Calling all (Sportsmen) Ranchers, and or Landowners!

[Nemont]

Nemont, with respect to your concern about "friends of Brian" profitting, he will soon be out of the Governor's chair. However, to think that the next one in that seat (R or D) will not function politically, would be naive on our part. I guess I just have to have some faith in the process since there are other members on the land board, are there not?

Since you appear to be "in the know" about the politics and pay-offs, it would help if you would step up to make your points where they could make a difference. Why were these "sweetheart deals" so thoroughly vetted, completed, and you were the only one aware of the political payoff? They seem questionable and newsworthy as you described them.

perhaps you should read before calling me a liar

http://mtstandard.com/news/local/article_273dc5dc-922b-11df-806f-001cc4c002e0.html

http://dnrc.mt.gov/LandBoard/Archive/2008/November/Minutes.pdf

The facts are that for less than the one day profits the state gave away in the Spotted Dog deal 5 times the number of acres could have been included in an easement. However Brian didn't like the Cornwells because one time they hosted Conrad Burns on their ranch for a fund raiser. That is just fact.

Having attended the meeting BS dominated the discussion, the vote and the outcome. I don't doubt the next guy or gal will be political but don't ask for carte blanche for state land if the only lands that matter have to be in Western Montana. That is the only side of the State BS cares about unless there is an oil or gas well that can be punched and tax flow to the state. That is just fact.
hunters lost access to a large piece of private lands along the Milk River and they didn't make a whimper but who cares it is only in North East Montana not in Western Montana.

I have zero faith in the process as I have seen it work up close and given that all the majority of land board members come from one party there is little ability to for it to gain faith on my part. The process is highly political and highly partisan and dominated by the current governor. The process won't change in the future so have faith if you wish but it matter little what biologist say, what local support says or what ever other input comes from the public. Been there done that and it won't matter if it makes sense or not as it matters who gets paid more that what gets bought or preserved.

Nemont

 

[belly-deep]

hunters lost access to a large piece of private lands along the Milk River and they didn't make a whimper but who cares it is only in North East Montana not in Western Montana.

Oh come on Nemont, all you do is piss and moan about all the 7 county plates that drive your way in the fall. You can't have it both ways man! Complain about the western hunters and then ask them to stick up for you?

 

[Nemont]

Oh come on Nemont, all you do is piss and moan about all the 7 county plates that drive your way in the fall. You can't have it both ways man! Complain about the western hunters and then ask them to stick up for you?

Find a quote where I did that and asked for anything from hunters in the western part of the state. I know how the game is played and just wait for when all you see is oil trucks then you will wish that some money had been spent on preservation east of Great Falls.

I didn't ask for anyone to stick up for anything

Nemont

 

[bjtc_brian]

brian, I ran into the same situation on a large BM area that included private, State, and BLM lands. The BLM officer explained that part of the deal in establishing the BM was the rules for that particular BM area. Nearby are separate public State and BLM lands which it was explained are open under the general regulations, as long as you can access by public road.

Since the BM area was such a large and good hunting area, the BM rules seemed reasonable. Actually, there was nothing that really limited my hunting, other than a reasonable several acre no-shoot zone around buildings.

I guess I will have to look into this some more. We came across a situation(same State, BLM and Private) where, according to the regulations the State land was regulated by the BM rules. Problem was that the BM was very restrictive, something like 2 hunters at a time and you had to schedule the visit weeks in advance. But, it didn't say anything if the State land was accessible without using private property. I do believe that it said nothing about BLM, meaning that they could make any of the rules on it accessibilty, I'm sure that has something to do between Feds and State land.

It is one of those Catch 22 moments. I like the BM, but is seems very wrong to me for a Private landowner to make the rules on State or Federal ground.

 

[bjtc_brian]

OK I'm comming Shoots. My thoughts are MtLion shot a big deer

I agree, and Mule Deer are one of my biggest loves!

I have to say, I started taking a yearly Eastern deer hunt a few years ago. And I have ran into both situations with the hunting. We have found a decent honey hole, but search out some new area every year. Because, who knows when your honey hole will dry up(meaning someone found it too). We hi the breaks one year, and the area we were in sucked. Watched numerous people driving, and shooting at anything that moved. But headed off to the area we hunted the year before and was successful agiain. Last year, searched some more new area, pretty good area for numbers and decent animals, just not quite what we were looking for. So, my experience with the Breaks...horrible. Bad numbers, small bucks when we found one. But, I have heard people swear it is one of the best deer hunting areas ever.

 

[Big Shooter]

Mtlion.....hey numb nuts..! What I was trying to say is that in eastern Montana the terrain is a lot more mild....as in not as rough as your country. What this means is that it is more accessible over here than it is over there. I really could care less that you hunt over here or where you hunt over here. It was a boost to your ego actually that your ground is way rougher over there compared to here and you are still able to bust a big Tom Turkey every year. I really wasn't wondering if you had family anywhere in Montana....in case you were wondering, but I hope they have a great Easter. Oh....I know that the hunting in eastern Montana is "freakin" awesome...you don't have to tell me about it. I don't have to worry about all of my big rancher buddies letting me on to hunt. I can shoot 4 1/2 year old deer like that whenever. I like the next age group up personally. But to each is own I guess.

 

[Straight Arrow]

Nemont, I did not question the truth of your information at all. I merely suggested that since you seemed to have the inside scoop, you should have exposed the political BS "scandal."

However, after reading the article and refreshing memory, it is apparent that RY Timber and Rock Creek Cattle had already set a deal. The price the State paid was the appraised value. Although you and I would have rather seen some further price reduction through negotiation ... still that's the typical way prices are set. That's the way of American capitalism. You damn Rock Creek Cattle for making a profit and the Governor for heavily pushing it. I applaud Rock Creek Cattle for cutting a good deal and the State for acquiring Spotted Dog WMA. The process was fully vetted and our elected overseers of the money and land got a legitimate appraisal and purchased the land for us.

It was highly political, but not criminal (sometimes a fine line). I encourage you to continue to be that vigilant and to write to news media and other public venues when you are aware of something questionable like that. Thank-you for your perspective and for the information.

 

[mtlion]

BS the whole point of that post was to show that there is good hunting to be had on all of those mismanaged public lands out there. 4 1/2 year old sure that would be my guess. Good enough for me at least last season and I'm way happy he's on my wall and in my freezer. I bet most folks on here would pull trigger in a heartbeat.

The point I was trying to make is you act like public land is a gameless mismanaged moonscape overrun with peasant hunters. You try to make it sound like only those who own large pieces of land know what's best for it, better than the ruffian peasants, better than the management agencies. Well I've seen state land with some of the finest hunting in the state and I've seen large pieces of private ground run into dirt by private landowners. That was the point.

 

[Straight Arrow]

"I like the BM, but is seems very wrong to me for a Private landowner to make the rules on State or Federal ground."

Theoretically, I agree with you. However, the reality is that access to landlocked state and federal land is part of the deal, so the landowner sets the rules for the whole BM area. I am okay with the trade-off, since otherwise access would be limited to only public road accessible lands ... likely crowded with other hunters and quickly void of wildlife.

 

[bjtc_brian]

"I like the BM, but is seems very wrong to me for a Private landowner to make the rules on State or Federal ground."

Theoretically, I agree with you. However, the reality is that access to landlocked state and federal land is part of the deal, so the landowner sets the rules for the whole BM area. I am okay with the trade-off, since otherwise access would be limited to only public road accessible lands ... likely crowded with other hunters and quickly void of wildlife.

I do agree. Seems wrong, but I will also take the trade off any day. Always better to have more area for hunters to hunt!

 

[bjtc_brian]

By the way, I didn't think there were any Mule Deer left in the Root. Didn't even apply this year for fear of drawing it and no deer around(my luck completely). Are you guys holding out info?

 

[mtmiller]

I like the BM, but is seems very wrong to me for a Private landowner to make the rules on State or Federal ground.

Theoretically, I agree with you. However, the reality is that access to landlocked state and federal land is part of the deal, so the landowner sets the rules for the whole BM area. I am okay with the trade-off, since otherwise access would be limited to only public road accessible lands ... likely crowded with other hunters and quickly void of wildlife.

I think you guys are confusing "access" and "rules".

Private landowners enrolled in BM may regulate access to said lands, but don't make rules on public lands.

 

[belly-deep]

I think you guys are confusing "access" and "rules".

Private landowners enrolled in BM may regulate access to said lands, but don't make rules on public lands.

I was under the impression that you could not do things such as overnight camping on state land in BMAs unless the landowner allowed such. Am I wrong on that?

 

[Straight Arrow]

mtmiller, no confusion. BMAs have different rules (ie: camping, sign-in, game retrieval, no-shoot zones, travel restrictions, permission method, number of hunters, etc.) that are typically specified by the land owner. Follow the rules and you get "access."

 

[mtmiller]

mtmiller, no confusion. BMAs have different rules (ie: camping, sign-in, game retrieval, no-shoot zones, travel restrictions, permission method, number of hunters, etc.) that are typically specified by the land owner. Follow the rules and you get "access."

Private landowners don't dictate camping, game retrieval or travel restrictions on BLM lands.

 

[Straight Arrow]

The discussion concerned Block Management Areas, not separate BLM lands.

 

[shoots-straight]

OK I'm comming Shoots. My thoughts are MtLion shot a big deer

Is that what I asked you to comment on? My mind doesn't work very well sometimes , but I could have sworn, this thread had other questions.

These are the real issues to me:


1).Do you feel we have enough elk in the state of Montana? Should HB 42 that became law in 2003 apply to areas with lots of winter range. The Missouri Breaks northern region had over 4,000 elk in 2005 or 6. Now that herd is half that, and headed even lower. There's no wolves there, so you can't blame them. The objective levels are set at 1700-2000 there. Right now, they (MTFW&P's) have to keep the pedal down on the gas and kill more elk. Even though that region has good winter range.

2).In your opinion should we increase elk numbers, leave the plan alone, or go in another direction?

3).Do you fellas understand what "Ranching For Wildlife" is? If yes then do you support it?

4).Do you feel the state owns enough land, and that there should be no net gain in said land?

5).Do you fellas believe in our stream access laws? How do you feel about fisherman walking up the creeks and rivers that flow through your lands?

6)/Should a land owner be able to lock off a road that was historically used as public access?

These are going to be a few of the big issues that we as "Sportsman" will be needing to fix. I, like many of you would like to put some of these things to rest.

You have an opinion, so lets share it.

 

[belly-deep]

Yeah, he dodged your questions pretty good. Maybe sweetnectar should become a politician?

 

[Big Shooter]

Mtlion, point well taken. I did not mean to come across that way as I have seen that first hand myself. Some private run right into the ground and on that note there is some public over here that is good too. But.....(there is always a but), I will use the Jordan country for a great example. There is a ton of public ground around here.....and it is in a bad way. Too many hunters, too many bad winters in a row, and.....too many landowners that don't manage any better than the FWP.

I still think that if they would "micro-manage" more in our state they could fix a lot of the problems with deer, elk and damn sure antelope. Point being....maybe we need to point to the FWP before we point totally to ranchers that graze public ground. Just a thought.

NeMont....I will get the inside scoop tomorrow on the Cornwell Ranch deal as a Cornwell lives with me this spring. Not implying that you don't know what you are talking about.

 

[shoots-straight]

[QUOTEI still think that if they would "micro-manage" more in our state they could fix a lot of the problems with deer, elk and damn sure antelope. Point being....maybe we need to point to the FWP before we point totally to ranchers that graze public ground. Just a thought.
][/QUOTE]

Ding Ding Ding Ding, we have a winner. This is exactly one of the things that the Dept told us they couldn't nor wouldn't do anymore.

Every area is a little different, and has different circumstances. I think that "micro management" worked fine. Micro was better than the system we have now.


We had A-7 elk tags, and felt that it was the way to go in the Root, still do. This structure let kids, woman, and old guys that don't like eating bone, to get a tag easier, and have a better chance at less disturbed elk. They also got a couple of weeks in January to hit the migration herd. It was a great set up. Kept those East Fork bull to cow ratios in the 20's post season. The Dept said things needed simplified, to much stuff to decipher. It's way easier now. Just read the regs. LOL.