Opinion pieces like this bug me

[rogerthat]

https://www.nature.org/en-us/get-involved/how-to-help/places-we-protect/?fa=opentothepublic,limitedaccess,closedtothepublic

View attachment 262548
View attachment 262549

As compared to RMEF:
View attachment 262550

What does protected mean? I would assume a bunch of that is conservation easements? Have they done projects that facilitate federal acquisitions? Seems like they have. I have always wanted to know more about TNC but I will admit I have never put the time in.

 

[Irrelevant]

What does protected mean? I would assume a bunch of that is conservation easements? Have they done projects that facilitate federal acquisitions? Seems like they have. I have always wanted to know more about TNC but I will admit I have never put the time in.

All of the above. They've done everything under the sun from ag easements to transfers to public entities. They still hold some massive blocks in MT.

BLM purchase almost completes Nature Conservancy Blackfoot land transfer

BLM policy is to protect and conserve sensitive species and their habitats, although that might be difficult if mining operations or oil and gas extraction is allowed, as laid out in the recent BLM resource management plan.

missoulacurrent.com

 

[SAJ-99]

edited- because I can’t read.

 

[TheTone]

The map raises some questions. There haven't been elk in some of those places (E of Miss river) for 200 yrs. Again, I don't mind it, but is is mission creep. Do they plan on putting elk in Emiquon or Spunky Bottoms in IL (both largely flood plain)? Doubt it. Did they throw in $100 so they could include it on the map? Seems like a project best suited for DU. Maybe there is something I don't understand. Like I said, I don't mind, and will send them my renewal check. It's mostly how they speak on some issues and not others, mostly due to how the $$$ flow.

I know this will make me sound awful but…I’ve often wondered if part of the push they’ve made with elk introductions in the east was largely done as just a way to help grow eastern memberships? I can think of plenty of western places where elk populations suck and we aren’t seeing that level of effort to help with issues. Throwing a little money or a letters of support for burns certainly hasn’t done much to help elk numbers in the north fork of the Clearwater or the lochsa

 

[Irrelevant]

The map raises some questions. There haven't been elk in some of those places (E of Miss river) for 200 yrs. Again, I don't mind it, but is is mission creep. Do they plan on putting elk in Emiquon or Spunky Bottoms in IL (both largely flood plain)? Doubt it. Did they throw in $100 so they could include it on the map? Seems like a project best suited for DU. Maybe there is something I don't understand. Like I said, I don't mind, and will send them my renewal check. It's mostly how they speak on some issues and not others, mostly due to how the $$$ flow.

That map was for TNC.

 

[Elktrack]

“Nobody’s blaming RMEF, people just want them to come off the sidelines on a few topics that”

Yep, you pretty much nailed it there. Seems like they are very politically oriented these days and seem to get involved once they’ve surveyed the perception of their actions. Not an unwise thing if you’re interested in maximizing membership and appealing to the masses I suppose….

Their initial silence on wolf issues really soured me. I was a member for a long time but not currently.

 

[the nikster]

Something that folks tend to forget is that no organization can be everything for everyone.

I would rather have RMEF focus on securing access to public lands and protecting elk habitat than spending resources and attention on disagreements over how wildlife on those lands are managed.

Mission creep and loss of effectiveness is a real problem for conservation organizations.

Mission creep sucks. Years ago I used to never miss a program some small market dude from Montana put out. Now he saturates the market and I almost never see any of his content. But that’s another topic.

 

[sacountry]

@Big Fin feels like there should be a forum called "Conservation organizations" or something to the effect.

 

[44hunter45]

@Big Fin feels like there should be a forum called "Conservation organizations" or something to the effect.

Locked before page 5

 

[elkduds]

I know this will make me sound awful but…I’ve often wondered if part of the push they’ve made with elk introductions in the east was largely done as just a way to help grow eastern memberships? I can think of plenty of western places where elk populations suck and we aren’t seeing that level of effort to help with issues. Throwing a little money or a letters of support for burns certainly hasn’t done much to help elk numbers in the north fork of the Clearwater or the lochsa

It shows RMEF growing membership by pursuing noncontroversial low hanging fruit. It is a good strategy for growing the coffers and name recognition. That supports their mission of improving habitat and access for elk and hunters, again quite successfully. I'm a member again after stopping because of some direction I disagreed with. I did the same w BHA, joined in the green decoy days, left in a huff when they did not oppose wolf reintroduction to CO. Have not rejoined though I admire their successes, especially in recruiting and mobilizing the younger set. IMO, if more national advocacy groups would have entered the fray for CO's wolf election, it could have been defeated since it barely passed. I suspect these national groups walk the line with ag and outfitter groups, and even political parties. If they alienate the deep pockets they will be severely punished. Which sucks when key issues like elk management and wolf reintroduction are at stake.

 

[Nameless Range]

I think the Elk Foundation’s re-introductions of elk on the eastern side of this country and in other places are beautiful acts, and I think it would be a mistake to psychologize their motives behind those reintroductions.

That said, expanding elk populations and protecting our hunting heritage are not two premises that necessarily follow from one another.

They have a tough job for sure. One of the things I have wondered is whether or not they see this lawsuit as such a lost cause in terms of UPOM’s likelihood of success, that they have assessed the situation and do not see their support as needed in the legal arena.

That’s a charitable take I’ve been thinking about. There’s others I can imagine as well.

If UPOM’s lawsuit does have a moderate chance of success, that’s a scary thing though. I’m not a lawyer, and one of the areas of information that seems to be missing from this whole thing is what do experts in law think about this?

 

[Jock Conyngham]

I only lurk on Hunttalk, mostly because my internet time is limited and every time I do come here three or four hours magically disappear. My name has come up, though, and I believe in accountability and dialogue, so after a friend made me aware of this thread I decided to post. Apologies in advance for its length.

By way of my bona fides I have spent my life hunting and fishing and my career in conservation and conservation science. I have an odd name, so you can find out anything you care to through google. 99% of my family’s meat diet is wild. I have testified numerous times in Helena and, for that matter, DC. @COEngineer, 15 years of my career were as a remote employee with ERDC’s Environmental Lab as a PI in dam removal, river restoration, and fish passage. My work earned several major awards there. My co-author on the piece, Adam Shaw, is highly regarded as a sportsman, a lawyer, a father, and former chair of Hellgate Hunters and Anglers, which he helped make into one of the state’s powerhouses (full disclosure: my son is now board chair). That piece was written with the help and input of two well-known statewide leaders in the hook and bullet conservation space. My point is that you might argue with our positions, but the fact is that we have plenty of time in the trenches.

One comment asked for bill numbers—an excellent question that most readers don’t care about. To answer that I’m going to post an excerpt from a guest opinion piece written by the Butte Skyline Sportsmen’s Association. You will note some bill overlap and redundancy, which I believe was an intentional tactic to distract and wear down hunters volunteering their time to research bills and comment. You may have read Steve Bannon’s memorable line from his playbook: flood the zone with shit.

Here is the quote: “The Butte Skyline Sportsmen’s Association respectfully disagrees with many of these claims. From our perspective, the 2021 legislative session was one of the most demanding and frustrating we’ve experienced. During the 2021 session, Republican-sponsored legislation attempted to or did: commercially privatize our public elk to the benefit of some private landowners and wealthy nonresident hunters (HB 505, SB 143); increase nonresident big game hunting licenses (HB 637); reduce the public's ability to purchase land for our interests (HB 677); reduce the public's ability to comment on environmental reviews by allowing financial charge for our comments (HB 695); require hunters to financially compensate some private landowners for crop damage resulting from elk, even if hunters had no legal access to harvest those elk (HB 697); reduce the public's opportunity to pursue mature bull elk by removing long-established limited entry permits (HB 417); remove voter-approved conservation funding generated by taxes on marijuana (HB 670); complicate the public's ability to acquire private land conservation easements by adding layers of government hurdles (SB 115); remove administration of sportsmen-purchased Wildlife Management Areas and Fishing Access Sites from our Fish and Wildlife Commission (SB 153); secure a perpetual voting majority for some private landowners on the Fish and Wildlife Commission (SB 306); remove the public's ability to legally challenge disputed public rights-of-ways to public lands (SB 354); spend large amounts of sportsmen's funds on pheasant raise and release efforts that have long been proven ineffective (HB 637); remove hunter’s ability to donate to the Habitat Montana Program (amendments to SB 208); prevent sportsmen-supported Andrew McKean from serving on the Fish and Wildlife Commission (SR 61); remove sportsmen representation on the Board of Outfitters (SB 275); and overturn voter-approved Initiative 161, which made clear that the majority of Montanans don't support outfitter-guaranteed hunting license allocation (SB 143). Throughout the session, Montana sportsmen overwhelmingly commented to the Senate Fish and Game committee on bills that were not in our best interest that were moved out of committee on 7-4 party-line votes, with Republicans voting against Montana sportsmen interests. Republican avoidance of Montana sportsmen input was clearly demonstrated when sportsmen-opposed elk management legislation, that increased nonresident elk licenses, was amended into HB 637 and voted out of committee in the final hours of the session without soliciting public comment.”

Many of you are aware of the underhanded techniques that were used to frustrate resident sportsmen in the last session and in commission hearings, such as changing bills as people were literally driving to the meeting to comment (a violation of the open meeting clause of the state constitution, which mandates a two-week posting period) or sneaking bills defeated in committee through hard work into the final clean-up bill to cut off any opportunity for public input. Some of you may not know that these continue in efforts to divide or sideline sportsmen and organizations in the response to the UPOM lawsuit, future fish and game changes, and commission work.

There are intelligent people who say that Gianforte has seen the light. He certainly delivered a kumbayah message at Elk Camp in Helena this week, which I attended. He led off by noting the great acquisition in the Big Snowys, but neglected to mention it was funded by Habitat Montana, which his current budget cut off entirely from the ~40% of marijuana tax revenues that voters overwhelming approved in CI-190 by referendum. He did allocate funds from other sources to Habitat Montana, but nowhere near the level the voters wanted. And, for those who still insist he is reaching out to resident hunters and anglers, I suggest they look into the backgrounds of his last two appointments to the commission—or, for that matter, the background of his lieutenant governor and her family. Or, you might read Brett French’s 1/21 article in the Billings Gazette documenting that although the legislature passed a cap on non-resident big game combo licenses to 17K a year many years ago, in 2021 FWP sold more than 66,000 non-resident licenses.

Many of the comments criticized Adam and me for coming down on RMEF. They may not have read the piece or missed the part where we praised the importance of RMEF’s land acquisition work, but noted it had turned its back on public land hunters and other initiatives that severely impact resident hunters. I took time more than once to call RMEF during the bloodbath of the 2021 legislative session to ask what the organization was doing—until I just couldn’t stand to hear the “we are monitoring the situation closely” pablum. As one comment above said, RMEF could simply state that they are now only interested in land acquisition. I would respect that and renew my membership. The fact that they represent themselves as more than a land acquisition outfit and do indeed get into policy work when they choose is where we take issue. It makes their absence on matters of protecting public trust wildlife, the North American Model, and resident sportsman glaringly apparent.

I hope this clarifies rather than inflames this thread, but have at it, boys. I’m single parenting my six year old this weekend (war movies, pizza, and beer!) and leave on a trip late Sunday, but I promise to get back to this thread if anyone wants to engage in serious conversation. More than anything, I would just ask elk hunters (well, all hunters and anglers) to track what is happening. This legislative session is going to be a bloodbath; the rumor is that Worsech bragged about that to a meeting of the Montana Petroleum Association (though I haven’t been able to corroborate that). It’s tedious work, but track what elected and appointed officials do and ignore what they say. Don’t trust either party. Get involved. Support those individuals and organizations who are protecting your interests—and don’t take what we still have here for granted. Others want it.

 

[44hunter45]

I only lurk on Hunttalk, mostly because my internet time is limited and every time I do come here three or four hours magically disappear. My name has come up, though, and I believe in accountability and dialogue, so after a friend made me aware of this thread I decided to post. Apologies in advance for its length.

By way of my bona fides I have spent my life hunting and fishing and my career in conservation and conservation science. I have an odd name, so you can find out anything you care to through google. 99% of my family’s meat diet is wild. I have testified numerous times in Helena and, for that matter, DC. COEngineer, 15 years of my career were with ERDC’s Environmental Lab as a PI in dam removal, river restoration, and fish passage. My work earned several major awards there. My co-author on the piece, Adam Shaw, is highly regarded as a sportsman, a lawyer, a father, and former chair of Hellgate Hunters and Anglers, where he helped make it one of the state’s powerhouses (full disclosure: my son is now board chair). That piece was written with the help and input of two well-known statewide leaders in the hook and bullet conservation space. My point is that you might argue with our positions, but the fact is that we have plenty of time in the trenches.

One comment asked for bill numbers—an excellent question that most readers don’t care about. To answer that I’m going to post an excerpt from a guest opinion piece written by the Butte Skyline Sportsmen’s Association. You will note some bill overlap and redundancy, which I believe was an intentional tactic to distract and wear down hunters volunteering their time to research bills and comment. You may have read Steve Bannon’s memorable line from his playbook: flood the zone with shit.

Here is the quote: “The Butte Skyline Sportsmen’s Association respectfully disagrees with many of these claims. From our perspective, the 2021 legislative session was one of the most demanding and frustrating we’ve experienced. During the 2021 session, Republican-sponsored legislation attempted to or did: commercially privatize our public elk to the benefit of some private landowners and wealthy nonresident hunters (HB 505, SB 143); increase nonresident big game hunting licenses (HB 637); reduce the public's ability to purchase land for our interests (HB 677); reduce the public's ability to comment on environmental reviews by allowing financial charge for our comments (HB 695); require hunters to financially compensate some private landowners for crop damage resulting from elk, even if hunters had no legal access to harvest those elk (HB 697); reduce the public's opportunity to pursue mature bull elk by removing long-established limited entry permits (HB 417); remove voter-approved conservation funding generated by taxes on marijuana (HB 670); complicate the public's ability to acquire private land conservation easements by adding layers of government hurdles (SB 115); remove administration of sportsmen-purchased Wildlife Management Areas and Fishing Access Sites from our Fish and Wildlife Commission (SB 153); secure a perpetual voting majority for some private landowners on the Fish and Wildlife Commission (SB 306); remove the public's ability to legally challenge disputed public rights-of-ways to public lands (SB 354); spend large amounts of sportsmen's funds on pheasant raise and release efforts that have long been proven ineffective (HB 637); remove hunter’s ability to donate to the Habitat Montana Program (amendments to SB 208); prevent sportsmen-supported Andrew McKean from serving on the Fish and Wildlife Commission (SR 61); remove sportsmen representation on the Board of Outfitters (SB 275); and overturn voter-approved Initiative 161, which made clear that the majority of Montanans don't support outfitter-guaranteed hunting license allocation (SB 143). Throughout the session, Montana sportsmen overwhelmingly commented to the Senate Fish and Game committee on bills that were not in our best interest that were moved out of committee on 7-4 party-line votes, with Republicans voting against Montana sportsmen interests. Republican avoidance of Montana sportsmen input was clearly demonstrated when sportsmen-opposed elk management legislation, that increased nonresident elk licenses, was amended into HB 637 and voted out of committee in the final hours of the session without soliciting public comment.”

Many of you are aware of the underhanded techniques that were used to frustrate resident sportsmen in the last session and in commission hearings, such as changing bills as people were literally driving to the meeting to comment (a violation of the open meeting clause of the state constitution, which mandates a two-week posting period) or sneaking bills defeated in committee through hard work into the final clean-up bill to cut off any opportunity for public input. Some of you may not know that these continue in efforts to divide or sideline sportsmen and organizations in the response to the UPOM lawsuit, future fish and game changes, and commission work.

There are intelligent people who say that Gianforte has seen the light. He certainly delivered a kumbayah message at Elk Camp in Helena this week, which I attended. He led off by noting the great acquisition in the Big Snowys, but neglected to mention it was funded by Habitat Montana, which his current budget cut off entirely from the ~40% of marijuana tax revenues that voters overwhelming approved in CI-190 by referendum. He did allocate funds from other sources to Habitat Montana, but nowhere near the level the voters wanted. And, for those who still insist he is reaching out to resident hunters and anglers, I suggest they look into the backgrounds of his last two appointments to the commission—or, for that matter, the background of his lieutenant governor and her family. Or, you might read Brett French’s 1/21 article in the Billings Gazette documenting that although the legislature passed a cap on non-resident big game combo licenses to 17K a year many years ago, in 2021 FWP sold more than 66,000 non-resident licenses.

Many of the comments criticized Adam and me for coming down on RMEF. They may not have read the piece or missed the part where we praised the importance of RMEF’s land acquisition work, but noted it had turned its back on public land hunters and other initiatives that severely impact resident hunters. I took time more than once to call RMEF during the bloodbath of the 2021 legislative session to ask what the organization was doing—until I just couldn’t stand to hear the “we are monitoring the situation closely” pablum. As one comment above said, RMEF could simply state that they are now only interested in land acquisition. I would respect that and renew my membership. The fact that they represent themselves as more than a land acquisition outfit and do indeed get into policy work when they choose is where we take issue. It makes their absence on matters of protecting public trust wildlife, the North American Model, and resident sportsman glaringly apparent.

I hope this clarifies rather than inflames this thread, but have at it, boys. I’m single parenting my six year old this weekend (war movies, pizza, and beer!) and leave on a trip late Sunday, but I promise to get back to this thread if anyone wants to engage in serious conversation. More than anything, I would just ask elk hunters (well, all hunters and anglers) to track what is happening. This legislative session is going to be a bloodbath; the rumor is that Worsech bragged about that to a meeting of the Montana Petroleum Association (though I haven’t been able to corroborate that). It’s tedious work, but track what elected and appointed officials do and ignore what they say. Don’t trust either party. Get involved. Support those individuals and organizations who are protecting your interests—and don’t take what we still have here for granted. Others want it.

Welcome to Hunttalk Jock!

It took backbone to come in and make your post. Respect! Your post did add clarity. Thanks for doing it.

HT is a melting pot of all types and we don't agree on everything. I think there are probably about equal numbers saying Amen as saying BS to your post. And bunch more who just wish we would stop talking about all this and post some more grip and grins.

We can be a rough and tumble bunch sometimes, but are more aligned with you than it might seem. Those that are not aligned with you have a voice here as well. The discourse does make a difference, I think. One thing I see a lot here on HT is folks asking for chapter and verse to back up a claim. The difference between a rant and advocacy is facts. Don't take it personally if someone asks for your source when you talk about rumors. Rumors are gratuitous assertions and can be gratuitously rebutted.

Personally, IMHO - It seemed to me your comments regarding the RMEF diluted your message about the politicization of elk management in Montana. Interesting that this thread received far more column inches discussing the RMEF than the Gianforte Administration and MFWP. That makes me wonder if newspaper readers responded the same.

There are Montana members of HT very active in this fight. And similar fights in other elk states. They have taken beatings for the team, too. You have more friends here than you think.

 

[Gerald Martin]

Lots of good discussion here. I think we might be missing the main point as we critique RMEF’s lack of engagement on this issue or even Jock’s opinion piece.

At the basic level, legislators’ eagerness to codify management policies into Montana law is problematic. Laws that are ineffective or unable to be practically implemented lead to increased conflicts among user groups and shareholders.

Specifically, in the case of the UPOM lawsuit, Debbie Barrett’s bill, HB 42 is the mechanism that UPOM uses to justify their lawsuit demanding that Montana taxpayers foot the bill to destroy a public trust resource.

It seems to me that one of the most effective ways to defend against UPOM’s suit would be to bring intense pressure on legislators to repeal this outdated and ineffective bill.

HB-42 legally requires FWP to manage elk populations to an arbitrary objective number in each hunting unit. That arbitrary cumulative total is 90,000 elk in the entire state.

Private landowners’ access policies in many units ensure that FWP cannot set effective policies for enough elk harvest to meet unit objectives. Many of the same landowners who will not allow access are the same ones complaining of too many elk. My guess is that a number of them are members of UPOM as well.

If the law goes away, there’s no legal mechanism for this lawsuit to prevail.

 

[Jock Conyngham]

Welcome to Hunttalk Jock!

It took backbone to come in and make your post. Respect! Your post did add clarity. Thanks for doing it.

HT is a melting pot of all types and we don't agree on everything. I think there are probably about equal numbers saying Amen as saying BS to your post. And bunch more who just wish we would stop talking about all this and post some more grip and grins.

We can be a rough and tumble bunch sometimes, but are more aligned with you than it might seem. Those that are not aligned with you have a voice here as well. The discourse does make a difference, I think. One thing I see a lot here on HT is folks asking for chapter and verse to back up a claim. The difference between a rant and advocacy is facts. Don't take it personally if someone asks for your source when you talk about rumors. Rumors are gratuitous assertions and can be gratuitously rebutted.

Personally, IMHO - It seemed to me your comments regarding the RMEF diluted your message about the politicization of elk management in Montana. Interesting that this thread received far more column inches discussing the RMEF than the Gianforte Administration and MFWP. That makes me wonder if newspaper readers responded the same.

There are Montana members of HT very active in this fight. And similar fights in other elk states. They have taken beatings for the team, too. You have more friends here than you think.

That’s an exceptionally kind welcome, and I appreciate it. I also agree with it and your points about a diverse set of people who share similar interests. That’s great in my book; I would be bored to tears in a world of people who all think like I do. I have a lot of friends who are surprised I hunt and fish with one of the Tea Party founders in Montana—a full-on Q Anon supporter. Well, we have been friends for 50 years, and we stand by one another. Some things are more important than politics.

And I agree that the RMEF content diluted the far more important messages about GG, the director’s office of FWP, and the commission (the latter two, of course, appointed by GG). I was somewhat surprised by that focused reaction. I would argue that organizations need to be accountable to their stated goals, their members, and their funders—in about that order. It’s just hard to figure out how to do that sometimes—though, as board chair of two MT conservation groups, I always prefer to do it privately. RMEF, however, is now so big and well-funded that they don’t much care what other potential partners say. They don’t have to.

I have spent more time here than it appears, and I have always admired the experience, energy, and intelligence manifest in HT posts. I hope it gets transferred the local activist groups—and I see it in many of them. That’s the hot zone, more than I’m guessing some appreciate. Skyline Sportsmen, Helena Hunters and Anglers, Hellgate—they are powerhouses, and, to be blunt, I take their opinions more seriously than some of the statewide organizations.

 

[sacountry]

That’s an exceptionally kind welcome, and I appreciate it. I also agree with it and your points about a diverse set of people who share similar interests. That’s great in my book; I would be bored to tears in a world of people who all think like I do. I have a lot of friends who are surprised I hunt and fish with one of the Tea Party founders in Montana—a full-on Q Anon supporter. Well, we have been friends for 50 years, and we stand by one another. Some things are more important than politics.

And I agree that the RMEF content diluted the far more important messages about GG, the director’s office of FWP, and the commission (the latter two, of course, appointed by GG). I was somewhat surprised by that focused reaction. I would argue that organizations need to be accountable to their stated goals, their members, and their funders—in about that order. It’s just hard to figure out how to do that sometimes—though, as board chair of two MT conservation groups, I always prefer to do it privately. RMEF, however, is now so big and well-funded that they don’t much care what other potential partners say. They don’t have to.

I have spent more time here than it appears, and I have always admired the experience, energy, and intelligence manifest in HT posts. I hope it gets transferred the local activist groups—and I see it in many of them. That’s the hot zone, more than I’m guessing some appreciate. Skyline Sportsmen, Helena Hunters and Anglers, Hellgate—they are powerhouses, and, to be blunt, I take their opinions more seriously than some of the statewide organizations.

Hello Jock, you've done an admirable job here explaining in more detail your position without coming across as a politically charged bent. I appreciate that. Your command of the subject matter exceeds mine for sure. My point in posting your article on HT was to try to show an example of how not to make an argument in public forums. I would have not had any heartburn had you shared your thoughts here in that article.

Regarding gaslighting, it's kind of a personal pet peeve of mine because it's sort of "in vogue" and thus tossed around, sometimes incorrectly. I don't believe GG or RMEF have engaged in gaslighting. That is to say, I don't believe either of them have tried to manipulate hunters into thinking that they are the cause of the problems our wildlife faces in MT. I do however believe GG and Hank have done a piss poor job with managing our wildlife. I also think the establishment of RMEF's brand prevents it from making a needed name change that would better reflect it's direction. Lastly I prefer my government balanced and deadlocked. Any time a single party controls both houses and the executive branch, I cringe.

All that said, I do appreciate you moving from lurking on HT to becoming a participant. It definitely sounds like you have the chops to make the collective here smarter and more aware.

-Scott

 

[Mtnhunter1]

Lots of good discussion here. I think we might be missing the main point as we critique RMEF’s lack of engagement on this issue or even Jock’s opinion piece.

At the basic level, legislators’ eagerness tolegally requires FWP to manage elk populations to an arbitrary objective number in each hunting unit. That arbitrary cumulative total is 90,000 elk in the entire state.

Private landowners’ access policies in many units ensure that FWP cannot set effective policies for enough elk harvest to meet unit objectives. Many of the same landowners who will not allow access are the same ones complaining of too many elk. My guess is that a number of them are members of UPOM as well.

If the law goes away, there’s no legal mechanism for this lawsuit to prevail.

HB-42 has really never been about elk numbers. It has always been a long game play for Ranching for Wildlife. You are correct in that the folks beating their fists on the table about FWP not able to manage elk to EMP numbers are the same folks benefitting from the over objectives. All the items listed in Jock's post lead to the same. They are winning and the public sportsmen and women are loosing and that's why the RMEF should be leading the charge.

I 100% agree that HB-42 needs to go away as soon as possible. I also fear that it maybe too late for that to happen.

@Jock Conyngham , welcome to HT, I agree with you fully.

 

[Jock Conyngham]

Hello Jock, you've done an admirable job here explaining in more detail your position without coming across as a politically charged bent. I appreciate that. Your command of the subject matter exceeds mine for sure. My point in posting your article on HT was to try to show an example of how not to make an argument in public forums. I would have not had any heartburn had you shared your thoughts here in that article.

Regarding gaslighting, it's kind of a personal pet peeve of mine because it's sort of "in vogue" and thus tossed around, sometimes incorrectly. I don't believe GG or RMEF have engaged in gaslighting. That is to say, I don't believe either of them have tried to manipulate hunters into thinking that they are the cause of the problems our wildlife faces in MT. I do however believe GG and Hank have done a piss poor job with managing our wildlife. I also think the establishment of RMEF's brand prevents it from making a needed name change that would better reflect it's direction. Lastly I prefer my government balanced and deadlocked. Any time a single party controls both houses and the executive branch, I cringe.

All that said, I do appreciate you moving from lurking on HT to becoming a participant. It definitely sounds like you have the chops to make the collective here smarter and more aware.

-Scott

Scott, I appreciate that. I had to look up the online definition when working on that guest opinion, because I had never used it. I take your point—MT hunters aren’t questioning their judgment because of GG’s manipulation—but I would argue that they suspend it in part because of his and Hank’s misdirection.

There is a great book, Deer Hunting with Jesus, about the tendency of poor, largely Scotch-Irish communities (my people) in the coal region of the Appalachians to vote for politicians who very clearly don’t give a damn about them or their interests. It’s written by a local journalist with a great deal of respect and affection, and I consider it well worth the read.

I admit to being frustrated by hunters who don’t give a damn or think its all about gun control. Gun control activism is important, but we are watching Montana get dragged down the highway by its feet toward monetized game management where politicians and one advocacy group have usurped management from professionals and representation from voters, and where an elk tag for an ordinary resident is a rare cause for celebration. Utah and New Mexico are just two examples.

Happily, HT has many members at the opposite end of the spectrum. Nonetheless, the state of the state and its fish and wildlife management, in my view, is extremely dangerous. When talk of transferrable tags hits the table, things are going badly wrong. That’s why a group of us pushed the MT Public Trust Coalition with little help from most of the statewides, and why I get in the political fray—which is about as fun as a second circumcision.

 

[Gerald Martin]

I am truly grateful for everyone who is willing to enter the political fray to advance public trust interests for responsible wildlife management.

One aspect of effective messaging for conservation groups that is very important to me is discipline in communication that is on topic and germane to a group’s stated mission. Every time someone who represents a group strays from their mission statement to advance personal views on hot button social issues they undermine their effectiveness and credibility with folks who agree with their official mission statement but disagree with them on off topic issues. For instance…

I am not interested in hearing about abortion legislation from Montana Sportsman’s Alliance PAC.

BHA leadership’s support and promotion of alternative energy development on public land undermines support for their mission of protecting public lands and access.

“Green Decoy” labels thrown around by “conservative” individuals or groups make me instantly dismiss their seriousness.


I have limited time and attention to devote to affecting legislation and policy that advances or harms my interests. I want information about legislation and the effects of proposed policy to inspire my actions rather than be agitated and outraged by rhetoric.

I think I am probably similar to most folks who find themselves worn out and exhausted by messaging that trends towards hyperbole rather than trusting me to make up my own mind about what legislation to support and by extension which politicians and party are aligned with my views on an issue.

I find myself tuning out some messaging simply because of information overload and a continual tone of outrage.


My comments aren’t intended to criticize those folks who are actively working to protect public trust resources as much as they are to help hone a more effective approach to garner support from a more diverse group of shareholders.

Preaching to the choir is self affirming and can galvanize support from folks who already self identify as part of the choir, but it doesn’t really help folks who aren’t part of the choir see past their own biases and support policies that are beneficial to common interest.

 

[sacountry]

Scott, I appreciate that. I had to look up the online definition when working on that guest opinion, because I had never used it. I take your point—MT hunters aren’t questioning their judgment because of GG’s manipulation—but I would argue that they suspend it in part because of his and Hank’s misdirection.

There is a great book, Deer Hunting with Jesus, about the tendency of poor, largely Scotch-Irish communities (my people) in the coal region of the Appalachians to vote for politicians who very clearly don’t give a damn about them or their interests. It’s written by a local journalist with a great deal of respect and affection, and I consider it well worth the read.

I admit to being frustrated by hunters who don’t give a damn or think its all about gun control. Gun control activism is important, but we are watching Montana get dragged down the highway by its feet toward monetized game management where politicians and one advocacy group have usurped management from professionals and representation from voters, and where an elk tag for an ordinary resident is a rare cause for celebration. Utah and New Mexico are just two examples.

Happily, HT has many members at the opposite end of the spectrum. Nonetheless, the state of the state and its fish and wildlife management, in my view, is extremely dangerous. When talk of transferrable tags hits the table, things are going badly wrong. That’s why a group of us pushed the MT Public Trust Coalition with little help from most of the statewides, and why I get in the political fray—which is about as fun as a second circumcision.

Sucks that politicians from both sides of the aisle have been misleading and distorting facts from long before our time. The fact that "fact checking" is even a thing is bothersome and made worse that fact checking needs to be checked. Trust is a centerpiece to any society and it's a precious commodity that this country is losing with each passing day. I'll look forward to reading Deer Hunting with Jesus. The name alone has me intrigued.