Here we go again in MT...

[S.Clancy]

I am pretty conflicted after today. I'm thankful that the original proposals were shot down by the commission Monday night during their work session. I am growing tired of having a proposal, that almost all hunters think is universally awful, being used as a bait and switch at the last minute. My concerns after the day are...

1. Unlimited archery in the 8 units defined. How will FWP address NR here, they definitely do need to limit them or it will be a shit show. They also need to do 1st and only choice, like 900 antelope, to spread out pressure and avoid what they call "fallback hunters" that draw a tag and never hunt the unit. 1st and only choice means they want to draw that tag and have to burn points for it. I do like the "if you draw a unit you can only hunt that unit during that season". That makes sense.

2. I'm conflicted at the increased LE allocation. It basically seems like they are just drawing shit out of a hat and seeing if it gets traction. It increases opportunities but also will increase pressure, which tends to get elk moving to private. And was biology considered in this? I'll have to read back thru the biologist briefs.

3. Unlimited cow tags on Private land only. We can only kill 3 elk in MT, so by statute these would be limited to 2 a person plus an A tag, I believe. I still dont like the idea of private landowners, or those that can get access, getting the ability of unlimited tags. I'm conflicted about the precedent that sets, but, it does put a crosshair on cow elk and puts the objective ball in landowners court. I am also concerned what the unlimited title means for tag allocation to NR.

4. I spoke with the director during a recess about a number of topics. One of my biggest concerns is these type of proposals from FWP, the lack of process and the seeming randomness of it, in my opinion, has significantly damaged the public trust in the agency. That IS NOT GOOD. He acknowledged this in some respect.

I'm sure there are some things I've missed. This one issue took until noon to go through and the commission still had to get through the rest of the season setting. My biggest takeaway from today was I am thankful that the commission responded well to the amount of public comment.

I still need to decompress, but if any of you are local to Helena, MT and want to grab a beer or whatever and try to muddle through, let me know and we can meet up. If you are among the people I met today at the hearing, thanks for being there and making your voice heard.

 

[S.Clancy]

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.

That was through an existing program that FWP has had for some time. The big change was, I believe, the legislature passed a bill this spring that reduced the amount of public opportunity per Landowner Tag. That's the reason it got a ton of press, and it was the Wilkes bros

 

[wind gypsy]

Montana FWP changes course from controversial elk hunting proposal for central and eastern hunting districts

The Montana Fish and Wildlife Commission has pulled back on a controversial elk hunting change that would have seen different hunting regulations between public and private lands.

www.google.com

Refreshing to see a lawmaker call it like it is even if he’s speaking negatively of people in the same political party.

“State Sen. Brad Molnar, R-Laurel, told the commission that the current proposed plan that just increases the number of hunting permits does nothing to address an objective of elk herd numbers, but will just further push elk from public lands to private lands during the hunting season.

“If you’re not willing to address the fact that the over-commercialization of wildlife is the problem, and they don’t want more objectives they want more elk. Then in the after-season, their elk go graze public lands and then are driven back on private lands where they can sell for $20,000,” said Molnar. “The problem is, for this particular moment, that Gov. Gianforte appointed and the Senate confirmed an extremely slanted commission and director. And I expect nothing good to come out of your efforts for the next four years.””

 

[S.Clancy]

Montana FWP changes course from controversial elk hunting proposal for central and eastern hunting districts

The Montana Fish and Wildlife Commission has pulled back on a controversial elk hunting change that would have seen different hunting regulations between public and private lands.

www.google.com

Refreshing to see a lawmaker call it like it is even if he’s speaking negatively of people in the same political party.

“State Sen. Brad Molnar, R-Laurel, told the commission that the current proposed plan that just increases the number of hunting permits does nothing to address an objective of elk herd numbers, but will just further push elk from public lands to private lands during the hunting season.

“If you’re not willing to address the fact that the over-commercialization of wildlife is the problem, and they don’t want more objectives they want more elk. Then in the after-season, their elk go graze public lands and then are driven back on private lands where they can sell for $20,000,” said Molnar. “The problem is, for this particular moment, that Gov. Gianforte appointed and the Senate confirmed an extremely slanted commission and director. And I expect nothing good to come out of your efforts for the next four years.””

Hell yea. And a R to boot!!! Shots fired

 

[Erict]

For those that missed the meeting - here it is - starts about 33:00. Even if you aren't real interested in this particular issue, it is worth watching a few minutes to see how these kinds of things are done in Montana.

 

[Clarktar]

Montana FWP changes course from controversial elk hunting proposal for central and eastern hunting districts

The Montana Fish and Wildlife Commission has pulled back on a controversial elk hunting change that would have seen different hunting regulations between public and private lands.

www.google.com

Refreshing to see a lawmaker call it like it is even if he’s speaking negatively of people in the same political party.

“State Sen. Brad Molnar, R-Laurel, told the commission that the current proposed plan that just increases the number of hunting permits does nothing to address an objective of elk herd numbers, but will just further push elk from public lands to private lands during the hunting season.

“If you’re not willing to address the fact that the over-commercialization of wildlife is the problem, and they don’t want more objectives they want more elk. Then in the after-season, their elk go graze public lands and then are driven back on private lands where they can sell for $20,000,” said Molnar. “The problem is, for this particular moment, that Gov. Gianforte appointed and the Senate confirmed an extremely slanted commission and director. And I expect nothing good to come out of your efforts for the next four years.””

Dang. I like that guy!

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk

 

[cgasner1]

I am pretty conflicted after today. I'm thankful that the original proposals were shot down by the commission Monday night during their work session. I am growing tired of having a proposal, that almost all hunters think is universally awful, being used as a bait and switch at the last minute. My concerns after the day are...

1. Unlimited archery in the 8 units defined. How will FWP address NR here, they definitely do need to limit them or it will be a shit show. They also need to do 1st and only choice, like 900 antelope, to spread out pressure and avoid what they call "fallback hunters" that draw a tag and never hunt the unit. 1st and only choice means they want to draw that tag and have to burn points for it. I do like the "if you draw a unit you can only hunt that unit during that season". That makes sense.

2. I'm conflicted at the increased LE allocation. It basically seems like they are just drawing shit out of a hat and seeing if it gets traction. It increases opportunities but also will increase pressure, which tends to get elk moving to private. And was biology considered in this? I'll have to read back thru the biologist briefs.

3. Unlimited cow tags on Private land only. We can only kill 3 elk in MT, so by statute these would be limited to 2 a person plus an A tag, I believe. I still dont like the idea of private landowners, or those that can get access, getting the ability of unlimited tags. I'm conflicted about the precedent that sets, but, it does put a crosshair on cow elk and puts the objective ball in landowners court. I am also concerned what the unlimited title means for tag allocation to NR.

4. I spoke with the director during a recess about a number of topics. One of my biggest concerns is these type of proposals from FWP, the lack of process and the seeming randomness of it, in my opinion, has significantly damaged the public trust in the agency. That IS NOT GOOD. He acknowledged this in some respect.

I'm sure there are some things I've missed. This one issue took until noon to go through and the commission still had to get through the rest of the season setting. My biggest takeaway from today was I am thankful that the commission responded well to the amount of public comment.

I still need to decompress, but if any of you are local to Helena, MT and want to grab a beer or whatever and try to muddle through, let me know and we can meet up. If you are among the people I met today at the hearing, thanks for being there and making your voice heard.

My impression of the unlimited cow tags is anyone can purchase one as long as it’s not over what they can legal have so they would never sell out to different individuals. So one guy with access can’t stack 10 cows up


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[wind gypsy]

Dang. I like that guy!

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk

Was really cool to make a statement like that publicly. Don’t go looking into his fight for crossbow use though

 

[wind gypsy]

For those that missed the meeting - here it is - starts about 33:00. Even if you aren't real interested in this particular issue, it is worth watching a few minutes to see how these kinds of things are done in Montana.

Some good listening:

3:40:15 - Schaaf with 2 minutes of burns.
3:42:50 - Matt Rinella "I see a lot of stuff in here that I consider absolutely garbage"

 

[bigsky2]

I encourage everyone to write to the commission and thank them for denying the original proposal. Then point out how the new proposal sucks just as bad and does nothing to reduce elk populations. It was developed overnight without any input from biologists. We can't forget the reason why we ended up with limited archery permits in the first place, and that was to reduce hunter crowding. We have more resident hunters in the state than ever before, and the non-residents are spending more time hunting than ever before. If we go back to general archery hunting, it will be the worst crowding we've ever seen. Further, going to general will lead to even less cows being harvested on private land. If the units go general it will incentivize people to lease up more private. When they are paying big money to hunt bulls, they are going to want as many cows as they can to attract bulls. This new proposal would have the opposite effect of what FWP says it is intended for. The unlimited cow tags on private is a step in the right direction.

 

[bigsky2]

Just a reminder and link to comment on the elk proposal to make the former 900 bundle general or unlimited for archery.

Public Comment Opportunities | Montana FWP

Fish, Wildlife & Parks offers various opportunities for the public to comment on issues, rules, grants, environmental assessments, land acquisition, development or enhancement projects, council recommendations, hunting and fishing regulations, etc. that FWP manages.

fwp.mt.gov

 

[chasethomas]

Do they care to hear from nonresidents or am I wasting my time?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

They will care if you tell them you will donate to their next primary opponet if they support this.

 

[Stache Attack]

I like the idea of earn a bull. Shoot a cow before you can take a bull.

Also Colorado’s ranching for wildlife program seems to work pretty well even though it’s only open to residents. I got to hunt some pretty cool private land through RFW when I lived there. It gives people a chance to draw tags for specific ranches in the public draw for cows or bulls, the ranches have to do habitat work, and the split for the specific ranch is 20% of bulltags go to the public in the draw while 80% of the cow tags go to the public draw leaving 80% of the bull tags for sale and 20% of the cow tags for sale by the ranch as hunts.

On paper this looks great and I’m sure there’s some people who would get amazing opportunities. I don’t like the percents because I feel like it is not a compromise for the public and just increases outfitter grab depending on what the public ground looks like and how the cow hunts on private are timed or if they are only on one end of the season allowing a refuge area on private for those 80% of bulls to get a price tag. I’ll have to check out the program!

 

[Stache Attack]

"All of FWP’s proposed hunting regulations are undergoing review as part of the agency’s regular, biennial season-setting process, and are subject to commission approval. If the commission approves the proposals, there will be a 30-day public comment opportunity."

Assuming it is approved by the commission, I'd be interested to see how much the public actually contributes.

The commission won’t take the public comment into consideration, this has been proven on multiple occasions sadly.

 

[Dilligaf12t]

Sad but true

 

[Scoot]

The commission won’t take the public comment into consideration, this has been proven on multiple occasions sadly.

Fact!