Interesting article.

[BuzzH]

Resident hunters question intent of landowner-led group

Montana’s resident hunters want to hunt in their own state with minimal pressure from out-of-state hunters, but that’s becoming increasingly difficult.

missoulacurrent.com

 

[Forkyfinder]

Thought so too

 

[Bluffgruff]

I'm curious to hear more about this. Anyone have the Montana public hunter perspective on the evolution of the group and involvement of their policy director as it pertains to access and opportunity?

 

[El Jason]

I know several of the names listed. Good folks.

 

[Beignet]

I know several of the names listed. Good folks.

On which side of the story?

 

[El Jason]

On which side of the story?

MCS folks.

Bottom line. The last 30 year approach isn’t working. It’s not necessarily bad to try and think outside the box, even if that’s threatening to “the way we’ve always done it”.

Complex issues with no easy answer.

 

[Mallardsx2]

The filthy rich want a free lunch and they arnt willing to wait in the lunch line for it.

The good old boys club playing politics.

Pretty standard.

 

[Forkyfinder]

MCS folks.

Bottom line. The last 30 year approach isn’t working. It’s not necessarily bad to try and think outside the box, even if that’s threatening to “the way we’ve always done it”.

Complex issues with no easy answer.

What metric will things be conisdered working, and for who? What isnt "working" now, and for who?

 

[Forkyfinder]

Wilks elk license

The article is a guest opinion. https://helenair.com/opinion/columnists/fwp-issues-trophy-elk-permits-to-wilks-brothers/article_623ace96-68eb-5e40-802b-d832987df7c2.html

www.hunttalk.com

This sort of thing isnt "thinking outside the box". Its thinking for who has the most resources to best persuade the fools we send to Helena.

 

[Big Sky Guy]

@Ben Lamb you’re famous. Care to share your perspective? $50 vs. $100 and $150 vs. $127 seems nominal and I don’t think a non-resident (or resident) is going to fret over the cost of a tank of gas (or less)?

 

[WyoCoalMiner]

Wow! A lobbyist that will ride for the brand that is currently paying them. Shocking!

 

[Forkyfinder]

@Ben Lamb you’re famous. Care to share your perspective? $50 vs. $100 and $150 vs. $127 seems nominal and I don’t think a non-resident is going to fret over the cost of a tank of gas (or less)?

The horrror. Less NR coming to Montana.

Curious how there is certainty that above x price - it will lead to a loss of revenue. Considering Wy showed everyone a lot different in recent history.

 

[cgasner1]

@Ben Lamb you’re famous. Care to share your perspective? $50 vs. $100 and $150 vs. $127 seems nominal and I don’t think a non-resident is going to fret over the cost of a tank of gas (or less)?

At this point I wouldn’t blame him if he doesn’t. The amount of reading but not taking the time to understand is quite amazing. That article was so chopped up at one time it references the mule deer group on here. I also recognized a couple names in it and it’s the same ones that really have a thing for Ben

 

[Nameless Range]

I don’t blame Montanans for side-eyeing political contingents that spin up for a legislative session and spin down for the rest of the time all of us live here. It’s happened for many legislative sessions of yesteryear and I’m sure will again.

I also don’t like this narrative that what we’ve been doing hasn’t been working. It seems based on a premise that conflict means something is wrong. The older I get and the more things I am involved with, I just believe conflict comes with the territory if you believe in something.

All that said though, I think it is worth pondering the counterfactual of what the last couple of our legislative sessions might have been like if certain efforts hadn’t been made in good faith to take in the interests of those historically in conflict and find middle ground. We aren’t dealing with transferable land owner tags right now, we are seeing a bolstering of block management, and most of the things folks are really upset about, even if one doesn’t think they are good in and of themselves, aren’t really changing the game for any of us in a big way. I do think those facts are on-net good things, and one of the challenges those in the world of compromise deal with in terms of PR, is that their critics don’t get to see the state of affairs that might attain if those compromises weren’t being made.

Doesn’t mean you don’t speak your mind and state when you disagree with something, but in my own mind, I have compromises I can stomach and red lines we must never cross. I don’t see the MCS doing the latter, and think those with an all or nothing mentality might not realize the political reality of the day.

 

[BigHornRam]

MCS folks.

Bottom line. The last 30 year approach isn’t working. It’s not necessarily bad to try and think outside the box, even if that’s threatening to “the way we’ve always done it”.

Complex issues with no easy answer.

Mirrors national issues as well. Thinking outside the box gets toxic quickly. Definitely no easy answers.

 

[Gerald Martin]

Management policies have always sparked disagreement among resource stakeholders when the stakeholders are as diverse as they are in MT.

Whenever the disagreement shifts from policy to personal attacks on the character of individuals and potential for their organization to be “enemies” rather part of the tribe, I realize that the folks making accusations are trading their own political
capital and personal influence in the belief that they have enough credibility to sway the non-involved to accept their opinions and positions as correct without question.


Ironically, whenever I find folks calling into question the integrity of someone with a different perspective of an issue than themselves, I inevitably find myself sorting through my own interactions or personal knowledge of the one making the accusations to help me sort through the quality of the argument against another individual or group. I also weigh my personal understanding of the supporting “evidence” included that is supposed to substantiate the validity of why the accused a is an “enemy”. When that supporting evidence is either factually inaccurate or spun to the farthest reach of context to the detriment of the accused’s character, I find the overall argument to fall flat and my personal view of the trustworthiness of the accuser to diminish.

Many of the folks quoted in that story have a history of posting on this forum. Some have extensive history of engaging on issues with folks who agree or disagree with them in a respectful manner. Some folks have a history of posting their perspectives and seldom rengaging for further conversation. How folks engage overall, tends to color my views on the quality of their opinions.

Having been personally rolled up into broad brush attacks against Ben by some of the same folks who are quoted in this story, I know where I stand. Even though the attacks against our group were apologized for personally, and there was public acknowledgment that the inclusion of our group into attacks against Ben and MCS was unwarranted, damage done by published OP Ed’s remains.


Based on this article and multiple other like it that have been released publicly with quotes from the same people, social media comments on Facebook and engagement with the Legislature, it is my conclusion that this is as much a coordinated smear campaign against Ben personally and MCS by disgruntled former colleagues and associates in the conservation community as it is about policy disagreements. It is my opinion that there are some in the conservation community who view themselves as gatekeepers of what passes for the correct interpretation and application of the NAM of wildlife management. This arrogance may be unintentional, but their willingness to make personal attacks and public slander certainly is not.

Unfortunately, wildlife and responsible public discourse over legitimate policy differences are the biggest losers when this happens.

 

[El Jason]

What metric will things be conisdered working, and for who? What isnt "working" now, and for who?

Has your elk hunting gotten better or worse in the last 30 years?

 

[bigsky2]

All that said though, I think it is worth pondering the counterfactual of what the last couple of our legislative sessions might have been like if certain efforts hadn’t been made in good faith to take in the interests of those historically in conflict and find middle ground. We aren’t dealing with transferable land owner tags right now, we are seeing a bolstering of block management, and most of the things folks are really upset about, even if one doesn’t think they are good in and of themselves, aren’t really changing the game for any of us in a big way. I do think those facts are on-net good things, and one of the challenges those in the world of compromise deal with in terms of PR, is that their critics don’t get to see the state of affairs that might attain if those compromises weren’t being made.

Doesn’t mean you don’t speak your mind and state when you disagree with something, but in my own mind, I have compromises I can stomach and red lines we must never cross. I don’t see the MCS doing the latter, and think those with an all or nothing mentality might not realize the political reality of the day.

Couldn't agree with this more. The last couple sessions have been a lot tamer than I was expecting, and I think that is primarily because of Ben and others working to find a middle ground.

 

[Forkyfinder]

Has your elk hunting gotten better or worse in the last 30 years?

Worse, id say. From a variety of factors - undoubtedly the biggest driver being the dramatic increase in value elk and elk hunting have to large recreational landowners.

Are bills 270, 635, 505 (2021), and 256 your idea of making it better?

 

[Irrelevant]

Wow, that's a pointedly damning article.

IDK jack about either side, other than I typically support one of the groups. I have been suckered by one or more slick talkers on HT into thinking that group and their position on a particular topic is wrong, only to see that in the end, they weren't, and I was dooped. The Crazy Mts immediately come to mind.

I understand that tone means a lot, and the way a person carries themselves counts for how much others trust them but that doesn't make them right.

But there is no need for personal attacks. You have to be able to separate a person from a job.