Paul, I'll try to answer all the questions, if I can remember them all...funny how you avoid them though. But I aint scared.
First off, there were no Endangered or Threatened species to worry about on the Snowcrest or Red Rock ranches that I know of. Thats probably why I never heard much about Mike Phillips. I worked more with Ted and his son Beau and the two Ranch Managers. Findley was hired just about the time I left for Wyoming.
As far as Ted liking wolves and liking them on his land, so what. Its his land, and he can work with Ed Bangs or anyone else to promote whatever he wants to, as long as he stays within the laws of the ESA and the laws of MT. I personally think its pretty cool to see a large landowner who isnt whimpering like a little school girl over the thought of having an endangered species or two on his land. In fact, he's bought property BECAUSE, there's endangered species on it, land that other wealthy individuals or corporations shy away from. He cooperates at great length with the MTFWP, BLM, USFWS, other landowners, etc. In fact, one of his corrals is open to anyone who is pushing their stock to Federal and State leases, and lots of people use it. I've never heard any of his immediate neighbors bitch about his management, I wouldnt either if I caught the "slop over" wildlife that he promotes on his property. I'd have no problem with him as a neighbor, and since I support fully private property rights, more power to Ted.
He provides public hunting opportunities, goes to extra expense and great length to support local economies...Alder, Dillon, etc.
I've also never heard Ted shove his beliefs on land management onto anyone. He sure as hell is entitled to his opinion and I've personally never seen a more well managed bunch of property, both for land health, and wildlife, as well as livestock.
So, morally and ethically, I have no problem saying I worked for him, but I didnt always agree with him...on lots of things and he wasnt afraid to be told he was wrong. But, if you challenge him on management, you better have your ducks in row, the guy isnt an absantee landowner, and he knows a lot more than I thought he would about wildlife, land management, etc.
On the bison...
Personally, I think there is a huge seperation between shooting an animal classified as "livestock" in a pen, than I do with an animal classified as "wildlife". That being said, it aint my bag, and I'd have no problem if it was halted. I also dont have a problem with bison shoots either. Kind of like shooting pheasants on a preserve, big deal if you smack pen-raised ditch parrots.
Yep, you're 100 percent correct on the bison subsidy that Ted gets. He was the largest recipient. He started a bison growers organization similar to the cattlemens association, etc. He also leases all the nearby leases that he can.
The difference is, and I've stated this several times...I'd gladly GIVE landowners leases for free if they just took care of them. Ted takes the same care of his State and Federal leases that he does his own lands...and it shows big-time. What I find the most outrageous, is subsidizing a welfare rancher to trash my public lands and leave 60% of them in poor condition. I dont mind paying for proper stewardship. Since I look out for the average public lands hunter, and not the rich bitch pay for all my hunts type, I think it makes total sense to keep my and your FEDERAL and STATE lands in the best shape they can be in to support as much wildlife as possible. You talk a nice line about "lost" hunting opportunities, I wonder how much opportunity we've all lost at the hands of poor management and overgrazing? I'd guess 60+ years worth, and I've had to pay for it the whole time. I know that 20-30-40 years ago it was no big deal, most ranchers would let you hunt their private land that was in much better shape, so big deal. But thats all changed today, and many private places I once hunted are now leased. As a result I find myself, along with many others, relying more and more on Federal and State lands for hunting opportunities. Since the trend is more and more like this all the time, I believe that its important to have the best quality habitat on public lands. But, thats just me. Others dont seem to have a problem with federal lands grazed to 1" stubble and not able to support a house sparrow, much less any game birds, big-game, etc.
I'll have to go back and see what questions I didnt answer.
Paul, as an aside...I've thought this stuff out, and my agenda is not to force ranchers off leases, force loggers out of the woods, etc. My agenda is really pretty simple, let all those resources be used if they dont damage the resource and as long as wildlife and the health of the land isnt compromised. I honestly dont think requiring our Federal and State lands to be left in good health is asking too much, I really dont.
<FONT COLOR="#800080" SIZE="1">[ 07-08-2003 20:44: Message edited by: BuzzH ]</font>
