opening more refuges to hunting.....

[Hunting Wife]

The devil, as always, is in the details. In plenty of places there have been positive gains for hunters. But at this point a lot of the low-hanging fruit with regards to opening up actual opportunities has already been plucked. Now there’s increasing pressure to continue “opening acres“ in ways that don’t make much sense. Tiny parcels, areas that don’t hold large game populations, opening specific refuges for hunting species that don’t actually occur on the Refuge. On paper, looks great. In reality, on some of these very little additional opportunity is really being provided. Take for example Hart Mountain in Oregon, proposed opening 18,000+ acres for waterfowl hunting. Except it’s mostly desert. There are several large lakes to the west, and one of those has a shoreline right along the Refuge boundary. So now you could access that shoreline, but there is nowhere near 18,000 acres of additional opportunity being provided. Don’t get me wrong...wherever opportunity can reasonably be provided, it should be considered. But touting acres opened for “opportunities” that actually don’t, and never have existed is kind of disingenuous.

Plus refuges were created as just that...refuges. All acres should not be open to all activities, particularly on some of the smaller refuges. Defeats the purpose of the Refuge and sometimes conflicts with the establishing legislation. I fear that will get lost as the pressure to keep opening acres continues to ratchet up.

 

[Gerald Martin]

With a little more support, some of our friends from Nevada will “open” up all Federal Refuges for us.

We won’t even need the Trump administration to get involved.

On a serious note, I think it’s a good idea. Hopefully though there is enough flexibility in the ways that each refuge can set rules of use to still retain the protection the wildlife that uses it needs.

 

[1_pointer]

Unless you're a buck mule deer on the CMR in November...

Easy fix, if the state chooses to do so...

 

[BuzzH]

Easy fix, if the state chooses to do so...

Define easy...nothing when dealing with the MTFWP would I define as easy.

 

[88man]

I thinks it is a positive, but the devil will be in the details. There are a lot of refuges that allow hunting now. Some refuges need to stay refuges for the overall health of the resource.

Lets get the access for hunting first then work on the management

 

[88man]

The devil, as always, is in the details. In plenty of places there have been positive gains for hunters. But at this point a lot of the low-hanging fruit with regards to opening up actual opportunities has already been plucked. Now there’s increasing pressure to continue “opening acres“ in ways that don’t make much sense. Tiny parcels, areas that don’t hold large game populations, opening specific refuges for hunting species that don’t actually occur on the Refuge. On paper, looks great. In reality, on some of these very little additional opportunity is really being provided. Take for example Hart Mountain in Oregon, proposed opening 18,000+ acres for waterfowl hunting. Except it’s mostly desert. There are several large lakes to the west, and one of those has a shoreline right along the Refuge boundary. So now you could access that shoreline, but there is nowhere near 18,000 acres of additional opportunity being provided. Don’t get me wrong...wherever opportunity can reasonably be provided, it should be considered. But touting acres opened for “opportunities” that actually don’t, and never have existed is kind of disingenuous.

Plus refuges were created as just that...refuges. All acres should not be open to all activities, particularly on some of the smaller refuges. Defeats the purpose of the Refuge and sometimes conflicts with the establishing legislation. I fear that will get lost as the pressure to keep opening acres continues to ratchet up.

Let the Feds allow hunting first. Then trust the state to manage the hunting

 

[Hunting Wife]

Let the Feds allow hunting first. Then trust the state to manage the hunting

Sure. My point is the feds could just as well have said “hey, let’s open CMR to elephant hunting” and the net increase of opportunity would be the same in some instances, no matter what the state does. If the habitat doesn’t support the species, what did we actually gain by opening those acres to hunting it?

 

[Ben Lamb]

Sure. My point is the feds could just as well have said “hey, let’s open CMR to elephant hunting” and the net increase of opportunity would be the same in some instances, no matter what the state does. If the habitat doesn’t support the species, what did we actually gain by opening those acres to hunting it?

Press

 

[rwc101]

Personally, I'm looking forward to hunting pheasant and chukar in Laramie.

 

[SAJ-99]

Let the Feds allow hunting first. Then trust the state to manage the hunting

Take one example waterfowl. This debate has raged for decades. Refuges hold thousands of birds and are not hunted. Science has shown that the spring production of eggs is directly correlated to the condition of the hen when she returns to the nesting grounds. Those refuges are key areas where birds are allowed to rest and refuel. Allowing hunting will directly result in fewer new birds the next year. Is it worth it? Short term vs long term? It is a tough decision. As we learn more about elk, mule deer, etc and their migrations the same logic applies.
I’m for it if the scientist say it is fine. But when given a gift from politicians, I am always making sure I know where their other hand is.

 

[BRaska]

I hope it happens in Texas we have little to no public hunting.

 

[Hunting Wife]

Proposed changes by state, if anyone is curious...

https://www.fws.gov/home/feature/2020/2020-2021-Station-Specific-Hunting-and-Fishing-Proposed-Rule-Narratives.pdf

 

[joelweb]

Unless you're a buck mule deer on the CMR in November...

Buzz, I don't disagree that the Montana mule deer season might run a little long, but is it the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's responsibility to set season dates for buck mule deer or Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks? I think most of us would agree it is the latter.

 

[BuzzH]

Buzz, I don't disagree that the Montana mule deer season might run a little long, but is it the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's responsibility to set season dates for buck mule deer or Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks? I think most of us would agree it is the latter.

In theory, I totally agree that it should not be the Feds that are setting seasons.

But, don't you think its pretty sad that a Federal Agency recognizes how poorly MT manages one of their premier big-game species that they feel their only option is to step in to try to intervene in making common sense management decisions?

Even more telling is when you take someone like me, who absolutely agrees with your above statement that states should manage wildlife, and I start to question that perhaps the Feds DO need to step in because of the lack of any proper management from the FWP.

All I can say, is that the only proper management of mule deer that is happening in Montana these days, is either: 1. Private property or 2. Limited quota areas...and in the past I would have included the CMR. Now even its gone.

 

[3855WIN]

For the most part, our Mississippi and Louisiana NWRs are the same way. The NWRs offer more of a quality experience than the state WMAs.
We have private land that borders a NWR, and they are good neighbors.

 

[joelweb]

In theory, I totally agree that it should not be the Feds that are setting seasons.

But, don't you think its pretty sad that a Federal Agency recognizes how poorly MT manages one of their premier big-game species that they feel their only option is to step in to try to intervene in making common sense management decisions?

Even more telling is when you take someone like me, who absolutely agrees with your above statement that states should manage wildlife, and I start to question that perhaps the Feds DO need to step in because of the lack of any proper management from the FWP.

All I can say, is that the only proper management of mule deer that is happening in Montana these days, is either: 1. Private property or 2. Limited quota areas...and in the past I would have included the CMR. Now even its gone.

Thanks, Buzz. I enjoyed the three week season too. I just don't like the idea of a federal agency setting hunting seasons.

 

[SandyCreek]

i generally think its good especially for big game, but refuges should for sure be limited to the number of people.. Just on a waterfowl front having those places where birds are safe can be the difference to having birds around or not having anything. maybe a draw for access would be a good idea

 

[1_pointer]

Define easy...nothing when dealing with the MTFWP would I define as easy.

Easy meaning there is nothing keeping the state from setting season dates for certain areas/units. MT doesn't have to rely on Uncle Sam in regards to season dates on CMR.

 

[geetar]

The one nearest my house ( Pee Dee NWR ) is open to deer, turkey, and small game but no waterfowl is allowed. It is primarily a waterfowl refuge with impoundments that are flooded in migration season.

 

[BuzzH]

Easy meaning there is nothing keeping the state from setting season dates for certain areas/units. MT doesn't have to rely on Uncle Sam in regards to season dates on CMR.

If Montana keeps it up with their mule deer "management", Uncle Sam will be required by law to step in.