Left in the West - Recent Comments

Soon, Rob

Carla Augustad — Mon, 04 Feb 2013 06:00:37 GMT

There is much competition for my time...

You are cruel, Carla.

Rob Kailey — Fri, 01 Feb 2013 02:15:51 GMT

More please. I am waiting with eager antici ......

pation.

RE: Climate Report from National Climate Assessment and Development Advisory Committee

Matthew Koehler — Sat, 12 Jan 2013 18:55:50 GMT

A 60-person Federal Advisory Committee (The "National Climate Assessment and Development Advisory Committee" or NCADAC) has overseen the development of this draft climate report. Download the entire report here: http://ncadac.globalchange.gov/

Opening snip from Committee's Letter to the American People:

"Climate change, once considered an issue for a distant future, has moved firmly into the present. This report of the National Climate Assessment and Development Advisory Committee concludes that the evidence for a change climate has strengthened considerably since the last National Climate Assessment report, written in 2009. Many more impacts of human-caused climate change have now been observed."

Bill McKibben on #idlenomore & #keystonexl connection

Matthew Koehler — Fri, 11 Jan 2013 16:32:43 GMT

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

Snip:

"Eighteen months ago, when we at the climate campaign 350.org started organizing against the Keystone XL Pipeline, the very first allies we came across were from the Indigenous Environmental Network -- people like Tom Goldtooth and Clayton Thomas-Muller. They'd been working for years to alert people to the scale of the devastation in Alberta's tar sands belt, where native lands had been wrecked and poisoned by the immense scale of the push to mine "the dirtiest energy on earth." And they quickly introduced me to many more -- heroes like Melina Laboucan-Massimo, a member of the Cree Nation who was traveling the world explaining exactly what was going on."

More on wolverines....

Matthew Koehler — Fri, 11 Jan 2013 16:29:24 GMT

http://www.wildlandscpr.org/bl...

Above you'll find a good blog post from Adam Rissien, with Wildlands CPR, about the latest developments with wolverine trapping in Montana, the pending ESA listing and how that may impact motorized recreation on public lands Montana.

LAST WORD! Or not ...

Rob Kailey — Fri, 11 Jan 2013 02:17:09 GMT

I've tried to have adult conversations with you, Matthew. You are superior to all, just as you argued before, just as you argue here. You really aren't, and you really don't know every damned thing. Let's see how many of those chopper counted Elk calves survive the winter. The counts in the Bitterroot have been wrong for several years. Biologists don't seem to get that warming winters can be as detrimental to herd survival as very cold ones.

What you think are "important issues to all of us", really aren't. I've tried more times than I can even count anymore to express that to you. But you JUST - DON'T - BELIEVE - IT.

You have your issues, and others, myself included, have ours. That is the only point you and I really disagree on. You want what you want, and I want what I want. You want wilderness study areas to become wilderness. I want a representative who defies the ideals of the NDAA, the MCA and the Patriot acts, one and two. I think that the Keystone pipe might actually create jobs, and won't be obstructed by liberal complaint. None of that means I am a bad person, but you hold to the idea that disagreement is an establishment of moral character. That's what you do. I've tried to point that out, but you take it as insult. As Blue Oyster Cult wrote so eloquently, "If they really think we're the devil, then let's send them to hell."

So, yes. Lets raise it up a notch. But don't think for a minute that I will accept your access to 'authority' as a denial of my knowledge. It's really not. It is not a denial of my desire, either. Posting lengthy articles from others doesn't prove anything "top to bottom", save that you don't understand copyright law. Should anyone study our exchanges "top to bottom" they will see not only my personal approach, but yours as well. Your claim being that you know more and should be acknowledged as a superior in the discussion, uhhh, no. You have the discussion you want with little understanding of the actual discussion taking place.

If either of us are to get what we desire, then we need to work together to inspire and coerce political will. We've shown a very poor ability to do so. That's not your fault, but it sure as hell isn't mine either. The PC thing is to say that it's both of ours. I'm not a big believer in fault or blame. I am a big believer in accomplishing things.

Do you actually think you hold our species more dear than I do?

Yes, this is getting tiring.

Matthew Koehler — Fri, 11 Jan 2013 01:28:43 GMT

I thought I made a clear point in RE: hunting numbers being on the decline by 10,000 from 2008 to 2010 in Montana, and since we've only had two seasons of hunting since then, the weekly MT FWP hunter check station numbers have shown declining hunters through the check stations. Look it up, buttercup.

Why don't you just call the MT FWP biologist who works in that area and she can walk you through all FWP knows about that specific elk herd in HD 310?

She unloaded a bunch of data, not only for during the past year or so, but going back. Population trends of elk, deer, wolves, griz, etc.

If you called her, she'd tell you that one of the biggest problems with that elk herd was the very low cow-calve recruitment/ratio. This was also what FWP observed with the herds up the West Fork of the Bitterroot.

All across the state MT FWP does some fairly extensive population surveys of elk and when you have a plane or a chopper and it's June in Montana and all the cows and month-old calves are grazing and bedding down in giant meadows it ain't that hard to count them.

True, you may not count every elk in HD 310, but they can see if a herd of 75 cows-calves has 5 calves, or 25 calves. So you don't have to be jerk about it Rob with your response above, the FWP biologist said, yes, that the HD 310 elk herd appears to be on the re-bound (due to this much better cow/calve ratio). Obviously one year doesn't make a trend. Tonight's storm could be the start of record cold and snows that bring more hardship to the herd.

I get that we don't mesh real well. What I don't get is why we can't have more adult-like discussions about some of these issues? I'm willing to keep it on the issues and leave all the personal attacks, insults, name-calling aside. I've done my share, but honestly, I think if anyone views these discussions from top to bottom they will see clearly that you take a certain personal approach and then I just respond in kind.

Let's raise it up a notch...these are important issues to all of us, impacting the future of this country and our species as a whole.

Anyway, enjoy the snowstorm.

Once again, you deliberately miss the point.

Rob Kailey — Fri, 11 Jan 2013 01:03:27 GMT

We're done here, Kohler. You claim that a study ended in early 2010 is accurate about number of hunters 2 years later (based on an easily verifiable number of licenses), yet the number of elk in a specific district in 2012 is supposedly accurate based on estimates. You really don't understand how ridiculous you look, and still think you can poison others. Good luck, kitten.

Good luck getting political support for your very political agendas. Otherwise, suck up your fail. You deserve no less.

Don't be sexist Kailey...

Matthew Koehler — Fri, 11 Jan 2013 00:22:17 GMT

The MTFWP biologist is a woman.

I tried to find out some info about what the heck you were talking about on-line and couldn't so I gave the MT FWP biologist for Region 3 a call. And still, you find a way to mock/insult me for doing that? Jeez, dude.

The rest of your post is just some bizarre Kailey-go-round where you insist on taking things out of context, claiming I said or believe things that I don't, criticizing me for not working on your pet issues and then build straw-people up and then tearing those straw-people down with your amazing strength and power. You Da Man!

Furthermore, you continue to not understand the context of some of these land management decisions, such as claiming, "Thanks to Bush, those areas you worship as "Wilderness Study Areas" have already been opened up to motorized traffic in the Pioneers."

First off, why the mocking of "those areas you worship as "WSA?" I think the majority of Montana's love these WSA's too. And hate to, once again, get technical on you Kailey, but Bush did no such thing as you claim. Show me the Bush executive order, law he signed or anything that proves "Bush opened up USA's in the Pioneers to motorized traffic."

The motorized traffic slowly started coming into those WSA's for decades, certainly during the 80s and through a number of different presidential administrations. In my view, it was the Forest Service who turned a blind eye to the stuff happening in these WSA's that wasn't supposed to be happening based on the law passed in the late 70's by Senator Metcalf. And you know what? It took a lawsuit from some of the groups I listed above to reign that in.

I assume you respect a well-established sportsmen group such as Montana Wildlife Federation, right? Why don't you take some of your complaints and observations to them and see how far you get. Like I said, the MT FWP biologist scoffed at the notion that there are no public lands to hunt elk around the Bozeman area and that Bozeman hunters had to drive to Chouteu to have any success. Here's an idea Rob. Next year why don't you put in for the HD 310 elk permit. They give out an unlimited number and the best part is, if you want to hunt elk in other districts, you still can with your general elk tag. So what's the beef? Put in for the damn tag in March and you will get it 100%.

Regarding hunter numbers in Montana, I turned you onto the latest study by the US Fish and Wildlife Service, which I'm sure was conducted jointly with MT FTP to get the Montana specific numbers. If you read any of the weekly hunting updates from MT FTP published in papers across the state this past Oct/Nov you'd have noticed that the MTFWP were saying that hunter numbers were way done. The check station records, and license purchases prove this point. But hey, you won't check into any of that because, oh yeah, you don't do requests...you're King Kailey and getting the facts straight is beneath you.

Your misperceptions amuse me greatly, Koehler.

Rob Kailey — Thu, 10 Jan 2013 23:51:10 GMT

You found out that everything I said was exactly to the facts. But it was "vague information" until you got confirmation of your bias from MTFWP, an organization you have vilified before when their facts disagree with your intent. That the 310 Elk population is "rebounding" is dubious given that there is only one year of study available. What, they had a population boom and nobody bothered to publish it? But you heard it directly from a guy who has every reason to lie to you, and that's good enough for you. Hardly surprising. You aren't supporting hunters or elk populations; you are trying to win a specious argument on the Internets.

You blithely admit that you and your favored organizations do not care about hunting access, and then dismiss it as if it were not the very point I was making. Let me be more direct: What have you done for me, lately, Kohler? Nothing? Yet you demand support for your causes. Uh, no. I don't trust you, and except for loudly proclaiming your authority, you've given me no reason to. (That would be fostering the political will you seem so unconcerned about.)

I'm glad to know that as of 3 years ago, Montana hunters have reduced in number. Does that invalidate my claim? Oh that's right, you don't care.

Koehler, there are few drainages left to hunt in the Gallatin. Little Bear Creek, what was formerly known as Squaw creek, and a whole bunch of areas that are accessible if one wishes to hike for miles. Some of us can no longer do so. Maybe I should apply for one of those special use disability permits. Then I can road hunt with the others who have expanded the program by 600% in the last several years. Hell, then I can hunt the west Bridger front. Cool to be me.

Thanks to Bush, those areas you worship as "Wilderness Study Areas" have already been opened up to motorized traffic in the Pioneers. The FS keeps trying to shut them down but anybody with a 'passkey' (bolt cutters) gets in anyway. That has been going on for years. You know it. You somehow think that blocking people with laws will keep them from doing what your laws will not prevent. Opening up logging trails in previously closed areas does indeed increase the public land for those of us who aren't quite so assholish. But then again, you don't care about such things.

Info on HD 310 and MT FWP's elk permit system

Matthew Koehler — Thu, 10 Jan 2013 17:23:18 GMT

I spent about an hour last night trying to find information on-line about this North Fork of Taylor Creek situation Kailey referenced in a previous comment, when he mentioned, "I just don't remember your favored organizations fighting the closures on the north fork of Taylor creek to all but special access permit hunting. That's some prime elk ground there, and now, if you have the right documents, you can hunt it from the road. If not, sorry Charly."

After not finding one thing about it on-line after an hour of searching, I decided to place a phone call this morning to a MT FWP Region 3 wildlife biologist based in Bozeman. Here's what I learned:

I was lucky enough to speak with the actual MTFWP biologist who proposed the elk hunting closure of Montana Hunting District 310, so she had a wealth of information about this specific area and MT FWP's management.

According to the FWP biologist, HD 310 used to have a wintering elk population of approx 1,500. Some of these elk migrate from Yellowstone NP, some migrate for other parts of Madison Range, but most of the elk in that winter in that area are resident elk. A few years ago, elk numbers started to decline, especially cafe recruitment. MT FWP identified the issue as: predation from wolves, grizzly bears and some mtn lion and some tough winter conditions with deep snows.

So in order the bring back the elk population in HD 310, MT FWP proposed to close the are to elk hunting. That proposal was meet with some residence from some local hunters and few "sportsmen's" groups. I asked the biologist if Montana Wildlife Federation was involved and was told no.

The biologist told me that once they put out the proposed closure to public comment, they came up with the current management plan for HD 310 that's in place today. The biologist told me that it's incorrect to claim the area is "closed" to elk hunting. It's not closed. According to the MT FWP hunting regulations, there are an unlimited number of elk permits for HD 310 that allow hunters to shoot brow-tined bull elk. True, if you didn't put in early (by March 15) for the HD 310 elk permit, you can't just go into HD 310 and hunt elk. The biologist told me that technically if every single Montana resident hunter put in for the HD 310 elk permit they would get it. The biologist also told me that deer hunting in HD 310 doesn't have any of these regulations, so anyone with a general deer tag can go deer hunting in HD 310.

The biologist said that their on-going monitoring and research of the elk population in HD 310 shows that the elk population is rebounding as a direct result of the permit system MT FWP put in place. When I asked the biologist if the permit system in place for HD 310 meant that a Bozeman area elk hunter would have to drive to the Rocky Mountain Front to successfully harvest an elk, the biologist laughed heartily and was basically like, "WTF are you talking about?"

I will say that having learned some facts about the situation I do support the elk hunting permit system that MT FWP put in place for HD 310. Any conservationists and elk hunter worth their salt realizes that population trends for big game animals fluctuate over the years due to many factors. I successfully hunted elk in the Wilderness up the Bitterroot for a number of years. Two or three years ago MT FWP dramatically scaled back elk hunting in those hunting districts as well due to declining elk populations, and I didn't complain about it, but took it in stride and as a great opportunity to get out an explore some of the other remarkable public lands/Wilderness hunting opportunities that Montana affords.

So there you have it. Kailey might not "do requests" when he tosses out vague information that other readers have honest questions about, but, perhaps to a fault, I'm a generally curious person, so I wanted to get back with the information I learned directly from the MT FWP biologist who works in HD 310. Thanks.

RE: A few of your points

Matthew Koehler — Thu, 10 Jan 2013 01:23:54 GMT

RE: Your comment, "As for being a public land hunter in Montana, we are one of the few states where hunting demand is actually growing, but yet the amount of acreage accessible is shrinking."

Technically, Rob, according to a new survey from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, hunter numbers in Montana declined 10,000 between 2008 - 2010 and between 2009 - 2011 angler numbers feel 35,000.

Here's the story about the survey from last week: http://helenair.com/news/local...

Also, I honestly don't know much about the North Fork Taylor Creek issue. I'll look into it. I'm not even sure of the land ownership or designation at this point. The organizations I work with don't fight for hunter access to public lands per se. Instead, we basically fight to ensure public lands are managed according to science, law and that fish and wildlife species have the habitat they require to survive. Anyway, perhaps there are other issues in that area besides just hunter access. Like I said, I'd don't know anything about the Taylor Creek example, but perhaps there were other conservation-related issues at play? Or private property issues?

Honestly, I have a real hard time listening to Montana elk and deer hunters complain (ie "the situation is not a good one) that we don't have it real good. Seriously, name me another state in the lower-48 where you'd rather be a resident big game hunter when you factor in public lands, cost of tags to residents, 5 week general season (which nobody else has), etc? Besides, not everyone hunts, and non-hunting Montanans and Americans have a right to enjoy their public lands during the fall too.

RE: Your sarcasm about driving to Choteau or the Pioneers. Seem to me that plenty of hunters that live in Bozeman don't need to drive all the way to Choteau or all the way to the West Pioneers to go hunting. My lord, you are surrounded by the public lands, mountains, forests, Wilderness and grasslands there within 60 miles of Bozeman and you can't find a place to hunt, Kailey?

Finally, RE: your comment, "Tester wants to increase the amount of public land"...what do you mean by that? Tester's FJRA doesn't increase the amount of public lands by one acre. The bill only impacts public lands in the first place. This is example of where it's difficult, at least by the words you use, to have a debate about some of these public lands issues because the issue is somewhat technical and complication to people who don't work on it everyday. No big deal, just like you wouldn't want me doing your job, as I'm terrible at anything tech related.

Yes, the bill does protect about 600,000 as Wilderness. That's a good step. It also opens up previously protected Wilderness Study Areas to development, logging and motorized recreation. It creates some pernament motorized recreation areas within current WSA's or inventoried roadless areas. It designates over 1,000,000 acres of inventoried roadless areas as "timber suitable and open to harvest." But hey, you never much want to debate what's actually in the bill.

Not so much in the Gallatin anymore.

Rob Kailey — Thu, 10 Jan 2013 00:04:10 GMT

Sorry, I just don't remember your favored organizations fighting the closures on the north fork of Taylor creek to all but special access permit hunting. That's some prime elk ground there, and now, if you have the right documents, you can hunt it from the road. If not, sorry Charly.

I never accused you of being "anti-hunting access", Koehler. I just don't think you care about it, which is what I stated fairly directly. I think, for all the world, that you care about your hunting access. Just not anyone elses.

As for being a public land hunter in Montana, we are one of the few states where hunting demand is actually growing, but yet the amount of acreage accessible is shrinking. Being happy that it's still better than Colorado or Vermont is pretty unsatisfying. I agree with the "few other places" comment. That doesn't mean the situation is a good one.

But hey, I can always use gas to drive to the Choteau area. Lots of land to hunt up there. Or maybe the Pioneers, where Tester wants to increase the amount of public land. It's only a bit of fuel, and money.

~heh~

Rob Kailey — Wed, 09 Jan 2013 23:23:01 GMT

I've never mocked your conservation efforts, Matthew. I've tried to point out how they can be counter-productive and received nothing but mockery from you. You, on the other hand, I mock at will. You are not a 'good person' just because you attempt to do what you think are 'good things'.

Since you are the authority of all things Forest, if you have an argument to make about the results of the Millie Fire, which obviously burned up much of the habitat you claimed by lawsuit you wanted to 'protect', then go ahead and make it. I'm not jumping through hoops for you. As I've told many trolls before, I don't do requests.

So now I'm "anti-hunting access," Rob?

Matthew Koehler — Wed, 09 Jan 2013 15:40:18 GMT

Please expound on that one, as you've stumped me yet again with your ability to know what I'm supposedly thinking or supposedly know what I'm about.

For the record, I believe - due in no small part of the tens of millions of acres of public lands in Montana - that us Montana hunters enjoy some of the best public lands access in the nation, outside of Alaska. Sure there are some issues with access to isolated parcels of public lands. Sure some large private landowners don't let the general public hunt on their land, or have opted out of FWP's Block Management program. However, taken in total there are simply very few other places in America where being a public land hunter is better than in Montana. Do you not agree with that?

Just for the record, Kailey

Matthew Koehler — Wed, 09 Jan 2013 15:35:28 GMT

It doesn't do you any good to mock and insult me, our conservation efforts. I down rated your comment as "troll" because it was a "troll" comment. Get it? Like I said below, if you want to believe we've accomplished nothing for public lands protection go right ahead. Oh, BTW, I'm still waiting for you to share with us the science/research that lead you to your statements about grizzly bears and wildfire highlighted below.

Hmmm,

Rob Kailey — Wed, 09 Jan 2013 00:17:45 GMT

And how are things progressive in Sweetgrass County?

For the record, FC, it might have been kinda cool if you'd have actually posted a link to the article instead of just your comment to it. This would be that link.

Welsh posits that others must 'learn' to vote against base self-interest, while also positing that they can't do so, anymore than those we elect can be moral people. What you laud as a critique of a 'phenomenon' does very little good at actually helping anybody, save those who feel superior to the process already. It helps that small faction of folk feel more superior. HoooRay!

Welsh's lament is that the addicts to our system will be happier if they reject it, and if only they could ... He offers no evidence at all for such, but certainly assumes it. The only people who claim greater happiness from kicking off addiction are those who've done it. Do you have any evidence of those addicted claiming greater happiness if they weren't addicted? Many will, because it is the expectation of them, yet the choices we make are predicted on the irrational idea that we will be happier with what we are not doing? Seriously?

What you are applauding is a moral from a narrow view, that what we reject is somehow 'inferior' to our own personal choices. Uh, Nope. Not so much. That is a 'progressive' view that tells people that doing what you want, which will make you happy, is what they are to be concerned about. That is no different than the enslavement that people might feel to capitalism as they chase it. It is still the happiness of the other, but never the one from who it is demanded.

If Kohler gave one salient crap about my hunting access, I might actually take him seriously. He doesn't. He goes out of his way to tell me how much less I am than he is. Because, of course, I am irrationally driven by Welsh's view that I can't decide what I want for the greater good, but somehow, Kohler can. Somehow, child of privilege FC, you think you can. No. Neither of you can, nor do I think either of you smart enough (or Walsh) to decide my interest for me. Thanks for trying, but no.

Just for the record, Matthew

Rob Kailey — Tue, 08 Jan 2013 23:48:32 GMT

It doesn't do you any good to down rate my comments. It simply shows you to be as petulant as I've been claiming all along. You will notice that I haven't been down rating yours, nor deleting them. Just as I've shown time and again, this is your personal beef with Tester, this website and me writ large for all to see.

But do keep trying ...

Thank you for chimming in.....

Matthew Koehler — Mon, 07 Jan 2013 19:42:54 GMT

Carla. I'd certainly enjoy seeing more of the info you dig up about this issue. And thank you for providing the link to that excellent essay, Feral Cat.

Fascinating, thank you Matt

Feral Cat — Sat, 05 Jan 2013 18:03:13 GMT

The kind of people that voters send to Washington are not interested in changing the status quo and may not be the best and brightest, but they certainly rank as the most cunning. Ian Welsh has a very good essay "To Know What To Do is Not Enough" on this phenomenon at http://www.ianwelsh.net/to-kno...