Throw out your thoughts on HB361....

[onpoint]

I'll just throw this out there. Be careful of supporting a bill - supported by those who got it going and for the reasons they did - to over rule the big game management process that exists. Look behind the sponsorship of the legislation. If the management at the agency level is irritating to so many folks - here comes the mantra - organize hunter numbers, attack the issue in force. It's all about hunters getting together WHEN the time is needed to. Picking between a resource management agency and their constituents OR legislature to manage our resources?? To me it's a no brainer. Legislature managing resources is classic example of the fox guarding the hen house. Let the differing opinions fly.......

 

[TBass]

I hope it goes through. Here is what the commission's bad decision did for me last year. I didn't draw an archery permit for the area were the family ranch is. So I was left with the decision to go west or don't archery hunt. So I went west and hunted near Bozeman. I encountered lots of hunters and even called an eager archery hunter out of the area that I was hoping to have a try at. (I know it was a dirty trick but he sure got an adrenaline rush thinking he was in hot pursuit of a big bull) The place I hunted was crowded. I found some elk and had a good time. However, because of the increase travel distance I didn't archery hunt as much as I normally did. I also didn't invite as many friends to the family ranch to hunt with me because I didn't have a tag to hunt with them. I also fed the state's elk $6500 in grain and of course the usual other costs that my family just bares to have wildlife around. I know we don't mind too much except for the grain loss that I could have used to pay some of my mortgage off with. Some of my friends tried to encourage me to just hunt anyway like some private landowner do. I mean just hang it up in the quonset and to hell with FWP. You fed the suckers anyway... However, I love hunting and am an honest man so that was out of the question.
As a result, hunting opportunity was taken away from everyone. Residents and nonresidents.
The way I see it, the commisioners are paid by the State of Montana and as such have to answer to our legislature, govenor. etc. for the good decisions along with the bad ones they make. So now they will be checked a bit by this bill and after that then I would susspect in a few years there will be another bill to counter act this one when they earn back the trust of the people. If they would have only listened to us in the first place.

Yes you could have hunted your own property. Everybody with a general elk license can hunt for a cow in the district your property is in. You could have even helped yourself with that grain loss by shooting a cow. There's a lot of people who support this bill who are trying to argue that permits are being reduced at the same time elk are over objective. I would imagine you are fairly typical of archers who wouldn't consider shooting a cow. Not saying that's right or wrong, merely pointing out the fallacy of the population management argument that's being thrown around by supporters of the archery bills.

I think tjones is correct in that people don't like not being able to put in for the rifle permit 1st choice and then aren't guaranteed to draw an archery permit on 2nd or 3rd choice. Even so, 338 out of the 383 2nd choice applicants for archery permits drew in your area. Yes it sucks that things aren't the way they used to be. But it also sucks that I, as largely a rifle hunter, can't hunt for a bull there whenever I want either. Before you throw out the "Buy a bow" battle cry, I'll say if archery hunting for a bull on your property is so important to you, then put in for it as your 1st choice. Otherwise, put in for the rifle permit 1st choice and take a small gamble that you won't draw an archery permit as 2nd choice. Just like you must have done in 2010.

If the permits are left in place in the Breaks but removed elsewhere, and with the warnings tjones has given regarding lack of elk in the west, where do you think the unsuccessful folks are going to go?

If someone knocked on your door and asked to shoot a cow to help alleviate your grain losses, would you let them?

 

[Horn Seeker]

I honestly dont believe there is a clear right or wrong here... As much as I hate to see the commission's decisions changed by legistlative action, the commission did it to themselves. They went against the people... and the reason the "people" didn't support them in the first place is that the commission did not have any ground to stand on for their decision (to make the 23 draw only)... There were 2 or 3 districts, maybe less really, (like 590 in particular) out of all the 23 ...that could have possibly used limited entry archery tags.... according to all the folks I've talked to about it. The districts I've hunted and explored during archery season in the 23.... I have literally never seen another archery hunter....

Sure, I wasn't hunting private....but I didn't need to. I was in bugling elk on public....

I am going to make a phone call or two today and try and get some more intel on this from another perspective or two.... hopefully I'll have something to share.

 

[Drake4]

....double post

 

[Drake4]

I also fed the state's elk $6500 in grain

You should join Block Management. That will help reduce the elk that are eating your grain plus supplement some of that lost $6500.

There are lots of people in this state who can't hunt their 1st choice unit every year. Me included.

 

[tjones]

Once again if I remember right, the reason for the all districts LE was the shift in hunters. Meaning if only half of the HDs would have been LE then hunters would have shifted to the unlimited and you would have had the over crowding with bothe R's and NR's. I am not defending the commission decision just letting you know what I remember.

 

[Lawnboy]

Once again why not wait and see for a year or two if that would be the case(overcrowding in other units) . If the bitteroot had awesome elk numbers and no overcrowding issues and the flathead area didn't. You'd be pissed if the commission lumped you in with the Flathead and even carried it over to Bozeman and limited your opportunity.

 

[Big Fin]

So, will this put the tag numbers at high number, or put them unlimited?

If unlimited, will it be like it was at one point a while back, where it had to be your first choice?

 

[lamdilligaf]

Not sure I know the real reasons behind this bill (although I think I have a pretty good idea), but I oppose it with what knowledge I do have for the following reasons.

1. It's not a legislative issue -- leave it to the commission
2. Increasing the number of archery permits likely isn't going to do much to reduce population growth, which is one of the proposed reasons for the bill. If population control IS REALLY the objective then they should be issuing more cow tags during rifle season.

Part of management involves creating a desired experience. I've never hunted in these areas, but it seems like they're already rather crowded during bow season. It's nice to have a few options that are relatively easy to draw every few years that provide a reasonable chance of seeing/shooting decent animals without having the crowds you might encounter if it were a general area.

I couldn't have said it better.

 

[shoots-straight]

I'm betting, that those that hunt the public lands, that are for this bill today, will want to go back to pre 2011 regulations in two years.

I found the 2006 regulations, and you had to purchase the archery tag by Sept 1 to hunt any of the archery areas. 620, 630 etc. 411 was any general tag would work for archery season. You had to draw for the 200 rifle either sex tags, if you didn't draw it was still good for a cow.

410, 417,620,621,622 you had to draw to archery hunt 1st choice only 630,631,632 LE of 200 for archery you get the picture, ask me for a spcific are if you want to.

 

[jlmatthew]

Why not just push the Commission to open up all of Montana to OTC Bull tags for everyone, Resident & Nonresident alike so you guys can share in the same kind of great Elk hunting experience just like us Coloradoans have!

And your Wildlife Dept will have tons of cash too!

just a thought



Just kidding of course, I'd never wish Colorado style elk management on other States. Plus the way you guys do it in MT gives me an incentive to move up up there!

 

[lamdilligaf]

I have no doubt that some areas are seeing an impact by archery hunters but come on there are areas in the 23OD that are way over objective on numbers and archery hunters are hardly going to help that come down.

Lawnboy, you should know that the inpact by increased archery hunters is going to be on the bull numbers, not the overall herd numbers. Increased cow tags MAY decrease overall elk numbers, but it's the access issues on many of these areas that make the elk numbers difficult to control.

 

[Rat Fink]

I have no doubt that some areas are seeing an impact by archery hunters but come on there are areas in the 23OD that are way over objective on numbers and archery hunters are hardly going to help that come down.

Lawnboy, you should know that the inpact by increased archery hunters is going to be on the bull numbers, not the overall herd numbers. Increased cow tags MAY decrease overall elk numbers, but it's the access issues on many of these areas that make the elk numbers difficult to control.

Using the EMP objective numbers is a bogus way of looking at it anyways. If the elk numbers were set by carrying capacity instead of what a rancher feels is tolerable then I would feel good about those objectives. Until those numbers reflect what the habitat can carry, I don't feel much pain for landowners. If landowners limit access, and then complain that elk numbers are too high, when in reality elk numbers are well below carrying capacity, then I say too bad and let the ranchers incur the losses. Once numbers are allowed to be where nature can sustain them, then I'd be willing to provide help when needed to mitigate losses. Right now it's a have your cake and eat it too situation.

 

[Big Fin]

Interesting, for sure.

I did not want those other units to go to limited permit in the first place, and in the two hearings I attended, I did not hear one person in favor of the change. Maybe it was different at other hearings.

Seemed strange to put something on a limited permit where the majority of the elk were on private land and access is what controls the management, not the tag levels.

The objectives were exceeded in most those units, so was limiting permits going to help with that? Since most the elk are on private, is raising permits going to help with that, when most those permits will be used on bulls?

We all know those objectives in the Elk Management Plan are ridiculously low, so it is not hard to be over objective. Yet, it is hard to be convinced by either side that this is about reaching population objectives and cow harvest, though "objectives" was used as a reason for the original decision to limit tags, and as a reason by the supporters of the bill to increase tags.

With the control private landowners have over the majorty of the elk ground, they are in effect the elk managers in many of these units. No matter what tag level we set it at, the access to private land will determine the amount of harvest and reaching objective. Which was my premise for opposing the limited permits in the first place.

As if through some magical way, limited permits were going to cause a bunch of ranches to open - NOT.

So, it looks like this vote would put it back to how I would prefer, but I hate seeing it have to go through the legislature.

Tough to see the "end" be what I want for those units outside the Breaks, but the "means" by which it happens be something I don't like.

Gotta ask, is this really such a difficult problem to solve?

I don't buy into the premise that we have to manage all units the same. We can manage the Breaks one way and manage the other 20+ units a different way, NO?

Seems like if we managed the Breaks in one manner, according to what is best there, with having greater public access, that would be good.

And we manage the other eastern Montana units, where public access is so difficult, and is a completely different set of dynamics, that would be good.

Or, would it just be a little extra work for the legislature and the commission to look at it as two different issues.

I do think that in MT, we are going to see more of these problems arise as more and more land is off limits and the public land gets more and more crowded. Just a fact of the demand for quality hunting.

We will have two options on public. Accept a lower quality experience due to crowding, or reduce opportunity. I hate both options, but I better figure out which is the most palatable, as in the next ten years, I see it coming down the pike.

This attempt did not work, or the legislature would probably not have been pressured to intervene. Hopefully the next time the Commission tries to do something, it is not a "one size fits all" approach.

I am probably too much of a simpleton to have a clue about this, so I apologize for wasting your time.

 

[cowboy]

I see a lot of reference to the Game & Fish commision and their acts being either good or bad and hoping to leave the decisions to them. In my 30 plus years of living in Montana I have had the opportunity to know/talk to a lot of these people on the commision on a lot of topics. You know what - THEY ARE POLITICAL APPOINTEES.

Where do they get their info from - Game & Fish. So let's call a spade a spade. It's our Game & Fish that are not listening or have or have things messed up. I'm not bad mouthing our current commisioners but knowing 2 of them - well - let's just say that they are not making decisions on what they have learned from personal experience. Do you really think that the commision is setting seasons/quotas etc - Raise hell with the Game & Fish Dept. when you are upset - the commision is no different than all them clowns we've got up in Helena right now.

I have been to way too many "open comment meetings" held by G&F. Their response is the final decision is up to the commision and their hands are tied. Talk to the commisioners and something different. Can someone tell me the reason for the commision - other than for our G&F to have a out for making bad decisions.

There is a lot of reasons why things are so messed up in Helena this year - FRUSTRATION. People have had enough and their only recourse is to get some dim wit heading to Helena to carry a bill for them. They feel there is no reason to talk to G&F or to the commisioners because that will not work.

Time for a review of our current G&F/Commision system. If they clean up their act we wouldn't have the mess Ben and everyone that is fighting for us up in Helena is going through.

The fear I have now is the fact that a new precident has been set - if you don't like something - the hell with G&F - we'll get our Rep/Senator to create a new bill.

If anything should be learned by this session it is the fact that G&F better start listening - and they better start giving the commision better advise.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Good post Cowboy, especially this:

The fear I have now is the fact that a new precident has been set - if you don't like something - the hell with G&F - we'll get our Rep/Senator to create a new bill.

Commissions are supposed to represent the voice of the people in wildlife management decisions. They're never perfect, but they are better than the alternatives out there.

I have to wonder if some of this sentiment is beyond just frustration. It seems that a lot of this stuff is wrapped up in tea party rhetoric. Maybe it's the further polarization of the public on natural resource or wildlife issues, or maybe it's just some groups saw that they could get the votes or smelled the blood in the water so they went after this method of seeking redress, I don't know.

What I do know is that the rationale and the reasoning behind wildlife management goes out the window when we only get 20 minutes to debate an issue. Legislatures across the US set up the system we have today because they wanted to get as much politics out of wildlife management as possible.

While we all know that's impossible, the Commission system does work well for the most part. But that means that hunters and anglers must be involved in order for it to truly work.

 

[drahthaar]

Is there a way to change how the commission is appointed? Seems they need to be accountable more to the public than to the governor.

I would tend to agree with cowboy about people feeling that going the public comment meetings doesn't do any good. I hear a lot, "they'll do what they want anyway, its dog and pony show". I think there is frustration with that, right or wrong.

 

[cowboy]

Is there a way to change how the commission is appointed? Seems they need to be accountable more to the public than to the governor.

I would love to hear a personal opinion on the above comment from Ben, Big Fin or any of you others that have been actively involved in the political process and have seen what could or could not happen with change.

Would it help if the commissioners were elected? Could that ever even be an option? Would it be a bad option? What would it take to modernize the ways things have been done for 100 years here in Montana concerning our wildlife decisions?

I had complete faith in our current setup of G&F/commission for many many years. Then starting about the 5th wolf reintroduction meeting I went to I became concerned. Now after seeing the results and what we are currently facing in many many other areas I begin to ask myself - who the hell is running this ship.

I think everyone reading this post wants the same thing - reasonable results. After this session I just dread the thought of them clowns possible meeting every year.

 

[Big Fin]

I would love to hear a personal opinion on the above comment from Ben, Big Fin or any of you others that have been actively involved in the political process and have seen what could or could not happen with change.

Would it help if the commissioners were elected? Could that ever even be an option? Would it be a bad option? What would it take to modernize the ways things have been done for 100 years here in Montana concerning our wildlife decisions?

I had complete faith in our current setup of G&F/commission for many many years. Then starting about the 5th wolf reintroduction meeting I went to I became concerned. Now after seeing the results and what we are currently facing in many many other areas I begin to ask myself - who the hell is running this ship.

I think everyone reading this post wants the same thing - reasonable results. After this session I just dread the thought of them clowns possible meeting every year.

Not sure my opinion is one worth listening to, but here it is.

I personally think there will never be a perfect solution. A voted commission will have as many, or more problems, than the perceived issues of an appointed commission.

Look at the state Supreme Court. Now, the legislature wants the justices to be party affiliated. A bad idea, no matter who you are.

I think the same would happen with the Commission. You would get some wingnuts who would do anything to get on that Commission and if they had enough clout within the political parties, they might get elected. And, then you end up with an activist Commission, though some might say this is an activist Commission.

I was asked to be on the commission in 2005. Unfortunately, I was recovering from some major health issues and had two other businesses. It was not an option. I probably could not have done any better, and would have everyone ticked at me for something, by this point in time.

The Commission system, whether elected or appointed, is never going to be perfect. We are never going to get all we want. Too many diverse and competing interests to make everyone happy.

I will say that when Racicot was governor, he picked commissioners based on serious hunter/angler criteria. I would say the commissions he picked were the best I have ever worked with.

Then along came Judy Martz. Let's not even go there. She appointed John Brenden to the Commission, which shows you how much integrity she placed in the Commission process. For her, it was about using the Commission to repay political debts/favors.

I guess the Commission is a reflection of the governor's commitment to fish and game issues. If the governor is serious about fish and game issues, expect a good commission. If the governor does not hunt or fish, or is not at all tuned in to the importance of hunting and fishing, expect them to view the FWP Commission with little regard.

As imperfect as this system is, I think an elected Commission is a disaster looking for a place to occur. Think of wingnuts from either side, or someone with a heavy slant toward one interest groups, versus the other. Fly fisherman versus warm water guys, archers versus rifle hunters, muzzleloader shooters versus archers, outfitters versus self-guided hunters, you name it.

An appointed Commission can be balanced with those inherent conflicts in mind. An elected Commission could stack the deck.

Don't forget the Director position, also. That is a very important decision and is an appointed position. The Director needs to be a strong leader with a strong understanding of the hunting and fishing climate.

I think a bigger idea might be go back to what the Commission/Director structure was prior to the change in the late 70's. Then, the Director reported to the Commission, not the Gov. It gave the Director some political cover to make good decisions for wildlife and hunters/anglers, without fear of losing his job if a wildlife-based decision was necessessary, though unpopular.

If we disagree with a Commission direction, the best way to solve it is this. Get the Governor unelected and you will get a new Commission in a short order of time.

And that is all opinion, so take it for what it is worth.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Fin says it well. I agree completely.

I would say this too: In working on these issues for the last 8 years, I'd rather deal with an appointed commission than anything else. Those guys, even when you disagree with them, are in it because they love hunting, fishing and wildlife.

The more you work with your commissioner, the better off you are. Every single person on the MT commission is a stand up person, and is responsive to their constituents.

Making them elected, well, Fin nails it. Keep the system that's worked for over 60 years in place, and use it like it's supposed to be used.