Montana FWP opens public comment on Grizzly Hunting Season

[Ben Lamb]

Although I’m being a bit sarcastic here about firing bios, I had a longer reply written out where I wrote out this list I just quoted of yours’ almost word for word, where I was going to say, imagine making your suggestions as you’re trained to do with your Master’s degree in biology, based upon these things, and then being told that it all gets set aside due to the social aspect.
That’s what happens with elk and wolves and mule deer and nobody should be surprised when it happens with the G bear.

I'm 100% with you on being frustrated on how stuff works. There are underlying values that we shouldn't compromise on in the face of those challenges, however.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Those who are frustrated with their public comments not being implemented in management decisions just need to learn to make their comments relevant.

Whenever I am given opportunity to comment on any species management I have always responded that I want fewer elk, more hunting pressure, more predators, and the MT legislature to have more influence in biological decisions regardless of a biologist’s expert recommendations.

So far I almost always see my comments put into practice.
#Winning. #sorelevantithurts

In 2011 or so, the Legislature, in it's infinite wisdom, decided that there were changes to MEPA needed. One of those changes was that agencies had to solicit for comments, but didn't have to incorporate those suggestions into the mix. Essentially, it allows for comment, but the agency can disregard. FWP does a good job of following the law, by and large.

This is the same body that decided it would be illegal for FWP to at or above objective. The same body that has tried to stomp on resident hunter's ability to influence what we can (HB 161 in 2019) and now, will be using this survey to influence what elk legislation will be moving forward in 2021.

It's important to remember that agencies are tasked with fulfiilling the law, not making their own. FWP has wide berth to set regulations due to the complex nature of wildlife management, so they get more leeway, but with last session being a light one where on only 85 or so bills were introduced, FWP's reluctance to piss off the legislature is understandable, if disheartening.

 

[JLS]

This is an excerpt as to the relevance and implementation of the GBAC recommendations.

Any recommendations involving statutory changes would have to be adopted by the Legislature and would still need to comply
with Federal Endangered Species Act. Recommendations that have a fiscal component involving state funds or expenditure of funds by state agencies would have to be included in agency budget proposals that are reviewed and adopted by the Legislature. Rule changes related to hunting or take of grizzly bears would have to be adopted by the Fish and Wildlife Commission after a public process. Other recommendations not requiring formal adoption by a governing body could be implemented by state or federal resource agencies, or NGO partners in cooperation with those agencies.

As I said, get your hair on fire if you want. The gnashing of teeth over the comment portal is quite comical. You don't want NR input on this? I bet you'd take NR input on raising elk management objectives. Don't be hypocritical. It's unappealing.

At the end of the day, the governor, legislature, and FWP are responsible for implementing the adopted recommendations of the GBAC. You have direct oversight of that via the ballot box. The paranoia over the NJ cat lady is something else.

Carry on.

 

[Sytes]

Bah! @Ben Lamb ! Nonsense!

...

While your commie ramblings shine within posts on occasion---s (reflected w/in your former signature (Disclaimer due to the sensitive nature of a few here)), I appreciate your experienced State Hill perspective.

Edit added: That's far from saying I agree w/ all of your slanted content. Example... Disagree w/ your, opinion regarding the, hair on fire, anonymity used for a .gov public comment. At the least, we *should identify location as used by Idaho, mentioned above...

 

[MO Betta]

I use the oft-derided NJ cat lady a bit facetiously, but as a minority group I do think we tend to be less vocal than those opposed to our point of views. Comments may or may not be ignored, but it never hurts to vocalize your thoughts when given the opportunity - knowing that opposition will likely be demonstrated in larger numbers.

I'm not a resident, but chimed in that if ESA protections are lifted and a management framework is passed that I hope hunting will be allowed as one of those management tools - and that the objectives will, for the most part, be made at the recommendations of the biologists observing the areas and not by outside pressures.

 

[JLS]

I think the purpose of this committee is completely missed by some. Their job is not to recommend quotas, seasons, or anything else related to hunting. Their purpose is to make recommendations as to how the state should handle the myriad of challenges associated with grizzly bears. This will range from depredation response, to dealing with man-made bear conflicts, to identifying areas that are under or unfunded, and so forth.

Classification of grizzly bears as a huntable animal falls within the realm of the legislature and FWP Commission.

 

[MO Betta]

Not sure if that was entirely directed my way, I know that group won't be setting those guidelines. Just commenting that the recommendations given on that one (small) portion of their objectives would use hunting as a management tool.

 

[Gerald Martin]

Oh is this thread actually about bear management? I thought it was just an opportunity to pile on FWP. My bad. Carry on.

 

[Sytes]

I think the purpose of this committee is completely missed by some.

Watch the video from May 26th... The writers are in a pretty fierce debate about the "vision" for controlling and maintaining objective #'s.

Originally, I felt the same, as my first post in this thread presents.

They are re-writing the vision for how the bears will be managed for the direction FWP will follow or so the discussion goes.

When you have Defenders of Wildlife as a part of the re-writing team... There will be a dance between State Management via conservation based hunting vs adamant no hunting... Period.

It's really an interesting creation and extremely challenging considering the various sides present. They dance around not using the word hunt though they are all figuring how to be polite to find a use of words for inclusion.

As they, Caroline stated, there is firm disagreement.

Anti hunt griz want to exclude population management. (Only problem bears)
Pro hunt want to include population management. State Management as used by ALL big game, predators, ungulates, etc.
Michele openly remarked as a negative about going into the Bob and killing grizzlies...

Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks :: Governor's Grizzly Bear Advisory Council

Governor's Grizzly Bear Advisory Council

fwp.mt.gov

 

[JLS]

The committee has absolutely no delegatory or binding authority.

I’m done here.

 

[Sytes]

Council, committee...
PL/PW, GBAC all pretty valuable in the grand scheme of visioned action.
Wasn't intended for JLS specifically, rather for those interested to get direct insight vs hyperbole of the great internet forums.

For Montanans (or any) interested, it's an insightful view. It's some 240 minutes however the heat of the disagreement is the hot topic the first hour or more. Some other interesting considerations that are just as intriguing and in some sense, even more-so though don't directly related to the thread title. Words are a hot button for the GBAC

 

[Sytes]

This relates to recent environmental organizations lawsuit and the counter argument by the ranchers, a Wyoming example.


The challenges faced and the value GBAC holds for Montana's future. As with PL/PW, these MT Governor ordered council's hold an instrumental element for the future of our great State.

Ranchers: Grizzly suit imperils rights, wildlife migrations - WyoFile

In the suit, conservationists say the U.S. Forest Service violated the Endangered Species Act by issuing a 10-year grazing permit that threatens grizzly bears and a tiny endangered fish — the Kendall Warm Springs dace.

www.wyofile.com

Western Watersheds Project, the Alliance for the Wild Rockies and Yellowstone to Uintas Connection filed the suit March 31. It names the Secretary of the Interior, the U.S. Forest Service and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service as defendants. Plaintiffs claimed agencies violated federal law when they failed to properly address grazing’s effects on federally protected grizzly bears and the endangered Kendall Warm Springs dace — a small fish.

“This lawsuit is part of a larger series of lawsuits focusing in part on delisting the grizzly bear from the Endangered Species Act,” Gregg said. The ranchers will also seek to intervene in another permit-challenging suit filed by the Center for Biological Diversity and Sierra Club, he said

.

“It’s going to be very interesting,” he said, “whether an alleged violation of the Endangered Species Act can trump national designation,” of historic places

These are but one of the many challenges our GBAC face while writing MT's vision for our future State Management and whether hunting grizzlies is part of our conservation efforts or a destruction of the grizzly recovery, as environmental organizations claim.

Ya, ranches, grazing, public land... Etc, all key topics a few here hate the grazing on puic lands. Another angle of the challenges faced.

Anyhow, a really interesting read that seems fairly balanced / representing both sides of a, sure to grow, series of events in WY, ID and MT.

 

[Sytes]

For this interested.