Sportsmen smear campaign

[Ben Long]

Hunting Wife, if you could direct me to those attacks on DU and Pheasants Forever in North Dakota in the press or on websites, I would appreciate it.

Shoots-straight. What you said.

 

[Ben Long]

I remember in Montana in 2000 when Sportsmen for Game Farm Reform was campaigning for I-143 in Montana. The game farmers took out ads accusing us of being anti-ag vegetarians. Jack Lyon (biologist and elk hunter) said "What do they think we are doing with our rifles, digging carrots?" Boy it was fun to beat those sonsabitches.

 

[Eric Albus]

Gerald, neither am I terribly politically active....MOGA is not a sportsman's organization...it is an organization representing the outfitting interests in the state. MOGA does not have time nor the money to stump for every feel good bill that comes down the pike.




Why are some of you opposed to SB245? This is a bill that will raise approx. $76k for the state, and provide an opportunity to bring elk numbers to objective....not to mention that it comes at a great time for me and my son to get away and harvest a cow elk...he has not been able to draw a tag here for a couple years....I would welcome the opportunity to take him and have a chance at an elk....even if it is antlerless.

 

[Straight Arrow]

Eric Albus,
'Don't mean to redirect the topic of this thread, but with respect to SB 245, what is the meaning and intent of the proposed revision of MCA 87-1-323 as shown below?

(2) The department shall consider the specific concerns of private landowners when determining sustainable population numbers pursuant to this section

 

[shoots-straight]

Gerald, neither am I terribly politically active....MOGA is not a sportsman's organization...it is an organization representing the outfitting interests in the state. MOGA does not have time nor the money to stump for every feel good bill that comes down the pike.




Why are some of you opposed to SB245? This is a bill that will raise approx. $76k for the state, and provide an opportunity to bring elk numbers to objective....not to mention that it comes at a great time for me and my son to get away and harvest a cow elk...he has not been able to draw a tag here for a couple years....I would welcome the opportunity to take him and have a chance at an elk....even if it is antlerless.

Because the term "sustainable population numbers" was used in the law vs. "Population estimates" throughout the law. Also the new part refer's to sustainable numbers of elk. "Sustainable is very broad term, meaning different things to however you would like to interpret the law. Straight Arrow already pointed out on big flaw. Debbie Barrett's bill HB 42 in 2003 has done us enormous amounts of harm in Western Montana. We think this bill is on that level.

The $10 fee to hunt the late season is a carrot. If you promote late seasons it will promote land owners who would lease to Outfitters just for bulls, fully well knowing the populations will be controlled by the peasants in the late season. We want to keep the harvest as much as possible in the 5 week frame work.

http://leg.mt.gov/bills/2015/billpdf/SB0245.pdf

 

[Oak]

If you promote late seasons it will promote land owners who would lease to Outfitters just for bulls, fully well knowing the populations will be controlled by the peasants in the late season. We want to keep the harvest as much as possible in the 5 week frame work.

I had never thought of it that way, shoots, but you are exactly right. Thanks.

 

[Straight Arrow]

Generally the more politically driven restrictive laws enacted by the legislature, the more difficult it is for FWP to apply proven and viable fundamentals to wildlife management.

 

[El Jason]

I had never thought of it that way, shoots, but you are exactly right. Thanks.

That is the reason the late seasons were done away with in the first place. Private ranches were off limits to the public for the entire 5 week season while clients killed their bulls, then late season cow hunts took place for damage control.

It can be a double edged sword. On one hand, you get SOME public opportunity for late season cow hunting. On the other, you stop rewarding landowners for selling bulls and then wanting assistance from the unwashed public to alleviate their damage problems.

 

[Oak]

That is the reason the late seasons were done away with in the first place. Private ranches were off limits to the public for the entire 5 week season while clients killed their bulls, then late season cow hunts took place for damage control.

It can be a double edged sword. On one hand, you get SOME public opportunity for late season cow hunting. On the other, you stop rewarding landowners for selling bulls and then wanting assistance from the unwashed public to alleviate their damage problems.

Oh Colorado is the king of the late cow and private land only cow license. The PLO license allows landowners to really choose who controls the population on their property, because you are foolish to apply for one without permission already secured. So draw odds are excellent for those who have access (those who the landowner wants on their land). I wouldn't say it even really provides much public opportunity. Landowners drive the bus in Colorado when it comes to how we control elk populations.

 

[BuzzH]

The thing that bothers me the most about these kinds of bills is that the Legislature is trying to manage wildlife through statute.

Let the MTFWP and their biologists, with public input from Sportsmen and all concerned parties, manage wildlife through the Commission and regulation.

The Legislature needs to stay the #$% out of wildlife management...they don't understand the process, issues, or do whats right for wildlife or hunters. Its politics, back room deals, and the good-old-boy club catering to special interests...and that isn't the special interest of DIY average joe hunters.

 

[shoots-straight]

The thing that bothers me the most about these kinds of bills is that the Legislature is trying to manage wildlife through statute.

Let the MTFWP and their biologists, with public input from Sportsmen and all concerned parties, manage wildlife through the Commission and regulation.

The Legislature needs to stay the #$% out of wildlife management...they don't understand the process, issues, or do whats right for wildlife or hunters. Its politics, back room deals, and the good-old-boy club catering to special interests...and that isn't the special interest of DIY average joe hunters.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
This!

 

[Straight Arrow]

Generally the more politically driven restrictive laws enacted by the legislature, the more difficult it is for FWP to apply proven and viable fundamentals to wildlife management.

That's what that also says in a sentence..

 

[BuzzH]

Straight Arrow,

Yes sort of, but not really. Most Sportsmen in Montana, Wyoming, etc. have no idea what the FWP/GF agencies and Commission can, and can not do, within regulation. Further, many of the special interests have completely cut the commission out of the discussion to further their agendas.

There are times when the Legislature has to get involved, but should reserve those occasions to times when Statute needs to be applied to give the Commission authority in Regulation. Whats going on today is a 180 from that. The Commissions/Sportsmen are having to deal with the fall-out of crap laws passed by a Legislature that doesn't know chit from clay about anything related to wildlife. Further, sportsmens groups are now having to spend lots of time and resources to keep these bad bills from becoming law.

This wasn't the case in the not too distant past...

 

[Straight Arrow]

Yes sort of, but not really.

That's where my twelve year old grandson rolls his eyes at me and says, "Whatever."
(Semantics, ain't it fun?!)

 

[Hunting Wife]

Ben, while traveling in North Dakota I read a few letters and op eds in some of the papers but as a Montanan I'm not subscribed to any of them and it seems I can't access many of them online as a non-subscriber. However, Grand Forks, Minot and Dickinson papers definitely ran some.

The two major opposition websites that contained the most inflammatory items seemed to have been completely removed from the internet shortly after the election. Those were www.noon5.org (sponsored by a Washington DC oil lobbying group called the American Petroleum Institute) and a website for North Dakota for Common Sense Conservation, which basically consisted of agriculture, business and government organizations. The most vitriolic items I heard first hand on a shopping trip to ND. We were accosted by some folks in a parking lot who were educating people about the environmental extremist organizations who were stealing money from the state and trying to buy up all the land - DU was one of the organizations on the list. Co-workers who live in North Dakota said they received phone calls to a similar effect.

I'm not a North Dakotan, and don't advocate either way for the bill itself but as per the point of my earlier post I am disturbed by the pummeling of DU (and others) and the way the issue is snowballing beyond just this one measure. I don't know about everyone else, but I like to read about the issues for myself, so here's a selection of some items that are still available online.

A letter in the Bowman, ND paper, similar to those that ran in many other papers in the state:
http://www.bowmanextra.com/2014/10/17/letter-vote-measure-5/

A summary of the measure and debate:
http://marcellus.com/news/id/110091/measure-5-verbal-firefight-persists-vote-less-3-weeks-away/

The aftermath for DU. This could be a perfect storm - loss of CRP, loss of native prairie and wetlands due to development, and an end to partnerships between government agencies and conservation organizations like DU:
http://www.startribune.com/sports/outdoors/284835991.html

http://sayanythingblog.com/entry/conservation-groups-alienated-north-dakotans/

http://www.agweek.com/event/article/id/24537/


And finally an article for anyone who is concerned about the smear campaign against any hunting and sportsmen's organizations. This is an article from an O&G industry website about whether industry can turn hunters away from conservation, and how they might be going about doing it:
http://eaglefordtexas.com/news/id/90330/can-oil-gas-turn-hunters-away-conservation/

Just some food for thought and perhaps a case study for other organizations out there.

 

[bigskyblueman]

Venerable conservation organizations under attack from corporate special interests . Radical state legislators attacking public lands, access, wildlife management agencies and programs that benefit sportsmen. Congress balking at renewing the LWCF. Rough seas ahead , but it is both incumbent and heartening that the sporting community make our voices heard.

 

[What Map]

Venerable conservation organizations under attack from corporate special interests . Radical state legislators attacking public lands, access, wildlife management agencies and programs that benefit sportsmen. Congress balking at renewing the LWCF. Rough seas ahead , but it is both incumbent and heartening that the sporting community make our voices heard.

Well said, BSBMan.

 

[Ben Lamb]

More on the D.C. effort to smear sportsmen and sportswomen:

http://www.bozemandailychronicle.co...top&utm_source=block_937344&utm_campaign=blox

Also, The American Lands Council, from Utah, has just hired a lobbyist to work the Montana Legislature.

If there was any doubt that transfer & sale of public lands is an out of state effort, then that's been put to bed with Americans For Prosperity (Kansas) and American Lands Council (Utah) being the only proponents at the capitol for transfer and sale.

We need every man, woman and child to show up on Monday, February 16th at noon in the Rotunda of the Capitol to stand up and say that we can't be bought, and we won't give up our American birthright.

Let's send these chodes packing.