Or send in comments. It kind of bothers me that instead of commenting through the FWP website like usual, the comments for the amendments have to be e-mailed to the commission. I wonder if the public comments will even be released.
Google Bot Data Mined Super-Fund Site
- Thread starter BigHornRam
- Start date
cgasner1
Well-known member
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2016
- Messages
- 1,677
I’ve never hunted it but yes I would show up. There is a few of these guys that have forgot more about sheep than I’ll ever know. I’d really enjoy watching them have a conversation about it with fwp. The couple guys I do know that do this live for it and I’d be happy to show up be quiet and offer my support to them
Comments are generally supplied on the website, and if not, you definitely can call and have them emailed to you. Given the outcome of the WOTR lawsuit, I would imagine FWP is very sensitive to being perceived as unable to withstand sunlight. The new process FWP has been working under for the commission is very confusing and clunky. Lots of folks have expressed their displeasure at it. Hopefully that gets either corrected or FWP puts together something to help advocates help their membership & the public.
A personal email to the commission is not a bad idea. They get a ton of form emails and those generally get discarded and counted as "some group is mad at me" rather than substantive comments that help them make better decisions. Remember, you may think these people are corrupt, sycophantic tools of an oppressive regime, but if you call them that then you can expect your comment to not make a dent in their thoughts beyond the name calling.
I've found this commission generally responds well to polite discourse.
I generally just do whatever @Oak @MTGomer & @BigHornRam tell me to do when it comes to Wild Sheep Conservation. But please don't be silent. Even if you just stand up and say "I agree with XXX who just spoke," that helps show the commission that people were passionate enough to show up and be counted. That has an impact.
I think what is broken is the definition of a legal ram. A 3 or 4yr old should never meet the requirements to be considered a legal ram.
Alberta seems to have a general sheep season and they don’t shoot dinks. Every ram goes in a jig, not judged with bailing twine on a tailgate.
I’ve seen some great rams in UL units, the kind of sheep I wouldn’t hesitate to notch a tag on in most of the limited units. The potential for great sheep is there, but why on earth have we not revisited the requirements for a ram to be legal?!
Last edited:
I know that the public comments submitted to FWP are posted on the website. I already read through the public comments that were posted for the season setting. I just don't know if the public comments on the amendments will be posted since they have to be e-mailed to the commission.
I'm always polite when e-mailing the commission. The sad thing is, the only commissioner who ever replied to me was Pat Byorth. When you e-mail them fairly often and it's crickets from all of the current commission members, it sure makes you wonder if they are even reading them.
1.) The world is run by those who follow up. If you don't hear from them, track them down and gift them a fruitcake. Nobody wants that to happen twice, so they'll respond.
2.) Call the Division Administrator for the Wildlife Division and ask for the emailed comments. Often times they will add those comments online after the hearing as well, so keep checking.
3.) The Be Polite comment was for those who are reading. You are off the hook here.
Great question. It’s one my friends and I have brought up and there’s actually a great answer.
Harvest quotas are a percent (I don’t remember what the percent is off the top of my head) of the average number of legal rams observed in post season surveys.
An increase in the curl requirement would equal a decrease in the quota.
I personally don’t agree with shooting young rams and don’t believe that “any legal ram is a trophy” but the biologist tells me things are in balance from a population and age class standpoint under current curl requirements.
100% agree on the need for a jig. There should be zero discretion involved in determining legality by FWP. The ram should either be objectively legal and plugged or objectively sub legal, confiscated and fined.
D
Deleted member 48080
Guest
A couple questions-
Are the sublegal rams being plugged something that is verified or provable? Or were they discretion calls that are questionable?
Are the two potential new units public knowledge yet? Is there strategy to not releasing where those are until there's more clarity?
I'm glad to see so much effort being put in to protecting these hunts. With as much as Montana hunting has gone down the shitter lately, I'd hate for this opportunity to be compromised for you guys as well.
Are the sublegal rams being plugged something that is verified or provable? Or were they discretion calls that are questionable?
Are the two potential new units public knowledge yet? Is there strategy to not releasing where those are until there's more clarity?
I'm glad to see so much effort being put in to protecting these hunts. With as much as Montana hunting has gone down the shitter lately, I'd hate for this opportunity to be compromised for you guys as well.
mmw194287
Active member
My god.
BigHornRam
Well-known member
So if you put that 3 1/2 year old "ram" in the jig, how many "hunting" articles could Craig sell off this unlimited hunt?
You’re gonna get me all fired up again about illegal rams getting plugged…I was just getting over it
I’ve talked to the biologist, the rams in question were all “legal” according to the biologist, however he did not plug the said ram and wouldn’t tell me who did
The Ol’ Boddington lamb. He should be absolutely ashamed and embarrassed ever time he looks at that dink since he is a disciple of Jack O’Connor.
406dn
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 12, 2019
- Messages
- 2,036
As a fellow acolyte of Jack's...Jack would have walked thru hell, and back, before he shot a lamb like that.
Biologically speaking, I don't care what age of ram is harvested. Harvest from most sheep herds is managed to be so miniscule that it doesn't make a difference. But if MT has a regulation in place, they should enforce it. And in the case of Political Piss Fest units in MT, it is in the best interest of the future of the hunt to not allow younger rams to be harvested (so that the quotas are not filled quickly).
Obviously we all prefer that older rams are harvested. I don't think it matters biologically. In Colorado, many herd management plans are written to manage for an "average age of harvested ram." So if people are whacking 4 year old rams when there are plenty of 8 year old rams available, it can potentially influence future ram quotas. Otherwise, I wouldn't be too concerned about things like this CO ram being killed on a half-curl minimum regulation.
Obviously we all prefer that older rams are harvested. I don't think it matters biologically. In Colorado, many herd management plans are written to manage for an "average age of harvested ram." So if people are whacking 4 year old rams when there are plenty of 8 year old rams available, it can potentially influence future ram quotas. Otherwise, I wouldn't be too concerned about things like this CO ram being killed on a half-curl minimum regulation.
Last edited:
rtraverdavis
Well-known member
Biology aside, I just can't understand the mentality that would allow for someone to even want to kill a ram like that. No one goes on sheep hunts to feed their families...
Southern Elk
Well-known member
Might as well hunt a ewe tag, if you’re going to shoot one like those.
