UPOM suing FWP over elk regulations

[8andcounting]

Rmef got involved on our issue here in ND (HB 1151). They submitted testimony in opposition.
View attachment 262230

That’s fine - you seem against baiting - I’m fine with it too . My only problem is how some units are open and some are closed I think the state needs to be open to baiting or closed period . Closed statewide is my vote

 

[Schism]

That’s fine - you seem against baiting - I’m fine with it too . My only problem is how some units are open and some are closed I think the state needs to be open to baiting or closed period . Closed statewide is my vote

The reason that portions of the state are open and portions are closed was imo explained very well by Dr. Bahnson on Randy's recent podcast. While I think a complete baiting ban within the state would be optimal, I did appreciate the consideration the NDGF has taken to minimize the impacts on methods and traditions of local hunters while also attempting to mitigate spread of disease.

eta: we should have this conversation in the thread about ND HB1151 and not derail this thread.

 

[SAJ-99]

I think we can all agree with the author’s statement that
“… 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.

I thought of your post when I got an email today on this below. I guess everything they do has to be looked at as a business decision. They have no problem commenting on the constitutionality of a state-proposed gun law because it would hurt their ability to do raffles, but they stay silent on a lot of things directly related to elk management.

Take Action

Effortlessly contact your state and federal lawmakers to make your voice heard on issues that impact wildlife and elk country.

www.rmef.org

 

[Beignet]

I thought of your post when I got an email today on this below. I guess everything they do has to be looked at as a business decision. They have no problem commenting on the constitutionality of a state-proposed gun law because it would hurt their ability to do raffles, but they stay silent on a lot of things directly related to elk management.

Take Action

Effortlessly contact your state and federal lawmakers to make your voice heard on issues that impact wildlife and elk country.

www.rmef.org

I don’t have the emoji keyboard thing on my phone, but would like to insert a facepalm emoji here.

 

[Beignet]

Also, while I’m rambling… guessing their old boy network doesn’t extend as far into Nodakistan so they can comfortably comment on things there that might’ve gone without mention if it were proposed in Montana? They’re an enigma to me.

 

[SAJ-99]

I don’t have the emoji keyboard thing on my phone, but would like to insert a facepalm emoji here.

I will respond to your face palm emoji with my own face palm emoji. I’m sure I’m not being complete clear with my critique. The org just confuses me. I was cleaning out my email and had over 100 emails from RMEF. About 15 were from firearm auctions. Some of the firearms had nothing to do with elk. I’m confused with the whole marketing campaign for a non profit. The raffle for the Kentucky hunt with Randy falls into this somewhat. I don’t have answers or even clarity on why it feels uncomfortable. So I’m my own post.

 

[rogerthat]

I will respond to your face palm emoji with my own face palm emoji. I’m sure I’m not being complete clear with my critique. The org just confuses me. I was cleaning out my email and had over 100 emails from RMEF. About 15 were from firearm auctions. Some of the firearms had nothing to do with elk. I’m confused with the whole marketing campaign for a non profit. The raffle for the Kentucky hunt with Randy falls into this somewhat. I don’t have answers or even clarity on why it feels uncomfortable. So I’m my own post.

Yeah it seems they are confusing a lot of folks. I support them for now but damn they are making me feel like I am supporting a controversial entity. Doesn’t need to be like that. They just need to step up and do what their mission statement says they will do. The 2nd A chit is a turnoff to me. NRA already has that covered!!!

 

[Big Fin]

Sitting in a hotel room and trying to catch up on threads. This one is interesting, as it has morphed from the UPOM lawsuit as the topic of the thread to a lot of other issues. I can't speak for others, but here is how it played out for me.

I emailed my attorneys when this lawsuit came out.

From: Randy Newberg
Date: Sat, May 14, 2022 at 12:24 PM
Subject: Re: UPOM lawsuit--elk regs
To: NXXXXXX <[email protected]>

Nick:

Word is that AG Knudsen owes UPOM some favors and he will capitulate on this issue. That's a terrible outcome. Can I intervene to make sure it is not a "backdoor deal" that costs us in a big way?

Best,

Randy


Randy Newberg

They reviewed the UPOM case, the claims asserted, then we scheduled a meeting. From that, this is the legal advice I got, paraphrased, "Looks like a lot of strong words, but nothing of real substance. Probably helps them in the upcoming election cycles and resulting legislative session. We don't recommend you spend your time, credibility, and money on legal fees to intervene. The poor quality of the case doesn't deserve the credibility of your intervention."

So, I did not intervene. From what I took of the meeting with the lawyer, this was more of a PR stunt (my words) by UPOM. Maybe that will turn out to be wrong if AG Knudsen and his staff roll over on what should be an easy case. But, when he analyzed the claims and applied the applicable law, he did not see much chance of success by UPOM.

As such, I was happy to pay $600 to be advised I don't need to waste thousands dollars more and weeks of my time to file as an intervener.

 

[Jock Conyngham]

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.

MSA does that scorecard.

 

[Nameless Range]

Sitting in a hotel room and trying to catch up on threads. This one is interesting, as it has morphed from the UPOM lawsuit as the topic of the thread to a lot of other issues. I can't speak for others, but here is how it played out for me.

I emailed my attorneys when this lawsuit came out.



They reviewed the UPOM case, the claims asserted, then we scheduled a meeting. From that, this is the legal advice I got, paraphrased, "Looks like a lot of strong words, but nothing of real substance. Probably helps them in the upcoming election cycles and resulting legislative session. We don't recommend you spend your time, credibility, and money on legal fees to intervene. The poor quality of the case doesn't deserve the credibility of your intervention."

So, I did not intervene. From what I took of the meeting with the lawyer, this was more of a PR stunt (my words) by UPOM. Maybe that will turn out to be wrong if AG Knudsen and his staff roll over on what should be an easy case. But, when he analyzed the claims and applied the applicable law, he did not see much chance of success by UPOM.

As such, I was happy to pay $600 to be advised I don't need to waste thousands dollars more and weeks of my time to file as an intervener.

Good information. Thank you. It’s the type of information that’s been missing from the public discourse regarding this lawsuit.

That said, I have a concern that AG Knudsen, Who is, as far as I can tell, a fan of and advocate for UPOM, to pull whatever levers of government he has at his disposal in their favor. That’s the reason it sure seems like without intervenors outside of our state government , the likelihood of trouble for Montanans increases.

That’s my perception - as someone uneducated about all of this . There’s somewhat of a black hole of information around this whole thing.

 

[Big Fin]

Good information. Thank you. It’s the type of information that’s been missing from the public discourse regarding this lawsuit.

That said, I have a concern that AG Knudsen, Who is, as far as I can tell, a fan of and advocate for UPOM, to pull whatever levers of government he has at his disposal in their favor. That’s the reason it sure seems like without intervenors outside of our state government , the likelihood of trouble for Montanans increases.

That’s my perception - as someone uneducated about all of this . There’s somewhat of a black hole of information around this whole thing.

Agree that Knudsen could capitulate. Yet, there are hundreds of places where state trustees might capitulate on a variety of issues. So, when attorneys I trust told me to spend my limited time and money elsewhere, that’s the path I take, knowing what you identified as the Knudsen risk could happen.

 

[Gerald Martin]

If Knudsen would capitulate wouldn’t that open up FWP to other lawsuits by anyone who thinks FWP isn’t properly fulfilling their obligations?

 

[Nameless Range]

As I understand it, FWP and private landowners in the area collaborated on that transplant in the 1960s. As in they were turned loose in a privately owned gulch, not high fence. Just an effort by Montanans to bring elk back to this chunk of Montana. There is essentially no public wintering ground between Helena and Boulder Hill.

So much of the reseeding of elk across the landscape was not something that was imposed on folks by FWP, but was something locals wanted to happen. That included landowners in some instances.

It’s a story I need to look into more. Maybe interview him and record it. There are only so many left from back then.

I’m not trying to argue or digress from the OP. We just have to be careful not to let UPOM, or certain landowners who don’t give a shit about the average Montana hunter, color our view of all landowners.UPOM does not equal Montana’s landowners. I know many, and literally none of them are mirrored by that organization.

The man whose ranch this happened on, who I wanted to interview and record about bringing Elk back to the eastern Boulder Mountains, a friend of mine and great Montanan, died this spring. I'm always diggin around for local histories, and so when I came across this short snippet from the Helena Independent Record from 1963, I appreciated it, and wish I would've mined him for as much information about it as I could've when I could've - now knowledge and a more detailed story, lost forever.

UPOM is just a kind disgrace, trying to co-opt a much deeper and more nuanced legacy.

 

[Elky Welky]

To anyone wondering, a handful of folks did file as intervenors (https://www.keepelkpublic.org/) and this case is going to have its first oral arguments this Friday at 9:00 A.M. in Lewistown before the Hon. Judge Gregory Todd over competing motions for summary judgment. UPOM buried the State in paperwork over discovery battles, and eventually Judge Todd got mad at UPOM and told them to knock it off.

The most recent order from Judge Todd includes words like "preposterous," "ludicrous," and "disingenuous" to describe UPOM's antics. I clerked for Judge Todd, and if I didn't have to work on Friday, I would drive up to Lewistown to watch him bench slap UPOM. It should be an interesting hearing.

 

[R.K.]

To anyone wondering, a handful of folks did file as intervenors (https://www.keepelkpublic.org/) and this case is going to have its first oral arguments this Friday at 9:00 A.M. in Lewistown before the Hon. Judge Gregory Todd over competing motions for summary judgment. UPOM buried the State in paperwork over discovery battles, and eventually Judge Todd got mad at UPOM and told them to knock it off.

The most recent order from Judge Todd includes words like "preposterous," "ludicrous," and "disingenuous" to describe UPOM's antics. I clerked for Judge Todd, and if I didn't have to work on Friday, I would drive up to Lewistown to watch him bench slap UPOM. It should be an interesting hearing.

Was there a meaningful update to this for those of us interested in following along?

 

[Forkyfinder]

Was there a meaningful update to this for those of us interested in following along?

Yes. Fondly hoping UPOM got judy'ied

 

[Elky Welky]

UPOM just lost.

More details forthcoming.

Most important language from the court's ruling granting defendant's motions for summary judgment:

In Montana property owners cannot claim that the State, through its
Game Damage Assistance program, is effectuating an unconstitutional taking
of private property because they have no vested right when: (a) they are not
actually trying to exclude wildlife from their property; and (b) when they do not
wish to avail themselves of the opportunities provided by the State to resolve
the issue of which they complain. Similarly, because property owners in
Montana have assumed the risk of damage to their property, and there is no
recourse for that damage against the State.

And further important language from the court denying plaintiffs' cross motion for summary judgement:

It is universally accepted that the most effective way to reduce elk
populations is to reduce anterless elk populations through hunting. FWP has
liberalized anterless licenses with the goal of reducing elk populations. But
licenses alone cannot reduce populations – the harvest of an elk must result.
Without harvest, the elk population is not reduced. The biggest impediment to
harvest is lack of public access to the elk. Because many hunters in Montana
cannot get to land where elk live, elk numbers are difficult to reduce. UPOM
members have a substantial number of elk on their property, and they have the
right to exclude the public and FWP cannot force public access on them. But
by failing to utilize existing programs and harvest opportunities and failing to
allow public hunting, UPOM has not prevailed on Count I.

 

[Nameless Range]

UPOM just lost.

More details forthcoming.

Most important language from the court's ruling granting defendant's motions for summary judgment:

In Montana property owners cannot claim that the State, through its
Game Damage Assistance program, is effectuating an unconstitutional taking
of private property because they have no vested right when: (a) they are not
actually trying to exclude wildlife from their property; and (b) when they do not
wish to avail themselves of the opportunities provided by the State to resolve
the issue of which they complain. Similarly, because property owners in
Montana have assumed the risk of damage to their property, and there is no
recourse for that damage against the State.

And further important language from the court denying plaintiffs' cross motion for summary judgement:

It is universally accepted that the most effective way to reduce elk
populations is to reduce anterless elk populations through hunting. FWP has
liberalized anterless licenses with the goal of reducing elk populations. But
licenses alone cannot reduce populations – the harvest of an elk must result.
Without harvest, the elk population is not reduced. The biggest impediment to
harvest is lack of public access to the elk. Because many hunters in Montana
cannot get to land where elk live, elk numbers are difficult to reduce. UPOM
members have a substantial number of elk on their property, and they have the
right to exclude the public and FWP cannot force public access on them. But
by failing to utilize existing programs and harvest opportunities and failing to
allow public hunting, UPOM has not prevailed on Count I.

Heck yeah. Thank you for sharing this.

 

[Gerald Martin]

Whoever that judge is for President 2024!

 

[Dave N]

It's a good start.