ProPublica: In MT, Dark Money Helped Democrats Hold a Key Senate Seat

Noooo! (0.00 / 0)

That can't be true!  Why, that would mean, Ermahgerd, Jon Tester is a politician!  That is, a re-elected politician you can do nothing about.

Give it a rest, Koehler.  The Frontline doc, which I've watched several times, pointed to the rather probably illegal actions of the WTP/ATP in campaign finance.  ProPubica engages in the same sad attempt at moral equivalence that every rational person is rejecting, save you.  Your personal beef with Jon Tester is well displayed and clearly understood.  It is also something you can do absolutely nothing about, save post whiny little screeds like this.  You don't seem to care one whit about "dark money".  You just have an issue with Tester.  Sorry.  The majority of Montanans don't.

---

by: Rob Kailey @ Thu Jan 03, 2013 at 00:49:42 AM UTC

Yeeesss! (0.00 / 0)

Give it a rest Kailey, this isn't about your petty personal problems, this is about DEMOCRACY and the future of this country and our elections.

You may recall from the Frontline documentary that Montanans from all stripes and walks of life are appalled by this massive infusion of secret, dark money...no matter who's behind it or where it comes from.

It appears as if it's actually you, Kailey, who doesn't seem to care one whit about secret "dark money"....so long as it comes from secret Dem sources and is used to defeat the GOP. Again, this about the future of DEMOCRACY in America.

Also, hate to burst your bubble, but the "majority of Montanans" actually voted against Senator Tester. If only we had instant run-off elections, eh?

---

by: Matthew Koehler @ Thu Jan 03, 2013 at 18:09:41 PM UTC

Alright, Mr. Nitpick (0.00 / 0)

The majority of Montanans did not vote for Jon Tester, but you are way out on a wire to claim that they voted against him.  They simply voted for another guy.  We don't have instant run-off elections, so I guess you should just suck it up that you don't get what you want, loser.

Frankly it's funny as hell that you claim it's about my personal problems when I didn't post anything at all.  You did.  I'm just laughing at you, because you think anyone cares about your personal problems.  DEMOCRACY says that Jon Tester is our Senator.  Get used to it, cupcake.

And no, I don't care about "secret dark money" as long it doesn't break the law.  You do know what that is, right?  The law?  DEMOCRACY is about the law, you remember that, right?  Apparently not.  If you don't like the law, extremist, then change it.  Quit demanding that I or anyone care about your butthurt.

---

by: Rob Kailey @ Fri Jan 04, 2013 at 00:58:49 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Alright, Mrs. Cupcake (0.00 / 0)

I'll respond in kind, using your same mocking words.

You are way out on your own private wire when you claim to all of us very loud and clear:

"No, I don't care about 'secret dark money' as long it doesn't break the law."

Fact is, the vast majority of Montanans, and the vast majority of Americans are way out in front of you on that issue, loser.  We shall see how it all plays out, cupcake, especially when foreign businessmen, or foreign military contractors, start dumping unlimited, secret dark money into our elections next cycle, and the cycle after that, and that....

Good luck defending your interesting position with the rest of the progressive community. Talk about butthurt, cupcake.

---

by: Matthew Koehler @ Fri Jan 04, 2013 at 14:54:01 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Sexist much? (0.00 / 0)

Ya'see Kohler, this why you lose.  You spend so much effort defining people who don't agree with you as 'the enemy' that you can't see friendlies anywhere.  That is why your particular brand of 'progressivism' is being left in the dust by most liberals,independents, moderates, libertarians and Democrats.  You are an extremist who doesn't bother to think before spewing.  You have a personal problem you really ought to deal with.

Not caring about super-secret dark-evil money doesn't mean a thing if the law allows for such.  If those are the rules of the game, then we should all play by the rules, especially if it elects people who might help change those rules.  But you, rather stupidly,  think that kvetching about it on a website, blaming everyone else, and accusing allies of being complicit with evil means you are doing something.  No, you're not.  You are whining on a website.  The point should be to change the fricking law, which, no, the vast majority of anybody is not ahead of me concerning.  DEMOCRACY is about the law, you remember that, right?  It sure as hell isn't about the butthurt of Matthew Cupcake.

If you are so goddamned moral that you have the power, then change the law.  Without the rest of us, you aren't.  I don't think you want to.  I think you just want to be a special little snowflake lording your own issues over everyone else.  You are my Progressive HERO, Matthew!  (/sarcasm)

---

by: Rob Kailey @ Fri Jan 04, 2013 at 22:58:49 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I'm sorry Kailey.... (0.00 / 0)

...that I'm just not quite as proficient at the art of sophomoric name calling as you. I have given your juvenile name-calling ways a try, and it just proves that I'm no good at it...as now I'm sexist.

The only solace I have is that I'm standing at lease 801 yards away from you Rob, as I heard somewhere that you are quite the shot, and your loads don't drop, cupcake.

---

by: Matthew Koehler @ Fri Jan 04, 2013 at 23:12:51 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Don't call me Mrs. ... (0.00 / 0)

and you won't obviously be stupidly sexist.  It's pretty simple when you think about it, not that I believe you ever will.

Don't fret, Koehler.  There's many things you aren't very good at.  You aren't good at defending wolves against control by trap and bullet.  You aren't good at defending grizzly and bobcat habitat from fire so intense that the Forest Service has to rehabilitate the ground itself.  You didn't seem to care at all about Bozeman's water supply, so you really weren't good at caring about your fellow peeps in Montana.  You aren't good at sabotaging politicians running for reelection who you are butt-hurt over concerning the outcome.  You aren't good at enforcing your authority over those who disagree with you.  Frankly, that's a lot of stuff you really aren't very good at.

But you just keep embracing the lies that give you solace as regards me.  I'm so happy you feel better.  (/sarcasm)  

---

by: Rob Kailey @ Sat Jan 05, 2013 at 00:18:12 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Like I said.... (0.00 / 0)

I'm just glad I'm standing (at least) 801 yards away from you.  

Besides, it's sort of weird that one minute you're claiming someone is so awful at everything they do...and then the next minute you expect this person to have power over Mother Nature.  Losers have no power over Ma Nature, cupcake.

Anyway....I'm sure you've done much in life to protect actual groves of ancient, old-growth forests, or roadless wildlands, or wildlife habitat or ???? Yep, I'm pretty sure you've done that Kailey.  

---

by: Matthew Koehler @ Sat Jan 05, 2013 at 00:33:32 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Hmm, (0.00 / 1)

And you did?

Either you weren't any bit more good at it than I have been, or your methods are truly screwed up.  Your choice, of course.

---

by: Rob Kailey @ Sat Jan 05, 2013 at 00:50:52 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Just for the record, Matthew (0.00 / 0)

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 ...

---

by: Rob Kailey @ Tue Jan 08, 2013 at 23:48:32 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Just for the record, Kailey (0.00 / 0)

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.  

---

by: Matthew Koehler @ Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 15:35:28 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

~heh~ (0.00 / 0)

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.

---

by: Rob Kailey @ Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 23:23:01 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Also, not to get all technical on you, Kailey.... (0.00 / 0)

But do you have evidence (like a scientific paper or research study) which verifies:

1) your claim that grizzly bear and bobcat habitat burned "from fire so intense that the Forest Service had to rehabilitate the ground itself;" and 2) the inference you are making, that intense fires in the fire-dependent forests/grasslands of the northern Rockies are somehow such a great threat to these species, seems pretty clear.

I mean, Kailey, if you're going to write stuff to insult me in your own special way...and mock or discredit the public lands/wildlife conservation work of myself and many others have done over the past few decades, let's have all the info clearly laid out on the table.

If you want to think organizations such as WildWest Institute, Ecology Center, Native Forest Network, Alliance for Wild Rockies, Center for Biological Diversity, Friends of the Bitterroot, Friends of the Wild Swan, Swan View Coalition, Big Wild, Friends of the Clearwater, etc haven't accomplished anything positive in the world of public land policy/law/research in regards to logging, watershed restoration, endangered species, regulations and rules such as NEPA/NFMA/Roadless Area Conservation Rule, old-growth protection, defensible space around community, old logging road removal/remediation, etc then go right ahead and think it.  Sure, we've made plenty of mistakes while either working or volunteering as part of this effort. But that's how it goes.  

---

by: Matthew Koehler @ Sat Jan 05, 2013 at 01:03:51 AM UTC

Rob, since you brought up the Bozeman Watershed Logging Project.... (0.00 / 0)

...these documents might be interesting to folks.  At the link below, you can see photos from the project area, read a copy of the lawsuit and legal issues and also see internal documents, such as one from the Forest Service's own hydrologist.

Since King Kailey proclaimed, "You didn't seem to care at all about Bozeman's water supply, so you really weren't good at caring about your fellow peeps in Montana".....I figured people out to at least be able to look at some of the actual documents. Thanks.

https://ncfp.wordpress.com/201...

---

by: Matthew Koehler @ Sat Jan 05, 2013 at 01:13:45 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Woah! (0.00 / 0)

Hi guys,

I know there is some bad blood between you, but please take a deep breath and pull up a chair.

First of all, MTNPR's Sally Mauck was the first to bring the story to my attention a couple of weeks ago-I was planning to write about it myself, because if Somebody cared enough to make sure Sally knew it then everybody probably knew it.  Apparently not.

However, I finally read what Matt posted today, it described Hilltop Solutions---I was looking into them last August trying to figure out where the League of Conservation Voters could have been spending eighty thousand dollars a month, I couldn't find it, nobody that I asked saw anything worth that kind of money happening, either.

Cowgirl had something else about Hilltop on her blog, I think that I will put it all in one post because I believe that there are some powerful forces working to put our Senator in some very slippery places, and that our remaining democracy will best be served if we face it calmly.

peace out, okay?

---

by: Carla Augustad @ Sat Jan 05, 2013 at 05:15:13 AM UTC

Fascinating, thank you Matt (0.00 / 0)

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...

---

by: Feral Cat @ Sat Jan 05, 2013 at 18:03:13 PM UTC

Thank you for chimming in..... (0.00 / 0)

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.  

---

by: Matthew Koehler @ Mon Jan 07, 2013 at 19:42:54 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Hmmm, (0.00 / 0)

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.

---

by: Rob Kailey @ Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 00:17:45 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

So now I'm "anti-hunting access," Rob? (0.00 / 0)

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?  

---

by: Matthew Koehler @ Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 15:40:18 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Not so much in the Gallatin anymore. (0.00 / 0)

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.

---

by: Rob Kailey @ Thu Jan 10, 2013 at 00:04:10 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

RE: A few of your points (0.00 / 0)

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.

---

by: Matthew Koehler @ Thu Jan 10, 2013 at 01:23:54 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Info on HD 310 and MT FWP's elk permit system (0.00 / 0)

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.

---

by: Matthew Koehler @ Thu Jan 10, 2013 at 17:23:18 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Your misperceptions amuse me greatly, Koehler. (0.00 / 0)

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.    

---

by: Rob Kailey @ Thu Jan 10, 2013 at 23:51:10 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Don't be sexist Kailey... (0.00 / 0)

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.

---

by: Matthew Koehler @ Fri Jan 11, 2013 at 00:22:17 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Once again, you deliberately miss the point. (0.00 / 0)

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.

---

by: Rob Kailey @ Fri Jan 11, 2013 at 01:03:27 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Yes, this is getting tiring. (0.00 / 0)

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.

---

by: Matthew Koehler @ Fri Jan 11, 2013 at 01:28:43 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

LAST WORD! Or not ... (0.00 / 0)

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?

---

by: Rob Kailey @ Fri Jan 11, 2013 at 02:17:09 AM UTC

[ Parent ]