It sure seems like a landowner in over-objective districts where damage hunts requiring a large portion of the licensed hunters to be from the public currently take place (Madison Valley for example), the public opportunity provided by damage hunts could be limited by this change - seeing as how if the matrix allows, family, friends, (those willing to pay trespass fees?) could and probably from the perspective of a landowner would preferably be the licensed hunters as opposed to the general public.
Not trying to be difficult, but I don't see anything in the text of this bill that even references district objectives. I have lost faith in the whole concept of our Commission enough that I would be hesitant to give them more rope with which to reduce public opportunity.
Page 2, line 17: the agency gets the directive to institute the scaling matrix. It is permissive, but working with the department, this is the language they preferred.
The licensing issue would still have to go through the season setting process, and the public still has a role in how it is implemented.
The bill isn't about reducing hunter opportunity, it's about increasing options in areas that are over objective range & creating sideboards so it doesn't exploit the resource in areas where there is a need to grow herds/maintain herds.
There's a new director, so I'd give her some time before throwing the towel in on the agency or commission. I'm pretty comfortable with the sideboards and I'm pretty comfortable with the agency on this.
The real world situation is a shoulder season hunt where a hunter has the chance to take 3 elk instead of 2.