Bulls for Billionaires - MT EQC Meeting today 1:30 PM

[TheTone]

A $1.08 per acre per year is a tough pill to swallow, about equal to what ranchers pay for BLM land, seems obtuse and incoherent

please tell me one good reason why y’all want control of private property

They don’t want control of private property; they just don’t want people getting a bull tag outside the normal processes simply because they own land and have political connections

 

[DFS]

They can lease to outfitters or other individuals and make much more money. Don’t worry Texas we aren’t trying to take your deeded ground and landowners are doing just fine.

If Wilkes get in a pinch from getting overrun with elk they should squeak out ok.

 

[The Hedgehog]

Do what an FWP biologist told my dad when we were dealing with and elk problem… the biologist told him, and I quote, “plant your crop elsewhere “

My mom used to really complain about the whitetails eating in her garden and rubbing the trees she planted around the house. Those were tough times.

 

[Eric Albus]

respectfully Eric, out everything I put out there, you want a background check on a dude who said something you disagree with?

Nothing about that white sheet with ways to fix the program, nothing about previous hunting seasons where more people were involved, or why Billionaires need bull tags to let kids with cancer hunt their kingdoms?

respectfully yes… I would like transparency on the “dude”. He did not necessarily say anything I disagree with, just for transparencies sake.

 

[MTLabrador]

please tell me one good reason why y’all want control of private property

No one wants control over private property. Elk are not private property.

Holy shit I need a beer.

 

[DFS]

respectfully yes… I would like transparency on the “dude”. He did not necessarily say anything I disagree with, just for transparencies sake.

How about transparency from the director.

 

[Eric Albus]

My mom used to really complain about the whitetails eating in her garden and rubbing the trees she planted around the house. Those were tough times.

When you have 50-80 head of elk running thru a field of organic grain, then tell me feel free to tell me about it.

 

[The Hedgehog]

respectfully yes… I would like transparency on the “dude”. He did not necessarily say anything I disagree with, just for transparencies sake.

You want transparency on that!!? Yet the FWP director gets up there over and over and over and spews about how this is about elk objective management that he’s required to address by law?!?

Hit that douchebag in the back of the head hard enough and no telling how many dicks will pop out of his mouth?

 

[The Hedgehog]

When you have 50-80 head of elk running thru a field of organic grain, then tell me feel free to tell me about it.

1st world problems Eric. Cry me a god damn river.

 

[DFS]

Required by law to address an “over objective” area that has had on average 2 landowner complaints per year. Gtfoh What’s going on behind the scenes we need transparency.

 

[SummitsCalling]

When you have 50-80 head of elk running thru a field of organic grain, then tell me feel free to tell me about it.

Put up a fence if the crop is worth so much, problem solved.

 

[antlerradar]

The same biologists who manage the public land in Montana?

Got a point there.

 

[antlerradar]

You are either belligerent or totally ignorant.

When does the “public” show up on a landowners doorstep? Day before season opens.

I bet you would welcome me in for supper if I knocked on the door at 5:45?? Oh, if my steak(that’s what I’d be expecting) wasn’t cooked perfectly bitched about it, came back next night you’d welcome me in again.

@Greenhorn is a very gracious and appreciative guest when hunting.

Sadly though there is a lot of truth in what you say for many hunters. Likely has closed down more ranches than all the billionaires combined.

 

[antlerradar]

Is it better nobody gets to hunt than 454 as is??

I think it may be. Too often people enter the negotiations with the attitude that any access is better than none. They have lost the negotiation before it even started.

I have nothing against concept behind 454 or Ranching for wildlife. The devil is in the details. Too sportsman friendly and no landowners will sign up. Too landowner friendly and there is sure to be a other issues.
For starters, too landowner friendly is sure to build distrust from sportsman for the negotiators. In this case FWP. Getting that trust back will not come easy.
Second: Too landowner friendly is sure to perpetuate the stereotype that all landowners are greedy and care little about the wildlife unless there is money to be made.
Third: Too landowner friendly is sure to bring on a citizens initiative to repeal the program. I don't think it is a quiescence that I-161 happen after some outfitters started using the outfitter tags to insure that wealthy out of state landowners got tags.
For programs like 454 to stand the test of time there needs to be a balance.

Not that it matters as I prefer to be my own man, but my rancher pedigree is one few in the state can match.

 

[Ben Lamb]

When you have 50-80 head of elk running thru a field of organic grain, then tell me feel free to tell me about it.

I'm with Eric on this.

The decisions made in wildlife mgt have a direct impact on people's business. I'm all about helping solve those problems.

I'm not about appeasing rich dudes who are butthurt they can't buy their way to the front of the line.

 

[DFS]

I'm with Eric on this.

The decisions made in wildlife mgt have a direct impact on people's business. I'm all about helping solve those problems.

I'm not about appeasing rich dudes who are butthurt they can't buy their way to the front of the line.

Yep many good ranchers out there not from Texas. Montana is full of a lot of good people.

 

[The Hedgehog]

I'm with Eric on this.

The decisions made in wildlife mgt have a direct impact on people's business. I'm all about helping solve those problems.

I'm not about appeasing rich dudes who are butthurt they can't buy their way to the front of the line.

No doubt it’s a valid issue. For many.

But consider the source of the comment is a private land outfitter who’s genious plan is non resident 5 day seasons, is a MOGA rep, and takes celebrity hunters out to shoot deer along his river bottoms for a price.

Who asks Eric for hunting permission these days? He’s a damn outfitter - guys can look at your website to see how to get access. Book a week.
M

 

[300stw]

When you have 50-80 head of elk running thru a field of organic grain, then tell me feel free to tell me about it.

ive seen hundreds of crop damage complaints that have been paid to farmers, id imagine if them elk ruined 100,s of bushells of grain, it was paid for, one way or another,
when the neighbors 300 heifers run thru the crop, how do you recover the loss?

why isnt any landowner asking for more cow tags to control all the damn elk damage,
why are they insistent on more bull tags?

how does killing 10 or 20 bulls on a huge ranch reduce the damage from elk,,, dam gophers eat as much in a year,

 

[DFS]

No doubt it’s a valid issue. For many.

But consider the source of the comment is a private land outfitter who’s genious plan is non resident 5 day seasons, is a MOGA rep, and takes celebrity hunters out to shoot deer along his river bottoms for a price.

Who asks Eric for hunting permission these days? He’s a damn outfitter - guys can look at your website to see how to get access. Book a week.
M

I find it funny to ask for transparency, when there is no transparency from the director. Not sure we need it though his goal is to get transferable landowner tags. Easy to see. They have thrown as many tags out as possible and it comes down to bulls.

 

[SAJ-99]

please tell me one good reason why y’all want control of private property

Whoa. Talk about obtuse. Where did you get that idea? Dems like this is about everyone having to play by the same rule versus two different sets of rules.