FWP Sidestepping Public Comment Period?

[----]

Thanks. i see 417-20 (either sex) going from 100 to 200. I’m sure that was done to appease the outfitters. Not a big deal to me, again if the goal is to reduce the population. Would have preferred B tag increase only, but I have to be realistic.

Not going to get into a pissing match with you over the quality or use of roads in that district. If you hunt there consistently I would take your word over mine own, and I am happy to tell everyone to hit Knox Ridge and two Calf to shoot their big bulls.

You are right that the access to where the elk are is poor, I apologize for picking nits like that.

It was an absolutely incredible elk unit not that long ago, and with 200-400 bull tags being used primarily on public land, it's going to be an even bigger joke than what it's been lately. I just can't wrap my head around how FWP consistently responds to too many elk on private land by increasing the hunting pressure on public.

Also sorry to be so confrontational. I'm just so sick and tired of being pissed on and getting told that it's raining.

 

[SAJ-99]

I disagree with it being open to a general elk license. You think it’s crowded now wait til that happens. Again if that were to happen not a single elk will soon be found on public ground because the hunters will flock to there to get their breaks experience.

Sure, but a year or two in and you will have fewer elk. The crowded aspect is during bow season. That is what cause the elk to group up in the first place. I can image though that opening up in the general season would mean ever mule deer buck with a tine over 6in would be shot too.

 

[BuzzH]

I disagree with it being open to a general elk license. You think it’s crowded now wait til that happens. Again if that were to happen not a single elk will soon be found on public ground because the hunters will flock to there to get their breaks experience.

Why not? Its the same in the rest of Montana...why should Eastern Montana be exempt from "opportunity at all costs" that the rest of the state suffers from?

 

[SAJ-99]

Some of the Elkhorns are a cow/spike tag in the general season. So it is not unprecedented

I think FWP knows none of these changes is going to make any difference in moving those elk. Maybe it just shuts up the landowners for six months. The real “solution” is that a landowner needs to allow public access for the full season to get any damage tag. or maybe the wolves find the Breaks in a few years and solve the problem for us.

 

[MTGomer]

There ya have it...

 

[MLaird]

In the past I have tried to give FWP the benefit of the doubt but I am really starting to question what they are thinking/doing. I know that MT is managed for opportunity and the access issue really complicates things but I really don't understand why they operate the way they do.

 

[Fsmith]

In the past I have tried to give FWP the benefit of the doubt but I am really starting to question what they are thinking/doing. I know that MT is managed for opportunity and the access issue really complicates things but I really don't understand why they operate the way they do.

It’s all about the money with Fwp. Nothing left to question after that.

 

[Sytes]

I've run through a google search of FWP definition of "Quota" and "Quota Ranges". Someone able to define?
Seems there was public comment available? FWP was not sidestepping this thread topic or?

Thanks.

There ya have it...

 

[MTGomer]

I've run through a google search of FWP definition of "Quota" and "Quota Ranges". Someone able to define?
Seems there was public comment available? FWP was not sidestepping this thread topic or?

Thanks.

The quota is the actual number of licenses that will be available.
the quota range is the range that the biologist has the flexibility to move the quota around in. If they want to set a quota outside of the quota range, it has to go to the commission to modify the quota range.

 

[Schaaf]

I've run through a google search of FWP definition of "Quota" and "Quota Ranges". Someone able to define?
Seems there was public comment available? FWP was not sidestepping this thread topic or?

Thanks.

Charles, The issue is that FWP accepted public comment on the original Master List until January 27th. They released a new Master List this week that included changes to 410 and 417 referenced in the OP that were never on the original list that public comments were addressing.

 

[----]

Let the commission know if you disapprove with these regulation changes. Meeting is on the 13th-

[email protected]

 

[SAJ-99]

Charles, The issue is that FWP accepted public comment on the original Master List until January 27th. They released a new Master List this week that included changes to 410 and 417 referenced in the OP that were never on the original list that public comments were addressing.

But those changes reflected the public comments received.

 

[Fsmith]

But those changes reflected the public comments received.

Going on a limb here..... the input received would be from private land owners that have their lands closed to the public. All around travesty. Fwp needs a colon cleanse from the top down.

 

[SAJ-99]

Going on a limb here..... the input received would be from private land owners that have their lands closed to the public. All around travesty. Fwp needs a colon cleanse from the top down.

You had the opportunity to give comments. Did you?

 

[MTGomer]

You had the opportunity to give comments. Did you?

I commented, and my comment had nothing to do with either sex licenses in 410, for the same reason I did not vote for Ronald Reagan or JFK for president in 2016.

 

[Schaaf]

But those changes reflected the public comments received.

I’m having a hard time believing there was extensive public comment received on an issue that wasn’t up for discussion.

 

[tjones]

Since its a change from the tentative proposal you should also be able to submit comments during the commission meeting from the region headquarters via video.

 

[SAJ-99]

I commented, and my comment had nothing to do with either sex licenses in 410, for the same reason I did not vote for Ronald Reagan or JFK for president in 2016.

Well, that was exactly my comment, and there is no indication that the number is tags is being increased, just the range. Elk are over objective and the goal is to get them to objective quickly. Call me idealistic, but I would rather they do that with public hunter involvement than shooting them from a helicopter. You and I may not think the objectives matter, but landowners do and they have a loud voice with the commission. We all need to work toward reasonable solutions rather complaining to each other in this board. There may be things you can criticize the FWP for (the debacle of shoulder seasons for example) but I think every complaint should be accompanied with a new idea. FWP didn't "side step" the public comment period at all, most people ignored it. As has been pointed out, you still have a chance to let your comments be heard. Go to Lewistown and give them an earful, because I can tell who will be there - ranchers. And if you think you can complain, what until you hear them.

 

[MTGomer]

Well, that was exactly my comment,

And it should have been ignored for being out of scope.

If I need an addition to my patio and your proposal is about repaving my driveway, I’m throwing it away, maybe even laughing at you.

 

[tjones]

Increase the 417-20 either-sex elk permit quota and quota range from 100 (range 25-200) to 200
(range 25 – 400).