MOGA - FWP "public" meeting?

[Eric Albus]

buzz, i am inclined to agree w/ you. "Hunter behavior" has closed some properties, but not the leading reason for closing.
I appreciate you recognizing that a landowner has the right to open/close their properties to the public. Folks who advocate "forcing access" are not intelligent enough to realize that when they force someone to give up a right that they too are giving up the right they are forcing away from another.

 

[BuzzH]

Whether or not I-161 has been better for Montana hunters or not isnt the issue for me.

The issue is that the citizens of Montana have the absolute right to manage their wildlife as they see fit. If that means they're tired of giving welfare to Outfitters in the form of OSL's...so be it. Their wildlife, they should get the ultimate say in how they choose to distribute permits, etc.

Like I've already said, if landowners want to close of their lands...so be it. Their land, their decision and I'm respectful of their choices to allow hunting or not. However, they need to keep in mind that its MY wildlife, and I'm tired as hell of them threatening to close their private lands if they dont get their way with MY PUBLIC WILDLIFE. They can hold their breath, stomp their feet, and throw their suckers in the dirt all they want over how the public wants to manage the PUBLIC RESOURCE. I wont be wasting any time listening to their tantrums.

BTW, the MWF and MSA do represent my views...and I choose to support both as should anyone that is for public lands and public wildlife.

 

[BuzzH]

IThat was when resident hunters respected landowner’s rights and treated them with respect. But now you think you have the entitlement right to hunt on their private property and that is poor hunter behavior, pure and simple! You are so out of touch with landowners and their concerns because trying to force access is costing all of us dearly! Good enough for now!

\

Billy, I'm not out of touch with anything to do with hunting. On the rare occassions that I CHOOSE to hunt private land, I treat the privilege no differently now than I ever have. I leave gates the way I found them, I dont drive off road, etc. etc. etc.

I certainly dont feel any entitlement to hunt private lands.

I dont attack their private property rights, but they sure dont find any problem attacking my public lands and my public wildlife though...(see last MT Legislative session for all the proof you choose to see).

 

[billy banger]

BuzzH--funny thing is that Landowners don't agree with you and you are closing down more and more private property which is harmful to all of us! It is a public resource but most of the wildlife are locating on private property where you and others expect the landowner to provide habitat and put up with hunters without being compensated for it! 100 head of elk eat just about the same as 100 steers. So why would you expect the landowner to provide habitat for your public wildlife without compensation? You certainty wouldn't expect a landowner to run someone else cows on their property for free! Then why would you expect a landowner to run our public wildlife for free? I know that is an inherit responsibility but you will find more landowners cooperative if they were compensated for access to the public's wildlife, which would help all of us!

There is 30 million acres of public land in Montana that has adequate access and 9 million acres of BM, isn't that enough? How much do you all want? You have to ask yourself why isn't most of the public land good hunting? Because it isn't managed like the private you all want access to! Maybe you should insist on the FWP to start managing that 39 million acres for like most landowenrs!

I don't think the OSL were giving welfare to outfitters, all I-161 did was to deregulate the industry allowing them to expand and lease up more private property, so tell me how that has done the resident sportsmen any good! As I understand, it is costing the FWP and the BM a lot of money, which will once again harm my hunting in Montana!

 

[drahthaar]

Maybe you should insist on the FWP to start managing that 39 million acres for like most landowenrs!

Oh, we should just let a select few on to hunt? And what, auction those tags to the select few? Because that is what you are talking about. There it is....Utah.

 

[billy banger]

Oh, we should just let a select few on to hunt? And what, auction those tags to the select few? Because that is what you are talking about. There it is....Utah.

So what do you propose forcing access unto private property? That is a battle you will never win. We need to find some type of incentive program to landowners and outfitters that would encourage them to open up more access! Using a big stick isn't working, not working at all! Meanwhile we residents are losing more and more access. Thanks to the MWF & MSA.

 

[BuzzH]

BuzzH--funny thing is that Landowners don't agree with you and you are closing down more and more private property which is harmful to all of us! It is a public resource but most of the wildlife are locating on private property where you and others expect the landowner to provide habitat and put up with hunters without being compensated for it! 100 head of elk eat just about the same as 100 steers. So why would you expect the landowner to provide habitat for your public wildlife without compensation? You certainty wouldn't expect a landowner to run someone else cows on their property for free! Then why would you expect a landowner to run our public wildlife for free? I know that is an inherit responsibility but you will find more landowners cooperative if they were compensated for access to the public's wildlife, which would help all of us!

Dude, you make this too easy. It would serve you well to THINK before you post...seriously.

Any landowner in Montana that has 100 elk using their property has choices. They can choose to get out of the ranching business. They can choose to charge for hunting access to compensate them. They can choose to allow public hunting. They can choose to file for depredation claims with the MTFWP. They can apply for landowner licenses. They can work with the MTFWP to hold late damage hunts. Finally, there is inherent risk in any business. You choose to ranch/farm its damned likely that you'll be dealing with wildlife issues. The landowners in Montana have many choices and many ways to "deal" with the publics wildlife resources. If they dont choose to use the many available tools...well, tough shitski, find another shoulder to cry on or another line of work.

There is 30 million acres of public land in Montana that has adequate access and 9 million acres of BM, isn't that enough? How much do you all want? You have to ask yourself why isn't most of the public land good hunting? Because it isn't managed like the private you all want access to! Maybe you should insist on the FWP to start managing that 39 million acres for like most landowenrs!

That is plenty of access and I routinely take quality game on MY PUBLIC LANDS, year in and year out. You need to look around on hunttalk, the guys on this board take much better animals quality wise on public lands than a vast majority of game killed on private lands...and you can take that fact to the bank. I dont want access to private land...for the 3rd time now, I dont want to be at the mercy of a fickle landowner for my hunting opportunities. The only way a majority of hunters will have a place to hunt is if Public Lands stay in public hands...period. I couldnt care less what a private land owner does with their property...I'm only concerned with my public land and my public wildlife.

Next, the FWP cannot "start managing the 39 million acres" you bring up. They are not the Agency that controls or owns most all of those 39 million acres. The MTFWP doesnt even have complete management control of State owned lands. The best the MTFWP can do is to work in cooperation with the Federal Agencies (BLM, USFS, USFWS, etc.) that control all management on a majority of those 39 million acres. Its also fair to note that the managing agencies are under regulations/acts that must provide for equal consideration to ALL uses of public lands...not just hunting/wildlife. You are typical of the crowd that routinely blames the MTFWP for things they have ZERO control over, in this case the management of 39 million acres of land they dont own/control.

I don't think the OSL were giving welfare to outfitters, all I-161 did was to deregulate the industry allowing them to expand and lease up more private property, so tell me how that has done the resident sportsmen any good! As I understand, it is costing the FWP and the BM a lot of money, which will once again harm my hunting in Montana!

Thats your opinion. But, when you give one business control of 17,000+ NR licenses where a NR hunter was FORCED to book with them to get a license...I tend to disagree with your assessment that its not a subsidy/welfare. It is what it is...or in this case..what it was, as the hunters in Montana grew tired of the program, the lies, the cheating, and the lack of accountability from the MOGA that went on with it.

The value is that the Montana residents have taken back control of their resources/tags. This is just the start of Montana Resident hunters taking back what is rightfully theirs...stay tuned.

 

[Eric Albus]

buzz...i take exception to the "outfitter welfare" comment....the OSL was not "welfare"...nor subsidy. That license was no different than a couch or car on a showroom floor....it was simply a vehicle we had to sell(for the state) in order for someone wanting to use my services to hunt w/ me. period...today my clients still enjoy a 100% draw rate for license, and the license is less expensive...161 was a dismal failure.

I also take exception to the defining of wildlife as "my wildlife"....do you and others who espouse your beliefs have more right to "your wildlife" for the week you want to hunt them, than the landowner who feeds/houses that wildlife 365 days a year? No you do not, anymore than the landowner has more right to the wildlife than you....you do have more right to your home than that landowner does, just like he has more rights when it comes to his property than you(or I) do....which is a point I think that you understand, as you have clearly stated.

I do not know anything about MSA or who they are...but MWF is a branch of the NWF...they are pro-wolf, pro-bison, and anti-hunting.....NWF and Defenders of Wildlife(the same group as footed the bill for the bison to Ft. Peck) are working hand in hand on this issue.

"divided a house falls"...know whose quote that is?

 

[drahthaar]

So what do you propose forcing access unto private property? That is a battle you will never win. We need to find some type of incentive program to landowners and outfitters that would encourage them to open up more access! Using a big stick isn't working, not working at all! Meanwhile we residents are losing more and more access. Thanks to the MWF & MSA.

Like Buzz just said, they have many options to get "compensated". And there is no big stick involved. They will never open up more access, no matter what. I think that is just some kind of BS to lord over hunters.

And personally, I don't hunt private land, so it really doesn't mean a pile of dog crap to me. I just don't want any form of what Utah has going on, and it's obvious that is where the livestock industry wants to go, and that seems to spread to public land.

 

[BuzzH]

Eric, we'll just always have a difference of opinion on our views of what the OSL's were.

When a state agency gives exclusive use of a permit to ONE business over all the others out there, I dont know what else to call it, but what it was.

sub·si·dy (sbs-d)
n. pl. sub·si·dies
1. Monetary assistance granted by a government to a person or group in support of an enterprise regarded as being in the public interest.


It was actually worse, as the NR hunters who bought the OSL's were FORCED to book a hunt through the outfitter that had control of the licenses.

Now the NR hunter has a CHOICE in whether they want to book a hunt or not. They are no longer being black-mailed into using the services of a guide to be assured a permit.

The question I always had is why was it just YOUR business that was afforded the car/couch for their showroom while you systematically denied all other hunter related businesses the same luxury for their showrooms?

Take all the exception you want, but the OSL's assured clients to only ONE business in Montana...and thats a subsidy/welfare, IMO. If ALL businesses in Montana were offered licenses for sale to their clients, I'd be more inclined to call it something different. But, that was never the case.

The reason its MY PUBLIC WILDLIFE is because it is. It makes no difference who's land PUBLIC WILDLIFE chooses to live on, the landowner has no control over it...period. The only thing a landowner has control of is access to their property, which I've already stated I fully support.

The landowners in Montana have a clear history of trying to take control of wildlife and that is never going to endear them to the Public. Further, the public will fight them tooth-and-nail, as most DIY Public land Hunters will never sit by and watch control of a PUBLIC RESOURCE being given to special interests. The back-lash from the last legislative session should have opened the eyes of those that attempted to take control of MY PUBLIC WILDLIFE and MY PUBLIC LANDS...and access to same.

Its always funny that during hunting season landowners dont want hunters hunting "their private" deer/elk/antelope...but after hunting season, when the same elk/deer/antelope are causing them problems...all of a sudden they're "the States deer/elk/antelope" and I'm expected to do something about them. Really? Cant have it both ways there sport.

Also, I dont just pay for MY PUBLIC WILDLIFE for one week per year. I pay for protection and management of them for 365 days a year. A vast majority of the funds for all forms of wildlife management come from the sale of hunting licenses. And that includes damage paid to landowners caused by MY PUBLIC WILDLIFE.

I also dont believe in the "divided we fall" bullshit. The biggest threat to MY PUBLIC WILDLIFE and MY PUBLIC LANDS is the commercialization and privitization that seems to be common in folks that believe wildlife must have a price on its head to have value...a claim you've already made here with your reference to how great things are in Africa.

 

[Lawnboy]

I have a feeling that the meeting was more of a posturing/publicity stunt for the Assist. Director. He's being groomed by the current director to take over and so this guy is going to begin the pandering to make it to the next level. IMO

 

[Eric Albus]

never made a claim that "things were great in Africa"...just that if wildlife had no value, sadly, it would no longer exsist there...or many other places for that matter.

If the OSL was a "subsidy", why pray tell, did so many outfitters go out of business during it's tenure?...after all that "guaranteed business"...was just a line of B.S....there was no guarantee, except to the client willing to spend a lot of $$ on a license. The only folks subsidized were the resident sportsmen..by the non-resident dollar funding the Block Management program...so agree to disagree, we must.

And "sport" you have NEVER heard me ask the state to do something about the wildlife on my private lands. Nor have I ever asked the state for special seasons ect. on any ground I leased(nor to my knowledge have any of the landowners I lease from)....however, I have opened up some of our leased lands to the public when numbers were out of hand....and hope to not repeat some of the mistakes I have made in the past.

I also never said that you "pay for your wildlife for a week"...I merely stated that most folks only have interest in wildlife for the one week (or weekend) they choose to hunt....doing nothing for the wildlife the other 360 days a year.

"Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand".

 

[Dinkshooter]

Bigshooter?

 

[Straight Arrow]

When State lands became accessible for hunting and other recreation, the "landowners" were going to shut down access.

When unlimited antelope and elk permits became limited, the "landowners" were going to shut down access.

When I-161 passed, the "landowners" were going to shut down access.

Now when bison are proposed as wildlife to be placed on reservations and public land, the "landowners" are going to shut down access.

How many times and how many ways can the "landowners" shut down access?
Talk is cheap and I submit those who are most vocal have already shut out Montana sportsmen ... not for the sake of wildlife or hunting tradition, but for the almighty dollar and for puffing of the chest.

Last I checked, Block Management is a strong, viable program. 'Just sayin!!!


And by the way, Montana Wildlife Federation is a far cry from the National Wildlife Federation.
MWF is a leading supporter of the Montana hunting tradition ... it's blatantly obvious to anyone who knows anything about Montana wildlife advocacy.

 

[BuzzH]

Poor business plans by outfitters isnt my problem...it does speak volumes that even though outfitters were being propped up by the State via OSL's...they still found ways to fail.

Couldnt be that some of those that went out of business were scamming unsuspecting NR's who were forced to buy an OSL if they wanted to be assured a hunt?

Naaaaa...couldnt have been that.

Of course you're not asking the State to do anything with their wildlife, you're making a profit from it.

Next you'll tell me that no landowners in Montana ask the State to hold special seasons, late hunts, or for depredation?

I do agree with you that the Resident hunters were largely (though not completely) being subsidized by the NR hunters in regard to BM.

I disagree with you completely regarding folks only having interest in wildlife for one week/weekend a year. They pay license fees for others to care about PUBLIC WILDLIFE 365 days a year. When it comes to paying the bills, hunters do all the heavy lifting...by a landslide.

The problem with a Kingdom...its good to be King...not so good for everyone else.

 

[BuzzH]

Straight arrow you left off at least a couple more:

When the stream access law passed, landowners were going to shut down access.

When wolves were reintroduced the landowners were going to shut down access.

The list goes on and on...

 

[Big Fin]

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."

 

[Drake4]

You have to ask yourself why isn't most of the public land good hunting? Because it isn't managed like the private you all want access to! Maybe you should insist on the FWP to start managing that 39 million acres for like most landowenrs!

Congratulations. You have just posted the dumbest statement on this board.

 

[Drake4]

I retract my previous statement. I should have read the entire thread before posting.

Meanwhile we residents are losing more and more access. Thanks to the MWF & MSA.

This infact, is the dumbest statement on the board.

I could care less what landowners' do with their land. Lock it up, lease it, allow access, don't allow access..it's your right, do as you please. Just quit whining about every damn wildlife related issue that comes to surface. You have lots of options as people have stated..figure it out, it's not that complicated. Expecting compensation for public wildlife on private land is hilarious.

 

[Big Shooter]

Dinkshooter...thanks for the concern as to where I was, I wouldn't miss this for anything!! Billy and Albus...welcome to my world!! Trying to reason with the "sense of entitlement" attitude can be a bit challenging at times and I have been fighting this battle alone for quite some time ever since "Blue Yummies" pussed out and left. Some of these "Square Heads" (sorry Buzz), just don't get the fact that access to private ground is not a right and that landowners hold way more of the cards in the game then most would like to think....and oh yeah..the abbreviation for the Montana Outfitters and Guides Association is MOGA, not MGOA...hence the "Square Head" title.

I have to agree with Albus on the fact that I doubt anything was discussed at that meeting that was "under handed" or detrimental to the resident DIY sportsman or had any direct affect on the resident sportsman's ability to access their public ground that has public access available. I'm guessing that Big Fin was just a little butt hurt over the fact that he wasn't invited to the party since he's kind of a "Big Deal" around here. I'm still not real sure how a guy that owns a Television show that is filmed on public ground, harvesting public wildlife....FOR A PROFIT.......can be so worried about the outfitting industry which has been such a huge part of the economy in Montana for close to a century! I know the whole song and dance about expensive permits and yada, yada, yada.....just like members of other industries that utilize public ground have to pay.

So, I guess my point is Fin, is that no matter what happens with the Outfitting Industry, you will still be able to film your show on the ground that you and Buzz own so it shouldn't really have a huge affect on either of you at all.

Happy Memorial Day to all of you and keep it safe!