At this point it seems landowners will tolerate the elk and we need to move forward with real management.
Bulls for Billionaires - MT EQC Meeting today 1:30 PM
- Thread starter Ben Lamb
- Start date
Point Creep
Well-known member
The elk are eating me out of house and home. The solution is give me more bull permits. *$@! these guys.
If it's really that bad wouldn't your livelyhood be enough of incentive to let the public come shoot the cow elk? But yet you say over and over you need the pot sweetened with bull tags for yourself.
MTLabrador
Well-known member
I do my part to defend the barley fields. Except I’m pretty sure this bull never saw any crops.
If a landowner wants animals gone they will be gone. Feel bad for the landowners that live next to people that harbor elk but that’s a neighbor issue not an fwp issue.
BuzzH
Well-known member
Eric Albus
Well-known member
- Joined
- May 24, 2012
- Messages
- 1,866
Lots of folks have asked over the years and been granted permission. Particularly when we had an issue with elk for a 2-3 yr period.
Eric Albus
Well-known member
- Joined
- May 24, 2012
- Messages
- 1,866
We let EVERYONE in who asked, for bulls and cows
Eric Albus
Well-known member
- Joined
- May 24, 2012
- Messages
- 1,866
This is beyond pathetic.
First time in 16 years there has been an attempt at change. Going from 1-2 landowners participating in 454 to 13, according to numbers I’ve gotten 280-300 head of elk taken, due to the program, and it’s not a success?
There may need be some changes made to the program. I’ll give the director credit where it’s due, 454 was basically a non issue a year ago, now it’s forefront and providing access to land…that has what? If you guessed QUALITY, well buy a the man a beer.
Point Creep
Well-known member
Let’s summarize PATHETIC:
Everyone with 640 acres gets 10 bull permits.
Make “over objective” limited quota units in eastern MT general for bulls (only on private)
General archery for bulls nearly all eastern MT limited quota units.
Pumping up archery and rifle bull permits in most all eastern or make general where possible.
This clown’s limitless ideas to rape public land MT elk hunters of any quality is disgusting. It’s no surprise MOGA and you just love him. His end goal is to completely turn any form of wildlife management over to the private landowner.
Last edited:
Point Creep
Well-known member
Let’s go one step further and talk about the department wide mission of SIMPLIFICATION. Holy crap.
Eric Albus
Well-known member
- Joined
- May 24, 2012
- Messages
- 1,866
Those “limitless ideas” have people actually thinking and working towards viable solutions.
Personally I give Hank credit for throwing ideas out to get folks worked up enough to finally do something to come up with viable solutions. More has been done in the last year than the previous 16 of status quo.
Do I think your aforementioned were good, not particularly. But I will also give credit and say the Dept didn’t think any of those ideas would fly, but it certainly stirred the interest.
Carnage2011
Well-known member
Let’s clarify one thing. There wasn’t 280-300 elk taken due to the program. A huge chunk of those came off one place that has allowed access via Block Management for at least 9 years. So this program wasn’t responsible for those hunters being successful. With that being said, If anyone deserves a bull tag it’s them…they provide a ton of access every year and still manage their place for a quality hunt.
Straight Arrow
Well-known member
Eric, you must admit that is extremely unusual, especially for an outfitter / landowner. You just may be the one and only.
Point Creep
Well-known member
“viable solutions”
Really.
Every solution is really geared at rewarding those who harbor elk, trophy bull elk permits..
A MOGA person drafted all his “ideas”.
People have been pushing for solutions for a long, long time. Every time they get brought forward, the legislature killed them. I know people are desperate to try and save the administration's face here, but the approach the director has taken is just about pissing people off, and then declaring victory when someone else leads the way to a solution.
"Well we tried something" is the mantra of every one who fails due to their own lack of planning and effort.
Once again, here are the solutions that had been brought forward from the past:
Over the last 15 years, the hunting community has been calling for changes in elk management, and wildlife management in general. Below is a list that represents the largest actions/changes that were sought:
1.) Hunters have been supporting changes since the 2008 LE bundled permits were brought in to try and restore a quality hunt experience & restore the 90/10 split to ensure that residents maintain priority over non-residents in the allocation of elk permits. They've been playing defense on that since then, with something like 7-8 bills to eliminate those LE permits since 2009, along with more than 400 bills introduced on wildlife management alone since 2011. That doesn’t count the budget bills, etc. When the hunting community has been under attack for so long, finding common ground becomes very difficult.
2.) Hunters have pushed for the increase in block management payments, oftentimes being told no by the Legislature who didn't want to spend the money out of a dogmatic approach to government spending on the whole. This approach also left the agency without key personnel as there was a mandatory 4% vacancy savings since 2009, which has resulted in fewer employees than necessary to effectively do the work.Our advocacy led to more wardens and biologists at the loca level and an increase in funding for all programs to help manage wildlife better.
3.) Hunters helped write & pushed the Public Access to Lands act forward, despite having concerns about redundancy and other issues, because landowners said they thought that it could be useful. This program is supposed to increase access to landlocked public land by offering leases/easements to those public lands. We worked closely with a bipartisan group of senate leadership and the agency to ensure that there were appropriate sideboards and we are proud of that collaboration.
4.) Hunters pushed for legislation to deal with harboring elk for two sessions. Those bills didn't make it out of committee due to partisan politics. This was a poorly informed effort on conservation’s part, as we didn’t fully understand the issue at the time. Today, there are new opportunities to deal with issues of problematic concentrations of wildlife caused by various issues such as hunter pressure and refugia.
5.) Hunters worked with their local biologists and landowners to find better solutions across Montana. That local collaboration was often led by the local biologists and game managers and would oftentimes lead to innovative approaches in management. Such as the Bitterroot, Madison range, Belts, Elkhorns, Rocky Mountain Front, CMR and a host of other areas where elk thrive in Montana.
6.) Hunters have repeatedly called for implementation of cow only-seasons in over-objective districts. We’ve supported damage hunts and we’ve supported damage relief in the form of hazing, fencing and other methods. If the goal of the Department and some landowner groups is to lower elk numbers, then focusing on cow elk is the only viable solution to do so.
7.) Hunters have consistently called for a new EMP, fought for the funding for the EMP planner in 2019, and had to push the agency into doing the work. Since 2015, the call from hunters for a new EMP was met with bureaucratic inaction until 2019. After a brief window of activity, work was shut down by the new Department director in 2021, resulting in more lost trust between the director’s office and the hunting public.
9.) Hunters and a whole host of other groups called on the Legislature to fund a position at DNRC that could help ensure that state trust land travel management had a modern approach, versus the old way. it died in committee on a party line vote.
10.) Hunters have repeatedly called for looking at season structure and see if what we're doing continues to make sense. Montana currently boasts a measly 13% success rate for bull elk hunters on public land. That’s one of the lowest in the Rocky Mountain States, compared to Wyoming, which sits at well over 20% harvest. Wyoming, coincidentally, has relatively the same harvest with half the season length as Montana. That alone should tell us that our seasons aren’t working as they should.
11.) Hunters were supportive of a bill to improve block management and focus on hunter harvest rather than hunter days, right up until there were set-aside licenses inserted into the bill. That activity caused hunters to abandon their support, and the bill died.
12.) Hunters led the fight to save Habitat Montana, (which like Montana’s version of the land & water Conservation Fund, which purchases new Wildlife Management Areas & pays for conservation easements on private land) from the attempted gutting of the program in 2015, which lead to the development of the MT Sporting Coalition, and a massive increase in support for the program which has been used to fund new WMA's, specifically for elk to use as wintering ground and to help private landowners escape depredation issues by having a space for wildlife to winter.
13.) Hunters have routinely promoted & supported increased license fees with more funding going to the programs landowners use. Those fees are used to pay for landowner incentive programs, access programs and wildlife management at the local level.
14.) Hunters helped ensure that the legislature didn't divert money from the recreational marijuana tax for purposes other than what the voters had said they wanted it for, namely conservation. That influx of funding will help the agency combat increasing issues like CWD, habitat conservation and non-game funding, which in turn improves budget outlooks for every other General License Account fund that is tied to those core areas.
15.) Hunters and Anglers helped stop the hemorrhaging of the FWP & DNRC budgets through their lobby efforts back to 2015 and more, which theoretically gave the agency the ability to do the work necessary to move the issue forward. (Thank Montana TU for the heaviest lifting here) Our efforts got new airplanes, helicopters, regional offices as well as funding for wardens, biologists and access coordinators.
16.) Hunters have been part of the reason the Good Neighbor Authority projects are being implemented across MT in order to improve elk habitat on public land, while also improving fire resiliency for forest communities. More funding for habitat improvement in order to ensure elk, and every other species including livestock, have ample and nutritious sustenance on public lands.
Over the last 15 years, the hunting community has been calling for changes in elk management, and wildlife management in general. Below is a list that represents the largest actions/changes that were sought:
1.) Hunters have been supporting changes since the 2008 LE bundled permits were brought in to try and restore a quality hunt experience & restore the 90/10 split to ensure that residents maintain priority over non-residents in the allocation of elk permits. They've been playing defense on that since then, with something like 7-8 bills to eliminate those LE permits since 2009, along with more than 400 bills introduced on wildlife management alone since 2011. That doesn’t count the budget bills, etc. When the hunting community has been under attack for so long, finding common ground becomes very difficult.
2.) Hunters have pushed for the increase in block management payments, oftentimes being told no by the Legislature who didn't want to spend the money out of a dogmatic approach to government spending on the whole. This approach also left the agency without key personnel as there was a mandatory 4% vacancy savings since 2009, which has resulted in fewer employees than necessary to effectively do the work.Our advocacy led to more wardens and biologists at the loca level and an increase in funding for all programs to help manage wildlife better.
3.) Hunters helped write & pushed the Public Access to Lands act forward, despite having concerns about redundancy and other issues, because landowners said they thought that it could be useful. This program is supposed to increase access to landlocked public land by offering leases/easements to those public lands. We worked closely with a bipartisan group of senate leadership and the agency to ensure that there were appropriate sideboards and we are proud of that collaboration.
4.) Hunters pushed for legislation to deal with harboring elk for two sessions. Those bills didn't make it out of committee due to partisan politics. This was a poorly informed effort on conservation’s part, as we didn’t fully understand the issue at the time. Today, there are new opportunities to deal with issues of problematic concentrations of wildlife caused by various issues such as hunter pressure and refugia.
5.) Hunters worked with their local biologists and landowners to find better solutions across Montana. That local collaboration was often led by the local biologists and game managers and would oftentimes lead to innovative approaches in management. Such as the Bitterroot, Madison range, Belts, Elkhorns, Rocky Mountain Front, CMR and a host of other areas where elk thrive in Montana.
6.) Hunters have repeatedly called for implementation of cow only-seasons in over-objective districts. We’ve supported damage hunts and we’ve supported damage relief in the form of hazing, fencing and other methods. If the goal of the Department and some landowner groups is to lower elk numbers, then focusing on cow elk is the only viable solution to do so.
7.) Hunters have consistently called for a new EMP, fought for the funding for the EMP planner in 2019, and had to push the agency into doing the work. Since 2015, the call from hunters for a new EMP was met with bureaucratic inaction until 2019. After a brief window of activity, work was shut down by the new Department director in 2021, resulting in more lost trust between the director’s office and the hunting public.
9.) Hunters and a whole host of other groups called on the Legislature to fund a position at DNRC that could help ensure that state trust land travel management had a modern approach, versus the old way. it died in committee on a party line vote.
10.) Hunters have repeatedly called for looking at season structure and see if what we're doing continues to make sense. Montana currently boasts a measly 13% success rate for bull elk hunters on public land. That’s one of the lowest in the Rocky Mountain States, compared to Wyoming, which sits at well over 20% harvest. Wyoming, coincidentally, has relatively the same harvest with half the season length as Montana. That alone should tell us that our seasons aren’t working as they should.
11.) Hunters were supportive of a bill to improve block management and focus on hunter harvest rather than hunter days, right up until there were set-aside licenses inserted into the bill. That activity caused hunters to abandon their support, and the bill died.
12.) Hunters led the fight to save Habitat Montana, (which like Montana’s version of the land & water Conservation Fund, which purchases new Wildlife Management Areas & pays for conservation easements on private land) from the attempted gutting of the program in 2015, which lead to the development of the MT Sporting Coalition, and a massive increase in support for the program which has been used to fund new WMA's, specifically for elk to use as wintering ground and to help private landowners escape depredation issues by having a space for wildlife to winter.
13.) Hunters have routinely promoted & supported increased license fees with more funding going to the programs landowners use. Those fees are used to pay for landowner incentive programs, access programs and wildlife management at the local level.
14.) Hunters helped ensure that the legislature didn't divert money from the recreational marijuana tax for purposes other than what the voters had said they wanted it for, namely conservation. That influx of funding will help the agency combat increasing issues like CWD, habitat conservation and non-game funding, which in turn improves budget outlooks for every other General License Account fund that is tied to those core areas.
15.) Hunters and Anglers helped stop the hemorrhaging of the FWP & DNRC budgets through their lobby efforts back to 2015 and more, which theoretically gave the agency the ability to do the work necessary to move the issue forward. (Thank Montana TU for the heaviest lifting here) Our efforts got new airplanes, helicopters, regional offices as well as funding for wardens, biologists and access coordinators.
16.) Hunters have been part of the reason the Good Neighbor Authority projects are being implemented across MT in order to improve elk habitat on public land, while also improving fire resiliency for forest communities. More funding for habitat improvement in order to ensure elk, and every other species including livestock, have ample and nutritious sustenance on public lands.
Gerald Martin
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2009
- Messages
- 9,630
One of the construction projects I am responsible for managing has significant problems that are complex in nature to solve. One of my tasks is to bring different subcontractors and the owners together to find solutions.
Our meetings weren’t going very well until I came up with the novel idea of burning down the project and the sub-contractors homes as a way of getting the conversation started. For some reason, other folks involved in this project have been meeting and figuring out how to resolve the electrical, plumbing, and structural issues without looking to me for guidance anymore.
I don’t understand why the homeowners met with my boss and demanded that he fire me when I was the one with the plan that got the conversation started?
Oh well. At any rate, I have had a couple weeks to polish my resume and am now on the shortlist of qualifying candidates for the position of MT FWP Director.*
(Nothing about this modern day Montana parable is factual except for the parallels of how Director Worsech’s “solutions” are the policy equivalents of burning down a house to solve issues with the construction.)
Our meetings weren’t going very well until I came up with the novel idea of burning down the project and the sub-contractors homes as a way of getting the conversation started. For some reason, other folks involved in this project have been meeting and figuring out how to resolve the electrical, plumbing, and structural issues without looking to me for guidance anymore.
I don’t understand why the homeowners met with my boss and demanded that he fire me when I was the one with the plan that got the conversation started?
Oh well. At any rate, I have had a couple weeks to polish my resume and am now on the shortlist of qualifying candidates for the position of MT FWP Director.*
(Nothing about this modern day Montana parable is factual except for the parallels of how Director Worsech’s “solutions” are the policy equivalents of burning down a house to solve issues with the construction.)
Point Creep
Well-known member
I just want to get people talking.
Let’s go over the definition of insanity.
Fascinating.
I got caught with my pants down.
Let’s go over the definition of insanity.
Fascinating.
I got caught with my pants down.
And honestly, the idea that these concepts being brought forward are "new" ignores the entirety of the issue since 2008.
