FWP: Hank's out Dustin Temple in

[Eric Albus]

Spending the last 4 months working almost daily with Dustin, I think he'll do ok. I've found him to be direct, blunt, candid & someone who will do his best to lead the agency. He was easy to work with during the session & often times his candor & thinking were helpful. He's often the first to admit his agency's problems and he's been a decent collaborator on legislation. Not saying he's anyone's best friend or that we'll be happy regarding his decisions (corner crossing for example) but we can either work with him, or we can take shots from the cheap seats. He's a human like we all are and offering him some grace and assistance as he assumes the directorship is worthwhile.

Hank is a long time friend and while we've had strong disagreements I will always think he is a good & decent man. He's earned some time off to spend with his family and enjoying life.

Great, and fair assessment Ben.

I do not expect to be happy with every decision DT makes, any more than I liked every decision Hank made.
For the first time in years people are finally coming to the conclusion we do need management and we do need to limit pressure on a finite (although renewable) resource.
I hope we see change incrementally take place. With mule deer being managed for what the are, a separate species. Elk and whitetail the same. The elk and mule deer are what need the most in management and different strategies to each species needs application.

I do not want to turn this into a management session. I wish Hank the best in his retirement.

 

[The Hedgehog]

It’ll be interesting to watch the focus and percentage of time/energy toward public land wildlife management compared to landowner hunting tag programs.

 

[406dn]

Are you on drugs? Or just a typical liberal troll???

Gee, that would be like me asking if you are drunk or just a right wing troll.

I can understand why an outfitter would approve of the recent changes in the direction of FWP. Everyone is not as pleased with it as you seem to be.

 

[cowboy]

I’ve seen more happen in the last 2 yrs than the previous 16, under dem leadership.

By the way, I’m not a liberal, just the opposite, probably killed my first elk before you were born.

Why don’t you list the top 3 accomplishments that GG and Hank have implemented in the past 2 years.

 

[antlerradar]

Hank was the only director and one of the few FWP employees that I can remember that admitted Montana needed to reevaluate mule deer management. Sure hope that continues with Dustin Temple.

 

[Eric Albus]

It’ll be interesting to watch the focus and percentage of time/energy toward public land wildlife management compared to landowner hunting tag programs.

I’m hopeful we’ll all be pleasantly surprised.

 

[Ben Lamb]

It’ll be interesting to watch the focus and percentage of time/energy toward public land wildlife management compared to landowner hunting tag programs.

Had a long conversation with him yesterday and I think he's got some direction to be more responsive to landowners dealing with over-abundance on private land, but he's clearly looking for solutions here. One thing he told me was akin to recognizing that their solutions weren't popular (HB 505 in particular) so he's looking at the public and especially the engaged hunting groups to help find some solutions, alongside agriculture and outfitters.

Season setting is coming up quickly, so there's a great opportunity to work locally and get your suggestions in to the local bio's and work with your local commissioner. This is where I see the most opportunity to change things from the status quo to a more thoughtful process. I doubt the commission is willing to keep the status quo, and so we can either rely on government to make changes and we accept that, or we focus on the changes we want to see, and bring the commission to our positions.

The EMP revamp is still coming up this year, so again - good way to engage in the process especially on fuyture management towards better public land hunting.

Rulemaking on all the legislation that passed is coming up as well.

Why don’t you list the top 3 accomplishments that GG and Hank have implemented in the past 2 years.

SB 58 doubled the cap on Block Management payments from $25K to $50K and the budget had an extra $7 million for the program as well as a handful of new hunt techs to help adminsiter. PLPW is going to be looking at Block Mgt in light of SB 58, and will be making rule changes, etc. I do think this process is going to be a good one based on conversations with the chairman and @Eric Albus.

HB 596 reforms the 454 program starting in 2024

PAL Act agreements are about to hit 500K acres of previously landlocked public land being open to hunting access.

The draw is smooth and painless for the first time in years (this is sarcasm).

 

[Fire_9]

Hopefully Dustin does well but from what I've heard from FWP employees, it is not promising. Hard to have a warm fuzzy feeling when you've heard reports of him saying he came here to 'bulldoze people'. Not entirely sure what that means but I'm sure we'll find out soon enough...

 

[tjones]

I’ve seen more happen in the last 2 yrs than the previous 16, under dem leadership. I may not agree or like ever single thing, but at least things are happening and ppl are talking…some are even thinking.

Like messed up draws and a war on elk and deer?

 

[TheTone]

Had a long conversation with him yesterday and I think he's got some direction to be more responsive to landowners dealing with over-abundance on private land, but he's clearly looking for solutions here.

easy solution, allow access, done

 

[BRI]

A tough job for sure. Hunters don't feel listened to. Landowners don't feel listened to. Legislature saying we'll tell you what to do. Hunters are the constant in the equation and we'll continue to buy the crappy product they're selling. Being pessimistic, I don't hold much hope for public land hunting to improve in my lifetime.

 

[antlerradar]

easy solution, allow access, done

Not going to happen with Montana's 12 week free for all. Even ranches that do not take money for hunting are unwilling to sign up for that. The hard part is getting Montana's hunters to accept less opportunity.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Not going to happen with Montana's 12 week free for all. Even ranches that do not take money for hunting are unwilling to sign up for that. The hard part is getting Montana's hunters to accept less opportunity.

Heard this from every Ag producer and group I've talked with.

 

[406dn]

Not going to happen with Montana's 12 week free for all. Even ranches that do not take money for hunting are unwilling to sign up for that. The hard part is getting Montana's hunters to accept less opportunity.

I can fully understand that. We, hunters, look forward to hunting season. I can see why landowners have an entirely different emotion regarding an upcoming hunting season.

 

[Beignet]

I don't want to contribute to a total redirect on this thread, but guess I will.

How successful are game damage hunts when landowners enroll in that program? There's a few units near me where they seem to work well enough that landowners enroll in the program annually. They still get quite a bit of say over access and the opportunity to mitigate damage. Seems like a win-win if overabundance is truly a concern.

 

[Nameless Range]

Not going to happen with Montana's 12 week free for all. Even ranches that do not take money for hunting are unwilling to sign up for that. The hard part is getting Montana's hunters to accept less opportunity.

I think it's counterintuitive. Talking to landowners in the Elkhorns and elsewhere it was eye opening to me. But to echo you and Ben, our season lengths have crossed a threshold where I think a strong case could be made that, in terms of hunter-days (and of course hunt quality), we actually have a net-loss in public access to private land, because of their length.

This is a tough fact to get across to Montana Hunters, but I also see it being a tough fact to get across to our state game agency. Their solutions - shoulder seasons come to mind - have recently been longer seasons to ham-fistedly deal with the overpopulation of elk in some places.

 

[DFS]

I see the agency as the biggest barrier to any meaningful changes. They have failed to see or acknowledge how hunting has changed. They truly believe they are “knocking it out of the park” They will vehemently defend failing management.

 

[TheTone]

Not going to happen with Montana's 12 week free for all. Even ranches that do not take money for hunting are unwilling to sign up for that. The hard part is getting Montana's hunters to accept less opportunity.

Agreed but a private landowner can control access however they want on their land. If they only want a certain number of hunters or time they can do that. They can help in any number of ways with too many critters on their property

 

[The Hedgehog]

The hard part is getting Montana's hunters to accept less opportunity.

The ironic part is 90% or more of the MT resident hunters can count on one hand how many days they hunt per year, yet it's their God given right to have seasons that are half a year long.

 

[SAJ-99]

I don't want to contribute to a total redirect on this thread, but guess I will.

How successful are game damage hunts when landowners enroll in that program? There's a few units near me where they seem to work well enough that landowners enroll in the program annually. They still get quite a bit of say over access and the opportunity to mitigate damage. Seems like a win-win if overabundance is truly a concern.

I agree that game damage seems like the best solution to the stated problem. I requested the game damage hunt data a couple of years ago. The number of game damage hunts dropped considerably over the time period I looked at. Either the game was reduced or the landowner determined that having the game was a profitable opportunity, or both. But the real conclusion is the stated problem isn't what they are trying to solve.