2022/23 Montana Season Setting Meetings

[Fire_9]

I hoping your kidding...

I wish I was

 

[MThuntr]

I'm mad I missed the meeting at Dillon. I was at the gym literally yards from Search and Rescue until 545 having completely forgotten about the meeting. It was 7pm while cooking dinner when I realized I missed most of the meeting. I'll be in contact with the local biologists to see what happened and submit my comments again. The Dillon biologist did seem to listen by not increasing deer tags in the Lima Peaks but the consolidation of like 6 units and elimination of deer tags in the Snowcrests seems to be foolish considering the shear amount of elk and hunter days in the area and the Snowcrests being one of the few spots that has mule deer. Not to mention the consolidation of the Matador and La Cense Ranches to Rupert Murdoch (rumor is he purchased La Cense because it had a swimming pool). The BMA acres will likely get pulled and we may be in a fight to keep the access roads open so hunting is going to be an interesting adventure in the coming seasons.

The last season setting meeting I went to was exactly the same as what NamelessRange said 15-20 well past retirement aged men (all landowners) complaining about too many elk and wolves. The hilarious part was an FWP staffer called them all out stating that he knows none of them had even purchased a wolf tag and most hadn't even bothered to buy a general elk tag.

 

[Schaaf]

The hilarious part was an FWP staffer called them all out stating that he knows none of them had even purchased a wolf tag and most hadn't even bothered to buy a general elk tag.

 

[MTHunter1321]

I wish I was

Can you expand? I’m pissed I was unable to go. May try and make the one next week in Ft Benton.

 

[Big Fin]

When is the Bozeman meeting haven't found anything yet. I hope I didnt miss it.

Bozeman doesn't get a meeting. Or if so, it hasn't been announced on the calendar. I'm just back in town and hope to make one of the outlying meetings.

 

[shoots-straight]

Weak excuse at best. In HD 270, when FWP was using page 55, the bio would fly the CB the week after general season opened. The elk in that unit would head to the private when the public would get pressure. There were times when 1/3 of the previous spring green up counts were on the private and unavailable to hunters yet the bio at the time used the harvest recommendations in the EMP based on total counts. For 6 years the public elk got hammered. When populations dropped the bio bolted for the Flathead and left us the mess to fix.


It doesn't take much flight time as they only need to fly the private that the elk use for sanctuary yet FWP refuses to do it.

So what we did was tell the guy in charge with killing our elk off that we were going to fly it by ourselves and use that information to fight him. Our club paid for that flight and Tjones accompanied that guy on the first flight. Those numbers helped to get our Elk objective set at a more reasonable level.

 

[Fire_9]

Can you expand? I’m pissed I was unable to go. May try and make the one next week in Ft Benton.

I wasn’t there but I guess I’m confused on what you want me to expand on. He didn’t know what B tags are. Pretty scary that we have commissioners that aren’t well rounded outdoorsmen/women.

 

[brockel]

Going to try making either Glendive on the 3rd or Miles City on the 4th.

 

[BuzzH]

I wasn’t there but I guess I’m confused on what you want me to expand on. He didn’t know what B tags are. Pretty scary that we have commissioners that aren’t well rounded outdoorsmen/women.

That's not uncommon. We have the same thing here. I don't blame them totally for not knowing, the department and hunters need to get them up to speed.

 

[bigsky2]

Last night's Lewistown meeting had around 70 people in attendance. Surprisingly this was the first season setting meeting I've ever been to in Lewistown where the conversation wasn't dominated by 2 or 3 landowners complaining about too many elk to the point that hardly anyone else got to say anything. FWP made it clear at the beginning of the meeting that they would not be taking public comment, but the public was allowed to ask questions. Here's what I can remember from the meeting-

-Quite a few people in attendance didn't realize that if the 900 districts go to general or unlimited as proposed, there will be no region or district 10% cap on non-residents. The only thing limiting non-resident numbers is the statewide cap, so basically nothing restricting the non-residents with tags from flooding these popular units if they go general.

-Several hunters brought up wanting to limit non-residents

-When going over the black bear hunting with hounds season, the map showed that most of western MT won't allow bear hunting with hounds due to proximity to grizzly bear habitat. Region 4 makes up the bulk of the area where bear hunting with hounds is allowed. There is concern that Region 4 will get inundated with hound hunters wanting to take advantage of this new season, and possibly have an overharvest of bears. The houndsmen in attendance pointed out that the local landowners have good relationships with the handful of houndsmen in the area, but are concerned that a flood of new hound hunters to the area could cause issues.

-Further concern in relation to additional bear harvest is the new mandatory harvest reporting proposal that would remove the requirement to have bears checked in with FWP staff. FWP said this new system where the hunter is required to send in a tooth within 10 days may lead to having less reliable data.

-A houndsman who has been covering hundreds of miles in 410 reported that mule deer seem to be almost nonexistent.

-It seemed most people in attendance thought extending the upland bird season through January was a bad idea. The biologist pointed out that only rooster hunting is allowed for pheasants, but with grouse and partridge there is no distinction between males and females so extending the season will lead to additional take of female birds.

-One landowner asked if we can have a shoulder season for bulls 5 pt or less

-The biologist pointed out that when she increased rifle permits in 417, harvest success actually went down and she had more complaints of crowding than ever before.


Kind of alarming to me how many hunters I talked to that thought this new proposal is way better than the original. It seems like most hunters want to get their permit every year, but they don't like crowding, so to fix that we need to cut the NR permits. No one seems to be willing to sacrifice anything.

There were several Citizens Advisory Council members in attendance and FWP said that their feedback will be taken into consideration when deciding on a final decision. The FWP staff encouraged everyone to also send their comments to their regional CAC members.

 

[Nameless Range]

Last night's Lewistown meeting had around 70 people in attendance. Surprisingly this was the first season setting meeting I've ever been to in Lewistown where the conversation wasn't dominated by 2 or 3 landowners complaining about too many elk to the point that hardly anyone else got to say anything. FWP made it clear at the beginning of the meeting that they would not be taking public comment, but the public was allowed to ask questions. Here's what I can remember from the meeting-

-Quite a few people in attendance didn't realize that if the 900 districts go to general or unlimited as proposed, there will be no region or district 10% cap on non-residents. The only thing limiting non-resident numbers is the statewide cap, so basically nothing restricting the non-residents with tags from flooding these popular units if they go general.

-Several hunters brought up wanting to limit non-residents

-When going over the black bear hunting with hounds season, the map showed that most of western MT won't allow bear hunting with hounds due to proximity to grizzly bear habitat. Region 4 makes up the bulk of the area where bear hunting with hounds is allowed. There is concern that Region 4 will get inundated with hound hunters wanting to take advantage of this new season, and possibly have an overharvest of bears. The houndsmen in attendance pointed out that the local landowners have good relationships with the handful of houndsmen in the area, but are concerned that a flood of new hound hunters to the area could cause issues.

-Further concern in relation to additional bear harvest is the new mandatory harvest reporting proposal that would remove the requirement to have bears checked in with FWP staff. FWP said this new system where the hunter is required to send in a tooth within 10 days may lead to having less reliable data.

-A houndsman who has been covering hundreds of miles in 410 reported that mule deer seem to be almost nonexistent.

-It seemed most people in attendance thought extending the upland bird season through January was a bad idea. The biologist pointed out that only rooster hunting is allowed for pheasants, but with grouse and partridge there is no distinction between males and females so extending the season will lead to additional take of female birds.

-One landowner asked if we can have a shoulder season for bulls 5 pt or less

-The biologist pointed out that when she increased rifle permits in 417, harvest success actually went down and she had more complaints of crowding than ever before.


Kind of alarming to me how many hunters I talked to that thought this new proposal is way better than the original. It seems like most hunters want to get their permit every year, but they don't like crowding, so to fix that we need to cut the NR permits. No one seems to be willing to sacrifice anything.

There were several Citizens Advisory Council members in attendance and FWP said that their feedback will be taken into consideration when deciding on a final decision. The FWP staff encouraged everyone to also send their comments to their regional CAC members.

Thanks for that update. That, at the very least, seems like pretty good attendance. It seems like one task we all may have is educating our fellow hunters about how this new proposal is still a bad idea, just a different one.

 

[Luke_with_a_lab]

I'm mad I missed the meeting at Dillon. I was at the gym literally yards from Search and Rescue until 545 having completely forgotten about the meeting. It was 7pm while cooking dinner when I realized I missed most of the meeting. I'll be in contact with the local biologists to see what happened and submit my comments again. The Dillon biologist did seem to listen by not increasing deer tags in the Lima Peaks but the consolidation of like 6 units and elimination of deer tags in the Snowcrests seems to be foolish considering the shear amount of elk and hunter days in the area and the Snowcrests being one of the few spots that has mule deer. Not to mention the consolidation of the Matador and La Cense Ranches to Rupert Murdoch (rumor is he purchased La Cense because it had a swimming pool). The BMA acres will likely get pulled and we may be in a fight to keep the access roads open so hunting is going to be an interesting adventure in the coming seasons.

The last season setting meeting I went to was exactly the same as what NamelessRange said 15-20 well past retirement aged men (all landowners) complaining about too many elk and wolves. The hilarious part was an FWP staffer called them all out stating that he knows none of them had even purchased a wolf tag and most hadn't even bothered to buy a general elk tag.

Eliminating the limited deer tags in the Snowcrests is insanity to me. Its going to be a massacre in there next year. As you said there are already so many hunters in there those deer wont stand a chance. I have to wonder how the outfitters in that area feel about it, on one hand I can see they could sell more deer hunts but on the other hand they have to know the quality will go to crap and more hunters will come. Hopefully enough people will push back on this they keep it LE. I read their "justification" and didn't come away from it necessarily understanding the purpose.

 

[Cornbread]

Im not a Montanan so don't hold my comments against me. I am a hunter and would not want the elk heard to be decimated. I can draw on my experiences about doe management in Pennsylvania and the initial highly negative responses of the public. I don't have a horse in any race, but I can remember the rep-sondes when Gary Alt, 20 years (should be 20 tears) ago took over the deer program in PA. He had at the time what was considered revolutionary ideas.....Trim the doe heard and put in antler restriction, so no spike bucks were going to be killed. Let me tell ya, it has helped the herd tremendously, and now hunters are killing some beautiful-racked bucks. I remember landowners putting upon signs "No Doe Hunting". Now, it is apparent those were just the naive/unxeperienced public. Watch on Youtube about the Dunning-Krueger Effect. I'd like to think the MT biologists are trying to do a good job. I can see how pure economic interests drive landowners. Maybe I'm way off base, but I can be an unbiased observer. I've spoken to a couple of game wardens in the district 4 area and they are truly good guys and hunters too.

 

[Fire_9]

I've spoken to a couple of game wardens in the district 4 area and they are truly good guys and hunters too.

Region 4 has some of the best wardens that I’ve ever encountered anywhere in the woods

 

[Carnage2011]

Eliminating the limited deer tags in the Snowcrests is insanity to me. Its going to be a massacre in there next year. As you said there are already so many hunters in there those deer wont stand a chance. I have to wonder how the outfitters in that area feel about it, on one hand I can see they could sell more deer hunts but on the other hand they have to know the quality will go to crap and more hunters will come. Hopefully enough people will push back on this they keep it LE. I read their "justification" and didn't come away from it necessarily understanding the purpose.

I agree with you about massacre that is going to take place up there. It’s going to be very ugly, and the outfitters up there aren’t happy about it. However, the bio’s reasoning is pretty clear. I’m not sure what part of it you don’t understand. I don’t agree with it personally, but he’s very clear on why he believes it needs to happen.

 

[Redside]

Eliminating the limited deer tags in the Snowcrests is insanity to me. Its going to be a massacre in there next year. As you said there are already so many hunters in there those deer wont stand a chance. I have to wonder how the outfitters in that area feel about it, on one hand I can see they could sell more deer hunts but on the other hand they have to know the quality will go to crap and more hunters will come. Hopefully enough people will push back on this they keep it LE. I read their "justification" and didn't come away from it necessarily understanding the purpose.

Not to mention the 1000+ people that put in for that permit will now be putting in for the other limited permits that are left. Such a bummer. I sent in my comments but not holding my breath.

 

[Luke_with_a_lab]

I agree with you about massacre that is going to take place up there. It’s going to be very ugly, and the outfitters up there aren’t happy about it. However, the bio’s reasoning is pretty clear. I’m not sure what part of it you don’t understand. I don’t agree with it personally, but he’s very clear on why he believes it needs to happen.

I see the CWD justification but why not just increase the antlered buck tags by a specific %, then sample all those bucks just to see where you stand. Pushing it right into a general tag is just such a large step. I'd like to think the biologist knows best but it's just a bummer to know what's going to happen to those deer next year.

 

[Carnage2011]

I see the CWD justification but why not just increase the antlered buck tags by a specific %, then sample all those bucks just to see where you stand. Pushing it right into a general tag is just such a large step. I'd like to think the biologist knows best but it's just a bummer to know what's going to happen to those deer next year.

I think the fact that they are combining 6 units into 1 is their concern. They don’t want that large of a unit having older bucks. There is a concern that if it gets into the moose in the upper ruby watershed (not the lower; there was a positive on the private this year) we could kill a bunch of moose on the winter range. The fact that the red rocks has 160+ moose wintering in close quarters makes it a unique spot. I hate that the permit is in jeopardy, and I hope they will consider alternatives.

 

[BigHornRam]

I think the fact that they are combining 6 units into 1 is their concern. They don’t want that large of a unit having older bucks. There is a concern that if it gets into the moose in the upper ruby watershed (not the lower; there was a positive on the private this year) we could kill a bunch of moose on the winter range. The fact that the red rocks has 160+ moose wintering in close quarters makes it a unique spot. I hate that the permit is in jeopardy, and I hope they will consider alternatives.

Bummed to hear this. Hope they listen to well thought out alternatives, but understand what is at stake.☹

 

[kingderek]

Helena Meeting - December 20th

Overall:
Maybe 15-20 people. Average age: Retired as hell

Observations:

-Regarding the 50% either sex increase in many districts in eastern MT, one gentleman commented that he had a tag in one of those districts along with his wife and son, and they were unable to find accessible bulls. They knocked on many doors, and there were plenty of landowners willing to allow hunting, but those same landowners did not have elk on their land at the time and were frustrated by the neighbors charging $1000 a point.

-Folks asked about page 55 of the EMP and why it wasn't being used. The excuse of surveys being done outside of hunting season was offered as a reason that FWP couldn't uphold it. To which a couple in the crowd asked why they don't just do surveys right before the season so that they could discount those elk likely to be inaccessible.

-Some commenters have a tough time staying on point. God bless those public servants who run public comment meetings.

-HDs 335 and 318 will remain separate units. This is something I had hoped for and the biologist responded to public comment appropriately.

-Helena HHA is opposed to the abandonment of units through the merging of boundaries. The disruption in the continuity of decades of data is a concern. They also called out the director who used the word tolerance numerous times in the last couple commission meetings, and asked, "What about hunter tolerance?"

-Had a landowner from the Elkhorns speak up in opposition to the aggressive cow management. Used to see way more elk on the north end and is concerned.

-Another landowner spoke up in opposition to increased cow harvest in the Elkhorns.

-Someone made a very poignant statement that anytime we hear the word "objective", we should think BS. It is a political word

-A third landowner called BS on the elk counts in the Big Belts. They are cat hunters and elk hunters, and are frustrated that though they live in a district "over objective", they have to travel out of their district to hunt elk. They described a large area of the Belts as void of game, and seemed like they should know. They said the herd was decimated and lived solely on a couple very large ranches.

-That's 3 landowners speaking up for more elk

-An interesting complaint about the merging of districts came up. In the case of 343 to the north, where hunters in Helena used to deal with 1 biologist, 1 wildlife manager, and 1 commissioner, they will now have to deal with 2 of each when hunting what the old district had been for decades. It's a PIA for hunters.

-A biologist there said "Some elk will engage in problem behavior regardless of elk numbers." This is true and should not be forgotten.

-I need to take a closer look at how I will comment on hound hunting for black bears. Though I wish it wouldn't be a thing at all, I am glad they are omitting large chunks of Montana

-At least half a dozen references by agency staff to the next EMP and how it may not have objective numbers.

-There are so many f@#$ing changes that going through the 8 or so districts near Helena took 2 hours. By the 2 hour mark there was only about 5 of us left, and we were just asked if there were any region 3 changes we wanted to comment on as they flipped through the slides.

-I heard people grumble "Bullshit" under their breath a lot all around me, and it pleased me.

-At the end someone gave a long comment that was more generalized about the degradation of it all and this dark direction the leadership of FWP is trying to take us, and I largely agreed with him. One thing he said was, "There's no point to public comment because you ignore it anyway." This absolutely cynical view is perfectly justified, and that is unacceptable. He ended it with, "I was hoping this place was filled tonight." He wasn't alone in that hope.


If you are thinking of going to one you should go. In my opinion the Helena meeting was a disappointment in terms of hunter numbers and there were more at the 2015 meetings. Kind of a dud.

Hey, thank you for the update and for attending. I was traveling and couldn't make it. Appreciate the information.