Worsech Resurrects HB 505 in the Private Land/Public Wildlife Council

[Schaaf]

The first thing Director Worsech brings up to the PLPW Council last week was HB 505. His pitch starts at about 1:26:30.

It's back folks.

 

[brocksw]

"We have to be proud of who we are, we are the FWP, we have a long heritage of doing amazing work. Now, how do we get our landowners 10 bull tags and the rich guys 5 bonus points in 1/5th of the time...cause this idea looks good on paper!"

 

[OntarioHunter]

"We have to be proud of who we are, we are the FWP, we have a long heritage of doing amazing work. Now, how do we get our landowners 10 bull tags and the rich guys 5 bonus points in 1/5th of the time...cause this idea looks good on paper!"

My audio is poor. He actually said that? Sickening.

 

[brocksw]

My audio is poor. He actually said that? Sickening.

not verbatim, I'm cherry picking a little and being facetious. But essentially...

 

[SAJ-99]

Oh FFS! He claims this isn't 'Ranching for Wildlife'. Noooo, of course not. It is giving 10 tags to landowners for them to distribute as they see fit. Instead, that's a "creative idea". The telling part is that when he asks for comments all he gets is silence. That tells me either people are afraid to speak up, or they can tell he is full of BS and there is no point in discussing.

Thanks @Schaaf for keeping us updated on this stuff. Clearly this 505 stuff isn't going away. Have you heard of any groups trying to be proactive in coming up with alternative proposals. Ideally I would like Worsech to simply have a limited time in this office, but in the mean time, we need to have our own ideas. I am more than happy to help with some of the grunt work if necessary. I also haven't heard anything on the Elk Committee. He brought it up as needing their input, but I suspect it is being politicized as much as possible behind the scenes.

 

[Sytes]

Is it true? His comment that we've been doing the exact same thing with Landowner Sponsor tags for deer that last 20-25 years? (1:28:00+) They are only valid on that landowners property? "And it hasn't been an issue".

If I understand right... we don't / have not given 5 bonus points "on private land over objective" for past deer landowner sponsored tags.

Is this accurate? I oppose the bonus, greased palms bonus points however, if we've had precedence for deer... help me understand the difference between the two and why elk are being viewed differently from the opposition to HB505.
Also - he shared it removes the peoples ability to hunt bulls thus the exchange for bonus points? That accurate? Seems a stretch especially 5 points that become a preference for select people to build points whereas not available to all for our general pool of points.
"When we vetted it we tried to get all the groups together to let them know what was going to happen". Accurate? The word, "tried" has a twist if not the case.

Again, a few people get their panties in a wad when someone asks questions w/o slurping at the <choose side> kool-aid stand. Some need to clear their stomachs of the kool-aid mentality and realize open dialogue and honest discussion helps a stronger army. My questions do/does not mean, "you're with the other side"... it means I would like to understand.

Thanks.

 

[MTLabrador]

Is it true? His comment that we've been doing the exact same thing with Landowner Sponsor tags for deer that last 20-25 years? (1:28:00+) They are only valid on that landowners property? "And it hasn't been an issue".

If I understand right... we don't / have not given 5 bonus points "on private land over objective" for past deer landowner sponsored tags.

Is this accurate? I oppose the bonus, greased palms bonus points however, if we've had precedence for deer... help me understand the difference between the two and why elk are being viewed differently from the opposition to HB505.
Also - he shared it removes the peoples ability to hunt bulls thus the exchange for bonus points? That accurate? Seems a stretch especially 5 points that become a preference for select people to build points whereas not available to all for our general pool of points.
"When we vetted it we tried to get all the groups together to let them know what was going to happen". Accurate? The word, "tried" has a twist if not the case.

Again, a few people get their panties in a wad when someone asks questions w/o slurping at the <choose side> kool-aid stand. Some need to clear their stomachs of the kool-aid mentality and realize open dialogue and honest discussion helps a stronger army. My questions do/does not mean, "you're with the other side"... it means I would like to understand.

Thanks.

Landowners can sponsor two deer licenses, not five. The extra 5 bonus points scenario doesn’t happen for deer.

Not to speak for anyone else, but this is pretty blatant commercialization of elk. It’s not slurping kool aid for people to be seriously pissed off about this, and I can’t understand why more people aren’t up in arms over it.

 

[mtmiller]

"only problem with 505 was a lack of knowledge from the public"

What a tool.

 

[antlerradar]

Oh FFS! He claims this isn't 'Ranching for Wildlife'. Noooo, of course not. It is giving 10 tags to landowners for them to distribute as they see fit. Instead, that's a "creative idea". The telling part is that when he asks for comments all he gets is silence. That tells me either people are afraid to speak up, or they can tell he is full of BS and there is no point in discussing.

He is right about this not being "Ranching for Wildlife". This is worse. Ranching for wildlife in CO is giving tags for allowing a certain number hunters access. There are plenty of issues with ranching for wildlife but it is better than just giving out landowner tags.

 

[Sytes]

Landowners can sponsor two deer licenses, not five. The extra 5 bonus points scenario doesn’t happen for deer.

Not to speak for anyone else, but this is pretty blatant commercialization of elk. It’s not slurping kool aid for people to be seriously pissed off about this, and I can’t understand why more people aren’t up in arms over it.

I don't take you to be a wadded panty person. A few play that when really it's a matter of understanding.

See, you guys wonder wtf is up with peoe not up in arms about it. However, while @mtmiller comment relates to the other side... on the side that is not interested in this commercialized method... it doesn't seem to hold a unified voice that simplifies it for the average Joe/ Jane hunter in MT.

Thanks for the info. Though, if it's available for deer the past 25 years - if managed the same... 2 tags, etc. What would be the difference?

I haven’t / don't hear anything about the deer portion as adverse. I agree the bonus points commercialize it, imo... though based on objectives?
Reality from my view... 2 or 5 tags are not going to change objectives. So is this the main point?

This needs a unified position shared by whomever. I don't understand this shit. I follow by what I take as best objective numbers vs the tag along hype that may/may not be righteously founded. Ithink many follow w/o care to comprehend.

Glad we have this forum. The reason for my questions.

 

[tjones]

"only problem with 505 was a lack of knowledge from the public"

What a tool.

And more tool-ish everyday.

 

[MTLabrador]

I don't take you to be a wadded panty person.

I’m usually not thanks to merino undies and stretchy Sitka pants.

 

[SAJ-99]

I don't take you to be a wadded panty person. A few play that when really it's a matter of understanding.

See, you guys wonder wtf is up with peoe not up in arms about it. However, while @mtmiller comment relates to the other side... on the side that is not interested in this commercialized method... it doesn't seem to hold a unified voice that simplifies it for the average Joe/ Jane hunter in MT.

Thanks for the info. Though, if it's available for deer the past 25 years - if managed the same... 2 tags, etc. What would be the difference?

I haven’t / don't hear anything about the deer portion as adverse. I agree the bonus points commercialize it, imo... though based on objectives?
Reality from my view... 2 or 5 tags are not going to change objectives. So is this the main point?

This needs a unified position shared by whomever. I don't understand this shit. I follow by what I take as best objective numbers vs the tag along hype that may/may not be righteously founded. Ithink many follow w/o care to comprehend.

Glad we have this forum. The reason for my questions.

Deer and elk are not managed the same. Elk have population objectives, deer don't. The objectives are the core part of the problem. Elk numbers are over objective so politicians feel like they can do whatever they have to in order to get them down because some rancher in their district complained. But that isn't the what is really going on here. We could add a change that says you can only get the 10tags if you had a verified game damage complaint over the last 5 yrs and see what happens. Or make it only for resident landowners and exclude non-residents LOs. Let's see what the reaction is.

It's a complex problem and politicians don't like the fix so they come up with stuff that benefits certain groups over others. Those ideas come from a particular group of people with deep pockets.

 

[Sytes]

Wonder if a Legislative / Commission Sub Forum would work. If the Opening Post for a thread (i.e. MT HB 505) had a set of factual bullet points, a statement from a responsible organization representative, and the contact list - if that would help people understand. Ability to fact/back check bullets (i.e. share linked records that support the bullet point(s).

Have all the chats desired in Sportsman Issues, Public Lands, etc forums and if a person needs the details, they are present. a person inquiring can receive a link to the Legislative Sub Forum related to the topic so they can catch up to speed and ask questions related to bullet points / statement there.

This forum is pretty much the core location to engage public hunters, resident and non resident for whichever state.