Need comments for MT hunt roster changes

[RobG]

Hi Folks,
Can I get you to do me a favor right now regarding the hunt roster? Submit a comment to Hope Stockwell at [email protected] requesting written clarification of 12.9.804 (1)(g).

Background on the topic can be found in this article and this HT thread. The proposal info can be found here. A summary is here. Further info on the ECQ meeting can be found here.

Please do this now as the decision will be made on Monday, Nov 16. No excuse for procrastinating since the comment can be as simple as "Please clarify 12.9.804 (1)(g) so that the 25% of the hunters specified by the landowner are to be evenly distributed throughout the season until the hunt roster list is exhausted."


Here are my comments

To: Hope Stockwell [email protected]
Fr: Rob Gregoire
Re: ARM rule changes for hunt roster

Dear Hope,

Thank you for removing the option for the landowner to supply 100% of the names to be used for game damage hunts. This option was unfair and a disturbing step towards privatizing our wildlife. These hunts come at a cost to the elk hunter since they reduce elk numbers, thus these hunters need to be compensated by having an the option to participate in off-season hunts.

I am concerned that section 12.9.804 (1)(g) may create a loophole so that the landowner can once again supply 100% of the hunter names. Since this was clearly the intent of the original proposed changes the loophole should be eliminated. The problem is that it doesn't specify the order in which the landowner selected hunters can be used even if they are limited to 25% of the total. It is possible that all of his selections be allowed to go first or during prime times, leaving the hunt roster participants to hunt during unproductive times. The landowner could even stop the hunt after his selected hunters have finished.

Please add words to the effect of "A hunter selected from the landowner list can only be used after three hunters from the hunt roster have been given the chance to participate in the hunt, or the hunt roster list has been exhausted." In other words, the landowner picks will be evenly dispersed between the names from the hunt roster.

Sincerely,
Rob Gregoire

Thanks for help keeping our public wildlife public.

 

[Kneetopia]

Done, thanks!

 

[300stw]

email sent

 

[Straight Arrow]

Submitted and responded to by Hope S.

 

[bigskyblueman]

Email submitted, however up to this point, this whole issue has been rigged, botched, and poor policy.

 

[RobG]

Email submitted, however up to this point, this whole issue has been rigged, botched, and poor policy.

Yeah, but the kickback from the hunters is helping. We need to get some of these politicians who are pushing this stuff beaten in the primaries to send a message that hunters want our public wildlife to remain public.

 

[katqanna]

Email submitted, however up to this point, this whole issue has been rigged, botched, and poor policy.

Agreed, but, we have helped to make FWP's "rigged, botched and poor policy" more public, removing the major leap towards privatization to a smaller step; we have removed the potential substitution of a 100% landowner supplied list and no antlered animals for those landowner supplied names.

 

[RobG]

Agreed, but, we have helped to make FWP's "rigged, botched and poor policy" more public, removing the major leap towards privatization to a smaller step; we have removed the potential substitution of a 100% landowner supplied list and no antlered animals for those landowner supplied names.

That was a bonus. I hadn't even considered that landowners could have done that.

 

[bigskyblueman]

This whole issue begins with elk objective numbers that appear too low to support hunting by the general public. Keep just enough elk around to fill up the pay hunts and no more.

 

[katqanna]

I agree. Part of my comment to the EQC was addressing this situation. "I would again like to go on record opposing this amendment adoption entirely, as I feel FWP is politically ignoring the hard science, the Statewide Elk Management Plan, it's need for a revision, and the poor application of already existing laws and regulations, as the failed audits are confirming."

I sent my current comments to the EQC above a forward of my public comments sent to FWP, on the original Game Damage Amendment, which included maps and links to data and the failed audits.

I had an agency wildlife biologist subscribe to the newsletter last night, stating, "Thanks again for all that you do to shed light on these conservation issues. Too much crap gets swept under the rug if people think no one is watching."

They bank on the Public not knowing or watching or asking. This whole Game Damage amendment was one of those situations, especially limiting us to a 2 minute public comment at the bloody hearing.

 

[RobG]

This whole issue begins with elk objective numbers that appear too low to support hunting by the general public. Keep just enough elk around to fill up the pay hunts and no more.

I think the bulk of the issue is landowners protecting their grass, complicated by the incompetent legislators requiring hunts that chase all the elk off public lands and onto their property. I'm trying to get the time/energy to solicit responses to the shoulder hunt fluff piece in MT Outdoors or even write a response myself. The clues are in there about the politicians forcing this down our throat. Yesterday Vermillion said that elk objectives are determined by landowner tolerance, not science or even elk hunters. Even savy people don't realize this and are duped into believe we have "too many elk." I think flooding the magazine with responses might help get the message out.

 

[mtlion]

Rob is it 12.9.804 (1)(g) or (f)?

You have it both ways in your original post.

Working on my email now.

 

[RobG]

Rob is it 12.9.804 (1)(g) or (f)?

You have it both ways in your original post.

Working on my email now.

Dang, they'd figure it out, but it was (g), specifically:

(g) If the department chooses to use a list of names supplied by a landowner, no
more than 25% of the total number of hunters authorized to participate in the hunt may
come from the list;

I fixed the post.

 

[Straight Arrow]

Don't get buried in the weeds ... g or f? Just state your opinion. They will know what you're talking about.

 

[mtlion]

Email sent.

I am writing to express my concern that section 12.9.804 (1)(g) in the proposed changes to the hunt roster could result in abuse of the system by landowners to bypass public hunters drawn through the hunt roster system. By not specifying in what order the hunt is to be open to hunters chosen by the landowner versus randomly chosen public hunters, it leaves open the possibility that hunters chosen by the landowners could be placed in front of the general public or be allowed to hunt during the prime periods when odds of success are high. I believe there needs to be a provision stating that the hunters chosen by the landowner must be interspersed equally alongside the hunters drawn through the damage roster. Since the landowner would be allowed to choose 25% of the hunters, a fair way to allocate the hunts would be to allow 1 hunter chosen by the landowner for every 3 hunters allowed access through the roster. Thank you for taking the time to read my comments, as do most Montanans I truly value the rich resources our state has to offer and I believe that access to those resources should be allocated in as democratic a process as is possible so that all may enjoy them.

 

[Hunts]

Thanks for the heads up. Message sent.

 

[Big Foot]

Letter Sent. Thanks Rob!

 

[What Map]

Email sent. Thanks for the heads up, RobG

 

[katqanna]

The EQC is meeting for a conference call today on the FWP Game Damage amendment. You can listen/watch live here.

Environmental Quality Council Conference Call - Room 172, 11:00am

 

[Nameless Range]

Comment sent. Thanks for bringing this up Rob