RobG
Well-known member
I'm not sure if FWP was the one who characterize them. I have a vague memory of selecting a "disagree" button.
MT Shoulder Season Public Comment
- Thread starter ----
- Start date
I'm not sure if FWP was the one who characterize them. I have a vague memory of selecting a "disagree" button.
Ah, I see. I evidently didn't comment on this one, and probably wouldn't have remembered anyways.
The Hedgehog
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2000
- Messages
- 11,706
Was this the comment input through the fwp web site that some psychologist put together to "guide" the user to "agree"? I thought it was clever- but it didn't work on me. If I remember right I answered yes yes ... yes yes - then "oppose" . Weird.
Helena IR story, no quotes although there were some good ones during the meeting:
http://helenair.com/news/natural-re...cle_0bac9dbf-5925-5612-82a5-85a441d1bc1f.html
http://helenair.com/news/natural-re...cle_0bac9dbf-5925-5612-82a5-85a441d1bc1f.html
RobG
Well-known member
This was after they announced what the season was going to be. Not much use in commenting although bitching provide relief for me
. The G-T raised a big enough stink that they dropped the season in their area. With the previous comment period on their proposed season they apparently designated them support/oppose. Mine were sent in by email. This issue is not hitting the papers and the hunting groups don't seem to be pushing an opinion on others so I I'm guessing landowners pushing this are the majority of the comments so it will be biased towards them. I'm not opposed to the concept of a shoulder season to augment the game damage hunts, but the way it is implemented takes away a lot from the average hunter and I'm guessing it won't make much of a difference in most areas.
Regarding Flynn's request for a break, I'll let the landowners drive that issue as I don't see why they would want that dictated by the communists I mean FWP and/or hunters. I'm thinking Flynn might need the break to truck all his outfitting money to the bank. Doesn't make a lot of sense otherwise.
Straight Arrow
Well-known member
When I asked about damage hunts in the three bundled Region 3 HD's at the Bozeman meeting, the response indicated that damage hunts may be discontinued altogether. It was not clear whether that just applied to that shoulder season area or statewide.
RobG
Well-known member
A while back Karen told me they'd be abandoned in 393 if a shoulder season was in place, but there would be no reason to abandon them in areas without a shoulder season.
Straight Arrow
Well-known member
http://www.greatfallstribune.com/st...rvesting-hundreds-elk-winter-season/79194424/
The article linked above describes the hunt around White Sulphur and the Governor's visit to the area. FWP game warden emphasizes the positive aspects, and promotes extending the hunts to all the proposed areas ... with the same expectations of only positive results.
The article seems to ignore any potential adverse results.
The article linked above describes the hunt around White Sulphur and the Governor's visit to the area. FWP game warden emphasizes the positive aspects, and promotes extending the hunts to all the proposed areas ... with the same expectations of only positive results.
The article seems to ignore any potential adverse results.
The Hedgehog
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2000
- Messages
- 11,706
I predict limited (about none) changes to the plan of mass annihilation of MT elk via Btags, shoulder and damage harvest in the winter. I have a bad feeling about any impact the formality of a public comment period makes unless your rallied with the outfitters who fear they won't be able to adequately cash in on wiping out as many elk as they can along the way. In other words - fat chance 313 will be a limited quota.
I don't disagree, but from what little I heard it sounds like there's hope on getting the August 15-rifle opener removed, at least on public lands.
I also would be shocked if 313 went limited entry.
Straight Arrow
Well-known member
Me too. I predict moving the HD boundary north of Deckard Flats and a mostly unenforced 6-pt only rule.
The Hedgehog
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2000
- Messages
- 11,706
In my comments I suggested splitting 313 into N and S subunits. With the south in very limited quota on the migration path, and the N, still open game to the Johnson posse.
I would imagine day of. The Commission will hopefully make the tweaks to the proposal during the presentation.
Keep sending comments in to the commission. Regardless of the deadline, you still can send notes, words of encouragement or gently worded castigation to the commission.
airlocksniffer
Member
Here is a list of all of the EQC committee members if anybody would like to email them directly:
http://leg.mt.gov/css/Committees/interim/2015-2016/EQC/Members/InterimMembership.asp?CommitteeID=992
http://leg.mt.gov/css/Committees/interim/2015-2016/EQC/Members/InterimMembership.asp?CommitteeID=992
katqanna
Well-known member
We got an EQC meeting set up this in Sept., where a number of sportsmen spoke up on these issues, then at the Nov. EQC, they simply told the FWP to go and do good works!
Straight Arrow
Well-known member
'Don't think the EQC will be involved at this point.
airlocksniffer
Member
Perhaps but I still emailed Rep Ellis and Rep Curdy. Can't hurt.
EDIT: Apparently I didn't read the Feb 11th date. Oh well. My point still stands.
EDIT: Apparently I didn't read the Feb 11th date. Oh well. My point still stands.
Last edited:
