Bugle 'Em In
Well-known member
....desired effect by who's standards Ben? Would you mind please elaborating?
MT Hunt Roster Change Meeting Tonight
- Thread starter RobG
- Start date
....desired effect by who's standards Ben? Would you mind please elaborating?
Thanks for the explanation. I'm sure you MT folks are tired of hearing an outside perspective, but in my experience, once you allow the landowners to start dictating who has access to licenses it never stops.
Bugle 'Em In
Well-known member
Oak...you live right in the heart of it, so I'd think your opinion holds a lot of water. Always glad to hear an "outsider's" perspective.
RobG
Well-known member
I'd actually like to know a lot more about the issues with ranching for wildlife. On paper it looks good but it is apparently a disaster. We can learn a lot from the people who've been through this.
bigskyblueman
Member
This is simply about the landowners running these hunts and cashing more checks under the guise of addressing a situation that they created for themselves, and exclude the public in the process. The language change is the legal window dressing.
Straight Arrow
Well-known member
Not at all, Oak. And we respect that Colorado has had some great successes regarding elk management and elk hunting. But we also realize there are some things that you would caution Montana elk hunters about. Please continue to monitor this issue and provide your perspective.
RobG
Well-known member
Well I'm off to do some learn'n. Looked for the wild-eyed butt-hurt hippie on the news tonight 
This.
As for the proposal, it seems like we are trying to read a lot of motive into what the agency is proposing without much first hand knowledge. Has anyone talked with the agency folks?
Maybe I am naive, but I trust MT's sportsmen to monitor and correct our agency and commission if they do things wrong. It's worked well in the past. As the rule is drafted, I could see adding language that qualifies the landowner submitted list is only used if no other options exist, but then, how many time are we going to hear no other option exists?
It comes down to citizen involvement. If FWP abuses the authority, then we have every right to demand recourse. To deny them the ability, I think, is different than holding them accountable. It's fear based management.
RobG
Well-known member
Yes. You obviously haven't. It is also pretty obvious that it isn't the agency that is proposing it, they are simply presenting someone else's proposal.
Well I can agree with you on that point. .
Yes, we are so different from Colorado because we are Montanans. By the way, there were a whopping four people there and we had the most people of any region. Your trust is unfounded.
Not unless we demand it instead of trusting those writing the rules.
A lot. Hunters aren't getting it done. After the meeting I understand this better now. The hunts can be too tough for them or they can't show up on short notice. The hunt I was on was pretty dang tough (see picture). There is a need for the landowner to have a backup list when the public hunters can't do it, but the public simply can't be bypassed.
Ya, but there is this little problem that the citizens don't give a chit. It is easier to prevent a bad policy than get one changed.
That's just Bullchit. They don't need the ability: There is zero need for the landowner to completely bypass the public. If you had talked to agency folks they would have told you that. If you had listened to them you would know the wording was not accidental. The language has to change and if you had talked to them you would know they are open to alternative wording, but if we remain silent they will have no justification to change the wording. Again, that wording that bypasses the public is completely unnecessary.
I'm OK with the landowner providing the list to augment the public hunters when conditions prevent the public hunters from being successful, but the intent must clearly be spelled out and in no case should the public be completely bypassed. There is no reason to keep that language. A reasonable scenario would be to have the landowner provide 1 name for every 3 public hunters called when regions are 100% over objective. If the hunt roster list is completely exhausted then he could choose whoever he wants.
You could also take the view that if the landowner wants to have certain people hunt his land then he should just have them sign up on the roster like everyone else. I wish I would have thought to ask why that is such a problem.
At any rate, there is no reason for the language allowing the public to be bypassed.
Attachments
AH_14
Member
Thanks RobG for the work on this,
I was not real concerned about this issue at first.
Not sure what I think about this new proposal as you do raise some valid concerns.
Game Damage hunts in Montana as I posted earlier are not always great in my experience.
They can probably be improved to actually be a hunt.
I definitely look forward to this improving.
I am still not sure how Montana FWP could manage hunting districts and elk populations in these districts better. Eastern and Central Montana continue to get more and more elk in places these elk can not be bothered.
But Yes---I like you idea ---better to shoot a bad plan down now than try to change a bad rule that is already in place later.
I was not real concerned about this issue at first.
Not sure what I think about this new proposal as you do raise some valid concerns.
Game Damage hunts in Montana as I posted earlier are not always great in my experience.
They can probably be improved to actually be a hunt.
I definitely look forward to this improving.
I am still not sure how Montana FWP could manage hunting districts and elk populations in these districts better. Eastern and Central Montana continue to get more and more elk in places these elk can not be bothered.
But Yes---I like you idea ---better to shoot a bad plan down now than try to change a bad rule that is already in place later.
bigskyblueman
Member
Once the policy shifts to landowner control, it will never change. FWP is bombarded by landowner complaints, non-stop, year-round, from a group determined to have things their way, all the time. Weary of it, lacking staff and budget, the path of least resistance dictates FWP throws in the towel and allows landowner control by default. The language says as much.
RobG
Well-known member
In looking at the language changes (e.g. 12.9.1101(4) ) they actually removed the wording "if sufficient numbers of hunters cannot be identified through the use of the game damage hunt roster" before describing alternative methods. It is a pretty obvious attempt to be able to completely bypass the hunt roster in favor of names supplied by the landowner.
bigskyblueman
Member
You are correct, Rob, and once in place, the hunt roster is now just a suggestion box, not a list of anything.
And to think how many "damage" hunts the local SFW chapter can sell once the landowner list is the only thing being used for these hunts. I think Oak is dead nuts on with this one. Once it starts you'll not get it back and it will be more pervasive.
I am a bit surprised on some folks opinion on this...
I am a bit surprised on some folks opinion on this...
antlerradar
Well-known member
Rob G.
What was the talk about including bulls in the damage hunt?
What was the talk about including bulls in the damage hunt?
Straight Arrow
Well-known member
By
The changes proposed for early and late season (shoulder season) hunts may be beneficial to management if practical rather than political (rancher management). The issues for me include whether management hunts are only for antlerless elk, whether the hunts include areas where the elk actually are rather than merely district boundaries or other arbitrary boundaries, how hunters are selected, how private lands are selected (included or excluded), and just what authority this change implements over what already existed.
'Sorry I wasn't there, Rob. 'Wanted to be there, but I had a meeting at the school.
The changes proposed for early and late season (shoulder season) hunts may be beneficial to management if practical rather than political (rancher management). The issues for me include whether management hunts are only for antlerless elk, whether the hunts include areas where the elk actually are rather than merely district boundaries or other arbitrary boundaries, how hunters are selected, how private lands are selected (included or excluded), and just what authority this change implements over what already existed.
T
tjones
Guest
Well I'm off to do some learn'n. Looked for the wild-eyed butt-hurt hippie on the news tonight
Good work Rob, thanks!
RobG
Well-known member
I'm not sure what talk you are referring to as I don't remember it being mentioned but Sam Sheppard briefly mentioned the topic after the meeting when Kat and I and another guy continued the discussion. The logic is that hunters are complaining that they have to do all the dirty work of killing the elk but aren't allowed to kill any bulls.
I don't know if it is currently allowed for these game damage and game management hunts, but it was allowed once when they extended the season if I recall correctly. Are you confusing this with the proposed shoulder seasons?
RobG
Well-known member
Laura and Tim Aldrige of MWF were present via teleconference from Missoula. Thank God she didn't take a picture.Well I'm off to do some learn'n. Looked for the wild-eyed butt-hurt hippie on the news tonight
http://www.montanaotg.com/blog-native/2015/8/12/fwp-hastens-rule-changes-for-game-damage-hunts
