Hb 361

[WT_in_MT]

Article regarding the voting change.
http://www.greatfallstribune.com/article/20110402/NEWS01/104020309/State-Senate-backtracks-archery-permits-bill?odyssey=tab|topnews|text|Frontpage

 

[howler]

It appeared tp me that Balyeat was trying to put a wedge inbetween the rifle hunters and bowhunters in Montana, I didn't see his point at all. 361 died for a few reasons and none of them had to do with Rifle hunters contempt for bowhunters hunting earlier, He also put a little riff on the guys who switched their votes. Swome How Bayleat don't get it that he is their to represent his consituents and so are the others, If a senator recieved a ton of e mail, or phone calls about a certain bill would not that give the senator a clue as to how folks back home felt...

 

[onpoint]

In the Tribune article, Joe voiced his concern about opposition to 361 having no "sound wildlife management basis". He may be right, but his ideas of "sound wildlife management" are subjective, at best. He voted "yeah" for Brenden's SB 255. If anybody can tell me what that one has to do with "sound wildlife management".........And oh, I'm looking forward to my orange vested dawg pointing wounded antelope. Maybe I'll even get a few 100 yard head shots with my .270 at sharpies while were "tracking"..............

 

[WT_in_MT]

Hope this doesn't get you crosswise with Balyeat, Big Fin.
From the article:
Sen. Joe Balyeat, R-Bozeman, passionately supported HB361 when it was discussed on the Senate floor Thursday.

"If you vote on a bill based on arguments, you vote for the bill. That's what happened yesterday on second reading," he said Friday. "If you vote on a bill based on political pressure and outside groups, you vote against it."

Balyeat said sportsmen's groups, primarily rifle hunters, did a good job representing the issue as being about "greedy outfitters and out-of-state hunters." He added that he believed "greedy rifle hunters," who don't want bowhunters to have early season trophy opportunities, pressured FWP to change the permitting system.

 

[thetruth]

Guys, it's not just about over-crowding! Can't you see this is about equity and the commercialization of our wildlife? With no limits on archery, the privatizers and commercializers were taking over - some of these districts had non-residents making up 30% or more of the hunters. The limited permits simply help to keep non-resident at no more than 10%, the same as for all our other limited licenses and permits (moose, sheep, goat, mule deer buck permits, elk rifle permits). Do you guys really want non-residents to continue to take more and more of your trophy bull opportunities?

There are no problems with residents drawing these permits. Any resident that wanted a permit could get one - 100% success rate on first choice. There is even a 75% success rate on second choice, so you could apply for a rifle permit first choice and still have a good chance of drawing an archery permit on your second choice!.

You'd better realize that ALL of these Districts will stand or fall together. The reason they were lumped together in the first place was because they were all Districts that already had limited rifle permits. That argument is consistent, fair, and defensible. The privatizers and commercializers will not be satisfied with just getting rid of the 23 Districts outside the Breaks. Why do you think Washburn and Harris lumped them all together in their bills? Because they don't want them in the Breaks either!

You must support keeping limited archery permits in ALL Districts in which there are rifle permits. If you start splitting them up, they will eventually all go down, including the Breaks.

 

[thetruth]

One more thing guys...the current FWP Commission is the first Commission ever willing to take on the commercializers and privatizers in the interest of the resident sportsmen of Montana, which by the way, is their statutory obligation. MCA 87-3-303 states, "Policy toward nonresident big game hunters: It shall be the policy of this state to protect and preserve game animals primarily for the citizens of this state and to avoid the deliberate waste of wildlife and destruction of property by nonresidents licensed to hunt in this state."

This Commission desperately needs our support. They are under assault by the commercializers and privatizers and their cronies in the legislature. This Commission is truly looking out for us - and that includes the elk archery regulations.

 

[Lawnboy]

I don't buy that argument at all. What do you mean by the "units will all go down"? How are they going down? How are they being commercialized or privatized? I can see commerce happening on the private land but very little on public in these units. The private land isn't ours to hunt anyway.

It's also comforting to know that Buzz and any other NR that enjoys returning to this state is looked at like this a someone like this "deliberate waste of wildlife and destruction of property by nonresidents licensed to hunt in this state." WTHeck

 

[thetruth]

It's affecting public land as well. Why do you think so many Breaks districts are over-objective? It's because the commercializers and privatizers have blocked off access to the public land. Also, they are harboring animals on private land inholdings within the public lands. The issue is the same in both areas - the hoarding of public wildlife for the wealthy non-resident resulting in lack of harvest. The limited elk archery permits do not eliminate the non-resident - it simply limits them to no more than 10%, which is what Montanans have determined is fair and equitable for all of our other trophy species.

 

[sweetnectar]

Ya, you would think non residents were the devil. Especially those family members that are non residents. I hope we don't forget that hunters as a whole are an increasingly shrinking minority. Hunting is not the popular thing to do. But we can drive another nail in the coffin of the hunter when we start demonizing other hunters, nonresidents, archery hunters, road hunters, rifle hunters, dady warbuck hunters that hire outfitters, and even the guys that sit in blinds over a deer feeder. It is fun to do (laugh at other hunting styles) when you set your own challenge as more difficult to accomplish. If it was just about killing, I'd poison water holes and shoot critters out of planes. To most guys on this site it is about doing it yourself or simply enjoying the outdoors. I love to read to stories from guys on here, successes and failures. I hope the commission will actually listen to me this time around and not give me a line of BS.

 

[Lawnboy]

If there wasn't legal access to a public section to begin with then they aren't doing anything wrong by posting NO Trespassing signs on their property. If they are blocking a legal right of way then it needs to be dealt with by the law. As far as I can tell the animals are free ranging. Just because someone has alfalfa instead of sagebrush doesn't mean they are hoarding. I have yet to see a ranch that is holding captive the public's wildlife. You might be frustrated that they are living there but that isn't the landowners problem. This all sounds more like a frustration for private land than the real issue of blanket management from the commission.

And so the question is raised that if the NR numbers go down then the landowners will let you and me shoot the elk..........Ya Right.

 

[thetruth]

It's not about "demonizing" anyone - it's about giving Montanans their statutory preference over non-residents. We're not talking about eliminating non-residents, only limiting them to no more than 10% of the trophy opportunities.

Another point - anyone with a general license can hunt cow elk during the rifle and archery seasons in most of these Districts. Also, there are second antlerless elk B-licenses available in many of these Districts. If anyone wants to hunt elk, they can - or do these guys want no part of any hunting experience except that for Trophy bulls?

 

[Big Fin]

You'd better realize that ALL of these Districts will stand or fall together. The reason they were lumped together in the first place was because they were all Districts that already had limited rifle permits. That argument is consistent, fair, and defensible. The privatizers and commercializers will not be satisfied with just getting rid of the 23 Districts outside the Breaks.

Wow. Heavy use of the terms privatizers and commercializers. Please explain who those groups are and how they are privitizing and commercializing.

I am not sure I buy what you are selling the qupte below. The reason we got into this mess is the "One Size Fits All" approach used by the Commission.

You must support keeping limited archery permits in ALL Districts in which there are rifle permits. If you start splitting them up, they will eventually all go down, including the Breaks.

The determining factor for opportunity in these other 22 units is not tags, whether limited or un-limited, but is access. The majority of elk live on private land in those units, or on public land that is unaccessible.

Whereas the Breaks have a lot of public land and access is less of an issue, so a different management plan there, seems to make sense.

Are you implying that limiting permits in areas where most elk are on private land is going to increase access? If so, I would say that is a pipe dream. You could cut them to ZERO non-resident permits, and it is not going to open access to one single additional acre of land.

It seems that we need to manage one way for areas with public land, such as the Breaks, and manage a different way with areas that are primarily private. But, that requires more work and effort.

Call me blind, but I don't see this the way you stated below.

Can't you see this is about equity and the commercialization of our wildlife?

We have the wildlife held in trust on our behalf, as citizens of Montana, but we don't own the private ground needed to gain access. Pretty simple. Public wildlife, private land. What part of that results in inequity and commercialization?

Maybe I am seeing it wrong and would like your explanation of such.

I am all about resident hunters having priority in the allocation of our wildlife, but I do not see how restriction of archery elk permits, in units where the elk habitat is primarily private land, has anything to do with increasing resident hunting opportunity.

And, I do not buy into Senator Balyeat's claim that this is all about rifle hunters vs. archery hunters, as you seem to be implying with your fairness comments.

I am interested to learn more details of what supports your claims. Please share with us the rationale you are using to come to these conclusion. You obvivously have given it a lot of thought and seem very passionate about it.

This has been a big topic in the legislature this year, and I think it will continue to be a big topic for the commission as we go forward. More information and discussion is better.

 

[Lawnboy]

I prefer hunting elk with antlers. Haven't had much luck with killing big ones and frankly the average NR hunter isn't passing up raghorns with their bows either.
I'll admit some of these units have a high percentage of private property. As you mentioned many of the animals will winter on the private land so having an extra cow tag isn't going to help you get an elk unless you have permission. The commission can try to black ball the landowner but pissing them off isn't going to provide you or me with opportunity to hunt cows or bulls on their lands. Sorry. Might just get us met at the door by a shot gun when we go ask permission.

 

[thetruth]

Lawnboy, guess you haven't spent much time up there if you haven't seen hoarding and harboring of animals. That occurs across the state, including the Breaks. It's the major reason why elk numbers are over-objective in these areas. Anyone who is truly objective can see that.

And whether private landowners let residents on to hunt or not is their business - they can live with the consequences of that. No one is trying to tell them who they have to let on their land. But we sure as heck have the right to say who gets the licenses and permits. The people of the state of Montana own the wildlife. We don't have to allow a licensing/permit system that encourages the commercialization and privatization of our wildlife.

 

[Lawnboy]

I have been out there. Was yesterday in fact. I haven't seen anyone holding hands making a big circle to keep the animals on their places nor have I seen any high fences to trap the animals. If you consider an animal whether it be a whitetail, antelope, elk or any animal heading to greener pastures to feed harboring then I guess it's happening all over the state. Your disdain for the NR tags shows that your real hatred is for the fact that the animals prefer a location that isn't full of public hunters and has excellent feed. The reality is that this blanketing of 20+ units with a one size fits all approach is biology at it's worst.

Sure would like you to answer in detail more of Fin's questions as well. I must have been an easier argument.

I live right by Turner's Flying D and I can't say that I've looked at him as hoarding animals. Lucky SOB maybe but not hoarding.

 

[Big Fin]

....guess you haven't spent much time up there if you haven't seen hoarding and harboring of animals. That occurs across the state, including the Breaks. It's the major reason why elk numbers are over-objective in these areas. Anyone who is truly objective can see that.

What exactly is hoarding and harboring? The existence of animals on one's property that are not open to public hunting?

I am interested in learning more about how these dots get connected. I am all about increased opportunity, with resident having primary focus.

But, I do not see how limited permits in these units outside the Breaks results in more resident opportunity. I would like to see more resident opportunity on those private lands, and if your ideas can get us there, count me as a likely supporter. Just can't see how that gets accomplished with limited permits.

In fact, some would argue that if we are worried about resident opportunity we should not have limited permits in the Breaks, either. That being based on the premise that limited permits do not increase resident opportunity.

Personally, I think limited permits in 410, where I often hunt, have helped the quality of the experience, but not sure it has done anything for opportunity or for biology. I could be wrong.

I guess I just need to ask. Is your argument about increasing resident opportunity? And if so, how does this accomplish that?

Or, is it about something else?

 

[JCS]

Tick tock tick tock tick tock.

This must be point/counterpoint. I'm am waiting for the counterpoint. Or is that the point?

 

[thetruth]

Big Fin, surely you know who we're talking about. Read some of Jim Posewitz's or Val Geist's writings - that will explain the whole commercialization/privatization issue better than I can.

Again, it's not about forcing access to private land - it's about gaining control of a licensing/permit system that was ENCOURAGING commercialization/privatization by allowing unlimited access to trophy bull elk hunting opportunities by nonresidents. The limited archery permits simply controls this at no more than 10%, the same as for all of our other trophy opportunities.

This isn't about rifle hunters vs. archers either - it's about fairness. Do you think it is fair for archers to have unlimited opportunities to these trophy bull elk opportunities that were built on and are maintained by strictly limiting rifle hunters? Archers are still getting WAY more permits than rifle hunters, and that is fair because of the lower kill rates by archers. And archers are indeed getting their fair share because in some Breaks districts in some years archers take 50% of the bulls.

 

[thetruth]

Hey fellas, it's been a good discussion, but I've about said it all from my perspective for now. Thanks for the challenging questions.

 

[Big Fin]

Big Fin, surely you know who we're talking about. Read some of Jim Posewitz's or Val Geist's writings - that will explain the whole commercialization/privatization issue better than I can.

Evidently you know me, and my position on boards with Poz, and formerly with Val. The discussion of commericalization/privatization is always interesting. I am very involved in such topics and have debated them for the 15 years I have been on those boards.

I still do not see where limited or unlimited permits are an avenue for commercialization or privatization.

Again, it's not about forcing access to private land - it's about gaining control of a licensing/permit system that was ENCOURAGING commercialization/privatization by allowing unlimited access to trophy bull elk hunting opportunities by nonresidents.

OK, so you say it is not about forcing access. I can buy that.

The second part of that reply is where I struggle with the logic. It seems from that reply, that you effort is about reducing opportunity, both resident and non-resident, as a mechanism to discourage the commericialization and privatization you see happening? Correct?

I don't see limited permits as beneficial to anyone, resident or non-resident, in those units. And, I still do not see how unlimited permits allow a private landowner to "privatize" wildlife.

The limited archery permits simply controls this at no more than 10%, the same as for all of our other trophy opportunities.

Yet, it also controls resident opportunity, right?

This isn't about rifle hunters vs. archers either - it's about fairness. Do you think it is fair for archers to have unlimited opportunities to these trophy bull elk opportunities that were built on and are maintained by strictly limiting rifle hunters?.

Yes, I do think it is fair, so long as we are not a "Choose Your Weapon" state. And here is why. Anyone can get the permit. Because someone chooses to use a rifle, which is what I use if I actually plan to kill something, does not mean I should limit those who choose a more primitive weapon that has a much lower success rate, so long as that archery opportunity is available to us all.

I suspect we agree on most things related to hunting. Just not convinced that limiting archery permits does anything to improve hunter opportunity, both resident or non-resident, and I do not see it helps with biology in any way.

Being a big advocate for the self-guided person, I am all ears about how your ideas can help that self-guided person gain more opportunity and access to these areas in question.

Thanks for the replies. Happy Hunting!