IMHO, the communication method for public comments having the greatest effect is a well written letter mailed to the department with copies to the members of the fish and game commission. FYI, here's the link to the webpage which lists the current members of the MT FWP Commission: http://fwp.mt.gov/doingBusiness/insideFwp/commission/members.html

This link http://fwp.mt.gov/hunting/oppForPubCommentUGB.html takes the reader to the web page containing the proposed changes to the UGB hunting regulations.

The proposed regulation reads:
Quote:
Statewide

Non-toxic shot for all game bird hunting on all WMAs

That's all of the information FWP gave out to the public via their website. Go to the end of this posting to read some information I copied from an internal FWP document related directly to their lead shot ban proposal.

At the bottom of the UBG proposal web page is a link to FWP's public comment survey hosted on the SurveyMonkey website. That link is found under the section labeled
Quote:
Opportunity for Public Comment
with this text below:
Quote:
Click here to comment on this and other hunting season proposals.
The FWP link to the survey monkey website is colored in red; here's that survey link directly: http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/N2CCH9R

Once at the survey monkey page, scroll down to box/question number 15 to leave your comments on the proposed UGB regs. But what's really important is the number of comments submitted; more is better - no matter what the transmission method.

If you want more information about the lead ban, aka non-toxic proposal, ask FWP for their two page document entitled
Quote:
HUNTING SEASON / QUOTA CHANGE SUPPORTING INFORMATION
for Upland Game Birds. In it, there are four items/points discussed. Here are a couple for you to contemplate:

Quote:
2. Why is the proposed change necessary?

Lead poisoning via ingestion of lead pellets has long been associated with waterfowl mortality. Recently, this awareness has been expanded to other concentrations of lead to include traditional mourning dove hunting sites. As many of the state's WMAs have little or no waterfowl habitats & hunting opportunities and/or minimal upland game bird hunting, this proposal represents a programmatic approach to further limit the use and presence of lead shot on the landscape. Arguably for some specific WMAs with extremely limited (or no) consistent shotgun/upland bird hunting use, this proposal is as much or more about programmatic message and general intent as it is about specific resource protection or management need.

And another one:

Quote:
3. Provide information related to any weather/habitat factors that have relevance to this change (i.e., habitat security, hunter access, vegetation surveys, weather index, snow conditions, temperature / precipitation information).

Again, many WMAs have little to no waterfowl presence and/or upland game bird hunting. This requirement would require even very low density grouse hunters to use non-toxic shot on WMAs. Lead presence and accumulation under extremely low levels of lead shot shell use has not been established as a significant environmental concern.

Relative to lead, non-toxic shot often has less local market availability of smaller shot sizes and can certainly be more expensive than lead shot. Given the traditional use of smaller shot sizes for mourning dove, partridge and some grouse, it is not clear how or if hunting participation will decline as it did when steel shot was required for waterfowl hunters. Additionally, comparative comprehensive investigations of lead vs. non-toxic lethality on upland game birds have not been conducted as they have for waterfowl.


Folks, those words come straight out of an internal MT FWP document, which I believe was written for department management and their oversight commission.

Finally, in case anyone is interested, here's a link http://fwp.mt.gov/habitat/wma.html on the MT FWP website to a page showing all of the state WMAs in MT. Each one of the dots/WMA names shown on the map is *clickable* and will take the reader to a page of information (e.g., acreage, huntable species, etc.) about each specific WMA.

Remember, comments that are calm, rational and reasoned are much more effective than loud, obnoxious rantings. Please take time to comment, and IMHO, comments from non-resident hunters count just as much.