UPOM suing FWP over elk regulations

[Beignet]

I just wonder how may sportsman voters are even paying attention

I noticed UPOM has legislative scorecards for state lawmakers who support their agenda. I’d like to see a group create scorecards showing which lawmakers actually vote in support the general sporting public beyond website lip service.

 

[antlerradar]

I would also worry that if this citizen initiative was to fail the cost to sportsman would be steep. Groups like UPOM would take this as a big win and every time a privatization bill came up in the legislature they would be using the vote to say privatization won a majority when put to the people. Sportsman had a big stick with the passage of I-161. The argument that much of the past years UPOM wish list in the legislature was undoing the will of the people was one of the most effective. Lose a vote on banning privatization and the people wanting to privatize will have a very big and effective stick to use on legislators.

 

[shoots-straight]

I noticed UPOM has legislative scorecards for state lawmakers who support their agenda. I’d like to see a group create scorecards showing which lawmakers actually vote in support the general sporting public beyond website lip service.

There's getting to be more and more. This one organized over 10 years ago because the writing was on the wall then.
MSA PAC scorecard

 

[Gerald Martin]

Randy has had more of a negative impact on eastern Montana than any outfitter around here. Fair is fair, the money needs to be taken out of hunting. Obviously both sides won’t play nice and someone needs to have wildlife in mind which is currently not happening from anyone.

Randy isn’t suing FWP or trying to change the hunting regulations to give himself advantage at the expense of everyone else.

If FWP had reasonable restrictions on the numbers of tags available in each area then a TV show or a magazine article about an area wouldn’t have such a negative effect.

 

[JLS]

If FWP had reasonable restrictions on the numbers of tags available in each area then a TV show or a magazine article about an area wouldn’t have such a negative effect.

Holy frijoles, you mean cutting edge management like NOT selling unlimited resident deer tags with no mechanism of distributing those hunters?

 

[DFS]

Randy isn’t suing FWP or trying to change the hunting regulations to give himself advantage at the expense of everyone else.

If FWP had reasonable restrictions on the numbers of tags available in each area then a TV show or a magazine article about an area wouldn’t have such a negative effect.

Well they didn’t and likely never will he knew that and you knew that too.

 

[Gerald Martin]

Well they didn’t and likely never will he knew that and you knew that too.

And your point is?

Are you saying that Region 7 was undiscovered and wasn’t in decline until Newberg and I killed some deer with my sons and John Cushman?

 

[DFS]

And your point is?

Are you saying that Region 7 was undiscovered and wasn’t in decline until Newberg and I killed some deer with my sons and John Cushman?

Carry on with elk discussion sorry for the derailing of a good thread.

 

[drifter52]

Or how about give the landowners cow tags for may-June that they have to fill on their own property. Make them deal with the backlash for shooting super pregnant or just gave birth cows and see how much public sympathy they get

mmmm you mean just like all the backlash from not allowing joe do it yourself hunter to run amok on their ranch or charging a trespass fee to hunt.... its clear it's really bothering them.
sooner people realize most ranchers don't give 2 chits about public opinion of them or how they operate the happier most will be
fact is even if you were to successfully get the money out of hunting,(which will never happen} ranchers are no going to open the gates and allow joe hunter on to their multi million dollar ranch for free , thats been tried before with taking away outfitter set asides and we see how well that worked.
carry on with some more bright ideas

 

[Hunting Wife]

I think FWP should take this lawsuit at face value and start reducing the elk in these units by helicopter gunning elk exclusively on the properties of UPOM members that are outfitted. Scorched earth, not one elk left alive and the carcasses left where they die. Coyotes have to eat too.

That would be a great starting point.

I was thinking the same. But since killing more bulls seems to be the technique these people want employed to resolve this overpopulation crisis, start with gunning all the bulls first to make sure we are adequately addressing their concerns. I mean, they’ve been very clear on this point.

If that doesn’t get us to objective, we’ll do cows next.

 

[Eric Albus]

I’m good with that. Emp says inaccessible elk don’t count to the objective…they can follow that too than

That’s like saying unregistered voters votes don’t count, well at least until they vote(illegally).

 

[Eric Albus]

Randy isn’t suing FWP or trying to change the hunting regulations to give himself advantage at the expense of everyone else.

If FWP had reasonable restrictions on the numbers of tags available in each area then a TV show or a magazine article about an area wouldn’t have such a negative effect.

Keep drinking the Kool-aid.

 

[Eric Albus]

I was thinking the same. But since killing more bulls seems to be the technique these people want employed to resolve this overpopulation crisis, start with gunning all the bulls first to make sure we are adequately addressing their concerns. I mean, they’ve been very clear on this point.

If that doesn’t get us to objective, we’ll do cows next.

Not this.

 

[Eric Albus]

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.

 

[JLS]

That’s like saying unregistered voters votes don’t count, well at least until they vote(illegally).

 

[rogerthat]

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.

Eric, I would vote in favor of trying this however I expect it would not bring elk numbers to objective for the following reasons:

1. The first step in fixing a problem is assessing whether you actually have a problem. Some units are simply over objective because the objectives are artificially low. Units 702,704,705 have a 500 elk objective. There are 2000 plus elk in these units which can still be very hard to find. Very few landowners or hunters currently think there are too many elk in these units right now except UPOM making a push for bull tags via the “over-objective” lawsuit.

2. Fixing a problem is impossible when stakeholders don’t have good faith. UPOM and other wealthy landowners don’t actually want populations reduced. The “over-objective” lawsuit is just leverage for UPOM to try to get what they want which is unlimited bull tags.

 

[Gerald Martin]

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.

UPOM says the answer is general either sex tags because limited entry permits are the cause of overpopulation.

 

[Nameless Range]

I don't know if something like that would pass but in my opinion, the animosity towards nonresidents and outfitters has only grown since I-161 passed.

Actions of UPOM, MOGA, and FWP have likely accelerated that over the last 12 months.

Montana has a rich history of outfitting and there are a lot of good outfitters. Man, I bet I read Howard Copenhaver's books a dozen times between grade school to the present. In some ways he was/is a hero of mine. And yet, a totally different type of human than those that currently exist. Of course it's all hypothetical, and maybe even discussing it hurts current relations and causes, but it is an interesting premise.

It would be a beautiful thing to have a hunting and fishing motto of "Montana- The DIY State". The only damn one in the country, and when it comes to the perspectives of many, it isn't hunting, or tying your shoes, unless you do it yourself.

As the governor has said in numerous venues, "rugged individualism", and all that.

 

[Gerald Martin]

Eric, I would vote in favor of trying this however I expect it would not bring elk numbers to objective for the following reasons:

1. The first step in fixing a problem is assessing whether you actually have a problem. Some units are simply over objective because the objectives are artificially low. Units 702,704,705 have a 500 elk objective. There are 2000 plus elk in these units which can still be very hard to find. Very few landowners or hunters currently think there are too many elk in these units right now except UPOM making a push for bull tags via the “over-objective” lawsuit.

2. Fixing a problem is impossible when stakeholders don’t have good faith. UPOM and other wealthy landowners don’t actually want populations reduced. The “over-objective” lawsuit is just leverage for UPOM to try to get what they want which is unlimited bull tags.

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

Anyone thinking that UPOM is making good faith efforts to have FWP implement sound management policies is not considering the effects that UPOM’s preferred policies will have on the resource and other shareholders. Or they don’t care how those policies will harm the resource and other shareholders.

 

[Gerald Martin]

Keep drinking the Kool-aid.

I first heard about hunting mule deer in eastern MT from an article Guy Eastman wrote. Maybe this is all Big Shooter’s fault…