UPOM suing FWP over elk regulations

[Straight Arrow]

The majority of at objective units in western MT have more elk than entire regions deemed “over objective” in central and eastern MT.

Furthermore, the "objectives" established are artificially constructed based on tolerance and politics. It is not a shortage of viable habitat across Montana east and west; it is a wildlife distribution problem. With respect to open lands and elk habitat, just look to Colorado with 100,000 more elk and less viable habitat overall. If FWP really wanted to manage wildlife with the wildlife as top priority "held in trust" on behalf of the citizens of the state, then effective programs and viable management would be constructed to distribute and value the wildlife and habitat. It's all politics and influence of such self-centered organizations as UPOM.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Whoever said these ranch owners are not going to let the public run amuck with free access for all, you were correct. However 454 did provide free access for many last fall.
My position on this elk debacle is fast becoming this. Landowners thru 454 have a chance to address the problem of permits for themselves and/or family(valid ONLY on their deeded land), have to allow X number of public in to harvest a bull, and “Y” number of cow elk to be taken, by the public. I’d not be above making last 2 weeks of general season cow only as well. This should improve access for the public as well. If we don’t get to objective in 2 yrs, go last 3 weeks season cow only, 2 more yrs, not working yet 5 weeks cow only. End shoulder/late/early seasons and give the stupid elk a break from being harassed year round.

Not a bad start, Eric. Thanks for this.

 

[BlazerBeam]

No. I’m 100% good with that. No disrespect but I don’t watch Randy’s show. If we are going to get the profit out of hunting ie outfitters, trespass fees, etc. than let’s f’n do it! Time for Montana to step up. Hell even Utah is starting to pass a few laws that are making Montana look bad. If Montana can’t keep up with a bunch of flat brimmers than I don’t know what we do.

yes. profit from a public resource needs to be done with. Enough is enough. One question needs to be asked as the litmus test for what those things may be: "If there were no more animals, would this business/entity/ industry still exist?" If the answer is 'no' then it should not be legal. The average MT hunter needs to care more about this. A lot of these problems would not seem so big (or made out to be bigger than they really are) if there was not a long history of people making money some way or another from elk and elk hunting.
It's also very irritating that a large portion of these money grabbers (all forms of them: influencers, outfitters, landowners, etc) have come here from elsewhere. And they most often end up having the loudest voices. Go back to your fricken Minnesota, Texas, Oregon, and midwest. Holy shit!
I'm too fired up for a monday morning...

 

[SAJ-99]

profit from a public resource needs to be done with. Enough is enough.

To this point, and @rogerthat's, the narrative can easily be reframed as "payments that allow the resource to flourish". How can good programs like Block Management exist under the elimination of profit from the space? Who determines what is profit and that is loss compensation? This is why these discussions are useful, and why it is a difficult needle to thread.

 

[DFS]

To this point, and @rogerthat's, the narrative can easily be reframed as "payments that allow the resource to flourish". How can good programs like Block Management exist under the elimination of profit from the space? Who determines what is profit and that is loss compensation? This is why these discussions are useful, and why it is a difficult needle to thread.

Where exactly are the resources flourishing on public?

 

[BuzzH]

Where exactly are the resources flourishing on public?

Fantasyland...the public land wildliferesources have taken an absolute beating in Montana, and not all of it lands on the EMP. The Montana FWP has continued to "manage" wildlife like its 1950 with 400,000 people living in the State.

Its taken a combined effort of failed policy, laws, and out of control politics to screw something up this bad.

Couple that with the average Montana Sportsmen that cry alligator tears with anything less than 11 weeks of brown its down is proposed...yeah, is it any wonder Wildlife is taking a beating?

 

[SAJ-99]

Where exactly are the resources flourishing on public?

Why are you putting the qualifier "on public" on it? You don't care if the resource flourishes on private too? Does your view on the resource change when it crosses a fence?

 

[DFS]

Why are you putting the qualifier "on public" on it? You don't care if the resource flourishes on private too? Does your view on the resource change when it crosses a fence?

I would like to see animals flourish on both sides of the fence. Private landowners have the luxury to manage. Public land gets pounded, there is zero management. I worry less about private land because there are good landowners out there taking care of things. Nobody is watching out for public land. Hunters will never self regulate.

 

[SAJ-99]

I would like to see animals flourish on both sides of the fence. Private landowners have the luxury to manage. Public land gets pounded, there is zero management. I worry less about private land because there are good landowners out there taking care of things. Nobody is watching out for public land. Hunters will never self regulate.

Complete agreement from me. I have said that until Montana public land hunters decide what sacrifice they are willing to make, there will be no changes or improvements. That said, eliminating "profit from the resource" is not necessarily a solution, even it was feasible on the front end.

 

[BlazerBeam]

eliminating "profit from the resource" is not necessarily a solution

haha! keep telling yourself that.....
People compete in this world for a profit. To make more money than their competitors in the given sector. If that profit is tied to a limited resource, there will be competition for the resource for those people who make money from it. They will always fight for an advantage over others when it comes to the resource. Its simple man.

I have said that until Montana public land hunters decide what sacrifice they are willing to make, there will be no changes or improvements.

Don't turn it all on the MT public land hunter. I would also be very directly asking: what are the Outfitters willing to sacrifice? What are the Randy Newbergs, Stone Glacier D-Bags, and other Bozmanites that are circle jerking all year long at their hunting summits willing to sacrifice? What are Landowners who are from Texas who feel that they have a right to decide what happens to "their" elk willing to sacrifice? You're nuckin futs if you think this thread has anything to do with the MT public land hunter. They are the only ones who don't have their hands out asking for special treatment or money.

 

[BuzzH]

haha! keep telling yourself that.....
People compete in this world for a profit. To make more money than their competitors in the given sector. If that profit is tied to a limited resource, there will be competition for the resource for those people who make money from it. They will always fight for an advantage over others when it comes to the resource. Its simple man.


Don't turn it all on the MT public land hunter. I would also be very directly asking: what are the Outfitters willing to sacrifice? What are the Randy Newbergs, Stone Glacier D-Bags, and other Bozmanites that are circle jerking all year long at their hunting summits willing to sacrifice? What are Landowners who are from Texas who feel that they have a right to decide what happens to "their" elk willing to sacrifice? You're nuckin futs if you think this thread has anything to do with the MT public land hunter. They are the only ones who don't have their hands out asking for special treatment or money.

Very much this...Sportsmen and the wildlife in Montana have come to this place by being the only ones willing to sacrifice/compromise.

I think its well past time for others to sacrifice and compromise besides hunters and the wildlife in Montana.

Like a good friend of mine has said regarding "compromise"...he said, "Compromise 4 times and you're left with 6 1/4% of what you started with".

He's right...

 

[Gerald Martin]

haha! keep telling yourself that.....
People compete in this world for a profit. To make more money than their competitors in the given sector. If that profit is tied to a limited resource, there will be competition for the resource for those people who make money from it. They will always fight for an advantage over others when it comes to the resource. Its simple man.


Don't turn it all on the MT public land hunter. I would also be very directly asking: what are the Outfitters willing to sacrifice? What are the Randy Newbergs, Stone Glacier D-Bags, and other Bozmanites that are circle jerking all year long at their hunting summits willing to sacrifice? What are Landowners who are from Texas who feel that they have a right to decide what happens to "their" elk willing to sacrifice? You're nuckin futs if you think this thread has anything to do with the MT public land hunter. They are the only ones who don't have their hands out asking for special treatment or money.

Some folks on this thread are forgetting that the CURRENT issue is that a certain segment of shareholders (UPOM affiliates) are suing to demand legal preference at the expense of all other public trust shareholders and the resource.

The fact that some shareholders have a for profit interest in wildlife (outfitters, influencers, hotels, restaurants, sporting goods retailers, etc.) is not the primary cause for contention. It could even be argued that resident meat hunters are profit driven because they prefer wild game as opposed to spending their money on beef, pork, or chicken.

IMO, the primary responsibility lies with FWP leadership to craft responsible regulation to protect the resource and fairly allocate tags in harmony with the North American Model of Wildlife.
This is the responsibility they are legally mandated to provide and for which all license fees are collected to provide funding for carrying out their responsibilities. Additionally, they are the experts on the biological requirements of public trust resources.

The fact that FWP leadership refuses to do their job and will not responsibly protect the public trust resources entrusted to their care because they are more interested in political appeasement is a dereliction of duty. Holding them accountable to do their jobs is something that every hunter of Montana wildlife should be interested and united in.

I don’t care that current regulations are entrenched in tradition and indulgent expectations of the average hunter. If the resource is being harmed, regulations and hunter behavior must change.

The efficiency of technology, increased numbers of hunters, concentration of pressure on perceived hot spots and many other factors has been in constant change towards increased exploitation of the resource for many years. Yet, in many ways FWP has refused to adapt to those changes and continues to show preference for political considerations over biological considerations at the expense of our resources.

Being mad at hunters for hunting within the legal parameters of management policies and harvesting an animal that FWP has seen fit to issue a certain number of tags for isn’t reasonable. It is certainly within anyone’s right to have a negative opinion about any of that, but those who refuse to hold FWP leadership accountable and don’t advocate for change while being mad at other hunters are part of the problem.

How is a N.R hunter who is thrilled at the opportunity to come shoot four mule deer does on the Custer National Forest on his first western trip supposed to know that is over exploitive and should be avoided? FWP gave out the tags and made it possible.

 

[Hunting Wife]

Not this.

Why not? Tongue in cheek, but still…

Whoever said these ranch owners are not going to let the public run amuck with free access for all, you were correct. However 454 did provide free access for many last fall.
My position on this elk debacle is fast becoming this. Landowners thru 454 have a chance to address the problem of permits for themselves and/or family(valid ONLY on their deeded land), have to allow X number of public in to harvest a bull, and “Y” number of cow elk to be taken, by the public. I’d not be above making last 2 weeks of general season cow only as well. This should improve access for the public as well. If we don’t get to objective in 2 yrs, go last 3 weeks season cow only, 2 more yrs, not working yet 5 weeks cow only. End shoulder/late/early seasons and give the stupid elk a break from being harassed year round.

I don’t hate this idea. I fully agree with a more adaptive strategy such as what you’ve outlined here. But, this type of adaptive management seems to be a struggle in this state.

I also agree with others that it doesn’t address the elephant in the room, which are the nonsensical objectives.

 

[SAJ-99]

haha! keep telling yourself that.....
People compete in this world for a profit. To make more money than their competitors in the given sector. If that profit is tied to a limited resource, there will be competition for the resource for those people who make money from it. They will always fight for an advantage over others when it comes to the resource. Its simple man.


Don't turn it all on the MT public land hunter. I would also be very directly asking: what are the Outfitters willing to sacrifice? What are the Randy Newbergs, Stone Glacier D-Bags, and other Bozmanites that are circle jerking all year long at their hunting summits willing to sacrifice? What are Landowners who are from Texas who feel that they have a right to decide what happens to "their" elk willing to sacrifice? You're nuckin futs if you think this thread has anything to do with the MT public land hunter. They are the only ones who don't have their hands out asking for special treatment or money.

I think you have gone off on a wild tangent. I agree that money motivates, but you still haven't explained how to differentiate profit from loss mitigation. None of us was Montana to become Texas and there should be no special treatment of stakeholders. But you have to stay focused on what helps and what doesn't and what can realistically be accomplished.

 

[rogerthat]

Some folks on this thread are forgetting that the CURRENT issue is that a certain segment of shareholders (UPOM affiliates) are suing to demand legal preference at the expense of all other public trust shareholders and the resource.

The fact that some shareholders have a for profit interest in wildlife (outfitters, influencers, hotels, restaurants, sporting goods retailers, etc.) is not the primary cause for contention. It could even be argued that resident meat hunters are profit driven because they prefer wild game as opposed to spending their money on beef, pork, or chicken.

IMO, the primary responsibility lies with FWP leadership to craft responsible regulation to protect the resource and fairly allocate tags in harmony with the North American Model of Wildlife.
This is the responsibility they are legally mandated to provide and for which all license fees are collected to provide funding for carrying out their responsibilities. Additionally, they are the experts on the biological requirements of public trust resources.

The fact that FWP leadership refuses to do their job and will not responsibly protect the public trust resources entrusted to their care because they are more interested in political appeasement is a dereliction of duty. Holding them accountable to do their jobs is something that every hunter of Montana wildlife should be interested and united in.

I don’t care that current regulations are entrenched in tradition and indulgent expectations of the average hunter. If the resource is being harmed, regulations and hunter behavior must change.

The efficiency of technology, increased numbers of hunters, concentration of pressure on perceived hot spots and many other factors has been in constant change towards increased exploitation of the resource for many years. Yet, in many ways FWP has refused to adapt to those changes and continues to show preference for political considerations over biological considerations at the expense of our resources.

Being mad at hunters for hunting within the legal parameters of management policies and harvesting an animal that FWP has seen fit to issue a certain number of tags for isn’t reasonable. It is certainly within anyone’s right to have a negative opinion about any of that, but those who refuse to hold FWP leadership accountable and don’t advocate for change while being mad at other hunters are part of the problem.

How is a N.R hunter who is thrilled at the opportunity to come shoot four mule deer does on the Custer National Forest on his first western trip supposed to know that is over exploitive and should be avoided? FWP gave out the tags and made it possible.

Sorry Gerald but I am failing to get the point of your post. I have read it like 5 times. When UPOM filed the lawsuit, they are trying to negate the process that was the FY22-23 season setting process. Despite its tumultuousness, it did involve the publics input via thousands of public comments that ultimately arrived at the solution for this upcoming season. An argument could be made leadership did its job (even though I think it would be more correct to say the commission bailed leadership out). With this lawsuit UPOM is trying to end around "the process" via the court system. It's fairly easy to connect the dots and see that UPOM wants bull tags(general tags) which will allow them to commoditize them and sell them or realize the benefits of hunting them (large value currently $10K) so profits in hunting is one of the primary drivers of UPOM and this lawsuit and the primary cause for this lawsuit and contention.

I haven't read anything from any posters that was blaming other hunters for shooting what's legal under the law. I have seen posts aimed at the influencers and insta-famous and their jock strap riders. Those folks are in it for profit and are part of the problem but that's an issue for a different thread.

 

[rogerthat]

I think you have gone off on a wild tangent. I agree that money motivates, but you still haven't explained how to differentiate profit from loss mitigation. None of us was Montana to become Texas and there should be no special treatment of stakeholders. But you have to stay focused on what helps and what doesn't and what can realistically be accomplished.

Differentiating profit from loss mitigation seems pretty straight forward to me. Loss mitigation would be for damages. Show damages you are good. I suspect you are implying the outfitting industry and trespass fees are a form of loss mitigation?

Edit: The red herring to me in that argument is that properties are selling for their recreational value which is much higher than their ag value. So are wildlife a nuisance or a benefit?

 

[SAJ-99]

Differentiating profit from loss mitigation seems pretty straight forward to me. Loss mitigation would be for damages. Show damages you are good. I suspect you are implying the outfitting industry and trespass fees are a form of loss mitigation?

Edit: The red herring to me in that argument is that properties are selling for their recreational value which is much higher than their ag value. So are wildlife a nuisance or a benefit?

First, you could never eliminate profit from hunting. It is literally impossible. I'm not arguing it is good or bad, just that people with their undies in a bunch over eliminating money from the sport are wasting their energy. The argument could be made (has been and will be) that leasing land to hunters is offsetting losses from wildlife. Hard to argue against that. Agree that there are a lot of moving pieces here. We first need to figure out who we can work with and who we can't. Going to the nuclear option is a surefire losing strategy.

Second, you don't have to connect the dots with UPOM. They are quite clear they want unlimited bull tags. They were formed specifically after many of the central MT zones went limited entry with the stated goal of reversing it. The latest attempt is a BS end-around. But it is also obvious that the administration leans more toward UPOM than not and what the masses want are not the primary consideration.

 

[Wind Gypsy]

"The lawsuit requests the judge declare elk regulations void, and require FWP and the commission, within 90 days to develop a plan to “remove, harvest or eliminate thousands of elk” as expediently as practicable."

Looks like UPOM has filed a lawsuit concerning the recent elk regulations.

Furthermore "The lawsuit further alleges two state laws are unconstitutional. The first law in question delegates wildlife policy power to the commission, countering that setting policy rests with the Legislature. The second requires public access as a condition of allowing game damage hunting."

Looks like they are also attempting to neuter the commission.

Lawsuit asks judge to overturn Montana's elk hunting regulations

The lawsuit accuses state officials of attempting to force public hunter access to private land through restrictive hunting regulations and programs such as game damage hunts, which require public access.

billingsgazette.com

 

[rogerthat]

First, you could never eliminate profit from hunting. It is literally impossible.

I think this is debate-able. Nothing is ever 100% but you could sure as heck give it a darn good effort. I think it would solve a lot of our problems. Ever seen a state try? Eliminating markets for game is one of the core principles of the the North American Model. Just depends how far we want to take this. If UPOM wants to privatize the resource, we eliminate the market. Fight fire with fire.

Going to the nuclear option is a surefire losing strategy.

Eliminating profit in hunting is the nuclear option? At this point, we are only a couple steps away from needing to implement the nuclear option whatever that may be. The public land hunting in this state is generally pretty awful and we are on a path to the bottom where last year was "the best year you will experience for the foresee-able future" Its been this way for a while and is pretty damn depressing. Our kids will never experience or opportunity that we have. That's the path we are on. Think about that.

 

[SAJ-99]

good luck. I for one will not be joining your efforts. We need MORE people to care about the resource not less. I don’t want landowners to view them as vermin. I also kind of like this website where we can debate ideas.