Outfitter Issues

[James Riley]

Hmmm thats an entire thread by itself.

Same issue arises with guides. I returned to hunt an area where I used to guide. I didn't get the stink eye from my old boss, but I think when I wasn't looking . . .

I can see a little of both sides but in the end, public land is public land. And all of the men I guided were from far away, had money, and were mainly interested in having a horses to ride in, mules to pack out, and a guide to make breakfast, lunch and dinner.

My old boss had a "nursery" area that he used to stay out of and it was in a place DIYers didn't go or know about. He left it alone to produce big bulls and provide a safe haven for them to breed unmolested, etc. Even he and his family stayed out of there. Out of respect for him, so did I.

 

[Deleted member 20812]

I know that area of the Bridgers very well and hunted it hard for a handful of years. It is VERY checkerboarded, and in order to get almost anywhere in that area you do have to cross private land. There are two trails in that area that support easements, therefore allowing you to reach the FS inholdings. When I first started researching that area I spent almost an hour in the regon 3 FS office looking over maps with the rangers, and followed that session up with an extended period of phone tag between myself and the game warden. The conclusion was that I could hunt in that area but I had better be well acquainted with my GPS and land owner maps. If you pick up a copy of the Gallatin National Forest North map in the region 3 field office it shows where the easements are. They are the trails marked purple. To answer your original question, I have been harassed by other hunters more than land owners up there, one of which I had a very heated argument with. There is one outfiitter in the area who has quite the "reputation". Its a beautiful area and there are elk up there. But I dont hunt it much anymore due to everything described above.

You nailed it. I have hunted the area myself, and it has nothing to do with corner crossing. When I hunted it there was a legal USFS trail that goes through clear to the Sixteenmile Road, and so long as you stayed ON the trail you can legally traverse it.

The USFS employees in Bozeman were very helpful and should be able to clarify any issues.

I was never harrassed, and spoke to the outfitter and some other hunters on a couple of occasions, but this was also 16 years ago.

 

[Deleted member 20812]

Now im not saying outfitters are bad or anything! this topic is about one outfitter in specific that did not want anyone hunting " his" area, even though its public. Did anyone have a run into with an outfitter this year in the North Bridgers. He was giving hunters a bad time about accessing Redrock or farther. I did during archery season and it put a pretty good damper on my bow hunt i planned for about four months. i have been going into this area for years with my family we have accessed it from a different way but still hunted the same area i was going to hunt this year. i have done some archery hunting up there but i have never done a four or five dayer anyone go in this year? This outfitter was threatening to call us in and that if we went in there he would watch us like a hawk and that people have been walking all over him and his business for years and on and on. Any thoughts on this.

He is perfectly free to watch you like a hawk, and some do. Always good to know your GPS and your maps very well when hunting in an area like this.

As long as he's not telling you that you CANNOT use a legal public access, he really hasn't done anything wrong. There is no law against being a pain in the ass, and if that's all he's really doing then ignore him. If he's crossing the line and obstructing your hunt by telling you that you cannot access public land via a legal public trail, then contact FWP and file a complaint.

 

[Straight Arrow]

..there was a legal USFS trail that goes through clear to the Sixteenmile Road

That is not the case now. There is no public access to Hatfield Mountain from Sixteenmile Road. The road / trail east along the creek is private and closed with a locked gate. The higher slopes to the west and the top sections are in a checkerboard array. On the west and north side are the Morgan Ranch (outfitted) and the CA Ranch (outfitted).

 

[Deleted member 20812]

That is not the case now. There is no public access to Hatfield Mountain from Sixteenmile Road. The road / trail east along the creek is private and closed with a locked gate. The higher slopes to the west and the top sections are in a checkerboard array. On the west and north side are the Morgan Ranch (outfitted) and the CA Ranch (outfitted).

So does the trail still offer access to most of the checkerboard?

 

[Straight Arrow]

There is no trail from Sixteenmile (the north). However, I think the trail from the south to Redrock Mtn that fowl_minded is referring to will get you to the checkerboard array of sections. That's where corner crossing would be access to some great hunting, but again, the section lines are not marked. You would have to know where you were at all times.

 

[ShootsManyBullets]

Sounds like fun having to worry every second of the day on your time off from work. Imagine the drama if you shot something big out there...

 

[Straight Arrow]

Imagine the drama if you shot something big out there

Good point. That is the reality of the corner crossing issue. It's not merely a matter of hopping across a point on the ground to go hunting. I think a corner crossing access provision would have to include some way of practically retrieving downed game. Otherwise, there would be more problems than simply trespassing.

 

[Sytes]

There is a current MT law that prohibits harassing a hunter.

Montana Code - Section 87-6-215

(1) (a) A person may not:
(i) intentionally interfere with the lawful taking of a wild animal or fishing by another;
(ii) with intent to prevent or hinder its lawful taking or its capture, disturb a wild animal or engage in an activity or place in its way any object or substance that will tend to disturb or otherwise affect the behavior of a wild animal; or
(iii) disturb an individual engaged in the lawful taking of a wild animal or fishing with intent to prevent the taking of the animal or the capture of the fish.

Outfitters and hunters have appreciated this law to reduce or have legal recourse from the "anti" groups, in the case where an outfitter or hunter hinders another in the "pursuit" - s/he is just as at fault.

(b) "taking" means the pursuit, hunting, trapping, shooting, or killing of a wild animal on land upon which the affected person has the right or privilege to pursue, hunt, trap, shoot, or kill the wild animal

The penalty:

2) A person convicted of a violation of this section shall be fined not more than $500 or be imprisoned for not more than 30 days, or both. A person convicted of a second or subsequent violation shall be fined not more than $1,000 or be imprisoned for not more than 1 year, or both.

http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/mtcode/87/6/2/87-6-215

The good aspect dealing with an obtuse outfitter or hunter, a smart phone is your friend. Video and (or) audio minimizes the bs banter of "s/he said, s/he said". Make sure to state you may be recording the conversation (Mont. Code Ann. § 45-8-2 - Must have knowledge of being recorded - consent is not required, simply knowledge of being recorded) This will typically stop any further interference with your "pursuit" and on your way you go however if one is so pompous to push their illegal driven intent, they are their own sucker. With outfitters, there is an even greater aspect to consider within their interference of your "pursuit". False claims made regarding legal hunting locations or legal routing is as clear as clear may be when presenting the video to FWP LEOs and the Department of Labor and Industry, Board or Outfitters as a violation of this law.

For blocking legal easements:

House Bill 304 would increase the penalty for gating a public road from $10 a day to $500 a day.

Section 2. Section 7-14-2136, MCA, is amended to read:
"7-14-2136. Penalty for failure to remove encroachment promptly. If the encroachment is not removed immediately or removal is not diligently conducted, the one who causes, owns, or controls the encroachment is liable to a penalty of [strike]$10[/strike] $500 for each day the same encroachment continues."

http://leg.mt.gov/bills/2015/hb0399/HB0304_1.pdf

Another bill I hope gains it's place in MT law;

A BILL FOR AN ACT ENTITLED: "AN ACT PROHIBITING THE RESTRICTION OF PUBLIC ACCESS ON CERTAIN ROADS OR RIGHTS-OF-WAY USED BY THE PUBLIC UNLESS CERTAIN REQUIREMENTS ARE MET."

http://leg.mt.gov/bills/2015/hb0299/HB0286_1.pdf

Anyhow, for what it is worth...