Montana FWP makes seismic shift in elk permits

[Big Fin]

FWP to draft elk plan after elk season changes

FWP administrator Ken McDonald said the department was still developing an elk plan, and he anticipated a draft plan would be out by this fall. The previous elk plan was published in 2005 and uses elk population objectives – manmade numbers based on habitat and public tolerance - to guide what...

missoulacurrent.com

A quote from this article is something you will hear the Director repeat a few times on the podcast.

“The role of the department is wildlife manager. Our role is to provide the best scientific information to the decision-makers and the decision-makers are the trustees. They are voted in by the public. The public then brings the social issues forward,” Worsech told the EQC. “The commission makes the decisions, not the department, to decide the social issues. It is the commission. That’s the way I see it and that’s what we’re doing under this plan.”

 

[rogerthat]

Our landowners are different here in Wyoming as well.

They don't lose their minds if elk are over-objective, are very tolerant of wildlife, and in general supportive of the GF. The GF Director just a couple days ago made a public comment that he has instructed his biologists to manage based on science and that is exactly what they do. Is there differences in opinion on some things? Yes. Are decisions always perfect? No. Is there still some level of disagreement at times? Yes. However, at least there is management of elk via bull to cow ratio's, cow/calf recruitment, reasonable season lengths to accomplish goals and keep elk on public, reasonable population objectives, recreational VS Special management, etc.

Also, our AccessYes program blows the doors off MT's Block Management by a huge margin.

Truly feel blessed to have the level of involvement and cooperation with Wyoming Landowners, GF, and Sportsmen here. Tough to find much to complain about.

Its pretty amazing the difference a border makes in elk management...total 180 from Montana and it shows in success rates, access, and herd quality and quantity.

Yeah I have to agree. Astounding difference.

 

[rogerthat]

“They are voted in by the public.”

I wish

 

[Nameless Range]

FWP to draft elk plan after elk season changes

FWP administrator Ken McDonald said the department was still developing an elk plan, and he anticipated a draft plan would be out by this fall. The previous elk plan was published in 2005 and uses elk population objectives – manmade numbers based on habitat and public tolerance - to guide what...

missoulacurrent.com

A quote from this article is something you will hear the Director repeat a few times on the podcast.

“The role of the department is wildlife manager. Our role is to provide the best scientific information to the decision-makers and the decision-makers are the trustees. They are voted in by the public. The public then brings the social issues forward,” Worsech told the EQC. “The commission makes the decisions, not the department, to decide the social issues. It is the commission. That’s the way I see it and that’s what we’re doing under this plan.”

I have a serious problem with the bolded above. This is a twisted tautology, even if functionally true. It's a warping of the spirit of what the public trust doctrine is and if established could wash over a beautiful history, and I hope folks reject it as much as I do.

Thank you for providing the podcast episode. It is a real strength of yours to provide a venue to folks. I appreciated it when it was Tim Fox and Greg Gianforte, and I appreciate it now.

 

[Big Fin]

Our role is to provide the best scientific information to the decision-makers and the decision-makers are the trustees. They are voted in by the public.

I have a serious problem with the bolded above. This is a twisted tautology, even if functionally true. It's a warping of the spirit of what the public trust doctrine is and if established could wash over a beautiful history, and I hope folks reject it as much as I do.

Thank you for providing the podcast episode. It is a real strength of yours to provide a venue to folks. I appreciated it when it was Tim Fox and Greg Gianforte, and I appreciate it now.

I'm glad you picked up on that. I did a panel discussion in Reno two weeks ago covering a lot of that subject matter.

I would opine even further, that the bolded statement is not functionally true. A Trustee is anyone who has the opportunity to create (appointed/hired trustees) or enact/approve (appointed/elected trustees) wildlife policy. I think anyone who studies the Public Trust Doctrine would agree that a person(s) or agency, in this case FWP and their leadership, that can change or guide wildlife policy via Administrative Rule or via powers granted for season structures, management plans, interaction with beneficiaries (state's citizens), and preservation of the Trust Corpus (fish, wildlife, and habitats) is a Trustee.

I did not want to have this podcast become a discussion on the Public Trust Doctrine and who is a Trustee, etc. But, it could have easily headed that direction when the Director interjected to topic. (at around the 1:05:00 mark).

 

[Gerald Martin]

I have a serious problem with the bolded above. This is a twisted tautology, even if functionally true. It's a warping of the spirit of what the public trust doctrine is and if established could wash over a beautiful history, and I hope folks reject it as much as I do.

Thank you for providing the podcast episode. It is a real strength of yours to provide a venue to folks. I appreciated it when it was Tim Fox and Greg Gianforte, and I appreciate it now.

I don’t know what a big word like tautology means but I do know that these proposals were conceived in Worsech’s mind and delivered by his mouth for the commission’s approval or rejection. Supplemental proposals were given by several similarly minded commissioners but Hank has been the water boy for these policies since he was appointed Director.

The Commission is given proposals to pass or reject. Only the amendments that they presented during meetings and act on are original with the commission. To a certain extent even those amendments are in reaction to original proposals given to them via FWP leadership.

 

[The Hedgehog]

Rocket science isn't required to decode the actual goal of the Worsech/Gianforte "Simplicity" fire drill Campaign" that wasted months of the entire FWP's time chasing their tails for a BS cause. The goal is to make it "simple" and convenient for non-residents (and out of state landowners) to get access to premium bull elk hunting, permits, outfitters, etc. and allow private landowners and their agents to assume any real "management" of wildlife in the part of our state that has a higher percentage of private land. In doing so, there's a complete disregard for the public land and wildlife on it, which are are going to take an absolute NUCLEAR BEATING, which has already been bad as is. Unlimited/general archery permits (removing the 90/10 non-resident cap) and pumped up bull permits in eastern MT was really the only goal of Hank Worsech from the start. The fox is in charge of the henhouse.

 

[The Hedgehog]

Good news for Chuck Adams though. He'll now be guaranteed a hunt on the Booth Ranch with his pal Doyle again, annually.

 

[BuzzH]

1.) Wyoming has 23 feedgrounds that keep elk off of private land (and cause big issues elsewhere)

2.) Wyoming has a crop damage program that gives a few million each year out for damage.

3.) Wyoming's payments on predator losses is larger than MT's.

4.) Wyoming is 50% public land

5.) WGFD doesn't have to answer to legislators in order to spend their own money.

So let's not forget those issues too, when we talk about who is doing what and why there aren't as many conflicts in some states. Probably most importantly, Wyoming Game & Fish' Budget is out o the hand of lawmakers and is approved only by their commission. Most of the politics in MT wildlife stem from the agencies fear of having their budget messed with if they don't kow-tow to the electeds.

On top of all of that is that WY doesn't have a political class that gets paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to stoke the conflict for partisan reasons.

All convenient excuses for Montana to just accept bad management.

The feed grounds made me laugh...our largest herds are nowhere near a feed ground and where landowners are the most tolerant!

 

[Ben Lamb]

All convenient excuses for Montana to just accept bad management.

The feed grounds made me laugh...our largest herds are nowhere near a feed ground and where landowners are the most tolerant!

No excuses, just noting that WY has their own programs that help lead to increased tolerance too; and that it's not simply a hunting pressure issue.

 

[BuzzH]

No excuses, just noting that WY has their own programs that help lead to increased tolerance too; and that it's not simply a hunting pressure issue.

A lot/most of Montana's issues absolutely are hunting pressure issues.

Have all the feed grounds you want in Montana, compensate landowners any way you want...your problems are still going to be the same.

There still won't be elk on public...11-13 weeks of bull hunting with OTC general tags, severely impacts every other aspect of elk management. From total garbage bull to cow ratio's, to populations on public land, to harboring on private...

I can assure you, elk will increase in number and stay on public land if they aren't continually pounded. Seen it.

The general areas I hunt in WY are 50-50 mix of private and public and I never have found a reason to leave public land or even bother to ask a landowner for permission to hunt. Elk don't harbor there either. Its one thing to dodge hunters for 14 days, its another to dodge them for 77-91 days. Season timing matters too....

I think you need to come hunt down here and see the difference with general elk hunting...the problem will come to you in stereo. The solution in Montana even more clearly than that.

 

[Ben Lamb]

A lot/most of Montana's issues absolutely are hunting pressure issues.

Have all the feed grounds you want in Montana, compensate landowners any way you want...your problems are still going to be the same.

There still won't be elk on public...11-13 weeks of bull hunting with OTC general tags, severely impacts every other aspect of elk management. From total garbage bull to cow ratio's, to populations on public land, to harboring on private...

I can assure you, elk will increase in number and stay on public land if they aren't continually pounded. Seen it.

The general areas I hunt in WY are 50-50 mix of private and public and I never have found a reason to leave public land or even bother to ask a landowner for permission to hunt. Elk don't harbor there either. Its one thing to dodge hunters for 14 days, its another to dodge them for 77-91 days. Season timing matters too....

Agreed on 95% here. But Wyoming doesn't have the conflict over elk for the reasons I stated - Wyoming already has landowner programs in place as well as effective hunter management.

Your comment was landowner tolerance is higher in Wyoming than in MT. I agree, and those programs are part of the reason why, right next to season structure.

But it's not just one or the other, it's both - together.

 

[BuzzH]

Agreed on 95% here. But Wyoming doesn't have the conflict over elk for the reasons I stated - Wyoming already has landowner programs in place as well as effective hunter management.

Your comment was landowner tolerance is higher in Wyoming than in MT. I agree, and those programs are part of the reason why, right next to season structure.

But it's not just one or the other, it's both - together.

The main reason is when elk are ALLOWED to stay on public, they aren't on private.

The reason landowners tolerate elk is because they stay on public...why? Pressure or lack-there-of....as it were.

Elk were over objective in the general area I hunt by 6,000...before a single landowner ever complained. We issued more cow permits and allowed some additional cow hunting for 3-4 years and the numbers dropped from 12k to 8k.

The LANDOWNERS told the GF to back off on killing so many, even though the herd was, and still is at least 2K over objective.

You ever heard of that happening in Montana? Me neither.

 

[Ben Lamb]

You ever heard of that happening in Montana?

Yes, but I had eaten some strange looking mushrooms about 2 hours earlier.

Actually, serious answer - yes. I can think of a few who have shut down hunting due to concerns about too many tags, or who have wanted to ensure that elk had a safe place to spend their days.

 

[MThuntr]

I couldn't resist

 

[BuzzH]

Yes, but I had eaten some strange looking mushrooms about 2 hours earlier.

Actually, serious answer - yes. I can think of a few who have shut down hunting due to concerns about too many tags, or who have wanted to ensure that elk had a safe place to spend their days.

Yes, maybe on their own private...but that's wayyyy different than telling the GF to back off on tags/killing cows and that they aren't at all concerned with having 2k+ more elk than the objective numbers.

 

[The Hedgehog]

Any of the Gianoforte appointed commissioners hunt much public land in eastern MT? What about Andrew McKean? Did he? Not hard to see how this will turn out.

 

[Beignet]

Because the wildlife division and the director's office are operating under the misguided notion that their hammer drill is the only solution to installing hand planed dovetail joints

Like this analogy!

 

[Wind Gypsy]

I assume you wouldn't be putting out the podcast if you didn't think it was beneficial in terms of countering his claims? Were you able to press him on any issues? I get that you can't make a name of throwing people under the bus or no one will want to come on your podcast, but I also wouldn't want it to be just a promotion for the dept's proposals.

This echos a concern of mine. It's a lot easier to let the truth fly when the truth isn't some ugly shit about your guest. I typically come away disappointed with the results of these podcasts because the hosts usually wear kid gloves Ex: Rob Bishop on Meateater podcast and Mac Minard with Randy. Bishop and Minard got off easy with spewing obvious BS.

 

[Irrelevant]

This echos a concern of mine. It's a lot easier to let the truth fly when the truth isn't some ugly shit about your guest. I typically come away disappointed with the results of these podcasts because the hosts usually wear kid gloves Ex: Rob Bishop on Meateater podcast and Mac Minard with Randy. Bishop and Minard got off easy with spewing obvious BS.

I get the position of the host through. I mean you'd lose tons of trust if you blindsided someone. I didn't like the Bishop podcast, but I think Steve pushed about as hard as he could. I think Randy has more to lose with his MT centric podcasts than Steve did with Bishop so I understand him having to keep it pretty damn tame. But I talked to people who listened to both, and came away agreeing with the guest. IMO that shouldn't be the outcome.