D
Deleted member 28227
Guest
"Piss down my neck and tell me it's raining" seem more applicable given the context
MT ELK, Changing it up?
- Thread starter Mtnhunter1
- Start date
Gerald Martin
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2009
- Messages
- 9,643
Apropos.
Also “Throwing *censored* on a wall to see what sticks.”
However, @Ben Lamb’s explicit instructions to be courteous and a slight bit of being overwhelmed might have tempered my sarcastic nature just a bit.
Gerald Martin
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2009
- Messages
- 9,643
“I’m your huckleberry,” used well would be the ultimate homage to this illustrious community.
However, that’s next level communication and beyond my linguistic skills. My be a bit more recoil than I can handle effectively.
However, that’s next level communication and beyond my linguistic skills. My be a bit more recoil than I can handle effectively.
T
tjones
Guest
Matt Rinella did not get Ben's "be nice" memo.
Montana2015
New member
- Joined
- May 1, 2018
- Messages
- 19
After spending the last couple days watching via zoom the F&G commission meetings and the tangled mess that is out there, I have concluded, that reaching an agreed upon solution on managing Montana's elk is going to be very difficult with our current director, Hank Worsech. He does not have the leadership skills to pull off an equitable agreement with the sportsmen, land owners, biologists, outfitters, and his staff. What skills have i observed that he is lacking.
One, time management. How many times has he thrown a public meetings together without giving the public adequate time to prepare. I.e. Lets give the Wilks 8 either sex permits. Also, during the meeting yesterday, when it got time for public comment on the elk regulations, He was not in the room the majority of time. I would think he should be able to adjust his schedule to make this all important part of the meeting.
Two, he lacks communication skills. Go back and watch the last two zoom meetings. Count how many times he is requested to speak up. Maybe he is shy or soft spoken, but someone in that capacity has to demonstrate confidence. He certainly doesn't. I could hear everyone else just fine.
Three, inability to maintain moral within the department. He doesn't seek feedback from the employees that he supervises. He just goes off and throws ideas out there and then, once he gets the public opinion and people with intelligence regarding the topic, he does a 180. On this point, I am not sure if it is hearsay or fact, but I hear the staffing of the entire F&G department below the optimum level. Nobody enjoys working for and incompetent company, department, or leader.
Lastly, commissioner Waller said it best on Monday. We can't come up with anything that further destroys "Public Trust". I for one, believe the F&G has seen trust decline under Worsech. It has been lost during the last year and it won't return until there is better leadership within the F&G,or for that matter the state. I know as a past leader, within the private sector of business, it is difficult to admit and fix that you have made a mistake upon putting someone in supervisory or leadership position and they aren't working out. However, It reflects on you, should you not take corrective action. I would hope that after this past several months Hank could look himself in the mirror and realize, this job is not for him. Or lastly, the Governor should sit down with him and request his immediate resignation.
One, time management. How many times has he thrown a public meetings together without giving the public adequate time to prepare. I.e. Lets give the Wilks 8 either sex permits. Also, during the meeting yesterday, when it got time for public comment on the elk regulations, He was not in the room the majority of time. I would think he should be able to adjust his schedule to make this all important part of the meeting.
Two, he lacks communication skills. Go back and watch the last two zoom meetings. Count how many times he is requested to speak up. Maybe he is shy or soft spoken, but someone in that capacity has to demonstrate confidence. He certainly doesn't. I could hear everyone else just fine.
Three, inability to maintain moral within the department. He doesn't seek feedback from the employees that he supervises. He just goes off and throws ideas out there and then, once he gets the public opinion and people with intelligence regarding the topic, he does a 180. On this point, I am not sure if it is hearsay or fact, but I hear the staffing of the entire F&G department below the optimum level. Nobody enjoys working for and incompetent company, department, or leader.
Lastly, commissioner Waller said it best on Monday. We can't come up with anything that further destroys "Public Trust". I for one, believe the F&G has seen trust decline under Worsech. It has been lost during the last year and it won't return until there is better leadership within the F&G,or for that matter the state. I know as a past leader, within the private sector of business, it is difficult to admit and fix that you have made a mistake upon putting someone in supervisory or leadership position and they aren't working out. However, It reflects on you, should you not take corrective action. I would hope that after this past several months Hank could look himself in the mirror and realize, this job is not for him. Or lastly, the Governor should sit down with him and request his immediate resignation.
I missed the justification for extending pheasant season, did anyone hear it? I work in one of the better pheasant hunting areas in the state and a lot of time in January the country side looks like a moon scape with all the snow cover and drifts. I'll see all the pheasants huddled together in the shelter belts trying to survive. Doesn't seem to me like we need to be hunting them clear to the end of January.
MTelkHuntress
Well-known member
At this point once the comment period comes around, I half expect there to be proposals in there that weren't really discussed because there was so much confusion. It just makes no sense to put forward bad proposals because of lack of preparation since they will most likely get shot down by the public when the effort could have been spent in making more positive proposals that have meaningful impacts. But I suppose when you already know the public won't like the proposals that you're trying to ram through, I guess not much effort is needed.
I thought some of the commissioners wanted to extend grouse season as well for opportunity on public land. So confusing.
I just played back some of the meeting and got even more confused. But they did say they wanted to extend pheasant season because of opportunity and that there were no negative biological impacts in doing so.
I thought some of the commissioners wanted to extend grouse season as well for opportunity on public land. So confusing.
I just played back some of the meeting and got even more confused. But they did say they wanted to extend pheasant season because of opportunity and that there were no negative biological impacts in doing so.
Gerald Martin
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2009
- Messages
- 9,643
Justification is that one guy made a request for an extension for later opportunity.
FWP opined there was no biological reason to oppose.
Commissioner Tabor wanted to ensure that he had listened to and presented the request and then the conversation shifted to including all upland birds.
El Jason
Well-known member
Some deep thoughts from a shallow mind:
1) MT really needs to divorce the mindset of a one size fits all 5 week rifle season. Let’s move the season back a week. Great, why? Well migrations. Great, what if they aren’t migratory elk? It’s really not logical when you look at the bigger picture. Moving seasons around would allow for more significant manipulation of elk movements.
2) Stop season extensions. While well intentioned, this is only serves to further pressure public land elk to private land. If it’s a migration hunt unit, move the season back. Permanently. Otherwise stop adding to the end of the hunt. Too much of what Montana does is geared towards helping people try to kill and elk instead of trying to manage for more elk on public land. It’s an expectation, and all you have to do is look at the number of folks who ask about season extensions. Be a better hunter.
3) Get away from deer and elk overlap. I like consolidating opportunities as much, if not more than anyone on this forum. It’s now counterproductive to management of both.
I get it folks are reluctant to trust FWP. They should be. I can assure you though, there are some brilliant minds within the organization that disagree 110% with the current proposals. In the long run though, public land hunters are going to have to sacrifice opportunities to regain quality. It’s time to tear the house down instead of trying to patch a derelict foundation.
Granted there are disparities in public/private land ratios between WY and MT, but it still baffles me how differently these two states approach elk management, and the hunting quality reflects that. There is no need to reinvent the wheel. The only need is to break free from 80 year old paradigms that aren’t working.
1) MT really needs to divorce the mindset of a one size fits all 5 week rifle season. Let’s move the season back a week. Great, why? Well migrations. Great, what if they aren’t migratory elk? It’s really not logical when you look at the bigger picture. Moving seasons around would allow for more significant manipulation of elk movements.
2) Stop season extensions. While well intentioned, this is only serves to further pressure public land elk to private land. If it’s a migration hunt unit, move the season back. Permanently. Otherwise stop adding to the end of the hunt. Too much of what Montana does is geared towards helping people try to kill and elk instead of trying to manage for more elk on public land. It’s an expectation, and all you have to do is look at the number of folks who ask about season extensions. Be a better hunter.
3) Get away from deer and elk overlap. I like consolidating opportunities as much, if not more than anyone on this forum. It’s now counterproductive to management of both.
I get it folks are reluctant to trust FWP. They should be. I can assure you though, there are some brilliant minds within the organization that disagree 110% with the current proposals. In the long run though, public land hunters are going to have to sacrifice opportunities to regain quality. It’s time to tear the house down instead of trying to patch a derelict foundation.
Granted there are disparities in public/private land ratios between WY and MT, but it still baffles me how differently these two states approach elk management, and the hunting quality reflects that. There is no need to reinvent the wheel. The only need is to break free from 80 year old paradigms that aren’t working.
Wow, I wish I had that much stroke when I make comments about elk proposals or shortening mule deer season.
Wind Gypsy
Well-known member
- Joined
- Mar 12, 2017
- Messages
- 3,127
My perception of the whole deal is that Hank's focus is not at all on the mission and purpose of FWP but instead on using the FWP as a tool to implement political desires. It's hard to manage time appropriately, communicate well with confidence, and maintain morale when the purpose of most of your employees/organization is rowing the boat one way and the "leader" is rowing the opposite.
Gerald Martin
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2009
- Messages
- 9,643
Apparently written requests delivered at the right time are included in the items referenced in the agenda. I think all six items that were referenced were addressed by the commission.
SAJ-99
Well-known member
Allow us the $ to build an irrigation pivot on BLM or a state section and plant it in alfalfa and we will easily get more elk on public land.
El Jason
Well-known member
I’m all in agreement. But it need to be a little more comprehensive than an alfalfa circle.
antlerradar
Well-known member
It is a nice warm rain though.
sacountry
Well-known member
@antlerradar is your glass perpetually half full? You have to be the most positive, optimistic, level headed landowner in the Treasure state.
That's the most eastern MT thing I've read all day.
If I can piggyback off some of the good thoughts espoused here from my own simpleton mind, as folks start public comments:
1) I've been around enough negotiations to know it's good strategy to ask for more than what you want to gain from the final agreement. What you don't do, however, is ask for something that is inflammatory or you know adversely hurts the other party. That is disrespectful. And it doesn't bode well for good faith negotiations. To borrow from Hank - that's not how you start a "conversation." However, in low-leverage situations like sportsmen and sportswomen find themselves in now, it's important to still remain polite and respectful on one side of the table for these proposals... even if Hank isn't doing that to all stakeholders involved. Don't give decision-makers involved additional reasons to dismiss public sentiment, as @Ben Lamb stated previously.
2) Hank and the Commission have done us one favor - they have named the problem publicly. Sure, there are ulterior motives at play - but from the press release, here's what they want to do: more elk harvest, better elk availability on public lands, fewer landowner conflicts, and elk at population objective.
Yes, the new proposal coming out of the meeting will cause other problems: more overcrowding on public, more archery tags on private for monetary gain, etc. That said - why the current proposals out for public comment won't solve all issues outlined in the press release should be at the core of everyone's comments. Hank has told us what they are trying to fix - if the proposals will or won't solve those specifically, we need to clearly, concisely tell the Commission and FWP that.
Ya i dont buy it. There's a reason they made it brow tine bull in otc units years ago. Take unit 380. Make it illegal to harvest spikes. In 5 yrs up the 150 tags to x number. Based off a high mature bull to cow ratio. 150 tags goes to 225.
Similar threads
