-459768236295.jpeg
 

shoots-straight

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 6, 2005
Messages
6,321
Location
Bitterroot Valley
It is a fair question...really gets to the motivations.

Is it resource...or himself.
Can't speak for Buzz, but for me, I really didn't have a lot of heartburn over the proposal. Like I said earlier, (you might not have read my post). I've seen the numbers. Another added take on Black bears will have ramifications. For me it's got several downfalls going here. Resource is number one, User Conflict is Number two, and the probable non delisting of the Grizzly bear because of this added "opportunity" would be number 3. Other than that I can't say I won't be chasing a bear with dogs. I'd rather the commission have worked on this than the legislature.
 

BuzzH

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 9, 2001
Messages
13,206
Location
Laramie, WY
This year there’s 11,000 mule deer doe tags for region 7. Fwp is either to lazy or to ignorant to break region 7 down into its districts and manage by that. All 11,000 does could potentially be shot in the same county the way it is managed now. Fwp claims hunters will disperse themselves

here’s the size of region 7
View attachment 181486
Right, and those saying they were killing more in the past, they're memories are short or they don't have copies of the regulations.

Just now looking at a 1998 set of orders...2,000 mule deer doe tags issued in Montana for region 7.

More hunters, less deer, and 11,000 tags...makes total sense, unless you think about it.

The mountain lion orders are pretty interesting too...

Looking at a 1985 set of orders, I think the only doe mule deer that could be shot in the 700's were with an A-tag. I didn't hunt Eastern Montana until about 1987.

 
Last edited:

IdahoNick

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 6, 2018
Messages
562
Ok...would you support this proposal if hound hunters could only pursue bears but not kill any?

Not a single bear would be killed over hounds in Montana.

You are all about preserving the resource...

What will be your reason against that? Would it be too mentally stressful for the bears? Will we go back to the grizzly bear nonsense?

Or will you just come out and tell the truth...it won't benefit you so you are against it.
Never answered question. Just ducked it.
 

RobertD

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 16, 2020
Messages
865
Location
Southwest Georgia (GA)
This year there’s 11,000 mule deer doe tags for region 7. Fwp is either to lazy or to ignorant to break region 7 down into its districts and manage by that. All 11,000 does could potentially be shot in the same county the way it is managed now. Fwp claims hunters will disperse themselves

here’s the size of region 7
View attachment 181486

Yikes. Didn't they do essentially the same thing w/ pronghorn in the 700s? Could be wrong.

Whole reason we have game management department is because hunters don't and can't know how to disperse themselves in a way that best suits population levels. I can't see how those allocations are good for anything other than shooting the piss out of mule deer and letting God sort 'em out...

Sorry to distract from topic at hand, but I guess there is good reason why so many specific topic threads evolve into these generalized discussions of opportunity at the expense of the resource... seems like the trend in many places and especially in MT.
 
Caribou Gear

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
96,865
Messages
1,469,635
Members
30,469
Latest member
AlexT.
Top