Yeti

UPOM suing FWP over elk regulations

drifter52

Active member
Joined
May 15, 2022
Messages
102
Good grief!

I am so sickened by the political spin from most of you.


Why are we having a discussion finally about management? Perhaps it is on account of the newly elected Gov, and the newly appointed Director??


Change is usually a good thing, and this change at least gives the first glimmer of hope I’ve had on FWP issues, for the first time.
Its only good when it benifits moga and their clients if it doesnt then its just a bunch of outfitter and guide hateing diy hunters.
you talk a good talk on here but i'm willing to bet off this sight you cut the throat of everyone on here that doesnt think. Moga ideas Should be the law if the land..
You make a good moga mole eric. Hopeully they pay you well for your undying dedication to their cause
 

Wind Gypsy

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 12, 2017
Messages
706
Good grief!

I am so sickened by the political spin from most of you.


Why are we having a discussion finally about management? Perhaps it is on account of the newly elected Gov, and the newly appointed Director??

Giving GG and Hank credit for "finally having a discussion on management" would be like giving Derek Chauvin credit for the country "finally having a discussion on racism".
 

Hunting Wife

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 18, 2014
Messages
3,115
Location
Almost North Dakota, not quite Canada
Electing the FWP Director and Wildlife Commissioners would only provide an avenue to insert more money and politics into wildlife management. One need only look at how much out of state money gets directed these days to obscure Judicial races and elected positions that are part of the State land board to see how that would go.

Try some of these instead:
If you don’t like the choices we keep getting in November, pick better candidates to vote for in the primaries. That’s happening right now, folks.

Do some research on the lesser known names that are running. Yes, some are easy rejects. But others might pleasantly surprise you.

Stop voting for incumbents that already have a track record of screwing you over, just because you’re afraid someone new “might” screw you over. Really, what do you have to lose in that case?
 

Eric Albus

Well-known member
Joined
May 24, 2012
Messages
1,228
Its only good when it benifits moga and their clients if it doesnt then its just a bunch of outfitter and guide hateing diy hunters.
you talk a good talk on here but i'm willing to bet off this sight you cut the throat of everyone on here that doesnt think. Moga ideas Should be the law if the land..
You make a good moga mole eric. Hopeully they pay you well for your undying dedication to their cause
Easy to cast stones whilst hiding behind an anonymous moniker isn’t it?
 

Eric Albus

Well-known member
Joined
May 24, 2012
Messages
1,228
When the smoke clears and elk hunting statewide is just as crappy as our mule deer hunting? UPOM MOGA governor Gianforte and Director Worsech will be the face of that. I’m not anti outfitter I’m certainly not anti landowner I am against trashing our resource. Maybe you need a biology lesson on controlling elk numbers, bull tags for all isn’t going to fix anything.

I need guitar and singing lessons, but not biology lessons.

Nobody suggested “bull permits for all”.

Nor did I suggest shooting bulls fixes the problem. What I recommended at the last meeting was “landowner(or designated family member) gets bull permit(good ONLY on their private land, and landowner can designate one person from the successful permittees from FWP list, FWP picks other hunters. IF(big if) landowner agrees to significant cow harvest to control numbers.

The end.
 

DougStickney

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2022
Messages
627
I need guitar and singing lessons, but not biology lessons.

Nobody suggested “bull permits for all”.

Nor did I suggest shooting bulls fixes the problem. What I recommended at the last meeting was “landowner(or designated family member) gets bull permit(good ONLY on their private land, and landowner can designate one person from the successful permittees from FWP list, FWP picks other hunters. IF(big if) landowner agrees to significant cow harvest to control numbers.

The end.
UPOM is suggesting bull permits for all. The Director suggested bull permits for all in the season setting. I have a pretty good idea where the push for more bull tags came from. Very few pushing for more bull tags have any intentions of reducing elk numbers.
I applaud your idea on the 454 program. We will see if that gains any steam.
 

Eric Albus

Well-known member
Joined
May 24, 2012
Messages
1,228
just to put things in perspective, if your annual income exceeds 10,250$, YOU are one of the wealthiest people in the world.
 

Eric Albus

Well-known member
Joined
May 24, 2012
Messages
1,228
Statute says wildlife is to be managed for the benefit of the residents. So maybe the out-of-state landowners should try to work with the resident hunters, rather than try to roll them.
Yeah, that’s worked so well the last 20 yrs. Tons of access opened by utilizing punitive measures.
Just look at the general season areas where wildlife is being “managed for the residents”, how’s that working?
 

tjones

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 9, 2009
Messages
4,217
just to put things in perspective, if your annual income exceeds 10,250$, YOU are one of the wealthiest people in the world.
Nice spin, last time I checked most of the world population was not living in Montana.
 
Last edited:

Ben Lamb

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 6, 2010
Messages
17,063
Location
Cedar, MI
Yeah, that’s worked so well the last 20 yrs. Tons of access opened by utilizing punitive measures.
Just look at the general season areas where wildlife is being “managed for the residents”, how’s that working?

The fallacy here is that folks want to think that people aren't interested in changing season structure to achieve these goals, as well as other means. Or that putting up a resistance to handing wildlife management over to the wealthy & influential is partisan.

The idea that we need to bend over backwards for the people who are mostly responsible for the problems is like giving the kid throwing a fit the piece of cake despite the fact that he's already a diabetic.
 

bigsky2

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 17, 2016
Messages
671
Location
MONTANA
Life just isn’t fair, is it.

If we do not work with the “rich” we will never see any access to these ranches/elk.
The owner of the horse ranch in 417 is an out of state landowner. You could kill every accessible elk in that unit and it would still be considered over objective because of the elk that reside on that ranch. They have even had to resort to late season damage hunts for bulls in that district because the majority of the bulls in the unit are drawn to the thousands of cows on the Horse Ranch during the hunting season. FWP has tried increasing bull permits because of complaints from neighboring landowners. Accessible land in the unit gets piss pounded even more every time they increase tags. Hunter success has actually decreased with the increase in permits and hunter crowding in the unit is at an all time high. Now we're giving the owner a bull permit in exchange for giving access to TWO cow hunters. I would bet money that the bull hunter chosen by the ranch is the same local guy that gets to hunt on the ranch every year anyways. What kind of incentive does the landowner have to allow meaningful public access now?

This "access" you speak of is meaningless in my opinion, and it does more harm than good.
 

brocksw

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 5, 2018
Messages
833
Life just isn’t fair, is it.

If we do not work with the “rich” we will never see any access to these ranches/elk.
1.Wildlife resources are conserved and held in trust for all citizens.
2.Commerce in dead wildlife is eliminated.
3.Wildlife is allocated according to democratic rule of law.
4.Wildlife may only be killed for a legitimate, non-frivolous purpose.
5.Wildlife is an international resource.
6.Every person has an equal opportunity under the law to participate in hunting and fishing.
7.Scientific management is the proper means for wildlife conservation.
 

Big Fin

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 27, 2000
Messages
15,608
Location
Bozeman, MT
Life just isn’t fair, is it.

If we do not work with the “rich” we will never see any access to these ranches/elk.
Very true, life isn’t fair. And that cuts both ways, even if you buy a Montana elk ranch and the tag allocation system you’re subjected to “isn’t fair.” Daddy Megabucks can take his lumps and deal with it; after all, life isn’t fair.

As far as access to those ranches and those elk, most Montana hunters I know have written off that idea. They respect private property rights and don’t expect access. And, history, even the recent 454 stuff, shows the cost the public pays for that access is way more than it is worth.

Personally, I exclude the idea of connecting access to these ranches from any sort of elk management. I don’t want to bother those folks. I’ll focus on elk that are accessible.

For those who want to be part of solutions, I’ll do all I can. For those who don’t want to be part of the solution; fine, their land and their decision.
 

Eric Albus

Well-known member
Joined
May 24, 2012
Messages
1,228
The fallacy here is that folks want to think that people aren't interested in changing season structure to achieve these goals, as well as other means. Or that putting up a resistance to handing wildlife management over to the wealthy & influential is partisan.

The idea that we need to bend over backwards for the people who are mostly responsible for the problems is like giving the kid throwing a fit the piece of cake despite the fact that he's already a diabetic.

I’d not call it bending over backwards, I’d call 454, with modifications I’ve laid out an attempt to work with those contributing to the problem. If they don’t like it, don’t participate. They can have their own season on their ranch, ‘til they’re caught(likelihood of that, next to Zero).
 

Eric Albus

Well-known member
Joined
May 24, 2012
Messages
1,228
Very true, life isn’t fair. And that cuts both ways, even if you buy a Montana elk ranch and the tag allocation system you’re subjected to “isn’t fair.” Daddy Megabucks can take his lumps and deal with it; after all, life isn’t fair.

As far as access to those ranches and those elk, most Montana hunters I know have written off that idea. They respect private property rights and don’t expect access. And, history, even the recent 454 stuff, shows the cost the public pays for that access is way more than it is worth.

Personally, I exclude the idea of connecting access to these ranches from any sort of elk management. I don’t want to bother those folks. I’ll focus on elk that are accessible.

For those who want to be part of solutions, I’ll do all I can. For those who don’t want to be part of the solution; fine, their land and their decision.
We can focus on elk that are accessible in this state. My number one option then is go LE permit statewide.

Those unwilling to be “part of the solution”? Who will be designated king and define what the solution is?

We can ignore the elk on inaccessible lands, this sounds like something the current Whitehouse administration would suggest.
The solutions to the problem are not going to be easy or popular. I’ve never been very popular anyway, I just want to see a solution to the grossly over objective elk numbers. These elk are harming traditional ranch families, and I do not want to see populations wiped out with pestilence and disease. Let’s come up with a solution to get access and have hunters harvest elk, in number.
 
Top