Montana Elk Proposals with Director Hank Worsech

[Big Fin]

Below are some links to the podcast I did with Director Worsech. I am disappointed that my mic broke sometime before this episode, so my audio is not as clear or at the volume it should be. Our editor, Joe, did his best to make it work. Damn it. Oh well.

Anyhow, this podcast invite was extended a couple months ago. Last week it finally fit calendars to do it. I worked with the FWP Communications Director to outline the talking points that we wanted to cover. The beginning touches on most those talking points, then we spend the last half digging into those in more detail.

Some will wish it was a knockdown-dragout, but those are never useful, even if they are good for download numbers.

The idea is to frame what will be talked about and let the Department leader, Director Worsech go into as much or as little detail as he wants while explaining how he sees these issues, what his goals and objectives are, and let the audience take from his answers and comments what they think is being said/not said.

I think you will see some common themes in the Director's comments and answers that give a pretty good idea of where the focus is and where the pressure is coming from for these most controversial elk proposals. You will also hear how the Department views themselves within the bigger picture of policy formulation powers among the Commission, the Legislature, and the Department.

To listen directly, this is the link - https://traffic.libsyn.com/secure/hunttalk/220128_-_HT_Podcast_-MT_Elk.mp3


To download, this is the link - https://hunttalk.libsyn.com/montana-elk-policy-proposals-with-fwp-director-hank-worsech


Thanks for listening. Most importantly, make sure you comment to the Commissioners before Friday. Emails below:

[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]

 

[The Hedgehog]

It will be interesting to see how these commissioners vote.

Are they with MT elk & elk hunting for 95% of the sportsman? Or are they with Hank, Greg Gianforte and his handful of landowners and outfitting industry proponents bending his ear with favors?

If any of them vote for the 50% increase in trophy bull permits, or the unlimited/general archery hunting in these same eastern MT units, we know where they stand.

 

[Big Fin]

It will be interesting to see how these commissioners vote.

Are they with MT elk & elk hunting for 95% of the sportsman? Or are they with Hank, Greg Gianforte and his handful of landowners and outfitting industry proponents bending his ear with favors?

If any of them vote for the 50% increase in trophy bull permits, or the unlimited/general archery hunting in these same eastern MT units, we know where they stand.

I think you get right to the crux of the issue with that observation.

The Director makes it very clear in the podcast that he feels the swath that falls within "based on science" is very wide. At the end I give opportunity to explain if the current or proposed items are outside any legal or statutory boundaries. Thus is not the case, so the Commission is not forced by any statutory requirements to go with these proposals as they were with some of the wolf issues changed by the legislature.

Throughout the podcast the Director makes it clear he feels this is a social decision and he believes those social decisions are up to the Commission.

So, to your point, it is all on the shoulders of the Commission to decide which of the social priorities the Commission wants to give most attention to; those social dynamics resident hunters have expressed in the immense amount of public comments or the social dynamics expressed by the "New Age Landowner" and their agents. It is really that simple.

Lost in these proposals are the working landowners who have tried to be a part of solutions. I suspect many of them are second guessing why they ever tried to be collaborators to solutions when now the majority of focus seems to be responses to the New Age Landowner who has created a lot of this problem.

I guess we will know the answer to your question following the Commission vote on Friday.

Please encourage your hunting friends to email the Commissioners with their thoughts. The Department's deadline was January 21. That is only a deadline for comments to the Department that will be forwarded to the Commission. There is no deadline of comments to Commissioners.

 

[SAJ-99]

Very good interview. Well done.

 

[Gerald Martin]

I am working my way through listening to the podcast now. Rather than listen to it all and then commenting I am going to give some feedback as I go.

Director Worsech references units that are 600-800% over objective and then gives an example of a limited entry permit area managed for a 30/100 bull to cow ratio now having a 120/100 bull to cow ratio.
This seems to be done to make a point that something drastic needs to happen.

Hank doesn’t reference which unit he is talking about on the podcast, but he cited the same example during the Dec.14 commission meeting and identified unit 426 as the unit with 120/100 bull to cow ratio.

According to FWP’s 2021 elk counts unit 426 has an objective of 75 elk. The actual number of counted elk in unit 426 is 367 elk.

The objective number in 426 and actual population are equivalent to rounding errors in many units in the state.

Hank’s cherry-picking of units to present a scenario of widespread overpopulation of elk and lopsided high bull to cow ratios is disingenuous and dishonest in my opinion.

 

[mtmuley]

I am working my way through listening to the podcast now. Rather than listen to it all and then commenting I am going to give some feedback as I go.

Director Worsech references units that are 600-800% over objective and then gives an example of a limited entry permit area managed for a 30/100 bull to cow ratio now having a 120/100 bull to cow ratio.
This seems to be done to make a point that something drastic needs to happen.

Hank doesn’t reference which unit he is talking about on the podcast, but he cited the same example during the Dec.14 commission meeting and identified unit 426 as the unit with 120/100 bull to cow ratio.

According to FWP’s 2021 elk counts unit 426 has an objective of 75 elk. The actual number of counted elk in unit 426 is 367 elk.

The objective number in 426 and actual population are equivalent to rounding errors in many units in the state.

Hank’s cherry-picking of units to present a scenario of widespread overpopulation of elk and lopsided high bull to cow ratios is disingenuous and dishonest in my opinion.

Fake math. mtmuley

 

[SAJ-99]

I am working my way through listening to the podcast now. Rather than listen to it all and then commenting I am going to give some feedback as I go.

Director Worsech references units that are 600-800% over objective and then gives an example of a limited entry permit area managed for a 30/100 bull to cow ratio now having a 120/100 bull to cow ratio.
This seems to be done to make a point that something drastic needs to happen.

Hank doesn’t reference which unit he is talking about on the podcast, but he cited the same example during the Dec.14 commission meeting and identified unit 426 as the unit with 120/100 bull to cow ratio.

According to FWP’s 2021 elk counts unit 426 has an objective of 75 elk. The actual number of counted elk in unit 426 is 367 elk.

The objective number in 426 and actual population are equivalent to rounding errors in many units in the state.

Hank’s cherry-picking of units to present a scenario of widespread overpopulation of elk and lopsided high bull to cow ratios is disingenuous and dishonest in my opinion.

He talks in circles for sure and misuses a lot of examples and statistics. It all seems to be to drive the point home - Landowner Bull Tags.

 

[Addicting]

I am working my way through listening to the podcast now. Rather than listen to it all and then commenting I am going to give some feedback as I go.

Director Worsech references units that are 600-800% over objective and then gives an example of a limited entry permit area managed for a 30/100 bull to cow ratio now having a 120/100 bull to cow ratio.
This seems to be done to make a point that something drastic needs to happen.

Hank doesn’t reference which unit he is talking about on the podcast, but he cited the same example during the Dec.14 commission meeting and identified unit 426 as the unit with 120/100 bull to cow ratio.

According to FWP’s 2021 elk counts unit 426 has an objective of 75 elk. The actual number of counted elk in unit 426 is 367 elk.

The objective number in 426 and actual population are equivalent to rounding errors in many units in the state.

Hank’s cherry-picking of units to present a scenario of widespread overpopulation of elk and lopsided high bull to cow ratios is disingenuous and dishonest in my opinion.

I’m doing the same. I wondered about that. Thanks for the clarification.

 

[BenInMT]

“Hank, do you consider yourself more of a douchbag, or a douchnozzle?”

 

[Addicting]

@Big Fin there was a very brief point where Hank mentioned maybe landowner should be financially liable for the damage inaccessible cause.

Do you think there is a quantifiable way to make elk less a valuable commodity and more a financial burden to landowners harboring them.

Maybe the department lays the groundwork that the fencing problems and crop damage on adjacent properties that do allow access get billed into a special property tax of the one harboring. Or opening the harboring landowner up to be civil litigation.

 

[MTelkHuntress]

Good podcast. I appreciated the more neutral tone and letting Worsech explain his side and interactions with landowners. The access discussion was really interesting. The power of the Commission was really highlighted but I can't help but think about who is still responsible for the proposals that are presented.
"The power is with the people" boy I sure hope so when the decision comes.

 

[The Hedgehog]

We'll see how the commission votes - but I predict if you're a public land elk hunter in MT, this is gonna hurt you badly. Hurt badly, like no lube, nail studs and powered by a 1400 BPM jackhammer. Everybody who hunts in MT should listen to this interview as you'll see where the future of MT hunting is headed under this director/governor..

Interview was very well done by Randy. It's obvious that Worsech knew every talking point in advance. For 2+ hours you get to listen to the MT FWP director dance around the issue of how billionaire landowners who have "hurt feelings" about not getting trophy bull elk permits in eastern MT will be determining how permits quotas and allocations are arrived at. His visits with large landowners with these "hurt feelings" were mentioned several times, as was the fact that the only "currency" they have at this time are the BULL PERMITS. Public land elk and elk hunters are getting sold out. This whole FWP simplification shell game was really all about, 100% from the beginning, how to get non-residents more coveted trophy bull elk permits. It is not about objectives or solving problems.

According to Hank, "next up - Mule Deer..."

 

[mtmuley]

According to Hank, "next up - Mule Deer..."

Sick to my stomach. Elk need help. Mule deer need protection. mtmuley

 

[Gerald Martin]

Finally finished this up. Thanks for hosting Hank and putting the podcast together, Randy.

In summary I come away with an even deeper conclusion that Hank is disconnected from the average resident public land hunter’s experience and is looking at statewide elk management from the perspective of a few private landowners in central and eastern MT whose feelings are hurt by their inability to access elk on their property.

His quote of bull tags being the only currency FWP has is telling to me that he views public trust wildlife as bargaining chips to be distributed according to FWP’s discretion to affect social situations (politics). Hank doesn’t view himself as the protector and head manager for Montana’s wildlife as much as he views himself as the arbitrator for landowners frustrated by lack of access to bull elk and landowners frustrated by “too many elk.”

It was also telling that Hank doesn’t even know exactly how many of those landowners there are.

I do not really envy the commissioners and the position that they have been put into by the Director with the proposals they have been given. Commissioner Tabor has advanced several proposals advantageous to outfitters but most of the other Commissioners are simply left with trying to sort through a mountain of proposals that are advertised as “simplification” and “science based” but are almost completely social in nature.

How in tune with social expectations and which social expectations these commissioners will attempt to satisfy remains to be seen. I am sure they understand the expectations of the Governor and the Director but everything I have heard points to overwhelming public opposition to the majority of the proposals they are tasked with passing or rejecting.

 

[nontyp]

Well done with the interview. Im still confused about how the 454 tags are issued. Where does that pool of hunters come from? Is there a list? That program seems to me like it could actually have some merit, but I’m certainly no expert in the confusing world of MT.

 

[OverlordBear]

Hank is full of it. He is so bought and paid for. Only Bull Elk for the King on his forest.

Originally the legend of Robin Hood is based off of a hunter who just was an outlaw hunting the kings deer and sharing it with his village. I could imagine some Hoods run around on billionaires’ land.

 

[Nameless Range]

Hank doesn’t view himself as the protector and head manager for Montana’s wildlife as much as he views himself as the arbitrator for landowners frustrated by lack of access to bull elk .

This is a really good assessment, and is what I took away. I think you are also right that anytime we hear the department use the word “social”, it would be more explanatory to use the word “political”.

Thanks for doing this Randy.

 

[Addicting]

I will await on how the commission votes - but I suspect if you're a public land elk hunter in MT, this is gonna hurt you badly. Hurt badly, like no lube, nail studs and powered by a 1400 BPM jackhammer. Everybody that hunts in MT should listen to this interview as you'll be able to fish out where the future of MT hunting is headed under this director/governor..

Interview was very well done by Randy. It's obvious that Worsech knew every talking point in advance. I had to use a Q-tip to get the slime out of my ears after listening to the MT FWP director for over 2 hours dance around the issue of how billionaire landowners who have "hurt feelings" about not getting trophy bull elk permits in eastern MT will be determining how permits quotas and allocations are arrived at. His visits with large landowners with these "hurt feelings" were mentioned several times, as was the fact that the only "currency" they have at this time are the BULL PERMITS. Public land elk and elk hunters are getting sold out. This whole FWP simplification shell game was really all about, 100% from the beginning, how to get non-residents more coveted trophy bull elk permits. It is not about objectives or solving problems.

According to Hank, "next up - Mule Deer..."

Sick to my stomach. Elk need help. Mule deer need protection. mtmuley

Hank is full of it. He is so bought and paid for. Only Bull Elk for the King on his forest.

Originally the legend of Robin Hood is based off of a hunter who just was an outlaw hunting the kings deer and sharing it with his village. I could imagine some Hoods run around on billionaires’ land.

This podcast talked about the tools available to FWP. How would you address private property rights and harbored elk legally?

While the Director’s proposals may not be popular or science based. I’m not sure any of us would want to be in his position right now. After listening to this podcast I came away with dammed if you and dammed if you don’t.

 

[seeth07]

This podcast talked about the tools available to FWP. How would you address private property rights and harbored elk legally?

If the "problem" is too many elk on the private landscape and too many elk competing with the feed of a ranch intended for cattle use, the solution is simple: use fences, scare tactics or hunt them to discourage them from using it. It's not complicated.

There is a single simple and easy rule that could be passed to help ensure that ranchers really want the elk removed: in order to get payments for damages caused by elk, your property must be open for public access to allow hunters a chance to deter the elk from preventing such claimed damages.

 

[Addicting]

If the "problem" is too many elk on the private landscape and too many elk competing with the feed of a ranch intended for cattle use, the solution is simple: use fences, scare tactics or hunt them to discourage them from using it. It's not complicated.

There is a single simple and easy rule that could be passed to help ensure that ranchers really want the elk removed: in order to get payments for damages caused by elk, your property must be open for public access to allow hunters a chance to deter the elk from preventing such claimed damages.

Did you even listen to the podcast? Randy covered that very well on how the financials don’t matter to some. It is not as simple as what you’re stating.