T
tjones
Guest
Not picking on you in particular, it's just most hunters don't get involved until SHTF, by then it's too late.
MT Shoulder Season Public Comment
- Thread starter ----
- Start date
Not picking on you in particular, it's just most hunters don't get involved until SHTF, by then it's too late.
I've talked to multiple biologists about this over the last couple months, and none of them even humored the idea. They said that as long as there's any crossover between the harbouring property and neighbors, it's a moot point.
Unit 217 in particular has something like 98% of the elk residing on one ranch, and Ray Vinkey wouldn't propose using the harboring rule. Instead there's a shoulder season, that includes National Forest.
As a side note- Somebody from the agency blatantly lied to the Commission in saying there are no proposed shoulder seasons on National Forest lands.
Straight Arrow
Well-known member
I continue to believe and contend that Montana has the potential to sustain significantly more elk, not fewer. It is past time to force FWP to review, re-analyze, and revise the Elk Management Plan, this time with adherence to the North American Wildlife Conservation Model, the very model which allowed Montana FWP such highly praised success during the Twentieth Century in bringing many species "Back from the Brink". I believe even most FWP personnel know that the elk objective numbers are "tolerance" numbers and not the product of respectable and solid wildlife management science and principles.
Furthermore, the hoarding dynamic is also a "tolerance" based problem and, depending on the season and the viability of making a buck off the wildlife resource, continues to be a political hot potato. Hoarding should be mitigated through some form of effective wildlife management redistribution of elk across the landscape, not by full scale slaughter to reduce numbers and attempt to move the elk during certain periods when they are less desirable on the agricultural lands. What happened to the Montana property owner premise that established wildlife as a known and accepted entity on property that is comprised of viable wildlife habitat? It seems to have been lost in the Montana FWP process, and certainly has not been included in any rhetoric uttered in the Capitol building in Helena for many decades ... at least not since the Constitutional Convention of 1972.
Furthermore, the hoarding dynamic is also a "tolerance" based problem and, depending on the season and the viability of making a buck off the wildlife resource, continues to be a political hot potato. Hoarding should be mitigated through some form of effective wildlife management redistribution of elk across the landscape, not by full scale slaughter to reduce numbers and attempt to move the elk during certain periods when they are less desirable on the agricultural lands. What happened to the Montana property owner premise that established wildlife as a known and accepted entity on property that is comprised of viable wildlife habitat? It seems to have been lost in the Montana FWP process, and certainly has not been included in any rhetoric uttered in the Capitol building in Helena for many decades ... at least not since the Constitutional Convention of 1972.
8andcounting
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 16, 2013
- Messages
- 3,401
so is there an update as to what changes passed/went through? as far as the proposed changes for each HD . ? thanks for any input
shoots-straight
Well-known member
People, don't lose sight of how this came to be. House bill 42 that passed in 2003 is entirely to blame. We could end up with less elk right now if revisited. We need to repeal that legislation, and figure out how to keep good agricultural neighbors protected from harboring. Montana could certainly hold more wildlife, but the ag community is in control.
shoots-straight
Well-known member
That bio needs to be taken to the wood shed. He's not doing whats right by Montana's sportsman. He could and should remove those elk. A local hook and bullet organization needs to fly that in October and count the elk living there before the general big game season, then write up an LTE condemning that local bio's actions. Make him look as bad as he is for not looking after the resource.
That was Mike Thompson, that said Forest Service lands were off limits and I believe he said that was an error. His words were meant to be a clarification. I hope!
BuzzH
Well-known member
Mike Thompson needs to retire.
It's no error, there will be a shoulder season on National Forest land in the new unit 217.
shoots-straight
Well-known member
I sent him an email for clarification on that district.
I've been fighting this one since December, Robert. Go back and read all the proposals and all the master lists, and read my post on the first page of this thread. They've wanted a shoulder season on that chunk of national forest from the get go, and refused to budge.
shoots-straight
Well-known member
I understand what you've been saying all along, I can just go by what he said at he commission meeting. Hoping that what he said was correct.
Bugle 'Em In
Well-known member
Just think, a year from today we can kill elk on private property we were not able to hunt during the regular season.
....maybe you should add the word "antlerless" into your statement. We sure are lucky to be able to get some of the king's crumbs. This state has lost its way and my kids are just starting to hunt....bummer!
Did Mike ever clear this up Shoots?
shoots-straight
Well-known member
No! He did not send me back anything.
katqanna
Well-known member
Randy, Shoots, did y'all ever find anything definitive about HD 217 shoulder season on FS land?
I just checked the Commission agenda for this next Thursday on the 10th, and there is a specific proposal for HD 217, which was "inadvertantly ommitted from original regulation proposal".
It is a final action, meaning they dont have to take public comment on it.
I just checked the Commission agenda for this next Thursday on the 10th, and there is a specific proposal for HD 217, which was "inadvertantly ommitted from original regulation proposal".
It is a final action, meaning they dont have to take public comment on it.
Last edited:
8andcounting
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 16, 2013
- Messages
- 3,401
Shouldn't all this be in the new regs that were supposed to be out today
Best I can tell they are having a shoulder season on the National Forest open for youth and handicap. The National forest area has also almost doubled from the original proposal.
I've wrote off trying to make sense of it anymore, and will read the final regulations and assume that's what will happen.
I had a big long rant typed up about the mismanagement and crooked politics going on in that part of the state, but at this point I feel like the guy on the corner shouting scriptures. It's not my place to spread corruption rumors.
RobG
Well-known member
I will say for no particular reason that there was a nice article in MT Outdoors about how great the season was. For some reason no letters were published regarding the season. Perhaps they are working on a book, or...
T
tjones
Guest
Changing the subject briefly, but related to how confusing FWP regs are,,,
This is from an FWP news release:
"“Starting Feb. 1, the new fee structure will standardize the definition of youth as those between 12 and 17 years old. This language replaces a number of age categories.”
So reading this one would think a youth hunter is now defined as a 12-17 year old, changing from a 12-15 year old, right?
Wrong, the new definition is for fee structure only. 12-17 get to buy the cheaper youth license but only the 12-15 year olds get to hunt in the special youth hunts. 16-17 year olds while holding the exact same license don't get to go. Add in the 10-15 year olds that are not youth but "licensed apprentice hunters" holding a "youth license" that can hunt in the special youth seasons.
Clear as mud.
This is from an FWP news release:
"“Starting Feb. 1, the new fee structure will standardize the definition of youth as those between 12 and 17 years old. This language replaces a number of age categories.”
So reading this one would think a youth hunter is now defined as a 12-17 year old, changing from a 12-15 year old, right?
Wrong, the new definition is for fee structure only. 12-17 get to buy the cheaper youth license but only the 12-15 year olds get to hunt in the special youth hunts. 16-17 year olds while holding the exact same license don't get to go. Add in the 10-15 year olds that are not youth but "licensed apprentice hunters" holding a "youth license" that can hunt in the special youth seasons.
Clear as mud.
Last edited by a moderator:
