Montana General Season Structure Proposal

[Straight Arrow]

Just to be clear, I was just pointing out areas of clarification that I think could be easily attacked. I am fully behind this proposal but understand that there is a lot to overcome before implementation of all or even parts of it. The public comment should be book worthy.

I get it. But such proposals require positive reinforcement for support. Negativity is just not helpful. Read your explanation above ... it expresses support but is more strongly flavored with negativity.

 

[geewhiz]

Keep in mind that this is a very biased place to get feedback. Beings as the same 6 guys continue to blab 100something pages worth of mule deer complaints.

Just for the record, consider me one of greenhorns "sniveling b1tch3s"

Rather than taking away opportunity from the guys that are willing to put in the effort, why not take away ease of access from the guys who aren’t and shut down some of those millions of miles of blm 2 track and make a guy hike. Also I wouldn’t oppose regional caps for deer and elk. Will guarantee less deer are killed across the boards therein solving your problem.

 

[SAJ-99]

@Gerald Martin sounds great. Any plan on what to do after public comments? ie. is there a plan to get this to someone at FWP for their opinion? Some of this stuff will require legislative action so that would need to be ready by the start of 2025, correct?

 

[Visiting Hunter]

Anybody with 1 firing brain cell understands “everyone” will not be satisfied.

There will be swarms of you fighting tooth and nail to prevent long overdue changes.

No hipshots. Just what my concerns would be. Just because I said I had a conversation with a warden on the other thread saying that by fwp standards yeah the "quality" met the standards I was seeing, I guess you can judge that statement... because what he asked all met up with what I was seeing... sorry I'm not as bold as you and tell him everything thats wrong with mulies. I was looking at a property line.. not challenging change for mule deer management... never said I didn't want improvement for mule deer. Also part of why I wanted to go see another state this year.. I guess I will see if the hunting really is that much better somewhere else vs home. Clearly numbers are down and pressure is way up from when I grew up in Lewistown, and all the way north, and east from there. It's much harder to find a quality buck. I'm in agreement things need changed. I would love to see farmers fields full of mulies again, absolutely... remember 2 deer I was excited about... it is what it is.. you like to pick at my comments... but there has to be a objective or we are still shooting in the dark in my opinion. Incase I wasn't clear I support the change I'd just like to see it go more in depth with less antidotes and more science.

 

[Flatbrimmer]

You tell me what days I can hunt and I’ll be out there. I don’t get to write the book, I just turn the pages.

The proposal said allow elk to be found more efficiently and essentially quicker to eliminate hunter days afield…. Passin out any honey holes? I’d really like to get a bull elk before I die… sad but true. Thus, you have my support.

 

[BuckRut]

I get it. But such proposals require positive reinforcement for support. Negativity is just not helpful. Read your explanation above ... it expresses support but is more strongly flavored with negativity.

If you only wanted positive comments why even take comments. The roadblocks in this are going to be the things people find wrong with it not the things they find right. I haven't had enough time with this proposal to make any constructive comments right now but I as well see some hard questions to come from the public.

 

[rmyoung1]

Love it. And I appreciate the effort of those of you spearheading the effort. Thoughtful. Measured. Seems like a great first step forward. I certainly hope it gains transaction. Well done!

 

[Visiting Hunter]

One guy not tagged who was also super helpful is Rob Arnaud. Rob isn't on HT but has done a ton of heavy lifting here as well.

Nice work, gents.




The proposal isn't a 1-stop management shop for all that ails wildlife. It's a rifle shot to help restore some better hunting on public land, place more pressure on private and help struggling mule deer herds with this one management tool.

Overall herd numbers, buck/doe, doe/fawn are all part of the biological matrix that goes into a ton of things besides just when we can poke holes in furry critters. Likewise, this doesn't touch on the research angle as the group felt as though they were only going to be able to pull together a proposal around hunting seasons with the time and resources available.

You are absolutely correct that there is not one thing that will fix what ails wildlife management, but if you do not start in a place where change can be affected, then the rest doesn't get done either.

I'm not in disagreement.. it just needs more is all I'm saying.

 

[MTLabrador]

I like this a lot. I really hope FWP takes a serious look at it. Our current seasons aren’t sustainable and they haven’t been for a long time.

 

[Ben Lamb]

I'm not in disagreement.. it just needs more is all I'm saying.

I'm sure they look forward to your proposal to add this in.

 

[DP_PublicLands]

Well thought out. There's some very simple truths that need to be recognized here: We need to stop widespread hunting of mule deer in November. Simple logic says that's not sustainable.

And for what its worth, I would be willing as a resident to pay 5x for a hunting license/tag if that means we can reduce hunting pressure in the field. I take that back - 10x. But that's just me.

 

[Gerald Martin]

@Gerald Martin sounds great. Any plan on what to do after public comments? ie. is there a plan to get this to someone at FWP for their opinion? Some of this stuff will require legislative action so that would need to be ready by the start of 2025, correct?

FWP and quite a few conservation organizations and sportsmen’s groups got advance access to these proposals last week. The public draft we released today has already incorporated some changes to our original concepts based on feedback and suggestions stemming from that initial release. To date, I’m not currently aware of any formal feedback from FWP or the organizations we released drafts to but we are expecting some feedback as the general conversation expands.

Those parts of our proposal that require legislative action have already had some legwork begun to bring that into reality.

 

[Straight Arrow]

If you only wanted positive comments why even take comments. The roadblocks in this are going to be the things people find wrong with it not the things they find right. I haven't had enough time with this proposal to make any constructive comments right now but I as well see some hard questions to come from the public.

"Last week we released drafts of this proposal to various conservation organizations and to FWP for their consideration to begin gathering support for the proposed changes or for input on how to improve our proposals." Gerald Martin

There is a huge difference between positive support for the changes and input for improvements than the negativity of "things people find wrong with it."
Criticism is easy. Positive support for changes not so much for many. Suggesting improvements isn't finding faults with it, but moreover building on your agreement of the proposal.

 

[sclancy27]

I get it. But such proposals require positive reinforcement for support. Negativity is just not helpful. Read your explanation above ... it expresses support but is more strongly flavored with negativity.

I was just seeing places people (FWP, the public, whoever) can nitpick. I don't think that is being negative but realistic.

They also explained their (obviously well thought out) positions on my questions. Which was the point of my asking.

 

[Gerald Martin]

If you only wanted positive comments why even take comments. The roadblocks in this are going to be the things people find wrong with it not the things they find right. I haven't had enough time with this proposal to make any constructive comments right now but I as well see some hard questions to come from the public.

Both positive and negative feedback as well as constructive ideas of how to improve our proposal are welcome. Most of the ideas we distilled into our proposal originated from discussions online and in person. All feedback is helpful in helping everyone involved determine how to navigate what is best for the resource and what will be acceptable to Montana hunters if FWP is willing to implement our proposal.

 

[Wildabeest]

@Gerald Martin, happy to see you had numerous constituencies involved who are often at odds with each other. Given there was outfitter and landowner involvement, will the likes of MOGA and UPOM be officially supporting these recommendations?

Great work! I like that you’re focusing on fixing some things where we can get some agreement vs. the things that are massively controversial and would only continue the current stalemates. One step at a time…

 

[BuckRut]

Both positive and negative feedback as well as constructive ideas of how to improve our proposal are welcome. Most of the ideas we distilled into our proposal originated from discussions online and in person. All feedback is helpful in helping everyone involved determine how to navigate what is best for the resource and what will be acceptable to Montana hunters if FWP is willing to implement our proposal.

I figured that was the general consensus and I agree with the other posts that the effort is commendable. My biggest critique would be that most of this will prove futile if the FWP does not establish a better way to set and maintain objectives. The whole process of basing objectives on a percentage of the LTA that is determined by buck harvest at check stations that are manned less and less anymore and random phone calls to people at dinner time has to be addressed. There is no way the FWP is able to get anything better than a wild ass guess at populations that way.

 

[Gerald Martin]

It’s interesting to me that in this process of bouncing our ideas of our peers outside of the group, I haven’t encountered anyone who thinks the ideas won’t work to improve resource management. The only opposition that is regularly brought up is doubt that we’ll be able to get hunters to accept them.

To me, that indicates that much of what’s wrong with wildlife management in MT today is social in nature rather than a lack of knowledge or tools to improve management.

As a hunting community we can and we must do better at building a culture that values the resource higher than our opportunity to exploit it .

 

[rogerthat]

Excellent work! Great proposal!

 

[cgasner1]

Keep in mind that this is a very biased place to get feedback. Beings as the same 6 guys continue to blab 100something pages worth of mule deer complaints.

Just for the record, consider me one of greenhorns "sniveling b1tch3s"

You are right most of us in the group in one way or another all agreed we needed some kind of change. I can guarantee you this isn’t the cgasner1 purposal. We all came together for a compromise on one thing or another. Prior to the group meeting we did ask for people opinions and I even offered to buy some beers if people wanted to talk about it. Trying to make any changes without having a huge cause and effect is pretty difficult and even harder when the guy sitting next to you is against it to help protect his region.