Montana season structure proposal 2.0

[Forkyfinder]

I really wish the last 2 weeks of several areas would be LE only for mule deer.

I know this isnt the goal but i wish there was a place for people to apply.

 

[antlerradar]

But this is expected, no? I have said I have little sympathy for a rancher that puts in a pivot and complains of too many deer or elk. You own their IDEAL WINTERING GROUND!!!. Asking them to eat someplace else isn't exactly an option for them.

Actually, the ideal wintering ground in eastern MT is most likely to be public land. Mule deer flock to the pivots in fall to put on fat in preparation for winter, by Mid Dec they will nearly all be gone.

I think you are reading something into my post that I did not intend. I am not saying ranchers should have doe tags filled on there pivots because they do not like deer. I am saying the doe tags should not be filled on public when numbers are in the tank. Giving the deer numbers in region 7 there should be zero doe tags issued, but since there are, those tags should be filled on private. Hunters are going to fill the doe tags where it is the expected costs and benefits are the most advantageous. One of those incentivizing human behavior issues.

 

[SAJ-99]

I really wish the last 2 weeks of several areas would be LE only for mule deer.

I know this isnt the goal but i wish there was a place for people to apply.

There are already several areas that are LE for mule deer. Look at how many residents apply. People want was is and want what could be.

Agree @antlerradar

 

[antlerradar]

Harvest stats as accurate as they may or may not be wouldn’t allow that to happen. I would hope.

FWP does not care if a NR or a R kills the deer, only the number of deer killed. If Regions 6 and 7 have 40% of the states mule deer,(I don't know the actual number off the top of my head) FWP will set the NR quota for regions 6 and 7 at 40% of the total NRs and FWP will not take into account the distribution of deer on public or private. Then you add in the politics of Outfitters and landowner wanting more NR and region caps on NR may not end well for public land in 6 and 7.

 

[antlerradar]

There are already several areas that are LE for mule deer. Look at how many residents apply. People want was is and want what could be.

Agree @antlerradar

Although this is not part of this proposal, I think that there is some merit to very limited LE rut hunts for mule deer. Could be a good way to address the very real problem of point creep in some of the more sought after units.
Demand is high for quality mule deer hunting. It is the reason why MT residents pay thousands of dollars to lease private land in eastern MT.

 

[Flatbrimmer]

A unified front will get us much farther to any change than picking a fight with a allie.

I hate to nitpick at what you’re saying here CGas but ain’t NO outfitter or guide an ALLY of the DIY hunter. They literally get paid BIG money for OUR wildlife and making DAMN SURE their client kills that animal before YOU DO. They pay BIG MONEY to lease up land that us locals USED TO be able to access.

If you think we shouldn’t be monetizing wildlife, we should really start scrutinizing those that do just that.

 

[Ben Lamb]

I hate to nitpick at what you’re saying here CGas but ain’t NO outfitter or guide an ALLY of the DIY hunter. They literally get paid BIG money for OUR wildlife and making DAMN SURE their client kills that animal before YOU DO. They pay BIG MONEY to lease up land that us locals USED TO be able to access.

If you think we shouldn’t be monetizing wildlife, we should really start scrutinizing those that do just that.

Respectfully, horseshit.

I know plenty of outfitters who are fantastic conservationists & stewards of the land as well as making money off of taking people hunting. I know outfitters who only think of their chances to kill things as well.

There are bad apples everywhere, diy hunting included. You cannot lump an entire group of people into a category then complain when they won't work with you. The legislature has made it clear that they are tired of groups fighting and they will reward people who set aside some differences and focus on the things they can agree on.

If the notion is that hunters can just roll outfitters and ignore their concerns, then people have not been paying attention to what's been working & what hasn't in terms of making changes like does on public land, bills like sb 281 & sb 56. I see outfitters lobbying for the public now (increased block mgt payments, selective doe harvest), and I see diy hunters actively engaging with outfitters & landowners to find common ground. Being able to have adult conversations on difficult issues is a good thing.

Taking the discussion down to the users rather than letting FWP, the governor or the legislature set the terms & then letting interest groups duke it out means we walk in the door for discussions on bills & season setting in a much stronger position than a confrontational approach. If I am a commissioner or legislator, having @Eric Albus @cgasner1 & @antlerradar walk in and tell me the same thing means there is legitimate & serious support for a concept. It takes away the potential for more shenanigans and it creates a solid coalition of the most influential interests in the wildlife space.

If you want to build power for conservation, you have to do it with a coalition of those groups.

 

[Rie Bread]

Spin the proposal like this. Montana currently has a 6 week rifle season, add 3-4 more to hunt mule deer and you hunt with a rifle for 9-10WEEKS. ( is my grade school math correct?) Add in the select shoulder season areas and you trigger finger is satisfied for damn near half the year.

 

[Archer86]

.

 

[Archer86]

Respectfully, horseshit.

I know plenty of outfitters who are fantastic conservationists & stewards of the land as well as making money off of taking people hunting. I know outfitters who only think of their chances to kill things as well.

There are bad apples everywhere, diy hunting included. You cannot lump an entire group of people into a category then complain when they won't work with you. The legislature has made it clear that they are tired of groups fighting and they will reward people who set aside some differences and focus on the things they can agree on.

If the notion is that hunters can just roll outfitters and ignore their concerns, then people have not been paying attention to what's been working & what hasn't in terms of making changes like does on public land, bills like sb 281 & sb 56. I see outfitters lobbying for the public now (increased block mgt payments, selective doe harvest), and I see diy hunters actively engaging with outfitters & landowners to find common ground. Being able to have adult conversations on difficult issues is a good thing.

Taking the discussion down to the users rather than letting FWP, the governor or the legislature set the terms & then letting interest groups duke it out means we walk in the door for discussions on bills & season setting in a much stronger position than a confrontational approach. If I am a commissioner or legislator, having @Eric Albus @cgasner1 & @antlerradar walk in and tell me the same thing means there is legitimate & serious support for a concept. It takes away the potential for more shenanigans and it creates a solid coalition of the most influential interests in the wildlife space.

If you want to build power for conservation, you have to do it with a coalition of those groups.

If you want to do it as a coalition of those involveded why would there not be any thought to have a state biologist involved? If If I am a commissioner or legislator I wouldnt take this group very serious with out have sone of the experts that spend time in the field every year...

Moga and wyoga would disagree with you on the outfitter deal they have made it clear they don't give a shit about diy hunters. You don't see the diy guys pushing for a draw for only diy hunters but the outfitter groups are always trying to get outfitter welfare through guaranteed tags or a outfitter draw and the expense of diy hunters

 

[Flatbrimmer]

Parent A can take the baby to the bar or the crackheads house but if parent B runs their name through the mud in court, they don’t get the full custody either. I know how the courts work. Just because that’s how it works does not make it JUST. Businessman don’t get rich giving a shit about the little guy. Turner is a wonderful steward of the land, but his outfitter cronies haze the elk onto his pristine land and then charge 20 bands to shoot one. That cool with you?

 

[Straight Arrow]

Turner is a wonderful steward of the land, but his outfitter cronies haze the elk onto his pristine land

Having lived within a few miles of Turner's Flying D Ranch, been on the ranch passing through and for youth events many many times, and having known ranch workers and outfitters for fifty years, this characterization rings false to me. Rumors are rampant and spread easily, while reality is kinda dull. I have watched elk on the D for decades and can tell you that they don't need to be hazed to value the habitat there.

Where do you know of this occuring and what evidence can you produce?

 

[Ben Lamb]

If you want to do it as a coalition of those involveded why would there not be any thought to have a state biologist involved? If If I am a commissioner or legislator I wouldnt take this group very serious with out have sone of the experts that spend time in the field every year...

Moga and wyoga would disagree with you on the outfitter deal they have made it clear they don't give a shit about diy hunters. You don't see the diy guys pushing for a draw for only diy hunters but the outfitter groups are always trying to get outfitter welfare through guaranteed tags or a outfitter draw and the expense of diy hunters

The group was self selected from Hunt Talk members. Citizen groups are a long-standing tradition in Montana's conservation history. There were no land managers involved in the Rocky MTN Front Heritage Act, for example. That was a broad mix of public land users who worked with ngo's to develop a proposal. Ground up is a great way to get things done. This is no different, and the ngo that is helping facilitate this has a lot of experience in the policy realm as well as the wildlife management realm.

Having said that, the proposal has been shared with several biologists with both public and private land management experience as well as reviewed by multiple organizations with biologists in their employment. We've run it through people inside fwp as well. That feedback was welcomed when it was provided.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Parent A can take the baby to the bar or the crackheads house but if parent B runs their name through the mud in court, they don’t get the full custody either. I know how the courts work. Just because that’s how it works does not make it JUST. Businessman don’t get rich giving a shit about the little guy. Turner is a wonderful steward of the land, but his outfitter cronies haze the elk onto his pristine land and then charge 20 bands to shoot one. That cool with you?

Comparing hunting season structures to child endangerment is a bit much. If we eliminate the hyperbole and focus on the proposal and what is achievable, it's a much better discussion.

 

[cgasner1]

I hate to nitpick at what you’re saying here CGas but ain’t NO outfitter or guide an ALLY of the DIY hunter. They literally get paid BIG money for OUR wildlife and making DAMN SURE their client kills that animal before YOU DO. They pay BIG MONEY to lease up land that us locals USED TO be able to access.

If you think we shouldn’t be monetizing wildlife, we should really start scrutinizing those that do just that.

So what’s your grievance with our plan? I’m the dumbest guy in the group with all this stuff and I can see why we have never had a meaningful change. You get one group pist and it’s easier to just shut it all down. Love or hate moga doesn’t matter but if you think they won’t have an input on a serious change your delusional.

 

[Flatbrimmer]

You’re right. My bad.

Not you, Dick, you’re incorrect and I may be able to turn up some of the videos I sent my wife when the chopper was downwashing the whole property I was on and I was absolutely terrified at how low it was to me. Maybe it was coincidence all the elk reside across the street come winter. Buddy of mine is working on a house up the road from you that just paid 20k for his wife to shoot a bull there. And there’s numerous articles alleging the same behavior. So I don’t buy it for a second.
And for the record I have all my children, it was just example of a very similar concept where if you want change, you can’t try and crap on the other side, even if the other side sucks. I have no real qualms with the proposal, I will happily abide by whatever new seasons may be adjusted. I threw us off track there I apologize! I quit HT for awhile

 

[Straight Arrow]

Not you, Dick, you’re incorrect and I may be able to turn up some of the videos I sent my wife when the chopper was downwashing the whole property I was on and I was absolutely terrified at how low it was

I can tell you that Turner Ranches don't use helicopters to haze and harass wildlife.
If you have a video and can get a tail number, it would be of more positive use to report it ... rather than form your own personal conclusions and accusatory rumors.
(If you don't want to be involved, get the tail number for me, with pertinent dates and details and I will follow up ... as a helicopter pilot for over twenty years.)
If you knew the wildlife managers and ranch folks on the D as I do, then you wouldn't be so quick to jump to your own accusations.

BTW, I have also witnessed both helicopters and fixed wing aircraft "buzzing" lands between Gallatin and Madison valleys. It was not aircraft dispatched by Turner Ranches.

numerous articles alleging the same behavior.

Please produce links.

20k for his wife to shoot a bull there.

I could believe that, but outlandish outfitter fees don't equate to "hazing" of wildlife.