MT Hunt Roster Change Meeting Tonight

[Straight Arrow]

MCA 87-2-513

There you go; the private land hunt permit authority is spelled out. The public land "shoulder season" authority is also clear. It seems the issue is really how the eligible "public" hunter roster is established and how the hunter call-up is accomplished in a timely manner. And, as Vito was quoted in the article, "This isn't brain surgery".

 

[antlerradar]

I was just wondering if there was any talk about extended bull hunting or if it would be limited to cow only. I could be confused. Is happening more and more as I approach the big 50

 

[Straight Arrow]

I'm 70 and the skullduggery is becoming more and more clear to me.

Hang in there, Radar ... the blips on the screen will become increasingly more distinctly clear in time.

 

[bigskyblueman]

As the bull elk are the cash cows in this equation, I can't remember a single season extension or damage hunt that ever included bull elk.

 

[katqanna]

If y'all are interested, I set up a page on the game damage hearing process (both days), what I was told by legislative services yesterday, which also has links to Helena Hunters and Anglers comments, including Gayle Joslin's personal comments as a former FWP wildlife biologist that worked with the game damage program (she sent their documents to me and gave me permission to post them online).

Also, Vito sent out an article this morning (also permissioned to set on blog) with his view of this process, last nights hearing and his overall perspective of what's at stake - Ranching For Wildlife.

At last nights meeting there was an FWP Interested Persons List Form, for the Administrative Rules of Montana, that I filled out so that I could actually hear about such things right when they get filed, rather that two weeks before the bloody hearing. So I called to our local FWP this morning, requested a copy and put it online. Please print and mail in, get added so we dont get caught with our pants down in the future.

 

[ingomar]

Big Sky

Somewhere around 6-10 years ago they extended the season in parts of Region 3 including Paradise Valley where I was hunting and bulls were legal during the extended season.

 

[bigskyblueman]

314 in December, I think I do remember it now. Thanks ingomar

 

[RobG]

There you go; the private land hunt permit authority is spelled out [in MCA 87-2-513 referenced by Ben]. The public land "shoulder season" authority is also clear. It seems the issue is really how the eligible "public" hunter roster is established and how the hunter call-up is accomplished in a timely manner. And, as Vito was quoted in the article, "This isn't brain surgery".

I'm not sure what Ben is getting at, MCA 87-2-513 isn't for determining game damage hunts, 87-1-225 is. Nor are the public access requirements described in 87-2-513 being followed for determining eligibility for management hunts. Audit 14P-06 found several instances where game damage or management hunts were conducted on lands that didn't meet the criteria for allowing public hunting during the general season.

I am making my way through the aforementioned audit 14P-06 which helped trigger these changes. It can be found at http://leg.mt.gov/css/publications/audit/recently-released-reports.asp under the performance audit section (currently 13th entry).

So far it is very helpful in understanding the background. It is highly readable and I encourage people to look at it. It found numerous instances when game damage or management hunts were conducted on places that don't meet the criteria for allowing public hunting.

 

[RobG]

Also, Vito sent out an article this morning (also permissioned to set on blog) with his view of this process, last nights hearing and his overall perspective of what's at stake - Ranching For Wildlife.

EXCELLENT commentary by Vito, a must read.

Also, after understanding the reason better I can agree that allowing 25% of the hunters to be selected by the landowner could help, but would add that the landowner cannot receive compensation from these hunters for the privilege of hunting and that the option only be used when it can be demonstrated that the majority of the hunters on the hunt roster haven't been able to hunt the area effectively - perhaps a 25% success rate.

 

[bigskyblueman]

Flexible translates to do anything they want. Language has no parameters or guidelines by design. Jeff Hagener office staff just told me the comments on this are fairly heavy.

 

[Straight Arrow]

I can agree that allowing 25% of the hunters to be selected by the landowner could help

Rob, only if it pertains to certain private property access provisions or to the immediate availability of certain hunters to respond to the call-up ... but whenever FWP decides to cede the authority to issue permits or licenses, then anticipate that the "Ranching for Wildlife" sled will quickly accelerate down that slippery slope.

 

[RobG]

Rob, only if it pertains to certain private property access provisions or to the immediate availability of certain hunters to respond to the call-up ... but whenever FWP decides to cede the authority to issue permits or licenses, then anticipate that the "Ranching for Wildlife" sled will quickly accelerate down that slippery slope.

I think we are on the same page on needing conditions that must be met before the hunt roster is augmented. How would you word the rule to achieve that? (Anyone can offer suggestions.)

 

[Senah]

Thank you RobG for posting about the meeting. Unfortunately we weren't able to go - we were at the listening session a few days ago, and are a bit surprised that it wasn't mentioned at all by any of the FWP folks we talked to. We'll send in comments. My feeling is that if it had been mentioned, there would have been a little better turn out - even more so if people had known about it beforehand and if it had been better publicized.

I do have concerns about the remediation of the language in the document. I think that as these terms and the language changes, the landowners do end up with more and more control (and possibly an ability to exclude the public), which can translate to less hunting in the future. Now they can't be compensated, but what if in 5-10 years that changes as an incentive for their cooperation in management practices endorsed by FWP?

And in terms of control/access, I think you can never predict how things will change. I mean, people used to be able to hunt the Flying D, and now you have a situation where not only can the average person not get on there, the amount of elk that are harbored on it seriously affects hunting on a good amount of public land surrounding. Admittedly this last part is a little off topic, but I think for many hunters it is hard not to let your mind wander to topics like these when you start reading through documents such as the one up for debate, and then start looking back at how fluid these changes start to appear over 10-20 year periods.

 

[Ben Lamb]

I think we are on the same page on needing conditions that must be met before the hunt roster is augmented. How would you word the rule to achieve that? (Anyone can offer suggestions.)

Use the same provisions in the section of code I posted. That provides says:

No fee hunting
No land where outfitted (I could see this change so long as the provision for quantifying free public hunting was allowed if a place was outfitted as well, but the rules would need to be clear on what constitutes acceptable public use).
etc

That section of code for landowner licenses is a good road map for altering the proposed rule, which, after more closely reading and pondering, I'm starting to agree that it's not well worded and needs to be cleaned up in order to avoid the possibility of using public hunters cleaning up a mess landowners created.

 

[RobG]

I'll bump this up along with http://onyourownadventures.com/hunttalk/showthread.php?p=2452529#post2452529

One thing though, I just noticed that Ben's post where he "quoted" the changes was actually a very confusing misquote (thanks Ben) since the formatting didn't come through. Specifically, the strike-through of key sentences and lack of notation on what the amendment would add

For example, original (words in bold will be stricken):

(4) Hunters eligible to hunt during a management season will 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 use other established means of hunter selection, including first-come, first-served advertised opportunities, and unsuccessful special permit applicant lists

With proposed amendments (Key additions in red):

Some or all hunters eligible to hunt during a management hunt may be selected from the game damage hunt roster under procedures outlined in ARM 12.9.804A. The department may also use 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

It is very clear that they are trying to bypass the public in favor of landowner supplied lists. Please tell FWP that strict conditions must be met before they can bypass the public. http://fwp.mt.gov/news/publicNotices/rules/pn_0168.html

My comments are in another thread:
http://onyourownadventures.com/hunttalk/showpost.php?p=2452529&postcount=96

 

[RobG]

Update - they nixed the extremely troublesome language that allowed the public to be bypassed in favor of the landowner's hand picked choices.
http://billingsgazette.com/lifestyl...cle_6d5e2c3d-0f87-5bfc-8f78-c4411f6d6563.html

Given sporting groups’ opposition, FWP revised its proposal to read that if a damage hunt is held and the department requests a list of hunters from a landowner that “no more than 25 percent of the total number of hunters authorized to participate in the hunt may come from the list. If antlered animals are authorized for harvest, lists of names supplied by landowners shall not be an authorized means of hunter selection.”

 

[Oak]

Wow, nice work.

 

[Nameless Range]

That's great news. That said, even 25% could be manipulated.

I was involved in a damage hunt earlier this year. As it should be, the landowners get to decide how they want the hunt to function. In the instance of my hunt, the landowners decided that roughly one hunter per day would work. So hunters needed to call and schedule their day. In the instance of this hunt, 100 hunters were involved. Say 25 of them were landowner picks. Who do you think the first 25 days of hunting would go to? Within a week of the 6 week long damage hunt, I was told that they were no longer doing the hunt.

I am in no way saying anything fishy happened on the hunt for which my name was drawn, and I'm well aware that a damage hunt is a privilege. I'm just saying that as long as landowners get to hand pick even a portion of the hunters, they can basically guarantee their friends special elk hunts, and the public may or may not get to participate at all.

 

[RobG]

Nameless - We should submit additional comments asking for them to clearly state that 25% does not mean the landowner's picks get to go first.

 

[RobG]

More details on the revised rules can be found here. http://leg.mt.gov/css/Committees/Interim/2015-2016/EQC/Meetings/Nov-2015/nov-2015.asp