MOGA - FWP "public" meeting?

[billy banger]

The MSA claims to be nonpartisan, but who are they kidding? The MSA is a closed group with a very close mind set!

From: Vito Quatraro

Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2012 3:53 PM

Subject: VOTE


Just a quick reminder to vote. If you live in SD 34 where Kurt Bushnell is running against Scott Sales in the Republican primary, please consider voting for Kurt and if you have any friends living in that district let them know as well. Since there is no real Democrat running in that race, even your Democratic friends could vote on the Republican ballot for Kurt.


Thanks.

 

[Eric Albus]

I wonder if you have the numbers for licensed guides in that same time frame you spoke of?

Also, many landowner/outfitters are now in business, those lands aren't reported as leased.

There are also many landowner/guides working under a outfitter that's lands aren't reported as leased.

Do you want to elaborate on why I-161 was a "Complete Failure"?

1. Right you are, I know of several landowners who are now outfitting their own land. They do not have to report anything, nor should they.

2. Wrong. By law outfitters have to report any and all lands they are providing services on...so there are not any acres that a licensed outfitter is operating on that are not recorded. Call Helena, Dept. of Labor and Industry, Board of Outfitters(this is a state run board, not to be confused w. MOGA).

3. I do not think 161 was a complete failure. I think it was a smashing success. Everyone who read any of my posts on the Gazette should know this(i guess when i told them it was going to be good for me and my peers they thought i was b.s.'ing). 161 de-regulated us(nulified a lot of constricting rules), gave our clients a cheaper license, allows them to hunt statewide w/out a guide, and allowed MOGA to go forward with legislation(one condition of the OSL was we would not go forward w/ legislation). So when I say it failed, I mean for those who wanted it to break the outfitters.

 

[Eric Albus]

number of guides did go up, but i do not have that number

 

[MattK]

Eric- You confuse me...on one hand you are saying that by passing I-161 it helped the outfitting/ guiding industry yet I heard nothing but complaining that it passed? So which is it? Was it good or bad for outfitters? If I remember correctly, the last legislative session was a lot about "getting even" for the passage of I-161...if outfitters liked it so much (and helped them so much) why would they want to get rid of it and be so butt burnt that it passed?

Also, could you let me know the amount of land leased by outfitters in the state of Montana during the time that the OSL was enacted by all guides and outfitters? If I remember correctly one of the reasons for the passing of I-161 was the fact that the amount of outfitter leased land was not to exceed the amount of block management (as per the original agreement for getting the OSL) but there was no accounting for the amount of leased land. I'm sure you already have the figures and just need to type those numbers in, right?

 

[MattK]

number of guides did go up, but i do not have that number

Herein lies the problem with the entire industry...no one knows the true numbers. It was already de-regulated as it was never really regulated.

 

[Drake4]

The MSA claims to be nonpartisan, but who are they kidding? The MSA is a closed group with a very close mind set!

You really are an idiot. If you would take the time to do any research before posting it may help your cause.

Take a look at the endorsed candidate list on MSA's webpage..a pretty good mix of both Dems. and Repubs.

 

[Drake4]

Eric- You confuse me...on one hand you are saying that by passing I-161 it helped the outfitting/ guiding industry yet I heard nothing but complaining that it passed? So which is it? Was it good or bad for outfitters? If I remember correctly, the last legislative session was a lot about "getting even" for the passage of I-161...if outfitters liked it so much (and helped them so much) why would they want to get rid of it and be so butt burnt that it passed?

You hit the nail on the head. I have never heard so much bitching and moaning from outfitters about 161..then in the next breath they talk about how it is helping their industry. Pretty funny stuff.

 

[shoots-straight]

2. Wrong. By law outfitters have to report any and all lands they are providing services on...so there are not any acres that a licensed outfitter is operating on that are not recorded. Call Helena, Dept. of Labor and Industry, Board of Outfitters(this is a state run board, not to be confused w. MOGA).

So your telling us that lands that outfitters use for hunting purposes are included in the leased lands total? Reported lands for use is different than leased lands.

Maybe those lands should fall in a commercial use tax bracket, rather than ag.?

 

[shoots-straight]

The MSA claims to be nonpartisan, but who are they kidding? The MSA is a closed group with a very close mind set!

From: Vito Quatraro

Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2012 3:53 PM

Subject: VOTE


Just a quick reminder to vote. If you live in SD 34 where Kurt Bushnell is running against Scott Sales in the Republican primary, please consider voting for Kurt and if you have any friends living in that district let them know as well. Since there is no real Democrat running in that race, even your Democratic friends could vote on the Republican ballot for Kurt.


Thanks.

Seriously dude, every time you post, you do yourself a disservice. I live in the Bitterroot. Every candidate that we're endorsing over here, is Republican.

Facts just aren't part of your game, are they?

 

[Rat Fink]

buzz...give me a break....the reason for "livestock" classification is that the Dept., or the Feds., would have to be RESPONSIBLE for them....when they are "wild" they can run about "willy-nilly" with nobody responsible for them...If my livestock gets out on the road and you run into it, I am responsible for damages to you and your car....if you hit one of "our elk/deer/free range buffalo....you are s.o.l....your problem.....and it would not turn over management to the Dept. of Livestock...it would turn management over to FWP or the Fed, whomever took ownership of said shaggy beasties...the DoL does not tell me how to run my cows....

"a lot of landowners/outfitters want complete control of Mt's wildlife".....I am one of each, and do not feel that way...talk about fear mongering and causing hatred and disention in the ranks....all that most of us landowners/outfitters want to see is biological managment of the deer/elk....do you ever hear anyone from the landowner/outfitter side of the fence complaing about Big Horn Sheep management? How about Mnt. Goats?...Moose?...Elk/deer in permit areas?...funny...I have never heard anyone complain, except that they can not draw a tag..because the Dept. does a wonderful job, especially w/ Big Horn Sheep...Mt. is the envy of the world because of our Sheep. Us "greedy landowner/outfitter" types just want to see the same kind of managment w/ deer/elk, then you would see more access....I know that here in Reg. 6 there is no access issue in area 652(mule deer permit area)....wonder why? could it be 'cause the public land looks just like the private?...what a concept.

I can't believe you guys let this one slip. Eric there have been numerous Bighorn Sheep relocation and augmentation projects shutdown because of landowner complaints. Most recently was last fall in the Bridgers.

 

[ingomar]

Landowners also stopped the sheep transplant in the Lewis & Clark cavern area and the east side of the Madison Valley. Legislator Murphy already has a place holder in to draft a bill revising the criteria for sheep transplants. He is also the individual that shut down the transplant in Lewis & Clark. Do you think that bill will be drafted to increase the number of sheep transplants or decrease them???

 

[Straight Arrow]

Eric, I don't mean to come across as disrespectful, but again I question your source of information and the analysis process for forming your opinion. Most of us on this thread are hunters and wildlife advocates with nothing to gain except for perpetuating the great Montana hunting tradition and the nurturing of the bountiful wildlife resource with which we are blessed.

It would serve you well to consider your perspective and ask the hard questions. Obviously, many contributing to this dialogue are passionately biased, but they provide very knowledgeable, well-considered opinions when it comes to hunting, wildlife, and related issues. Contrary to what you may believe, most are not biased against the great tradition of outfitting and the huge economic boon it brings to Montana. It's a new contrary attitude of some that has created the rift. When money overcomes love of hunting, wildlife, and Montana ... history shows that things go awry.

 

[Topgun 30-06]

"When money overcomes love of hunting, wildlife, and Montana ... history shows that things go awry"

Therein lies the entire problem in a nutshell as hunting has now become a "huge industry" compared to a "sport" as I knew it 60 years ago when I first started with my Dad!.

 

[BuzzH]

Straight Arrow,

Great post.

What I've found the most troubling with MOGA is their total disrespect shown to the average DIY hunter...they flat couldnt care less if we all quit hunting.

Montana Hunters are constantly thrown under the bus by the actions of the MOGA...with threats of landowners closing off access, threats of going through the legislature to get their way, holding secret back room meetings with the MTFWP, etc.

All these lead me to believe that their bottom line profits are more important than doing whats best for wildlife, as evidenced by the potentially damaging legislation that MOGA was behind last session. Certainly more important than giving even so much as a second thought to the average DIY Montana Sportsmen.

For MOGA to get their way, at the expense of all other hunters, they only have a few options:

1. Through the legislature.

2. Through control of the commission/MTFWP (largely hitched to number 1).

In neither case is MOGA showing any consideration for the 200,000+ licensed sportsmen in Montana. Further, MOGA is crying foul because groups like MSA are forming to combat their attempts to control the legislature and the MTFWP. Seems pretty hypocritcal for some on this thread to claim MSA is partisan and not playing fair...considering MOGA has been doing exactly the same thing for decades. The difference is, MSA is looking out for the average DIY hunter and whats best for the MTFWP and the Wildlife.

Its even more arrogant for MOGA to think that 200,000+ sportsmen are going to sit back and let MOGA run rough-shod over OUR PUBLIC WILDLIFE. In case MOGA didnt get the memo...you lost your OSL's because of your own arrogance and lack of accountability to the Citizens and Sportsmen of Montana. You reap what you sow.

While MOGA still wants to believe their own delusional views that they can control the legislature and the MTFWP...they better wake up...and they better start playing ball with the Sportsmen who outnumber them 200,000 to 249. If I were a member of MOGA I wouldnt like those odds...in particular because of the growing numbers of sportsmen actively involved in various sportsmens groups, the increasing number of sportsmen getting politically active, etc.

This isnt 1960....news travels fast and thats a good thing for those seeking the truth and keeping those that would attempt to use the ugliness of politics to control Public Wildlife.

 

[Eric Albus]

Eric- You confuse me...on one hand you are saying that by passing I-161 it helped the outfitting/ guiding industry yet I heard nothing but complaining that it passed? So which is it? Was it good or bad for outfitters? If I remember correctly, the last legislative session was a lot about "getting even" for the passage of I-161...if outfitters liked it so much (and helped them so much) why would they want to get rid of it and be so butt burnt that it passed?

Also, could you let me know the amount of land leased by outfitters in the state of Montana during the time that the OSL was enacted by all guides and outfitters? If I remember correctly one of the reasons for the passing of I-161 was the fact that the amount of outfitter leased land was not to exceed the amount of block management (as per the original agreement for getting the OSL) but there was no accounting for the amount of leased land. I'm sure you already have the figures and just need to type those numbers in, right?

prior to the OSL outfitters were leasing approx. 8 M acres....the day 161 passed we were leasing 6.2 or 6.3 M acres....Block Managment acreage had nothing to do w/ leased acres by outfitters.....since passage of 161 outfitter leased acres has gone up....you can call the board of outfitters in Helena(Dept. of Labor and Industry) to get those numbers...they can probable tell you the licensed guide numbers as well, and what they were prior to the OSL, and after....i know the number of licensed guides went up, just not by how many....

 

[Eric Albus]

Eric, I don't mean to come across as disrespectful, but again I question your source of information and the analysis process for forming your opinion. Most of us on this thread are hunters and wildlife advocates with nothing to gain except for perpetuating the great Montana hunting tradition and the nurturing of the bountiful wildlife resource with which we are blessed.

It would serve you well to consider your perspective and ask the hard questions. Obviously, many contributing to this dialogue are passionately biased, but they provide very knowledgeable, well-considered opinions when it comes to hunting, wildlife, and related issues. Contrary to what you may believe, most are not biased against the great tradition of outfitting and the huge economic boon it brings to Montana. It's a new contrary attitude of some that has created the rift. When money overcomes love of hunting, wildlife, and Montana ... history shows that things go awry.

Want to get the ruler out and measure who has done more for wildlife, conservation, and the resource? Do all of you think that we see the resource as a $ sign? If you do....well, let's just say it would not surprise, or disappoint me. I have always tried to put the resource first. I could make a helluva lot more money if I did not.

The numbers I give you of leased acres, outfitter numbers comes straight from the Board of Outfitters....not to be confused w/ MOGA. The BoO is there to keep track of us, and if an outfitter is caught hunting/fishing on a property that he is not licensed for or not in his operations plan a hefty fine is levied upon him....so the leased acres of 6.3 million on the day 161 passed is very accurate....we have gone up in leased acres since 161 passed(just like i said)....and nobody ever heard me complain about 161 passing....all I did was warn of "un-intended consequences.....

 

[Eric Albus]

So your telling us that lands that outfitters use for hunting purposes are included in the leased lands total? Reported lands for use is different than leased lands.

Maybe those lands should fall in a commercial use tax bracket, rather than ag.?

Reported land use is different than leased land...reported land use would include BLM, FS, CMR, State, ect..

L-1 forms are filled out on "leased private acres" by outfitters, and reported to the BoO(not to be confused w/ MOGA)...

 

[Ben Lamb]

Want to get the ruler out and measure who has done more for wildlife, conservation, and the resource?

Okay. I'm game. You go first.

 

[BuzzH]

Yeah....I'd like to take the ruler out as well.

 

[shoots-straight]

Want to get the ruler out and measure who has done more for wildlife, conservation, and the resource? Do all of you think that we see the resource as a $ sign? If you do....well, let's just say it would not surprise, or disappoint me. I have always tried to put the resource first. I could make a helluva lot more money if I did not.

Oh Eric! Not a good choice.