Alt funding for MFWP?

[Ben Lamb]

Ben, what you don't seem to "comprehend," to use your words and tone, is that they already have a voice. In fact, the wolf advocates already have a disproportionately greater voice as evidenced by the fact that hunters who support the wolf introduction are in a clear minority. In spite of that fact you keep getting quoted in the press representing hunters saying we need to bring these guys to the table. Nonsense, they are already there. They already have a substantial influence on wildlife policy that cost Montana millions and required Tester/Simpson to set a terrible precedent. And as our population changes the anti-trappers and anti hunters will have an increasing amount of influence even without any financial lever. The worst thing you could do is give them a bigger financial lever to give them even more influence because once it is there it isn't going away. And yet every time I see you quoted you are saying we need to bring these guys to the table and give them an equal voice. Even with the wolf stamp.

And for those who think I'm being a dick in this exchange to anyone with a differing viewpoint, you aren't getting the whole story. When I brought this up elsewhere Ben told me I needed to go board myself up in house because I was being paranoid and we could trust Montana to do the right thing. Wow.

I'm not saying exclude them from the conversation or not focus on common goals or that DOW isn't one of the better groups, but for crying out loud, don't be giving credibility to the myth that they don't have a say in what is going on or we owe more to them because of our constitution. They have a hell of a lot more say than I do and they already have a lot more than they originally negotiated. And this input is coming from someone (me) that has always supported wolves, but I'm not foolish enough to trust these guys to think these guys need more influence in our wildlife.

Rob,

I can't control what gets quoted in the paper, but I can assure you that I say, everytime, that these groups are already at the table and participating in the process so we need to work with them to find some funding ideas that all can agree on.

I've never said that they need more influence, just the same voice that every citizen deserves.

If wolf advocates already have a disproportionate voice in wolf management, do you really think we'd have an almost 8 month wolf season with 5 OTC tags and landowner authority to take out wolves on sight? Don't you think we would have buffer zones, no trapping, etc instead of the incredibly liberal wolf management that we have now?

As to boarding up your house, I was being sarcastic Rob. We've been friends long enough that I thought we could banter like that. Apologies if that offended you.

 

[RobG]

Ben, you would know better than me, but I believe those hunts were largely a result of HB 73, which passed the House 100-0 and Senate 45-4 so opposition to the hunts has almost no MT citizen support. They had every bit of a voice as I did on those issues - they just don't have the numbers so they want a lever.

In fact the law was used to reign in some of MFWP's wolf friendly actions such as shutting down the wolf hunt around Gardiner. Considering the lack of MT citizen support, the fact that FWP sets quotas around Yellowstone in deference to the wolf advocates shows they do have disproportionate influence.

If they come up with good ideas for funding that is great, but you don't have to get them to agree to other good ideas so why are you saying otherwise? Trust me, a good funding idea will get implemented. In fact if they don't agree to it then it will be implemented even faster.

-------------------------------------

If you really don't agree with someone's policies there is no need to overstate the requirement to accommodate them.

-- Butt-Hurt Hippie Survival Guide, p. 2, in press.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Ben, you would know better than me, but I believe those hunts were largely a result of HB 73, which passed the House 100-0 and Senate 45-4 so opposition to the hunts has almost no MT citizen support. They had every bit of a voice as I did on those issues - they just don't have the numbers so they want a lever.

That bill didn't receive very much opposition from those organizations either because the way it was written it kept the power to set seasons and quotas with the commission as well as gave the commission the ability to issue up to 5 tags. Those tags a aren't mandatory and the commission can pull back as much as they want. It was a measured approach based on a few years of wolf management and the agency did yeoman's work to get stakeholders comfortable with the concept.

I would be reluctant to celebrate the elimination of the commission's authority to create buffer zones for wolves too. The legislature meddling in that stuff has caused most of our problems with elk, and by eliminating the ability of the commission to set a zone around National Parks based on science and yes, social tolerance, isn't good policy. It's an amendment that was accepted to get a former legislator to vote for the bill and help get it out of the house.

FTR - NRDC has over 5,000 MT members. DOW has about the same. World Wildlife Fund also has a membership around that much and GYC has over 3,000 members in state. They're not an inconsiderable political force. Especially within certain caucuses. \

If they come up with good ideas for funding that is great, but you don't have to get them to agree to other good ideas so why are you saying otherwise? Trust me, a good funding idea will get implemented. In fact if they don't agree to it then it will be implemented even faster.

Because they are the ones who started the conversation with the wolf stamp, and now they are the ones at the table helping others figure it out. As I said, I hope that other interests come to the table like the Hoteliers, more ag groups, etc. This was just the second meeting in a series of meetings that will be going on for the next 18 months or so. But for now, it's 1 ag group, sportsmen and conservation NGO's trying to rebuild some trust and find common ground. Why in the world would I not support that, especially in light of the worst congress on our collective issues in a generation?

 

[noharleyyet]

What's the matter tanny's...soaking the NR running out of steam?

Hell, perk the gulls a fishin' license.

 

[Ben Lamb]

What's the matter tanny's...soaking the NR running out of steam?

Hell, perk the gulls a fishin' license.

Shouldn't you be busy getting ready for the invasion?

NR purchases across the west dropped significantly during the recession and we're also looking at a declining overall number of hunters nationwide, especially those with the kind of disposable income to hunt in other states. Most western states are in discussions on how to solve the funding issue and trying to get ahead of the curve. It's an issue I've been working on since 2004.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Agreed. And the Constitution does say "citizen(s)."

But wait, the USSC says corporations have individual rights too. So maybe that extends to non-profit groups, since they are technically formed under the Incorporation statutes of the state they are incorporated in. Following the Citizens United case, I guess we need to manage wildlife for not just citizens, but corporations, non-profit groups, and whoever else can establish some sort of quasi-citizenship.

It's actually a valid point. Do we manage to ensure Montana's $6 billion outdoor economy, based on access to public land and wildlife, or do we manage to ensure corporate profit over other uses?

Oil and Gas interests carry a ton of sway in some state agencies. Ag groups (corporations) also do. Why shouldn't those industries that rely on clean air, water and healthy wildlife also try to influence policy?

 

[RobG]

Ben - you say they don't have any influence and give the example of the hunt. Then you say they supported the hunt. You say they don't have influence, but then you say they are a political force. WTF?

You are all over the place on this topic. You say you don't have control over what the press says, but you say the same stuff in other venues. Anyone who disagrees with you is paranoid - yes, you were sarcastic, but don't pretend it was just friendly banter.

They have plenty of influence so you don't have to say they don't every time the topic comes up. Especially if you really don't agree with them, no need to be untruthful for people you don't agree with - and I question that claim of yours considering your actions. I don't have a big problem with agreeing with them, but you can't have it both ways.

And Ken, a special fee for Texans....

 

[Ben Lamb]

Rob,

I didn't say they supported the hunt, I said they didn't oppose the bill. There's a big difference there. I didn't say they had no influence, and I'm not sure where you are getting that.

If you're going to call me a liar, you better present your evidence.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Screw it. Let me help you, Rob.

You said:

Ben - you say they don't have any influence and give the example of the hunt. Then you say they supported the hunt. You say they don't have influence, but then you say they are a political force. WTF?

I said:

That bill didn't receive very much opposition from those organizations either because the way it was written it kept the power to set seasons and quotas with the commission as well as gave the commission the ability to issue up to 5 tags. Those tags a aren't mandatory and the commission can pull back as much as they want. It was a measured approach based on a few years of wolf management and the agency did yeoman's work to get stakeholders comfortable with the concept.

I'm still scratching my head on where I said they had no influence. But so far as your quote - I didn't say the supported the hunt. I said they did not oppose the bill. I hope you see the difference there, as it's fairly large. Supporting a hunt wasn't indicative of whether or not they supported the bill. The BILL did nothing to jeopardize the delisted status of wolves and it fit within the state management plan and therefore didn't face the kind of opposition that something similar would have (which, btw the way, sportsmen and enviros opposed several bills that session on wolves that would have resulted in a relisting. Many of those bills were discussed here, and the amount of outreach done by those NGO's helped generate thousands of comments against legislation.

You said:

You are all over the place on this topic. You say you don't have control over what the press says, but you say the same stuff in other venues.

I imagine this is about whether or not people have a seat at the table? If my inference is wrong, I look forward to your correction. SInce you mentioned the facebook conversation we had, here's what I said about their influence, etc:

Rob, FWP manages wildlife for every citizen and they already have a stake in this. A lot of groups that are wildlife focused, but not hunter specific are already at the table and influencing decisions. Why in the world would we not want to have them help fund the agency we all support?

It's a fallacy to think that hunting and fishing would ever be subservient to the anti-hunter agenda in Montana and it only serves to weaken the future of wildlife management.

So again, show me where I'm lying or "all over the place" on this issue.

 

[RobG]

Ben, thanks. Now let me help you. I never called you a liar. On the other hand if there is any consistency in your story across the venues it is eluding me. I'm fairly sure that isn't entirely my fault.

Our conversation has run its course so I'll duck out.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Ben, thanks. Now let me help you. I never called you a liar. On the other hand if there is any consistency in your story across the venues it is eluding me. I'm fairly sure that isn't entirely my fault.

Our conversation has run its course so I'll duck out.

Rob,

maybe I'm a little sensitive, but "untruthful" really does come across as you calling me a liar.

and I resent it.

 

[RobG]

Rob,

maybe I'm a little sensitive, but "untruthful" really does come across as you calling me a liar.

and I resent it.

OK, in the interest of closure I'll give an example. In this article you said

“Wildlife is a public trust, it is owned by everybody so everybody should have a say,” said Helena sportsman Ben Lamb. “For the hunting community to say that ‘We don’t want this’ ignores an opportunity to have a new group of people who love wildlife to stand up and fight with us. For us to say ‘We don’t want your money’ is incredibly short-sighted.”

The bolded part is not true if you don't agree with what they will require in return. Even so, I would not call you a liar for making that statement.

 

[DAVIDKERR]

$1000 to hunt elk and deer in mt is to much.i did it once but wont be back until price is closer to other nr fees for hunting. i am from iowa and we rip off nr hunters as much as anybody for whitetail and for that i am sorry to other nr hunters.

 

[shoots-straight]

$1000 to hunt elk and deer in mt is to much.i did it once but wont be back until price is closer to other nr fees for hunting. i am from iowa and we rip off nr hunters as much as anybody for whitetail and for that i am sorry to other nr hunters.

Looks like many people have decided it's worth the price. Here's what's left for this year.

• Big Game Combos: 611
• Elk Combos: 1,846
• Deer Combos: 369

 

[1_pointer]

Looks like many people have decided it's worth the price. Here's what's left for this year.

• Big Game Combos: 611
• Elk Combos: 1,846
• Deer Combos: 369

One of these years I'm gonna splurge and get a deer combo and try my hand at mountain whitetail in Nov...or on the prairies. Either looks like too much fun and would be much different than what I do here even though its the same species.