American prairie. What's the issue?

[SAJ-99]

Found a photo of some Ranchers that sold to the APR…or Chinese, depending on where you get your conspiracy info from.

 

[BuzzH]

If I had an undue amount of influence R6&7 would’ve been LE permit for mule deer bucks years ago.

So according to you an outfitter should pay FWP for management of the game?
You continually bash the dept for their lack of management, but want me to pay them?

Yes outfitters should pay something for game management...thats how user based systems work. Like the one you're recommending for the FWP to pay for road maintenance.

Give me one good reason why outfitters shouldn't have to pay for game management for the wildlife my license fees pay to manage?

You're a consumptive user...pay your own freight.

 

[406dn]

It seems to me that the non resident who purchased the license has taken care of the management money owed to FWP. Face it, they pick up the tab for many fish and game departments in the mountain west. I don't see a compelling case that FWP is due anything from outfitters directly. Now guiding on public land, that fee needs to amount to something, as they are profiting from a consumptive use.

A caveat to my thoughts, when a state guarantees licenses to an outfitter, then that certainty should come at a cost.

 

[Southern Elk]

As a 501(c)(3) non-profit APR is prohibited from making political contributions at all.

His assertion is the kind of conjecture that seems to inform a lot of the APR naysayers.

@Eric Albus would you like to retract your statement that they are paying dems or can you show proof? Or are you just going to let your statement hang out there like a lot of the other lies people are spreading about APR?

 

[longbow51]

Festivus ended, we're in the Christmas season now. Merry Christmas, everyone!

 

[BuzzH]

Festivus ended, we're in the Christmas season now. Merry Christmas, everyone!

No it hasn't...we're still in the airing of the grievances.

Feats of strength are next...I'm sure it won't take @Eric Albus long to pin me.

Then festivus can conclude.

 

[rogerthat]

Found a photo of some Ranchers that sold to the APR…or Chinese, depending on where you get your conspiracy info from.

View attachment 257464

I think I stayed there before…didn’t even use foreign money from the sale of land…or they all look the same

 

[mtmuley]

Found a photo of some Ranchers that sold to the APR…or Chinese, depending on where you get your conspiracy info from.

View attachment 257464

And I was going to put magnet on ignore first. Might have changed my mind. mtmuley

 

[BrentD]

I also respect the APR’s wishes to do as they please on their private holdings.

Forcing a landowner to give up anything, let alone access is the wrong tact. Give a landowner an INCENTIVE.

How’d you like it if I came at you with “you’re accessing “my” BLM lease FOR FREE, while I PAY for it and fix fence on it, so it is only FAIR that you begin paying to recreate on it”. How would that fly?

No. They aren't giving up anything. THEY NEVER HAD IT TO START WITH. What doesn't fly is their exclusive use of "my" BLM/FS or whatever public land. Why is that so hard to understand?

Oh yeah, we already paid to recreate on it. They are called TAXES. You forget such inconvenient facts.

 

[Dakotakid]

It is a shame that a lot of counties getting an influx of hunters in the fall don’t receive funding for better county road maintenance. I don’t think extra funding should come from FWP for this but I do think there should be more $$ allocated for this. Petroleum County is a great example—one of the least populous counties in the state but becomes a zoo during hunting season. Yeah there are impacts from annual use by those living there, but the roads (there) are generally in good shape until they get the first real fall moisture, like opening weekend this year, and there’s a lot of people out. Not really realistic or within the realm of any laws/regs to catch and fine those individuals that tear them up but I agree with the sentiment.

And the issue gets completely rolled over while everyone pisses and moans over outfitters, non residents and bad apples.

It doesn’t take long after hunting season, driving through foot deep frozen ruts to realize the system is not working. And pointing the finger isn’t addressing the problem.

 

[406dn]

And the issue gets completely rolled over while everyone pisses and moans over outfitters, non residents and bad apples.

It doesn’t take long after hunting season, driving through foot deep frozen ruts to realize the system is not working. And pointing the finger isn’t addressing the problem.

This seems to me to be a great issue for state legislators from affected areas to push in the next legislative session. The rural legislators are among the majority party, controlling what gets addressed and passed during the session.

It is clearly a burden on sparsely populated counties that is caused by road users from across the state.

 

[bullbugle307]

Interesting you bring up the subject of road maintenance, there are folks in the ag communities suggesting FWP pay to fix the roads on BLM after hunting season is over. Personally I think a user fee to repair roads is a much better idea. Perhaps a hefty fine for those found destroying gumbo roads as well?

I’ll second that. I hate it when people tear up roads.

 

[Eric Albus]

Yes outfitters should pay something for game management...thats how user based systems work. Like the one you're recommending for the FWP to pay for road maintenance.

Give me one good reason why outfitters shouldn't have to pay for game management for the wildlife my license fees pay to manage?

You're a consumptive user...pay your own freight.

I don’t buy license? My clients don’t buy license?

@Eric Albus would you like to retract your statement that they are paying dems or can you show proof? Or are you just going to let your statement hang out there like a lot of the other lies people are spreading about APR?

gladly retract

 

[300stw]

only hunters trucks get muddy by tearing up roads,
cant beleive anyone would open that can of worms,,, hitting below the belt.

 

[rogerthat]

No. They aren't giving up anything. THEY NEVER HAD IT TO START WITH. What doesn't fly is their exclusive use of "my" BLM/FS or whatever public land. Why is that so hard to understand?

Oh yeah, we already paid to recreate on it. They are called TAXES. You forget such inconvenient facts.

Well if we are talking about crossing private land to get to public then that is something they would be giving which would be access across their deeded ground. Maybe I’m misunderstanding

 

[mtmuley]

only hunters trucks get muddy by tearing up roads,
cant beleive anyone would open that can of worms,,, hitting below the belt.

Below the belt? What percentage of traffic has the most miles on any given road, at least here in Montana. Including BLM, State and FS? Bet I know. mtmuley

 

[Eric Albus]

It seems to me that the non resident who purchased the license has taken care of the management money owed to FWP. Face it, they pick up the tab for many fish and game departments in the mountain west. I don't see a compelling case that FWP is due anything from outfitters directly. Now guiding on public land, that fee needs to amount to something, as they are profiting from a consumptive use.

A caveat to my thoughts, when a state guarantees licenses to an outfitter, then that certainty should come at a cost.

The fee on BLM is fairly substantial. Again have no idea on State or FS and how their fee schedule looks.

 

[Eric Albus]

Yes outfitters should pay something for game management...thats how user based systems work. Like the one you're recommending for the FWP to pay for road maintenance.

Give me one good reason why outfitters shouldn't have to pay for game management for the wildlife my license fees pay to manage?

You're a consumptive user...pay your own freight.

I’m not recommending a road use fee to FWP, but I know several landowners/lessors who are advocating for this. Personally I don’t think there’s any chance of it flying. I think it should be the BLM who has to cough up to fix their roads. They allow travel with no restrictions on two tracks and grades with no gravel.

 

[Big Shooter]

Yes outfitters should pay something for game management...thats how user based systems work. Like the one you're recommending for the FWP to pay for road maintenance.

Give me one good reason why outfitters shouldn't have to pay for game management for the wildlife my license fees pay to manage?

You're a consumptive user...pay your own freight.

I can’t do this anymore and watch one of my very good friends take fire from a handful of folks that don’t see the big picture and are stuck in their bubble….! I have a question Buzz……what about the $720,400 (minus the %15 admin fees) that went into 6 different access programs……that came directly from the sales of the Outfitter Preference Point that many of you threw your suckers down about?!? Not one person has mentioned that here or anywhere! So……at the end of the day….our clients are paying their way via that system….not to mention the fees that Outfitters pay for BLM/DNRC/Forest Service……whatever the case is. There are about 3 other people on here that get it…..and the rest of you ride the struggle bus when it comes down to the topic of what outfitters and landowners bring to the table!! Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year to all of you!!

 

[BuzzH]

I can’t do this anymore and watch one of my very good friends take fire from a handful of folks that don’t see the big picture and are stuck in their bubble….! I have a question Buzz……what about the $720,400 (minus the %15 admin fees) that went into 6 different access programs……that came directly from the sales of the Outfitter Preference Point that many of you threw your suckers down about?!? Not one person has mentioned that here or anywhere! So……at the end of the day….our clients are paying their way via that system….not to mention the fees that Outfitters pay for BLM/DNRC/Forest Service……whatever the case is. There are about 3 other people on here that get it…..and the rest of you ride the struggle bus when it comes down to the topic of what outfitters and landowners bring to the table!! Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year to all of you!!

Oh, you mean the $720,400 that outfitters paid exactly zero of?

Thanks for your usual contribution of exactly nothing. It's always sportsmen that pick up the tab. Thanking them would be like thanking myself.

Letting others pay your way as usual.

Your fees to the various land management agencies dont even cover the administration of the permitting and enforcement. That's an agency problem like I already said.

There is no struggle bus to ride, outfitters provide zero to wildlife management.