MT Hunt Roster Change Meeting Tonight

[RobG]

There are public hearings tonight in Bozeman, Missoula, and Great Falls at 6pm about proposed changes to the late elk hunts.

These proposed changes would enable landowners to completely privatize the elk on their land - taking away the opportunity that the general public historically had to participate in late hunts.

For more look here:http://fwp.mt.gov/news/publicNotices/rules/pn_0168.html

Comments are due next Friday (Aug 21st). Hope to see you there.

rg

 

[Rat Fink]

Comments sent.

 

[Art Vandeley]

Thanks for posting this.

 

[Pagosa]

Comment sent to FWP.

 

[Ben Lamb]

There are public hearings tonight in Bozeman, Missoula, and Great Falls at 6pm about proposed changes to the late elk hunts.

These proposed changes would enable landowners to completely privatize the elk on their land - taking away the opportunity that the general public historically had to participate in late hunts.

For more look here:http://fwp.mt.gov/news/publicNotices/rules/pn_0168.html

Comments are due next Friday (Aug 21st). Hope to see you there.

rg

Rob,

Could you explain how "these proposed changes would enable landowners to completely privatize the on their land..."

I'm curious how you got there after reading the proposed changes.

 

[AH_14]

Rob,


I'm curious how you got there after reading the proposed changes.

I was thinking the same thing Ben?

Not sure yet what I think of the proposed Montana seasons possibly being tweaked a little?
Not sure they are even tweaking the seasons much?
Seems like a guy in Montana (resident or Non) has a guaranteed opportunity to hunt elk or deer or even antelope (archery tag) 10 plus weeks each fall. This is pretty nice!

*I guess I'd fall under the Not Sure category---but also the Not Broke/What are we trying to fix category??
*If we are trying to fix game damage hunts then YES I like that idea. Game damage hunts in my experience are mostly a joke at best and incredibly unsafe at worst. These could be improved greatly. I have Zero desire to ever be a part of a game damage hunt on the Sun Ranch Area ever again!!! Just terrible. If I think anyone should be sad over losing that opportunity---No Way
Flying D used to have a fun hunt that I helped my Grandpa get a cow on two different years...They chose to take that opportunity away. Opportunities come and go over the years especially on private land...
I am not sure that these proposed changes will do much good to improve the hunts....
I may go to the hearing in Bozeman tonight to inform myself more and possibly for a little entertainment? Not sure how worked up people will get over this issue.

 

[RobG]

Rob,

Could you explain how "these proposed changes would enable landowners to completely privatize the on their land..."

I'm curious how you got there after reading the proposed changes.

Read them again. The landowners will be allowed to supply 100% of the names of the people who can hunt on their lands so the public can be excluded. Last year it was changed so that they could supply 25% of the names so it is already moving in that direction. Nothing would prevent them from choosing those people based on how much they would pay... On top of that the requirement for allowing the public to hunt during the general season is fading away. I know one place that outfitted all but one week and still got the late hunt.

Unless people speak up the shoulder hunts could accomplish the same thing. Karen Loveless told me they would use the shoulder hunts instead of the hunt roster if they get approved and that is just a separate season that doesn't necessarily require landowners to involve the public.

There is a definite trend to exclude the public. That's fine - it is their land, but if landowners want to do that then they shouldn't get the benefits that come with late season hunts. It isn't fair to the general public to both reduce the elk numbers and exclude them from filling their freezer.

 

[Ben Lamb]

(e) a game damage hunt roster must be established in accordance with ARM
12.9.804A for use in identifying some or all of the hunters eligible to participate in
game damage hunts. If sufficient Eligible hunters cannot may be identified through
the game damage hunt roster, or the department may identify eligible hunters
through other established means of hunter selection, including first-come, firstserved
advertised opportunities, and unsuccessful special license or permit applicant
lists, or lists of names supplied by landowners;
(f) unless stated otherwise, participants in a damage hunt shall possess a
valid unused license, permit, or damage hunt license or permit for the species being
hunted;
(g

This section says that an array of options would exist, and it's up to the agency and commissioner in district to decide what's best. I don't see anything about allowing landowners to supply the only list used.

12.9.804A GAME DAMAGE HUNT ROSTER (1) A game damage hunt
roster will be used to provide a list of some or all of the hunters available to
participate in game damage hunts and management seasons hunts, according to
the following procedures:
(a) hunters interested in participating in game damage hunts and
management hunts seasons will apply through the department web site between
June 15 and July 15 dates specified by the department annually. Hunters without
internet access may apply at any department regional or Helena office. A roster will
be established through a computerized random selection of applicant names, with
-877-
13-7/16/15 MAR Notice No. 12-445
roster results being made available online by August 1 a date specified by the
department annually. Hunters without internet access may apply at any department
regional or Helena office between June 15 and July 15 annually. If necessary, the
department may establish additional sign-up periods;
(b) remains the same.
(c) resident and nonresident hunters must possess a valid unused antelope,
deer, or elk license or permit specific to the species being hunted to participate in a
game damage hunt or management season hunt; and
(d) nonresident hunters who possess a valid unused antelope, deer, or elk
license may comprise up to 10% of the total game damage hunt roster pool of
hunters for a specific game damage hunt or management season hunt.
(2) If sufficient numbers of hunters to participate in a game damage hunt or
management season hunt for a hunting district cannot be identified from that
district's game damage hunt roster, hunters on the roster from an adjacent hunting
district may be selected.
(3) The department may also identify eligible hunters though other
established means of hunter selection, including first-come, first-served advertised
opportunities, unsuccessful special license or permit applicant lists, or lists of names
supplied by landowners.

This section, and specifically sub 3 show that Landowners supplying a list is only 1 aspect of figuring out what the roster would look like.

12.9.1101 MANAGEMENT SEASONS HUNTS (1) A management season
hunt may be implemented on lands eligible for assistance. A management season
hunt is a proactive measure to prevent or reduce potential damage caused by large
concentrations of game animals resulting from seasonal migrations, extreme
weather conditions, restrictive public hunting access on adjacent or nearby
properties, or other factors. The department shall make determinations of eligibility
based on the criteria set out in this rule. To qualify for a management season hunt,
a landowner must allow public hunting or not significantly reduce public hunting
through imposed restrictions during established hunting seasons, including the
general big game season. For eligibility, public hunting must be allowed at levels
and in ways sufficient to effectively aid in management of area game populations.
Restrictions that may significantly restrict public hunting include:
(a) through (e) remain the same.
(2) Upon receiving conditional approval from the director to proceed with a
management season proposal, If the regional supervisor determines that a
management hunt is necessary before, during, or after the general hunting season,
the regional supervisor must obtain the approval of the commissioner in whose
district the management season hunt is proposed prior to implementing the season
hunt. If the commissioner is not available, then the regional supervisor may request
approval will be requested from the chairman from the chair of the commission, or in
his/her the chair's absence, any other commissioner.
(3) Management seasons hunts may be implemented under the following
conditions:
(a) remains the same.
(b) the season hunt will provide for dispersal and limited harvest of animals;
(c) through (e) remain the same.
(f) any weapons restrictions and area closures that apply during general
hunting seasons to areas included in management seasons hunts will also apply to
hunting conducted during management seasons hunts in those same areas.
(4) Hunters Some or all hunters eligible to hunt during a management season
will hunt may be selected from the game damage hunt roster under procedures
outlined in ARM 12.9.804A. If sufficient numbers of hunters cannot be identified
through use of the game damage hunt roster, The department may also use other
established means of hunter selection, including first-come, first-served advertised
opportunities, and unsuccessful special license or permit applicant lists, or lists of
names supplied by landowners

Again, the bolded section shows that landowner supplied lists are only a part of the equation. What am I missing?

 

[RobG]

This section says that an array of options would exist, and it's up to the agency and commissioner in district to decide what's best. I don't see anything about allowing landowners to supply the only list used.



This section, and specifically sub 3 show that Landowners supplying a list is only 1 aspect of figuring out what the roster would look like.



Again, the bolded section shows that landowner supplied lists are only a part of the equation. What am I missing?

The word "or" means that they can choose that option exclusively.

 

[Ben Lamb]

The word "or" means that they can choose that option exclusively.

Yeas. It also means they can not choose that option at all.

 

[Oak]

Probably wouldn't be a problem to just strike that option from the proposed amendments?

 

[Nameless Range]

Yeas. It also means they can not choose that option at all.

Given the trends we've seen in other states that have incrementally seen things like this "or" become a reduction in public opportunity and an increase in the idea of ranching for wildlife, why should we even be entertaining this "or"?

Even if landowners are allowed to choose those who hunt on their property just once, we are subsidizing outfitting with the public trust and moving away from a model that has worked beautifully for a long time.

Don't fix it if it ain't broke, and sure as chit don't make it worse .

 

[RobG]

Yeas. It also means they can not choose that option at all.

Gee Ben, you think we should just trust them, never mind the unqualified option is entirely unnecessary. They could qualify it by allowing the landowner to supply names after other options are exhausted - which would be fine - but for some reason they didn't. I doubt it was an accident.

There is no reason to keep that option in there other than to enable the landowner to completely privatize the elk on their land.

 

[RobG]

Probably wouldn't be a problem to just strike that option from the proposed amendments?

Exactly. If anything that is what people need to suggest in their comments.
[edit, oops - not "exactly"... having the landowner supply the names is fine as long as the other options are stricken out. I guess this is a problem in some areas.]

 

[Ben Lamb]

Gee Ben, you think we should just trust them, never mind the unqualified option is entirely unnecessary. They could qualify it by allowing the landowner to supply names after other options are exhausted - which would be fine - but for some reason they didn't. I doubt it was an accident.

There is no reason to keep that option in there other than to enable the landowner to completely privatize the elk on their land.

I think that there are thousands of eyes watching FWP's every move and if they went down that path, a lawsuit to stop it would be pretty easy to conjure up. I'm not saying give them a blanket pass to do whatever, but if they overstep, smack them around. Denying the changes to the ARM because you're afraidof what they might do might not necessarily be a valid reason to claim that they are lock step with anti-public hunters.

If you have suggestions to make it better, then I'm all ears.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Probably wouldn't be a problem to just strike that option from the proposed amendments?

Wouldn't that essentially mean we're only re-arranging some language in the current ARM?

 

[Oak]

Wouldn't that essentially mean we're only re-arranging some language in the current ARM?

So you're saying maybe there is no good reason for this whole process? I'm confused.

 

[Ben Lamb]

So you're saying maybe there is no good reason for this whole process? I'm confused.

As I understand it, they are updating the ARM to be consistent with current statute. So I think some of it is required, sure. If the goal is to increase opportunity on hunting problematic concentrations of wildlife on private land, then it would seem to be a reasonable and prudent move.

By adding the landowner list, it broadens the types of mechanisms utilized to create a roster. By eliminating that, we end with the existing mechanisms, which, as others have noted, often times do not lead to the desired effect.

 

[Straight Arrow]

and sure as chit don't make it worse .

That says it all, Nameless.

Those of us who have been around and watching realize that even good intentions evolve through creep into really bad policies and programs. Mark these words: This is the precursor and perhaps even a leap rather than a creep into some form of "Ranching for Wildlife".

The legislation was unnecessary in the first place and now forces FWP to implement some big changes, which I submit to you will be strongly regretted not too far in the future.

 

[RobG]

By adding the landowner list, it broadens the types of mechanisms utilized to create a roster. By eliminating that, we end with the existing mechanisms, which, as others have noted, often times do not lead to the desired effect.

I don't mind them adding the option, but it needs to be used only when the other options are exhausted. There is no reason they could not have worded it that way.