Carnage2011
Well-known member
Colorado does this as well in some units.
UPOM suing FWP over elk regulations
- Thread starter mtnkid85
- Start date
Seems to be the way to correct the problem when the problem is actually happening. If there is actually a “problem”
sacountry
Well-known member
Damage hunts are a legit means of managing the problem, but it appears they're essentially removing the problem not moving the problem.
brocksw
Well-known member
From Montana BHAs FB
www.keepelkpublic.org
KEEP ELK PUBLIC
www.keepelkpublic.org
John B. Sullivan III
Well-known member
I want to take the opportunity to announce the good news that we were granted our request for intervention in the UPOM lawsuit! Read below for details. Please support this effort. 100% of donations made to www.keepelkpublic.org go towards legal fees to fight and prevent UPOM from upending Montana's legacy of equitable wildlife management.
Sept. 1, 2022
District court judge grants coalition’s motion to intervene by demonstrating a ‘direct, substantial, legally protectable interest’ in suit brought by United Property Owners of Montana
MISSOULA, Mont. – A District Court judge has ruled that a coalition of Montana hunting and conservation groups can intervene in a lawsuit that attempts to upend game management in Montana.
Tenth Judicial District Court Judge Heather Perry granted the groups’ motion to intervene on Wednesday afternoon, acknowledging the coalition’s standing in the suit filed in May by the United Property Owners of Montana against Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks and the Fish & Wildlife Commission.
Composed of Helena Hunters and Anglers, Hellgate Hunters and Anglers, Montana Backcountry Hunters & Anglers, Montana Bowhunters Association, Montana Wildlife Federation, Public Land Water Access Association and Skyline Sportsmen, the coalition called the lawsuit “an attack on wildlife management and Montana’s egalitarian hunting traditions” and filed the motion to intervene on behalf of FWP and the citizens of Montana.
The groups represent a broad array of interests and are committed to maintaining long-term, proven management that benefits all Montanans. All have a strong record of public participation in decisions affecting Montana’s natural resources and hunting heritage. Learn more at KeepElkPublic.org.
Conversely, UPOM is an organization with a history of opposing the great Montana tradition and law guaranteeing wildlife are equally owned by the public, not just the wealthy and well-connected. UPOM alleges in its suit that the public process for managing elk and setting hunting regulations in Montana is unconstitutional. It attempts to force FWP to act to reduce elk numbers in the state substantially by killing upwards of 50,000 animals and giving politicians and private landowners management authority of the public's wildlife. Similar attempts by UPOM at the legislative and commission levels have been strenuously opposed and largely defeated.
Judge Perry ruled that the coalition has met criteria establishing its grounds for intervening: that the motion is timely, that it shows an interest in the subject matter of the suit, that it shows that protection of the interest may be impaired by the disposition of the action, and that the interest is not adequately represented by an existing party.
Coalition members voiced appreciation for the court recognizing their role in defending the public’s interest and vowed to keep fighting in the name of responsive wildlife management and public hunting opportunity. The groups look forward to making their case in front of the court.
“Elk belong to the people of Montana,” said Steve Platt, president of Helena Hunters and Anglers. “We intend to keep it that way.”
“The abjectly partisan decisions of our elected officials – and their appointees – on elk management dictate that Montana hunters must now bear the responsibility of ensuring abundant, accessible elk populations on public land,” said Walker Conyngham, president of Hellgate Hunters & Anglers. “UPOM’s lawsuit threatens serious consequences for how we manage our elk and public hunting opportunities going forward. We welcome the opportunity to defend our state’s wildlife managers and our historic wildlife management principles against this troubling suit."
“I am proud of the hard work we have done over the last year, engaging with the state, public hunters and landowners, in a sincere and transparent effort to solve these wildlife management issues,” said John Sullivan, chair of the Montana chapter of Backcountry Hunters & Anglers. “We are grateful the court has acknowledged the public’s role in wildlife management and allowed us to intervene on the public’s behalf. We look forward to making our case in front of the court and in the light of day for all to watch.”
“Montana Wildlife Federation appreciates that the court has recognized our standing as intervenors in this important case,” said Montana Wildlife Federation President and Board Chair Dr. Chris Servheen. “This case is about the public’s role in the management of elk and other wildlife in Montana. Elk are a public resource and should be managed using science in a fair and balanced public process. MWF is an organization made up of all kinds of Montanans, including hunters and landowners, so it makes sense for us to be involved. We look forward to working with our partner organizations in representing the interests of the public before the court in this important case.”
Connect with us on Facebook.
Follow us on Twitter.
Find us on Instagram.
Watch us on YouTube.
https://www.backcountryhunters.org/...t_standing_in_legal_defense_of_elk_management
MONTANA HUNTING AND CONSERVATION GROUPS SOLIDIFY COURT STANDING IN LEGAL DEFENSE OF ELK MANAGEMENT
News for Immediate ReleaseSept. 1, 2022
District court judge grants coalition’s motion to intervene by demonstrating a ‘direct, substantial, legally protectable interest’ in suit brought by United Property Owners of Montana
MISSOULA, Mont. – A District Court judge has ruled that a coalition of Montana hunting and conservation groups can intervene in a lawsuit that attempts to upend game management in Montana.
Tenth Judicial District Court Judge Heather Perry granted the groups’ motion to intervene on Wednesday afternoon, acknowledging the coalition’s standing in the suit filed in May by the United Property Owners of Montana against Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks and the Fish & Wildlife Commission.
Composed of Helena Hunters and Anglers, Hellgate Hunters and Anglers, Montana Backcountry Hunters & Anglers, Montana Bowhunters Association, Montana Wildlife Federation, Public Land Water Access Association and Skyline Sportsmen, the coalition called the lawsuit “an attack on wildlife management and Montana’s egalitarian hunting traditions” and filed the motion to intervene on behalf of FWP and the citizens of Montana.
The groups represent a broad array of interests and are committed to maintaining long-term, proven management that benefits all Montanans. All have a strong record of public participation in decisions affecting Montana’s natural resources and hunting heritage. Learn more at KeepElkPublic.org.
Conversely, UPOM is an organization with a history of opposing the great Montana tradition and law guaranteeing wildlife are equally owned by the public, not just the wealthy and well-connected. UPOM alleges in its suit that the public process for managing elk and setting hunting regulations in Montana is unconstitutional. It attempts to force FWP to act to reduce elk numbers in the state substantially by killing upwards of 50,000 animals and giving politicians and private landowners management authority of the public's wildlife. Similar attempts by UPOM at the legislative and commission levels have been strenuously opposed and largely defeated.
Judge Perry ruled that the coalition has met criteria establishing its grounds for intervening: that the motion is timely, that it shows an interest in the subject matter of the suit, that it shows that protection of the interest may be impaired by the disposition of the action, and that the interest is not adequately represented by an existing party.
Coalition members voiced appreciation for the court recognizing their role in defending the public’s interest and vowed to keep fighting in the name of responsive wildlife management and public hunting opportunity. The groups look forward to making their case in front of the court.
“Elk belong to the people of Montana,” said Steve Platt, president of Helena Hunters and Anglers. “We intend to keep it that way.”
“The abjectly partisan decisions of our elected officials – and their appointees – on elk management dictate that Montana hunters must now bear the responsibility of ensuring abundant, accessible elk populations on public land,” said Walker Conyngham, president of Hellgate Hunters & Anglers. “UPOM’s lawsuit threatens serious consequences for how we manage our elk and public hunting opportunities going forward. We welcome the opportunity to defend our state’s wildlife managers and our historic wildlife management principles against this troubling suit."
“I am proud of the hard work we have done over the last year, engaging with the state, public hunters and landowners, in a sincere and transparent effort to solve these wildlife management issues,” said John Sullivan, chair of the Montana chapter of Backcountry Hunters & Anglers. “We are grateful the court has acknowledged the public’s role in wildlife management and allowed us to intervene on the public’s behalf. We look forward to making our case in front of the court and in the light of day for all to watch.”
“Montana Wildlife Federation appreciates that the court has recognized our standing as intervenors in this important case,” said Montana Wildlife Federation President and Board Chair Dr. Chris Servheen. “This case is about the public’s role in the management of elk and other wildlife in Montana. Elk are a public resource and should be managed using science in a fair and balanced public process. MWF is an organization made up of all kinds of Montanans, including hunters and landowners, so it makes sense for us to be involved. We look forward to working with our partner organizations in representing the interests of the public before the court in this important case.”
Backcountry Hunters & Anglers is the voice
for our wild public lands, waters and wildlife.
Learn more about BHA:for our wild public lands, waters and wildlife.
Connect with us on Facebook.
Follow us on Twitter.
Find us on Instagram.
Watch us on YouTube.
https://www.backcountryhunters.org/...t_standing_in_legal_defense_of_elk_management
canadiantuxedo
Active member
No update, but I did see a recent opinion column pointing out that RMEF has not joined the intervenors. This is disheartening. How can an organization whose stated mission is to "ensure the future of elk, other wildlife, their habitat and our hunting heritage," sit this one out?
Jock Conyngham and Adam Shaw: Hunters, don't fall for this gaslighting
Just before the election Governor Gianforte hid, as usual, at an unadvertised event with only hand-selected loyalists in attendance at the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, where he painted a rosy
I think we can all agree with the author’s statement thatNo update, but I did see a recent opinion column pointing out that RMEF has not joined the intervenors. This is disheartening. How can an organization whose stated mission is to "ensure the future of elk, other wildlife, their habitat and our hunting heritage," sit this one out?
Jock Conyngham and Adam Shaw: Hunters, don't fall for this gaslighting
Just before the election Governor Gianforte hid, as usual, at an unadvertised event with only hand-selected loyalists in attendance at the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, where he painted a rosymissoulian.com
“… the RMEF continues to evolve from public hunting advocates in Montana to nothing more than a land trust organization.”
Sure do appreciate the work they do in that realm, but it’d be nice to have some more insight into the supposed “back channels” that they’ve led the sporting public to believe they’re engaging.
The fact that they don’t comment on every issue (except woofs) would give a comment from them on this one some real gravitas.
Nameless Range
Well-known member
I think that is an accurate statement. The RMEF is a great land trust organization, and for that I support them, but Montana’s hunting heritage could be eroded and all but lost in the name of privatization, like NM, and it’s not clear to me that they would speak up at all.
Theoretically they are very active behind the scenes. I don’t know how I feel about that.
The Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation Mission:Ensure the future of elk, other wildlife, their habitat and our hunting heritage.
A group, opposed to the existence of things the elk foundation lauds (nonprofit land purchases, limited entry elk tags, access to public lands, the existence of public lands, etc.) sues Montana. If that group wins, Montana’s hunting heritage is severely diminished, and the RMEF is where? Their silence is bothersome, but they have a history of doing incredibly bothersome stuff. I’m old enough to remember their support for The roadless area release act.
Just makes the groups who speak up for the Montana hunter even more precious in my mind.
rogerthat
Well-known member
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2015
- Messages
- 2,918
Is sustaining Montanas hunting heritage part of their mission? I suspect lots of private landowners are RMEF members including UPOM members. It’s not easy walking the fine line of supporting key issues without alienating a large group of your members. I say that last statement without any knowledge of how many members would actually be alienated by taking a stance on this issue.
And they used to be silent on woofs. They lost me long ago; terrible local banquets, completely silent on issues, too much support and special perks for celebrities, all the bull riding money, and the double h ranch were just a few of the things that told me to hang onto my membership dollars
Nameless Range
Well-known member
I posted their mission statement. I suppose the definition of "hunting heritage" is something open to discussion, more open to discussion if as you allude to and I myself wonder, your organization is in the grips of audience($) capture.
For me, and I would wager most Montana Hunters, what our Hunting Heritage is, though variable to some degree, is clearly under attack by UPOM in this lawsuit.
Though not related to this lawsuit, a UPOM member also being a member of RMEF would be quite silly. UPOM literally lobbies in favor of laws that would render the RMEF inert as a conservation organization.
Nameless Range
Well-known member
That said, a reminder of the groups going to bat for folks like me, my kids, my friends....
Montana Widlife Federation: https://montanawildlife.org/
Montana Backcountry Hunters and Anglers https://www.backcountryhunters.org/montana
Hellgate Hunters and Anglers https://www.hellgatehuntersandanglers.org/
Helena Hunters and Anglers https://helenahuntersandanglers.org/
Skyline Sportsmans Association https://www.facebook.com/people/Skyline-Sportsmens-Association-Butte-Mt/100064458321601/
Public Land Water Access Association https://www.plwa.org/
Damn Few.
Montana Widlife Federation: https://montanawildlife.org/
Montana Backcountry Hunters and Anglers https://www.backcountryhunters.org/montana
Hellgate Hunters and Anglers https://www.hellgatehuntersandanglers.org/
Helena Hunters and Anglers https://helenahuntersandanglers.org/
Skyline Sportsmans Association https://www.facebook.com/people/Skyline-Sportsmens-Association-Butte-Mt/100064458321601/
Public Land Water Access Association https://www.plwa.org/
Damn Few.
rogerthat
Well-known member
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2015
- Messages
- 2,918
My .02 is the work they do on land access projects is worth your annual $35. The fact they move slowly on political land mine issues is a minor item for me trumped by the thousands of acres of additional access they have been a part of securing in my home state.
Because $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Irrelevant
Well-known member
Their is value in having a right leaning land trust for people not wanting to engage with TNC or the Trust for Public Land or ...
But they've long since lost much of my praise, though I continue to be a member, at least for now.
But they've long since lost much of my praise, though I continue to be a member, at least for now.
Nameless Range
Well-known member
I agree, and have been a member more years than not as an adult and will continue to be. They've done excellent work recently on two acquisition within miles of my home - the Southern Elkhorns Land Acquisition and the Hadley Park Acquisition.
What I don't get here, is what about the UPOM lawsuit is a "land mine issue"? Maybe you weren't saying that, but this one is just so cut and dried to me. If UPOM wins - no more Breaks, Elkhorns, Highwood, Beartooth WMA, etc bull tags. No LE permits in any over objective area. With the swing of a gavel, the unraveling of decades of Elk Conservation.
I'm sure folks smarter than me have weighed the ROI on stepping in. It's just tough, personally for me, to not understand the logic.
Irrelevant
Well-known member
My guess is that a lot of those land transactions are with UPOM members.
I would like to think so. I can look at a couple projects around me and scratch my head a little though. Paying for conservation easements on land that’s ungodly steep and covered in starthistle and cheetgrass with next to no development potential. I suppose the properties could have been split and been under more ownerships
brocksw
Well-known member
Rmef got involved on our issue here in ND (HB 1151). They submitted testimony in opposition.
Edit: I should add that I have been critical of RMEF in the past, specifically over them not getting involved on policy issues. I still wish they'd take this approach more often. But I should cut them some slack considering I now have proof that they do pay attention and will get involved. I'm sure big fin was right all along and they're just more strategic about their involvement.
Edit: I should add that I have been critical of RMEF in the past, specifically over them not getting involved on policy issues. I still wish they'd take this approach more often. But I should cut them some slack considering I now have proof that they do pay attention and will get involved. I'm sure big fin was right all along and they're just more strategic about their involvement.
Last edited:
