Pay to Play

[Straight Arrow]

5 facts were just things that didn't happen

So, the increased revenues from nonresident licenses was untruthfully reported by FWP?

 

[RobG]

So, the increased revenues from nonresident licenses was untruthfully reported by FWP?

Sorry, I articulated the points about your five claims very poorly. I believe you when you say the revenues were increased. I'll go further and agree that it is fair to say some of your points are benefits, but they came at a cost and could have been realized in ways that didn't impact the average Joe NR as much.

 

[The Hedgehog]

antlerradars' got some great factual real-world input.

The source of all the pain is the fact that the lion's share of hunters prefer to pay to make success more likely. Whatever their excuse may be...

I wonder what things would be like if outfitting was not legal.

 

[Straight Arrow]

habitat enhancement projects

Kat, I'm sure you are aware, but RMEF and other wildlife conservation organizations continuously complete enhancement projects, some with hired professionals, but many with boots-on-the ground volunteers. One common example is the removal of old barbed wire fencing and other obstructions to wildlife movement. Visit the RMEF website and you will see that a significant slice of the budget is for habitat enhancement.

 

[Straight Arrow]

they came at a cost and could have been realized in ways that didn't impact the average Joe NR as much.

Rob, I agree. But again, it is what it is ... so let's work together going in a forward direction to improve for you, me , and the "average Joe NR" .... as well as for all those new children and grandchildren hunters, whose hunting success photos have recently impressed us.

 

[katqanna]

Kat, I'm sure you are aware, but RMEF and other wildlife conservation organizations continuously complete enhancement projects, some with hired professionals, but many with boots-on-the ground volunteers. One common example is the removal of old barbed wire fencing and other obstructions to wildlife movement. Visit the RMEF website and you will see that a significant slice of the budget is for habitat enhancement.

SA, yes, I am aware of some of the habitat enhancement projects, like removing old fencing, that some groups do. When I see them, I put them in the newsletter to help reinforce the issues that are on the ground and inspire what can be done to remedy them. But I havent seen any come up on my news feeds for forage planting on public lands, especially public lands with access, mostly fencing articles. Not to say it is not occurring, but what I am mostly concerned with is the forage aspect.

Baiting is a complicated subject. Some view baiting as putting out bales or mineral licks, and such, but baiting can be planting specific live crops. That is not to say that all crops planted are baiting, I know the difference, just because wildlife are attracted to a crop is not because they were intentionally baited with it.

What I have running around in my of late, especially on our WMA's that were purchased for wildlife and to help alleviate some of the social conflict, are forage improvements, maybe even research experiments with the plantings.

Last night an article came up on my feed that I bookmarked for the newsletter, though not in Montana, it showcases a number of the issues taking place concerning hunting.
County cracks down on enclosed deer stands

It talked about the growing problem of enclosed hunting stands, some quite elaborate and egregious, more like private cabins. The other connected issues were the clearing of trees for line of sight shooting lanes, baiting and planting of food plots to lure the wildlife to their enclosed hunting stands.

I dont want to plant alfalfa, I am thinking about native grasses and forbs, shown to be beneficial and preferred, good for the ecosystem they are in, help the nutritional needs of the herds for pregnancy/calf recruitment and winter fat. That is part of what a current study in the Bitterroot was looking at, since the herds on the east side had better fat and calf recruitment. And I remember 3 presentations by the Custer Gallatin FS wildlife biologists on some habitat enhancements they are working on down here in Region 3, they brought up bitterbrush. Bitterbrush is favorite of antelope, moose, deer, elk article.

 

[BuzzH]

SS and SA, the 5 facts were just things that didn't happen and conjecture, not benefits. I doubt if the average Joe NRs who had the license fee put on them thought it was fair. I expect even less so if they knew the OSLs were put in place to give them a better chance at drawing a tag (I think in 1998). The pay to play crowd probably thought it was a good deal.

I think not getting something every year, like an elk, increases the concern for the resource. A Montana license, like an LE tag, used to be coveted, yet reasonably easy to get.

The only group of NR's that benefitted from an increased chance of drawing an elk or deer combo license prior to I-161 were those going with an outfitter.

The guys applying for the regular DIY NR combo's were looking at 30% draw odds for deer, and 60% or so odds on the elk/deer combo.

That's why I supported I-161, why should some schmuck that wants to pay a bit more, and sign on with an outfitter, be guaranteed a tag, while the DIY guys were sitting on the sidelines and drawing once every 2-3 years?

IMO, the big point that many are missing as to why the NR tags are not selling like they used to, has a lot to do with the lack of quality hunting on public land in Montana. Really, look at the hunting in Western Montana for elk right now, its a damn joke. How the MTFWP expects to sell their NR elk tags with bull to cow ratios in the single digits, 6 fuggin percent success through the Bonner Check Station on opening weekend, grossly inflated elk population "estimates", now 6 month shoulder seasons, trophy lions taking priority over elk and deer, etc. etc. etc. should not surprise anyone.

Build a better product and, as per always, good chit will sell itself.

Right now Montana is a "dumping ground" for guys that didn't draw in other states, not a hunting destination for hunters looking for a quality hunt.

The MTFWP made a choice to sell out MT's hunting heritage, and wildlife, to special interests, politicians, outfitters, and landowners, rather than taking measures to sell out the NR hunting licenses and do whats best for wildlife.

You reap what you sow...and its just ridiculous to blame I-161 for what the MTFWP has (or hasn't done) to benefit wildlife and hunting in Montana.

 

[antlerradar]

I am all for looking forward and agree that I 161 is here to stay. I would not agree with its repeal for several reasons.
First: I never was all that comfortable with the concept of the outfitter sponsor licenses. I am 100 % behind have landowner have complete control over who hunts there property as long as the hunters have the proper licenses. It should be left to the owners of the game animals as to who gets the license. That means the state of Montana. Licences need to be issued ether fist come first serve or in a fair lottery. I have a hard time with buying your way to the front of the line or paying for a better chance at a tag.
Second: Even if license prices were reduced to 2009 prices it is unlikely that nonresidents would flock back to Montana and the drawing odds would again approach 50%. Just like a restaurant that alienates customers by jacking prices or serving a bad meal, Montana has alienated many nonresident customers. A repeal of I 161 would almost certainly leave Block Management and FWP underfunded.
Again I am all for looking forward but we also need to look back ward to ensure past missteps are not retaken.
Right now when I look back I am dismayed by how much we have lost. I don't see a very bright future with more of the current season and macro management philosophy at FWP

 

[katqanna]

PERC's Terry Anderson had an oped that ran in the Helena Independent today - Shoulder seasons aren’t what they appear.

"By continuing to beat the 'free open to public hunting' drum, FWP and hunters fail to understand that wildlife conservation is no different from any other value chain. When demanders pay, suppliers have an incentive to produce what demanders want. Our goal as hunters should be to reward landowners who add to the value chain, not to punish them. Imagine what would happen if we followed a policy of demanding free meals at good restaurants. How many would keep their doors open?"

 

[RobG]

I agree with some of his points (i.e Flying D), but Terry is really lying here. The requirements for having a late hunt are pretty lax. The requirements are some closely held secret by FWP, but landowners certainly don't have to "allow unrestricted, free public hunting during the regular season" to qualify for a game damage hunt.