Montana Elk Proposals with Director Hank Worsech

But still send the email. Mine don’t get replys and I think they were not bad. I can’t imagine how more convincing anybody would be than you would..
 
I have a hard time feeling bad for these non resident landowners that want tags for their newly acquired ranches. We already have landowner preference options and most of these units are fairly easy to draw an archery tag in.

If they really want a tag they can buy the governors tag…it’s available every year.
 
I honestly don't know how any of you made it through that podcast. I've turned it off and walked away a dozen times, and this isn't even something I'm THAT invested in, not nearly like many of you.

I have even more respect for our fearless leader @Big Fin. there is no way I could sit through Hank blubbering and bumbling his was through misdirection after misdirection, lie after lie, and not call him out.

The knowledge disparity across that conversation was shocking. I don't know who said it previously, but how did this guy get hired initially and how is this the cream that rose to the top?
 
I got to give Hank a tiny bit of credit my brother listened to newbergs podcast today and got so fired up, he sent a very fiery email to hank. Hank called him in less than 5 minutes after the email was sent. No way I would have responded to that email if I was in Hank’s position. They argued back and forth for awhile and finally agreed to disagree. It was obvious to me after my brother finished recounting the argument, that Hank is really good at distorting fact and misdirections. This has all been a calculated ploy. He isn’t a dumbass just a useful idiot for Gianforte. I think public land hunters are royally screwed for the duration of this admin. Hope I am wrong
 
rogerthat said:
I got to give Hank a tiny bit of credit my brother listened to newbergs podcast today and got so fired up, he sent a very fiery email to hank. Hank called him in less than 5 minutes after the email was sent. No way I would have responded to that email if I was in Hank’s position. They argued back and forth for awhile and finally agreed to disagree. It was obvious to me after my brother finished recounting the argument, that Hank is really good at distorting fact and misdirections. This has all been a calculated ploy. He isn’t a dumbass just a useful idiot for Gianforte. I think public land hunters are royally screwed for the duration of this admin. Hope I am wrong
Click to expand...
So do his comments count since it was email and phone call with Hank or did that need to go to the commission?

Something tells me these poor non resident landowners aren’t as upset about non being able to hunt themselves, they’re probably upset it’s not easier to make money selling hunts or tags themselves
 
TheTone said:
So do his comments count since it was email and phone call with Hank or did that need to go to the commission?

Something tells me these poor non resident landowners aren’t as upset about non being able to hunt themselves, they’re probably upset it’s not easier to make money selling hunts or tags themselves
Click to expand...
According to Hank in the podcast comments to him are worthless. His part is to deal with the science and there is no comment period on that. Also if you call him out to commission those comments will be ignored since it is only the "social" issues that are up for discussion.
 

rogerthat said:
I got to give Hank a tiny bit of credit my brother listened to newbergs podcast today and got so fired up, he sent a very fiery email to hank. Hank called him in less than 5 minutes after the email was sent. No way I would have responded to that email if I was in Hank’s position. They argued back and forth for awhile and finally agreed to disagree. It was obvious to me after my brother finished recounting the argument, that Hank is really good at distorting fact and misdirections. This has all been a calculated ploy. He isn’t a dumbass just a useful idiot for Gianforte. I think public land hunters are royally screwed for the duration of this admin. Hope I am wrong
Click to expand...
I think what's important to note here. As Hank said, comments to him are worthless and we need to recognize this. He may use your comments, or those of your brother, if they fit his narrative. To avoid this, the commission needs to hear them. Use their email, their phones, their social media, but be respectful. The Commission is not FWP nor state legislature so don't hold them accountable on the crap being tossed about by the latter.
 
Last edited:
BuckRut said:
According to Hank in the podcast comments to him are worthless. His part is to deal with the science and there is no comment period on that. Also if you call him out to commission those comments will be ignored since it is only the "social" issues that are up for discussion.
Click to expand...
Emails to the commissioners definitely let them know the social temperature of people who are paying attention to these proposals.

Hank had the opportunity to put these proposals in front of the commission. Now they have the opportunity to approve or reject them. I have to think that the massive amount of comments opposed to some of these proposals can have the same effect that it did on the Dec. 13 working session where they told Hank not to bring that set of proposals in front of them.

These proposals are essentially a repackaging of the original ones. Hopefully, the commission hears us and rejects these as well.
 
Gerald Martin said:
Emails to the commissioners definitely let them know the social temperature of people who are paying attention to these proposals.

Hank had the opportunity to put these proposals in front of the commission. Now they have the opportunity to approve or reject them. I have to think that the massive amount of comments opposed to some of these proposals can have the same effect that it did on the Dec. 13 working session where they told Hank not to bring that set of proposals in front of them.

These proposals are essentially a repackaging of the original ones. Hopefully, the commission hears us and rejects these as well.
Click to expand...
I'm a little surprised that there will be public comment when the public comment period was to have ended on 1/21. Are we certain they'll be accepting comment on these proposals or just the other stuff on the agenda?
 
sacountry said:
I'm a little surprised that there will be public comment when the public comment period was to have ended on 1/21. Are we certain they'll be accepting comment on these proposals or just the other stuff on the agenda?
Click to expand...
There are some amendments being considered that weren’t available to comment on during the public comment period. They have to take public comments on those during the meeting.

It’s one more opportunity to ask the commission to reject those amendments and the majority of the proposals.
 
sacountry said:
I think what's important to note here. As Hank said, comments to him are worthless and we need to recognize this. He may use your comments, or those of your brother, if they fit his narrative. To avoid this, the commission needs to hear them. Use their email, their phones, their social media, but be respectful. The Commission is not FWP nor state legislature so don't hold them accountable on the crap being tossed about by the latter.
Click to expand...
Yup. I agree. Talking to the Director is a waste of time at this point. We have all submitted our comments and emailed the commissioners weeks ago. IMO with public employees sometimes they need to hear the cold hard truth about the implications of their conduct. That's part of the job. The conversation was quite revealing. "Your biologist had a good proposal. How come you didn't go with that for unit ### since it was based in science?" Hank: "Really? What was that proposal? Well I hope you submitted that as a comment. Maybe the commission will pick that"....unreal
 
sacountry said:
I'm a little surprised that there will be public comment when the public comment period was to have ended on 1/21. Are we certain they'll be accepting comment on these proposals or just the other stuff on the agenda?
Click to expand...

In the past, there was a mixed bag of this based on whether or not issues were controversial or had significant public involvement. From an administrative point, I get why they would limit comment on past issues if there is no change, but I wonder if it breaks the spirit of public involvement & government transparency.

Still, showing up and being present is a comment in and of itself. Strongly encourage everyone to continue to pour on the emails, calls and plan on being there this Friday.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Big Fin
FWP Commission to change Gardiner Elk hunting
8 9 10
Replies
183
Views
20K
Shed God
S
Big Fin
Montana - Time to Shake it Up?
51 52 53
Replies
1K
Views
53K
Eric Albus
E
Ben Lamb
Montana FWP makes seismic shift in elk permits
54 55 56
Replies
1K
Views
127K
antlerradar
antlerradar
K
MT HB 151 could cost us over $20 Million
Replies
0
Views
2K
katqanna
K
K
FWP Serving our elk up on an APHIS platter April 10th.
2 3
Replies
44
Views
6K
katqanna
K

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
111,277
Messages
1,953,247
Members
35,107
Latest member
mttedoc

Share this page

Back
Top