Commissioner Vermillion

[tjones]

In a surprise move this afternoon, the (S) F&G Committee rejected Senate Resolution- SR14 on a 6-4 vote. SR 14 is the confirmation of Dan Vermillion to the FWP Commission. They passed SR15 confirming the appointment of A.T. "Rusty" Stafne, the new commissioner appointed by the Governor.

I believe we should pull out all the stops and send our comments of objection to the full Senate. This will now go to the Senate floor where we must be heard. We want Commissioner Vermillion confirmed !

They were primarily upset by the loss HB361 and HB258 and what they said was the lack of commission action to resolve the related issues…therefore, they would not confirm him as part of the old regime.

Vermillion is a good commissioner, progress and fair. He stands up for the Public Trust, the North American Model and equitable opportunity.


You can use the Legislative e-mail and send messages to committees http://leg.mt.gov/css/sessions/62nd/legwebmessage.asp

Keep your message short and simple.

You may if you have time to send a message to all the members of the Senate. This can be done by doing the following:

The fastest and easiest way is to simply pick up the phone and call 406-444-4800 to leave a message. The problem is that you can leave a message for only 5 legislators at a time and since there are 50 Senators you would have to make 10 phone calls to reach all the Senators. But, if you call in and tell the operator that you want to leave a message for each member of the following 4 Senate Committees listed below, you will be able to reach all the members of the Senate.
Call and tell them you want Dan Vermillion confirmed! Vote for SR 14

1.Senate Business & Labor
2.Senate Judiciary
3.Senate State Administrations
4.Senate Taxation
If you wish to send individual Senators a message, here are the entire list of e mails.



All the R's



([email protected]), ([email protected]), ([email protected]),
([email protected]), ([email protected]),
([email protected]), ([email protected]), ([email protected]),
([email protected]), ([email protected]),
([email protected]), ([email protected]), ([email protected]),
([email protected]), ([email protected]),
([email protected]), ([email protected]),
([email protected]), ([email protected]),
([email protected]), ([email protected]), ([email protected]),
([email protected]), ([email protected]),
([email protected]), ([email protected])



All the D's



([email protected]), ([email protected]),
([email protected]), ([email protected]),
([email protected]), ([email protected]),
([email protected]), ([email protected]),
([email protected]), ([email protected]), ([email protected]),
([email protected]), ([email protected]),
([email protected]), ([email protected]), ([email protected]),
([email protected]), ([email protected]), ([email protected]),
([email protected])

 

[shoots-straight]

I'll bet that they intend to use him as a bargaining chip in the budget negotiations. Poor form!

 

[Ben Lamb]

Amazing. They clearly have no clue who Dan Vermilion is.

 

[tjones]

,,or what he has done, especially in the Gravellys. I am certain without his lead changing seasons in the Gravellys, they would be looking like the Bitterroot. He has done good work.

 

[sweetnectar]

Did Vermillion vote for the blanketed archery limited permits in eastern Montana? If so then he can take a hike. That move blatantly screwed hunters. I won't support any commissioner that doesn't make right this error.

 

[tjones]

Did Vermillion vote for the blanketed archery limited permits in eastern Montana? If so then he can take a hike. That move blatantly screwed hunters. I won't support any commissioner that doesn't make right this error.

Did you comment on this? Did you go to Helena and let the commission know how you felt?

 

[sweetnectar]

So did Vermillion vote for the blanketed archery permits? If so then I'd advise everyone that reads this post to do the exact opposite of what you suggest when e mailing these individuals.

 

[tjones]

You don't have a clue. If you have to ask how the vote went then you must not have followed it very close. Must not have been important to you at the time.

Vermillion and the Commission has had their hands on a lot more wildlife issues then just limiting archery permits. Many very postive. One only has to look at the Gravellys to see what Vermillion has done.

 

[Lawnboy]

Did you comment on this? Did you go to Helena and let the commission know how you felt?

The commission had hearings out in the different regions and nobody was in favor of this nonsense. They did what they wanted without regard to public opinion. But since it went through this session I just hope they will reconsider. I know that Randy said we can comment on it now.
I've commented on it since Randy posted the link. http://fwp.mt.gov/doingBusiness/insideFwp/commission/
And I believe Randy said his group strongly suggested revisiting this issue.
http://onyourownadventures.com/hunttalk/showthread.php?t=246319&page=3

I don't want to get back into a huge pissing match but I do think this commission has as many issues as the legislature. Maybe this Vermillion guy is very pro hunter and could be a good guy. I think Nectars point is that if they aren't willing to look for public opinion then they might be too closed minded to be a good commissioner. They about got their butt's beat and hopefully it was a wake up call. Kind of reminds me of what's happening with the wolf lovers. They pushed it too far. The commission just about did the same but luckily they didn't and can now correct some poor decisions.

Anyway like I said I don't want to battle anymore about 361. One option if they are so hellbent on limiting NR then they should just increase the tag numbers so that we have a 100% chance to draw our second choice. That still would make me choose my area though. Really after all the discussion and arguing that we did on this it seemed to me that a select few hate NR hunters, they are pissed that some private land has lots of game, and they think this is a solution to stick it to the landowners and NR's. Meanwhile those of us who like to jump around and archery hunt different units out there get the shaft by making us choose our area. Maybe we should do the whole state that way and see how well others like the "choose your area" approach?

 

[BuzzH]

In my opinion, the commissions in the West are always going to be problematic, always have been as well.

For starters, they are political appointments and many dont know shit from clay about wildlife or how to correctly manage it. Further, the commissions are largely filled with real-estate agents, ranchers, farmers, retired sheriff's, outfitters, etc.

While I dont have a real dog in the fight that Lawnboy is crying about, which in my opinion is a non-issue if you can draw it with your first choice, its just as dangerous/damaging to allow public opinion to steer wildlife management.

How is it "more right" for public opinion to steer management than say outfitters...or ranchers...or real-estate agents?

The problem I have with the whole process is that the interest groups (all of them) look out for their own personal ox thats being gored at the expense of every other group...and sadly also at the expense of the wildlife.

The commission SHOULD function as a non-biased entity to ensure the over-all health of the wildlife as its top priority....a very distant second, third, etc. concern should be those of the hunters, outfitters, landowners, etc. They should also serve as a stop-gap for any rougue biologists that are not following the guidelines and State regulations of proper wildlife management.

Unfortunately, that isnt what happens. Biologists and the welfare of the wildlife are both, very often times, ignored over "public opinion"...and thats about the worst way to correctly manage wildlife that I can think of.

If the commission and public are going to base all its decisions on public opinion VS biology...then I say we fuggin' fire every biologist. Why pay salaries to people who will be ignored? Lets just manage by mob rule, take what we can, and give nothing back.

I say quit pretending you care about anything but yourself and your interests, we're so close to there now, its not even funny.

Need proof?

Look at this last round at the legislature...and look at the posts in this thread. Not much mentioned about doing whats best for the wildlife, only how my ox is being gored and how I cant draw a tag on my SECOND choice.

Crazy.

 

[shoots-straight]

Very well said Buzz. I too can be added into the selfish, for me, group. I want what's right for the resource #1. Then, I want what's good for the average public lands hunters. The OYO guys. Those that don't have the luxury of private lands that they can fall back on when the resource is gone from public lands. I think Vermillion was also looking out for that guy. He is also looking out for the resource. More than many commissioners I have seen in almost 40 years of hunting seasons in Montana.

 

[BuzzH]

SS,

I'm in the same camp as you...resource first...then the rest. I may also be a bit biased to the public land OYO type hunter. If the resource is being correctly managed and taken care of, I'm not against everyone having an opinion on the rest.

The trouble is, we're upside down on the priority list currently, and have been for a long, long time.

 

[Lawnboy]

I totally agree Buzz that public opinion can't sway what is biologically best for an area. The problem is that this had nothing to do with biology or the resource. Look at all the arguments for it and none reflect animal numbers. Someone please show me where this had anything to do with the resource. Nobody has or will because it wasn't. It's a load of crap. Resource should be the driving factor in any unit decision. Some may have overcrowding and some may have other issues that need addressed but resource should be first.

SS this has nothing to do with whether you have connections on a piece of land. They took away resident opportunity for no apparent reason in 22 units. The resource seems perfectly fine in these units. They sure haven't made the case that they aren't. Isn't that their job to do so? I'm all about making wise decisions when needed but to tell me I'm selfish for being pissed that they made half the state choose your area is crazy. It isn't affecting you western boys and so it's easy to tell me I'm selfish. Sure am. Sucks having something good change when there is no explanation. Selfish is the people who are pissed at everyone else because either they are NR or they see an animal they can't hunt on private and make changes that have nothing to do with resource.

Like I said I can't argue anymore about this. It isn't affecting most you guy's hunting spots so you really don't have a issue. Too bad for me. If the Bitteroots resource was better or normal and you had to choose only one unit after years of hunting multiple districts on that side of the state for no explained reason. You'd be pissed too. Or maybe selfish

 

[BuzzH]

Can you draw the tag every year as a first choice?

 

[Lawnboy]

Archery yes. But you usually would try for the rifle lottery tag first. Right now you can't draw the archery guaranteed as your second choice. And if you do draw the archery you now can't go to any of the other 22 units and archery hunt. Spoiled I know but the commission or anyone else has yet to tell me why it had to change.

 

[BuzzH]

I would be in favor of the following:

1. Make the tag good in all the 22 units.
2. If you apply for an archery tag in those units, they will be unlimited in number (everyone gets one, both R and NR) but MUST be your first and only choice.

I'm tired of archery hunters whining about opportunity...if you want to bow hunt, make it your first choice and move on. No more, "I want to apply for a rifle breaks tag, but if I dont draw the rifle tag, I want to make sure I draw my other favorite archery area on my second choice."

Enough is enough, time to make a decision.

 

[mtmiller]

I'm tired of archery hunters whining about opportunity...if you want to bow hunt, make it your first choice and move on. No more, "I want to apply for a rifle breaks tag, but if I dont draw the rifle tag, I want to make sure I draw my other favorite archery area on my second choice."

Enough is enough, time to make a decision.

Sums it up nicely.

I have these thoughts as well, but tend to keep them to myself. Glad you don't.

 

[shoots-straight]

SS this has nothing to do with whether you have connections on a piece of land. They took away resident opportunity for no apparent reason in 22 units. The resource seems perfectly fine in these units. They sure haven't made the case that they aren't. Isn't that their job to do so? I'm all about making wise decisions when needed but to tell me I'm selfish for being pissed that they made half the state choose your area is crazy. It isn't affecting you western boys and so it's easy to tell me I'm selfish. Sure am. Sucks having something good change when there is no explanation. Selfish is the people who are pissed at everyone else because either they are NR or they see an animal they can't hunt on private and make changes that have nothing to do with resource.

It had everything to do with connections to private lands. They were becoming more valuable as leased pieces for Outfitters because the increase on public lands was forcing those elk to find sancuary on the private. I said Vermillion was looking after the guy that hunts public lands. It affected you, and only hurt you, because you hunt private. You lost opportunity, that others could only dream about. That's the rub.

Those on the commission could see that leasing by Outfitters was getting out of hand. The more public land hunters there are, the more apt elk are to head where it's a bit more quite. YOUR PRIVATE LAND. This and the fact that there was no limits on NR hunter numbers in the area, led to mass leasing by the Outfitting Industry. Vermillion and others on the commissison, (IMO) were looking out for the OYO public lands hunter. Not that science was being followed, but there was a big outcry from John Q Public hunter, bitching about all the leasing. (Remember I-161). They were trying to slow the progress of leasing. Not hurt Bart the Private lands Elk hunter. If I had hunting as good as you do, I would be fine with just Bow hunting there. That's just me though.

The fact that the elk numbers are over objective in that area is rediculous. The EMP for the Breaks calls for 2325 head. They were sitting at 4000 at the time, and now are around 2900 (2010 count). What science was used on that number? It was set by social concerns by the ag community.

You say the resouce is totally fine in the Breaks. I guess the fact that the elk numbers falling doesn't concern you. http://fwpiis.mt.gov/content/getItem.aspx?id=46892 I assume your area is in 410. The count there in 2010 was under objective by 200, If it's like all the rest of the areas the objective was set socially low. Again no science. Never hunted elk in 410, so I can't comment on public lands or private lands.

I'll repeat what I said. They were trying to reduce Outfitting leasing. By what I"m hearing the last two years, those fellas Bow hunting the Breaks on Public lands, reported better conditions, and more elk, the previously, even though the elk numbers took a big hit. The commision might not of made a good case for permitts, but there's is some. Bow hunters were harvesting a lot more Bulls that rifle hunters. Bow hunters don't limit over all elk numbers, but do have an impacts.

There's many things affecting US Western hunters. If you only knew how things are shaping up, you might change your tune. In short order, we might all just be permitts only. Where are we all going to go, if it's a free for all in the Breaks? If I had a private ranch, that was as good as what you have, I'd fight for my opportunity to hunt there with both weapons too. Selfish or not. I don't blame you. The public lands may, or maynot need some socially manufactured rules, to entice elk to stay there, so others have access to them.

I think Vermillion was way forward thinking. He did a great job, and that's what this thread is about.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Here's the biology: Archery hunters were having 3 times the impact to bull elk that rifle hunters were. If we limit rifle hunters while increasing archery hunters (remember, there is a roughly 100% increase in archery hunters in the last 20 years), you take more bull elk out of the herds.

How long is that sustainable?

Nevertheless, this has now become a caucus platform. The majority is apparently trying to make a stand on this.

One last insult, I suppose.

 

[Lawnboy]

News alert Randy you've been hunting with my twin brother the one that only hunts public lands and would never ask permission to hunt on private. What a bunch of holier than thou BS. Yea I have a good connection but one that is only available on occasion. I suppose your a public land purist and would never think to ask permission to be 100% pure. You've only seen one animal I've killed on private posted by me or on film but what does it matter anyway. See you don't really know me or have a clue where or how I hunt. I don't hunt the Breaks!!! Never have and don't care too. That is the problem with this blanketing crap it's affecting half the state. I'm sure they have real issues that need addressed. I realize your all cozy in the Bitteroot scavenging what the wolves have left but the rest of us that are willing to drive to Ashland or the Mocassins or any of the other 22 units have been cut short. I've tried to see your points in the Bitteroot issues but you aren't willing to see ours. Ask your fellow resident HornSeeker who has moved out here what it has done to his opportunity.
All I'm saying is that I'm not sure that this bill was all that it was cracked up to be. There was way more affected than just stinging the outfitters. Some on here were able to foresee that when it was presented. Sometimes a little good doesn't outweigh a lot of bad.

Maybe you can come over here sometime and we can go on a public land hunt. Which for me is 95% of the time. If your really not sure who I am then maybe ask Fin or someone else that may know me. I'm actually a very enjoyable person to be around and really not much of a politico

Ben please post the data and districts that prove archery is killing three times the number of elk than rifle. My guess would be maybe a handful of the 22 units. Maybe I'm wrong but would be interested in seeing FWP's numbers on each and not the whole.

Ok my blood pressure is back down and I really want to like everyone