Elk hunt access lists

[Point Creep]

This is a 100% scam and the only people saying otherwise are those happy to jump when a landowner says you can only come on a fuggin Wednesday for a cow elk. FWP can eat a bag of dicks, along with the landowners milking the system.

 

[Point Creep]

Post in thread 'B&C Ranch'
https://www.hunttalk.com/threads/b-c-ranch.323341/post-3727530

 

[Forkyfinder]

This is a 100% scam and the only people saying otherwise are those happy to jump when a landowner says you can only come on a fuggin Wednesday for a cow elk. FWP can eat a bag of dicks, along with the landowners milking the system.

@Ben Lamb, someone from mcs, and Mark Taylor told me - and some legislators in a committee that "thousands" of elk got killed on these ranches... Via using this sham and another in combination.

Sounded like quite the good deal for the public when the lobbyists are talking to legislators.

 

[Forkyfinder]

@Ben Lamb, someone from mcs, and Mark Taylor told me - and some legislators in a committee that "thousands" of elk got killed on these ranches... Via using this sham and another in combination.

Sounded like quite the good deal for the public when the lobbyists are talking to legislators.

I forgot to add, PERCs lobbyist and "Big hearts under the big sky" spoke about it too. A real round of all stars. I think gerald was the only (unpaid) person representing himself.

@Frequently Banned Troll you would have especially liked the big hearts under big sky testimony - seem to remember you reading appreciating incentives for "allowing" someone dying to hunt on your property.

 

[Point Creep]

I forgot to add, PERCs lobbyist and "Big hearts under the big sky" spoke about it too. A real round of all stars. I think gerald was the only (unpaid) person representing himself.

@Frequently Banned Troll you would have especially liked the big hearts under big sky testimony - seem to remember you reading appreciating incentives for "allowing" someone dying to hunt on your property.

Not sure if you’re comment is tongue in cheek - but I’d be interested is knowing where the “data” around these “thousands” of elk being killed and what the actual definition of “public” is. There will always be some slimy political angle using crippled vets and children dying of cancer to warm the hearts of the clueless making laws to serve wealthy landowners looking for bull elk permits.

 

[Forkyfinder]

Not sure if you’re comment is tongue in cheek - but I’d be interested is knowing where the “data” around these “thousands” of elk being killed and what the actual definition of “public” is. There will always be some slimy political angle using crippled vets and children dying of cancer to warm the hearts of the clueless making laws to serve wealthy landowners looking for bull elk permits.

My comment is based on testimony that MCS/mark taylor gave during HB907 testimony. I will try to find the video and make yt video. I think more people should see it.

Hb907 would have changed NR landowner permits, for the better.

 

[Forkyfinder]

My comment is based on testimony that MCS/mark taylor gave during HB907 testimony. I will try to find the video and make yt video. I think more people should see it.

Hb907 would have changed NR landowner permits, for the better.

Senate Fish and Game

Senate Fish and Game - Video

sg001-harmony.sliq.net

Here - @Frequently Banned Troll - find out what exactly was said. @Ben Lamb maybe you can help with the data.

17:00:00 is where the lies begin.

 

[Forkyfinder]

Senate Fish and Game

Senate Fish and Game - Video

sg001-harmony.sliq.net

Here - @Frequently Banned Troll - find out what exactly was said. @Ben Lamb maybe you can help with the data.

17:00:00 is where the lies begin.

I guess when you have no data - you run from confronting someone telling the truth.

 

[Point Creep]

@Forkyfinder interesting listen. Thank you for sharing. There is an impressive number of different shapes and consistencies of turds being polished throughout that whole discussion from both sides. The Mark Taylor claims we’re the best from the pure comedy it provided, but the most confusing statement comes from @Gerald Martin. I wish he’d share his angle here as somebody I would guess is not pocketing money.

 

[Forkyfinder]

@Forkyfinder interesting listen. Thank you for sharing. There is an impressive number of different shapes and consistencies of turds being polished throughout that whole discussion from both sides. The Mark Taylor claims we’re the best from the pure comedy it provided, but the most confusing statement comes from @Gerald Martin. I wish he’d share his angle here as somebody I would guess is not pocketing money.

Sort of in here. Too many words, too little logic, and rich in fallacy.

Montana HB 907

I was curious if others had read this bill and had thoughts on it - it seems like a very good deal to benefit landowners who are in BMA programs. Essentially - it gives a NR landowner with more than 640 acres an option to buy an additional bonus point if they are enrolled in a block management...

www.hunttalk.com

There are loads of lies - and/or utter dipshittery laced in the opponents testimony. Its honestly hard to find a comment thats the best lie.

 

[Point Creep]

Pretty wild how my post #25 above covers all the bases before I even listened. It’s been a busy spring @Gerald Martin i just read the other thread and saw your rationale so no need to retell me. I’m only thinking, is it worse to give the fat wallet douchbags a few guaranteed licenses, or to convert all the private land in the state to the highly broken & crooked block management program? Either way the “public” gets bent over and the fat cats will end up getting exactly what they want.

 

[Forkyfinder]

Pretty wild how my post #25 above covers all the bases before I even listened. It’s been a busy spring @Gerald Martin i just read the other thread and saw your rationale so no need to retell me. I’m only thinking, is it worse to give the fat wallet douchbags a few guaranteed licenses, or to convert all the private land in the state to the highly broken & crooked block management program? Either way the “public” gets bent over and the fat cats will end up getting exactly what they want.

I have changed my mind. I no longer think that its the 1000s of elk is the best mis-truth.

Its gotta be "this isnt about LE permits"

If thats the case - why the PHUCK would anyone who intends to hunt their own property buy a preference point they do not need.

I'll give everyone a hint - its so you can hunt unit wide when drawing a LE permit after securing the best odds via extra bonus points (that no one else qualifies for) and the LO pool.

 

[Big Sky Guy]

I have changed my mind. I no longer think that its the 1000s of elk is the best mis-truth.

Its gotta be "this isnt about LE permits"

If thats the case - why the PHUCK would anyone who intends to hunt their own property buy a preference point they do not need. View attachment 379067

I'll give everyone a hint - its so you can hunt unit wide when drawing a LE permit after securing the best odds via extra bonus points (that no one else qualifies for) and the LO pool.

Is this the Watergate of hunting? Pointgate?

 

[Forkyfinder]

Is this the Watergate of hunting? Pointgate?

Not really - this is different cause it was done in public with everyones knowledge.

I'll be pointing this out, early and often, when there's bitching about Lee lacucksky getting a 799-21 permit every year. All he has to do is be an "employee" of the NR LO and hes elgible to get a permit a NR might apply for 10 years to get. Every. Single. Year.

Rob Arnaud is connected to MHC (founded it), where Lee is a "guide".... He's also executive director for MCS.

Our Mission — Montana Hunting Company

www.montanahuntingcompany.com

Montana Conservation Society

Join us in our mission to create lasting change in Montana and beyond.

montanaconservationsocietymt.org

All just a strange coincidence, im sure.

 

[Treeshark]

Holy smokes, how many different types of these “access” programs do you guys have out there?

It seems like a lot of these programs are a scam.

 

[Forkyfinder]

Holy smokes, how many different types of these “access” programs do you guys have out there?

It seems like a lot of these programs are a scam.

Well - really only the 454 and 635 - especially used in conjunction. Bma type 2 can be.

On the whole - our access programs are great - to the point its influenced other states to craft similar programs. 454s EHAs were generally not used until recent reforms.

See below:

Guest opinion: Let’s fix the 454 public elk hunting access agreements by Jake Schwaller — Montana Citizens’ Elk Management Coalition

Since the now-infamous program was discovered by wealthy, out-of-state landowners like the Texas-based Wilks Brothers, FWP's public elk hunting access agreements have become a point of great contention. The intent of these agreements (colloquially known as 454 agreements) is something to celebrate.

www.montanaelk.org

 

[Point Creep]

Not really - this is different cause it was done in public with everyones knowledge.

I'll be pointing this out, early and often, when there's bitching about Lee lacucksky getting a 799-21 permit every year. All he has to do is be an "employee" of the NR LO and hes elgible to get a permit a NR might apply for 10 years to get. Every. Single. Year.

Rob Arnaud is connected to MHC (founded it), where Lee is a "guide".... He's also executive director for MCS.

Our Mission — Montana Hunting Company

www.montanahuntingcompany.com

Montana Conservation Society

Join us in our mission to create lasting change in Montana and beyond.

montanaconservationsocietymt.org

All just a strange coincidence, im sure.

I think your Rob/Lee relationship is assumed. I think the crush is also a NR landowner in SE MT who never showed up in the MHC world until Rob sold the business to the new owner a few years ago. Rob and those involved with the MCS did an excellent job with the MT deer/elk proposal suggestions and unfortunately MT residents are not interested in anything but meat market year round hunting everywhere, so no bueno.

As far as fixing “454/635” they never should have been allowed to start- FWP should start by overhauling the BMA program- not creating more/worse options for abuse.

 

[Forkyfinder]

I think your Rob/Lee relationship is assumed. I think the crush is also a NR landowner in SE MT who never showed up in the MHC world until Rob sold the business to the new owner a few years ago. Rob and those involved with the MCS did an excellent job with the MT deer/elk proposal suggestions and unfortunately MT residents are not interested in anything but meat market year round hunting everywhere, so no bueno.

As far as fixing “454/635” they never should have been allowed to start- FWP should start by overhauling the BMA program- not creating more/worse options for abuse.

It is assumed.

As far as 635/454 never existing - the only way itll ever change is pressure from constituents. It is quite difficult to explain the nuance of the scam inside of a minute.

Residents have too much opportunity for us to have nice things, i dont disagree. However, giving away opportunities to NR LO, with that existing problem - is like trying to extinguish a fire with gasoline.

 

[Gerald Martin]

Hb907 would have changed NR landowner permits, for the better.

I wasn’t going to comment until my name got pulled into this so against my better judgment here goes.

First of all, the frustration around the OP seems to be revolving around how the 454 program is run. For the record, I have some strong reservations about this program, have never supported it in posts or testimony at the Legislature. I’ve generally not engaged on the 454 issues because each agreement is unique to the individual property and quite frankly, I am more involved with other issues that have been taking the time and attention I dedicate to conservation. I do think there’s plenty of room to reform the 454 agreements and potentially scrap that program if it’s no longer working.

However, HB-907 didn’t do anything about the 454 program so the above statement is a moot point for this discussion. HB-907 targeted HB-635 and was a flawed piece of virtue signaling legislation that wouldn’t have done the things it claimed to do. In fact late in the process, proponents of 907 attempted to introduce amendments to fix several of the problems that I and Labman pointed out in the 907 thread.

I’ve articulated my support for HB-635 in other threads as @Frequently Banned Troll pointed out. I don’t have the time or energy to repeat myself and make my arguments again other than to say this. I have less of a problem granting 131 NR (some of whom allow public access) over other NR applicants to buy a full priced license that falls under the 23,600 NR cap than I do with the 7000 half priced licenses we sell in excess of the 23,600 cap to NR who compete directly with me on public land and over no benefit to residents other than the money they spend on their discounted license.


The same folks who have focused so much time and energy on repealing 635 haven’t said a thing publicly about that form of NR preference that reduces resident opportunity. I would think that issue is one that every resident and MT based conservation group should be able to agree on.

 

[Point Creep]

@Gerald Martin you don’t want to get worked up polishing turds?