SB 380 Reconsideration of Bill!

[Ben Lamb]

Ben, I think that there are issues we can work on. In order for that to happen there must be an open dialect started. Some on my side have very strong feelings toward the "opposition". Some of the oppostion are labled as "haters"....and I have seen a lot of evidence of this.

I agree on the tag issue, we did not need more tags...there are over 6100 tags left sitting in Helena right now. 6184 is a lot of $$....let's look at why the tags have not sold....any ideas?

In my opinion the reason that the license are going unsold is because of price in relation to quality. The Joe Average non-resident is not getting their dollars worth...if they were the license would sell out.

Less tags sold is not exclusive to MT. We offer the second highest number of tas in the west so the volume of tags needs to be taken into consideration (supply has outstripped demand). I'm sure price has something to do with it and have long questioned why we ned to have the B-10 combo rather than sell individual deer & Elk tags only. Furthermore, you have notwits like Toby Bridges out there telling everyone that there are no elk in MT and that they should stay away. From a business perspective, I'd hate to have someone running around telling people my state is a waste. To a lesser extent, I see outfitters doing the same thing. If you want to sell tags or increase your customer base, positive marketing is important. Right?

Pat Connell has a study bill that will look at the current license structure in an attempt to streamline it and try to help make the department solvent. There's a lot of opportunity there to mend fences if certain groups don't come in looking for privatization of wildlife through landowner tags, auction tags, etc. same thing goes for our side. We can't walk in thinking we will eliminate all free or reduced cost licenses and force access. The Gov has already told FWP they're going to do the same thing but in greater detail than what the EQC can handle. Again, here's another way to sit down together and focus on the common issues we can agree on.

FTR, I get along pretty well with Jean, Mac and Brett and have even been known to have a pleasant conversation with Rob Arnaud and Mike Kopel. I don't think I've ever been dishonst or not open in our dialog.

Distrust is a strange critter, it breeds on its own. It seems to die when you find that one common thread.

Shoots is right though, it doesn't matter if MOGA is not a Defenders org, or whatever, their livelihood it tied to the critters. That's why it's so infuriating when it come to the Legislature and all of these attacks on abundant wildlife populations or the North American Model. Often times, MOGA is siding up with the Farm Bureau or SFW. That ain't helpful, nor is it a long term business model that is sustainable.


Tbass- I gave up about $30k in time and effort over the last 4 months working on issues I care about. Lots of guys on here did the same thing.

 

[shoots-straight]

What's funny to me, is there's over 6,000 less tags sold, but the outfitters are rolling with clients. So everyone that's buying a license is using the services of an outfitter?

Maybe we need to cut those tags back for the resource. I think a citizens initiative to limit non residents to 10% of tags sold to residents the year before might be in order.

 

[Rat Fink]

Maybe we need to cut those tags back for the resource. I think a citizens initiative to limit non residents to 10% of tags sold to residents the year before might be in order.

Where do I sign the petition?

 

[Eric Albus]

.. what do we(the outfitters) give up?... other than time, money, and labor...nothing. Every outfitter I consort w/ holds the resource first.(not saying all do, just the ones I consort w/)....I do not want to put a $$ amount on what I donate in a years time to various organizations, or what I give up in the form of crops annually for the wildlife....just suffice it to say I am very fortunate to be able to do what I do.

shoots, the conflict is not cow hunters interfering....the problem is landowners not wanting the bulls all killed...so let the either sex hunt take place the first 2 weeks....then cow only...I bet you would see some gates open up and over-objective elk herds could be brought back to objective.

 

[shoots-straight]

shoots, the conflict is not cow hunters interfering....the problem is landowners not wanting the bulls all killed...so let the either sex hunt take place the first 2 weeks....then cow only...I bet you would see some gates open up and over-objective elk herds could be brought back to objective.

I'm having trouble following your train of thought.

The bull tags are on a limited basis. There's only going to be so many killed period. If that's too much then issue less tags.

If landowners don' t want bulls shot, then why not just open their lands to cow hunters?

Forgive me if I'm suspicious of your motives. It looks to me as though you would allow the taking of cows, but don't want any bulls that end up leaving your place to get shot by a tag holder. Even though it's a limited entry tag?

The Breaks areas give out such low numbers of bull tags, I don't see how all the bulls would end up dead.

Maybe your talking about areas that are more liberal in their season structure.

When we went to either sex season structures, every bull in every herd died here. That was what set us back so much. Before that we had 18/100 bulls post season. That was really good for General season structures. I agree that just targeting cows will do more for population control, and keep bulls alive, but that's when you have general seasons, or unlimited bull tags.

 

[TBass]

Historically and continuously ... money, time, work, habitat enhancement, tourism support to draw more NR hunters, among many things. Support for farmers, ranchers, landowners continously. Support for reputable, service oriented outfitters and guides. Now a willingness by many to pay increased license fees. Support for FWP and programs.

Those are just a few historically, continuously, consistently freely offered up by Montana sportsmen and women and the organizations to which they belong. Just what did you have in mind? Or were you feebly attempting to justify the vendetta in some sarcastic way?

Let me clarify. I'm not asking what people currently do in the name of conservation. There's much contention regarding access to public wildlife and I ofttimes see the words collaboration and incentivize used in conversations regarding increasing access to said wildlife. While it sounds good to use those words, I was just curious if folks had given any thought to what they'd be willing to give up while collaborating. Maybe I misunderstand the meaning/use of collaboration but to me it's people on both sides of an issue giving up something as a means to an end. Yes, many from both factions can tout what all they do to support conservation but if there's no access to the resources you've help sown, are you OK with that? Is that what you all mean by collaborating- increasing populations whether or not you have access to them? Given the support for the NAM on here, I doubt that's the case.

 

[Rat Fink]

Let me clarify. I'm not asking what people currently do in the name of conservation. There's much contention regarding access to public wildlife and I ofttimes see the words collaboration and incentivize used in conversations regarding increasing access to said wildlife. While it sounds good to use those words, I was just curious if folks had given any thought to what they'd be willing to give up while collaborating. Maybe I misunderstand the meaning/use of collaboration but to me it's people on both sides of an issue giving up something as a means to an end. Yes, many from both factions can tout what all they do to support conservation but if there's no access to the resources you've help sown, are you OK with that? Is that what you all mean by collaborating- increasing populations whether or not you have access to them? Given the support for the NAM on here, I doubt that's the case.

It's my opinion that outfitters will not give anything up. If resident sportsmen don't like something that outfitters are doing or something that has been granted to them it will have to be taken from the outfitters via new laws, new hunting season and tag structuring, or by citizen initiatives.

 

[shoots-straight]

Let me clarify. I'm not asking what people currently do in the name of conservation. There's much contention regarding access to public wildlife and I ofttimes see the words collaboration and incentivize used in conversations regarding increasing access to said wildlife. While it sounds good to use those words, I was just curious if folks had given any thought to what they'd be willing to give up while collaborating. Maybe I misunderstand the meaning/use of collaboration but to me it's people on both sides of an issue giving up something as a means to an end. Yes, many from both factions can tout what all they do to support conservation but if there's no access to the resources you've help sown, are you OK with that? Is that what you all mean by collaborating- increasing populations whether or not you have access to them? Given the support for the NAM on here, I doubt that's the case.

Here's the deal TBass, the wildlife are held in trust by the state governments for the people of each state. Outfitters run businesses off that resource, and like all businesses they want to grow. Thats the problem. The resource is finite, and held that way by state statute. So in order to grow they need more of the resource. If they can keep residents off certain lands, that gives them a area to grow, If they can reduce tags given to residents, then again there's room to grow.

Do you have to give something up that's yours in the first place, just to keep a part of it?

We have given the industry the opportunity to exist, and utilize a public resource in doing so. Maybe we need to rain that in a little bit then negotiate a solution.

The resource (game animals) are owned by us equally, each person in Montana owns 1/millionth of the animals out there.

There are over 200,000 resident sportsman, and less than 600 outfitters. Do you think we are equal footing as a group? Should each side give something up to solve issues? I'm not sure how to answer that. Majority rule, with minority rights is all I can come up with. 20% of the share holders compete with around 6 tenths of a % for the outfitters.

MOGA has 200 members, and are very active in Helena. Sportsman have played catch up, and now are competing for the votes. They are tapping into every member, we are only just now beginning to realize our potential.

I think Montana resident sportsman have been very giving when it comes to sharing our resource with non resident sportsman. When that good will comes back to bite you in the arse your giving feeling starts disappearing.

So what do we want to give up again?

 

[Straight Arrow]

Problems exist related to many issues such as hunting access, predator management, crop predation, property damage (fences damage, hay damage), trespassing, poaching, illegal or unethical offroad travel, wildlife distribution (too few in some areas, too many in others), hunter overcrowding and related disputes, illegal or unethical hunter or outfitter behavior, and many others.

In my mind collaboration is the process in which all stakeholders come to the table to develop viable solutions to the problems, solutions which are truly in the best interests of the wildlife, wildlife habitat, and the Montana hunting legacy. Stakeholders who hold their own interests above the goal of developing solutions will cause the collaboration to fail. As far as giving up something, it depends on the problem. It might be providing money, manual labor, morale support, supporting good new law or policy, self-policing of each stakeholder's own group, or a myriad of other selfless gestures and acts that will contribute to the health of the collaborative process. So what to give up is a wide-open question with many possible answers. I submit that sportsmen, wildlife advocates, and other Montanans have always stepped up with selfless contributions to offer for the greater good of hunting, wildlife and wildlife habitat.

The "blood bath" legislative segment proposed bills that absolutely nobody considered viable solutions to any of the recognized problems of any of the stakeholders. That is why almost all of those proposals failed, in my opinion.

 

[howler]

howler, the numbers of elk are increasing, especially in 410-417, and 530...and I would guess in 620-623, and 630 also. The objective numbers were set a long time ago, and are not "low". When numbers were around that 2300 on the north side of the lake we had great quality bulls in the breaks. I would like to see that again. Cut the tags for either-sex in half both archery and rifle....and run rifle elk either sex for the first 2 weeks of the general season....then the last 3 weeks cow only.

Eric your dead wrong, the numbers are down and down a bunch, I did spend sometime in 417 this past fall and did not see an elk every hunter I talked to did not see any either, I did talk to a game warden and he told me all the elk were on 2 private ranches and probably would stay there. I don't know anything about 530, except I think that its nearly all private and not much public hunting going on. At one time the elk numbers on the north side were a tad over 4500, the elk from 410-417 fluctuate a bit with elk moving from south side to the north side of the river but over all numbers are down

 

[howler]

I also believe it is a waste of time trying to cooperate with MOGO at all. I do believe there might be some room for cooperation with the wilderness outfitter. the private land leasing outfitter is always going to be a problem

 

[Eric Albus]

shoots, I do not have one acre of land in the breaks. There are landowners in 622 who don't want the bulls run off and slaughtered....so, why not work w/ the landowners a little bit....either sex 2 weeks, then cow only last 3 weeks of general season....

howler...according to FWP numbers in 417 are up 78%...unless I have been given faulty data...and in 410 up 60%...in530 up70%....but you are correct, in 412 down 7%

 

[Eric Albus]

shoots...there are to many either sex tags in the breaks....quality has been degraded substantially. No room for discussion or arguement here... a herd bull is now a 290-300, where 10-15 years ago it was a 350+....to many bulls are being slaughtered....and to few cows....so why not work w/ landowners and figure out how to get access? Personally I would rather be able to access a cow elk than no elk at all.

 

[BuzzH]

I would rather be able to access a cow elk than no elk at all.

Eric,

So, what you're saying is that DIY hunters that dont pay to shoot a bull the first 2 weeks of the either sex season, should be responsible for herd management for landowners and outfitters the last 3 weeks?

Sounds like a deal for suckers to me...and I'm not buying into that BS idea.

If landowners in the breaks dont want elk on their land, open it up to both bull and cow hunters.

But, thats not getting your cake and eating it too.

I had a pretty interesting conversation with a landowner at Fourchette bay when I had my tag. The landowner was bitching about too many elk on their property. My hunt was winding down, so I said I'd be more than happy to shoot a cow on my either sex tag to help out with the "too many elk and several thousand in fence repairs".

I was told ,not only NO, but "hell NO! We cant let anyone on, we have a 3 clients coming in that want to hunt bulls until the end of the season."

Pissed me off, and prior to that conversation I was going to kill a cow even on the public rather than shoot a smaller bull. After that, I said piss on those landowners, and shot a 5 point rather than a cow...hoping that the off-spring of the cow I didnt kill would bust down some more fences.

THATS the problem, the landowners and outfitters idea of "compromise" is hording the bulls for paying clients, and then "letting" the public keep the herds under control via killing cows (in a seperate cow only season so the bulls wont be accessible to non-paying R and NR hunters of course).

The landowners and outfitters want the best of both worlds...and I'm over it. If there really is too many elk in the breaks (which is complete bullchit, show me a single browse line), then let people on to hunt elk...both bulls and cows.

If not, then deal with the elk numbers and quit the bitching and complaining...I dont want to hear it.

 

[CabinFever]

^ winning

that is a deal for suckers, and Buzz's story would rub me raw

 

[Eric Albus]

If that story is true it is to bad. What was the landowners name? I am curious to know.

Do you want to know why you do not see a browse line from the elk? It is because they are grazers, deer browse, elk graze........wow

If the 2 week bull season is not acceptable, then how about no bulls for 2 years and cows only? We are talking about caring for the resource and getting numbers to objectives.

 

[Ben Lamb]

If the 2 week bull season is not acceptable, then how about no bulls for 2 years and cows only? We are talking about caring for the resource and getting numbers to objectives.

Last time this was brought up, I think 16 FWP employees were tarred and feathered. It was a great way to bring landowners, outfitters and sportsmen together.

 

[Straight Arrow]

If the 2 week bull season is not acceptable, then how about no bulls for 2 years and cows only? We are talking about caring for the resource and getting numbers to objectives.

IF the EMP objectives are revised and the habitat cannot support the numbers, then that would be a good solution for actual management, IMO.

However, MOGA's bill sponsored by Sen Brenden would likely read NO bulls for residents and an either sex and a cow tag for NRs until cow numbers are below socially acceptable numbers.

 

[BuzzH]

Eric,
That story is true, but dont remember the landowners name. They have the contract through the CMR to haul trash, clean the chitters, etc. at the Fourchette camp ground. Wouldnt be hard to track them down.

Elk dont browse? Laffin'...

But, if you must "correct" the browse line comment...show me over-utilization of any vegetation in the breaks by anything other than livestock.

I also dont think the bull to cow ratio is that bad in the breaks...in 10 days I saw 87 bulls on public land, 26 of them had at least 6 points on one antler. The best couple bulls I saw (not counted in the 87) were on private, probably 330-340. Best I saw on the public was about 310, saw that bull in the first 20 minutes of hunting and passed an easy shot after hiking about 100 yards from where I parked my truck.

I didnt spend near enough time on that hunt and didnt put enough effort in to do it justice. Elk werent over-objective, but there where plenty around.

My brother has a bull tag there this year, I'll see if its changed in the last couple years

 

[JLS]

shoots...there are to many either sex tags in the breaks....quality has been degraded substantially. No room for discussion or arguement here... a herd bull is now a 290-300, where 10-15 years ago it was a 350+...

And does having 350 bulls vs. 290 bulls mean the herd is any healthier? Or is it just that people want the opportunity to hunt the breaks and are willing to sacrifice some size in bulls for the opportunity.

But then again, I'm not paying for antler size.