Here is what I took away from it:
“Overall, 73 percent of the respondents from this survey are satisfied with elk management in Montana.”
That means nothing will change. I’d hate to see how bad it has to be for +50% to say they are not satisfied.
I'm not surprised by this number in the least.
Most folks want to have the opportunity to go hunting. That's a natural thing. Even if they don't get an elk, it's good to be out and partaking in the activity, be in the outdoors and surrounded by wildlife.
But that level of satisfaction is not corelating with the desired management outcomes that are determined by Commission rule and the law. FWP can't ignore the latter in favor of the former.
As
@Nameless Range pointed out, the new EMP gives a lot of tools to FWP relative to how they engage in habitat work. FWP traditionally had staff dedicated to just this, working with the feds on planning, commenting on transmission corridors, etc. But that alone isn't going to improve habitat on public land.
THere is a significant federal investment in habitat projects right now through the infrastructure bills and the inflation reduction bills. That funding generally needs a match in order to actually get boots on the ground, fires set, Tordon sprayed and mechanical and biological treatments in place.
SB 442 had that. As a way to implement the new EMP, SB 442 would have given FWP the ability to use tens of millions of dollars for habitat improvement, and not just commenting.