So we're all for selling private land to anyone except FWP ad conservation groups. Doesn't seem very American to me.
Lets Call the Dogs Out on this one!
- Thread starter shoots-straight
- Start date
So we're all for selling private land to anyone except FWP ad conservation groups. Doesn't seem very American to me.
shoots-straight
Well-known member
In a way the money is a donation. We (people of Montana) decided that we would sell the opportunity for NR to hunt our game. From the money they pay, we donate that to our fund.
It's all in how you look at it.
Straight Arrow
Well-known member
Mr. Albus, I do understand your zero-net gain opinion and related attitude about state lands, although you must understand that it is contrary to the opinion and attitude of most Montana sportsmen.
To better understand your position regarding wildlife habitat, I have a question for you to consider.
Are you opposed to RMEF acquiring more wildlife habitat, then turning it over to a public agency to be managed by the public agency and open to the public for hunting, and many other recreational activities?
To better understand your position regarding wildlife habitat, I have a question for you to consider.
Are you opposed to RMEF acquiring more wildlife habitat, then turning it over to a public agency to be managed by the public agency and open to the public for hunting, and many other recreational activities?
Eric Albus
Well-known member
- Joined
- May 24, 2012
- Messages
- 1,640
straight...I do understand that most sportsmen of Montana are pro-aquistion, and can understand why they are.
Now, to answer your question, philosophically I am opposed to any group/individual relinquishing control of habitat/land to a public agency. I do not have a problem w/ RMEF or any other group allowing public access, they can do what they want w/ their lands. Perhaps if FWP would manage biologically instead of socially I would have less problem w/ them controlling.
Now, to answer your question, philosophically I am opposed to any group/individual relinquishing control of habitat/land to a public agency. I do not have a problem w/ RMEF or any other group allowing public access, they can do what they want w/ their lands. Perhaps if FWP would manage biologically instead of socially I would have less problem w/ them controlling.
whiskeydog
Active member
now I see why are for this legistation...
http://www.milkriveroutfitters.com/Bios.aspx
the more land the public owns, the less land available for outfitters to lease.
http://www.milkriveroutfitters.com/Bios.aspx
the more land the public owns, the less land available for outfitters to lease.
The Hedgehog
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2000
- Messages
- 11,793
I'm for corner hopping- way more state land and turning out herds of bison to trample up the prairie in eastern Montana! Brendan can go eat a bag.
shoots-straight
Well-known member
Kurt, will you please, please, pretty please ride with Vito, or Randy, to Helena and testify for us? I'll bring the popcorn, and blue Yummies.
Straight Arrow
Well-known member
Eric, please be aware that almost all acquisitions by RMEF become National Forest or other public land .... not merely lands for which RMEF allows access. RMEF owns little or nothing in terms of elk habital. Please answer the question with regard to RMEF. You made a blanket statement regarding habitat going to the public. Please answer the question I asked. It's really a yes or no question, but is very revealing with respect to wildlife habitat ownership and "ownership" (trustee relationship) of wildlife.
Eric, I appreciate your honesty as to where you stand, philosophically. Even if I have a different philosophy, I respect your commitment to your philosophy.
One thing that strikes me of what you posted, and I know it is a tangent, is the highlighted comment that follows some similar comments at the hearing in front of Brenden's committee last week. It was SB 151 to go back to 2007 elk tag rules in the Breaks.
What strikes me has to do with the outfitting industry continuing to hammer FWP for their failure to manage biologically. I will try to explain. And the reason is strikes me is how many bills I testify on where outfitters hammer FWP on this biology issue.
As a general rule, outfitting is one of the most peculiar manners for managing wildlife "biologically." A plan pretty much focused on shooting mature bucks and interfering with the harvest of antlerless animals. You might operate differently and allow hunters to come and take antlerless. Most outfitters do not.
I laughed to hear testimony on SB 151 from an outfitter who in one breath blasted FWP for allowing elk to get over objective (on lands almost exclusively off limits to hunters) and then in the next breath talked about how increasing bull elk tags would help get numbers in line with objectives. First time I ever heard that shooting bull elk is the way to manage numbers.
Then the supporters of that bill rolled out the grade school level financial data to further verify what they really wanted - FWP was being requested to change policy in a way that would manage based on economics, not biology. Most in the room had to swallow hard to keep from laughing out loud.
No doubt FWP manages more for social issues, opportunity, etc. Doing so does not allow for too much biology from a perspective of age classes, carrying capacity, and other objectives one might associate with wildlife management. Only in our sheep and goats do you see much biology being used.
I am one who might be convinced that some changes be considered in areas where the elk are almost exclusively on private and access is the primary restraint to management of objectives. But, when I hear such adolescent reasoning and hypocritical criticism of FWP's management of elk on lands where we have no access, it is hard to give much consideration to ideas.
So long as we have competing interests emphasizing economics (outfitting), sociology (opportunity hunters), quality (trophy hunters), it seems FWP will never manage based on biology. And, now that we have pretty full recovery of most species across most habitat, it is less about biology from the historical "build the herds" standpoint and more about managing the many competing interests that want some say in how those rebuilt herds are now allocated. Given all the pressures placed on FWP, I don't know that it is realistic to hold them to that standard, especially in areas with high levels of private land where hunting access is limited and there is very little FWP can do to impact the micro/macro biology of those properties.
Just funny to hear outfitters make the "manage biologically" claim, when many of the outfitted properties are way out of whack from a biology standpoint due to their expected incentives of managing primarily for economics. Again, maybe your properties are different, but most I see, including outfitted ranches of my CPA clients, are not.
Sorry for the tangent. Carry on .......
sweetnectar
New member
Wait a minute. I thought FWP was suppose to be managing wildlife not purchasing land. Land costs money to take care of. Is it necessary that FWP purchase lands to manage wildlife or should they be spending money to gain access to existing public lands or conservation easements, etc? It seems it would be more bang for your buck to go the route of purchasing easements than spend money on expensive ranches and fit the bill annually to up keep them. Wouldn't hunters gain the most access to public lands going this route? What are your thoughts?
Straight Arrow
Well-known member
Acquisition of access to wildlife habitat versus acquisition of wildlife habitat itself are distinctly different.
My thoughts? Well, today I spent the day chasing wolves among the hunter funded game ranges south of Bozeman. Those places were bought, fee title, for less than $100 per acre. Had they only bought hunting access easements, rather than the land, we would have Big Sky East, on the Porcupine Game Range, to go with Big Sky West, where they blew the top off the mountain for a ski resort. Bought in the 1950s and is one of the smartest things FWP has ever done with hunter money.
Same can be said for Wall Creek, Indian Creek, Bear Creek, Sun River, Blacktail, and the list goes on. If not for those purchases, and only the purchase of access easements, the amount of elk in SW Montana would be far, far fewer than what it is.
That being said, the stupidity and politics of the Milk River Ranch purchase jeopardizes the future of what has been a very good program and a very good use of hunter money.
And, if you think that FWP is not supposed to be buying land, go read the legislation the established Habitat Montana. Now, using Spotted Dog and Milk River Ranch as their poster children, some legislators want FWP to purchase nothing but easements. If it is hunting access as the goal, then easements are a good way. If it is permanent protection of wildlife habitat and wintering range, hunting access easements might be a waste of money when those properties get developed and ruin the winter range.
There are times for both access easements and fee title purchases. Some have a philosophical slant that would remove one of the tools, fee title purchases, that has been a big part in building and maintaining wildlife populations in Montana.
sweetnectar
New member
Yes, the habitat is there on our millions of acres of public and private lands, the access isn't. At the same time habitat is threated and has to be taken care of. This costs.
Straight Arrow
Well-known member
Riiiiiight .... how about that corner crossing bill?!
sweetnectar
New member
One thing I'm interested in is how people would prefer to see their FWP dollar spent. Say FWP had a dollar to spend on habitat or permanent access....what percent would you prefer go to access vs habitat protection?
Perhaps those who would go for more access would argue something like, it is a one time purchase and we can now hunt 200,000 acres.
Perhaps those who would go for habitat protection would argue something like, we now have 5,000 acres we can now hunt, sure it costs us to up keep it but it will provide a valuable home for this and that critter.
Both can be good things for hunters but is one better? I suppose you could go on extremely lengthy threads discussing the issue. Didn't mean to get off topic on this thread....had two kids puke while reading it and now another one getting ready to blow...going to be a long night.
Perhaps those who would go for more access would argue something like, it is a one time purchase and we can now hunt 200,000 acres.
Perhaps those who would go for habitat protection would argue something like, we now have 5,000 acres we can now hunt, sure it costs us to up keep it but it will provide a valuable home for this and that critter.
Both can be good things for hunters but is one better? I suppose you could go on extremely lengthy threads discussing the issue. Didn't mean to get off topic on this thread....had two kids puke while reading it and now another one getting ready to blow...going to be a long night.
Elkmagnet
Well-known member
Who let the dogs out..........who.....who ....who who
Anyone dealing with that can post whatever they want and they will get full exemption from me. I am the worst "puker" in the world. When I smell puke, my tranny goes in reverse and I am standing right next to the person, puking myself.
Sorry Nectar. That is hazard duty.
Straight Arrow
Well-known member
sweetnectar, that's easy ... wildlife habitat! Habitat is what's best for the future of wildlife and what is continually diminishing... and guess what ... it's public land accessible to hunters and other recreationists. Fighting for other blocked access to what is already public land is ongoing. To what access easements are you referring?
Block Management is a distinctly different topic, type of access, and funding question.
Block Management is a distinctly different topic, type of access, and funding question.
Lawnboy
Well-known member
I'm not real versed on the subject but don't many conservation groups try to purchase land to protect habitat and such. I'm thinking of Rmef for one. Seems if these groups are on the same page as the state agencies they could really benefit one another. It could keep the state agency from getting in some sticky land purchase messes. Like I said I don't know much about it. What's your thoughts.
