PL/PW meeting 2.23.2022

[SAJ-99]

If the public is getting free access who cares if the landowner has an outfitter on the place. Especially if the public is getting free access to elk, and the outfitter is reduced to the crumbs(deer)

Does it always come down to public access in these discussions? I would rather they double the target elk objectives and not give access. The access isn't enough to disburse pressure. It just makes 20 or so hunters happy. We all know the point of this isn't to get elk numbers down, it's to give landowners tags.

 

[Eric Albus]

It's worthy of a discussion, but if the goal is to reach wildlife management goals, then ensuring that the proper level of harvest is part of the discussion, rather than simply make short-term gifts to landowners who may or may not have been the genesis of elk overpopulation problems in some districts, like 411.

The public is paying for that access in the form of licenses and permits. Those are opportunities that are held in trust for the public, not simply gifts to be handed out to the politically connected.

Furthermore, if a place is leased to a hunt club or an outfitter, then the idea that the landowner can't hunt is part of their own business model, and not really something I care to subsidize with public licenses and permits. If the leasing is garnering payments to landowners that take care of the impacts, then why should the public throw more at them?

454 is a great idea, and while it wasn't utilized much in the past, I think landowners who are more interested in finding some balance should be able to get those licenses/permits when the are in block management or if they have PAL act agreements, etc.

I suggested that the 454 program could help with the over objective numbers Keep it as is for another yr or two then let’s see what can be done

 

[Eric Albus]

Does it always come down to public access in these discussions? I would rather they double the target elk objectives and not give access. The access isn't enough to disburse pressure. It just makes 20 or so hunters happy. We all know the point of this isn't to get elk numbers down, it's to give landowners tags.

This is about public access. I can see your point, over run private and the elk spill onto public. In theory sounds great, in practice does not work.

 

[Ben Lamb]

I suggested that the 454 program could help with the over objective numbers Keep it as is for another yr or two then let’s see what can be done

the issue isn't with the program, it's how it was hijacked at the legislature, and how it's being used to prop up people who want to fundamentally change Montana, and not for the better.

If the agency would have simply kept their original vetting, none of those agreements would have been approved, especially not the bulls for billionaires ones, and the ones that came in past the season start.

 

[Ben Lamb]

This is about public access. I can see your point, over run private and the elk spill onto public. In theory sounds great, in practice does not work.

And this discounts the research that Paul Ellis mentioned (and research that was done in MT in the late 2000's) that shows pressure drives elk, not refugia.

If we are trying to hit herd management goals, rewarding the behavior that caused overabundance isn't well thought out and it doesn't do anything to help those landowners who continue to work to try and provide access, nor does it help push elk on to public land where they are more easily harvested. You can't manage elk with the 454 program, because it isn't designed to manage elk, it's designed to be a gift to landowners.

If you want to change that to make it about wildlife management, then your May meeting will be more informative than the dog & pony show from the Wilk's lobbyist.

 

[Eric Albus]

Here we sit, worried about hunting and mad at billionaires and feeling sorry for ourselves…what a great country we live in.

I’d bet big money the people of the Ukraine have a little more important things to worry about.

 

[MTLabrador]

Here we sit, worried about hunting and mad at billionaires and feeling sorry for ourselves…what a great country we live in.

I’d bet big money the people of the Ukraine have a little more important things to worry about.

This is a great country, and one of the many reasons why is that people can stand up and fight for what’s important to them. And this is pretty damn important to us.

 

[Eric Albus]

This is a great country, and one of the many reasons why is that people can stand up and fight for what’s important to them. And this is pretty damn important to us.

This is because none of us has ever experienced anything like what Ukraine is about to.

 

[BuckRut]

Here we sit, worried about hunting and mad at billionaires and feeling sorry for ourselves…what a great country we live in.

I’d bet big money the people of the Ukraine have a little more important things to worry about.

So your suggesting the millionaires buying up hunting and making it a rich mans game is justified just because things could be worse? Should we just ban outfitting outright and tell you to get over it and be thankful the Russians aren't at your door?

 

[Eric Albus]

And this discounts the research that Paul Ellis mentioned (and research that was done in MT in the late 2000's) that shows pressure drives elk, not refugia.

If we are trying to hit herd management goals, rewarding the behavior that caused overabundance isn't well thought out and it doesn't do anything to help those landowners who continue to work to try and provide access, nor does it help push elk on to public land where they are more easily harvested. You can't manage elk with the 454 program, because it isn't designed to manage elk, it's designed to be a gift to landowners.

If you want to change that to make it about wildlife management, then your May meeting will be more informative than the dog & pony show from the Wilk's lobbyist.

I’d not call it a reward, or gift, I’d call it incentivizing.

 

[MTLabrador]

This is because none of us has ever experienced anything like what Ukraine is about to.

Not relevant at all to the discussion, but thanks. Not just gonna roll over and take it.

 

[Eric Albus]

So your suggesting the millionaires buying up hunting and making it a rich mans game is justified just because things could be worse? Should we just ban outfitting outright and tell you to get over it and be thankful the Russians aren't at your door?

That’s why I suggested making the NR season “pick a 5 day window”.

 

[Eric Albus]

So your suggesting the millionaires buying up hunting and making it a rich mans game is justified just because things could be worse? Should we just ban outfitting outright and tell you to get over it and be thankful the Russians aren't at your door?

not at all am I suggesting that, one would have to be a complete moron to take that away from what was stated.

And it’s you’re not “your”

 

[BuckRut]

not at all am I suggesting that, one would have to be a complete moron to take that away from what was stated.

And it’s you’re not “your”

Enlighten me then as to what Ukraine and there troubles has to do with this conversation.

And if you are going to jump someone for grammar. Try using capital letters to start sentences and don't use commas where there should be a period.

 

[SwaggyD]

Enlighten me then as to what Ukraine and there troubles has to do with this conversation.

And if you are going to jump someone for grammar. Try using capital letters to start sentences and don't use commas where there should be a period.

The irony!

 

[Eric Albus]

Enlighten me then as to what Ukraine and there troubles has to do with this conversation.

And if you are going to jump someone for grammar. Try using capital letters to start sentences and don't use commas where there should be a period.

I’m not wearing my glasses at the moment and can’t see much. Periods and commas look alike when they’re surrounded by fur.

I merely stated we(as a country and state) are fortunate to have nothing more to worry about than a stinking elk. No more no less implied.

 

[Ben Lamb]

I merely stated we(as a country and state) are fortunate to have nothing more to worry about than a stinking elk. No more no less implied.

I share this sentiment Eric.

We're arguing about about abundance & how to keep the democratic allocation of wildlife in order to not be like places like Russia or Germany where the public isn't welcome to enjoy wildlife abundance.

But that doesn't change the fact that 454 was hijacked by billionaires for their own purposes, especially when we see the legislation to privatize coming down the tracks & and hose bully billionaires are the ones funding it.

 

[Straight Arrow]

And it’s you’re not “your”

Don't mean to cause more confusion, but it is "Russians at your door" not Russians at you're (contraction for you are ) door.

 

[SAJ-99]

I share this sentiment Eric.

We're arguing about about abundance & how to keep the democratic allocation of wildlife in order to not be like places like Russia or Germany where the public isn't welcome to enjoy wildlife abundance.

But that doesn't change the fact that 454 was hijacked by billionaires for their own purposes, especially when we see the legislation to privatize coming down the tracks & and hose bully billionaires are the ones funding it.

Agree. But PL/PW is not going to solve money in politics, hunter ethics (or lack thereof), global hunger, find World peace, or anything else. What I worry about that we have a foregone conclusion on where these things end and PL/PW is simply a pawn to justify it and even the members aren't fully aware. In Eric's defense, public land hunters haven't shown a willingness to sacrifice anything, especially if they think there is an opportunity for them to set foot on hallowed private land.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Agree. But PL/PW is not going to solve money in politics, hunter ethics (or lack thereof), global hunger, find World peace, or anything else. What I worry about that we have a foregone conclusion on where these things end and PL/PW is simply a pawn to justify it and even the members aren't fully aware. In Eric's defense, public land hunters haven't shown a willingness to sacrifice anything, especially if they think there is an opportunity for them to set foot on hallowed private land.

Agree, but PLPW is going to be working on landowner incentive programs, and unless there's an honest effort in place to address the needs of landowner's who don't have endless means, and focus on actual game management issues, you won't solve anything but the troubles of the Wilk's Brothers, and that's a big part of the problem right now, the agency is more concerned about Dan & Ferris than they are the traditional landowner.

As for public land hunters not showing a willingness to sacrifice, I dispute that. Most of these groups have been pushing for changes that benefit landowners & hunters, in terms of a new EMP, better season structure, etc. If it comes down to political rhetoric relative to transferable licenses, then sure, hunters aren't giving on that one issue, but they've been more than willing to increase payments to BMA cooperators, find new programs based on what landowner groups ask for (PAL Act, Unlocking Public Land, etc).

The concept that hunters are demanding access to public land is a misperception that is amplified by groups like UPOM & MOGA to change the narrative. What hunters are asking for is access to elk - and they're offering solutions on how to do that without forcing access on private land. If we can increase elk prevalence on public lands, then hunters can manage elk better. A 13% success rate for public land bull hunters isn't going to help, and a low success rate for cow hunters on public land isn't going to reduce or manage any population, while still focusing the harvest on the "wrong elk."

FWP continues to frame the issue as a population one, and not a distribution one. Until 454 is part of the solution relative to overall elk management, then it's a gift to landowners and nothing more. That's fine, and if that's what the people of MT want, then great, but to have people frame this as the great access opener to the land of milk & honey that is the NBar, IX, etc, is political theater, and full on fantasy.