Fish and Wildlife Commission sued over open-meeting law, black bear quotas

[lastlight]

Rules are optional if you agree with the results then?

You’re clearly extra bent out of shape for other reasons as you’ve ignored everything else I’ve politely said. Have a good evening.

It doesn’t give you confidence that they care what you think when they introduce amendments during the meeting that weren’t even on the agenda and then vote on them that day with no input from the public. That’s not how the process is supposed to work and I’m glad they got sued.

I’m wondering exactly what else went on in the meeting, and exactly what their motivations were. And I’m confused as to how predator management is “catering to the rich” or really catering to anyone or anything other than better deer/elk herds.

I’m aware of the other issues catering to rich land owners, but this one has me puzzled.

 

[TheJason]

You’re clearly extra bent out of shape for other reasons as you’ve ignored everything else I’ve politely said. Have a good evening.

I’m not bent at all. I’m just trying to clarify in my mind what exactly you are driving at. I haven’t ignored a thing.

So we got to help deer/elk in any way possible IMO.

But if it helps put more elk and deer on the landscape I’d have to applaud but also encourage them to do it the legal way in the future.

When you say encourage, it directly implies it’s not a non negotiable. Hence, my question that circumventing rules is kosher if the end result is what you desire?

I’m genuinely curious what I’m missing here.

 

[BuzzH]

You’re clearly extra bent out of shape for other reasons as you’ve ignored everything else I’ve politely said. Have a good evening.


I’m wondering exactly what else went on in the meeting, and exactly what their motivations were. And I’m confused as to how predator management is “catering to the rich” or really catering to anyone or anything other than better deer/elk herds.

I’m aware of the other issues catering to rich land owners, but this one has me puzzled.

You must be easily puzzled.

There is a process that the commission is supposed to follow. There is supposed to be a public comment period and the right for those paying the goddamn bills for wildlife to have a say. During those meetings, its pretty typical to have the FWP and their experts explain why changes are being made, the science behind it, etc.

The public also get's to ask questions, make public comments for or against, etc. Those comments are supposed to help guide the department and solidify the recommendation one way or the other.

It's BS when the commission, for any reason, circumvents the process they are required to follow. I don't care if its the best idea in the world, again, those paying the goddamn bills have to be part of the process.

I'll give you example that pissed off a lot of sportsmen, both R and NR that happened just like this. The legislature gave the GF commission the statutory right to raise preference point fees for NR moose and sheep to up to $150 per species. At a commission meeting, with no public process, the commission just said, well, we have the authority lets raise these to $150. No public comment and they should have had their ass sued.

I don't care if you think its a good idea to shoot predators, you have to protect the process or one day, you'll be looking in the mirror wondering WTF happened when its something you don't like that gets passed. Passed without your input when you should have had a say in impacts, implementation, or even trying to stop a crap idea.

This playing king/queen and just doing things without following protocol has got to stop.

 

[ismith]

It seems the theme lately is politicians and their ilk can break rules/laws without consequences. Even winning lawsuits don’t have repercussions. It just continues as usual. I suspect we will see a lot more of the same in coming years.

Lately? You're kidding right?

 

[SAJ-99]

Lately? You're kidding right?

I’m originally from Illinois. We have a long tradition of putting politicians in jail. So yeah, worse lately.

 

[ismith]

I’m originally from Illinois. We have a long tradition of putting politicians in jail. So yeah, worse lately.

Illinois is as bad as Mexico, as far as corruption goes.

 

[SAJ-99]

Illinois is as bad as Mexico, as far as corruption goes.

Hey, watch it. Illinois is much better.

Seriously though, the problem is people don’t admit the obvious corruption. they choose it again and again, while complaining about how corrupt politicians are.

 

[cgasner1]

No I wouldn’t be, I’m just in favor of aggressive predator management in areas that have issues with severe declines in elk like NW Montana. If you asked hunters in these areas I’d bet my house the vast majority would agree.

I don’t know the ins and outs of this particular meeting they held and any other motives they had, I’ll admit. But if it helps put more elk and deer on the landscape I’d have to applaud but also encourage them to do it the legal way in the future. The lawsuit sucks, they should have seen that coming a mile away.

Let this slide now because it makes sense to you. Let’s say your right and it helps the fawns now in 2 years they say the area can support more predators so we will cut back on killing wolves and you can’t say anything about it. How you get the results matter

 

[Wind Gypsy]

It's simple.

When commissions do shady shit to allow more predator harvest in MT = Good.
When commissions do shady shit to reduce predator hunting in CO and WA = Bad.

/sarcasm.

 

[lastlight]

You must be easily puzzled.

There is a process that the commission is supposed to follow. There is supposed to be a public comment period and the right for those paying the goddamn bills for wildlife to have a say. During those meetings, its pretty typical to have the FWP and their experts explain why changes are being made, the science behind it, etc.

The public also get's to ask questions, make public comments for or against, etc. Those comments are supposed to help guide the department and solidify the recommendation one way or the other.

It's BS when the commission, for any reason, circumvents the process they are required to follow. I don't care if its the best idea in the world, again, those paying the goddamn bills have to be part of the process.

I'll give you example that pissed off a lot of sportsmen, both R and NR that happened just like this. The legislature gave the GF commission the statutory right to raise preference point fees for NR moose and sheep to up to $150 per species. At a commission meeting, with no public process, the commission just said, well, we have the authority lets raise these to $150. No public comment and they should have had their ass sued.

I don't care if you think its a good idea to shoot predators, you have to protect the process or one day, you'll be looking in the mirror wondering WTF happened when its something you don't like that gets passed. Passed without your input when you should have had a say in impacts, implementation, or even trying to stop a crap idea.

This playing king/queen and just doing things without following protocol has got to stop.

In this current example, how is changing the bear harvest quota catering to “the rich, developers, real estate agents, extractive industry, ranchers, outfitters…”as you said in your first post. Just looking for clarification. I’m guessing you might be referring to past shitstorms revolving around elk tag allocations and quotas, not bears.

I’m not arguing that the method they illegally skipped out on was a good idea, they should be sued and the process should be protected. Though the problem with the general public is they are mostly uneducated. They need to use biologists input who are pro hunting and pro conservation and don’t cater to any particular group.

I want more deer and elk on the landscape. Bears are great to just need proper management.

 

[lastlight]

It's simple.

When commissions do shady shit to allow more predator harvest in MT = Good.
When commissions do shady shit to reduce predator hunting in CO and WA = Bad.

/sarcasm.

Might sound like a smart ass but which state does every sportsman want to live in out of those 3? MT! You could have argued CO up until fairly recently. WA is a complete dumpster.

 

[TheJason]

What state it occurs in is a red herring. Public entities owe it to their citizens to follow process. Pure and simple. Doesn’t matter if it’s a F&W commission, city council, election board, etc.

 

[BuzzH]

In this current example, how is changing the bear harvest quota catering to “the rich, developers, real estate agents, extractive industry, ranchers, outfitters…”as you said in your first post. Just looking for clarification. I’m guessing you might be referring to past shitstorms revolving around elk tag allocations and quotas, not bears.

I’m not arguing that the method they illegally skipped out on was a good idea, they should be sued and the process should be protected. Though the problem with the general public is they are mostly uneducated. They need to use biologists input who are pro hunting and pro conservation and don’t cater to any particular group.

I want more deer and elk on the landscape. Bears are great to just need proper management.

Yes, they do need to use biologists, but no, we, the folks paying the bills, did not get to hear them talk about these changes because the public meetings didn't happen.

That's the problem.

Again, I don't care if you want more elk and deer on the landscape, what do you say to people that may want more bears on the landscape to hunt? Tough shit, you don't matter?

I can be convinced, via public meetings and the science being applied from Biologists to expand bear hunting if there's a reason. But, just you personally wanting more deer and elk isn't based on anything but a selfish desire. That's not science, that's not letting the professionals manage.

You need to get over the delusion that its OK to break protocol, procedures, and ignore science to further your agenda. That's not how things should work, and a lawsuit will pull this mess back in line.

 

[Gerald Martin]

I want more deer and elk on the landscape. Bears are great to just need proper management.

I got to experience firsthand the last days of peak deer/elk numbers in NW MT. I also experienced the expansion of wolves in both range and population explosion and the corresponding reduction of deer/elk as well as an exponential decline in available winter range due to expanding human population.

During that time, mountain lion and black bear populations were also at an all time high and were not having a substantive effect on lowering ungulate populations.

Harvest of black bears has nearly doubled and hunters numbers have increased by multiples of what they were fifteen years ago.

Something that I can’t understand is the desire to blame everything on four legged predators that weren’t having a negative impact on populations for decades without considering that maybe human impacts of development and hunting mortality are also additive mortality.


Last time I checked, black bears were a game animal just like deer and elk. Truth be told, good hunting for black bears is just as important to me as hunting deer and elk.

None of us would be fine with moving the management parameters of deer and elk without public process. Why should we be fine with it for any game animal?

 

[Wind Gypsy]

Might sound like a smart ass but which state does every sportsman want to live in out of those 3? MT! You could have argued CO up until fairly recently. WA is a complete dumpster.

Pretty close battle between the CO and MT. More opportunity in MT for sure. Better mule deer hunting in CO than MT, with 5x the number of residents! Imagine if they managed them the same as MT..

 

[Tcal719]

It's unfortunate, but the only way to address these issues is to sue the living crap out of the agencies and commission. Its why I'm uncomfortable with any talk of making it more difficult for lawsuits to be filed and any "reform" to the EAJA.

Some of the only teeth we have is to litigate this kind of crap, take that away, we're really McScrewed.

Agreed

 

[Elktrack]

I got to experience firsthand the last days of peak deer/elk numbers in NW MT. I also experienced the expansion of wolves in both range and population explosion and the corresponding reduction of deer/elk as well as an exponential decline in available winter range due to expanding human population.

During that time, mountain lion and black bear populations were also at an all time high and were not having a substantive effect on lowering ungulate populations.

Harvest of black bears has nearly doubled and hunters numbers have increased by multiples of what they were fifteen years ago.

Something that I can’t understand is the desire to blame everything on four legged predators that weren’t having a negative impact on populations for decades without considering that maybe human impacts of development and hunting mortality are also additive mortality.


Last time I checked, black bears were a game animal just like deer and elk. Truth be told, good hunting for black bears is just as important to me as hunting deer and elk.

None of us would be fine with moving the management parameters of deer and elk without public process. Why should we be fine with it for any game animal?

I agree with you.
Bears and cats don’t bring the same political uproar that wolves do so it’s easier for them to become the scapegoat.

 

[mtmiller]

I heard through the grapevine that the Commission will be placing very restrictive quotas on any HDs that are are under deer objectives "until they are stabilized". Supposedly it is "uber quiet" for now, but will be addressed soon. More details will be available Feb 13.