I can see your side of the issue....something I realize that most folks are unable to do, dis-engage themselves from their own little world and look at the issue from the other side.
Those 63 landowners(who all allowed access to the public) are very unhappy w/ FWP. The local sportsmen, like Nemont, understand the closing down is not aimed at them, but at FWP. The landowners are giving the sportsmen credit for understanding and they want to have them back their stance......now I can see the thanks that the landowners will get. You find out who your friends really are when these kinds of contentious issues occur. Most of these ranches will be open to the public again, most will allow hunting this fall. The show of solidarity in the paper is for FWP, and to show them that the landowning community is not happy about "free range bison".
Landowners are fearful of the thought of "free range bison". Who is going to be responsible for fixing the fences they tear up, who will be responsible for bison inter-breeding w/ cattle, and vice-versa? Who is going to pay for fixing up an irrigated field when 100 bison tromp and wallow in it? I have seen first hand what damage elk do, and that is bad enough to have to deal w/.
This thread has certainly turned away from public lands being sold off to why we hate the idea of "free ranging bison."
Eric, I too appreciate you coming on here and talking with folks about an extremely contentious issue. For the record, I am speaking only for myself, and no group or other entity. These are my own thoughts.
During the last legislature, led by Chuck Denowh, John Brenden, Bill Harris and many, many others, the MT legislature did try and take it out on sportsmen for the management of FWP. Bills like HB 361, SB 303, HB 309, etc, etc, etc all tried to eliminate access funding, access to rivers, purchase of new WMA's, hand over FWP to outfitters and landowners, etc. That all hurts hunters more than it hurts the agency. We also had a bill by Derek Skees, who is now running for State Auditor, to eliminate all federal lands in MT.
I think we can see where the wedge is coming from, and how it's being driven. There was one bill that would have helped clear up the county road issues that we are continually seeing, it was killed early on in the session. The rest of those 5 months sportsmen simply played defense.
However, that does not dismiss the real and substantial concerns that landowners have when it comes to FWP, bison, and wildlife management. But it also does not excuse the poor behavior we've seen over the last 3-4 legislative sessions, nor will it excuse the attack on hunters and anglers coming in the next session.
As for the closure of private lands in response to FWP, I guess I don't get it. You can be mad at FWP but how does eliminating hunters from your towns, hotels, grocery stores, gas stations, restaurants, etc do anything other than hurt your own communities? We heard throughout the entire session how your communities were starving for economic benefit from wildlife, and the next thing you know, 63 landowners say "no economic development this fall."
As many have said before, the hunter outside of NE MT looks at that and thinks that landowners hate the average guy. It's not that far of a leap when you combine the last efforts at the legislature, the attempts to eliminate access, illegal road closures, the elk archery issue and resultant backlash (where hunters and their advocacy groups get slammed and derided and defamed), privatization of wildlife and now, the bison issue which many hunters in MT are not so sure about.
That is their right to close off their land. To be sure. It's also the right of the average hunter to stand up and let those landowners know that their decision doesn't hurt FWP, it hurts them. Sportsmen have been more than willing to step up and work with the landowners community on contentious issues. Unfortunately, those representing folks in NE and Central MT have not.
Sportsmen are helping reshape block management so that it works better for landowners and hunters. They're doing this with the help of the MT Stockgrowers and individual producers who have voiced their displeasure with the program.
The mold exists to have hunters and landowners work together. Hunters have stood up to be counted, landowners, not so much it seems. That does not dismiss the real and substantive concerns that landowners have in relation to bison trans-location. But the current track is the wrong way to go about forming a coalition willing to work together. It just breeds more distrust and anger between the two groups.
In regards to bison, nobody is talking about free ranging bison so far as I know. The scoping process has become a political hot potato, intentionally , by folks on both sides of the issue. There is a lot of misinformation, something that Kerry White is very adept at.
SB 212 was passed with support from both conservationists and landowners. The Bill's sponsor, Rick Ripley, worked with Mike Phillips (D-Bozeman, and the Executive Director of the Ted Turner Endangered Species Fund) to craft language that all sides supported. That language is very clear as to what will happen, and what the sideboards are. Stockgrowers, Wool Growers, Farm Bureau, all lined up and supported the bill that forced FWP to start a statewide management plan for bison. Until that bill passed, the project was going nowhere fast. My own testimony on the bill went from opposition to support after we worked out the amendments among the varying parties. I felt the bill offered an adequate level of protection to landowners, but also provided a clear path to starting the discussion about where, or if, bison belong anywhere in limited numbers, on geographically isolated parcels of public land. Nowhere was anyone talking about free-ranging bison. In fact, most sportsmen stood up and said no when it came to placing bison on WMA's around the state because we all felt it was too much like a game farm, and even as simply a holding facility, these WMA's wouldn't be sufficient to accomplish the long term task of ensuring that wild bison do not become listed under the Endangered Species Act, which is a very real possibility.
The bill provides for the protection of private land and livestock. Landowners do not have to tolerate bison on their lands, and can either call FWP to haze, or to kill any bison that comes onto private property.
The allegation that the Bison that were illegally transferred to the Tribes is just that, an allegation. The judge has not ruled on the case, and the stay is on future transportation of bison. Those bison were not moved in violation of any law that I can see. The Legislature said "Go forth and make a plan before you transfer." They did. It didn't say "make a plan and then notify the attorneys of your detractors three weeks before moving forward." I'd be surprised to see any ruling that FWP acted illegally to stand. What they did was come up with a plan, that a lot of people commented on, and voiced their opinions, issue a notice of decision, and move forward. They did not have to give a timeline or notify anyone of when the move would occur.
Landowners are protected from unintended consequences of bison reintroduction. Both in state statute and in the EA Decision. Bison that wander off tribal lands can be shot on sight. People are misrepresenting what that bill does, and why it ended up the way it did. It was one of only 2 bison bills that passed last session. Over 10 bills were introduced (at an average cost of about $6,000 per bill). Most died or were vetoed.
