Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="deleted user" data-source="post: 391519" data-attributes="member: 1778">Agree.I never specifically said you, but your cohorts bright it up multiple times in both written and spoken testimony.Of course nutrition is important. This looks like you are suggesting that we inoculate and feed wild animals. We all know habitat consists of food water and shelter. A deer’s diet is 50-60% browsing woody plants. Supplemental feed would not only be insanely expensive for the state but also wouldn’t have a huge effect per dollar in areas without water and shelter. If you truly believe nutrition is the answer with feeding you should actually be advocating for the game and fish to have a bigger budget, since not everyone can afford to leave crop in the field for deer. The problem with you and your father’s arguments is you keep referring to the deer on your land as the standard for the rest of the state. Yeah you can feed and keep a portion of a small herd alive, and good on you. I remember your dad thinking he had checkmated the game and fish because he pinpointed the day when the partridge paired up on your land where game and fish had a broader time range that applied to the whole state. This was the basis of his “they don’t listen to us” argument. This is not the case everywhere and stop expecting everyone to take your advice because it works on your acres. There’s a lot of pheasants in my back yard, why can’t I shoot five a day? Possibly because that isn’t the case elsewhere.I’d really like to hear a specific gripe you guys have with their policies, I am seriously open minded about it if I could just get something tangible. I have no affiliation and sincerely want to see us come together over common ground like we used to, but I have yet to hear an actual policy and solution. As far as the elected position, I see it both ways. On some fronts it makes sense. However, whoever spends the most money get their guy elected, whether it’s big oil, big ag, animal rights, etc and that could spell the end of hunting as we know it in the state. I imagine you’d sing a different tune if the winner wasn’t someone picked by the ag groups. Bigger money gets its way, look at how quickly Montana is changing. Out of staters with deep pockets are pricing out small ranches and locking hunters out because they have the political capital to do so. I don’t have my head in the sand to think that won’t happen here.</blockquote>

Verification: What is the most common fish caught on this site?

Reply to thread

Recent Posts

Friends of NDA