Montana Elk Proposals with Director Hank Worsech

[seeth07]

Did you even listen to the podcast? Randy covered that very well on how the financials don’t matter to some. It is not as simple as what you’re stating.

Yes I know. To some. I get that. And if those that do want to harbor elk aren't claiming damages and accept having the herd of elk on their landscape, it's their right to as private land owners. Great for them and I guess I'm just really torn on the issue about how many elk they can kill. It's their prime habitat that draws the elk to it right? Or maybe it's less than prime but treated as a sanctuary. Either way it's improving the elk herd and putting more elk on the landscape right? Just because the elk isn't on public land doesn't mean that these few landowners can't be good for the improvement of elk herds.

Just my unbiased view from a lame non resident who has never stepped foot in Montana hearing and reading these stories about the elk situation.

Let the hate mail rain my way

 

[Ben Lamb]

This podcast talked about the tools available to FWP. How would you address private property rights and harbored elk legally?

While the Director’s proposals may not be popular or science based. I’m not sure any of us would want to be in his position right now. After listening to this podcast I came away with dammed if you and dammed if you don’t.

Did you even listen to the podcast? Randy covered that very well on how the financials don’t matter to some. It is not as simple as what you’re stating.

Harboring is a bad term, IMO. Problematic Concentrations of Wildlife is more correct. I don't think it's necessarily just a function of a landowner selecting to keep elk on their place as it is a function hunting pressure, leasing pressure and lack of access for a variety of reasons. It's a problem that has several opportunities for solutions that currently exist at the agency and commission level as well as needed legislation. So I don't believe that Hank is correct when he mentions that the only currency he has is bull elk permits. That's a copout because the wealthy landowners who are in charge right now want bull elk tags and not really solutions to elk management. And that's the crux of the issue: A small group of selfish individuals are holding the rest of the state hostage for their elk. And the governor & the director are openly kow-towing to them. The current tools that the agency has relative to elk management are:

1.) Working with individual landowners to develop hunting plans to distribute elk away from areas where they are not wanted through Damage hunts & Block Management
2.) 454 program
3.) Eliminate bull elk hunting until objective is met
4.) Develop community herd management plans like have been done in the Madison Valley, etc.
5.) Utilize PLPW in an effective manner to work with landowners & hunters
6.) PAL Agreements
7.) Actually listen to your local staff and stop issuing top-down directives
8.) restructure seasons to decrease 6 months of straight hunting pressure

Yes, the director position is always a tough job. You're always going to be yelled at and talked about. Beating up on FWP is a sport and if you want the job, then you have to expect that.

The director is offering poorly developed & unvetted ideas as long term policy changes after wasting a year increasing conflict between landowners and hunters.

 

[Gerald Martin]

This podcast talked about the tools available to FWP. How would you address private property rights and harbored elk legally?

While the Director’s proposals may not be popular or science based. I’m not sure any of us would want to be in his position right now. After listening to this podcast I came away with dammed if you and dammed if you don’t.

If this is your take then you swallowed the Director’s line.

The Director consistently references the need to reduce elk in over objective areas to comply with statutory requirements. Yet, he also acknowledges that objectives are outdated and not realistic.
Objective numbers in those units were dictated by landowner social tolerance for elk during the last elk management plan. Landowners were in the driver’s seat. Landowners control access to elk on their property. Lack of access is the only factor causing “overpopulation” of elk. This “overpopulation” is a function of there being more elk than landowners had previously wished for, not a function of elk numbers being higher than carrying capacity and causing habitat degradation.
Hank says that the promise of his predecessors to implement cow only harvest on private land if elk numbers got over objective was an “empty promise” and would provoke lawsuits. He doesn’t want FWP to be sued even though that is a tool he could use to help bring elk numbers into objective to satisfy the same landowners who set the objectives for elk on the unit.

Hank wants to comply with the statutory mandate of “objectives”, yet he has no problems disregarding the statutory intent of the 90/10 legislation concerning limited permits. That’s why all of these units are being proposed to be unlimited rather than limited with high quotas.

Hank has no problems picking and choosing which statutory mandates he wants to honor and set policy to be in compliance with.

Hank has already made a choice of who he is listening to and it’s not the resident public land hunter. The only question remains is whether or not the resident public land hunter is going to be able to raise our collective voice to the level that the Commission is willing to hear? Will they hear us?

 

[Gerald Martin]

The director is offering poorly developed & unvetted ideas as long term policy changes after wasting a year increasing conflict between landowners and hunters.

This^^^^

When you actually want to solve problems you get the input of all shareholders. When you think you have political capital to burn you just dictate to everyone what you are going to do and that they are going to like it.

This smells like a top down assessment of the smartest men in the room thinking their political cushion will insulate them from any negative fallout.

 

[Ben Lamb]

If this is your take then you swallowed the Director’s line.

The Director consistently references the need to reduce elk in over objective areas to comply with statutory requirements. Yet, he also acknowledges that objectives are outdated and not realistic.
Objective numbers in those units were dictated by landowner social tolerance for elk during the last elk management plan. Landowners were in the driver’s seat. Landowners control access to elk on their property. Lack of access is the only factor causing “overpopulation” of elk. This “overpopulation” is a function of there being more elk than landowners had previously wished for, not a function of elk numbers being higher than carrying capacity and causing habitat degradation.
Hank says that the promise of his predecessors to implement cow only harvest on private land if elk numbers got over objective was an “empty promise” and would provoke lawsuits. He doesn’t want FWP to be sued even though that is a tool he could use to help bring elk numbers into objective to satisfy the same landowners who set the objectives for elk on the unit.

Hank wants to comply with the statutory mandate of “objectives”, yet he has no problems disregarding the statutory intent of the 90/10 legislation concerning limited permits. That’s why all of these units are being proposed to be unlimited rather than limited with high quotas.

Hank has no problems picking and choosing which statutory mandates he wants to honor and set policy to be in compliance with.

Hank has already made a choice of who he is listening to and it’s not the resident public land hunter. The only question remains is whether or not the resident public land hunter is going to be able to raise our collective voice to the level that the Commission is willing to hear? Will they hear us?

The agency might get sued, but the agency has clear statutory authority to go to cow only seasons, and the plaintiffs would lose the lawsuit. If the agency got sued for failing to meet objective as defined in statute, then they may win, but the extent of the damages may be lessened as the constitutional issues relative to wildlife existing as a condition of the land may negate the at or below objective statute, as well as the reality of wildlife population dynamics. Hank has been offering political talking points throughout the podcast with little in terms of actual management prescriptions.

In fact, if the lawsuit is about objectives, then the judge may likely force the agency to go to cow only as part of the remedy.

 

[seeth07]

What I find interesting is that as an outsider of the situation listening to this podcast and whole issue in general, I found myself not necessarily agreeing with everything Hank said but at least somewhat understanding his view and believing what he says. Yet for those of you from Montana, Hank is the devil. Very interesting...

 

[Nameless Range]

What I find interesting is that as an outsider of the situation listening to this podcast and whole issue in general, I found myself not necessarily agreeing with everything Hank said but at least somewhat understanding his view and believing what he says. Yet for those of you from Montana, Hank is the devil. Very interesting...

This is because our view of the Director is now based on a years' worth of evidence. Anyone can talk smooth and state a position, but over time background evidence is what frames anything someone says. It's the old, "Fool me once...." phrase, and we are in Fool me for the 15th time territory.

It's also just a function of being anti-utilitarian. Yes, there are people who have legitimate positions in favor of the changes proposed. They are 1% of Montana, large landowners, and politically connected. What this all boils down to, as others have said, is who does the commission represent?

 

[SAJ-99]

There is a single simple and easy rule that could be passed to help ensure that ranchers really want the elk removed: in order to get payments for damages caused by elk, your property must be open for public access to allow hunters a chance to deter the elk from preventing such claimed damages.

I believe that rule exists- it is game damage hunts.

 

[Straight Arrow]

who does the commission represent?

That is the key to what occurs going forward. But it's naïve to ignore the fact that the Governor appointed the Commission and that appointments were likely a result of relationships and reasons of conforming attitudes and ideology.

 

[Ben Lamb]

I believe that rule exists- it is game damage hunts.

MT doesn't have damage payments, but offers fencing and other things necessary to help keep elk out of places they are harming.

@seeth07 Hank's doing to political shuck & jive. His talking points are well prepared, but the depth of knowledge doesn't exist.

 

[Point Creep]

If this is your take then you swallowed the Director’s line.

For the duration of the recorded interview, I was thinking how uncomfortable it would be to lie for a friend (or employer) for 2 hours and 20 minutes, in front of everybody that has a link to that podcast. Hank made it seem so natural and jovial.

 

[Gerald Martin]

What I find interesting is that as an outsider of the situation listening to this podcast and whole issue in general, I found myself not necessarily agreeing with everything Hank said but at least somewhat understanding his view and believing what he says. Yet for those of you from Montana, Hank is the devil. Very interesting...

Hank paints a picture of the general state of elk in Montana by consistently referencing a few cherry picked units that have the numbers to illustrate his narrative.

Those units are statistical outliers.

Yet, policy made based on the numbers those units affects the quality of hunting across the rest of the state.

 

[Straight Arrow]

Director Worsech expressed the same rhetoric and skewed rationale regarding elk management at the recent legislative Environmental Quality Council meeting. Of course, most of EQC fully agreed and praised him for the needed "changes" in management and for the recognition of "social" perspective regarding elk objectives and management. Familiar characters on the EQC such as Scobey's Senator Brenden were happy to see this new direction, as now Brenden finds it easier to agree with FWP, rather than continue his longstanding hatred.

I hold enormous respect for Senator Pat Flowers for being able to sit through those EQC meetings and offer intelligent well founded remarks in the midst of seemingly idiotic babble.
'Don't know how Sen Flowers maintains his cool so well.

 

[TOGIE]

For the duration of the recorded interview, I was thinking how uncomfortable it would be to lie for a friend (or employer) for 2 hours and 20 minutes, in front of everybody that has a link to that podcast. Hank made it seem so natural and jovial.

it's a bird! it's a plane! it's FWP director Gorsech.... no, wait! it's a politician!

 

[Point Creep]

I know in future years while hunting eastern MT on public land for elk, and not having a very good time as there's really nothing there... I'll be thinking of Hank's highly overused word during that podcast.... "Fascinating.."

 

[Addicting]

If this is your take then you swallowed the Director’s line.

I didn’t take it hook, line, and sinker. I took it as the majority of folks listening to it would, face value. Most residents want it all. Based on the kick back given when season structure, tag decreases, or not hunting with family traditions comes around they don’t care about the science too much either. Majority of the hunting population in MT is blissfully unaware or just doesn’t care as long as they get to shoot at elk 364 days a year. IMHO

I listened to it and had questions that you answered previously in this thread. But I ask you, has a majority percentage Montana residents become educated on it and come out against it yet.

 

[Irishman]

As long as Worsech keeps getting the blame we are doomed. Worsech is just put out there to take the heat and blame while the average Montana hunter is getting screwed over by Governor Greg. If Worsech doesn't go along with the plan then he gets fired and a new leader gets appointed. Gianforte and the other politicians need to feel they are getting the blame, or they continue with their plans. Unfortunately, I fear that the truth is, that Gianforte and the other politicians that are to blame for this, feel that they will win elections, no matter how much they mess with hunting in this state.

 

[MTelkHuntress]

I wonder what Worsech's answer is to all the biologists and others resigning.
I may have heard wrong but I'm pretty sure Worsech said we would win the lawsuit but that they would just continuously be sued and it's not worth it. I guess it's not worth it when you're not in favor of the public land hunter and catering to the wealthy who want to hunt their ranches all the time.

It's just not sustainable, wealthy people aren't going to stop buying land here. Kelly Clarkson bought a couple big ranches during the pandemic here. One was even a type 1 bma which she immediately closed to hunting. I don't see how hunters can possibly get access when that landowner isn't even here most of the time and isn't interested in compromises or even letting one hunter on. So why do we have to manage elk that will never be hunted? (Yeah I get the department has to try but it seems their effort would be better spent elsewhere). Why can't we turn our attention to the elk on public land getting so much pressure and their populations decreasing so much that they just aren't on public anymore. As well as turn our attention to working better with landowners that are willing to find solutions that do allow access.

It's ultimately to the detriment of the public land hunter. We have to decrease how many people can hunt public land to decrease pressure enough so the elk will return to public land because there's so many elk on private land that aren't accessible. What I'm trying to get at is that because of that one big landowner not allowing access and therefore decreasing pressure in one part of the unit enough that the elk stay there, we now have to try to decrease pressure (ultimatly limiting how many hunters can hunt or how long they can hunt) on public enough so elk possibly filter onto the public. Hunters are being pushed on to smaller and smaller areas all competing for the same elk and it creates too much pressure. Some hunters even losing access to private land that they used to hunt. Habitat is a big factor as well but I'm also not hearing that talked about very much. Montana has very different regions and districts as well and that needs to be taken into account for solutions. What works in one region may not work in another but it seems the heads of the department are trying to use big changes statewide as "solutions".

Hank kept saying he wants the most liberal seasons without hurting the resource. I think we are very much harming the resource as is and even more liberal seasons will not help.

 

[Southern Elk]

I haven’t listened yet, but I did just email all of the commissioners from Randy’s email list above. I encourage you all to do the same. Ranting on a hunting forum won’t change anything. I’m sure my email wasn’t as elegant or well written as some, but the commissioners know where I stand.

 

[sacountry]

I'm listening to the podcast. Half way through and I'm very tired of hearing Hank say our biggest problem in MT is the landowner that says "I own this land that I can't even hunt on it, but you want me to let every hunter to hunt on it"......Ok Hank, you have the hammer and the saw to build the house, it's called open up the seasons on damage hunts and let the landowner damage hunt his own land. If that's the biggest problem you face Hank, then get to work and get it done.