2022/23 Montana Season Setting Meetings

[Nameless Range]

There are season setting meetings over the next couple weeks all over Montana. Though there are other methods of commenting, and I think better ones than standing up in a meeting and making a comment on the hundreds of changes occurring, I get a lot out of going to them and I think that even if you don't comment, your presence is symbolic. Maybe this thread would be a good one for folks' synopsis of the meetings Hunt Talkers go to.

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

 

[Nameless Range]

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.

 

[BuzzH]

Thanks for the update. I think most Montana hunters just don't care anymore, and that is unfortunate.

 

[cowboy]

Thanks for the update. I think most Montana hunters realize it is a waste of their time and their input is for show only, and that is unfortunate.

Fixed it for you.

 

[mmw194287]

-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

As long as they actually go through with that part of the plan...I'm sure there will be plenty of folks pushing against those boundaries, and I hope there are at least a few of us speaking up for them.

 

[BuckRut]

And what a better way to have a smaller turnout than to have these during the week of Christmas.

 

[Nameless Range]

Fixed it for you.

I think it's a perfectly justified, albeit useless perspective. I wouldn't put my money on it, and he is usually right, but I hope Buzz is wrong enough that hunters care enough.

Whatever happens, those negative things that come to us will certainly be a result of hunters not caring enough - whether in meetings, comments, or the ballot box. A couple of those things are actionable right now.

I'm curious how other meetings went, if folks went to or will go to them.

 

[bigsky2]

I'm always amazed at how few hunters actually show up to these meetings.

 

[Irrelevant]

Not like people don't have shit to do on 5 days before Christmas. You couldn't get me to a meeting right now shy of telling me you're taking my house over, and even then, with the in-laws eminently inbound, I still might not show up.

 

[rogerthat]

I'm always amazed at how few hunters actually show up to these meetings.

I know for me I always left them feeling that it was a giant waste of time and they were just checking a box in the process. Therefore I started submitting all my comments in writing. I plan to attend our region meeting and submit my comments in writing but I don't have any earth shattering comments planned like extending pheasant season so I suspect mine will get thrown in the "do not consider" box.

 

[KB_]

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

Also I'm actually really pleased with the turnout of landowners in Helena. Goes to show that even landowners are calling BS on FWP. I think its fair to say we cant lump landowners in the same category anymore.

Is bullying not a fair tactic anymore? We could just take those clowns out back and show them how we feel about their "solution" (Half joking).

 

[Schaaf]

@Nameless Range were there anyone there from the Directors office or strictly regional employees?

 

[Nameless Range]

@Nameless Range were there anyone there from the Directors office or strictly regional employees?

Just regional folks I think. There was one fellow in the back (Rod something?) who was relied on to expound on a couple regulation changes, and I wasn't familiar with him. Other than that it was just bios, wardens, and an administrative assistant.

 

[Schaaf]

Just regional folks I think. There was one fellow in the back (Rod something?) who was relied on to expound on a couple regulation changes, and I wasn't familiar with him. Other than that it was just bios, wardens, and an administrative assistant.

That’s what I figured. Great leadership always lets your employees take the heat for decisions you made. Very on brand for the Director’s office.

 

[rogerthat]

Just regional folks I think. There was one fellow in the back (Rod something?) who was relied on to expound on a couple regulation changes, and I wasn't familiar with him. Other than that it was just bios, wardens, and an administrative assistant.

That’s one of the reasons I want to go. I am super interested to see how the regional staff handle this. I have heard they were not happy at all with Hank and the proposals. Sounds like everyone was fairly upset

 

[Nameless Range]

That’s one of the reasons I want to go. I am super interested to see how the regional staff handle this. I have heard they were not happy at all with Hank and the proposals. Sounds like everyone was fairly upset

There were a couple instances where the bios took a beating - the landowners in the Belts being one. But for the most part, folks acknowledged the situation they were put in, and in their eyes, you could tell they agreed.

 

[Fire_9]

Rumor is that commissioner Walsh finally learned what a B tag is at the Great falls meeting…

 

[hank4elk]

asking for a friend............Do the Duttons run MT wildlife too?

 

[KB_]

Rumor is that commissioner Walsh finally learned what a B tag is at the Great falls meeting…

I hoping your kidding...

 

[tjones]

Helena Meeting - December 20th

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

Observations:


-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.

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.

Thanks for the update.