Yeti

Bill would require landowners make up 4 of 7 FW Commission seats

4ohSick

Member
Joined
Aug 28, 2020
Messages
23
Location
Helena, MT
Nemont, you make a valid point. This is perhaps something that will be regretted at a later date if it goes to 7 members. I like the idea of each Region having a rep., as only ppl living in their region have a firm grasp on the problems in that area. Being a little worried about a Dem. Gov. appointing APR or Turner Enterprises on commission is something worthy of thought. Just put a Dem Gov back in office and we could see just what he brings up. There are unintended consequences to every action.

At the outset I like the idea of 4 landowners on commission. There are to many in the MWF camp trying to force access and push punitive measures on the people who are housing and feeding "our wildlife". Landowners need an incentive to allow access, not be "forced to open up", but need to "want to".

walk, you are correct, if landowners with 640 could sell bull tags the quality would be gone in about 2 weeks. The plus to that is nobody would want to pay to shoot a spike after the good bulls are in the freezer, so unintended consequences may open up land to the public.

My opinion is this, we can't legislate our way out of the conundrum, and FWP has heretofore refused to work with landowners to get out of the conundrum. How about after the season a few concerned sportsmen and this commission sit down and come up with solutions that are not pitting landowners against sportsmen against outfitters against husbands and wives??

Randy has already called me and we both agree that going about it the same old way is insanity, which is doing the same thing over and over expecting a different result.

Both sides must give, as neither side is 100% right, the opposition must remember and realize that it is the landowners who hold the key to this thing. Like it or not, they are the ones feeding and housing "our wildlife" 365 days a year, burden or privilege is for each landowner to decide. The landowner must incentivized and worked with if we(sportsmen) are going to get anywhere.
A lot of what you say makes a lot of sense, but absolutely nothing about the way MOGA and wealthy landowners like Galt are approaching this legislative session inspires any confidence in their desire to sit down with concerned sportsmen to come up with solutions. And something about the fleets of SUV's hazing elk from leaving private land gives an impression that they choose to feed and house our wildlife. I know that's painting with a broad brush and describes the minority of landowners, not the majority, but if they're the ones making the rules it doesn't matter if all the others are willing to work with sportsmen.
 

BuzzH

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 9, 2001
Messages
12,454
Location
Laramie, WY
Not sure why APR, TEI, NC Representatives would be any less appropriate on the commission than farmer Bob...

IME, all manage wildlife and understand wildlife wayyyyyyyyyy better than 90% of the landowners in Montana and are all more open to public access than farmer Bob as well. Most are all more qualified in being part of working groups, problem solving, land acquisition, land management, engaged in more and complex land/wildlife management.

Seems to me, those are the EXACT type of people that would be desirable for a commission seat.

Maybe it is a good idea to support this legislation and when the pendulum slams left, get them on the commission and make some much needed changes that actually benefit wildlife instead of special interests.
 

TOGIE

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 13, 2017
Messages
993
Location
CO
Seems like this should also have been posted in the Biden/guns thread.

when i realized it would be funny (and relevant) to post on hunt talk it was more of "huh, now which of the 6 relevant threads should I post this in?" or "should I wait for the 6 more new threads that will pop up that it will be relevant in?"

while it could be used for either side of the aisle and could be used to describe many many different groups of any persuasion, i decided it would be most fun to use it to poke fun at outfitters 😁
 

brocksw

Member
Joined
Jan 5, 2018
Messages
64
Nemont, you make a valid point. This is perhaps something that will be regretted at a later date if it goes to 7 members. I like the idea of each Region having a rep., as only ppl living in their region have a firm grasp on the problems in that area. Being a little worried about a Dem. Gov. appointing APR or Turner Enterprises on commission is something worthy of thought. Just put a Dem Gov back in office and we could see just what he brings up. There are unintended consequences to every action.

At the outset I like the idea of 4 landowners on commission. There are to many in the MWF camp trying to force access and push punitive measures on the people who are housing and feeding "our wildlife". Landowners need an incentive to allow access, not be "forced to open up", but need to "want to".

walk, you are correct, if landowners with 640 could sell bull tags the quality would be gone in about 2 weeks. The plus to that is nobody would want to pay to shoot a spike after the good bulls are in the freezer, so unintended consequences may open up land to the public.

My opinion is this, we can't legislate our way out of the conundrum, and FWP has heretofore refused to work with landowners to get out of the conundrum. How about after the season a few concerned sportsmen and this commission sit down and come up with solutions that are not pitting landowners against sportsmen against outfitters against husbands and wives??

Randy has already called me and we both agree that going about it the same old way is insanity, which is doing the same thing over and over expecting a different result.

Both sides must give, as neither side is 100% right, the opposition must remember and realize that it is the landowners who hold the key to this thing. Like it or not, they are the ones feeding and housing "our wildlife" 365 days a year, burden or privilege is for each landowner to decide. The landowner must incentivized and worked with if we(sportsmen) are going to get anywhere.

Out of curiosity, could you provide any links to current or previous bills, either passed or failed, where the public was forcing all private land owners to sell their private land to the USFS or BLM? Or one where they submitted legislation forcing all private land to be open to hunting by law(posting is illegal)? Or where they were guaranteeing tags to certain segments of the public not including landowners/outfitters? Or any bills where any segment of the public got unlimited bull tags? Or any bill that would allow regular members of the public who successfully drew a tag, to sell it?

I would agree, it will be best if both sides come together.

365 days a year might be a stretch...can we settle on,"Sometimes, more at certain times a year than others and more in certain places than others, the public's wildlife eats and sleep on my land"?
 
Last edited:

Gerald Martin

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 3, 2009
Messages
5,210
I agree that landowner concerns need to be addressed in a different way than it is currently.
Much of the conflict is not between public land hunters and landowners.
Most of the conflict is between landowners who have different social tolerances for elk.
Elk and public hunters are caught in the middle.
Landowner A likes elk for whatever reason. His neighbor, landowner B doesn’t. There’s lots of elk on Landowner A’s property and they come over and eat B’s hay or grass.
Landowner B complains about it.
FWP issues lots of cow tags and implements shoulder seasons. Elk on public land and accessible price get hammered.
Landowner A doesn’t change the amount of access he allows to pressure elk off his property. He still has lots of elk. They still go over and eat B’s hay.
Public hunters don’t have any elk where they are allowed to hunt.
B is mad. Hunters are mad.

Solutions offered look like “Same stupidity, different day.”
 

Nameless Range

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 6, 2013
Messages
3,683
Location
Western Montana
The landowners in the Devil's Kitchen working group were able to sit down and reach agreements many years ago.
They probably are more prevalent than I am aware, but are Landowner Working Groups a thing across Montana, and do they discuss things like the issues they are having with elk? And no I am not talking about UPOM. :)
 

BRI

Active member
Joined
Sep 30, 2005
Messages
431
Location
Anduhconduh, Montana
Nick, why further attempt to create strife and rift?

Why not embrace 4 landowners on the commission and hope things might get better for Montana resident hunters.

The last 26 years were certainly a failure to manage deer/elk for the public land hunter. Maybe things will get better under the new director and a new commission.

That's akin to putting 4 loaded bullets in the revolver, playing russian roulette HOPING to get lucky.
 

Spartan_Eric

New member
Joined
Jan 12, 2016
Messages
20
Location
Billings, MT
I agree that landowner concerns need to be addressed in a different way than it is currently.
Much of the conflict is not between public land hunters and landowners.
Most of the conflict is between landowners who have different social tolerances for elk.
Elk and public hunters are caught in the middle.
Landowner A likes elk for whatever reason. His neighbor, landowner B doesn’t. There’s lots of elk on Landowner A’s property and they come over and eat B’s hay or grass.
Landowner B complains about it.
FWP issues lots of cow tags and implements shoulder seasons. Elk on public land and accessible price get hammered.
Landowner A doesn’t change the amount of access he allows to pressure elk off his property. He still has lots of elk. They still go over and eat B’s hay.
Public hunters don’t have any elk where they are allowed to hunt.
B is mad. Hunters are mad.

Solutions offered look like “Same stupidity, different day.”
I think this is the perfect synopsis of the large ranch elk harboring dynamics at play across all of Montana presently, and Landowner A often wants access to more elk licenses/permits to monetize them.
 

Nemont

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 22, 2003
Messages
4,267
Location
Glasgow, Montana
Not sure why APR, TEI, NC Representatives would be any less appropriate on the commission than farmer Bob...

IME, all manage wildlife and understand wildlife wayyyyyyyyyy better than 90% of the landowners in Montana and are all more open to public access than farmer Bob as well. Most are all more qualified in being part of working groups, problem solving, land acquisition, land management, engaged in more and complex land/wildlife management.

Seems to me, those are the EXACT type of people that would be desirable for a commission seat.

Maybe it is a good idea to support this legislation and when the pendulum slams left, get them on the commission and make some much needed changes that actually benefit wildlife instead of special interests.
Buzz,

I just pointed out the unintended consequences of getting what you wish for.

I make no judgement as to whether APR, TEI or NC would be "good" or "bad" on the commission. What I am asking is would the current crop of people supporting and advocating for a majority of seats to be reserved for landowners be okay with such landowners as the APR, TEI, NC etc, who most likely reflect different views of wildlife, hunting, land use, even Agriculture activities.

Also if this is law, it is very difficult to change given the way laws are made and amended. I don't think the supporters have even attempted to look over the horizon to see what could happen.

Nemont
 

Big Fin

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 27, 2000
Messages
14,975
Location
Bozeman, MT
I'm going to Helena today to shoot parts for our video series of Civics for Hunters. I will be testifying on this bill. I found out that permission must be granted from the Chairman to film my testimony, a request I made yesterday. If that can't be obtained in time, we will record screen captures of the video stream feed.

Hope to nab a few of the Senators for additional interviews of how to be more effective and where the opportunities exist to change the course of legislation as it works it was way through the legislature and to the Governor.

Pretty dry stuff, but ads we have seen the last two month, in many states, it is part of the landscape we must accept and learn to operate in.
 

Eric Albus

Active member
Joined
May 24, 2012
Messages
653
brock, There is no doubt that FWP has used punitive measures to attempt gaining access. Ask any landowner who has dealt with them. I have personally "been there done that" with FWP. If you want me to cite example let me know, may take a few days as I am not spending much time in the house right now. In Reg. 7 a biologist told a person whom I know in regards to deer/antelope, "the population gets high enough it'll force those landowners to open up". So its there and it is real.

Like NEMONT has laid out, the unintended consequences of this bill will one day bite back.
 

neffa3

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 17, 2015
Messages
5,164
Location
Wenatchee
In Reg. 7 a biologist told a person whom I know in regards to deer/antelope, "the population gets high enough it'll force those landowners to open up". So its there and it is real.
What exactly is wrong with this? That phrase implies the landowner wants fewer deer and antelope but doesn't allow public access. I have zero empathy in that case. If they can't be bothered to use the current solutions offered to them, then what are we really talking about? It ain't just too many deer and antelope.
 

OntarioHunter

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 11, 2020
Messages
1,024
brock, There is no doubt that FWP has used punitive measures to attempt gaining access. Ask any landowner who has dealt with them. I have personally "been there done that" with FWP. If you want me to cite example let me know, may take a few days as I am not spending much time in the house right now. In Reg. 7 a biologist told a person whom I know in regards to deer/antelope, "the population gets high enough it'll force those landowners to open up". So its there and it is real.

Like NEMONT has laid out, the unintended consequences of this bill will one day bite back.
I'm sorry, how is that a threat? It's a simple observation. Landowner stops public hunting and deer and antelope overrun it. Then he opens it up to public hunting to get numbers down and hay in the fields again. Seems like a logical deduction.
 
Joined
Oct 12, 2015
Messages
30
Location
Manhattan, MT
brock, There is no doubt that FWP has used punitive measures to attempt gaining access. Ask any landowner who has dealt with them. I have personally "been there done that" with FWP. If you want me to cite example let me know, may take a few days as I am not spending much time in the house right now. In Reg. 7 a biologist told a person whom I know in regards to deer/antelope, "the population gets high enough it'll force those landowners to open up". So its there and it is real.

Like NEMONT has laid out, the unintended consequences of this bill will one day bite back.
I have no doubt that conversation was had and many others like it around the state. Qualification for game damage assistance is entirely predicated on allowing public access for hunting. I have no issues with that. Landowners who don’t qualify for public $$$ for game damage are just receiving it from another source; all those high dollar clients MOGA‘s trying to guarantee you.
 
SITKA Gear

Forum statistics

Threads
92,716
Messages
1,357,505
Members
29,010
Latest member
oliveradam
Top