Montana Elk Proposals with Director Hank Worsech

[The Hedgehog]

Kelly Clarkson bought a couple big ranches during the pandemic here.

I sure hope she doesn't have some hurt feelings about not having a pocket full of premium bull elk permits.

 

[MTelkHuntress]

I sure hope she doesn't have some hurt feelings about not having a pocket full of premium bull elk permits.

From her Instagram page, she really just wanted prime, private sledding hills. Sarcasm

 

[rogerthat]

I'm listening to the podcast. Half way through and I'm very tired of hearing Hank say our biggest problem in MT is the landowner that says "I own this land that I can't even hunt on it, but you want me to let every hunter to hunt on it"......Ok Hank, you have the hammer and the saw to build the house, it's called open up the seasons on damage hunts and let the landowner damage hunt his own land. If that's the biggest problem you face Hank, then get to work and get it done.

The units I regularly hunt offer a pretty significant advantage in the draw for landowners in some cases (Unit 700) 100% vs 10ish% for the peasants. Is that not the case in most of the units in Montana? Or is the problem that 1 landowner bull tag isn't enough? Fascinating

 

[TOGIE]

From her Instagram page, she really just wanted prime, private sledding hills. Sarcasm

from countrymusicnation.com:

Kelly said it was nice to be in the outdoors and shares that as a society we should all reconnect with nature more. She believes everyone should try and get away from the hustle and bustle, sit by a stream, hear the water flowing, and be around all the trees.

*proceeds to close off all BMA access

“I just love just the sound of just nature and not cars and people all on top of each other.”

tell me more kelly, just.... what is it just that you just love so much about it?

 

[TheTone]

Don’t blame me; I’ve never paid for any of her crappy music

 

[Ben Lamb]

I haven’t listened yet, but I did just email all of the commissioners from Randy’s email list above. I encourage you all to do the same. Ranting on a hunting forum won’t change anything. I’m sure my email wasn’t as elegant or well written as some, but the commissioners know where I stand.

This. Every bit of this.

I doubt any celebrity would want private property open to the public, especially when they have guns in hand. Letterman had the state record buck poached off his place around the same time someone was trying to kidnap his son.

So, maybe take that into consideration.

Hank & others have done precisely what everyone in politics does: They successfully describe the problem while ascribing even worse policies to try and "fix" it. The DO's inability to look at the whole picture, understand what tools actually exist at his disposal and his repeated attacks against hunters while singularly focusing on wealthy landowners who don't draw permits while ignoring everyone else in the state seems pretty clear to me that the Gov gets his marching orders from the Wilk's & company.

 

[MTGomer]

From her Instagram page, she really just wanted prime, private sledding hills. Sarcasm

I think she also wants her husband to stop F’ing their Philipsburg ranch hand’s wife.

 

[SAJ-99]

MT doesn't have damage payments, but offers fencing and other things necessary to help keep elk out of places they are harming.

@seeth07 Hank's doing to political shuck & jive. His talking points are well prepared, but the depth of knowledge doesn't exist.

agree, but I believe a condition of the game damage program is that the landowner has to have allowed some type of public access. Not necessarily full Block Managment, but has to prove some access. That may be why the program participation has declined significantly. There are quite a few programs that exist (or have been tried) to address the issue. I agree the solutions are not easily, or they would have been solved. Some landowners want to reduce elk, but hunters cause more headaches for them than the elk do. Hank talked about going back to a simpler time where a hunter could knock on a ranch door and get access, but then said he talked to ranchers that we inundated by hunter requests. The guy talked in circles mostly.

 

[sacountry]

Hey Hank....here's one.....wayyyyy outside the box here which I know you like.....because your peer pressure argument between neighbors is crap (good job Randy on politely letting him know that).......let's figure out how to fund aerial agitation with helicopters in severely jacked up HDs.

One tip of the cap to Hank. While everything he said made me ill, he did show up for the podcast.

 

[BuckRut]

Keep in mind what Randy said at the beginning of this podcast and Hank touched on it as well. Posts on social media, forums and complaints and conversations with wardens and biologist are not public comment and while it might feel a little better these things have little to no effect on these decisions. Make sure you are putting just as much effort if not more into voicing your concerns and views to the commissioners, the director and the governor.

 

[Ben Lamb]

The discussion around the public trust around 1:05 is strange, relative to the Public Trust Doctrine and who the trustees really are. Elected officials are not the only trustees, but the trust manager should be as well, and while the public is the beneficiary of the trust, our constitutional democratic republic clearly place the public as the trustee as well, especially when we look at Montana's constitutional right to participate. To simply say that unelected commissioners and the elected politicians are the trustees is so anathema to real conservative philosophy that it makes zero sense to hear a director of a state agency simply state that wildlife should be managed for the elected and bureaucrats rather than for the people who hire & fire those bureaucrats and electeds.

But it's recurring theme at the legislature: They know more than you, they're more important than you and you don't get to have a voice.

Keep in mind what Randy said at the beginning of this podcast and Hank touched on it as well. Posts on social media, forums and complaints and conversations with wardens and biologist are not public comment and while it might feel a little better these things have little to no effect on these decisions. Make sure you are putting just as much effort if not more into voicing your concerns and views to the commissioners, the director and the governor.

This is true, but take it with a grain of salt. This is the same Director's office that has refused to give out information through the official channels, who obfuscate through political talking points and they have said on the podcast that if you don't comment about the proposed action, your comment will be ignored. The issue of the anti-wolf trapping folks commenting on "no trapping" was summarily dismissed because they wanted to have trapping. That dismissal may seem fine to those who want to trap wolves, but that same dismissal will be coming around for you when it's time to carve up what you love, like, IDK, elk hunting or something.

Email the commission this week. I'd not bother with the agency. You comments will be viewed as being submitted past the deadline, and they won't include them in anything.

 

[BuckRut]

The discussion around the public trust around 1:05 is strange, relative to the Public Trust Doctrine and who the trustees really are. Elected officials are not the only trustees, but the trust manager should be as well, and while the public is the beneficiary of the trust, our constitutional democratic republic clearly place the public as the trustee as well, especially when we look at Montana's constitutional right to participate. To simply say that unelected commissioners and the elected politicians are the trustees is so anathema to real conservative philosophy that it makes zero sense to hear a director of a state agency simply state that wildlife should be managed for the elected and bureaucrats rather than for the people who hire & fire those bureaucrats and electeds.

But it's recurring theme at the legislature: They know more than you, they're more important than you and you don't get to have a voice.



This is true, but take it with a grain of salt. This is the same Director's office that has refused to give out information through the official channels, who obfuscate through political talking points and they have said on the podcast that if you don't comment about the proposed action, your comment will be ignored. The issue of the anti-wolf trapping folks commenting on "no trapping" was summarily dismissed because they wanted to have trapping. That dismissal may seem fine to those who want to trap wolves, but that same dismissal will be coming around for you when it's time to carve up what you love, like, IDK, elk hunting or something.

Email the commission this week. I'd not bother with the agency. You comments will be viewed as being submitted past the deadline, and they won't include them in anything.

I definitely agree but if you are going to scoop a cup of water up from the bottom of the boat at least throw it overboard instead of just pouring it back in the boat.

 

[Ben Lamb]

I definitely agree but if you are going to scoop a cup of water up from the bottom of the boat at least throw it overboard instead of just pouring it back in the boat.

We're all scoopping, but the hole in the boat is just getting bigger.

 

[SAJ-99]

Hank & others have done precisely what everyone in politics does: They successfully describe the problem while ascribing even worse policies to try and "fix" it. The DO's inability to look at the whole picture, understand what tools actually exist at his disposal and his repeated attacks against hunters while singularly focusing on wealthy landowners who don't draw permits while ignoring everyone else in the state seems pretty clear to me that the Gov gets his marching orders from the Wilk's & company.

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.

 

[Dougfirtree]

I wonder what Worsech's answer is to all the biologists and others resigning.
I may have heard wrong but I'm pretty sure Worsech said we would win the lawsuit but that they would just continuously be sued and it's not worth it. I guess it's not worth it when you're not in favor of the public land hunter and catering to the wealthy who want to hunt their ranches all the time.

It's just not sustainable, wealthy people aren't going to stop buying land here. Kelly Clarkson bought a couple big ranches during the pandemic here. One was even a type 1 bma which she immediately closed to hunting. I don't see how hunters can possibly get access when that landowner isn't even here most of the time and isn't interested in compromises or even letting one hunter on. So why do we have to manage elk that will never be hunted? (Yeah I get the department has to try but it seems their effort would be better spent elsewhere). Why can't we turn our attention to the elk on public land getting so much pressure and their populations decreasing so much that they just aren't on public anymore. As well as turn our attention to working better with landowners that are willing to find solutions that do allow access.

It's ultimately to the detriment of the public land hunter. We have to decrease how many people can hunt public land to decrease pressure enough so the elk will return to public land because there's so many elk on private land that aren't accessible. What I'm trying to get at is that because of that one big landowner not allowing access and therefore decreasing pressure in one part of the unit enough that the elk stay there, we now have to try to decrease pressure (ultimatly limiting how many hunters can hunt or how long they can hunt) on public enough so elk possibly filter onto the public. Hunters are being pushed on to smaller and smaller areas all competing for the same elk and it creates too much pressure. Some hunters even losing access to private land that they used to hunt. Habitat is a big factor as well but I'm also not hearing that talked about very much. Montana has very different regions and districts as well and that needs to be taken into account for solutions. What works in one region may not work in another but it seems the heads of the department are trying to use big changes statewide as "solutions".

Hank kept saying he wants the most liberal seasons without hurting the resource. I think we are very much harming the resource as is and even more liberal seasons will not help.

I think this is why it's so important that the folks making the rules are on the side of the general public. The only leverage a state agency has over a landowner like Kelly Clarkson is to ensure that the public resources residing on her land can't be fully enjoyed/exploited by her either. Relief for landowners complaining about too many elk has to be tied to public access, in some way, or another. The alternative is bad for public hunting, whether it's landowner tags in Montana, or piles of "nuisance tags" for farmers in NY. Agency employees should see themselves not only as stewards of the wildlife and the landscape, but as advocates for every hunter and advocates for the NAM where wildlife are publicly owned resources.

 

[BuckRut]

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.

 

[Gerald Martin]

Keep in mind what Randy said at the beginning of this podcast and Hank touched on it as well. Posts on social media, forums and complaints and conversations with wardens and biologist are not public comment and while it might feel a little better these things have little to no effect on these decisions. Make sure you are putting just as much effort if not more into voicing your concerns and views to the commissioners, the director and the governor.

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.

 

[SAJ-99]

The only leverage a state agency has over a landowner like Kelly Clarkson is to ensure that the public resources residing on her land can't be fully enjoyed/exploited by her either.

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.

 

[Ben Lamb]

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.

The 454 program wasn't popular because FWP really didn't push it much. Part of that was due to someone being not very pleased with it, and more appreciative of other landowner programs. No landowner had hired lobbyists for this either, until the Wilk's Brothers, et al, signed up the MOGA lobbyist to help them get these permits. None of them were negotiated between the agency and the landowners, however, and the wealthy landowners were essentially given everything they want, through the director's office (not from the local biologists or wardens). So with someone out there recruiting wealthy landowners to prop up a program they likely had a hand in changing means that the program will be used more, unless the agency goes to general/unlimited, then there's really no need for a landowner to do this, especially when it's just an OTC Elk license.

 

[SAJ-99]

View attachment 210660

Oh, but they do. Already have and will continue to do so.