Here we go again in MT...

[Deadfall]

They pulled it back. Awesome. Thats 1. Few hundred more to go

 

[Bojo34]

This isn't a matter of opinion. The taxpayers of MT own the natural resources (water, wildlife, etc) per our constitution. FYI

Interesting, I'll look that up. Do you know offhand if they distinguish between "taxpayers?" (property vs income for example?

 

[mtwarden]

FWP pulls back limited elk permit proposals ahead of commission meeting

Commissioners described an outpouring of concern and anger from hunters and indicated the proposals would not receive the commission’s support.

helenair.com

great news! obviously lots of folks calling and writing helped that decision

we can pat ourselves on the back for now, but need to remain vigilant and committed to act when necessary

 

[mtwarden]

Interesting, I'll look that up. Do you know offhand if they distinguish between "taxpayers?" (property vs income for example?

The opportunity to harvest wild fish and wild game animals is a heritage that shall forever be preserved to the individual citizens of the state and does not create a right to trespass on private property or diminution of other private rights.

 

[cgasner1]

End of the day this is a self inflicted problem for these land owners. Without allowing access nothing will change. These units can go general for everyone the elk will still hide on the private. They really should look at more of a draw system for access where you go hunt with a biologist or a warden.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[S.Clancy]

End of the day this is a self inflicted problem for these land owners. Without allowing access nothing will change. These units can go general for everyone the elk will still hide on the private. They really should look at more of a draw system for access where you go hunt with a biologist or a warden.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I would like to see them utilize our Master Hunter Program for situations where landowners do not want to be flooded with public hunters. The Master Hunter Program should represent our best bridge to these landowners as they go over extensive training on North American model, issues in hunting, etc. They even have to pass a firearm accuracy test.

 

[cgasner1]

I would like to see them utilize our Master Hunter Program for situations where landowners do not want to be flooded with public hunters. The Master Hunter Program should represent our best bridge to these landowners as they go over extensive training on North American model, issues in hunting, etc. They even have to pass a firearm accuracy test.

That would be cool we as hunters are our own worst enemy and are judged by a few bad apples. I’m not sure if even doing that would be removing enough elk to make these guys happy. Maybe have those guys volunteer to be the adult for people to get access


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[S.Clancy]

That would be cool we as hunters are our own worst enemy and are judged by a few bad apples. I’m not sure if even doing that would be removing enough elk to make these guys happy. Maybe have those guys volunteer to be the adult for people to get access


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I think a structure like giving these Master Hunter graduates the opportunity to mentor 1 or 2 people in the field on a hunt is a great idea. Obviously, this would grow interest in the program and increase the number of graduates, increasing harvest over time.

 

[mtwarden]

harvest is definitely a big part of the equation, but simply some hunting pressure on these places would be helpful moving elk as well (where additional harvest can take place)

 

[wind gypsy]

FWP pulls back limited elk permit proposals ahead of commission meeting

Commissioners described an outpouring of concern and anger from hunters and indicated the proposals would not receive the commission’s support.

helenair.com

Good news. Color me skeptical but I can't help thinking about the legislative session and how a perceived win ended with a situation that really wasn't a win. Need to stay on them. To jog memories:

1. Outfitters to get 60% of NR Tags
2. Just kidding, we just wanted to start high and negotiate towards 40%, that's historical use percentage or something like that
3. Huh, the public hates the idea of 40% too.. well i guess we'll just backdoor ya with some guaranteed licenses for folks booked with outfitters without considering impacts to game from issuing additional tags. Oh yeah, book with an outfitter and we'll give you 2 preference points. Nevermind we use the "complicated system" excuse for licensing when we're the ones that made it complicated.

 

[S.Clancy]

Good news. Color me skeptical but I can't help thinking about the legislative session and how a perceived win ended with a situation that really wasn't a win. Need to stay on them. To jog memories:

1. Outfitters to get 60% of NR Tags
2. Just kidding, we just wanted to start high and negotiate towards 40%, that's historical use percentage or something like that
3. Huh, the public hates the idea of 40% too.. well i guess we'll just backdoor ya with some guaranteed licenses for folks booked with outfitters without considering impacts to game from issuing additional tags. Oh yeah, book with an outfitter and we'll give you 2 preference points. Nevermind we use the "complicated system" excuse for licensing when we're the ones that made it complicated.

I hear you on that. The good thing is I dont think there is a mechanism for that through this process. If it isn't brought before the commission, it can't be allowed the month of public comment. Whatever dies today, dies until the next commission meeting, at least as I understand it.

 

[bigsky2]

This isn't a win yet. Settling for a shit sandwich isn't a win. They are talking about introducing a new proposal today that will involve general or unlimited archery tags in these districts. That will still lead to monetization of elk, loss of access, and more pressure on public land.

 

[wind gypsy]

I hear you on that. The good thing is I dont think there is a mechanism for that through this process. If it isn't brought before the commission, it can't be allowed the month of public comment. Whatever dies today, dies until the next commission meeting, at least as I understand it.

I interpreted the article as saying there will be different proposals brought forward today and that is what i was getting at.

"What will be introduced, Worsech and FWP chief of staff Quentin Kujala said in an interview late Monday, will not include differing permit regulations on public and private lands. The districts in question are currently under a 900-series multi-district archery elk permit while rifle permits are set by district. The proposal Worsech will introduce will either move archery hunting to a general license district-wide or make the archery permits unlimited. Rifle permits will be increased by 50%."

The above change still sucks for quality of elk hunting. Predicted bait and switch: "we tried to limit it to private land and reduce permits to maintain some quality of elk hunting but the public was angry about preferential treatment of landowners so we came up with this solution".

But hey, they are being so transparent that they sent out emails about today's meeting with agenda 30 minutes before it's scheduled to take place.

 

[TheTone]

A bunch of landowners have no desire to reduce “over objective” or harbored elk. They want them, they just want an easier mechanism to either hunt them themselves or have someone pay to hunt them

 

[S.Clancy]

I'm at the meeting. We are just getting to public comment for the new proposals. Basically, in those 8 districts, they will increase either sex tags by 50%. For archery permits they will go unlimited in those units. Another proposal that will go to public comment is unlimited cow tags for private land in those 8 districts.

 

[cgasner1]

That will flood these units with non residents and probably make it worse


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[wind gypsy]

Montana Elk Management Showdown: Proposal Could Burn Public-Land Hunters Who Have Waited Years to Draw a Tag

A Montana proposal would eliminate many special-permit opportunities for bull elk on public land, and open opportunity on private ground.

www.outdoorlife.com

 

[MT_Wyatt]

I thought the elk portion of the meeting, which comments had to start getting cutoff, went pretty well. It was jarring to have the Commissioners putting FWP on their heels with some of this stuff, but shows they are listening. The Director used a stat of like 130 bulls to 30 cows at one point, which is insane.......so was his idea that "objectives" needed to be reworded as "tolerances." That guys needs to resign, soonest, as he clearly is speaking on wildlife management from an ill-informed perspective. He should read their own website.

Listening to the FWP management (I would separate them, for this discussion, from the regional staffs etc who do not deserve any flak) in this working group was scary - main take away (for me) from that and today was people asking where the science is - what justifies these changes? Lots of good ideas today and some sharp comments. It's quite clear from the Commission's working group discussion they really got a ton of input from folks over the past week.

Fish & Wildlife Commission: December 13, 2021 Work Session | Montana FWP

Informational Meeting Only! No decisions or voting will take place. No public comments will be taken.

fwp.mt.gov

 

[wind gypsy]

I'm at the meeting. We are just getting to public comment for the new proposals. Basically, in those 8 districts, they will increase either sex tags by 50%. For archery permits they will go unlimited in those units. Another proposal that will go to public comment is unlimited cow tags for private land in those 8 districts.

Saw your comment, nice job.

 

[goathunter]

Time to breathe a short term sigh of relief and prepare for the next round of attacks. One thing I never saw brought up today is before all of this they already gifted the big ranches a bunch of trophy bull tags right? Which was not up for public comment.