Trying to type this from a Droid back here in NY.
Billy Banger - curious to know how, MWF, MSA, ABC, XYZ, or any other group has caused hunters to lose access. Only the owner of the land can determine access. None of those groups or no other hunter groups own land in MT, so I am confused how they have closed any hunting access.
Landowners have every right to close their land for whatever reason. If it is the bison issue, I-161, access to state lands, the stream access bill, or whatever, landowners have the right to close access. Most the people making a big posture about closing access are looking for a reason to close access. Most are great folks who will not fall into this hyperbole and will continue with their traditional models of hunting for their land.
If you have evidence of where any group is trying to force access, post it up here. I have been involve in hunting politics for twenty years and I can tell you that if any group came forward with a bill to force access to hunt private land, myself, my hunting buddies, and just about every hunter I know would come out against it.
This "forcing access" crap is urban legend being cooked up every time someone wants to stir the pot on the access issue. It will never happen in a state like MT where hunters hold the 5th Amendment and the property rights conveyed under such, to be very important.
Seems many who love to promote the property rights protections of the Constitution stop reading before they get to the 10th Amendment. Long before these properties were liquidated of their native wildlife and fenced for non-native domestic animals, the Founding Fathers passed the 10th Amendment, stating all rights previously held by the King would stay with the states, unless granted to the Republic or other individuals. Wildlife was one of those rights previously held by the King that was retained by the states.
They did so deliberately. The US Supreme Court has upheld this state trusteeship of wildlife every time. They have called it the Public Trust Doctrine. It holds valid today.
Point of that being, that we have the 5th and 10th Amendments at play. Both equally important to the discussion. Landowners take their private property rights in land, subject to the same right the states hold as trustees of wildlife, regardless of where it exists. It makes for difficult management when the state managers have no access to manage private land and for private landowners who have to manage within whatever rules the state has in place. But, that is where we find ourselves. If landowners find closing their lands the best solution with that reality, then such is their right.
As far as Eric's comment about FWP meeting with other groups, I would ask for him to provide one instance where a Director or Assistant Director ever called a two day meeting, specifically with some other group, requiring all seven Regional Directors to attend. I suspect he won't find it.
I know FWP brass has read this thread, as on Friday I was called by one guy in Helena who I respect. We played phone tag between my flights. I suspect he will give me the FWP version of events when we can talk on Tuesday.
I stated that FWP should be in communication with MOGA. They represent a stakeholder in MT hunting discussions. Yet, the secrecy, the requirement of all seven RDs to attend, for two days, with no other groups notified, all smell afoul to anyone with even a small knowledge of how this department has been lead the last few years.
I will wait to hear the FWP version. I will also get the low down from some of the outfitters. I suspect it was more than a "putting names with faces" meeting. I hope FWP will rethink things before they have this kind of meeting with any group, in this manner, with this much staff attending, with such great attempts to keep it "on the down low."
