Montana Elk Proposals with Director Hank Worsech

[sacountry]

One of the big misconceptions is that the landowners with big elk populations on their land want them off, or their numbers reduced. There may be some that do, but I know for a fact that some (or the so called outfitters operating there) do their best to keep elk on their property during hunting season (doing things like not tracking wounded elk to avoid pushing the herd off their land). So what happens if they get more bull tags, and have more incentive to keep elk on their property.

They have that right to decide that and that's ok. This past fall FWP effectively made what I stated earlier possible, but FWP failed to get enough in return. This should have included mandatary enrollment of a percentage of land into block for the purpose of hunting cows. As it's written, you have to apply, they get to vet you, then you get to hunt with their ranch manager, blah, blah. It's crap and doesn't solve the problem. Getting lots of licensed hunters on private land does.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Is claiming eminent domain outside the box enough of a tool?

This would result in a lawsuit that the state likely wouldn't win, and it would set up a takings initiative that would cripple the state for ANY decision they make that would theoretically undermine someone's property rights.

Eminent Domain is hardly ever the appropriate tool.

 

[shoots-straight]

MOGA to The Governor to the commission (Tabor & ramrodding this through the commission) to the Directors and back to the commission, screw everyone but MOGA, this is a social issue about monetary gain and MOGA and the outfitting worlds hold on Montana's wildlife and privatizing our wildlife. This is the proposal that will be used unless 4 commissioners say no, good luck with that. Remember there is a working session 2/3/2022 thing will happen, the commission can go with no public comments except commenting at the the meeting 2/4/2022. MOGA and Tabor are pushing the new lion proposal with no public comments, what else will be pushed on the 3rd at the work session.

One thing that's fairly constant with MOGA, is you'll always find them with their hand extended out, but rarely fighting for the resource when needed.

 

[BuckRut]

This would result in a lawsuit that the state likely wouldn't win, and it would set up a takings initiative that would cripple the state for ANY decision they make that would theoretically undermine someone's property rights.

Eminent Domain is hardly ever the appropriate tool.

I agree. I was being sarcastic and saying as inappropriate as it would be it is about on par with thought process on this.

 

[Ben Lamb]

I agree. I was being sarcastic and saying as inappropriate as it would be it is about on par with thought process on this.

 

[Finalshot]

I think you just came up with our new slogan. "Montana Fish Wildlife and Parks - Digging our way to the top of fish and game management in the West"

or how about "managing our way to success through the insanity principle."

 

[bigsky2]

Prior to 637 the law was for 4 public hunters to be chosen by the agency, with a right of refusal by the landowner. 637 lowered that to 3, and allowed for the landowner to choose the 1 person based on a process established by the landowner.

In the past, the ratio of licensed hunters allowed to permits offered was generally much higher than the bare minimum the billionaire boys club asked for and got w/no negotiation.

Here's the draft of 637: https://leg.mt.gov/bills/2021/billpdf/HB0637.pdf

Prior to 637, the 434 agreements were actually fair to the public. In Randy's interview, Hank said that only two landowners participated because no one knew about the program. He predicted there will be a lot more landowners participating. I agree with him. It's not because landowners are suddenly aware of it, its because the precedent was set with the Wilks agreement that these agreements are a lot more favorable to the landowner than they were previously. If I remember correctly, the cow hunters that get to hunt on the Wilks only get a three day window to hunt, and the ranch gets to choose the days. Not that it would take more than a couple hours to get a cow, but the previous 454 agreements allowed the public hunters to hunt the entire season. I believe the days they choose can even be during the shoulder season.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Prior to 637, the 434 agreements were actually fair to the public. In Randy's interview, Hank said that only two landowners participated because no one knew about the program. He predicted there will be a lot more landowners participating. I agree with him. It's not because landowners are suddenly aware of it, its because the precedent was set with the Wilks agreement that these agreements are a lot more favorable to the landowner than they were previously. If I remember correctly, the cow hunters that get to hunt on the Wilks only get a three day window to hunt, and the ranch gets to choose the days. Not that it would take more than a couple hours to get a cow, but the previous 454 agreements allowed the public hunters to hunt the entire season. I believe the days they choose can even be during the shoulder season.

The same lobbyist who got the Wilk's stuff done was responsible for most of the other ones.

 

[antlerradar]

Montana FWP Director and Commission are serving outfitters and wealthy non resident land owners, NOT Montana residents. Outfitters will be able to guarantee a trophy archery elk hunt to anyone that can afford it. The republican legislature passed the FWP bill that overturned I-161 and gave back outfitter elk set aside tags; and with the FWP proposal to change the 900-20 and 417 limited elk tags to unlimited; outfitter clients wouldn't have to draw a permit. FWP and the Commission gave transferable elk tags to wealthy non resident land owners with no equitable reciprocal access for the public. And now wealthy non residents will not have to draw an elk permit. What does the Montana resident get? An over crowded shit show on public lands. Gianforte appointed 6 of the 7 FWP Commissioners and the legislature passed this legislation.

I think that these proposals may only be a temporary victory for outfitters. The trend near me is both resident and nonresident hunters looking for a quality hunt to out bid outfitters for privet hunting leases or to out right buy the ranch. Just this last week the Western Ag Reporter ran a half page add on the front page for a resident looking for a ranch to lease so his family and friends would have quality hunting. With the "over crowded shit show on public lands" that is sure to result from passage of these proposals even more people will be looking to land there own private hunting lease. The only thing that might hold them back is the availability of tags and these proposals go a long way in eliminating that sticking point too.

 

[Spartan_Eric]

MOGA to The Governor to the commission (Tabor & ramrodding this through the commission) to the Directors and back to the commission, screw everyone but MOGA, this is a social issue about monetary gain and MOGA and the outfitting worlds hold on Montana's wildlife and privatizing our wildlife. This is the proposal that will be used unless 4 commissioners say no, good luck with that. Remember there is a working session 2/3/2022 thing will happen, the commission can go with no public comments except commenting at the the meeting 2/4/2022. MOGA and Tabor are pushing the new lion proposal with no public comments, what else will be pushed on the 3rd at the work session.

I am not sure why MOGA felt the need to basically agree line by line with virtually all the proposed hunting regulation changes, since they were written by MOGA and UPOM. That extreme level of phoniness seemed labored to me.

 

[Ben Lamb]

I am not sure why MOGA felt the need to basically agree line by line with virtually all the proposed hunting regulation changes, since they were written by MOGA and UPOM. That extreme level of phoniness seemed labored to me.

it's called "Cover your Ass" in political speak. It's so the Director's Office can turn around and say "see, we listened to the public!"

 

[SAJ-99]

MOGA to The Governor to the commission (Tabor & ramrodding this through the commission) to the Directors and back to the commission, screw everyone but MOGA, this is a social issue about monetary gain and MOGA and the outfitting worlds hold on Montana's wildlife and privatizing our wildlife. This is the proposal that will be used unless 4 commissioners say no, good luck with that. Remember there is a working session 2/3/2022 thing will happen, the commission can go with no public comments except commenting at the the meeting 2/4/2022. MOGA and Tabor are pushing the new lion proposal with no public comments, what else will be pushed on the 3rd at the work session.

Most of that is simply a torture of numbers. Google can't find anything called Quick Look: Economic Impact of Limited Archery Permits. I base my conclusion on the other economic analysis that MOGA likes to use. which is garbage.

The Outfitters have an advantage that they have a unified voice on recommendations, garbage analysis or not. Hunters don't have that. Just like hunters don't have much of a legal recourse when they get screwed over. Wilks can threaten to sue and FWP has to take it seriously. Average hunter? No way.

 

[MTGomer]

I just listened to the entire interview. I sure have a ton of respect for Randy’s patience or maturity or restraint or whatever you wanna call it.

 

[sacountry]

I just listened to the entire interview. I sure have a ton of respect for Randy’s patience or maturity or restraint or whatever you wanna call it.

Amen

 

[Irrelevant]

You can't make this stuff up.

 

[TOGIE]

did i see gerald say kelly clarkson is not part of the problem?

hogwash

 

[Wind Gypsy]

I'm most of the way through it. Every time I hear him say something about "them providing the science to the commissioners.."

 

[Schaaf]

You can't make this stuff up.
View attachment 210854

I think Hank deleted my name from the email list.

 

[Gerald Martin]

did i see gerald say kelly clarkson is not part of the problem?

hogwash

Kelly has as much right to dictate who gets to access her property as I do on mine. That’s not a problem.

I didn’t say it doesn’t affect her neighbors when she doesn’t allow access and elk increase in her neighborhood. But, the biggest “problem” with all this is that an arbitrary number of desired elk has been exceeded by the elk. Good for the elk. I don’t consider that a problem.

There are folks who do consider that a problem. I am willing to help them but not in ways that ensure that Kelly or other folks get priority over everyone else for bull tags that bring them a financial reward for causing the “problem.” Nor am I willing to support management policies that allow all the elk on accessible private and public to be eliminated or harassed to Kelly’s property.

It’s time for a change from FWP’s doubling down on insanity.

 

[TOGIE]

Kelly has as much right to dictate who gets to access her property as I do on mine. That’s not a problem.

I didn’t say it doesn’t affect her neighbors when she doesn’t allow access and elk increase in her neighborhood. But, the biggest “problem” with all this is that an arbitrary number of desired elk has been exceeded by the elk. Good for the elk. I don’t consider that a problem.

There are folks who do consider that a problem. I am willing to help them but not in ways that ensure that Kelly or other folks get priority over everyone else for bull tags that bring them a financial reward for causing the “problem.” Nor am I willing to support management policies that allow all the elk on accessible private and public to be eliminated or harassed to Kelly’s property.

It’s time for a change from FWP’s doubling down on insanity.

Give me any one problem we face on gods green earth and I will tell you how Kelly Clarkson is in some way a part of it.

From over crowding on colorado otc elk units to the intellectual reduction of music, Kelly is there.