Sweet Grass Hills!

[Eric Albus]

mt, that is something you must do for yourself...if I am going to ask rich to hunt it would be for my kid.

joe, the breaks archery permits...tough subject...there was/is an overcrowding problem, which is why I stopped hunting there years ago...personally I have no dog in that fight, but I do think that there were less punative measures that could have been tired before going to permits....permits should always be a last resort...unless we could go back to the old days of having the drawing at the civic center in Glasgow, and you would have to be present to win!

 

[bigskyblueman]

Regardless of what he says his reasons are, if he gets the permit, he has carte blanche to hunt the area at will . I think we can rest assured that's what will happen.

 

[howler]

mt, that is something you must do for yourself...if I am going to ask rich to hunt it would be for my kid.

joe, the breaks archery permits...tough subject...there was/is an overcrowding problem, which is why I stopped hunting there years ago...personally I have no dog in that fight, but I do think that there were less punative measures that could have been tired before going to permits....permits should always be a last resort...unless we could go back to the old days of having the drawing at the civic center in Glasgow, and you would have to be present to win!

actually the permits were the last resort, first it was the free permit(unlimited) then it was unlimited 1st choice only for 620-15 and 410-15,,,, 798-15 was allowed 3 choices then it became permits, the permit numbers are set pretty damn close to perfect right now, nearly every resident hunter gets to hunt, 98% success, there are 4005 permits allowed for 410-15,,,620-15,,,798-15 and by state law a maximum of 405 of them are set aside for non residents, a handful are landowner tags both resident landowner and non resident landowner,,, and the rest go to residents, out of all that 72 residents did not draw a permit for the breaks last year, a few of the unsuccessful applicants only applied 1st choice and others applied for the premium districts 1st choice for the 690 archery elk, or the 380 archery elk,,, then applied for one of the breaks districts either 2nd 0r 3rd choice,

 

[mtmuley]

Sorry Eric. I was being sarcastic. Rich has ground leased I hunted as a kid. Sucks for me, but that' seems to be how it goes a lot of the time these days. Money talks. mtmuley

 

[Eric Albus]

howler, permits were not the last resort....many other options could have and should have been implimented, like breaks, first and only choice, then go to breaking up the seasons for non-residents, letting them make a chioce if they want to hunt first week, 2nd week, and so on...maybe even give the residents the option of having no non-redsident hunters for one week out of the archery elk season, like opening week or the 22-30 of Sept...many options could have been tried, but we would have eventually w/ permits anyway(eventually we will have to have permits for every big game hunt)
.... having every resident draw is a good thing? In my opinion, if an area is going to be permitted, make it a permit worth drawing, improve the quality of the hunt, and quality of the hunting....

 

[Pierre]

Eric, with all due respect, you do have a dog in the Breaks fight, hunter apprentice, no sheep or wildlife transplants, outfitter deregulation, and on and on. As a MOGA board member you share responsibility for Mac, Paul, and Pat trying to bull the game. Put a stop to their false and misleading testimony. Put a stop to the shady back room deals. Put a stop to the affiliation with SFW. They (faces of MOGA) are doing your industry some real disservice and the consequences are far reaching.
Remember, we will work with any ethical outfitter on solutions but it must be housed in honesty.

 

[Eric Albus]

The outfitter deregulation I have explained a dozen times...161 deregulated us...the bill was simply a simplfication of redundant paperwork...the hunter apprentice I will defend, I do not need the state to tell me when my child is old enough to hunt...and do not use the parrallel of driving...not even a comparision... oh, and the false and misleading testimony...that road runs 2 directions.

Why all the fear of SFW?

 

[schmalts]

Why all the fear of SFW?

Because they are snakes. Because it is many of opinions they are turning hunting into a rich man's sport faster than anyone else.

 

[Big Shooter]

Just stumbled across this........so I'll put my two cents worth in. Rich is a stand up guy and very good at what he does. I guess I can't see what the difference is between him hunting that area for 24 days or some fella from.....say.....Vermont (not hating on Vermontians), hunting it for 24 days......with, say.....three buddies? At least he was honest enough to apply for the permit and put himself through this painful ordeal just to stay honest. On that note......at least he is honest enough to have an outfitters license when he takes people on to BLM, which, unfortunately does happen. In short, I really don't think that Rich will hurt any hunting or take any opportunity away from anyone.

 

[shoots-straight]

Just stumbled across this........so I'll put my two cents worth in. Rich is a stand up guy and very good at what he does. I guess I can't see what the difference is between him hunting that area for 24 days or some fella from.....say.....Vermont (not hating on Vermontians), hunting it for 24 days......with, say.....three buddies? At least he was honest enough to apply for the permit and put himself through this painful ordeal just to stay honest. On that note......at least he is honest enough to have an outfitters license when he takes people on to BLM, which, unfortunately does happen. In short, I really don't think that Rich will hurt any hunting or take any opportunity away from anyone.

Shooter, I'm sure that Rich is a great guy and one that would make for a great role model for outfitters to follow.

That's not really the issue here though. Commercializing an area that historically has had none is. It's a small area, and one that gets a fair amount of local activity. Not every area should be commercial.

Eric, if you wonder why all the rift with SFW you certainly haven't digested anything that's been said on this site and others.

 

[Big Shooter]

Shoots......fair enough......but by him having a permit in there, does that take away any opportunity from you......or from anyone else for that matter? The few clients that he chooses to take in there would also like to hunt "their public land".....they just choose to do it with an outfitter, and a legal one at that. They have just as much right to be there as you and I do, but they choose to hunt with Rich, and who are we to tell that they can't. Just my opinion.

 

[Straight Arrow]

Tool = an implement or means to an end

Eric + Big Shooter = pair of MOGA, SFW tools ... regardless of intent. Not meant as criticism or disrespect, merely a logical observation based on expression of MOGA and SFW goals and philosphy.

 

[shoots-straight]

Shoots......fair enough......but by him having a permit in there, does that take away any opportunity from you......or from anyone else for that matter? The few clients that he chooses to take in there would also like to hunt "their public land".....they just choose to do it with an outfitter, and a legal one at that. They have just as much right to be there as you and I do, but they choose to hunt with Rich, and who are we to tell that they can't. Just my opinion.

I'm not interested in the question of whether or not the permit takes opportunity from me. That's not what this is about. It's about permitting an area for commercialization that hasn't had any history of it.

Those people have just as much right to the lands available, just not under the care of a guide. If they want to hunt with Rich, then let them come free of charge and hunt with Rich.

Keep the the Sweet Grass hills commercial free!

 

[Pierre]

The outfitter deregulation I have explained a dozen times...161 deregulated us...the bill was simply a simplfication of redundant paperwork...the hunter apprentice I will defend, I do not need the state to tell me when my child is old enough to hunt...and do not use the parrallel of driving...not even a comparision... oh, and the false and misleading testimony...that road runs 2 directions.

Why all the fear of SFW?

Eric. You seem to want to know why the animosity with MOGA and when you are clued in you blow it off. I defy you to tell me when you heard false and misleading testimony from MSA? Outfitter deregulation is a bad joke. 274 was alot more than that....stay tuned for more legislation.
The point with hunter apprentice is not the age but the methodology. Nearly every sportsmen group has a group of Hunters Safety instructors who feel strongly about it. MOGA just took your attitude and did not work with HS instructors or us and tried to jam this down their throats. We as sportsmen are not about to alienate our HS instructors.
Anytime you folks try to ram legislation down our throats, you make more enemies. Chose your methodology.

 

[Eric Albus]

i understand the animosity, clearer by the day....especially in light of the letter to the BLM asking for "no outfitting"...

"stay tuned for more legislation", hope that this one is better thought out than the last one. are you going to run this one by me to see if I approve? or are you going to "jam it down our throat".

nobody thought that the HS instructors were going to have their feelers hurt by that bill, I have not noticed anyone from "your side" getting in touch w/ "our side" when it comes to supporting a bill, but we are supposed to ask for a blessing everytime we support something?

straight, still do not get the fear of SFW... I am not a big SFW supporter, but I do agree w/ some of their basic tenants. I am a pretty big supporter of DU, MDF, SCI, RMEF, PF, are any of these groups "evil" like SWF?

and how did the conversation take a turn like this? I thought it was about a BLM permit.

 

[shoots-straight]

i understand the animosity, clearer by the day....especially in light of the letter to the BLM asking for "no outfitting"...

"stay tuned for more legislation", hope that this one is better thought out than the last one. are you going to run this one by me to see if I approve? or are you going to "jam it down our throat".

nobody thought that the HS instructors were going to have their feelers hurt by that bill, I have not noticed anyone from "your side" getting in touch w/ "our side" when it comes to supporting a bill, but we are supposed to ask for a blessing everytime we support something?

straight, still do not get the fear of SFW... I am not a big SFW supporter, but I do agree w/ some of their basic tenants. I am a pretty big supporter of DU, MDF, SCI, RMEF, PF, are any of these groups "evil" like SWF?

and how did the conversation take a turn like this? I thought it was about a BLM permit.

There is no FEAR of SFW. If you really don't know what's been going on with SFW then I really don't know what to tell you other than you don't pay any attention to anything other than your own little world. Google them and see what's been said.

The main thing is they tried to derail our wolf delisting. They get hunters dollars and only put a small portion ( around 27%) back on the ground. The leaders have figured out how to make a good living off of gullible well intentioned hunters.

Do some research on them and I guarantee if you have even a small amount of workable brain cells in that head of yours you'll understand. I'm not going to go into it in detail because it's a long story that you should have been paying attention too.

 

[Straight Arrow]

are any of these groups "evil" like SWF?

No, Eric, but I don't hear you spewing any constructive, healthy rhetoric in line with the philosphies of those groups ... all I hear is MOGA and SFW bs.

 

[Eric Albus]

shoots,
I have done a little checking on SFW, there is about as much negative as there is positive about the group. I will not pass judgement on their efforts just yet, as most of what one reads on the internet is somone hate-mongering and going w/ half truth's, but again I am not a big swf supporter....what I know of the group is they are pro-landowner and anti-predator(a bit rabid about it)....and no, I honestly do not have time to spend looking up what every group is doing and worry about it....I have not checked into the groups that I support to see what/how they are spending....I have just looked at what they have done for wildlife and not worried about what % they put back.

straight, i have always put the resource first....if the resource is put first, the rest falls into place. Hunting and hunters should come second to the resource.

If some of you would just be honest and admit that you would like to see outfitting done away w/ in Montana we could have an honest and open discussion...i read an interesting letter to the BLM the other day, calling for an "end to outfitting on ALL BLM lands"...now please do not try to tell me that those individuals and groups that signed this letter have any other intent...do away w/ outfitting and it is one step closer to end hunting on public lands....remember when you force someone else to give up a priviledge you will also eventually lose that priviledge.

 

[Big Shooter]

Wow!! Nice letter to the BLM! At least when I write letters about people that are misleading, false, just all-around potentially damaging to ones public image and/or future endeavors..........I always call and apologize within a few days..........to that actual person, and admit that I was wrong. I doubt that myself, Eric, or anyone else that holds a recreational permit will be expecting any calls.

 

[Big Fin]

I fully support outfitters being able to outfit on public lands. I have no problem with those business enterprises operating on public lands any more or any less than other businesses. Pay the fee, fill out the permit, make sure you comply with the rules, don't interfere or impose on public hunters, and get on with it.

I completely understand where some of the tone of this thread has come from. Having been involved on the legislative front for many years, there is no love accumulating between resident hunters and the outfitting lobby/MOGA, a group I view differently than the individual outfitters themselves.

I voted against I-161, as it seemed pretty obvious that is was fraught with problems, many of which are expressing themselves now. But, I fully understand the frustration many of my hunting friends have/had and why they voted for and supported I-161.

And now, I-161 is being used as the supposed reason for all the legislation MOGA is pushing the last two sessions. As some outfitters will tell you, outfitting has benefited greatly from the passage of I-161, so using the passage of I-161 as some sort of battle cry seems rather disingenuous and a poorly veiled cause of retribution.

To this point of outfitting in the Sweetgrass Hills, or on any public lands for that matter, I personally have no problem with it. If we believe in multiple use of public lands, it seems hard to carve away outfitting from those public land uses.

When the big blow up happened with me and MOGA over my appointment to the RMEF board, many MT outfitters called me afterwards and personally expressed their disappointment for what had transpired. One outfitter actually sought me out in person, visited with me for some time, and apologized for whatever MOGA did to instigate that issue. That was Rich Birdsell, the applicant for this outfitting permit in the Sweetgrass Hills.

I'm not sure how to start soothing some of the wounds that exist and build some sort of working relationship with MOGA. MOGA as an institution, as compared to their individual members, is a completely different animal. I have no respect for those running the operation at MOGA. Those running things in the MOGA Helena office cannot be trusted and so long as the status quo exists in MOGA's management, I expect this kind of distrust among hunters and MOGA to grow, not subside.

Hunters spend countless volunteer hours protecting and improving hunting and access. Many MOGA legislative efforts are contrary to the work of those hunter-volunteers. And when MOGA could make a difference to help with really bad legislation, MOGA, their leadership, their lobbyists, and most unfortunately, their individual members are a complete no show.

That's a pretty hard one to swallow from the perspective of a volunteer who is there for hundreds of hours, spending thousands of their own dollars, all for the benefit of wildlife. And, when an industry whose financial model benefits from abundant resource stands pat and is a no show on bad wildlife bills, it does nothing to help these already strained relations.

A big difference exists in the operating procedure and the perspective of the hunter groups and MOGA. MOGA is an industry lobby, with paid staff, and resources to influence legislators. MOGA is going to do whatever they can to make the economic model of outfitting better, and at times, it seems some of the positions and legislative efforts by MOGA might be of short-term benefit, but of long-term detriment. I get that notion and I accept it as part of how things work, though my positions will often be counter to MOGA positions. Yet, even though "I get it'" the legislative actions/inactions of MOGA don't necessarily build much sympathy for that organization.

The hunting groups are a ragtag bunch of immensely dedicated souls who have a primary focus on what is best for hunters of today and those who come tomorrow. Economic issues of making a living from this public resource do not even make the "Top 100" list for this dedicated group of volunteers. Given their perspective, the legacy they see entrusted to them, and the way they see access disappearing, such is completely understandable for resident hunters and their volunteer leaders to feel that way.

I would never criticize a single one of these volunteers, as they do more for hunting each morning than many of us do in a year. Without them, the marvelous hunting and opportunity we have in Montana would not be nearly what it is today. My default position, not only as a hunter, but as someone who admires the "guy in the arena" and fighting for the cause of others, puts me as a supporter of these guys.

None of this happens in a vacuum. None of it; from the passage of I-161, to MOGA feeling empowered as a lobbying machine and trying to destroy anyone and anything in their way, to resident hunters protesting outfitter applications on public land, to ......

I wish I had answers. I think a start would be for hunters and individual outfitters to meet. Not MOGA, not our hunting groups, but the people themselves. That is how relationships can be reconstructed and hopefully from that comes a level of trust and understanding. Meeting face to face with someone is a lot different than circling the wagons around our perspective camps and lobbing artillery at the other guys.

I would recommend this topic go to PMs and private emails, phone calls, or better yet, personal visits. Not much can be gained by beating on each other in the world of an internet forum, though things can be made worse.

I make my offer that I will meet with any and all Montana outfitters, if they think benefit could come from such. I refuse to meet with MOGA lobbyists or their Executive Director, knowing nothing good can come of that.

I know many outfitters in MT and I refer a lot of clients to outfitters. With few exceptions, not more exceptions than I find among the resident hunters, I enjoy visiting with these outfitters and learn something from their perspective. And, I hope they gain some insight from my side of the fence. I find outfitters to be good guys who are serious hunters. And though they have taken their joy of hunting to a level of making a living from it, I can set that aside and know we might disagree on some topics, while still considering ourselves to be friends.

With that, I think this thread will be locked. Time to invest our efforts in something more productive. We have too much at risk and too little resources to continue in such a non-productive manner.