UPOM suing FWP over elk regulations

[DFS]

Me, too. And not only are they available almost everywhere ... the seasons last for over six months!

Biologically it doesn’t make sense, but we needed to try something different so lets shoot more bulls to get the population in check. Sarcasm font.

 

[sacountry]

All of this saber rattling goes away if FWP and state politicians would get out of the way of the biologists. It's the biologists that are the more trusted common denominator on which all stake holder groups could/should accept as subject matter experts. If the biologists would come out and say killing bulls is a bad idea, UPOM would have to go pound sand. If the biologists said 454 is a good idea, then I'd have to pound sand. The FWP Director's only job at that point would be to ensure the impartiality of his biologists. Pretty hard to look like a numbskull with that simplified job description.

 

[sacountry]

The biologist is not going to save us from these guys. There in no biological problem with hammering bulls until it gets down to 3 bulls per hundred cows like 313 did. Look at mule deer.

UPOM is contending that the current wildlife decision making process is unconstitutional. I would warmly welcome a counter suit that states the biologists should be placed at the top of the decision tree. Admittedly I haven't read the BHA, MWF, counter suit yet, but if a judge would rule in favor of the biologists as having authority, then we'd at least open the microphone to them regardless of controlling political party. That would be a really good thing.

 

[DFS]

UPOM is contending that the current wildlife decision making process is unconstitutional. I would warmly welcome a counter suit that states the biologists should be placed at the top of the decision tree. Admittedly I haven't read the BHA, MWF, counter suit yet, but if a judge would rule in favor of the biologists as having authority, then we'd at least open the microphone to them regardless of controlling political party. That would be a really good thing.

I wouldn’t put as much faith in them as you do. Talk to them about the yearly mule deer rut slaughter and your eyes may be opened.

 

[sacountry]

I wouldn’t put as much faith in them as you do. Talk to them about the yearly mule deer rut slaughter and your eyes may be opened.

The options are 3. The legislature, the FWP Director and his Commission, or the biologists. I don't see any other options so I'll take what's behind door #3.

 

[rogerthat]

UPOM is contending that the current wildlife decision making process is unconstitutional. I would warmly welcome a counter suit that states the biologists should be placed at the top of the decision tree. Admittedly I haven't read the BHA, MWF, counter suit yet, but if a judge would rule in favor of the biologists as having authority, then we'd at least open the microphone to them regardless of controlling political party. That would be a really good thing.

What law would the judge make this ruling based upon? I’m not saying I disagree with the premise of your “idea” but I think it’s pretty clear Jersey Greg, Hammering Hank, and the Republican Montana legislature DO NOT care what biologists have to say nor about there biologists.

 

[sacountry]

What law would the judge make this ruling based upon? I’m not saying I disagree with the premise of your “idea” but I think it’s pretty clear Jersey Greg, Hammering Hank, and the Republican Montana legislature DO NOT care what biologists have to say nor about there biologists.

The options are 3. The legislature, the FWP Director and his Commission, or the biologists. I don't see any other options so I'll take what's behind door #3.

Correction, UPOM is advocating for a 4th option and that's to give management rights to individual landowners.

As to how a judge would rule, I would think a legitimate case against the constitutionality of the process would have to be brought forth...and I doubt there is one that could be made. My point is that all this back and forth will go no where and biologist will continue to be shoved to the backseat when they should be the ones driving the car.

 

[Straight Arrow]

Biologically it doesn’t make sense, but we needed to try something different so lets shoot more bulls to get the population in check. Sarcasm font.

... and if still over the abysmal objectives, then open the shoulder seasons to bulls.

 

[The Hedgehog]

And I see that you are confused…….and not surprised. Please show me where “Ellis” is in MOGA leadership.

 

[TheTone]

... and if still over the abysmal objectives, then open the shoulder seasons to bulls.

Make the bull shoulder season in May and June. I mean this is all about way too many elk on private lands, not about putting a rack on the wall

 

[Schaaf]

And I see that you are confused…….and not surprised. Please show me where “Ellis” is in MOGA leadership.

Right, he just hangs out at the Board Of Directors Spring Retreat for shits and giggles.

He might not be officially on the board but he’s pulling lots of strings.

 

[BuzzH]

Which one is Paul Ellis?

 

[Schaaf]

Which one is Paul Ellis?

Guy on the right.

 

[sacountry]

And I see that you are confused…….and not surprised. Please show me where “Ellis” is in MOGA leadership.

Ask and you Schaaf receive. @Schaaf

 

[BuzzH]

Guy on the right.

He's the guy that was so offended by the bulls for billionaires that I had words with in Casper. Down in Wyoming spreading manure...he can keep his shit in Montana.

 

[Big Shooter]

View attachment 224784

 

[Eric Albus]

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.

This simplifies things a lot. If we only
Manage Accessible Elk we can reduce permits/pressure to near ZERO.

 

[Sioux33]

This simplifies things a lot. If we only
Manage Accessible Elk we can reduce permits/pressure to near ZERO.

You mean actually follow the EMP as written? Or are you still picking and choosing which parts you want to follow?

 

[DFS]

This simplifies things a lot. If we only
Manage Accessible Elk we can reduce permits/pressure to near ZERO.

There are people on this site that have houses full of public land bulls that they have shot. Pumping out more and more tags is exactly what started this problem of congregating elk to private. You are in search for a solution that doesn’t exist. Private landowners should absolutely have the tools to manage elk on their lands. Good news is they do, cow tags are easy and plentiful. If they need more of them I’m ok with that too. Bringing in more bull tags to control elk populations is quite frankly a dumb argument or stance to take. It makes it quite easy to see what the fight is actually about. But let’s keep disguising it as grossly over inflated objectives.

 

[sacountry]

This simplifies things a lot. If we only
Manage Accessible Elk we can reduce permits/pressure to near ZERO.

I'm struggling with the math. So if we only manage to accessible elk, and the data shows say 50% to objective for a given HD, you're saying that you'd be comfortable with a major cut in permits even though there are hundreds or thousands of head on private that you might actually lease. Wouldn't that significantly cut down on your revenue to go from at least some tags to nearly no tags despite an HD actually being over objective if the non accessible elk where counted?