Proposal in Montana hound bear hunting

[Pagosa]

Are there any hunting/houndsmen groups in Montana in support of a spring pursuit with hounds hunting season? I realize houndsmen were sold down the river, but is there any interest in a limited 2-week season possibly after the main spring in late May? How many hunters feel it would be a step in the right direction? We should forget it, it will never happen? Or you don't support it, a spring pursuit with hound season would interfer with other recreational activities?

My opinion is that pursuit with hounds should have equal interest and opportunity as rifle/archery season, which last for the better part of 3 months. I can't see where a 2-week season or a split one week early and second week later would negatively impact other harvest methods or the bear population. Thanks for your thoughts. Preston Nelson

[tman308]

You can read up on it here on the forum, but about 2-3 years ago we made it as far as the floor of the the commission to consider allowing the hunting of bears with hounds. It was turned down. A bunch of us on here wrote to those that made the decision prior to the meeting to no avail. You can attempt again to get it to pass but you will need the support and voice of the large ranches in the State. Montana is still very influenced by the ranchers. That may be the next avenue to attempt to allow the hunting or pursuing of bears in MT. Good luck.

[Pagosa]

Understand, maybe it could brought up again. I don't have the money nor power to get the proposal started just wondered if there were groups still onboard to hunting bear with hounds. Thanks for the input.

[406hound]

I am all in on making a well planned, well backed attempt at getting a bear chase season through in the upcoming legislative session. I think with the current membership and board of directors that Montana State Houndsman Association has, we should have an even better voice on the matter than in our precious attempt. We will have most of the same challenges, but should be better prepared. That being said, MSHA still needs to continue to bolster its membership. I encourage all houndsman interested in our sport and its future in MT to join and contact the board members and let them know that you want the opportunity to chase bears in the state. We need as many houndsman as possible to join and be involved in MSHA as possible. Come to the field trials, help us keep funded, keep involved, and stick together or we will just loose ground, not gain new rights. Joining up is inexpensive and easy. Look it up on the internet.

[rfeen]

We will try again, and hopefully we will succeed in the matter. One of there biggest cons on the situation was that the grizzly bears were still on the endangered list, but with them hopefully that will change and we can be proactive again and try to get this passed. And yes 406 hound is right all of us need to come together and unite on all hound hunting related situations. My name is Ross Feenstra I am the president of the MSHA and all of us will work together in trying and getting this someday. Please call me anytime with any questions or write me an e mail. 406 579 3347

[dhostetler]

Following are links to our discussions on our previous attempt.

bear-hunting-in-mt-t31584.html

montana-bear-with-hounds-sb-397-t34967.html

We have to go through the legislature to get a hound season with bears in Montana. The Montana legislature is in session only 4 months every other year. The next legislative session starts on 1/1/2015.

[Pagosa]

Thanks Ross and 406 - The grizzly bear is getting closer to delisting. The recovery group has recently provided information that grizzly populations are stable and the concern about the decrease whitebark pine trees will not effect the recovery effort. Anyhow, I will put my money and/or time into MSHA. As far as the 2015 legislature session that should benefit the hunting/houndsmen groups to have time for funding and lobbying.

[larry]

why on earth would you give any money or time, let alone a bucket of piss to the MSHA!?!? I was there when they testified so strongly against our last shot at running bears, it was Roalnd Deane that time. Save your money and time for something that will matter. Half the guys in that assoc. are part of the problem and plenty unethical. Funny how i see names associated with the MSHA galavanting around with 70lb females strapped to their dog box, routinely!

[dhostetler]

Larry I object to your opinion about MSHA. You and bunch of us others were at that meeting several years ago when we tried to get MSHA to support bear hunting and we were told that the issue has to be voted on by the board members. Roland Deane was never at that meeting. He isn't very enthusiastic about getting it legal but he doesn't oppose it either. Roland testified against SB 397 which would have allowed hounds on bears but the same bill would've eliminated all quotas and permits on lions, essentially destroying our lion populations so that is why MSHA opposed SB 397.

One of the MSHA board members testified against the bill we brought in committee but has since resigned. I myself am now a board member and we have only one no vote on the board over the bear issue.

I urge you to come to the meeting in June and raise hell and call out the unethicals and problem people. Hound Associations are what there members want them to be, so bring your friends and join up and help change to what you want it to be.

[larry]

397 eliminating all quotas and permits isnt exactly accurate, and 397 was the only bill that had some serious momentum, flying through the senate heading in to the house vote. It sure made the hound community look like they have no desire for a bear season when they all were standing up against a bill that would have created that opportunity. Surprisingly really since MSHA wants to safe guard the lions by rejecting 397 but some of their featured members have no problem killing small females and knowingly running the female quota over in their home hunting districts. Im not part of MSHA so I have no preference on what that assoc may or may not be. There is no changing anything there, my opinion is obviously the minority and I'm not up for a losing battle, hell we circled the wagons pretty well on our bill and thought we had MSHA support, even though it really didnt amount to anything anyway, only to have opposition from within the MSHA at the house hearing, regardless of what a crazy nut job that guys was and still is, it just goes to show that trying to appeal to anyone on the fence (Roland Deane) isn't very appealing to me. Forget MSHA and stick with like minded people driving forward for the same goal. i dont see any reason to join and make stronger any assoc that isnt like minded with my beliefs, on the contrary instead of joining it I'd rather see its membership and influence decline or have the minority opinion ousted if the majority is pro bear.

[406hound]

For Larry or others who have been jaded by MSHA: we have a board that is essentially all pro-bear. We also have a board and president that that are fairly new on the scene and I assure you are there to do what the general consensus of the membership feels is right. Supporting 397 and its potential disregard for lion populations would have not made us look like ethical sportsman at all in the same manner that you view the killing of young lions. I am on the board and want nothing but the best future for our sport and as much opportunity as possible to run our dogs. I acknowledge the frustrations caused by past actions of MSHA but want it known that we have already made big changes and fully intend to voice an opinion that is directly in line with the informed opinion of our membership regardless of my own view. I will only acknowledge my fellow members on these matters so help out and join up. I assure you your opinion matters but only when given to your fellow members. PM me Larry. I would like to hear you out

[BIGBLUES]

I lost interest in MSHA a few years ago when I asked them to have a field trial over on the Western side of the state. They said they would look into it, I never heard back. I have sections of land with ponds available to use and they disregarded me and my offer. I don't see how they can call themselves "Montana" SHA when they aren't open to having field trials in other parts of the state. This would help them gain new membership and hear out other people from the state that otherwise wouldn't be heard. I am not trying to rag on MSHA but I am frustrated with their operations. Any group that supports hound hunting has my vote, but I would like to see them spread out to other communities for support and organizations.

[406hound]

Let's do it. I will start pushing now for a field trial in western part of the state. Me and two other board members have already been talking about getting one going over there. PM me and let's talk about that. I won't let these past problems with MSHA continue to discourage fellow houndsman from being involved. We have more hard hunting houndsman in region 1 and 2 than the rest of the state and I would like them to be part of it!

[larry]

who would the one that is not pro bear be?

[rfeen]

hey cody i don't who on are the board is not pro bear i think everyone is pro bear at this point and i hope we can all get along and try to come together and get something accomplished, We will work hard I promise. And what needs to happen is we as houndsmen need to try and get along because FWP sees us as a bunch of guys that can never agree or can never get along, so they see that and they don't give us the time a day.