Bulls for Billionaires - MT EQC Meeting today 1:30 PM

Would we even need to vehemently discuss all these programs if we adopted Wyoming’s system? To me, it’s simple. We create the problem with our failing opportunity/traditional seasons. We try to fix said problem with a double heaping of more of the same squared and than we come up with convoluted gimmicky programs since “we have to do something”. When the foundation sucks, it’s easier to knock the building down and rebuild. That’s where we are at. All this discussion about the 454 program is giant waste of air imo. Does Wyoming have a 454 program?
 
Eric Albus said:
Really? Look at all general season elk/deer areas. Are the biologists really “managing” anything other than promoting wholesale slaughter??
R6 recommended going from 150 LE permits to 400 buck permits for mule deer in 652. There aren’t 400 deer, let alone buck deer in that area.
Click to expand...

I agree that the "management" has been terrible for far too long and the race to the bottom has been put into overdrive the last couple years.

My question is whether or not the biologists are the ones coming up with the "management plan" or simply parroting what they are told to say.

Like @BuzzH said above, I believe the directives are coming from the top down and the biologists are merely trying to toe the line in order to keep their jobs and look for small victories where they can. The R6 permits you mention above smells like politics and money more than it does biology.
 
Eric Albus said:
Really? Look at all general season elk/deer areas. Are the biologists really “managing” anything other than promoting wholesale slaughter??
R6 recommended going from 150 LE permits to 400 buck permits for mule deer in 652. There aren’t 400 deer, let alone buck deer in that area.
Click to expand...
I have a hard time believing that the biologists(the majority anyways) are in favor of this type of management. 652 is not a trophy unit by any means but was a fun hunt. For any type of trophy quality, it should be 25-50 permits compared to the current 200. The breaks elk units have become managed much the same. I’m guessing these biologists are told they will manage for max opportunity(max license sales). And then they tow the line so they can keep their jobs and support their families.
 
I cannot speak for the breaks or really any eastern Montana districts, but I know professionals in the state of Montana have proposed more conservative management via reduced limited entry permits in their districts only to be denied and shot down by leadership.

I think some thing lost when discussing this regime, and one of the reasons good people are jumping ship, is professionals are now subject to an unprecedented amount of micromanagement. It’s weird and oppressive and wholly inefficient
 
Nameless Range said:
I cannot speak for the breaks or really any eastern Montana districts, but I know professionals in the state of Montana have proposed more conservative management via reduced limited entry permits in their districts only to be denied and shot down by leadership.

I think some thing lost when discussing this regime, and one of the reasons good people are jumping ship, is professionals are now subject to an unprecedented amount of micromanagement. It’s weird and oppressive and wholly inefficient
Click to expand...
Finally you say something I can concur with.
 
huntin24/7 said:
I have a hard time believing that the biologists(the majority anyways) are in favor of this type of management. 652 is not a trophy unit by any means but was a fun hunt. For any type of trophy quality, it should be 25-50 permits compared to the current 200. The breaks elk units have become managed much the same. I’m guessing these biologists are told they will manage for max opportunity(max license sales). And then they tow the line so they can keep their jobs and support their families.
Click to expand...
I contacted the commission immediately when I heard R6 biologist recommendation was to go to 400 permits. It was to late, the commission had already said no to the 400, but decided 200 might be ok. They to a person all said, upon my call, they had no idea there was not even 400 deer in the unit. This state is TO LARGE to not have a boots on the ground approach in each region approach. Whomever stated 25-50 permits in 652 was correct. Best buck I know of taken in 652 was/is 230-240 depending on who scores it…gross score.
It’s not an area known for producing “big”(175-185) deer, but at least with 25-50(even)75 permits it’d produce a good chance at a 170 plus buck. Plus a quality experience.
 
huntin24/7 said:
I have a hard time believing that the biologists(the majority anyways) are in favor of this type of management. 652 is not a trophy unit by any means but was a fun hunt. For any type of trophy quality, it should be 25-50 permits compared to the current 200. The breaks elk units have become managed much the same. I’m guessing these biologists are told they will manage for max opportunity(max license sales). And then they tow the line so they can keep their jobs and support their families.
Click to expand...
Each regional office is autonomous, like an Indian Res., they DO NOT answer to Helena.
The end.
 
I’ve been to tentatives for off and on for 30 yrs in Glasgow. Finally quit going and offering solutions/suggestions and never one time did I see anybody from Helena.
When I asked the previous director about breaking R7 antelope in areas, she said to me, “I’ll work on that, sounds reasonable”. When I saw her again a few months later I asked, “what gives, no change”, to which she replied, “they(R7) don’t see a need for change, and I can’t/won’t make them”(even if there is evidence I should).

When Hank became director I asked him if he’d look into it, he told me each office is like dealing with a sovereign nation.
 
Eric Albus said:
When Hank became director I asked him if he’d look into it, he told me each office is like dealing with a sovereign nation.
Click to expand...

I believe that was his way of brushing you off.


Montana is a small town and word gets out.Helena is calling the shots everywhere, and the shots pass through Helena for approval in ways never seen before. All of the bad attributes of overregulation are happening in spades with this micromanagement.

I'm not saying that if the regional offices were given autonomy things would be fixed, but make no mistake that every decision in every corner of MT is under the thumb of HQ. Hell, we recently saw out in the open, Helena propose massive changes that the local bios didn't even know about till the announcements hit the press.
 
Last edited:
Nameless Range said:
I believe that was his way of brushing you off.


Montana is a small town and word gets out.Helena is calling the shots everywhere, and the shots pass through Helena for approval in ways never seen before. All of the bad attributes of overregulation are happening in spades with this micromanagement.

I'm not saying that if the regional offices were given autonomy things would be fixed, but make no mistake that every decision in every corner of MT is under the thumb of HQ. Hell, we recently saw out in the open, Helena propose massive changes that the local bios didn't even know about till the announcements hit the press.
Click to expand...
Probably was.
 
Eric Albus said:
I’ve been to tentatives for off and on for 30 yrs in Glasgow. Finally quit going and offering solutions/suggestions and never one time did I see anybody from Helena.
When I asked the previous director about breaking R7 antelope in areas, she said to me, “I’ll work on that, sounds reasonable”. When I saw her again a few months later I asked, “what gives, no change”, to which she replied, “they(R7) don’t see a need for change, and I can’t/won’t make them”(even if there is evidence I should).

When Hank became director I asked him if he’d look into it, he told me each office is like dealing with a sovereign nation.
Click to expand...
Too often when we ask a question we interpret the answer to be what we believed even before we asked the question. This case in point. No disrespect meant, Eric, but I think you got it wrong.
 
So, in the name of finding common ground - it seems like Eric is on the same page as the preponderance of folks here regarding how 454's should go forward, as opposed to what has been happening.

Recap:
1.) These agreements have to come from the ground up, not the top-down. Local biologists & the landowner/agent have to devise a plan that helps meet management goals as well as reward the landowner for allowing access.

2.) 3:1 isn't a good mix, 4:1 is more equitable, but the agency should resume the past practice of negotiating higher ratios in order to actually make this about herd management.

3.) The agency rule to create a May 15th deadline for applicants is good, but it needs to bring back the directive to engage locally first.

4.) Actual wildlife management needs to happen in conjunction with this program, not just a sop to wealthy non-residents who grease enough wheels with the Helena political class.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Ollin Magnetic Digiscoping Systems

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
113,672
Messages
2,029,196
Members
36,279
Latest member
TURKEY NUT

Share this page

Back
Top