comments on Utah style Auctions in Montana!

[shoots-straight]

Opening the door to tag theft!

I hope that everyone makes written, and then verbal comments on this proposal. I'm not sure Bob Ream proposed this, but his name is on the bottom.

If he did this, then it shows how disconnected he is with hunters here.

Notice of Public Hearing on Rules Regarding License Auctions and Lotteries
Link right here: http://fwp.mt.gov/fwpDoc.html?id=55983

comment here: http://fwp.mt.gov/news/publicNotices/armRules/pn_0123.html

 

[mtlion]

Uhhh. Just threw up in my mouth a little bit.

Comments are being written. The chipping away is never going to end.

 

[howler]

SFW is sneaking in the back door, guys

 

[MNHunter]

Opening a can of worms....

Good luck sportsmen of Monana

 

[shoots-straight]

After reading the info, I think what's approved is one, sheep, goat, moose, mule deer, and elk. That can be auctioned by a sportsman's group. So I got a little nervous. Still they do have the foot in the door.

 

[Bambistew]

What group will the tag allocation come from? Keep in mind that NR get ab out 7-8 sheep tags. Even one less would suck.

 

[Topgun 30-06]

shoots-straight---That is an official notice put out by the DPW that came out of his office advising the public of the hearing to accept or reject the proposal. It doesn't say what organization or individual actually submitted the proposal.and it seems like it should be required so people know who they are dealing with well before the meeting takes place. Any guesses on who submitted the proposal, LOL! What I am a little bit stumped on though is that it says one tag of each species listed in the proposal can be issued to a species-specific organization. Does that mean only one of each of those tags are available or could a number of organizations that are elk related or moose related for instance, all apply and each one get a tag? The way it's worded does not seem to be the best to eliminate any question of how many tags can be issued.

 

[Oak]

I read it to be just changing the current rule from an annual rule to an administrative rule. No addition of tags available above what is currently sold. Is that not the situation?

 

[shoots-straight]

I read it to be just changing the current rule from an annual rule to an administrative rule. No addition of tags available above what is currently sold. Is that not the situation?

Oak, right, I'm paranoid!.. Move along now.

The thing I never knew about the law, is that sportsman's orgs can petition to auction the tags. I don't like that.

 

[Topgun 30-06]

Oak---I think what you stated is the case, but especially since I don't know what the current allocation is, that is why the wording left me with a question mark as to what it really means.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Oak, right, I'm paranoid!.. Move along now.

The thing I never knew about the law, is that sportsman's orgs can petition to auction the tags. I don't like that.

For the most part, these tags are a good thing. The Bighorn sheep tag, raffled by the MT Wild Sheep Foundation, brought in $300,000 for sheep work.

RMEF, etc, get the other tags. MDF got a tag last year, and I believe they auctioned it off at the SFW/MDF expo in SLC. I find that to be insulting because of SFW's attempts to undermine public land hunters and anglers and, of course, trying to keep wolves listed for their own gain.

 

[1_pointer]

I'm for auction tags, if the state does it and keeps the $$ for work on that species.

Not so much of a fan of any other group auctioning off tags...

 

[shoots-straight]

For the most part, these tags are a good thing. The Bighorn sheep tag, raffled by the MT Wild Sheep Foundation, brought in $300,000 for sheep work.

RMEF, etc, get the other tags. MDF got a tag last year, and I believe they auctioned it off at the SFW/MDF expo in SLC. I find that to be insulting because of SFW's attempts to undermine public land hunters and anglers and, of course, trying to keep wolves listed for their own gain.

Maybe we need to shore these laws up to make sure that abuses can't take place.

It did open the door. They are a good thing right now, but with a little interference from the legislature it could turn ugly.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Maybe we need to shore these laws up to make sure that abuses can't take place.

It did open the door. They are a good thing right now, but with a little interference from the legislature it could turn ugly.

There's a lot that needs to be cleaned up, but given what the legislature is going to look like next year, I think we'll do well to just not have the tags theft expanded.

 

[shoots-straight]

There's a lot that needs to be cleaned up, but given what the legislature is going to look like next year, I think we'll do well to just not have the tags theft expanded.

It's getting really old playing defence. Seems like we're just holding on by a thread, and not gaining any ground.

 

[jlmatthew]

This post proves my point about a post I made a couple weeks back

If there is a rumor about taking "1" tag away from any Western state the whole country gets in an uproar, but when Colorado takes hundreds out of the draw, nobody cares