Throw out your thoughts on HB361....

[Horn Seeker]

Here is one thing I see..... that is not going to change...

If there can be money made off it, there are going to be people fighting HARD to make it as easy as possible. Landowners are NOT going to stand by and let this income made from wildlife go by the wayside. Outfitters are NOT going to step back and say, "yeah, we need to back off a bit, just guide clients on average stuff or public stuff and allow some of the poor resident hunters a chance to hunt the good stuff"... Its not going to happen.

When Bull elk and giant bucks started becoming popular and The Bone Collector logo went on everything from bows, rifle, arrows, panties and profilactics...the beginning of the end started.... Its "cool' to kill a nice buck or bull and there are a LOT of people that want to be "cool"... and they will PAY FOR IT...

hmmm... what was the topic again?? I am going into my shop to work on bows... with a beer... as said on another forum Randy...

Have a great weekend!

 

[onpoint]

Using the EMP objective numbers is a bogus way of looking at it anyways. If the elk numbers were set by carrying capacity instead of what a rancher feels is tolerable then I would feel good about those objectives. Until those numbers reflect what the habitat can carry, I don't feel much pain for landowners. If landowners limit access, and then complain that elk numbers are too high, when in reality elk numbers are well below carrying capacity, then I say too bad and let the ranchers incur the losses. Once numbers are allowed to be where nature can sustain them, then I'd be willing to provide help when needed to mitigate losses. Right now it's a have your cake and eat it too situation.

Good lord, I can't believe anyone even knows what K (carrying capacity) is anymore. What the habitat can carry? Way to biology based. Obviously Rat Fink doesn't understand or accept how wildlife is managed these days. Lots of folks like to eat cake, not many want to learn what it takes to make a cake or how to bake one.

 

[TBass]

I'll just throw this out there. Be careful of supporting a bill - supported by those who got it going and for the reasons they did - to over rule the big game management process that exists. Look behind the sponsorship of the legislation.

Exactly. I got the below in an e-mail that I don't think was meant to get outside the "Inner Circle" of a certain organization. That certain organization should think twice before getting in bed with commercial interests. More than likely, what's reaped will have a different odor than what was thought to be sown. And as was said by a wise sage in another e-mail chain, bills with sunset provisions more often than not do not go away on the sunset date.

All,
> >>
> >> HB361 is Paul Ellis' bill to eleiminate the permits in the 22od and the
> >> breaks. He has changed the wording due to our suggestions and the flaws
> >> in
> >> it.

 

[TBass]

Here is one thing I see..... that is not going to change...

If there can be money made off it, there are going to be people fighting HARD to make it as easy as possible. Landowners are NOT going to stand by and let this income made from wildlife go by the wayside. Outfitters are NOT going to step back and say, "yeah, we need to back off a bit, just guide clients on average stuff or public stuff and allow some of the poor resident hunters a chance to hunt the good stuff"... Its not going to happen.

And that's why stalwart resistance to those who seek to commercialize/privatize the public trust has to happen from the get-go. Appeasement is a fallacy as it's a foot in the door and then it's always more, more, more or easier, easier, easier. That is why they hate a democratic process of license distribution- they lose the ability to advertise "Guaranteed License" or "Special Drawing Pool." Licenses should be distributed in a way that does not allow someone to buy their way around an equitable process. If someone builds a business model based on something they do not wholly own, they should not be surprised when their business model is changed for them.

 

[Drake4]

As imperfect as this system is, I think an elected Commission is a disaster looking for a place to occur. Think of wingnuts from either side, or someone with a heavy slant toward one interest groups, versus the other. Fly fisherman versus warm water guys, archers versus rifle hunters, muzzleloader shooters versus archers, outfitters versus self-guided hunters, you name it.
[/U][/B]

That makes sense when you think about it. The residents of Montana elected these a$$clowns that are in Helena today..I doubt we would do any better if we elected a commission.

 

[WT_in_MT]

No, Drake, the voters are only uninformed when it comes to voting on initiatives, not candidates.