Did Hank follow the biologists recommendations in 799? Did the biologist botch the draw and add as many permits as possible? I completely agree that private land is the only reason we have any quality of animal in Montana. But Montana has no wildlife management coming from the top. Private landowners are the only ones with the ability to manage.
Bulls for Billionaires - MT EQC Meeting today 1:30 PM
- Thread starter Ben Lamb
- Start date
Point Creep
Well-known member
He’ll get a raise, and probably a few (more) handjobs.
Big Shooter
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 15, 2008
- Messages
- 483
So we are on the same page on a lot of these topics…..but for many of you that think the draw was “botched” to add additional tags…..I throw the BS flag! Should a government agency be allowed to make mistakes on a yearly basis with not having to answer to anybody? Absolutely not! But to make accusations that it was “botched“ intentionally is a bit over the top for me. All of us in our adult lives have made mistakes, and will again…..the only difference is is that we have to answer to someone on those and own them.
Big Shooter
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 15, 2008
- Messages
- 483
I’m guessing that’s where you come into the mix?
IMO the draw should have been redrawn the correct way. To hell with peoples feelings. None of this extra 10% tags bullshit.
Point Creep
Well-known member
Yep, exactly.
Do you believe that FWP biologists are able to speak freely about populations, distribution, herd health and make objective recommendations based on science or are they often fed a narrative and strongly encouraged to stick to it?
I don't believe biologists alone would have let the situation in MT reach it's current state. I worked in science long enough to be able to smell when politics and money get involved with "the science".
They were told to the toe the line.
Big Shooter
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 15, 2008
- Messages
- 483
I couldn’t agree more. Hell, I did mine correctly and am not getting thrown in the redraw, but whatever, not a big deal to me personally as far as me getting a tag. You are right though.
I drew and I think it should all be redrawn. Though I didn’t draw anything hard to get
BuzzH
Well-known member
Wasn't Hank the guy that used to manage the draw for MT?
Is it unrealistic to expect the guy with that background, now in charge of all things wildlife in Montana, to at least get that right?
Seems pretty strange he'd be the one to let that happen under his "watch".
BuzzH
Well-known member
Anyone that believes the FWP biologists are able to manage anything are willfully ignorant...everything they do is TOP down, and if you don't carry water for those at the top, you're gone.
Seen it.
Schaaf
Well-known member
There are time stamped emails from March 15th alerting FWP about the exact scenario that played out and asked how would FWP handle applications that had second and third choices.
FWP responded with “If you select two 1st and only selections, the electronic application will display an error saying that you’ve selected an invalid choice and let’s you go back and fix it. I can’t be processed with the error, so you can’t do it by mistake.”
So they knew about what could happen and either didn’t put the safeguard in place or took the firewall down? The directors office has done nothing to earn the benefit of the doubt.
FWP responded with “If you select two 1st and only selections, the electronic application will display an error saying that you’ve selected an invalid choice and let’s you go back and fix it. I can’t be processed with the error, so you can’t do it by mistake.”
So they knew about what could happen and either didn’t put the safeguard in place or took the firewall down? The directors office has done nothing to earn the benefit of the doubt.
No way they didn’t know they had a problem before they posted draw results. From day 1 Hank was going to fix the over objective elk problem with bull tags for all, even though that makes zero sense biologically. Even if it was an accident his track record leading up makes that darn hard to believe.
runningmt
Well-known member
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2018
- Messages
- 717
Time to stop using “Big Hank” as a positive name for a large big game animal.
“Big Hank” should now refer to this stupid debacle, or any moronic thing FWP does.
“Big Hank” should now refer to this stupid debacle, or any moronic thing FWP does.
Eric Albus
Well-known member
- Joined
- May 24, 2012
- Messages
- 1,862
According to what I’ve been told…and I do not doubt this. Our computer system is antiquated. Estimated cost to update 26 million. Which is insane. I could conduct the draw with a barrel and 10 temporary employees for about 100 years, spending a lot less, have fewer “f-ups” and me, my buddies, and clients could get a few
Coveted permits.
Eric Albus
Well-known member
- Joined
- May 24, 2012
- Messages
- 1,862
Really? Look at all general season elk/deer areas. Are the biologists really “managing” anything other than promoting wholesale slaughter??
R6 recommended going from 150 LE permits to 400 buck permits for mule deer in 652. There aren’t 400 deer, let alone buck deer in that area.
rogerthat
Well-known member
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2015
- Messages
- 3,629
Although I don’t disagree with your comments in a historical sense this last season setting was completely different and in most cases the biologists wanted more conservative permits as the numbers and stats are getting bad enough even after drinking the opportunity koolaid they serve them, they could see the problems. Fwp leadership completely ignored them. In fact many of the unit biologist justification write ups were direct contradictions to what the department proposed. No way you can blame the biologists this time around unless you just weren’t paying attention.
I was so scared to click on that but I had to
