How about earn a bull. Five dead public hunter cows gets you a bull.
Wilks elk license
- Thread starter Dakotakid
- Start date
Irishman
Well-known member
I hope that anyone who is complaining about this didn't vote for Gianforte. I met his appointee Tabor earlier this month, and after one minute realized the average hunter was in big trouble. You know that they will be bragging about all this private land they have "opened up" for the public, what a joke.
marshman
Well-known member
You are 100 percent correct on this point, Montana people elected this joker.
Straight Arrow
Well-known member
As a mostly independent voter, I did expect Gianforte to win, but by a much smaller margin than resulted. Even with Montana being a strong Republican state, it was a surprise to see such strong support for Matt Rosendale and Troy Downing. It's a real stretch to characterize either of those two as a "Montanan" in the formerly accepted sense. Times have changed.
For those who continue to bemoan the increase in more liberal attitudes of western Montana, stop and think about the wacko Republican ideology that is pervading every aspect of this state and morphing it into merely a memory of "the Last Best Place", especially with respect to hunting, wildlife, and wild places.
'Sorry for the political bent vent ... but it is the reality which has produced the Wilks' trophy elk licenses ... and likely will exacerbate the situation for a long time.
Here's an article that kind of shows the other side of the argument.
Guest column: Transferable landowner hunting tags have potential
When a bill to provide landowners with transferable elk hunting tags came before the Montana Legislature earlier this year, some hunting groups were quick to condemn it. Many sportsmen sawwww.bozemandailychronicle.com
"Transferable tags allow landowners to capitalize on what they already own and have a right to protect: access to their land.".
But they don't own the wildlife.............
The article says the bill that included transferable tags was shelved for now, anyone in the know as far as future chances of this happening?
Last edited:
The director if Fish, Wildlife and Parks has said that HB 505 will be coming back. Given the push from PERC & now UPOM publicly for transferable tags, we will likely see a return of the landowner set asides as the "compromise" between fully transferable and status quo.
So plan on at least 2-3 attempts for this in the next legislature, as well as the return of outfitter set-asides too.
brocksw
Well-known member
Good to see more people moving towards the #EndtheFWPCommission train.
Straight Arrow
Well-known member
So, you would prefer the authority and power be solely in the hands of the Governor and his appointed director?!
brocksw
Well-known member
Solely in the hands of the FWP agency as a whole. You know, the whole agency full of people with wildlife and biology degrees.
Could you imagine a Governor like GG appointing a bunch of profit driven ranching for wildlife/privatize wildlife advocates to the commission that can carry out that same agenda even after he's no longer Governor?
Straight Arrow
Well-known member
I would agree with you if they were calling the shots ... making the ultimate decisions.
He's already done that. Tabor, Robinson, et al are those folks. But that's part of winning an election, or losing one. THrowing a 100 year plus system out that works because we dislike the current occupant of the 2nd floor of the capitol is a bad idea, regardless of which party is in charge.
Reinforcing the public's right to guide and steer decisions however, is a much better approach, and one that the power brokers & elitists will absolutely hate. Eliminate the legislature's role in budgeting, reform title 87 to remove the political micro-management and get back to making comments matter in decision making will do far more to right the ship than abolishing a necessary commission.
brocksw
Well-known member
Let's take a set of highly contentious issues that determine the fate of a publicly owned resource, and instead of letting the trained professionals be the drivers of decision making, let's get some politically appointed people who have truckloads of bias and political motivations and no professional training, and then let them make all the decisions.
Sounds legit...
Sounds legit...
brocksw
Well-known member
Can't work that well considering where MT is at today.
One bad Governor isn't the end of the world. Throwing out long established governance because of short-term pain isn't a smart move.
Where is the big pool of nonhunters in all of this? Is it even on their radar? As newsworthy as this is to us, does the nonhunting public even realize what is going on? I would think it might be one strategy to combat this type of behavior to educate the public. Even though they are nonhunters, they may have been or are closely tied to hunters and could possibly exert some pressure here and there. Especially if they are part of the press. Just a random thought!
Straight Arrow
Well-known member
It's a good thought. Especially if some emphasis is placed on Montana's wonderful wildlife resource and the North American Model, then non-hunters will pay attention.
Carnage2011
Well-known member
It is right now…hence the Commission that he chose.
Straight Arrow
Well-known member
So true! However past commissions have been much more well balanced and independent to form good policy.
Similar threads
