Shoulder seasons for sale

[BuzzH]

Ben,

I'm done listening to excuses for stupid behavior by the Governor and MTFWP, you can excuse them all you want, but I'm well past over it.

Any Governor that wanted to be known for giving the agency back to the agency and then pull a stunt like that...I have to question if they're really smart enough to be governing much of anything.

Not only that, but its also giving the impression that landowners are still controlling Montana wildlife via political favor...again, not the smartest move if you're trying to "stay out of agency business".

I'm not naïve enough to believe that Bullock was just looking to show good faith to the other side of the aisle or doing this just for reelection purposes.

He was taking heat on the shoulder season his Department, and his Commission approved...and frankly didn't care what the public thought.

Even if what you say is true, which I don't believe to be true at all, it still gives the impression of a huge middle finger and slap in the face to Montana's wildlife and Sportsmen.

Perception is everything.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Perception is everything.

It is. And while you & I don't like shoulder seasons, many in MT do.

If he didn't care about what sportsmen thought, why did he veto the shoulder season bill? Why did he stand up against transfer (something your governor has not done, btw) and why did he bring back the guy sportsmen asked him to so he could lead the agency again?

I get you're pissed, but your logic is faulty my friend.

Off to help get a guy elected who supports stream access. I'll yell at you later.

 

[katqanna]

Ben, I will preface this with the fact that I will be voting for Bullock, not because I absolutely love him, but feel he will be a better choice over Gianforte, yes he has done some good thing for Montana, conservation and hunter/anglers, but the reality is, he has also interfered with wildlife management based on politics, not science, a number of times, or you could blame his natural resource director Baker, if you like, putting Bullocks name to the directives.

But, when I sent in public comments against SB 245 last year and Bullock, thankfully vetoed it, I received a canned email from him stating, using "shoulder seasons" for the first time, "In response to my mandate for improving landowner, agency, and sportsmen relationships, FWP has initiated a comprehensive effort to assess the current elk harvest tools available, to review and apply lessons from management experience and research to date, and to develop new and innovative tools to better address over objective populations. This ongoing constituent and landowner-based effort to identify better options (including "shoulder seasons" where appropriate) is the preferred method for reaching a full understanding of both public and landowner needs and expectations."

He also stated, "I am directing FWP to step up its efforts to work with affected landowners to mitigate impacts and allow for greater elk harvest and public opportunity..."

This was not based on science, nor an up to date EMP, nor a realistic application of real carrying capacity, nor the proper application of removing harbored elk from the counts, per the EMP. So what does that leave us with? Politics, not scientific wildlife management. This is about on par with Schweitzers Milk River bs, in my opinion.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Kat,

Respectfully, and as someone who talks with these people regularly, I disagree.

I can think of a number of times in the last 3 years where people have demanded he intervene w/ the agency, and it's not happened. Comparing Bullock's directive to the agency to "In response to my mandate for improving landowner, agency, and sportsmen relationships, FWP has initiated a comprehensive effort to assess the current elk harvest tools available, to review and apply lessons from management experience and research to date, and to develop new and innovative tools to better address over objective populations. This ongoing constituent and landowner-based effort to identify better options (including "shoulder seasons" where appropriate) is the preferred method for reaching a full understanding of both public and landowner needs and expectations."

That's exactly what any governor would do and direct his agency towards. Whether or not the agency got it right is certainly up for debate, to say that a broad directive that included shoulder seasons is political interference is not accurate. If you want to look at the real political interference, look at the legislature that has, since 2003, repeatedly attacked the agency and put laws on the books that have led us to this. When the legislature sets policy in statute, the agency has one option: To comply.

This quote: "I am directing FWP to step up its efforts to work with affected landowners to mitigate impacts and allow for greater elk harvest and public opportunity..." is telling as well. The Governor, as the executive of the state, has to comply with statutes that say the state must manage at or below objective. That means he can't just wave his magic wand and ignore the will of the legislature. That's not how government works. And, if you look at what he actually said, it's not that much differnt than what a bunch of us complain about here and elsewhere every day. We want better access to elk for what, to look at them? Or is it because we want to shoot them?

Landowners are being effected by elk. Some of it is their own fault, some of it is based on drought conditions leading to poor forage and some of it exacerbated by carnivores and increased pressure from humans on public lands.

It's easy to dislike something or an elected official. It's difficult to come up with solutions that represent the interests of all parties. While I'm firmly in the camp that these shoulders seasons do not strike that balance, I'm not going to try and paint the guy who kept us from Rick Hill & his band of wildlife privatizers as some kind of machinating overlord issuing edicts from on high, especially when we're staring down two barrels from a guy who thinks of himself as a modern day Robber Barron and has espoused anti-public trust sentiments across the spectrum. It ain't happening. Providing a direction to an agency, and letting them come up with the plan is exactly what sportsmen asked him to do. I was in the room. I heard it, and agreed with the ask. FWP has made some mistakes w/ elk management, and they get it from all sides regardless of what they do.

Furthermore, if you want to complain about the agency not listening to public comment, thank the legislature. They're the ones who gutted MEPA and made it so comments are not to be considered as something that needs to be worked on, just simply responded too and acknowledged. Again, FWP is following the law, even if it sucks.

If we really want to change how elk are managed in Montana, we need to have a new elk management plan, eliminate the statute regulating herd size and if you really want to tilt at a windmill, go after restoration of citizens rights in MEPA.

Bullock's not perfect, shoulder seasons suck, but the alternative is much, much worse, with no option of a seat at the table for a lot of us. We can still influence shoulder seasons through thoughtful, impassioned and factually correct debate.

 

[Rat Fink]

Ben -

Well at least you finally admitted that the Governor directed FWP to institute the shoulder seasons and other landowner relief tools. Glad you could finally take that small step.

Bullock sucks. Gianforte sucks more.

 

[BuzzH]

Bullock's not perfect, shoulder seasons suck, but the alternative is much, much worse, with no option of a seat at the table for a lot of us. We can still influence shoulder seasons through thoughtful, impassioned and factually correct debate.

Already tried that, and Sportsmen were ignored. Honestly Ben, have you looked at some of the "data" being provided about elk harvest, elk populations, bull-to-cow ratio's, cow to calf ratio's, etc.? Do you need me to show you their numbers and how they're justifying these shoulder seasons? I can assure you, the math doesn't pencil out. You talk of flawed logic...well, there it is.

That's just to get us to the "impassioned" "factual" place to start.

How do we have a legitimate discussion about shoulder seasons when the data is crap for the start? As I've heard stated, you cant make chicken salad out of chicken shit...precisely what the FWP's own data IS.

What do you see happening now that shoulder season hunts are being sold?

Be specific, quoting the law, regulation, or act that allows the MTFWP, Commission or Legislature to take action under existing statute or regulation.

To my knowledge, there isn't jack chit that will be done about this...mainly because there isn't anything or any way to stop it.

How do you tell a landowner they have to stop charging for access to their private ground to shoot an elk during a state sanctioned shoulder season?

Good luck with that.

The only thing positive I see here, is that elk are continuing to die in Montana. The sooner rock bottom is reached, the sooner even the dimmest bulb on the Christmas tree will see what the FWP considers elk management.

Keep hammerin'...only 40K more dead elk to go and the "final solution" will be achieved.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Ben -

Well at least you finally admitted that the Governor directed FWP to institute the shoulder seasons and other landowner relief tools. Glad you could finally take that small step.

Bullock sucks. Gianforte sucks more.

He said to look at a suite of options, including shoulder seasons. There is no direct edict to institute them, or to take the direction that they did. I hope you can see the very important difference there.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Already tried that, and Sportsmen were ignored. Honestly Ben, have you looked at some of the "data" being provided about elk harvest, elk populations, bull-to-cow ratio's, cow to calf ratio's, etc.? Do you need me to show you their numbers and how they're justifying these shoulder seasons? I can assure you, the math doesn't pencil out. You talk of flawed logic...well, there it is.

That's just to get us to the "impassioned" "factual" place to start.

How do we have a legitimate discussion about shoulder seasons when the data is crap for the start? As I've heard stated, you cant make chicken salad out of chicken shit...precisely what the FWP's own data IS.

What do you see happening now that shoulder season hunts are being sold?

Be specific, quoting the law, regulation, or act that allows the MTFWP, Commission or Legislature to take action under existing statute or regulation.

To my knowledge, there isn't jack chit that will be done about this...mainly because there isn't anything or any way to stop it.

How do you tell a landowner they have to stop charging for access to their private ground to shoot an elk during a state sanctioned shoulder season?

Good luck with that.

The only thing positive I see here, is that elk are continuing to die in Montana. The sooner rock bottom is reached, the sooner even the dimmest bulb on the Christmas tree will see what the FWP considers elk management.

Keep hammerin'...only 40K more dead elk to go and the "final solution" will be achieved.

We carved roughly 50% of the proposed shoulder seasons off either through time or location. I'd say that was a pretty good showing for us and I consider that a win. This is a marathon, not a sprint, remember?

If sportsmen begin their lobbying of this by comparing elk management to killing 6 million Jews, then we are asking to be ignored. If sportsmen continue to put polite and thoughtful pressure on the commission, then I think we can get it taken care of.

You also have to remember that the EMP is scheduled to be revised in 2017, so not only do we get a shot at changing how shoulder seasons are structured in the future, if used at all, we also get to influence the EMP process next year.

 

[Rat Fink]

He said to look at a suite of options, including shoulder seasons. There is no direct edict to institute them, or to take the direction that they did. I hope you can see the very important difference there.

Bullock put the shoulder seasons on the table when they never should have even been an option. I can connect the dots but can you through your rose colored glasses?

 

[Ben Lamb]

You're connecting dots by misreading what was said and placing your own bias on it. I'm basing my comments off of conversations w/ the agency & the Gov's office as well as the direct quotes Kat posted. Sorry if you don't believe that.

 

[Rat Fink]

Ben -

You do realize I know and work with many of the people that work for FWP and I know the questions to ask and of whom. I gained my knowledge on this subject from the inside, not from press releases and media. You have your connections and I have mine. The fact is shoulder seasons were put on the table by Bullock and his mandate.

 

[BuzzH]

Ben,

I don't think the elk in Montana are going to fare well with your marathon idea, not when the FWP is sprinting to 50K less elk on the landscape with a no-holds-barred approach. In particular when they lack a control mechanism to deal with issues like this with shoulder seasons. Paper tigers...and that's giving a lot of credit to their "authority".

The marathon is going to assure the worst elk hunting in Montana since I've been old enough to buy a license, impressive. Mismanage a company like that, you're looking for a new job...Montana you're promoted (Vore, Kujala, Hagener, Thompson).

But hey, what do I know...single digit bull to cow ratio's, inflated population estimates, issuing 190K tags for (supposed) population of 170K elk, bull harvest that exceeds bull recruitment and population every year(by their data), single digit success rates on bulls, etc. etc....that all justifies killing more elk and shoulder seasons.

Polite and thoughtfully...elk management is a total disaster in Montana, from stem to stern. Those that are supposed to be trusted with correct management have failed, and continue to be rewarded with getting their way.

Lovely...see you at the finish line at the B.o.t.T.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Ben -

You do realize I know and work with many of the people that work for FWP and I know the questions to ask and of whom. I gained my knowledge on this subject from the inside, not from press releases and media. You have your connections and I have mine. The fact is shoulder seasons were put on the table by Bullock and his mandate.

I am shocked to hear that there are people out there who say different things inside the Gov't. Shocked. We're just going to have to agree to disagree on this.

Buzz,

If we survived Maurier, we'll survive this.

 

[katqanna]

Ben, I was trying to find one of my older posts on shoulder seasons, maybe it was last years EQC meeting, but my comment history is no longer all there with the new forum layout, so I cannot give Hagener's exact quote.

A group of us asked the EQC to look into FWP's actions, went to the meeting at the Capitol and had a meeting set up with Hagener, across the street for after the meeting. Tony Schoonen set that up.

At the table in the FWP office, Hagener told us directly, that elk shoulder seasons was directed by the Governor, they had to do this. Now, why on earth, would the FWP Director lie and pass the buck off to his boss, potentially making Bullock look bad, having all kinds of potential ramifications? Skyline Sportsmens Association, Anaconda Sportsmen, Helena Hunters & Anglers, Central Montana Outdoors and myself were in that room, there was no mistaking what was said, nor how it was interpreted.

 

[shoots-straight]

You also have to remember that the EMP is scheduled to be revised in 2017, so not only do we get a shot at changing how shoulder seasons are structured in the future, if used at all, we also get to influence the EMP process next year.

With the current make up of Bio's and others in MTFW&Ps we could most likely see a worse EMP than the one we got now. We have to be careful with what we wish for.

My take is Bullock vetoed HB 245 knowing that Hagner had plans for a more far reaching season structure.

Hagner came to Ravalli County Fish & Wildlife Ass. right after he was re appointed commissioner, and basically told us this was coming, and we will be good soldiers and fall in line.

 

[RockyDog]

Thats a really good point Shootstraight, we have a horrible FWP director right now.

 

[BuzzH]

RD and SS, I don't disagree with you guys...but if you wait for better bio's and director, there may not be a need for revising the EMP.

You don't need much of a plan to manage 3 elk...

 

[tjones]

You also have to remember that the EMP is scheduled to be revised in 2017, so not only do we get a shot at changing how shoulder seasons are structured in the future, if used at all, we also get to influence the EMP process next year.

Wishful thinking Ben. I predict that sportsmen will have little to no say in a new EMP. And we won't like what they come up with. Just like shoulder seasons. Get ready to have a shit sandwich shoved down our throats.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Kat,

I wasn't at that meeting, so I can't comment on what was said, or what was heard.

I'm out for the weekend. You guys enjoy the doom & gloom.

Tony - it needs to happen, and sportsmen need to stand up and fight for good management.

 

[tjones]

Kat,


Tony - it needs to happen, and sportsmen need to stand up and fight for good management.

And it will fall on deaf ears.