HowieNH
Member
- Joined
- Feb 28, 2021
- Messages
- 67
the email that I got was two 30 day public comment periods one in late september for the public to see new preposed regs and one december 14 for public share their ideas
MT - Changes in Hunting Regs/Units/Seasons coming this month
- Thread starter Big Fin
- Start date
Nameless Range
Well-known member
The proposals are amorphous at this point, but here is a thought.
Get all the data you can now. The windows for considering and analyzing the proposals will be a small one, and you may ask yourself a question that requires you to reach out to your local bio for data, and they may not have time to fulfill your request in a timely manner that allows you to give your two cents to the best of your abilities.
So whether it is statewide data, or just data for the hunting districts you are familiar with that you feel you may have input on when the proposals come along, things like harvest stats, survey counts, hunter days, historic regs, etc.
The more I think about some of these supposed changes, particularly the merging of HDs, this is all data one may want to know .
Get all the data you can now. The windows for considering and analyzing the proposals will be a small one, and you may ask yourself a question that requires you to reach out to your local bio for data, and they may not have time to fulfill your request in a timely manner that allows you to give your two cents to the best of your abilities.
So whether it is statewide data, or just data for the hunting districts you are familiar with that you feel you may have input on when the proposals come along, things like harvest stats, survey counts, hunter days, historic regs, etc.
The more I think about some of these supposed changes, particularly the merging of HDs, this is all data one may want to know .
Worsech did a nice job of getting all the buzzwords/phrases in his press release....
"We’ll put science-based proposals out for people to chew on early in the process, to promote transparency and encourage public engagement,” Worsech said."
Would have been nice if he would have mentioned a 6.5 Creedmoor though.
"We’ll put science-based proposals out for people to chew on early in the process, to promote transparency and encourage public engagement,” Worsech said."
Would have been nice if he would have mentioned a 6.5 Creedmoor though.
Great advice. Speaking to what you know helps, and using actual data means you've done your work. As always, if you attend these meetings, be polite and courteous.
Have concrete examples of regulations that you feel are poorly done or well done, or that you'd like to see considered.
If you have broader concerns, be sure to clearly & succinctly state them. Don't ramble and do not grand stand. You lose credibility when you give a monologue.
And FOLLOW UP!
The world is run by those who show up, but it's controlled by those who follow up.
Lastly - call 10-20 of your friends and encourage them to participate in this effort.
Hunt Talk made the news!
billingsgazette.com
FWP to propose major changes to hunting regulations
Larger hunting districts and fewer types of licenses and permits are among the major changes Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks proposes for big game hunting regulations.
Hunt Talk made the news!
FWP to propose major changes to hunting regulations
Larger hunting districts and fewer types of licenses and permits are among the major changes Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks proposes for big game hunting regulations.
Nice find
Interesting read."A number of documents related to FWP’s proposal and directives were posted to a forum on the website Hunt Talk late last week. The agency verified the authenticity of those documents as well as provided additional documents in response to a public records request by the Montana State News Bureau."
brocksw
Well-known member
We shall see...I suspect many on this forum, and perhaps rightfully so, are still concerned about the FWP conclusion shopping.
“Nobody is saying that we want to get rid of all of those types of season structures or tags, what we’re saying is that as we go through this process, let’s let our folks focus on the science,” he said. “We understand this is a big change and instead of going out to the public as we typically do, this year we’ve been given the task to put it in front of ourselves. Then we can come to the public with some detail and thinking and have some real, intentional, formal processes to collect feedback on those proposals.”
“Nobody is saying that we want to get rid of all of those types of season structures or tags, what we’re saying is that as we go through this process, let’s let our folks focus on the science,” he said. “We understand this is a big change and instead of going out to the public as we typically do, this year we’ve been given the task to put it in front of ourselves. Then we can come to the public with some detail and thinking and have some real, intentional, formal processes to collect feedback on those proposals.”
Last edited:
4ohSick
Well-known member
I love all of Greg Lemon's comments about "removing advocacy" and following the science, but the article states "most biologists opposed" eliminating antlerless permits and yet the working group ultimately recommended eliminating them.
Gerald Martin
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2009
- Messages
- 8,636
Scientific conclusions are fact based, repeatable, and able to be examined and supported by objective researchers.
I am going to make a scientific statement.
The only thing “scientific” about FWP’s changes lately is that they are based primarily on “solving” human social problems for political capital with an important MT voter block. (Political donors). Wildlife biology and the will of hunters who fund the FWP through license sales are trivial obstacles that must be if ignored and marginalized in order to achieve progress.
“Science based conclusions” show us time and again that only the “scientists” are smart enough to to understand the “science.”
A pig with lipstick is still a pig.
I am going to make a scientific statement.
The only thing “scientific” about FWP’s changes lately is that they are based primarily on “solving” human social problems for political capital with an important MT voter block. (Political donors). Wildlife biology and the will of hunters who fund the FWP through license sales are trivial obstacles that must be if ignored and marginalized in order to achieve progress.
“Science based conclusions” show us time and again that only the “scientists” are smart enough to to understand the “science.”
A pig with lipstick is still a pig.
shoots-straight
Well-known member
We (Ravalli County residents) had an Elk Working group ran by the department. It was largely a dog and pony show. The guy that ran it basically led the group to his conclusions. We Ravalli County Fish & Wildlife ass. had a seat there but got muzzled. Not a fan of those groups.
brocksw
Well-known member
Conclusion shopping describes the process in which politicians jump to a conclusion that they want and then ask the agencies to find the evidence for it. The correct approach is to collect evidence and then draw conclusions from it.
Gerald Martin
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2009
- Messages
- 8,636
Wrong. You don’t understand science.
Conclusion shopping is science. Our legislators have voted it so. They didn’t spend all this energy on sweeping the executive branch and legislative majority just to have two bit biologists and the people who fund FWP oppose good management.
Besides, I read in the comments about expanding shoulder seasons to public land that there’s a guy in Belgrade who depends on elk to fill his freezer and due to landowner scheduling conflicts he wasn’t able to get his elk last year. So, he thinks shoulder seasons on public land is a good idea.
Think of his poor starving kids…. That image alone should counter the 98% opposition to expanding shoulder seasons.
Science. It’s a beautiful thing.
brocksw
Well-known member
I believe you mean "Your hypothesis is incorrect. Science is bought, not studied." #scienceWrong. You don’t understand science.
Conclusion shopping is science. Our legislators have voted it so. They didn’t spend all this energy on sweeping the executive branch and legislative majority just to have two bit biologists and the people who fund FWP oppose good management.
Besides, I read in the comments about expanding shoulder seasons to public land that there’s a guy in Belgrade who depends on elk to fill his freezer and due to landowner scheduling conflicts he wasn’t able to get his elk last year. So, he thinks shoulder seasons on public land is a good idea.
Think of his poor starving kids…. That image alone should counter the 98% opposition to expanding shoulder seasons.
Science. It’s a beautiful thing.
diamond hitch
Well-known member
The procedure with the USFS is to enlist the comments of the public, print them in the back of the EIS/EA and completely ignore them and do as they had originally planned. Hence you had your say now go away. Hopefully this will be differant but I'm not going to hold my breath.
When I was 18, I rode along with the local warden for a day. When I said I was going to study wildlife management he said "why bother. The decisions are made by the outfitters and lobbyists." That was in 1968. The productive changes have been few. My future in fish and game ended when I divorced the daughter of the publisher of the Billings Gazette. I remember a meal with many of the members of the fish and game commision. Enlightening experiences.
When I was 18, I rode along with the local warden for a day. When I said I was going to study wildlife management he said "why bother. The decisions are made by the outfitters and lobbyists." That was in 1968. The productive changes have been few. My future in fish and game ended when I divorced the daughter of the publisher of the Billings Gazette. I remember a meal with many of the members of the fish and game commision. Enlightening experiences.
Schaaf
Well-known member
Got back to Glasgow late last night from the Breaks Working Group Meeting in Malta. I thought it was a good opportunity to vet some of the proposals from the Department before they get a chance to be put on paper. The meeting started off with a review of the most recent surveys. (I will update when I get off my butt and go get my notebook out of the pickup)
The meeting quickly transitioned into the Regulation Simplification. We started with the possibility of eliminating a 698-00 which is a cow permit with 300 tags last year that is valid in Units 620/621/622. This was a permit that at one time covered all of 620/621/622/630/631/632 but has been cut back in recent years. There was overwhelming support in keeping this permit as is with some of the reasons being cited as
We ended with the proposal to consolidate 630/631/632. These units are unique for the breaks, and even Montana, in that there is really only about 4 ranches in the unit and each ranch, as well as hunters, would like to see far more elk on the landscape than there currently is. With that in mind, there has been what I would say a significant drop in cows in these units starting from the high in about 2015 Another interesting thing about 631 specifically is that there are a large percentage of elk that winter in 631 in the high sage but return to cover in 622 by hunting season, so the count and basis of what tags are being issued are being inflated from what they should be. With that in mind there was an alternative proposal from a local to move the boundary from 622 eastward to Ridge Road/Bone Trail to cover the entire Timber Creek drainage. Then combine what is left of 631 with 632. The idea being managing the same animals you're counting. This would no doubt leave the new 632 as a unit with under the arbitrary 50 permit threshold but I got the impression from biologists that there was severe anxiety over the possibility of a pile of cows being harvested in 632 if they were combined with all 3 units. Overall the group was split about down the middle of pursuing the alternative route or keeping it as is. FWP said they would hash out the idea of the alternative proposal. 
While talking to the Wildlife Manager afterwards he made note that Region 6 decided to not look at moving to a general if over objective. Senator Mike Lang from Malta was in attendance as well as Commissioner Leslie Robinson. I wish there were more of these around the state at this time just for the fact that it provides at least a public forum to see what FWP has in mind.
The meeting quickly transitioned into the Regulation Simplification. We started with the possibility of eliminating a 698-00 which is a cow permit with 300 tags last year that is valid in Units 620/621/622. This was a permit that at one time covered all of 620/621/622/630/631/632 but has been cut back in recent years. There was overwhelming support in keeping this permit as is with some of the reasons being cited as
- Higher Success Rate
- Better draw odds for the person interested in applying for cow instead of bull
We then moved onto a proposal of consolidating Units 620/621/622. It is already this way for archery but this would be to combine for rifle as well. Once again, there was overwhelming support in keeping it as is. 620 is private land dominated, and one of the reasons to oppose was the potential of combining would lead to a larger mass of people heading to the blocks of BLM and the CMR and exacerbating the issues on private in 620. I brought up the point that I believe units and wildlife management are as much about managing hunter and hunter pressure as it is about actual wildlife harvest. Another one of the reasons cited in opposition to combining was that the elk in 621 and the elk in 622 are, for the most part, a different herd. There is connectivity but they rarely cross the border during hunting seasons and you're able to manage on a herd level instead of blanket management. We ended with the proposal to consolidate 630/631/632. These units are unique for the breaks, and even Montana, in that there is really only about 4 ranches in the unit and each ranch, as well as hunters, would like to see far more elk on the landscape than there currently is. With that in mind, there has been what I would say a significant drop in cows in these units starting from the high in about 2015
Another interesting thing about 631 specifically is that there are a large percentage of elk that winter in 631 in the high sage but return to cover in 622 by hunting season, so the count and basis of what tags are being issued are being inflated from what they should be. With that in mind there was an alternative proposal from a local to move the boundary from 622 eastward to Ridge Road/Bone Trail to cover the entire Timber Creek drainage. Then combine what is left of 631 with 632. The idea being managing the same animals you're counting. This would no doubt leave the new 632 as a unit with under the arbitrary 50 permit threshold but I got the impression from biologists that there was severe anxiety over the possibility of a pile of cows being harvested in 632 if they were combined with all 3 units. Overall the group was split about down the middle of pursuing the alternative route or keeping it as is. FWP said they would hash out the idea of the alternative proposal. While talking to the Wildlife Manager afterwards he made note that Region 6 decided to not look at moving to a general if over objective. Senator Mike Lang from Malta was in attendance as well as Commissioner Leslie Robinson. I wish there were more of these around the state at this time just for the fact that it provides at least a public forum to see what FWP has in mind.
MTelkHuntress
Well-known member
“What this means is that as we present these proposals, let’s make sure to focus on presenting the science and not necessarily what anybody wants to advocate for personally,”
.... except the landowners complaining about the elk....
.... except the landowners complaining about the elk....
Gerald Martin
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2009
- Messages
- 8,636
Let's see if these come through... Here's some helpful data to consider for those interested in trying to read the tea leaves of what effects the proposed changes will have.
Gerald Martin
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2009
- Messages
- 8,636
page 2
Gerald Martin
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2009
- Messages
- 8,636
Page 3..
