Matt Rinella knocking it outta the park

[BuzzH]

First & foremost, it's Kumbaya. And no, I haven't been talking to WWF on it. I've been talking to a lot of landowners as well as others who are expressing some concerns about the issue, especially the approach. I really do think that some empathy and understanding their perspective is important.

Most importantly, I appreciate your thorough response.

As to the issue of over objective units: How does throwing more hunter days on those units increase harvest? It likely won't be as large due to the effort involved. Furthermore, you're only spreading pressure out on public land which kinda doesn't have an overabundance issue, and those ranches that aren't open will still get the elk when they seek security. Corner crossing, without season structure change is just more hunter days and less success after a few years as animals learn they're not safe there anymore.

As for state lands recreation & stream access: I would respectfully disagree. Both of those are still contentious in MT, and WY doesn't have either, really. There are always going to be people trying to unring those bells, especially with stream access. The access issue around some infrastructure issue wasn't even settled until we did the bridge access bill in 09 (?), I can't remember any more. Since the Dirty Ditch bill in 11, there have been about 3 attempts to undermine stream access. I can't think that the conflict is resolved, especially with the Mitchel Slough landowners starting to talk again. State lands access was garnered by working with landowners and the various agencies. That's why it's been less contentious, and it's still being refined to this day.

Don't get me wrong Buzz, I'm glad that you guys rallied on the defense. It needed to happen. My concerns are what happens when legislatures start to overreact, especially when the politics of today are so much more toxic than yesterday. That's the loss I'm talking about as well as landowners pulling out of Block, etc. You avoid that by talking with your adversaries.

Why was nobody in Wyoming talking about access? Seems like a big misstep on the hunting groups part.

First point, where was the empathy and understanding of my perspective in regard to accessing my public land? I don't recall getting a check in the mail when I finally got to hunt State Lands in Montana after being kicked in the crotch for all those years and being excluded from those State lands prior to Atcheson, et. al taking action. I'm not sure where or who told you that Stand Land access was brought about by "working with landowners and agencies"...but that's funny. I recall Jack Atcheson and others dragging the State through a knothole and landowners threatening to close access down to their private if State lands were opened up. Matter of fact, it was one of the issues that I first contributed time and money to. Also a big reason why I'm still advocating for public access to public lands. Those guys didn't give a chit about feelings, understanding, and empathy. They didn't sing kumbaya either. For over 35 years I'm still able to hunt State Lands in Montana too, imagine that.

Second point, if you don't understand how CC to get to over-objective elk isn't part of the solution, maybe you should try hunting elk sometime in Wyoming. Where did I say throwing more hunter days at anything? When a hunter can corner cross, they gain access to elk that a ranch would never allow you access to. With that access you kill elk, last I checked that's the idea to reduce elk in over-objective herds. Plus, those elk get bounced to other places, both public AND private that allow access, means even more elk are killed. Meaning we put them closer to objective rather than what's going on now. Which, was paying 2 outfitters to kill 129 elk via use of a State owned tracked vehicle, and paying them $20k to do it. Or what is about to happen in unit 7, for the 'hound to have a couple of their ranch hands shoot 100 cows. Or pay a warden to shoot 40 in July on another place. I would rather those elk be shot by hunters corner crossing.

You've obviously been gone from WY too long, we have enough elk on public land and private land. We don't pound on bulls with general tags for 12 weeks.

Third point, what are State Legislatures going to do about Federal Regulations? I guess the Supremacy Clause is just a guideline? The States can over-react all they want, Federal Law still trumps State Law. Remember, this is a FEDERAL land issue, not a State land issue.

Don't think I said nobody was talking about access, that's your misinterpretation of what I actually said, "Just an FYI, access has not been talked about more in WY than since CC became an issue. Funny that, when the public actually has a chip and a chair...along with some good attorneys.

Its funny how discussions start happening when its not one-sided.

 

[Ben Lamb]

First point, where was the empathy and understanding of my perspective in regard to accessing my public land? I don't recall getting a check in the mail when I finally got to hunt State Lands in Montana after being kicked in the crotch for all those years and being excluded from those State lands prior to Atcheson, et. al taking action. I'm not sure where or who told you that Stand Land access was brought about by "working with landowners and agencies"...but that's funny.

I mean, just Tony Sr, the Jacks, Marchion and a host of others who were involved directly. Conflict came first, then compromise and collaboration, it was the only way anything would have passed.

As for the rest of this paragraph, you're reveling in the conflict. You come across as seeking to exact retribution rather than find justice.

Second point, if you don't understand how CC to get to over-objective elk isn't part of the solution, maybe you should try hunting elk sometime in Wyoming. Where did I say throwing more hunter days at anything? When a hunter can corner cross, they gain access to elk that a ranch would never allow you access to. With that access you kill elk, last I checked that's the idea to reduce elk in over-objective herds. Plus, those elk get bounced to other places, both public AND private that allow access, means even more elk are killed. Meaning we put them closer to objective rather than what's going on now. Which, was paying 2 outfitters to kill 129 elk via use of a State owned tracked vehicle, and paying them $20k to do it. Or what is about to happen in unit 7, for the 'hound to have a couple of their ranch hands shoot 100 cows. Or pay a warden to shoot 40 in July on another place. I would rather those elk be shot by hunters corner crossing.

My point about more people on public was in relation to MT. Apologies if that wasn't clear. WY's system is much different primarily because of season structure. It's not all apples to apples, each state is going to have a ton of variables that make it different it each state.

Third point, what are State Legislatures going to do about Federal Regulations? I guess the Supremacy Clause is just a guideline? The States can over-react all they want, Federal Law still trumps State Law. Remember, this is a FEDERAL land issue, not a State land issue.

What state legislatures could do has little to do with corner crossing and more to do with what they feel would be the appropriate response such as eliminating access programs, budget cuts, increased penalties for trespass, etc.

 

[BuzzH]

I mean, just Tony Sr, the Jacks, Marchion and a host of others. Conflict came first, then compromise and collaboration, it was the only way anything would have passed.

As for the rest of this paragraph, you're reveling in the conflict. You come across as seeking to exact retribution rather than find justice.

So, its your contention that the landowners were happy and willing participants to just give up the ability to post leased State land as their own and exclude the public?

They didn't compromise and collaborate until they didn't have a choice. Even then, they didn't, they threatened to deny hunting on their deeded ground. I was there Ben, and I have this horrible problem of having a good memory.

Laffin'...

 

[Ben Lamb]

So, its your contention that the landowners were happy and willing participants to just give up the ability to post leased State land as their own and exclude the public?

They didn't compromise and collaborate until they didn't have a choice.

Laffin'...

I don't believe I said anywhere that was the case.

 

[Elky Welky]

Cautionary warning…DO NOT turn this song on while driving down the canyon in inclement weather. Apparently it may cause one to excessively hammer on the gas…

This truly hurt my eyes and ears.

 

[Hnthrdr]

Cautionary warning…DO NOT turn this song on while driving down the canyon in inclement weather. Apparently it may cause one to excessively hammer on the gas…

Couple thoughts. 1. Threw up in my mouth a little 2. Is this real life? Has to be some weird glitch in the matrix… made it all of 15 seconds

 

[BuzzH]

I don't believe I said anywhere that was the case.

Here's your collaboration and landowners and agencies working together with Sportsmen for access to State Lands, not exactly what I'd call it...but, whatever.

Sportsmen, complaining about the hunting exclusivity on state trust lands by lessees, prompted the DSL in 1985 to address the hypocrisy – “The Board has reserved hunting and fishing access. Strictly speaking no one is allowed to hunt or fish state land. However, it is not realistic to expect the lessee to keep everyone off. The lessee may post the lease to protect his leasehold interest. If it is posted no one, including the lessee may hunt on the lease. The lessee may allow hunting on the tract. However, if hunting is allowed, everyone must be allowed to hunt. The lessee may require everyone to check in before going on the tract to keep track of who is on it. However, no one may be denied. The lessee may not charge for hunting. All evidence that a lessee is charging for hunting should be submitted to the Department. The evidence will be pursued, and if there is sufficient evidence, the lease will be canceled.”

The Montana Coalition for Appropriate Management of State Lands, Inc. hired Jim Goetz, an attorney from Bozeman. In February 1988, the Coalition filed a lawsuit against Montana’s Department of State Lands and the State Land Board, at the district court in Helena, for failure to comply with the Enabling Act, the State Constitution, State laws, policies and the Montana Multiple Use Act.

Lessees pushed against public access by stating, “increased traffic would bring increased weeds, erosion, fire, vandalism, litter, unwanted roads, trespass on private lands, increased administrative burdens and greater overall risk to them.” They wanted the State to charge for access to compensate lessees.

The Coalition pushed back on ground conditions in the suit, by demanding the Department prepare an environmental impact statement on it’s grazing lease program. To push back on access fees, the Coalition alleged, if the State must charge for recreational access, it must develop a system of availability of state lands and compensation secured, as well as enforcing the minimum rates for grazing land be increased. The Montana Stockgrowers Association, Montana Farm Bureau Federation and individuals intervened as defendants.

The State Land Board is comprised of 5 elected officials; in 1988 they were: Governor Ted Schwinden (D), Attorney General Mike Greely (D), Secretary of State Jim Waltermire (R), State Superintendent of Public Instruction Ed Argenbright (R), and State Auditor Andrea Bennett (R). Negotiations were off and on for more than a year. In July 1990, the time of the first trial date, the Land Board consisted of Governor Stan Stephens (R), Attorney General Marc Racicot (R), Secretary of State Mike Cooney (D), State Superintendent of Public Instruction Nancy Keenan (D), and State Auditor Andrea Bennett (R).

The Coalition lawsuit was problematic for ag state lands issues, this would open up a can of worms most would not want opened, increasing polarization of public lands management. Some members of the ag public worried that if this case went to trial, it would be “Stream Access” all over again. One worried, “A sportsmen’s coalition has filed suit to open public lands and the courts could make any future action by the Land Board or the Legislature moot.”

This lawsuit certainly increased the conversation and scrutiny about state land management. Educated sportsmen began providing documentation that further evidenced the State’s mismanagement of our state public lands, especially funding schools, and the contradicting lack of access. Major points brought up were:

 

[Ben Lamb]

Here's your collaboration and landowners and agencies working together with Sportsmen for access to State Lands, not exactly what I'd call it...but, whatever.

Sportsmen, complaining about the hunting exclusivity on state trust lands by lessees, prompted the DSL in 1985 to address the hypocrisy – “The Board has reserved hunting and fishing access. Strictly speaking no one is allowed to hunt or fish state land. However, it is not realistic to expect the lessee to keep everyone off. The lessee may post the lease to protect his leasehold interest. If it is posted no one, including the lessee may hunt on the lease. The lessee may allow hunting on the tract. However, if hunting is allowed, everyone must be allowed to hunt. The lessee may require everyone to check in before going on the tract to keep track of who is on it. However, no one may be denied. The lessee may not charge for hunting. All evidence that a lessee is charging for hunting should be submitted to the Department. The evidence will be pursued, and if there is sufficient evidence, the lease will be canceled.”

The Montana Coalition for Appropriate Management of State Lands, Inc. hired Jim Goetz, an attorney from Bozeman. In February 1988, the Coalition filed a lawsuit against Montana’s Department of State Lands and the State Land Board, at the district court in Helena, for failure to comply with the Enabling Act, the State Constitution, State laws, policies and the Montana Multiple Use Act.

Lessees pushed against public access by stating, “increased traffic would bring increased weeds, erosion, fire, vandalism, litter, unwanted roads, trespass on private lands, increased administrative burdens and greater overall risk to them.” They wanted the State to charge for access to compensate lessees.

The Coalition pushed back on ground conditions in the suit, by demanding the Department prepare an environmental impact statement on it’s grazing lease program. To push back on access fees, the Coalition alleged, if the State must charge for recreational access, it must develop a system of availability of state lands and compensation secured, as well as enforcing the minimum rates for grazing land be increased. The Montana Stockgrowers Association, Montana Farm Bureau Federation and individuals intervened as defendants.

The State Land Board is comprised of 5 elected officials; in 1988 they were: Governor Ted Schwinden (D), Attorney General Mike Greely (D), Secretary of State Jim Waltermire (R), State Superintendent of Public Instruction Ed Argenbright (R), and State Auditor Andrea Bennett (R). Negotiations were off and on for more than a year. In July 1990, the time of the first trial date, the Land Board consisted of Governor Stan Stephens (R), Attorney General Marc Racicot (R), Secretary of State Mike Cooney (D), State Superintendent of Public Instruction Nancy Keenan (D), and State Auditor Andrea Bennett (R).

The Coalition lawsuit was problematic for ag state lands issues, this would open up a can of worms most would not want opened, increasing polarization of public lands management. Some members of the ag public worried that if this case went to trial, it would be “Stream Access” all over again. One worried, “A sportsmen’s coalition has filed suit to open public lands and the courts could make any future action by the Land Board or the Legislature moot.”

This lawsuit certainly increased the conversation and scrutiny about state land management. Educated sportsmen began providing documentation that further evidenced the State’s mismanagement of our state public lands, especially funding schools, and the contradicting lack of access. Major points brought up were:

Thanks for posting this, I stand corrected. My memory is off on that one.

 

[BuzzH]

Thanks for posting this, I stand corrected. My memory is off on that one.

Its a blessing and a curse having a good memory, mostly a curse.

Regardless, this an example of not hiding under the bed and what happens when sportsmen unite and have a set...

This whole same side of the table thing is all a great talking point, but the reality for as long as I've been involved, some of these issues will never be settled that away...including corner crossing.

Maybe unfortunately as well, but I've never seen anyone being effective "negotiating" from a position of weakness.

State Land Access History — Public Land Water Access Association

www.plwa.org

 

[Sasquatchewan]

Cautionary warning…DO NOT turn this song on while driving down the canyon in inclement weather. Apparently it may cause one to excessively hammer on the gas…

Could've used his talent for something good and creative. Instead he rapped about a dude while shoveling snow with a round shovel.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Its a blessing and a curse having a good memory, mostly a curse.

Regardless, this an example of not hiding under the bed and what happens when sportsmen unite and have a set...

State Land Access History — Public Land Water Access Association

www.plwa.org

I think there a lot of differing circumstances between state land access & corner crossing personally.

But I'm out for the night. Sleep well, Memory Foam (that's your new nickname, btw).

 

[Nick87]

This truly hurt my eyes and ears.

Oh FFS. Bring back the poetry that was way less gay!!

 

[BuzzH]

I think there a lot of differing circumstances between state land access & corner crossing personally.

But I'm out for the night. Sleep well, Memory Foam (that's your new nickname, btw).

I think the similarities are intuitively obvious even to the most casual observer.

Have a good slumber.

 

[TheTone]

View attachment 305784

Could've used his talent for something good and creative. Instead he rapped about a dude while shoveling snow with a round shovel.

Do you expect more a from a Utah rapper?

 

[FREAK]

Do you expect more a from an Utah rapper?

He was probably tweaking on that elk blood chit when he wrote it…

 

[ShootsManyBullets]

Cautionary warning…DO NOT turn this song on while driving down the canyon in inclement weather. Apparently it may cause one to excessively hammer on the gas…

This is what happens when dad's in prison and mom's hammering the wild turkey every night. Does he have a Meateater or Muley Freak song?

 

[TheTone]

He was probably tweaking on that elk blood chit when he wrote it…

Can’t do drugs or drink so you get this

 

[Irrelevant]

Cautionary warning…DO NOT turn this song on while driving down the canyon in inclement weather. Apparently it may cause one to excessively hammer on the gas…

That dude doesn't hammer anything but dirty socks.

 

[Elky Welky]

Oh FFS. Bring back the poetry that was way less gay!!

What?

 

[ShootsManyBullets]

Great news! You can use the promo code RANDY to get a can licked by Cam and Joe! Get your order in by the 15th to guarantee delivery by the 24th anywhere in the CONUS.

https://killcliff.com/products/kill-cliff-octane-elk-blood

Introducing Elk Blood, the latest and greatest brain child from the minds of Joe Rogan x Cam Hanes. A one-of-a-kind cherry bomb flavor with the perfect hint of spice to keep those tastebuds on the chase for more!
Regular price$58.00
Shipping calculated at checkout.