Though not politically convenient for some...

[katqanna]

On Friday afternoon at 3:46 PM, with only a week and a half to do this and fighting against political efforts otherwise, we got the elk brucellosis lawsuit filed in Helena district court before the deadline.

Enhancing Montana's Wildlife & Habitat
v.
Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife & Parks and
Montana Fish & Wildlife Commission

Case No. ADV201522

Mike Menahan will be the judge. We asked for an injunction against this Elk Management in Areas with Brucellosis program, their work groups and the work plans so the ranchers cant pursue the large scale, wildlife obstructing pasture fencing with sportsmens dollars, kill permits and removal hunts, all year long, in 4 Montana counties - and no required public hunter access.

We need the legally required EIS and review.

 

[mtlion]

Thanks for the hard work Kat. They won't be happy until the elk are gone.

 

[katqanna]

mtlion, thanks. Wish we didnt have to do this, but after 2 years and the program getting worse with each iteration, we werent left with much of a choice.

I know some sportsmen have voiced that they are worried by legislative blowback. As I see it, special interests went on the offense in the 2013 legislative session before this program really got under way and no lawsuit was involved. Rep. Alan Redfield put forth his HB 312, the elk brucellosis test and slaughter bill. He also had an LC2040 which would have stripped game damage of the required public hunter access, very similar to Sen. Doug Kary's SB120. The elk brucellosis program has already removed the required public hunter access in the 4 southwestern MT counties of Beaverhead, Madison, Gallatin and Park.

Kary also has a LC1186 - Revise laws related to late season cow elk hunts, call me cynical, but after seeing what they spoke about at the elk brucellosis work group meetings about taking cow elk at later dates, including around birthing, this does not bode well.

So my thought is, the special interests have already tipped their hand as to what they want. By legally removing the backdoor politics of using Helena FWP administrators, through this Elk Management in Areas with Brucellosis program, the lawsuit forces them to show their hand publicly through the legislative process for all to see.

 

[mtlion]

Keep it up. From what I have seen of the brucellosis plan all hunters should be up in arms.

From what I see it aims to undo a century of conservation and sound management, and all in the name of $$$.

 

[Topgun 30-06]

Keep up the fight for us all over the US that are more than interested in this Kat!

 

[bigskyblueman]

The Legislature is engaged in an overall front to supplant FWP authority with their own, for their own political purposes.

 

[katqanna]

Bigsky, I had heard sportsmen joke about Fish, Wildlife & Livestock when I first got into these issues years ago, but I didnt have a frame of reference until I got involved with the elk brucellosis issue 3 years ago. I fully empathize with the joke now.

Numerous times I have seen statements on this forum about the legislature, or certain elements of it, hamstringing FWP with budget or threatening the budget, but this is not the whole picture.

I have been digging into these case laws concerning FWP or the FWP Commission, based on decisions that were not in accordance with law, regulations. FWP is loosing money on litigation. While the FWP attorney is salaried, from what I have been told, what about other fees?

I found this case law from the Montana Supreme Court on the case that Rep Kerry Whites CBU (Aug. 2014), Big Game Forever, Montana Outfitters and Guides, MT Sportsmen For Fish and Wildlife, and Rep. Alan Redfield filed against the FWP Commission on their decision to close down the wolf hunting when that collared YNP wolf was killed, the "buffer zone" incident in 2012 without proper process. Process that Moody stated was illegal and Rebecca Jakes Dockter said was legal. So the Commission made the decision, Moody voted against it and the Commission got sued and lost. In the court case, the plaintiffs requested their attorney fees and court costs also be paid by the defendants, which the court granted - $14,728.90. So wheres that coming from?

Now Rebecca Jakes Dockter has all along been advising FWP and the Commission that this elk brucellosis bs is legal, yet the law is clearly violated and now it is going to have to go to court as well. Are sportsmen paying for these ill advised legal decisions? Is this money that could be better used to manage our wildlife and habitat?

 

[RobertR]

When we finally wake up and realize the stockgrowers are calling the shots on how elk are managed and they them selves have the FWP in their hind pockets. Think about it they drive and do as they please on public land and being that game animals are on their private land they think they can sell them.
Prime example I know a rancher lets elk on his property during the hunting season and runs them off after hunting season. The sorry thing about this is this is a working cattle ranch.

 

[Eric Albus]

Robert, come on. I can promise you that those you accuse of having "FWP in their hind pockets" feel exactly the other way. Most of us who own land can tell you that FWP is unwilling to work with us. Unless a property is in Block Management, then they are willing to do whatever they can to accommodate.

When a majority demands an individual give up a certain right, the majority have also given up that right

.

 

[What Map]

Very informative thread. Thanks for sharing your information and work, Kat.
Lots to keep track of.

 

[katqanna]

Shannon thanks.

I just got the document online. You may need to refresh your browser to pull up the current version from the previous lawsuit filed in May by Skyline. Also, I have some amendments to make to this and file.

One of the things that is important in this case, besides the law violations, is the Public Trust principle. I included in the press release that Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks (MFWP) and the Commission are members of the Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies (WAFWA). In WAFWA's PTD Resolution it mandates, “that fish and wildlife resources are to be held in trust by government for the benefit of present and future generations.” It further states, “...the public must be made aware of this Public Trust, and it must be enforceable against the government.” FWP was there in Bismark, ND when this was voted on in 2006. Jim Posewitz was there and very much remembers it.