Bill with no sporting reps, three landowners on Commission one vote from passage

[Walkalot]

Awesome shoots many bullets

 

[MTGomer]

Most of us in MOGA would support going to LE Permits for mule deer yesterday.

If this is true, I think you’ll find a lot of people that you consider to be your opposition elsewhere, to be totally in agreement with you on topics like this. Maybe something can be worked on some day.

 

[Schaaf]

Nick, why further attempt to create strife and rift?

Why not embrace 4 landowners on the commission and hope things might get better for Montana resident hunters.

The last 26 years were certainly a failure to manage deer/elk for the public land hunter. Maybe things will get better under the new director and a new commission.

Why stop at 4? Let’s make it 6 and require the chair be a former Director for MOGA. We’re already most of the way there.

My dad might not ever draw that breaks rifle tag now but if he’s lucky there will maybe still be a nice pregnant cow he can shoot off a hay stack in February with a cup of hot cocoa (that’s extra $$$ btw-we don’t just give things away in MT) in the outfitter provided Stanley Thermos.

 

[Walkalot]

Yes its all about $$$$$$. Limited resource maximize $$$$$. $rew the public. Regardless if resident non resident. Answer the tuff questions. What and there is a better way for all. If everyone was honest and upfront. Priblem they wont be. Tax payers public land hunters we are on are own. But problem is who pay the rent and cast votes. Do something about it. Do what is good for all. There are reasons they dont asnwer tough questiins like incentives for high paying clients. Would it be an issue if its only cow elk only in over objective units. They are only objective because of politcal bull$hit. They are dicating everything. Feel like i need to get my armour on and saddle up a horse. Kingsmen go to utah or keep lying

 

[Big Shooter]

Yes its all about $$$$$$. Limited resource maximize $$$$$. $rew the public. Regardless if resident non resident. Answer the tuff questions. What and there is a better way for all. If everyone was honest and upfront. Priblem they wont be. Tax payers public land hunters we are on are own. But problem is who pay the rent and cast votes. Do something about it. Do what is good for all. There are reasons they dont asnwer tough questiins like incentives for high paying clients. Would it be an issue if its only cow elk only in over objective units. They are only objective because of politcal bull$hit. They are dicating everything. Feel like i need to get my armour on and saddle up a horse. Kingsmen go to utah or keep lying

Guessing the helmet is optional!

 

[Walkalot]

No def wearing a helmit.

 

[OntarioHunter]

Nick, why further attempt to create strife and rift?

Why not embrace 4 landowners on the commission and hope things might get better for Montana resident hunters.

The last 26 years were certainly a failure to manage deer/elk for the public land hunter. Maybe things will get better under the new director and a new commission.

I'm having trouble with your logic. Let's stack the deck with rancher outfitters and roll the dice because anything would be better. Really? Perhaps doing away with the commission altogether would be a better answer. Let's leave game management to someone who knows something about the business. Every jurisdiction has its professionals policed by bureaucracies comprised of people certified in that profession. Here the Law Society looks after lawyers and the College of Physicians and Surgeons looks after doctors. There's "professionalization" of all critical trades and for good reason. No one wants an unqualified doctor writing prescriptions or untrained pharmacists filling them. Or unknowledgable engineers designing bridges or dams. But for some reason Montana's precious wildlife resource management is thrown to the whims of car dealers and wheat farmers. Ranchers wouldn't take their sick cow to a newspaper editor for diagnosis and treatment but they think they have some innate knowledge that qualifies them to look after everyone's game animals? The Commission is a relic from days when there was enough game and publicly huntable land that the state could afford to be careless and let selfpontificating selfserving uneducated political hacks throw their weight around with little effect. It was a good place to stick big campaign contributors and let them feel good about themselves. Well, this is the 21st century and Montana has changed a lot! We can't afford to be careless any more. Be damned if I can see how RESTRICTING Committee membership to landed agriculturists has ANY potential for improvement. It is CLEARLY intended to put east side outfitters in the henhouse. This is selfserving for a very narrow sector of society to benefit their vested interest. Aristocracy. That's not surprising given the dominant political party at the moment.

 

[Big Shooter]

So......fill it full of biologists your saying? The same biologist that told me that mule deer are done rutting by Halloween? Or how about the the higher up biologist that a few years back decided that we needed to wage war on mule deer does and made it so people could hold as many mule deer does tags as they could fit in the glove box of their side by side? Or.....how about the one that is on record saying that antelope archery tags needed to be on a low odds drawing to keep outfitters from leasing land for archery antelope (which was a BS statement because none of them would have or ever did specifically for that)? Makes total sense!

 

[Walkalot]

I would think hard working ranchers and outfitters would have enough on there plate, than to add on managing public land and wildlife. And just looking out for you land owners and outfitters, god forbid you were accused of abusing your power or influencing one side or the other profiting from it. Prob just be huge headache. And if u did take this on how could montana repay you. I mean worth more than a govt salary, and holidays off right. Would you pass a few laws/bills in your benefit to adjust your lowly govt job.

 

[Schaaf]

So......fill it full of biologists your saying? The same biologist that told me that mule deer are done rutting by Halloween? Or how about the the higher up biologist that a few years back decided that we needed to wage war on mule deer does and made it so people could hold as many mule deer does tags as they could fit in the glove box of their side by side? Or.....how about the one that is on record saying that antelope archery tags needed to be on a low odds drawing to keep outfitters from leasing land for archery antelope (which was a BS statement because none of them would have or ever did specifically for that)? Makes total sense!

You guys should try to line up MOGA meetings with the Commission Meetings. Knock out two birds with one stone. We can all sit around wearing unnecessarily large belt buckles and think of new ways to profiteer off Montana’s wildlife.

 

[Eric Albus]

Funny you all complain about the lack of management from prior commissions and now this one is going to have a different slant and you cry wolf before decision has been made

 

[Eric Albus]

My guess will be that decisions will be made by ranch folks that will put the resource first. In the ranch business if you do not put your resource first you go broke. This means everything from your livestock, water, grass, hay/forage crops grown. Ranchers make decisions every day related to the resource. I say give it a chance before throwing your hands in the air crying the sky is falling. If this commission does not do what is right by the resource I will be surprised. If they don't, it will tell me just how deep the swamp really is.

 

[Big Fin]

In a lot of ways, this bill is intended to put some pretty window dressing to a very damaging legislative agenda and remove any obstructionists who would be so bold as to actually ask for public input. In the past, it was a politically uncomfortable for a legislature to stick its nose into every wildlife issue, knowing the bad optics of enacting laws against what the FWP Commission has for their policies.

This bill removes that inconvenient irritation. If passed, now we get a Commission that is in lock step with the legislature. A lot less political risk to either group if they are all following the same agenda we see in this legislative session.

No more will you have a Commission as a body seeking public comment and possibly expressing contrary opinions to the newly elected "wildlife PhDs" we see get seated in the legislature every two years. Now the Commission will be the "atta boy" crowd who likely will rubber stamp most items and make the legislative ideas look like something the people want.

The new structure will be uninterested in public comment. If you doubt that, look at the hearing for Andrew McKean's position as a Commissioner. Read the comments of the Senators who voted NO. There is no interest in public input or process.

If you want to see a wildlife commission that is a political arm of a legislature, one only has to look to Utah.

 

[mtmiller]

My guess will be that decisions will be made by ranch folks that will put the resource first. I

Curious on your McKean decision thoughts.

 

[Gerald Martin]

My guess will be that decisions will be made by ranch folks that will put the resource first. In the ranch business if you do not put your resource first you go broke. This means everything from your livestock, water, grass, hay/forage crops grown. Ranchers make decisions every day related to the resource. I say give it a chance before throwing your hands in the air crying the sky is falling. If this commission does not do what is right by the resource I will be surprised. If they don't, it will tell me just how deep the swamp really is.

Seems to me that nearly everything coming from the Republican side of this session that relates to wildlife is completely contrary to putting the resource first. Why should I trust ranchers to look out for my interests as a hunter by having healthy elk herds when the ones involved legislatively make it clear they view elk as competition?
The only value I see granted to wildlife is how much can they charge for access to wildlife on their property.

 

[BuzzH]

Seems to me that nearly everything coming from the Republican side of this session that relates to wildlife is completely contrary to putting the resource first. Why should I trust ranchers to look out for my interests as a hunter by having healthy elk herds when the ones involved legislatively make it clear they view elk as competition?
The only value I see granted to wildlife is how much can they charge for access to wildlife on their property.

Been this way for a long time...nothing new, its just out in the wide open with the blessing of the landowners, outfitters, commission, MTFWP, and even the hunting public.

I can point to multiple places where every single one of these groups, that supposedly cares so much about wildlife, have pulled some real crap clearly showing they put their agendas first before what's best for the resource.

Montana just didn't suddenly find itself where its at today thanks to a single group...lots of blame to go around.

What this session illustrates, is not the beginning of the slide, but an acceleration to the rocks at the bottom of the cliff, with the gas peddle mashed to the floor.

 

[WIbiggame]

Ranchers make decisions every day related to the resource...This means everything from your livestock, water, grass, hay/forage crops grown.

I don't see anything you said ranchers make decisions about involving any wildlife short of their livestock. Yet you want them to make decisions on wild game?

Also everything you put as examples of ranchers resourse decisions; wild animals are a direct "nuisance" too. Herbivores eat and drink everything you mentioned so the ranchers looking out for their resources wouldn't want anything competing with their livestock or crops right? Seems pretty easy even to a WI guy where this would be headed.

Other bills supported by the ranching community mainly the one about eliminating the LE permits if over objective paint a pretty clear picture to were things are going.

 

[Finnman]

Fox in charge of the henhouse.

 

[Eric Albus]

mtmiller, I could have lived with Andrew on the commission, no problem. I spent part of a day touring area 652 with him on superbowl sunday. I have always liked, and respected him and have no problem with him, even though he is more liberal than me.....but then I think John Buchanan and Rush Limbaugh are a little left leaning at times.


I say give this commission a shot and see what happens. Most everyone of you on here at some point has voiced disappointment in wildlife management. If there is not a change for the better I will be more disappointed than most on here. The status quo has to go... this rhymes by the way. Poetry was always a strong suit of mine.

 

[Sytes]

I'm in favor of 7 Commissioners matching the 7 FWP regions.

Divided appointments:
4 appointed/maintained at start of the four year Gov term and 3 appointed/maintained at the two year mark or vice versa.

Current requirement of the five Commissioners:

At least one member must be experienced in the breeding and management of domestic livestock.

Not sure why the above quote is currently mandatory criteria vs say, "At least one must have a Bachelors or greater degree in Fisheries and Wildlife"...

However the below quote from this current amendment(?) is an overt and blatant swing for the fences.

15 ... At least four of the members must also
16 be landowners engaged in agricultural production...

Am I understanding this correctly?




How the flying F--- would this proposed amendment [above snippet] benefit our commission's primary goal [quoted below] with three commissioners operating on 12 month terms before head on the chopping block or renewed?

(3) Appointments must be made without regard to political affiliation and must be made solely for the wise management of fish, wildlife, and related recreational resources of this state.

And the four appointed for three years? This portion almost smells of gerrymandering + manipulation of farm/ranch ideals leading Montana's, "wise management of fish wildlife and related recreational resources..." considering the amendment proposal seeks four landowner appointments...

Put down the pipe, apple, beer can, bong, or whatever y'er pulling hits from boys 'n girls... It's hard not to follow that crap Mexican skunk junk to it's source.

You want to expand it to match the seven districts on 4 year terms? ALL FOR IT! But this Chong wrapped Labrador y'er smoking is flat our dog sh!t!

As for McKean -

I spent part of a day touring area 652 with him on superbowl sunday. I have always liked, and respected him and have no problem with him, even though he is more liberal than me....

Would be great for your influence to share your sentiment amidst the divide. (Speaking as a Independent leaning conservative myself)

Edit added:

(2) After the expiration of each initial appointment, the governor shall appoint commissioners to 4-year 7 terms in accordance with 2-15-124(2).

Maybe I need to put down the "labrador" Chong crap... re-reading the quoted line above, is this a temp appointment that would revert to all proposed 7 commissioners on 4 year terms? If so... oops(?). Got on a riled run there...