Montana General Season Structure Proposal

[Schaaf]

I’m on the precipice of moving to Montana after concluding my career in the military and I get that “things aren’t as good as they used to be”, but holy cow there is a tremendous amount of outrage towards FWP and sniveling going on in these 90 pages. I’m just glad to be able to go hunting again after living overseas for 4 years. It seams that many of you missed your calling in becoming wildlife biologists and actually working for FWP to make the change you so desperately want. It’s never too late to change careers…

I mean, this is how a public agency is supposed to work. I would be far more concerned when or if the public becomes apathetic towards wildlife management.

Every bio/land manager I know personally would rather have an engaged public than one that doesn't care.

 

[Mountain Man]

I mean, this is how a public agency is supposed to work. I would be far more concerned when or if the public becomes apathetic towards wildlife management.

Every bio/land manager I know personally would rather have an engaged public than one that doesn't care.

I wasn’t suggesting the HT populous be apathetic. I just don’t see how it is productive to slam FWP at every turn because it is perceived to be so incompetent. How are those types of comments productive when trying to discuss/improve the plan that was introduced 90 pages ago?

 

[Mountain Man]

Sometimes the word sniveling gets confused with people actually caring about the resource and concerned about the future. I think the majority complaining here would fall into that category.

I used that word purposely because it has been thrown around a number of times in this thread depending on which concern was being attacked with a trite put down.

I commend everyone for caring about the resource, it’s just the method of delivery that I think could use some refinement.

 

[Mountain Man]

I worked in 2 different agencies (FWP as a fisheries intern and WYGFD doing tech work) and the Feds working with FWP on projects. I left fisheries work to do engineering for a couple reasons, but a big one was how unbelievably political state game agencies, particularly FWP, can be. And this goes back well before the GG administration. There is little room to be outspoken on issues without very real implications for your job and financial security. In contrast, I can be more involved in the processes that matter (legislature, commission, etc) than I ever could as a bio. I am not saying bios don't matter (they absolutely do) but they are significantly hamstrung by the managers of the agency.

Fair point. I know exactly what you are talking about having seen the same dynamic at the highest levels of the Department of Defense between federal employees and presidentially appointed officials whose sole purpose was to implement political agendas. This is why it is supposed to be so difficult to fire federal/state employees, so as not to clean house every election cycle.

 

[DFS]

If they were straight forward with the public I think people would be more sympathetic. Instead we get buck size hasn’t changed, age class still robust, no change in hunter distribution, record counts on public land, animals didn’t die they just migrated. Doe harvest is extremely low even though we see trailers full of them. Everything is still great you just need to try harder. I’m sure there is higher powers not allowing them to tell the truth. It is not hard to see why they have lost the trust of the public hunter that has much experience.

 

[DFS]

We are going to manage off the best science that comes from other states that don’t have a general rut hunt. There is no ground breaking research coming from Montana to my knowledge.

 

[Sytes]

Reality I find discussing topics such as this, most don't care/know near enough to convey a fair observation.
HT has been instrumental addressing various key State issues. A fraction of hunters comprehend the intricacies of topics such as MT MD status.

More a gripe over single layer issues. This is multi layered and great to share here though we are a minority for opinions.

Example: spoke of lack of funding for MD research / improvements. Non HT response, "Raise NR fees", "They're good - not paying more...", Pay to reduce wolf count (R1 topic at most every FWP meeting), etc...

I suppose that's the value of the CAC though if traction is lacking impact w/ FWP - ? "We're adequately funded".

General hunters like that statement. Bitch away though, reality, they don't want to pay more but they do want to hunt more...

 

[Forkyfinder]

Reality I find discussing topics such as this, most don't care/know near enough to convey a fair observation.
HT has been instrumental addressing various key State issues. A fraction of hunters comprehend the intricacies of topics such as MT MD status.

More a gripe over single layer issues. This is multi layered and great to share here though we are a minority for opinions.

Example: spoke of lack of funding for MD research / improvements. Non HT response, "Raise NR fees", "They're good - not paying more...", Pay to reduce wolf count (R1 topic at most every FWP meeting), etc...

I suppose that's the value of the CAC though if traction is lacking impact w/ FWP - ? "We're adequately funded".

General hunters like that statement. Bitch away though, reality, they don't want to pay more but they do want to hunt more...

I dont know who here wants to maintain existing tag fees - especially on non-doe/cow tags

 

[cgasner1]

Ep. 287: Mule Deer and Montana Hunting Seasons with Ben Lamb and Chris Gasner | MeatEater Podcasts

On this week's interview, Cal chats with two Montana hunters about a controversial proposal to shorten Montana's mule deer and elk seasons. Connect with Cal and MeatEater Cal on Instagram and Twitter MeatEater on Instagram, Facebook, Twitter, and Youtube Shop Cal's Week in Review Merch

www.themeateater.com

For those of you that are interested

 

[mtmiller]

Cool, something to listen to at the gym and a warm up before the debate tonight.

You guys better be entertaining.

 

[Tukudeka]

I'm looking forward to the second draft of this proposal defining for FWP the draft one mentions of quantity of deer, quality of hunting experience, health of deer, and avoidance of the degradation of deer. Without definitions FWP is currently, albeit arguably so, aiming at all of the goals this proposal is claiming to orient us toward.

What exactly are we asking FWP to manage towards?
What exactly are the goals of these proposed changes?