MT ELK, Changing it up?

[Carnage2011]

So the FWP Commission will not be responsible for approving these rules/changes by the Department as provided by statute?

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.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Pro tip- When offering ideas about wildlife management for the director, let’s talk about what will actually work for Montana’s wildlife, hunters and landowners. Ideas about how to make a terrible plan slightly less terrible doesn’t benefit us much.

This isn’t directed towards anyone who has offered suggestions. Just an observation.

This morning across 14 Montana hunting unit, elk are going about being elk doing what God created them to do.

All of the “problems” that need to be “solved” are human management issues created by bad ideas and lack of acceptance of wildlife.

Ideal objective numbers are completely arbitrary and have no connection to the biological carrying capacity of the habitat.

Debbie Barrett was the legislator who introduced the bill that legally requires FWP to set management strategies towards the end of keeping elk at or under the desired “objective”. @shoots-straight or @tjones could probably tell us way more about how that went down than I know.

The common denominator in all units designated “over objective” is private land sanctuary areas that allow either no access or very limited access. Some of these units have a lot of public land but the elk are disproportionately distributed and most elk live on private land. Unit 411 is a classic example of this.
In every “over objective” unit FWP has issued liberal antlerless only tags or allows for general harvest of cows. Many of these units have the legal potential for every single cow to be harvested during the general season. Many of the units also offer “early” and “late” seasons for antlerless harvest.


The “limited either-sex permits is keeping numbers over objective” is a complete straw man argument. The ONLY thing keeping elk numbers over an arbitrary “objective” is the landowners themselves.

They caused an artificial problem by setting low “objectives” and exacerbate the “problem” by not allowing access. Now the “solution” to their “problem” is to give them the tools to monetize a public resource for private gain.


Welcome to the new GG administration’s wildlife management policies!

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]

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.

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.

 

[tjones]

So the FWP Commission will not be responsible for approving these rules/changes by the Department as provided by statute?

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]

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.

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?

 

[tjones]

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.

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"

 

[Ben Lamb]

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]

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]

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"

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.

 

[tjones]

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]

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.

Because electing the right people for the job seems to be going really well...?

 

[Gerald Martin]

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.

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]

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.

helenair.com

 

[Ben Lamb]

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…

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.

 

[tjones]

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.

helenair.com

I have been thinking about the new EMP and the folks that have had input on it.

Can't be good.

 

[rogerthat]

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.

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]

I totally understand and agree with your idea if this was actually about trying to reduce the elk population in these units. Unfortunately this is a wolf in sheep's clothing deal and has very little to do with reducing the elk numbers.

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.

 

[Ben Lamb]

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.

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]

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.

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.

 

[Ben Lamb]

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!