Montana Elk Proposals with Director Hank Worsech

[Gerald Martin]

Conflict of this nature will continue for as long as FWP believes it has the responsibility to manage wildlife on property they cannot assure access to.

 

[sacountry]

Also keep in mind that this whole conflict is completely political in nature. Making our timely comments on the public comment page is helpful for the commission to understand our agreement or disagreement with individual proposals and the process but public sentiment and pushback on social media and in face to face communication has a way of filtering down to the people who tune in to public sentiment.

Ensuring that there is a significant political cost to ignoring resident hunters’ concerns is about the only leverage we have right now.

This administration and FWP leadership have made clear demonstrations that their primary concerns are not the health of public trust wildlife and fair and equitable access to public trust resources.

Common, quit being sooo.............right.

 

[Gerald Martin]

Common, quit being sooo.............right.

If I do stop, can I become Director of FWP and implement one sided policy directives?

 

[sacountry]

If I do stop, can I become Director of FWP and implement one sided policy directives?

Yes. As future governor, I'll select you for the position.

 

[Ben Lamb]

If I do stop, can I become Director of FWP and implement one sided policy directives?

Yes. As future governor, I'll select you for the position.

Power corrupts even those who aren't elected, apparently.

 

[Dougfirtree]

This morning I'm sure her PR team is telling Kelly that she seems to be getting torched on a hunting forum, and she is like "WTF?".

She ain't driving this folks. Keep your focus on the right target. The fact that people can allow or not allow hunting is a private property right. It's a fact that wildlife exist on that property. That is why this problem is not "solvable", but it clearly can be manipulated to the advantage of a few.

In this discussion, she's just a stand-in for any landowner who is so wealthy that financial incentives are not necessarily going to be meaningful.
I don't think I disagree with what you're saying. It's a balancing act between respecting private property rights and advocating for public hunting, which I see as a public good. In a balancing act involving FWP and a fabulously wealthy landowner, access/tags is one of the only pieces of leverage we have. I don't think it's persecuting landowners to pull that lever a bit. The kind of incentives that might cause a small multi-generation ranching family to register their land in an access program are not going to cut it with ultra-wealthy folks who own massive pieces of the landscape.

 

[Gerald Martin]

Kelly Clarkson and folks like her aren’t really the problem. They have the right to buy from willing sellers and control access however they see fit.

The real problem is that the MT legislature views it to be within their power to dictate that the landowners who are affected by NR landowners who don’t allow access must be granted relief from increased elk numbers on inaccessible property by eliminating elk on public and accessible properties to satisfy the arbitrary “objectives” set by landowners.

Hank’s definition of insanity IS FWP’s
management strategy.

The irony of it all is no one at FWP and with the MT GOP is willing to be honest with affected landowners that they cannot grant them indemnity from being affected by the wildlife management and access policies of their neighbors. Who would have thought that the very political party that decries government control to solve problems is so dependent on that control to solve problems?

 

[MTelkHuntress]

Kelly Clarkson and folks like her aren’t really the problem. They have the right to buy from willing sellers and control access however they see fit.

The real problem is that the MT legislature views it to be within their power to dictate that the landowners who are affected by NR landowners who don’t allow access must be granted relief from increased elk numbers on inaccessible property by eliminating elk on public and accessible properties to satisfy the arbitrary “objectives” set by landowners.

Hank’s definition of insanity IS FWP’s
management strategy.

The irony of it all is no one at FWP and with the MT GOP is willing to be honest with affected landowners that they cannot grant them indemnity from being affected by the wildlife management and access policies of their neighbors. Who would have thought that the very political party that decries government control to solve problems is so dependent on that control to solve problems?

So the problem isn't the new landowners but rather the problem is the response and solutions to the issues that these landowners end up creating? Am I understanding that right?

 

[Gerald Martin]

So the problem isn't the new landowners but rather the problem is the response and solutions to the issues that these landowners end up creating? Am I understanding that right?

New landowners and old landowners have the right to make access decisions on their own private property. Those decisions affect other people.

It isn’t the government’s job to ensure some landowners aren’t affected by others.

It is the government’s job ( via the state department of FWP) to manage the wildlife of our state with the health of that resource as it’s primary mandate.

FWP cannot dictate “winners” without dictating “losers” by default.

Interaction with our neighbors and bearing the affects of their decisions made within clear legal parameters is not ultimately the government’s responsibility to control.

 

[rogerthat]

So why all the concern about the wealthy out of state landowners? Cause they contribute the most to campaigns or did? Is this payback/political favors re-paid? Are wealthy out of state landowners currently that influential in Montana politics? If this is the case, I still think its a political miscalculation by this admin.

 

[Addicting]

It isn’t the government’s job to ensure some landowners aren’t affected by others.

A township board and the ordinances they pass do exactly that.

 

[SAJ-99]

So why all the concern about the wealthy out of state landowners? Cause they contribute the most to campaigns or did? Is this payback/political favors re-paid? Are wealthy out of state landowners currently that influential in Montana politics? If this is the case, I still think its a political miscalculation by this admin.

Because NR that can't get tags every year, directly or indirectly, are driving these proposals. Yes they contribute $$$ to campaigns (locally and nationally) and any politician looking toward a future office needs to appease the big donors. Yes, this is repayment for those contributions. Yes, wealthy NRs are that influential. Disagree with the last sentence, but hope you are right.

 

[antlerradar]

He also made it clear that use of 454 will increase. I find it a little hard to believe that LO's "didn't know about it" given it is 20years old. Maybe something changed? You would have the best insight.

What I see happening in the near future is the Wilks' say "look at our success rate under 454!. You want to reduce elk numbers by shooting cows and the 24 cow permits were 100% successful on our property. We will take 10 more cow elk hunters in exchange for 5 more LO bull tags." FWP will have to say 'Yes', probably bargain it down to 4 bull tags, because "The Goal" is to reduce elk numbers in that district.

Sure you don't mean bargain it up to 6 or 7 bulls, " The Goal is to reduce elk numbers.

 

[Ben Lamb]

The real problem is that the MT legislature views it to be within their power to dictate that the landowners who are affected by NR landowners who don’t allow access must be granted relief from increased elk numbers on inaccessible property by eliminating elk on public and accessible properties to satisfy the arbitrary “objectives” set by landowners.

Hank’s definition of insanity IS FWP’s
management strategy.

The irony of it all is no one at FWP and with the MT GOP is willing to be honest with affected landowners that they cannot grant them indemnity from being affected by the wildlife management and access policies of their neighbors. Who would have thought that the very political party that decries government control to solve problems is so dependent on that control to solve problems?

Here we are.

At the end of this podcast, Hank seems to view this all as deeply political, otherwise he wouldn't have only signaled the last 16 years, but the last 26 where the conflict was front and Center. His take on the last 16 years is colored by his perspective, but not actual reality, IMO. Both sides bear a lot blame on the elk management issue, but the one constant was the inability for the agency to make necessary changes when bold action was called for. Now, rather than take the time to actually sit down with folks and talk this through before handing out edicts, we're forced to deal with a growingly convoluted and cumbersome regulation package that really does nothing to simplify or deal with elk on private land, other than reward wealthy landowners for refusing to be community members.

The commission is taking public comment at the meeting on the 4th. I strongly encourage folks to step up and be heard. You have to sign up before noon on Thursday. The more people who show up, even if you don't get to testify, the better the outcome. Making decisions counter to public sentiment when people are staring at you is really uncomfortable, but appointed officials deserve scrutiny just as elected ones do, and as our agency directors do.

Fish & Wildlife Commission: February 4, 2022 Meeting Agenda | Montana FWP

Location: Zoom Virtual Attendance and in Person. This meeting will be broadcast on the FWP website at

fwp.mt.gov

 

[Gerald Martin]

A township board and the ordinances they pass do exactly that.

Ok. I agree. My explanation is obviously simplistic but the overall premise remains.

Landowners have the right to dictate access to their own property within the parameters of the law.

Just because new landowners don’t allow access and that affects elk numbers to rise above objective and that in turn cause more crop damage to their neighbors doesn’t make it sound wildlife management to eliminate elk on public land.

Livestock growers saw fit to make Montana a fence out state when it suited their purposes. They weren’t too concerned about the effects their policies had on their neighbors at the time because they weren’t willing to bear the cost of ensuring their management policies didn’t affect their neighbors.

Funny how that principle is suddenly unfair when a NR landowners’s wildlife eats a neighbor’s hay.

 

[Gerald Martin]

Here we are.

At the end of this podcast, Hank seems to view this all as deeply political, otherwise he wouldn't have only signaled the last 16 years, but the last 26 where the conflict was front and Center. His take on the last 16 years is colored by his perspective, but not actual reality, IMO. Both sides bear a lot blame on the elk management issue, but the one constant was the inability for the agency to make necessary changes when bold action was called for. Now, rather than take the time to actually sit down with folks and talk this through before handing out edicts, we're forced to deal with a growingly convoluted and cumbersome regulation package that really does nothing to simplify or deal with elk on private land, other than reward wealthy landowners for refusing to be community members.

The commission is taking public comment at the meeting on the 4th. I strongly encourage folks to step up and be heard. You have to sign up before noon on Thursday. The more people who show up, even if you don't get to testify, the better the outcome. Making decisions counter to public sentiment when people are staring at you is really uncomfortable, but appointed officials deserve scrutiny just as elected ones do, and as our agency directors do.

Fish & Wildlife Commission: February 4, 2022 Meeting Agenda | Montana FWP

Location: Zoom Virtual Attendance and in Person. This meeting will be broadcast on the FWP website at

fwp.mt.gov

I plan to be there in person. I have room for a couple more if anyone wants to ride along from Bozeman.

 

[antlerradar]

Kelly Clarkson and folks like her aren’t really the problem. They have the right to buy from willing sellers and control access however they see fit.

The real problem is that the MT legislature views it to be within their power to dictate that the landowners who are affected by NR landowners who don’t allow access must be granted relief from increased elk numbers on inaccessible property by eliminating elk on public and accessible properties to satisfy the arbitrary “objectives” set by landowners.

Hank’s definition of insanity IS FWP’s
management strategy.

The irony of it all is no one at FWP and with the MT GOP is willing to be honest with affected landowners that they cannot grant them indemnity from being affected by the wildlife management and access policies of their neighbors. Who would have thought that the very political party that decries government control to solve problems is so dependent on that control to solve problems?

I think your are swerving off the road, The issue is and always has been that some people are pissed that they couldn't buy themselves to the front of the line to get their elk tags every year. Landowners with elk damage are just a politically convenient victim to be used as misdirection for the uninformed because allowing the wealthy to buy their way to the front of the line is a political loser with just about everyone. Nothing in these proposals will help landowners with damage much.

 

[Gerald Martin]

So why all the concern about the wealthy out of state landowners? Cause they contribute the most to campaigns or did? Is this payback/political favors re-paid? Are wealthy out of state landowners currently that influential in Montana politics? If this is the case, I still think its a political miscalculation by this admin.

Yes and yes to your questions in bold type.

This administration is counting on the R behind their name and hunters trusting FWP to provide unlimited opportunity to keep them from connecting the dots of the reality of elk management in MT.


If hunters took a minute to reflect on the numbers and draw appropriate conclusions they should be and would be pissed.

Most hunters think there’s plenty of elk available to hunt because FWP says numbers are above objective in many areas.

Here’s some real stats to chew on.

FWP’s 2021 numbers say MT has @ 140,000 elk.

Total harvest of cows and bulls is @ 35,000 elk.

Out of that total a realistic bull to cow ratio across the state is 15/100. It’s certainly not anywhere near 20/100.

That would give us @ 20,000-25,000 live bull elk in the entire state.

I have heard numbers of @100,000 resident elk licenses sold. I think that number is probably low.

Add in another 17,500 NR either sex tags and probably another 5000-10,000 NR B licenses.

For every bull elk alive in this state there are probably between 6-8 hunters trying to kill a bull. It’s a good thing that elk hunting success doesn’t rise much above the 10% average.

I am pretty confident the actual numbers are probably even more skewed than my educated guesses.

 

[Gerald Martin]

I think your are swerving off the road, The issue is and always has been that some people are pissed that they couldn't buy themselves to the front of the line to get their elk tags every year. Landowners with elk damage are just a politically convenient victim to be used as misdirection for the uninformed because allowing the wealthy to buy there way to the front of the line is a political loser with just about everyone. Nothing in these proposals will help landowners with damage much.

Fair enough. I agree with you.

 

[The Hedgehog]

The issue is and always has been that some people are pissed that they couldn't buy themselves to the front of the line to get their elk tags every year. Landowners with elk damage are just a politically convenient victim to be used as misdirection for the uninformed because allowing the wealthy to buy there way to the front of the line is a political loser with just about everyone. Nothing in these proposals will help landowners with damage much.

Just copying and pasting the most simple and exact description of what the commission is voting on.