Bozeman Area Round Table

[Irrelevant]

MT stats show a 13% hunter success rate on Bulls.

26% overall.

Wyoming, meanwhile, shows a 21.6% bull harvest & 46% success rate overall.

6 months of hunting, shoulder seasons, archery, rifle, damage hunts, etc - all significantly less succesful than what WY does. Roughly the same number of elk are taken.

Ok. But a graph showing the decline of hunter success as a function of opportunity in a particular HD would be a more meaningful way of looking at the data than simply saying WY has better elk hunting.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Ok. But a graph showing the decline of hunter success as a function of opportunity in a particular HD would be a more meaningful way of looking at the data than simply saying WY has better elk hunting.

We need the granularity of @wllm1313 & @Nameless Range then. I'm mathed out.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

We need the granularity of @wllm1313 & @Nameless Range then. I'm mathed out.

What bakes my noodle is everyone wants to be Wyoming but no one wants to make Wyoming style allocations.

I've been saying it for years on here, CO could have Wyoming seasons, quality, etc but we would need to cut like 40,000 tags.

In the case of MT which has waaaay long seasons than WY + more? private land issues, you really need to consider going fully limited for resident tags if you want to have WY success rates.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Senator Kary was there droning on about how public hunters are too lazy to ask for permission and thats why landowners won't let folks on, conservation groups send too many form letters during comment periods, conservation groups aren't bring forward solutions to the problems etc etc.

Circling back on this sentiment from Senator Kary:

1.) Form letters suck. I agree. But they get dismissive when any communique is sent and they claim all kinds of fabricated crap like it's from out of state or people don't know what they're talking about, etc. It's the volume they hate, not the content. We saw them discount the massive amount of pushback on outfitter welfare tags as form letters, even though the majority of them were handwritten emails and notes, phone calls, etc. This is a political talking point and it's bullchit. They just don't like the public to scrutinize what they're doing, and they'd rather argue with you than listen to your concerns as they're convinced that their approach is the only one. It's not your comments they dislike, it's that you're paying attention to what they are doing.

2.) There were 906 bills that were started between 2011 and 2021. 489 of them were introduced. I don't know how many of them were passed and signed, but I'll see if I can make a quick count after I remove my frontal cortex. If the Legislature wasn't do damned busy trying to run the agency, maybe sportsmen would have more time to advance policy proposals that weren't counter to the North American Model, the Public Trust. When sportsmen did bring bills forward, they would be summarily killed in committee on a party-line vote and then ignored the rest of the session. Some good examples of this were harboring legislation in 2011, Bridge access until it was going to kill the GOP to not fix it, access programs designed to help landowners, sportsmen and public land lessess, budget amendments out the poop shooter for better management of the resource and only when the majority decided they were tired of getting the crap kicked out of them on access, did they listen to us on access funding, while coming up with the MTPAL program, which is pretty much what other programs can do, but with slightly different language.

The plain fact here is that sportsmen and women spend far more time trying to kill bills, because the tsunami of dumb ideas coming from every legislator in the building is such that you don't have the time to push for better ideas, and you don't have the votes to pass them because the POLITICIANS DO NOT WANT YOUR IDEAS. They already have their own. They're just mad that you disagree with them.

 

[Ben Lamb]

What bakes my noodle is everyone wants to be Wyoming but no one wants to make Wyoming style allocations.

I've been saying it for years on here, CO could have Wyoming seasons, quality, etc but we would need to cut like 40,000 tags.

In the case of MT which has waaaay long seasons than WY + more? private land issues, you really need to consider going fully limited for resident tags if you want to have WY success rates.

You're just here for the math. Don't get all pontificating.

 

[BRI]

This could be another topic entirely but I believe success percentages is directly correlated to the long range shooting craze. Nearly everyone out there has a rangefinder, scope with turrets, etc. I would even say animals are way easier to kill (or wound) than they have ever been previously. I mean it's not cool to say you shot your animal under 300 yards anymore is it?

 

[brockel]

Pressure on the resource must be reduced. That part is non- negotiable if we want to see any improvement in quality or maintenance of the little quality we have.

How we reduce the pressure can be approached in various ways. Whether it’s shorter seasons, pick your weapon, pick your unit, or limited entry is something that will have to be decided. The pros and cons of each approach is a great discussion to have.

Was told last night that there’s literally no chance seasons get shortened. Rifle hunting over thanksgiving weekend is a Montana tradition is what I was told

 

[Carnage2011]

We need to be looking at the next legislative session and try to have some goals in mind. We aren't going to get shit changed in the next month regarding these proposals. Hank (Hi Hank!) has his marching orders and so does the commission. We can go to these meetings and listen to their responses, but in a time where they are pushing forward with these massive changes and trying to kill every elk in the state, we can't expect to get seasons shortened immediately. The long game is where we have a chance.

 

[brocksw]

#EndtheFWPCommission

@Schaaf bumper sticker me

 

[Ben Lamb]

We need to be looking at the next legislative session and try to have some goals in mind. We aren't going to get shit changed in the next month regarding these proposals. Hank (Hi Hank!) has his marching orders and so does the commission. We can go to these meetings and listen to their responses, but in a time where they are pushing forward with these massive changes and trying to kill every elk in the state, we can't expect to get seasons shortened immediately. The long game is where we have a chance.

Winner winner, chicken dinner.

 

[SAJ-99]

I mean they keep pushing more opportunity yet HDs are still over objective, and hunter success is plummeting (my assumption). Use their own data to refute the policy.

I don't think hunter success is what they care about. They care about certain landowners and NRs getting permits. The success rate on that group is far higher than the average. Until MT hunters realize their opinions don't matter in this game, they will keep getting a raw deal. Anytime I hear from a politician I get a lot of "I talked to a lot of people and they want X or Y". I believe these people are fictitious. They don't exist. And the more I suspect Montana politicians are bought with non-resident money in a wide variety of issues, not just hunting.

 

[MTLabrador]

Maybe you guys can get Nameless and our favorite 'Masshole to look into the actual impacts of these various policies on actual hunting success. Both together some nice graphs and maps to share. I mean they keep pushing more opportunity yet HDs are still over objective, and hunter success is plummeting (my assumption). Use their own data to refute the policy.

They also don’t know a thing about what hunter success actually looks like. I’ve only ever taken 3 Montana big game animals through a check station in my life. Two elk I shot on opening day and a mule deer I drove through on a Saturday. I usually get a survey call about seeing wolves, and I’ve only once been asked on the survey if I killed an elk, which I did.

 

[Ben Lamb]

#EndtheFWPCommission

@Schaaf bumper sticker me

Better: restore the ability of the public to have their comments matter when it comes to governmental decisions.

The commission model has worked well over the last 100 or so years. I don't think throwing it out because of some bad decisions by one commission is a good idea, personally.

 

[Werty]

We need a ballot initiative to pull the power from the government to science based herd management of fwp. Put the power where it needs to be.

 

[Irrelevant]

I don't think hunter success is what they care about. They care about certain landowners and NRs getting permits. The success rate on that group is far higher than the average. Until MT hunters realize their opinions don't matter in this game, they will keep getting a raw deal. Anytime I hear from a politician I get a lot of "I talked to a lot of people and they want X or Y". I believe these people are fictitious. They don't exist. And the more I suspect Montana politicians are bought with non-resident money in a wide variety of issues, not just hunting.

I guess I was thinking of using it sway public opinion more than agency opinion. But if the data isn't there, or is garbage then it's a moot point.

 

[brocksw]

Better: restore the ability of the public to have their comments matter when it comes to governmental decisions.

The commission model has worked well over the last 100 or so years. I don't think throwing it out because of some bad decisions by one commission is a good idea, personally.

I fail to see how a political body with political motivations, overseeing and overruling a science based agency managing a public resource, is in any way good recipe. MT can't mandate that they listen to the public more unless MT starts holding public votes over every issue relevant to the commission. That's not going to happen. Even if it did, that would also nullify the need for the commission.

The commission may have done good in the past, they may still do good in the future. But I don't believe any of it will outweigh the political Cluster it has become and all the damage it is and will do with its current political influences.

The FWP should shoulder all responsibility for wildlife management, decisions regarding wildlife, and handling the social aspect as it pertains to wildlife management.

 

[Carnage2011]

I fail to see how a political body with political motivations, overseeing and overruling a science based agency managing a public resource, is in any way good recipe. MT can't mandate that they listen to the public more unless MT starts holding public votes over every issue relevant to the commission. That's not going to happen.

It’s not supposed to be a political body with political motivations. It’s supposed to act like the Supreme Court over the decisions FWP makes to ensure the current BS isn’t taking place. It wasn’t just a formality until about 7 months ago.

 

[brocksw]

It’s not supposed to be a political body with political motivations. It’s supposed to act like the Supreme Court over the decisions FWP makes to ensure the current BS isn’t taking place. It wasn’t just a formality until about 7 months ago.

In my opinion...Those days are over. Everything is being politicized now and these types of bodies are particularly vulnerable to that politicization.

 

[Hunting Wife]

I fail to see how a political body with political motivations, overseeing and overruling a science based agency managing a public resource, is in any way good recipe. MT can't mandate that they listen to the public more unless MT starts holding public votes over every issue relevant to the commission. That's not going to happen.

The Commission is not designed to be a political entity. It is supposed to be made up of citizens from a range of backgrounds that reflect a cross section of stakeholders in Montana, to ensure representation by myriad public interests in decision making. They are widely used and have a long history of pretty successful input into wildlife management. The recent political shenanigans are the brain child of our new Gov.

Remove the Commission, and then you really do have no other avenue for citizen input in management decisions except via politicians. That only exacerbates the politicization IMO.

This, 100%.

We can fight these proposals, come up with working groups, all sorts of ideas and proposals etc. None of that changes the fact that Gianforte, Worsech and this Commission are all bought and paid for out of the same bank accounts.

I mean Jesus, look at what's going on. Worsech is outright dismissing leaks from within his department as "misinformation". His office is refusing to make public meetings ADA compliant in order to keep participation down.

Gianforte got caught poaching this winter for Christ's sake, and was issued a 'warning' for it.

These crooked ****s have 100% of the power and they know it. Until we're able to buy the governor's chair like Gianforte did, there isn't one thing we can do about it. There's no checks and balances here, that's for sure.

Hunters will play along and trip over each other to wipe out the mule deer in the Bitterroot and elk in the Breaks on general tags. When they're done with that they'll stand in line to join the super-secret-special-groups where they'll pay money to sit in classes and hopefully get the king's approval to come in and kill a doe or cow elk after the high dollar social media influencer/clients are done. The classes will be sponsored by the hunting companies, and the money that the public pays for the classes will help pay for their influencers to get access to the bucks and bulls.

It's all laid out there for everyone to see, they don't even need to try to hide it at this point.

So THAT's what they meant when they talked about "Montana values"

 

[SAJ-99]

I guess I was thinking of using it sway public opinion more than agency opinion. But if the data isn't there, or is garbage then it's a moot point.

I think the consensus is that FWP harvest data is barely better than garbage. Statistically, they are probably reasonable guesses with a pretty sizable standard deviation. It will be interesting to see how the past numbers compare to current when they start implementing more modern data collection methods.

I think the point is, Montana hunters have shown a preference for more days in field and landowners have shown a preference for more $s and fewer hunters. The resource hasn't suffered much on a large scale because there is still plenty of private to hide on. For public hunters, the quality of the hunt has declined (more days spent but less game seen) and fewer animals in older age-classes for everyone, public or private.