Bozeman Area Round Table

[bigsky2]

How did the meeting go?

 

[KB_]

I can not speak for the habitat in western Montana, but in SE Montana it is not the problem. Two thirds of the Custer has burned in the past 25 years. Even with the past two years being the driest consecutive years on record there is still plenty of food for a deer.
I was at my go to spot in the 90's this last week. Spotted at least one 180 class buck from that spot every year in the 90's and even on a poor morning you would see at least 10 bucks. This year I was good for two does and two 2 year old three points. The food looked great, Sumac everywhere, the draws full of snowberrys, winterfat up to my knees and rabbit brush nearly as tall me. Habitat is not the issue in SE Montana.

i was referring to the habitat around SW montana. But yea food is most certainly not entirely the problem.

I'm only referencing the areas around me but food on public is far less plentiful then it is on private ground, and we have cattle on national forest eating what is left.

Plus, mule deer west of the Bridger mountains are pretty sparse. I see them east of the bridgers all the time but even within the last 4 years the quality has significantly declined on public land. We are killing to many of them at to young of age, and I certainly blame myself for that issue too.

I'm just coming at this from the perspective that we need to have some skin in the game before we can make demands to FWP. If you have other ideas as to how we can get directly involved so we could develop a voice within FWP, I'm pretty sure everyone is all ears.

 

[tzone]

If it wasn't 800 miles, I would be there! Best of luck to you gentlemen!

Fire up the mini-van. It's only a 12hr drive

 

[Gerald Martin]

A recap of the Sept. 7 Region 3 meeting as I remember it.

Due to work, I missed the first 45 minutes. Apparently this was not BYOB because I saw folks with beverages in hand even though I missed out on the Sammichs. I take back my earlier negative comments on leaving bad Yelp reviews about the food and drink.

When I arrived at 5:45 the topic was wolves. The general conversation from a well defined segment of the crowd is that FWP and the commission didn’t listen to the social sentiments expressed during the public comment session. It was the same old “ all the little wolfies are gonna get kilt” in various forms.

You could see the relief on the directors face when the topic switched to elk management. General sentiment was that the Commission completely ignored popular sentiment with expansion of shoulder seasons. FWP personnel did not defend the expansion but essentially said that the Commission did so because they could and they wanted to try something different to see if it would work.

I asked if FWP had any data to measure the effectiveness of shoulder seasons? Who was it that included 314 in the expansion onto public land? Had there been consideration of snowmobiles being used during the late muzzleloader season?

Unfortunately during my questioning I think I asked too many questions because the answer about data supporting the effects of shoulder seasons was overlooked during the director’s response. I don’t think it was necessarily intentional but there wasn’t any reference to studies or data that we can study to determine whether shoulder seasons are effective or not. I think this is a good question that it would be helpful for other people to ask in other meetings.

There were questions regarding stream flows and water rights. It was explained that in many cases FWP’s water rights are junior to older rights and they made the decision not to call any water rights on rivers that they didn’t actually have a senior right to and that would be defensible.

The director was asked about his stance on the recent lawsuit regarding crossbows for the handicapped in archery season. His response was that during the lawsuit he had been unable to comment, but now that it was settled, he was adamantly opposed to allowing crossbows during archery season.

There were a few more attempts at regenerating the wolf conversation but FWP personnel and most of the crowd made it obvious that topic had been beat to death and was settled for the time being.
The meeting changed from a formal question and answer session to an informal discussion between individual FWP personnel and the public @ 7:15 or so. Most people left soon afterwards but I was actually very favorably impressed by Director Worsech and Deputy Director Temple’s accessibility and willingness to talk afterwards.
Several of us stayed until about 9 pm discussing various issues, many that we have talked about here on Hunttalk.

I actually came away with the feeling that FWP is open and welcoming to ideas that might help them ease some of the conflict areas @ wildlife management.

I came away with more understanding of the realization that hunters must be active on two fronts. We need to engage FWP personnel to advocate for our interests during the processes they are in charge of and we need to be politically active in lobbying our legislators and holding them accountable for the bills they are pushing through. I got a sense that FWP is also frustrated about some of the legislation they have to implement by law that is imposed by the legislature.

I am more convinced than ever that we need to organize to make the impact of our voices more compelling to those who set the policies that affect wildlife management. If we provide solutions, we get to help determine the future of the health of Montana’s wildlife.

If we stay silent and disengaged, that future will be determined by lobbies with goals that do not align with our interests as hunters.

 

[KB_]

If we stay silent and disengaged, that future will be determined by lobbies with goals that do not align with our interests as hunters.

It sounds like there was some woof lobbyist in attendance, which is not surprising.

That actually sounds like FWP may be receptive to those of us that have issue with the policy's getting ready to be put in place.

I agree that organizing soon to get involved as much as possible will help us in the long run. Glad to see they seemed receptive.

Did anyone get any contact information for further questions?

 

[Horseman]

A recap of the Sept. 7 Region 3 meeting as I remember it.

Due to work, I missed the first 45 minutes. Apparently this was not BYOB because I saw folks with beverages in hand even though I missed out on the Sammichs. I take back my earlier negative comments on leaving bad Yelp reviews about the food and drink.

When I arrived at 5:45 the topic was wolves. The general conversation from a well defined segment of the crowd is that FWP and the commission didn’t listen to the social sentiments expressed during the public comment session. It was the same old “ all the little wolfies are gonna get kilt” in various forms.

You could see the relief on the directors face when the topic switched to elk management. General sentiment was that the Commission completely ignored popular sentiment with expansion of shoulder seasons. FWP personnel did not defend the expansion but essentially said that the Commission did so because they could and they wanted to try something different to see if it would work.

I asked if FWP had any data to measure the effectiveness of shoulder seasons? Who was it that included 314 in the expansion onto public land? Had there been consideration of snowmobiles being used during the late muzzleloader season?

Unfortunately during my questioning I think I asked too many questions because the answer about data supporting the effects of shoulder seasons was overlooked during the director’s response. I don’t think it was necessarily intentional but there wasn’t any reference to studies or data that we can study to determine whether shoulder seasons are effective or not. I think this is a good question that it would be helpful for other people to ask in other meetings.

There were questions regarding stream flows and water rights. It was explained that in many cases FWP’s water rights are junior to older rights and they made the decision not to call any water rights on rivers that they didn’t actually have a senior right to and that would be defensible.

The director was asked about his stance on the recent lawsuit regarding crossbows for the handicapped in archery season. His response was that during the lawsuit he had been unable to comment, but now that it was settled, he was adamantly opposed to allowing crossbows during archery season.

There were a few more attempts at regenerating the wolf conversation but FWP personnel and most of the crowd made it obvious that topic had been beat to death and was settled for the time being.
The meeting changed from a formal question and answer session to an informal discussion between individual FWP personnel and the public @ 7:15 or so. Most people left soon afterwards but I was actually very favorably impressed by Director Worsech and Deputy Director Temple’s accessibility and willingness to talk afterwards.
Several of us stayed until about 9 pm discussing various issues, many that we have talked about here on Hunttalk.

I actually came away with the feeling that FWP is open and welcoming to ideas that might help them ease some of the conflict areas @ wildlife management.

I came away with more understanding of the realization that hunters must be active on two fronts. We need to engage FWP personnel to advocate for our interests during the processes they are in charge of and we need to be politically active in lobbying our legislators and holding them accountable for the bills they are pushing through. I got a sense that FWP is also frustrated about some of the legislation they have to implement by law that is imposed by the legislature.

I am more convinced than ever that we need to organize to make the impact of our voices more compelling to those who set the policies that affect wildlife management. If we provide solutions, we get to help determine the future of the health of Montana’s wildlife.

If we stay silent and disengaged, that future will be determined by lobbies with goals that do not align with our interests as hunters.

Director Worsech did say that this is the new administration’s FWP (driven by Governor Gianforte, wealthy landowners, Ag and outfitters) and it’s unlikely to change much as they feel it is their mandate. The heads seemed to say, yeah keep writing those emails they might listen if these emails contain ideas of compromise…but maybe not. I’m not sure I’m ready to compromise on my ideals formed from 30years of hunting the right way. My favorite comment came from Worsech or Wemple—Sorry if you don’t like the way things look now because your best bet is to hold your breath until the next election then vote for Gianforte’s opponent as this administration is not going to stray much from its current course on elk management and the FWP commissioners are far more beholden to the Governor than an average hunters like myself. The director all but confirmed most of my pessimistic ‘conspiracy’ theories about what’s going on with elk management currently.

 

[Werty]

It sounds like there was some woof lobbyist in attendance, which is not surprising.

That actually sounds like FWP may be receptive to those of us that have issue with the policy's getting ready to be put in place.

I agree that organizing soon to get involved as much as possible will help us in the long run. Glad to see they seemed receptive.

Did anyone get any contact information for further questions?

Fwp is receptive to public outcry, we have to make sure that the Governor, Commission and the Legislature hears us. Unfortunately fwp can only recommend.

 

[The Hedgehog]

Thanks for going and the summaries. I vowed to never attend another fwp public meeting again over 5 years ago.

 

[Sytes]

I was actually very favorably impressed by Director Worsech and Deputy Director Temple’s accessibility and willingness to talk afterwards.
Several of us stayed until about 9 pm discussing various issues, many that we have talked about here on Hunttalk.

I actually came away with the feeling that FWP is open and welcoming to ideas that might help them ease some of the conflict areas @ wildlife management.

I came away with more understanding of the realization that hunters must be active on two fronts. We need to engage FWP personnel to advocate for our interests during the processes they are in charge of and we need to be politically active in lobbying our legislators and holding them accountable for the bills they are pushing through. I got a sense that FWP is also frustrated about some of the legislation they have to implement by law that is imposed by the legislature.

I am more convinced than ever that we need to organize to make the impact of our voices more compelling to those who set the policies that affect wildlife management. If we provide solutions, we get to help determine the future of the health of Montana’s wildlife.

If we stay silent and disengaged, that future will be determined by lobbies with goals that do not align with our interests as hunters.

This seemed to be the same sentiment shared by a couple of us at the R1 meeting.

 

[BWALKER77]

I can not speak for the habitat in western Montana, but in SE Montana it is not the problem. Two thirds of the Custer has burned in the past 25 years. Even with the past two years being the driest consecutive years on record there is still plenty of food for a deer.
I was at my go to spot in the 90's this last week. Spotted at least one 180 class buck from that spot every year in the 90's and even on a poor morning you would see at least 10 bucks. This year I was good for two does and two 2 year old three points. The food looked great, Sumac everywhere, the draws full of snowberrys, winterfat up to my knees and rabbit brush nearly as tall me. Habitat is not the issue in SE Montana.

That area was absolutely piss pounded by NR's.

 

[Big Fin]

I wish I could have been there. Appreciate all the Hunt Talkers who participated there and in other listening sessions. Hopefully you did not mention any association with HT, as it may have devalued your comments.

 

[phutch30]

My prediction is whatever is proposed at the commission meeting will pass... Say good by 324 deer, breaks elk and depending on what gets passed for the elkhorns and other areas managed for older age class elk..they will be gone within a couple yrs. Anyone with any preference points will be left with slim pickins on units to dump them in. MT is about to take a leap backwards in managing its big game

 

[antlerradar]

That area was absolutely piss pounded by NR's.

and from western Montana residents that either didn't draw or have very few mule deer near home. Eastern Montana can no longer be counted on to bail out the mule deer management in the west.

 

[BWALKER77]

and from western Montana that either didn't draw or have very few mule deer near home. Eastern Montana can no longer be counted on to bail out the mule deer management in the west.

In another post I mentioned that issue. The FWP really needs to get a handle on Region 1.

 

[JLS]

Not many folks are going to hunt for mountain whitetails when they can dump a muley buck during the rut.

I seem to recall quite a few Billings plates in the Custer too. It’s irrelevant where folks are from when you have a fugged up season structure.

 

[Sytes]

The FWP really needs to get a handle on Region 1.

Every apex predator Montana has to offer, suburbia pushing at breakneck speed into wildlife habitat, thick as thick public forest canopy, open season w/o any limited tag districts, worst check station counts for all elk country in MT, Private land lovers of their elk including the pretend - we need private tags to reduce elk on our land...

Top that with a mass influx of people wanting to be Montanan off the bat...

Personally, I don't envy FWP employees who studied hard to finally enter employment only to find hands tied with prejudicial leadership calling the shots.

 

[shoots-straight]

I came away with more understanding of the realization that hunters must be active on two fronts. We need to engage FWP personnel to advocate for our interests during the processes they are in charge of and we need to be politically active in lobbying our legislators and holding them accountable for the bills they are pushing through. I got a sense that FWP is also frustrated about some of the legislation they have to implement by law that is imposed by the legislature.

Yea, you sound just like we, Montana Sportsmen's Alliance, did sitting on the capitol steps about 10 years ago. We had a organizational meeting following that discussion and just about every person that's works the legislature through some form of advocacy today was there. We ended up with a some good guys willing to do the heavy lifting for others, but the Elephants gotten to big to eat. We need all hands on deck for this.

The department is pretty good at convincing you there's hope, then to only get that hope crushed later. I'm not saying stop what your doing, just be a realist on what the mandate is. It's also very tough on ones spirit after years of getting our asses kicked. Many of those crusaders have fallen for various reasons, and health was a big one. Just don't let this affect your lives, nor your interactions with your family. My advice is to look at the long hall and expect the worst while hoping for the best of outcomes. Just be ready for the long fight and take the little wins along the way. Hopefully it will turn around.

Welcome aboard, as I know I speak for many when I say, all the old warriors are feeling a little more hopeful, and maybe there's a new, growing group of advocates to carry the torch.

Kick a hornets nest hard enough and you're going to get stung. I hope it's by hundreds if not thousands of my fellow Montanans. Some NR's are welcome to sting too.

 

[BZNHNTR]

Another note I had from the open house is that they are working on a revised elk management plan and the director said (believable him or not) that is where we would have the best chance at influence. Increasing objectives is probably a no go but it is the “science” they are basing the kill all the elk policy off of.
In the director’s response to Gerald he also noted they don’t know if the public land shoulder seasons will work, it’s an experiment… Don’t think you need to be a biologist to figure this one out though, the wrong elk will get killed.

 

[BRI]

I just wonder what's next? What's the end game? When the numbers of animals on public land are so few (as if they aren't already), what's the next management tool in the tool box?

 

[Gerald Martin]

In the director’s response to Gerald he also noted they don’t know if the public land shoulder seasons will work, it’s an experiment… Don’t think you need to be a biologist to figure this one out though, the wrong elk will get killed.

To quote the director… “How do you know which elk are the wrong elk?…”

I think we need to keep hammering the concept that unit wide reduction of elk on accessible lands doesn’t do anything to alleviate localized problems related to elk distribution. Killing an elk on the other side of the unit that has never stepped foot on the property of a rancher that is complaining about too many elk doesn’t solve the problem for the rancher who has too many elk in his hay field.

It does give FWP the ability to demonstrate to the legislature that they are “doing something about elk depredation” but it only works on paper.

In the field it actually causes more problems than it solves when you factor in the increased pressure to public land elk and landowner fatigue from hunters seeking access from Sept.-February.

Private landowners are the cause of the problems for other private landowners. The public land resident hunter is doing a phenomenal job of keeping public land elk at a low population.

If landowners want the problem of over objective elk solved then they need to be working with their neighbors, not complaining about hunters or FWP.