MT Shoulder Season Public Comment

[RobG]

Not exactly, FWP set the bullshit objectives that the legislators are forcing them to manage to.

And you don't think those objectives were set at the "request" of the legislators that set their budget?

 

[Nameless Range]

Well, at least they nixed the shoulder season during the archery seasons in regions 3-7. I'm not sure how many shoulder seasons were entirely stopped - looks like a couple. Comments helped, but FWP has a behind-the-doors mandate from those who set their funding. Don't get mad at them, get mad at the legislators behind this.

Is there actual documentation of this "behind-the-doors mandate"? Because we now have documentation that 9 out of 10 people who commented on these Shoulder Seasons were opposed.

We've been honey-dicked into thinking public comment matters. I don't buy that it's acceptable to pass the buck to the legislature on all thing elk.

 

[tjones]

And you don't think those objectives were set at the "request" of the legislators that set their budget?

Absolutely not. I have set in on a number of objective setting meetings. Social tolerance only, mainly by local landowners. No science involved.

 

[RobG]

Is there actual documentation of this "behind-the-doors mandate"? Because we now have documentation that 9 out of 10 people who commented on these Shoulder Seasons were opposed.

We've been honey-dicked into thinking public comment matters. I don't buy that it's acceptable to pass the buck to the legislature on all thing elk.

First, either comments matter or the legislators matter. You can't deny both at the same time.

But FWP freely admits this is about pleasing the legislators (e.g. see their MT Outdoors article) so perhaps behind-the-doors was the wrong word. I don't want to give the impression that I support the seasons, but the 9/10 comments had the additional statement "particularly with the archery/rifle overlap." They addressed that so comments matter. Tony is down there saying the objectives were set by public comments (social tolerance) so comments matter. If FWP really had their mind set on reducing the population these seasons would have happened long ago so I have a hard time taking it out on them, with the caveat that there have been staffing changes and comments they don't see don't matter.

 

[tjones]

I didn't say "public comment".

 

[Nameless Range]

First, either comments matter or the legislators matter. You can't deny both at the same time.

I understand Rob, and I don't mean to take it out on FWP unreasonably. They have a difficult job. That said, either comments matter or they do not, the FWP cannot say comments matter, and then when they cleary do not, they cannot then pass the buck to the legislature and still claim comments matter. They can't claim both at the same time.

with the caveat that there have been staffing changes and comments they d̶o̶n̶'̶t̶ see don't matter.

89% Opposed.

 

[Gerald Martin]

A
similar campaign(s) was mounted concerning the shoulder seasons and among 316 surveymonkey and
email comments 89% were opposed, particularly with the archery/rifle overlap.

Am I the only one who interprets this paragraph in this way? " 89% of people opposed the shoulder seasons but since we think was obvious this was a concentrated effort to get people to comment, these comments aren't relevant to us finalizing the proposals we had decided on before we opened it up for comments."

 

[RobG]

I understand Rob, and I don't mean to take it out on FWP unreasonably. They have a difficult job. That said, either comments matter or they do not, the FWP cannot say comments matter, and then when they cleary do not, they cannot then pass the buck to the legislature and still claim comments matter. They can't claim both at the same time.



89% Opposed.

Nameless, as I pointed out, according to the documentation the opposition was "particularly" to the archery/rifle overlap. Past public comments have not shown strong opposition to the season in general. In fact, HSA offered tentative support to it (not opposition). I can't find RMEF's comments, but I remember thinking they offered support to the concept. The exception was the rifle/archery overlap.

 

[BuzzH]

Well, at least they nixed the shoulder season during the archery seasons in regions 3-7. I'm not sure how many shoulder seasons were entirely stopped - looks like a couple. Comments helped, but FWP has a behind-the-doors mandate from those who set their funding. Don't get mad at them, get mad at the legislators behind this.

Another FWP apologist...

I will blame the FWP. They have a responsibility of doing what's BEST for Montanas wildlife. They have an obligation to "those who set funding"...which are hunters and anglers, PR funds, etc. that is nearly the entire FWP budget.

The FWP is not, and has not, listened to what the public wants for a long, long, long time. Lets be honest, the upper Management of the FWP doesn't even listen to their own biologists. As a biologist in MT you either do what you're told, or you're looking for another job.

Giving them a pass is simply allowing this behavior to continue.

In any debate situation, how can Hagener, Kujula, Vore, Thompson or any of the other band of misfits that run the FWP argue the "state of Montana's wildlife" to defend their shit policy, lack of caring for wildlife, shoulder seasons, lack of listening to the public, etc. etc. that they're doing a good job?

They're not doing a good job...they have NO defense for this crap. What they do have is a bunch of complacent hunters who continue to make excuses for them.

They are an equal, and more than willing partner, to the war being waged on Montana's wildlife and public land hunters.

 

[The Hedgehog]

Fourteen years ago Rob Arnaud told me how in the not so distant future, anybody that wanted to have a quality hunting experience would have to pay for it -due to the amount of private land in MT and how the FWP would not manage for any level of quality. I kept my opinion to myself and thought it was crazy talk.

After reading about the Galt/Bullock chopper flyover analysis for the "pilot" test for shoulder seasons, the 89% public opposition, the dismal response from FWP to the public, all I can think of is just how right Arnaud was. Guys without a ton of money or connections are gonna be screwed. In a decade, if not sooner, things will be a lot different than they are today. The wolves were nothing compared to this, and that's a fact.

 

[BuzzH]

Greenhorn,

Yeah, but there will still be people apologizing for the FWP...and be very content conducting game management for the wealthy hunters via dumping cows in August and February to "fill the freezer"...

Plus, you're asking the impossible with your 20/20 vision of what the future holds, when the farthest most people look to the future is "gettin' their elk" this hunting season...

Montana Wildlife and public lands hunters are screwed...and in a big way. Most are too naïve to know it.

 

[RobG]

Fourteen years ago Rob Arnaud told me how in the not so distant future, anybody that wanted to have a quality hunting experience would have to pay for it -due to the amount of private land in MT and how the FWP would not manage for any level of quality. I kept my opinion to myself and thought it was crazy talk.

After reading about the Galt/Bullock chopper flyover analysis for the "pilot" test for shoulder seasons, the 89% public opposition, the dismal response from FWP to the public, all I can think of is just how right Arnaud was. Guys without a ton of money or connections are gonna be screwed. In a decade, if not sooner, things will be a lot different than they are today. The wolves were nothing compared to this, and that's a fact.

This certainly puts the control of elk in the landowners' hands. The public lost on this one.

 

[The Hedgehog]

It's not just the shoulder seasons, it's the shoulder seasons, combined with either-sex free for alls, B-tags, damage hunts, and displaced elk by wolves and hunting pressure by those plumb happy to kill every last one of them.

MT Elk hunting for the 89% of us is going to twirl right down the crapper faster than your last morning dump.

Find your peace with coyotes and prairie dog hunts.

 

[Gerald Martin]

It's not just the shoulder seasons, it's the shoulder seasons, combined with either-sex free for alls, B-tags, damage hunts, and displaced elk by wolves and hunting pressure by those plumb happy to kill every last one of them.

MT Elk hunting for the 89% of us is going to twirl right down the crapper faster than your last morning dump.

Find your peace with coyotes and prairie dog hunts.

Are there still shoulder seasons going on anywhere? I just want to shoot another elk before it gets bad.

 

[shoots-straight]

First, either comments matter or the legislators matter. You can't deny both at the same time.

But FWP freely admits this is about pleasing the legislators (e.g. see their MT Outdoors article) so perhaps behind-the-doors was the wrong word. I don't want to give the impression that I support the seasons, but the 9/10 comments had the additional statement "particularly with the archery/rifle overlap." They addressed that so comments matter. Tony is down there saying the objectives were set by public comments (social tolerance) so comments matter. If FWP really had their mind set on reducing the population these seasons would have happened long ago so I have a hard time taking it out on them, with the caveat that there have been staffing changes and comments they don't see don't matter.

Rob, actually they set up puppet groups like the" Elk Working Group" in areas around the state. Some of the members were picked because they were easily swayed by the administrator,(FW&PS personal) or one of the top landowners in the area, that continually complained about elk. These groups were set up to get around "public involvement,( comment)", but acted like they used a well representative group from the community. This system was a farce. The individual comment was not allowed at any of those meetings. You could not talk.

 

[RobG]

Nameless, as I pointed out, according to the documentation the opposition was "particularly" to the archery/rifle overlap. Past public comments have not shown strong opposition to the season in general. In fact, HSA offered tentative support to it (not opposition). I can't find RMEF's comments, but I remember thinking they offered support to the concept. The exception was the rifle/archery overlap.

Not exactly opposition:

anuary 15, 2016

To Chairman Vermillion and FWP Commission and Director Hagener,

Please consider this letter as public comment from the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation (RMEF) relative to the proposed Shoulder Season expansions for 2016 and beyond.

RMEF supported late season cow hunts as a viable elk management tool by Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks (FWP); hence we supported legislation to provide such to the Department of Fish Wildlife and Parks. This legislation was vetoed and in its place a “shoulder season concept” was proposed and is currently being tested by FWP in limited, selected units.

While we have previously stated we generally support the ability of FWP to use such seasons as a tool to address over population issues of elk we do not officially endorse any program for the future without first seeing the results of the pilot programs currently underway. To date we have not been provided any results from this test program.

Based on the comments we have received from our members we continue to support the concept of a late season cow elk hunt for the purpose of helping to address over population of elk in specific areas of the state, especially for those who have tried all existing options. We are concerned about the expansion of such hunts on to public land. Past history shows that extending these efforts to public lands may focus on the wrong elk; those public land elk that our members have access to. We do not support early season hunts allowing special rifle hunts during archery seasons. Since the basis for these seasons is to reduce elk numbers in some areas, we would not support harvest of bulls under these seasons.

RMEF will not get drawn into the no-win debate over established objective numbers for elk versus carrying capacity numbers for elk; a debate that has become highly political. We fully recognize the need to consider both the biological and social aspects of elk and elk population goals but in this highly partisan atmosphere there seems to be little opportunity for flexible or negotiable allowances.

As a starting point for the path forward, we would suggest a review and update of the Elk Management Plan, with representation of all stakeholders. Elk are one of Montana’s most valuable wildlife resources, both culturally and financially. It seems an updated Elk Management Plan would be prudent and hopefully provide a better forum for discussing elk objectives, in consideration of social tolerance and carrying capacity.

RMEF fully subscribes to the principles of the North American Model of Conservation and we staunchly accept and defend the principles of private property rights by American citizens. We fully support the culture of hunting and state based management. A debate over an issue like shoulder seasons will not be solved without a willingness on all sides to compromise and work together.

RMEF again restates our support for late season cow elk hunts, primarily on private lands where additional tools are needed to reduce elk populations. We feel that more pilot programs in specific private lands are needed, along with results from current pilot programs, to justify any statewide expansion of late season hunts.

Thank you for your consideration.

Respectfully submitted.

M. David Allen

 

[The Hedgehog]

I like what they came up with for 313, from what I know of the dynamic in the unit, that's very similar to Loveless' original proposal.

I'm confused. You think it's all good that there is now no permit at all required for 8 of the 10 weeks of hunting? And additional B tags? All this means is nobody needs a permit to participate in a goat show at Gardiner, and the outfitters can book as many clients as ever, with the exception of the last 10 days.

WTF.

 

[Straight Arrow]

That's how I read it also, Greenhorn. How can unlimited general season tags for all but he last 10 days be the same as a limit of 75 bull permits?

 

[The Hedgehog]

Yeah. It's the same as, "I give up - Let's kill them all."

 

[shoots-straight]

Because there's a change on HD 313 from the Tentative they will take public comments tomorrow on it. MSA will be there to express our opposition to the new changes. Who else will go?