Montana Elk Proposals with Director Hank Worsech

[WanderWoman]

Well done with the interview. Im still confused about how the 454 tags are issued. Where does that pool of hunters come from? Is there a list? That program seems to me like it could actually have some merit, but I’m certainly no expert in the confusing world of MT.

Maybe this was answered already. The 454 public hunters are selected or chosen at random from the lists of successful applicants. Example: Prior to HB 637, a landowner would recieve a 454 tag and then would get to select one hunter from the list of successful applicants for that permit, then 2 more would be randomly chosen from the list by FWP. So for the Swanz agreements that have been happening for years, the landowner would get a permit valid on their property, then select a hunter from the list of 411-20 holders, and then the department would randomly select 2 more of the 411-20 permit holders. Those hunters, unlike the landowner, would not be limited to only hunting the landowner's property as they already have that permit, they just get the benefit of access to said property. With some of the more recent agreements post 637, the landowners have selected the 1 or more bull hunters from the list of successful permit holders and then FWP randomly drew cow hunters from the lists of cow licenses in that area. Clear as mud?

 

[rgross]

Hank said it all "unlimited tags are a shot over nonresident's bow". The legislature, Hank and the Commission, both appointed by the governor), have been serving outfitters and nonresidents. They are implementing the agendas of UPOM, PERC, SFW, MOGA and FOAM.

 

[nontyp]

Maybe this was answered already. The 454 public hunters are selected or chosen at random from the lists of successful applicants. Example: Prior to HB 637, a landowner would recieve a 454 tag and then would get to select one hunter from the list of successful applicants for that permit, then 2 more would be randomly chosen from the list by FWP. So for the Swanz agreements that have been happening for years, the landowner would get a permit valid on their property, then select a hunter from the list of 411-20 holders, and then the department would randomly select 2 more of the 411-20 permit holders. Those hunters, unlike the landowner, would not be limited to only hunting the landowner's property as they already have that permit, they just get the benefit of access to said property. With some of the more recent agreements post 637, the landowners have selected the 1 or more bull hunters from the list of successful permit holders and then FWP randomly drew cow hunters from the lists of cow licenses in that area. Clear as mud?

Thank you for the info! Complex, just like everything hunting related in Montana.

 

[Bowhunter65]

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 things 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.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Maybe this was answered already. The 454 public hunters are selected or chosen at random from the lists of successful applicants. Example: Prior to HB 637, a landowner would recieve a 454 tag and then would get to select one hunter from the list of successful applicants for that permit, then 2 more would be randomly chosen from the list by FWP. So for the Swanz agreements that have been happening for years, the landowner would get a permit valid on their property, then select a hunter from the list of 411-20 holders, and then the department would randomly select 2 more of the 411-20 permit holders. Those hunters, unlike the landowner, would not be limited to only hunting the landowner's property as they already have that permit, they just get the benefit of access to said property. With some of the more recent agreements post 637, the landowners have selected the 1 or more bull hunters from the list of successful permit holders and then FWP randomly drew cow hunters from the lists of cow licenses in that area. Clear as mud?

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

 

[The Hedgehog]

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.

Wells that's surprising fascinating.

 

[The Hedgehog]

Maybe this was answered already. The 454 public hunters are selected or chosen at random from the lists of successful applicants. Example: Prior to HB 637, a landowner would recieve a 454 tag and then would get to select one hunter from the list of successful applicants for that permit, then 2 more would be randomly chosen from the list by FWP. So for the Swanz agreements that have been happening for years, the landowner would get a permit valid on their property, then select a hunter from the list of 411-20 holders, and then the department would randomly select 2 more of the 411-20 permit holders. Those hunters, unlike the landowner, would not be limited to only hunting the landowner's property as they already have that permit, they just get the benefit of access to said property. With some of the more recent agreements post 637, the landowners have selected the 1 or more bull hunters from the list of successful permit holders and then FWP randomly drew cow hunters from the lists of cow licenses in that area. Clear as mud?

 

[RandanP]

The discussion around the public trust around 1:05 is strange, relative to the Public Trust Doctrine and who the trustees really are. Elected officials are not the only trustees, but the trust manager should be as well, and while the public is the beneficiary of the trust, our constitutional democratic republic clearly place the public as the trustee as well, especially when we look at Montana's constitutional right to participate. To simply say that unelected commissioners and the elected politicians are the trustees is so anathema to real conservative philosophy that it makes zero sense to hear a director of a state agency simply state that wildlife should be managed for the elected and bureaucrats rather than for the people who hire & fire those bureaucrats and electeds.

But it's recurring theme at the legislature: They know more than you, they're more important than you and you don't get to have a voice.



This is true, but take it with a grain of salt. This is the same Director's office that has refused to give out information through the official channels, who obfuscate through political talking points and they have said on the podcast that if you don't comment about the proposed action, your comment will be ignored. The issue of the anti-wolf trapping folks commenting on "no trapping" was summarily dismissed because they wanted to have trapping. That dismissal may seem fine to those who want to trap wolves, but that same dismissal will be coming around for you when it's time to carve up what you love, like, IDK, elk hunting or something.

Email the commission this week. I'd not bother with the agency. You comments will be viewed as being submitted past the deadline, and they won't include them in anything.

Hank does not understand the public trust doctrine. How does he justify the malarkey that was the general tags on private? Rep Kassmier presented a similar bill last session and it failed in committee. Where is the mandate from the trustees to take this action. The answer is, there was no mandate, it failed in committee and the manager needs to acknowledge this.

Where is the trustee mandate for any of these changes? These mandates need to manifest themselves via official channels and legislative actions. Speaker Galt telling you (manager) to do something is not an action of the trustee and it is a managerial perversion to tailor legislation to such a request.

The best thing to come out of the 2/4 commission meeting would be motion for a vote of confidence on FWP leadership. Hopefully a commissioner, that is not Byorth, will have the courage to bring this forward. The trust beneficiaries have a crisis of confidence in this leadership. It is time to remove Hank Worsech and those in leadership that were promoted non-competitively. The real Machiavellian force here is Dustin Temple. He is the fixer and the brains behind all of this. His removal is critical for the future of FWP and the Montana sporting heritage.

 

[sacountry]

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.

That's a really tough read but it does demonstrate how to make a cohesive argument. I loath tossing in "economic benefit" arguments into FWP decisions. FWP is supposed to solely advocate for our wildlife. The legislature is where economic benefit should be weighed.

As for landowner hunting privilege's, I've never understood why a landowner has to have 600+ acres to get a guaranteed landowner tag. Wouldn't it be more fair to allow a landowner a tag, or even multiple tags, from the district pool if they agree to enroll a percentage of their land into Block Management? Obviously need some parameters on this, but allow those tags to be transferable to guides to make it an even richer incentive. To Hanks point, bull tags are FWP currency. Use that currency to create incentive for access, even if the block management harvest is limited to cows. Such a strategy would help thin the herd in problem areas. I know this doesn't solve for @antlerradar's concern about policing public hunter abuse of private land so it's not perfect solution. I prefer enhancing damage hunting to limit his risk while assisting in protecting his crop. Damage hunt seasons would and should be the only extended hunting seasons allowed and could run from August 15-Feb 15 if biological data warrants. Shoulder seasons as presently configured are dumb.

Point is, make policy (tools) that enable landowner choice within biological parameters vs forcing people to eat the crap that Helena is and has been producing which clearly favors the rich.

 

[The Hedgehog]

It's the vision of a subset of the landowners and outfitters - apparently 500 of them. If there's not a single animal on public land, all the hunters will be coming to my place and the game can be completely managed by me for however I $ee fit..

 

[rgross]

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.

 

[rgross]

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.

 

[rgross]

Changing limited either sex permits to unlimited permits will do nothing to reduce elk populations. This is not only a smoke screen to try and justify this, but it is hypocrisy.

 

[BuckRut]

I feel like Worsech's take on not having the correct management tools equates to finding ourselves in a hole and our rich neighbor hands down a shovel. And instead of calling the guy a prick he says "let's try something outside the box and give this thing a go".

 

[WanderWoman]

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

It was lowered to three during the previous (2019) legislative session. Prior to 2019, the landowner didn't get to pick any of the "public" hunters outside of their one tag (which could be themselves, direct family, or employee). Since 2019, the landowner has been permitted to pick one of the hunters from the list of permit holders.

 

[Gerald Martin]

I feel like Worsech's take on not having the correct management tools equates to finding ourselves in a hole and our rich neighbor hands down a shovel. And instead of calling the guy a prick he says "let's try something outside the box and give this thing a go".

Well, it’s obvious that digging a deeper hole with our hands didn’t work to get us out of the hole so it’s time to stop the insanity and use a shovel to dig our way to the top…

 

[rogerthat]

Well, it’s obvious that digging a deeper hole with our hands didn’t work to get us out of the hole so it’s time to stop the insanity and use a shovel to dig our way to the top…

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"

 

[The Hedgehog]

@Eric Albus @Big Shooter come on guys - tell us about it.

 

[Irishman]

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.

 

[BuckRut]

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