D Trump Jr ?

Your logic is skewed. If it's tied up and unavailable to the public, WTF cares if it's the Wilks brothers or someone else?
So your saying if someone owns something and you want it then you should have it. Sorry but that's not how it works. I would love for solution to be found but until then private is private. Like I stated above I'm not trying to piss folks on here off. Sorry I will bow out here with my apologies. I just want sept 7th to hurry up and get here.
 
So your saying if someone owns something and you want it then you should have it. Sorry but that's not how it works. I would love for solution to be found but until then private is private. Like I stated above I'm not trying to piss folks on here off. Sorry I will bow out here with my apologies. I just want sept 7th to hurry up and get here.

You should work on your reading skills. Show me where I said if I want something someone owns, I should have it. I can tell you right now, you can't because I've never said that. I understand private is private, I've never debated that either. However, loss of access to wildlife IS AN EROSION of the North American model. Period. It doesn't matter whether that loss of access occurred because Mother Theresa or Farris Wilks bought the land.
 
Well according to the internet, the ranch is still in Strands name so it’s either in the works or just rumors. I heard this same thing over a year ago, I’m not gonna hold my breath.
 
447 is pretty over objective and that lack of access caused by rich, out of state landowners or landowners who have elected to lease their ranches rather than allow public access is one of the driving factors in the privatization crowd in their call for handing wildlife over to them, rather than maintain the centuries old public ownership of wildlife. These ranches often limit access to public lands as well, in order to create larger private hunting grounds for the owners or lessees, in essence subsidizing their ranch operations (socialism!)

447 is over objective according to who? The EMP? That document is out dated and holds no value at this point. If it wasn’t for some of the large private ranches many of these units wouldn’t have any good elk hunting.

In 447 most of the public land is accessible. It may require a brutal hike, but the private ranches in the low country aren’t limiting the public access to public land.

I hate to see ranches get leased out, but it gives the landowner much more control over the management of the ranch. Every year there are landowners involved in the BMA program that get frustrated because hunters don’t follow the rules to hunting on their property and decide to pull out of the program the following year. Slob hunters are our own worst enemy.

In regards to Don Jr buying the Strand ranch....good for him. Unless you were part of the Montana Pursuit crew you weren’t hunting the Strand ranch anyway. The people that can afford to buy ranches like this aren’t going to allow access 99% of the time. What Don Jr decides to do with his private ranch is no concern to me.

I’ve never heard him call himself the modern day Teddy. I believe Don Peay was the guy that started saying that. Whether Don Jr allows access has nothing to do with Teddy’s work on public lands and conservation. In fact, if he leaves it closed to hunting he may be doing the elk a favor....since we can hunt them for 11 weeks on the public just above them.
 
I’ve never heard him call himself the modern day Teddy.

Dude, google...

There are two possibilities:

Publicist: "Hey we are going to call you the modern day Teddy Roosevelt in this article/add for a hunt/in this bio on our website is that ok?"
DT Jr. "Yeah, I like that"

Publicist: " How would you like us to describe you in this article/add for a hunt/in this bio on our website"
DT Jr. "Can you call me the modern day Roosevelt?"

There is no difference in my mind with these two, plus he has done several interview where he compares events in his life to Roosevelt/ his background.
 
So your saying if someone owns something and you want it then you should have it.

We are saying a private landowner should not be able to hold our land hostage (BLM, USFS, State Land etc.)

At a glance it looks like the Strand, in conjunction with other ranches, locks off around 5000 acres of public land.
 
Last edited:
Taking public land and turning it private just so the state can raise money is the real problem. All the current private land is not. There is so much private land for sale now turning more public into private is a concern.
Unless you live in an apartment ( nothing wrong with that) then you are a private land owner. To me it’s jealousy when someone owns a bunch of it than you. That’s where it borders socialism. I own 750 acres. My one neighbor owns 8,000, Another 2500 and another 7000. A couple own 160. Should we all just own equal?
I have said this so many times. I allow public access through my gate unless your a deuce bag who hates private land and doesn’t respect my right to own it or my property.
I spend my personal money not tax payers to create habitat, water and cover for elk and deer. My property is not fenced. I am spending money to help all hunters by creating resources animals need in winter and summer.
 
Ben I think we are in agreement. I wish you all the luck in trying to make a difference on the state and national level. I appreciate the efforts that you make.

My volunteer time is committed to our Youth Outdoor Activity Day and some conservation orgs otherwise I would be tempted to get in the fight!
 
Dude, google...

There are two possibilities:

Publicist: "Hey we are going to call you the modern day Teddy Roosevelt in this article/add for a hunt/in this bio on our website is that ok?"
DT Jr. "Yeah, I like that"

Publicist: " How would you like us to describe you in this article/add for a hunt/in this bio on our website"
DT Jr. "Can you call me the modern day Roosevelt?"

There is no difference in my mind with these two, plus he has done several interview where he compares events in his life to Roosevelt/ his background.

Ha! My bad...googling “Donald trump jr. modern day Teddy” never crossed my mind.

It appears as though he is running with that though.
 
To me it’s jealousy when someone owns a bunch of it than you. That’s where it borders socialism. I own 750 acres. My one neighbor owns 8,000, Another 2500 and another 7000. A couple own 160. Should we all just own equal?

No, I'm not jealous at all. And no, I don't think we should all own equal. I'll never have the financial means to buy a hunting ranch/property, and I'm quite okay with that. I'm also completely respectful of the landowner's right to disallow any access for hunting whatsoever. To quote Buzz, their pig, their farm.

The North American model of conservation IS inherently socialistic in nature. I recognize that, and it doesn't bother me a bit. Loss of access to publicly owned wildlife is an erosion of the NA model no matter how you slice it. If perpetuating the NA model isn't a priority to a landowner, so be it. That's their right. However, I will call it as I see it. I've long accepted the fact a landowner is perfectly entitled to lock up their gates and commercialize a publicly owned resource, but that doesn't mean I have to like it or support it.

I've worked with some landowners who are/were incredible stewards of the land. In addition, they found ways to balance offsetting economic losses due to deer and elk with allowing public opportunity and more effective state management of the wildlife. It doesn't have to be all or nothing.

I spend my personal money not tax payers to create habitat, water and cover for elk and deer. My property is not fenced. I am spending money to help all hunters by creating resources animals need in winter and summer.

I absolutely recognize the value in private land stewardship. It is essential for clean water, wildlife migration, etc. It is a personal choice to value good habitat in a non-high fence environment, and I firmly believe landowners should be recognized for such.
 
I don't agree with public land being locked off, but I have zero issues with private land being locked. I would not allow the public to trash the area, if it was my land. I know several people that have locked their lands, due to abuses. I allow a very few people to access state property from my closer access. I am not about to have people running all over and expecting free rein. I have had it happen.

The locking off of access to public land, because the road crosses private, is just plain not right, though.

Here, we have a program funded by Game and Parks and the Turkey Federation, that allows for walk-in only hunting. I think that overall, it has been fairly successful, with few violators of the law. The landowners are paid for that access. If Trump buys the land, who knows? Maybe he will do some kind of program on at least part of it. Do not count him out, unless he proves otherwise.
 
Last edited:
This is one of the unintended consequences of opportunity management. There is likely many reasons why the wealthy buy ranches in Montana. One of the reasons wealthy out of state hunters by property in Montana is our long seasons and relatively easily availablility licences. If I was putting up that kind of money I too would rather have a place where I could build a great hunting property and get to hunt every year rather than a place with a great game population that I would only be able to hunt a few times in the next ten years.
Sadly opportunity management needs ranches like this to provide a safe place for game to replenish the game that is pounded on nearby public every fall.
 
Last edited:
This is one of the unintended consequences of opportunity management. There is likely many reasons why the wealthy buy ranches in Montana. One of the reasons wealthy out of state hunters by property in Montana is our long seasons and relatively easily availablility licences. If I was putting up that kind of money I too would rather have a place where I could build a great hunting property and get to hunt every year rather than a place with a great game population that I would only be able to hunt a few times in the next ten years.
Sadly opportunity management needs ranches like this to provide a safe place for game to replenish the game that is pounded on nearby public every fall.
You are correct. Off-limits areas provide animals a place to grow up, without every Tom, Dick and Harry harassing them for several months. Two sides to every story.
 
You are correct. Off-limits areas provide animals a place to grow up, without every Tom, Dick and Harry harassing them for several months. Two sides to every story.

I wonder what this reply might have read like if this thread was titled:

"American Prairie Reserve Purchases Massive Central Montana Ranchland Holdings and Promptly Closes off Public Access and Denies All Public Hunting Opportunities"

:unsure:
 
I wonder what this reply might have read like if this thread was titled:

"American Prairie Reserve Purchases Massive Central Montana Ranchland Holdings and Promptly Closes off Public Access and Denies All Public Hunting Opportunities"

:unsure:
Or better yet, "DJT, Jr purchases massive central Montana ranch and promptly opens public access and public hunting opportunities" ?
 

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
110,805
Messages
1,935,060
Members
34,883
Latest member
clamwc
Back
Top