Congressman Pearce calls for selling of Public Lands

[Straight Arrow]

Nemont, you have a point about the state acting rashly and prior to all concerns being openly vetted and all parties having the chance to fully express. However, the concerns were analyzed by the admittedly limited stakeholder groups. Now the concerns are being more widely and seriously considered ... albeit after some litigation also.

But I also lose respect (even for the ranchers' legitimate concerns) when they decide their only recourse is to pee on hunters, some of whom are their neighbors who might otherwise support their cause.

 

[Nemont]

However, the concerns were analyzed by the admittedly limited stakeholder groups. Now the concerns are being more widely and seriously considered ... albeit after some litigation also.

.

It is hard to put the tooth paste back into the tube

Nemont

 

[Straight Arrow]

Just rinse it down the drain, get over it, get on with life. Get another tube. You have to take positive action when it comes to dental health.

Locking up is negative action ... whether it be mouths or gates.

 

[Nemont]

Negative actions may be all they feel they have left to do, it left a bad taste in their mouth that rinsing doesn't cure.

Nemont

 

[Eric Albus]

Wow, some of you really do not get it do you? Landowners are not mad at the hunting public...how clueless are you, really? Landowners are pissed at FWP...their only recourse against FWP is close down land...as Jeff stated...lots of Block Mangement ranches pulled out, and of the 52 in the paper that closed down I can not find any that were leased out....most were knock on the door and ask to hunt places(those still exisit here in Eastern Mt(believe it or not).

As to whomever asked the question about pressure on grazing allocations, just ask the folks who used to run cattle on the CMR. Those allocations have been reduced to nothing(or close to it) on the north side of the lake, starting 25 years ago...hmmm, wonder what they were prepping for?
Steve Page of the Page/Whitham Cattle Co. stated that the reason he sold now was that his ranch still had a value. He felt that if he waited 5-10 years that the APR would have purchased the lands around him and been able to buy his ranch for what they thought it was worth... I know Steve, he is a sharp business man....and I agree w/ him, he made the right decision about selling. When the APR gets done and you are the last guy standing his ground on your 40 acres w/ his mule, who is going to buy you out?....the only game left in town will be the APF/APR...so you take what they offer.

mtmiller, your perception is that my interests are not the same as yours. My(and all the other outfitters w/ whom I consort) are interested in seeing big game flourish, diverse age structure within a population, and trying to figure out how to best manage mule deer...elk and whitetail are easy in comparision. Those of us here in the East are very passionate about how wildlife is taken care of. Many of us who outfit also run cattle ranches, and want to see the same stewardship of the wildlife that we see w/ most successful cattle ranches...I do not know you or anything about you, but you still think we "can't be worked with" or that you have nothing in common with us?

 

[Straight Arrow]

" ... hmmm, wonder what they were prepping for?"
" ... want to see the same stewardship of the wildlife that we see w/ most successful cattle ranches..."

'Hope I am misinterpreting the phrases which reflect conspiracy theory and commercialization of wildlife, but it seems you are on a totally different page than most Montana hunters I know.

They, you, and I all are Montanans, passionate about seeing wildlife flourish, whether we reside east, west, north, or south. It appears the big difference is in the reasons for being passionate.

 

[Eric Albus]

Just got my copy of the Glasgow Courier, there are now 63 ranches closed to hunting in Valley/Phillips counties. Maybe we are all "conspiracy theorists". I will spell it out again for the dolts out there....those landowners are not mad at the sportsmen, and are not taking out their frustrations on the sportsmen....this is the only recourse they feel they have against FWP....get it?

We are all fearful for our way of life, one that has been passed down for many generations, and a way of life we hope to be able to pass on to the next generation. Call us conspiracy theorists if you like, but if it quacks like a duck and looks like a bison.

straightarrow, you really miss the mark. "wanting to see the same stewardship of wildlife that we see w/ most ranches"....good grief, can you interpet nothing? or are you just attempting to twist and prevert anything I say? What guys like myself want to see is the wildlife cared for in the same manner that I or any other good rancher does his/her livestock, how could you take anything but that from that statement? Right now on lands accessable to the public here in Eastern MT I see everything but good stewardship. Killing everything that moves is not caring for the resource. People will not police themselves, so the Dept. must step up and manage deer/elk in a conscientious manner.

Like most folks you have your own perception, and think it is reality. Those of us landowners/outfitters are passionate because we care about the wildlife, and do not want to see it raped and pillaged.

 

[CabinFever]

Just got my copy of the Glasgow Courier, there are now 63 ranches closed to hunting in Valley/Phillips counties. Maybe we are all "conspiracy theorists". I will spell it out again for the dolts out there....those landowners are not mad at the sportsmen, and are not taking out their frustrations on the sportsmen....this is the only recourse they feel they have against FWP....get it?

.

I don't get it.

 

[JoseCuervo]

Just got my copy of the Glasgow Courier, there are now 63 ranches closed to hunting in Valley/Phillips counties. Maybe we are all "conspiracy theorists". I will spell it out again for the dolts out there....those landowners are not mad at the sportsmen, and are not taking out their frustrations on the sportsmen....this is the only recourse they feel they have against FWP....get it?

Hopefully we can all work together to keep Welfare Ranchers from letting their cattle get on to My Public Lands.

I'll gladly give up my rights to knock on some rancher's door and beg for hunting if the Welfare Ranchers will keep their range maggots and cattle of My Public Lands.

 

[Eric Albus]

Are you being facetious? I do not want to insult you if you are making an attempt at humor...but if you really don't understand I will attempt an explanation.

 

[Eric Albus]

jose, truely you are pathetic.

 

[Nemont]

Subject: FW: Thank you for writing





Mr. White,



Thank you for contacting me. First, let me assure you Ducks Unlimited has
always held a deep and fundamental respect for the rights of property owners
in our country. Our organization proudly works in partnership with private
landowners to improve waterfowl habitat all across the continent.
Conserving, restoring, and managing essential breeding, migration, and
wintering habitats for North America's waterfowl is our mission.



It appears that some confusion has arisen regarding a position Ducks
Unlimited took two years. The appeal encouraging our supporters to "Take
Action for the Prairies" was posted on September 3, 2010. It is outdated, no
longer relevant, and should have been removed from our website a long time
ago.



When the appeal was posted on our website, "Treasured Landscapes" included a
proposal to purchase voluntary wetland and grassland easements from willing
sellers in the Prairie Pothole Region. Since then, "Treasured Landscapes"
has evolved into "America's Great Outdoors." Voluntary easement acquisitions
in the Prairie Pothole Region of Montana are not part of the current
America's Great Outdoors proposal, and Ducks Unlimited has no official
position regarding the two America's Great Outdoors projects now under
consideration in the state.



Thank you again for writing. I hope this helps clarify the situation.



Dale Hall

CEO, Ducks Unlimited



From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2012 2:44 PM
To: Kellis Moss
Subject: WEB CONTACT: Governmental Affairs



A new email has been submitted via the Web Site contact form.


Date: 10/9/2012 1:44:29 PM
Subject: DU support of Treasured Landscape
From: [email protected]

Message:

Dear Dale Hall, I recently saw your call for your members to support the
Treasured Landscape. Many landowners in Eastern Montana are fighting for
their very survival in opposing the Treasured Landscape National Monument
and your support for this 2.5 million acre land grab is disturbing to say
the least. Numerous landowners are closing their land to hunting because of
the attacks on private property by state and federal agencies and duck
hunters wishing to hunt on private property will be the casualty as they
will not be allowed on millions of acres of private property to hunt because
of your support of the Treasured Landscape. Please take this into
consideration as you encourage your members to attack private property
ownership in Montana. No hunting signs are going up all across Montana and
you can read about this on the Northern Ag. Network. I would say one thing
to you. Your organization can either oppose private property owners or you
can support us in our fight to save our ranches, farms and private property.
The choice is yours. Sincerely, Kerry White Citizens for Balanced Use


---------------------------------------------

 

[Straight Arrow]

'Guess I am a dolt. I don't get it either ... but then again my limited education and lack of "perception" about such highly technical terms as "raped and pillaged" wildlife puts me at a disadvantage.

Back to the initial issue, it would be good to foster a genuine concern for better wildlife management and for better care of the public lands of which you speak, but also to support keeping those lands public. There are better means to get your point across to the feds or the state than pissing on Montana hunters and sportsmen in an attempt to get FWP's attention.

Rather than being fearful of the APF boogeman destroying a longstanding way of life, is it beneath you to figure out how you can adapt and gain from this neighboring endeavor? Apparently some of the neighbors have done just that.

One concern in the back of my mind involves the potential sale of public lands with hard-earned wildlife habitat.to bring down the national debt. Many, many of us Montanans, as well as others across North America, have been working diligently since the '80s on behalf of another nonprofit special interest organization which raises tons of money on behalf of wildlife (just like APF) to buy out private landowners, mostly ranchers, to acquire habitat. Once the ranches are purchased, guess what .... the habitat land is turned over to the Federal Government! Do you consider RMEF a conspirator in this massive land grab conspiracy and attack on a traditional Montana way of life?

I submit to you that Montana sportsmen traditionally have been and sincerely want to be highly supportive of ag producers who are good stewards of their land on behalf of their livelihood and wildlife.
But actions in recent years, mostly by landowners, have severely injured that relationship.

 

[CabinFever]

Are you being facetious? I do not want to insult you if you are making an attempt at humor...but if you really don't understand I will attempt an explanation.

No I wasn't being facetious, I truly don't get how you can call closing hunting access not taking it out on the sportsmen.

 

[theat]

Over the last ten years or so that I have been paying more attention to these kinds of issues, it seems to me that the ones fighting against biologically based wildlife management are those in the agricultural industry. They are the ones that pushed for the low "socially acceptable" elk numbers in the elk plan. The FWP is forced to keep elk numbers low by a bill introduced and passed by representatives in the state legislature that are ranchers or heavily influenced by ranchers.

All I ever hear from the ag community in relation to hunting is threat after threat. Open up state lands to hunting ---NO HUNTERS WELCOME, Eliminate outfitter sponsored tags---NO HUNTERS WELCOME, Reintroduce bison to public lands----NO HUNTERS WELCOME, Private group buys private land with intentions to return it to natural state---NO HUNTERS WELCOME. Sounds like a bunch of cry babies to me. If they don't get what they want then they lash out at the most convenient target even though hunters are often their allies. I have several family members with wheat and cattle operations in the eastern part of the state so I have an understanding of the issues and some empathy for their causes, but with the attitude many large landowners have taken towards the hunting community they have lost me as an ally.

 

[Straight Arrow]

Case in point: Quote from Kerry White's letter to DU "landowners in Eastern Montana are fighting for
their very survival in opposing the Treasured Landscape National Monument"

This rhetoric can only be characterized as ill-informed, outdated, inaccurate ideological fear mongering to rile landowners up about a nonexistent threat. It does feed well into the conspiracy myth.

Fortunately, Dale Hall could clearly refute the false claims. Unfortunately, landowners would rather get riled up and lock the gates, than get to the truth.

And once again, those "property rights radicals" are upset at someone employing their own property rights in accomplishing something contrary to the radicals liking, so they're urinating on the hunting community to try to make a point.

 

[Big Fin]

Kerry White, Citizens for Balanced Use. Do some Google searches on that outfit and see how concerned they are about wildlife habitat - NOT. If that organization is who is being relied upon for facts that connect the DU dots to some grand conspiracy, things are really in a tailspin.

 

[shoots-straight]

Some people only hear what they want too. Everything else is blah, blah blah blah blah.

 

[Point Creep]

This whole subject makes you realize just how important public land is. Sure glad I could personally give a crap if somebody threatens to "close their land" because they are not happy about something.

 

[Eric Albus]

Wow, I guess you guys really don't get it do you. The sportsmen I know that live in the Malta/Glasgow area are supporting the landowners decision, but they have a lot more knowledge about the subject than any of you must. They do not feel like they are "being pissed on". They also are very unhappy w/ FWP supporting bison and the APR/APF. Easy to run your keyboard and take shots at the ranchers, hiding behind anonymous monikers.

Funny thing, 2 communities who are all convinced that ranching and their way of life is threatend.