MT ELK, Changing it up?

[canadiantuxedo]

So first post but it looks like fwp and worsech are holding our governor's and some rich peoples pockets. Seems they only trying to manage trophy bulls to there interest. And to think about it, I dont blame them. U think how the public has treated wildlife and the land. Killing everything and ruining it. Maybe its for the best at least the herds will survive on private. Some bulls will get some age. U will just have to get a 2nd job and go on a once in a lifetime hunt to kill a 300 bull in 5yrs. Or the public land hunters can loose there $hit and actually do something to better wildlife and hunting. Fwp is not gonna do there job. Think how places that u know of that should have huge deer and elk populations that maybe once did but are terrible now. The biggest problem is fwp and how they manage. The 2nd biggest is the public land hunter. I am a public land hunter but how many people kill a deer or elk just cause they have a tag. Maybe some laws should be be implemented and enforced to protect the wildlife and secure hunting opportunities.

MT's FWP has done a sterling job the past few decades in managing our wildlife resource. The problem is Montanans elected a millionaire from New Jersey as governor and he expanded or "packed" the FWP commission to pack it with individuals who will do the bidding of large (and from what I understand, absentee) landowners. https://helenair.com/news/state-and...cle_abdc762c-baa9-50b2-9fa0-090a603f0e42.html

 

[Unlucky]

I disagree with u. Montana fwp has allowed this to happen the last 20yrs. Catering to private land owners. Allowing over harvest. The public pressure has pushed alot of animals to private. Or basically non existent in some areas of public. GG and the $$$ just taking there shot to capitalize on the problem using over objective to do it. Funny fwp and landowners are the the ones that come up with the objective numbers. But most land owners don't allow hunting. Hm wonder if its all relevant

 

[Montana2015]

I am trying to figure out how to best approach the meeting in Helena on December 14th. I would like feedback on my initial thoughts. I am old and most my elk hunting is behind me. However, I have children and now grandchildren that I would sure stand up for and try to help. Having said this, I don't have the science or biology information regarding the good vs bad of these proposals to argue. I do believe that this whole thing isn't about science or game management. It is about wealthy private landowners, and GG owing them. They want the ability to hunt what they want without restrictions. I would be willing to go to the meeting and call out this fact. I feel like the best method is to go back in recent time and ask some very pointed questions. I.E. Why did the Wilks get 10 either sex permits last fall? Who approved this? What did the public get for this? Why did we overturn HB 543 (?) in the 2nd to last day of this years legislature session and clearly the vast majority of the feedback was against this. They slammed it through as GG's man, Worsech had to travel. Anyway, I have thrown out a lot of thoughts and ideas. I am open to feedback on my approach and would like suggestions on how or if I should go about it. I also believe we need to figure out how to make this as public as possible. I.E. editorials.

 

[Unlucky]

Funny the wilks getting there bull tags, didnt even go to public comment. Just a gift. Hm? Sounds wierd. I wonder what wilks gave or already gave GG. On a side note yes private should get gaurenteed tags based on there acres. Alot of acres for a tag. Not the 640. But 10, i thought it was 8. I wonder how those got given out. Fwp didn't issue them nbar did. Crazy

 

[Southern Elk]

It’s coming to a head folks.

Guest view: Citizens' elk coalition forming

Elk hunting is everything to Montanans. We guard our vacation days with jealousy in anticipation of elk camp deep in the forests or Breaks country. We choose our sick days

mtstandard.com

Signed up. Keep us updated on what we can do, Schaaf.

 

[Deleted member 20812]

I disagree with u. Montana fwp has allowed this to happen the last 20yrs. Catering to private land owners. Allowing over harvest. The public pressure has pushed alot of animals to private. Or basically non existent in some areas of public. GG and the $$$ just taking there shot to capitalize on the problem using over objective to do it. Funny fwp and landowners are the the ones that come up with the objective numbers. But most land owners don't allow hunting. Hm wonder if its all relevant

You’re missing some context with respect to the EMP and state statute that mandates FWP manage at or below objective. If you’re looking for conspiracy with respect to objective numbers can I doubt you’ll find it. My opinion is Senator Barrett checkmated FWP on this.

FWP has some direct culpability in not fully implementing sideboards for the EMP, but it’s not as simplistic as you would make it out to be.

 

[Ben Lamb]

I am trying to figure out how to best approach the meeting in Helena on December 14th. I would like feedback on my initial thoughts. I am old and most my elk hunting is behind me. However, I have children and now grandchildren that I would sure stand up for and try to help. Having said this, I don't have the science or biology information regarding the good vs bad of these proposals to argue. I do believe that this whole thing isn't about science or game management. It is about wealthy private landowners, and GG owing them. They want the ability to hunt what they want without restrictions. I would be willing to go to the meeting and call out this fact. I feel like the best method is to go back in recent time and ask some very pointed questions. I.E. Why did the Wilks get 10 either sex permits last fall? Who approved this? What did the public get for this? Why did we overturn HB 543 (?) in the 2nd to last day of this years legislature session and clearly the vast majority of the feedback was against this. They slammed it through as GG's man, Worsech had to travel. Anyway, I have thrown out a lot of thoughts and ideas. I am open to feedback on my approach and would like suggestions on how or if I should go about it. I also believe we need to figure out how to make this as public as possible. I.E. editorials.

I think speaking from your heart is usually the best way to go.

I encourage everyone to sign up & be there in person, the more that attend, the more likely the commission will see a benefit to voting down the worst of these. They may try to limit public testimony, they may try to tell you not to say something that's been said before, or they may try to limit public testimony altogether.

But that's counter to the Montana constitution and statutes that allow for public comment. Hold your ground, be polite, passionate and professional.

 

[MTelkHuntress]

They may try to limit public testimony, they may try to tell you not to say something that's been said before, or they may try to limit public testimony altogether.

I've always found this interesting. The commissioners always talk about being short on time during the meetings but I can't help but feel for the person that took the time to write up their speech as well as took time out of their day to be present and yet they get told essentially that what they have to say doesn't matter because of time or that their point has already been stated.

On another note, are people from out of state not allowed to make public comment? I saw during one of the meetings they cut people off on zoom who were from out of state. I absolutely understand Montanans take priority but that just seemed kind of odd.

 

[Ben Lamb]

I've always found this interesting. The commissioners always talk about being short on time during the meetings but I can't help but feel for the person that took the time to write up their speech as well as took time out of their day to be present and yet they get told essentially that what they have to say doesn't matter because of time or that their point has already been stated.

On another note, are people from out of state not allowed to make public comment? I saw during one of the meetings they cut people off on zoom who were from out of state. I absolutely understand Montanans take priority but that just seemed kind of odd.

They let them speak if it fits their narrative, otherwise they cut them off. That's usually the case regardless of who is in control.

 

[Elkmagnet]

Oh bs. That’s a line of political crap. Fwp issues are not what most people vote on

Perhaps they should start

 

[rogerthat]

Bad information. HD 700 isn’t included in this.

That press release was so confusing. So is the proposal just for the 8 units identified? Why even mention the other 6? It also states that permits will be reduced or eliminated in all 14 units. Which units are they being eliminated in? Seems like the press release was about as well thought out as the proposal. Hank and his public affairs staff should be fired for incompetence

 

[Beignet]

That press release was so confusing. So is the proposal just for the 8 units identified? Why even mention the other 6? It also states that permits will be reduced or eliminated in all 14 units. Which units are they being eliminated in? Seems like the press release was about as well thought out as the proposal. Hank and his public affairs staff should be fired for incompetence

The obfuscation seems deliberate. Just spoke with a pretty bright friend of mine who was entirely confused about what the proposal and at first glance didn’t think it was a cause for concern.

 

[Unlucky]

JLS the EMP is a joke. It is not that simple but i dont think its a good thing for the public and many people are taking advantage of it.

 

[Deleted member 20812]

JLS the EMP is a joke.

Sure it is. Like I said, Senator Barrett pulled off the ultimate checkmate a lot of folks never saw coming.

 

[Big Fin]

Anyone know what this means? This standard language on agendas? Does this mean they are not taking public comment on these proposals when the Commission meets on the 14th?

I'm confused. Link here - https://fwp.mt.gov/binaries/content...021/agenda/december-14-2021-public-agenda.pdf

 

[SAJ-99]

Anyone know what this means? This standard language on agendas? Does this mean they are not taking public comment on these proposals when the Commission meets on the 14th?

I'm confused. Link here - https://fwp.mt.gov/binaries/content...021/agenda/december-14-2021-public-agenda.pdf


View attachment 204938

Not sure. The body of the text describes how to participate and make comments on zoom. The footnote doesn’t make a lot of sense. And it looks like it was written by the same Nigerian Prince that sent me an email yesterday asking for money. I guess the proofreader resigned for a better opportunity.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Anyone know what this means? This standard language on agendas? Does this mean they are not taking public comment on these proposals when the Commission meets on the 14th?

I'm confused. Link here - https://fwp.mt.gov/binaries/content...021/agenda/december-14-2021-public-agenda.pdf


View attachment 204938

I'd say it looks like the agency doesn't want people to show up & speak their mind.

So I would strongly encourage everyone to show up & speak their mind.

 

[sacountry]

Anyone know what this means? This standard language on agendas? Does this mean they are not taking public comment on these proposals when the Commission meets on the 14th?

I'm confused. Link here - https://fwp.mt.gov/binaries/content...021/agenda/december-14-2021-public-agenda.pdf


View attachment 204938

In contradiction to that page, here's a link that says public comment will be available in all it's forms.....it would however appear that one must take a full day off work, sit through the 7 hour long meeting, waiting for the opportunity to speak on the issue.

Fish & Wildlife Commission: December 14, 2021 Meeting | Montana FWP

Fish & Wildlife Commission: December 14, 2021 Meeting

fwp.mt.gov

 

[Carl 9.3x62]

Why don't they actually say the word "comment?"

 

[SAJ-99]

In contradiction to that page, here's a link that says public comment will be available in all it's forms.....it would however appear that one must take a full day off work, sit through the 7 hour long meeting, waiting for the opportunity to speak on the issue.

Fish & Wildlife Commission: December 14, 2021 Meeting | Montana FWP

Fish & Wildlife Commission: December 14, 2021 Meeting

fwp.mt.gov

Yes. They try to do everything on the same day. On the positive, it is more efficient. On the negative, they can slip in a horrible idea and it gets less discussion. I think that is Ben and Big Fin’s point on in-person having more of an impact. If someone if willing to do that two weeks before Christmas, they are passionate about the subject.