Yeah, I don't think that the org needs to be some huge deal, really just a chance for MT waterfowlers to stand united with one voice.
I'll be back in MT in a few years (probably) and full of p!$$ and vinager to get it off the ground.
Like I said, right now Idaho has an org (Idaho Waterfowl Assoc.) IWA. I'm serving as Sec. right now. Dues are $20/yr and we are doing our best to represent Idaho waterfowl on important issues in the state.
I'd like to see MT also form an org. Although, the way I envison it, dues may be $0, or maybe $5 to cover a small amount of overhead and we would be strictly a 'voice' for waterfowlers in MT. No fund raising, minimal habitat work, ect, just a voice to ensure that waterfowlers don't get hosed.
IWA has attempted to get more engaging in activities, fundraisers, projects, ect and we have been quite unsuccessful. The way I see it, most guys are already busy enough to join another waterfowl org and I'd rather see money going to Delta and DU anyway. But a simple org that has a strong, singular focus might be a good idea? Maybe someday there will be interest to enlarge the org, but starting simple is probably best.
Think about it anyway and we'll see what we can do down the road
There is some important issues being raised in the flyway councils right now regarding future regs and our liberal seasons could become less so. I hate decisions to be made based upon politics. All I want is sound, well-researched biological data to lead the decision making processes.