Carnage2011
Well-known member
Yea it will. This goes to the commission on the 14th and they will either shoot it down or open it for 30 days of public comment.
MT ELK, Changing it up?
- Thread starter Mtnhunter1
- Start date
This is excellent advice. The truth of the matter is, when people like to say that "sportsmen have not brought any solutions." They are lying or ignorant of all the work in the past that has gone into both the commission and the legislature.
Sportsmen were the ones who secured more funding for private landowners through Block Management, Habitat Montana, WHIP, MTPLAN, PAL, etc. It was sportsmen who led the effort to get the new pricing regime in place through their championing of of the licensing committee, it was sportsmen who supported the 23 bundled LE permits for the Breaks.
In the districts going back to general for archery, many were seeing harvest rates of 75% nonresident and 25% resident. That's what this move is all about. Restoring the kingdoms that people like the Robbin's felt they were robbed of when we insisted that the state honor the 90/10 split in terms of resident v NR take of antlered elk.
Sportsmen have come forward with more solutions, but because they were not advanced out of committee by the same politicians now claiming that sportsmen haven't brought solutions forward. Sportsmen brought forward solutions to the commission, but they were ignored because Helena staff was more worried about political pressure than doing the right thing. That's under the last 2 administrations, though, so it's not a new issue.
There are a host of solutions that could be brought forward and explored, but doing so when there's a gun to your head does nothing to engender sympathy or support. Since 2011, there have been about 500 wildlife bills introduced into the legislature. Over 900 requested. When we are dealing with a full on assault, what time, energy or funding did we have to push for major changes during the 90 day gorging of legislature?
brocksw
Well-known member
So after the commission approves this garbage we can then acknowledge that this does have something to do with the FWP commission and not just GG and Hank. Fair enough.
Yes but that has nothing to do with the crafting of a crappy proposal.
The best way to stop a crappy proposal is before it gets to the commission. This one should have never been proposed.
brocksw
Well-known member
It sounds like you're saying that if they commission approves this, they were just doing their job and there's nothing they could've done.
Yet, the FWP website says "Commission sets fish and wildlife regulations, approves property acquisitions, and approves certain rules and activities of the Department as provided by statute."
I've heard multiple times on this forum that the FWP commission should serve as the stop gap between the wildlife/sportsmen and bad policy. Yet when they approve bad policy, we just blame the folks proposing it?
Not saying that at all. Again, if GG and Hank had not proposed this we would not be having this conversation.
Heading it off before it gets to the commission is a far easier task then getting then "ending the commission"
This.
The commission is likely to be proforma on a lot of stuff. It's a good time to respectfully reach out to them with your concerns and ask them to slow down not only this effort, but the multitude of other poorly thought out changes being proposed (Shoulder seasons, season setting "simplification," etc).
Carnage2011
Well-known member
I’m beginning to wonder why we bother battling these sessions during the legislature. Everything we get shut down just gets thrown right back at us…
brocksw
Well-known member
But they did propose this. And they will propose more. And the structure of the system makes really easy to push through bad policy. All you have to do is do what GG and Hank have been doing. Ignore public comment that you don't like. Put people on the commission that will agree/uphold your agenda. Proceed to implement bad policy.
Washington's commission just shut down bear hunting against the Fish and Game biologists recommendations and expert opinion. Look at the DISTASTER in New Mexico regarding elk management. All approved by a state game commission.
You guys have been in this too long and have the blinders on. The writing is on the wall and evidence is in front of you. Just look around. Politically appointed bodies that have power over actual experts in their field, people who's job it is to manage the public's wildlife, do not need politics inserted into decision making. They need just the opposite. Less politics.
Maybe start another thread on your plan to end the commission. Keep in mind the thought of an elected commission has been kicked around for decades.
brocksw
Well-known member
Because electing the right people for the job seems to be going really well...?
Gerald Martin
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2009
- Messages
- 8,286
I’ve been busy running around this morning. Does anyone have links or info where and when the commission meets and what we need to do to testify in person?
Redside
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2016
- Messages
- 366
Let me guess, 2 years from now we'll have close to the same number of elk but all of the sudden be at objective. Quote from the article linked below.
Worsech said he would have preferred to have the new management plan be in place before setting seasons, but that the timing did not allow for it. The plan’s update could include some adjustments to objectives, which are in part based on “tolerance” of elk to landowners, he said.
helenair.com
Worsech said he would have preferred to have the new management plan be in place before setting seasons, but that the timing did not allow for it. The plan’s update could include some adjustments to objectives, which are in part based on “tolerance” of elk to landowners, he said.
FWP proposes major changes to some limited elk permits
The districts that are part of this proposal are all 200% or above population objectives and largely concentrated on private land.
It's a bit of a process thing & super boring, but:
The proposal from UPOM is actually placed in the correct location from the perspective of what body is the appropriate body to set seasons, tag allocations, etc. When we fight at the legislature against bills like this, the underlying foundation of that opposition comes from a conservative position of wanting less politics inserted in wildlife management by not allowing the Legislature to set seasons. Some bills like SB 143 & HB505 (sponsored set-asides) were fought because the policies being sought were anathema to the North American Model, and they would have decimated resident hunter opportunity (there's that word again).
For better or worse, our forefathers set up a system that worked well for about 100 years. Now, with one governor and the toxic politics of today's America, it's going to hell in a handbasket because they dislike what the public has to say, and they view everything through a partisan lens.
The ability of the commission to discard public sentiment in favor of top down approaches came about when Llew Jones (R-Cascade County) pushed a bill through in 2009, and Schweitzer signed it, to gut MEPA (Montana Environmental Policy Act) and ensure that public comment did not have to be taken into account in any decisions made by the State. That skirted the constitutional requirement of allowing citizen participation by simply eliminating the Government's mandate to answer to the people.
So rather than think of this as a futile attempt to change course, I'd posit that this is the time to rally troops to get involved in a more meaningful effort to change the dynamic in the legislature and in the Governor's office. As @Greenhorn said, grab the KY.
But let's be forthright, honest & above reproach when it comes to advocating for what we believe, and let's actually do something beyond complaining online. Call 10 friends, have them come to the commission meeting, then keep adding to that network until you have 100 people you can call on for help on issues like this.
If 100 of us did that, that's 10,000 resident hunters showing up when called.
I have been thinking about the new EMP and the folks that have had input on it.Let me guess, 2 years from now we'll have close to the same number of elk but all of the sudden be at objective. Quote from the article linked below.
Worsech said he would have preferred to have the new management plan be in place before setting seasons, but that the timing did not allow for it. The plan’s update could include some adjustments to objectives, which are in part based on “tolerance” of elk to landowners, he said.
FWP proposes major changes to some limited elk permits
The districts that are part of this proposal are all 200% or above population objectives and largely concentrated on private land.
Can't be good.
rogerthat
Well-known member
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2015
- Messages
- 2,587
Ben can you clearly lay out the current path for this proposal for me? My understanding: it will be introduced at the Dec 14th meeting at which point the public will be allowed to provide testimony. If the commission decides not to kill it the public gets 30 days to provide comment and than the commission will vote on it in February? Seems like I may have a few details incorrect.
sacountry
Well-known member
I hear you. Let's expose this wolf using this conceptual approach/idea.....it's a better solution and if rejected then the wolf will be exposed.
The commission will hear the proposal on the 14th, take testimony on it, then move to adopt it as part of the tentatives or reject it. If adopted, it becomes part of the final tentative packet, and will be voted on in February for the 2022-2023 seasons.
That gives us a couple of months to organize, with the 14th being the launching date, and February being the inception date. But it also means we need to make a significant showing on the 14th in opposition to this trash idea and the other trash ideas that HQ has come up with.
rogerthat
Well-known member
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2015
- Messages
- 2,587
Ok. Best bet is to kill it on the inception date in my opinion. I have one of the commissioners ears on this. That being said I won’t be the only one.
Speak softly to them. This idea is just one of many bad ones coming forward.
Good hunting!
