Bill with no sporting reps, three landowners on Commission one vote from passage

[Gerald Martin]

So Gerald......do you want free ranging bison in Montana?

Given the choice between beef ranchers operating marginal businesses and using every opportunity they can to eliminate competition from wildlife or free roaming bison in their native range... yes, yes I want bison.

 

[Irrelevant]

Not sure what business you are in, and I will not look down on whatever you do,.....but a LOT of businesses rely on return clientele.

One that I get returning clients from. But I, nor any other business I know of, HAVE to know exactly when they'll return. Might be never, might be their kids or neighbors. Economics doesn't lie. You don't need the same people every year if you're providing a service people see value in.

 

[Big Shooter]

Given the choice between beef ranchers operating marginal businesses and using every opportunity they can to eliminate competition from wildlife or free roaming bison in their native range... yes, yes I want bison.

Marginal? Wow!

 

[Schaaf]

Marginal? Wow!

Just think of the untapped market of publicly owned wildlife you could work to privatize.

 

[4ohSick]

A) Pretty sure neither of us referred to anyone as “peasants”...! Prove me wrong please......I’ll wait.
B) We don’t rely on the same folks every year, but said hunters feel that we are providing a service that they see value in and enjoy coming back every year.

Plenty of NR DIY hunters would enjoy coming back every year too. Why should your clients get preference to them?

 

[OntarioHunter]

In fairness, nothing is really "free market" anymore. Everything is subsidized, taxed, tariffed, regulated, etc.

I don't know Eric, but I'd assume his support for the government picking winners and losers (in this case making sure his business is a winner) is not extended fairly across the market landscape. He probably only supports it when it positively affects him or things he supports. It's hypocritical sure, but the idea of self preservation he is essentially supporting isn't completely outside of our understanding and we can all probably empathize if applied to something similar in our own lives. The problem here is in this specific case it affects a public resource and the public's access/opportunity to it, there is a slippery slope argument for many of these bills. It's not like the government subsidizing wind power and the vast majority of us just kinda go along without really being affected. These bills will have real impacts to a public resource that will be felt by the public...especially the ones who aren't wealthy.

That doesn't make him right...these bills are dog shit and he knows it. He just has his outfitter hat on so it makes him bias. If he was a run of the mill "DIY hunter" like the majority of the hunting public, he'd be upset about these bills too. He previously claimed he'd follow the economics in that example, but we all know that's horseshit too. No hunter out there (guided or unguided) buys a tag, fills gas, buys groceries, pays a taxidermist, buys hunting equipment, and gives so much in terms of time, effort, and personal resources to pursue their hunting passion on annual basis all for the benefit of the state's economic well-being. Nor do they defer their opportunity to a state's economic well-being. It's a ridiculous notion to presume anyone does because no one does. Seriously, find one person who hunts or guides who can honestly say,"I don't actually like doing this, I just do it because it's good for the economy" or "I'm okay with less opportunity so someone else and the state can make more money off my publicly owned resource." .............................................No One.

We do it because we like hunting and those things are required for us to go and participate. When it comes to hunting economics we only go out of our way to support things that we perceive to directly and positively impact the resource so us and future generations can keep enjoying it.

That's what especially troubling about this 4 out of 7 bill. They are literally ensuring that the majority of the decision makers will be making decisions based off economics and private interests. Same with 143 and 505...its a decision based off economics and private interests. Not science, not the greatest good for the greatest number, not the public (since it's our wildlife), not the landscape....its all based on money....who gets it and who doesnt. DIY Sportsmen lose. None of this is saying that landowners farmers/ranchers shouldn't be involved. They most certainly should have a seat at the table.

Personally, I am of the opinion that a healthy population of people DIY hunting is good for society. It's good for us to be in touch with the natural world, to see wildlife, the whole god damn bucket full of stuff that comes with being outside in the wilderness and putting meat in the freezer that you packed out yourself...it's good for the human spirit. None of that stuff takes dollars and cents into consideration. So it only makes sense that when we base decisions purely off dollars and cents...it doesn't generally turn out well.....that is unless you stand to benefit monetarily. See how that works?

Hunters, anglers, and public would be shut out under bill.
Sporting interests who fund Montana FWP would get little representation. SB 306, sponsored by Mike Lang, R-Malta, would make four out of the new seven-member Fish and Wildlife Commission members landowners. MWF opposes this as it's a terrible bill that would make the hunters and anglers who fund Montana Fish, Wildlife, and Parks a severely weakened voice in the management of our public trust wildlife.
The bill passed the full Senate yesterday and is heading to the House. We will speak up and make sure that representatives hear that all Montanans – including landowners but not just them – are given a seat at the table on wildlife management issues.

Bill would require 4 landowners on expanded Fish and Wildlife Commission

The Montana Fish and Wildlife Commission should be expanded from five to seven members with four of the governor appointees required to be landowners working in agriculture, said Sen. Mike

missoulian.com

It passed the Senate? Are you kidding me!!!! Well, this is timely. I was just about to sign my check for this year's nonresident license package. Screw that! Last year I ate both tags and had no regrets. I applied last year even though I knew that would likely happen but I also knew FWP needed the money badly thanks to COVID. Considered it a charitable donation. The last one!! I may return to hunt birds this fall but I will stick to hunting federal refuge, waterfowl production areas, WMAs, and other federal or state land that does NOT involve BMA. The state and ranchers will not get any more of my money than the bare necessity. I have an enclosed utility trailer I can fill with food for the trip out and with taxidermy client's stuff for the return trip. Should work very well at draining the local economy. I'll prioritise two ranches that aren't BMA with a lot of federal land where the ranchers hassle hunters. The more time they spend spying on me, the more money it will cost their business.

Montana has sure gone to hell. It's certainly not the great place I grew up in. One only had to look at all those purple flags on the ranchers' mailboxes to figure out what happened. Being stupid, selfish, arrogant, and a bully has become the American way. How the hell all those good rancher folks can identify with some born rich halfwit high school drop out from NY City who dodged the draft and cheats on his wives is totally beyond me. Or a real estate developer from Maryland. You know, I could understand this on the west side. It's full of transplants. But the people on the east side? How did this happen to them?

 

[Gerald Martin]

Marginal? Wow!

I’d call those ranchers who complain about elk eating their grass and claiming they can’t survive without guaranteed access to licenses so they can charge to shoot elk and deer that compete for grass marginal, yes.
There comes a point in any industry where some producers are “marginal” when their business model and production ability doesn’t allow them to compete on the open market and remain profitable.

Smart business owners in that situation adapt to change and work cooperatively with others to overcome if they want to remain solvent. Others go bankrupt and stop producing. This can alleviate oversupply issues and allow other producers to charge higher prices.
Some business owners play the victim card and vilify anyone or anything that hampers their ability to be profitable. Some play the subsidy angle and take other people’s money because they are “deserving.”

In the ranching industry, there are plenty of great businessmen running profitable ranches. There are also marginal businesses that are on their way out of production. Some of those marginal properties will be absorbed by successful businesses, some will be repurposed for other uses.
“Free ranging” bison is probably not a complete reality because somewhere there will be fences keeping them in or out.
Since MT is a fence out state, I see no reason ranchers can’t fence out bison, just like I have to fence out cattle if I don’t want them on my lawn or in my garden.

The times are a changin’. I have always been the kind of guy that prefers to work with people to solve problems. However when pushed far enough, I have no problem seeing the “solutions” that harm my self interests be used against those who pushed them through without regard to the consequences.

This current crop of legislators have been raising a prominent middle finger of “peace” towards Montana sportsmen, when sportsmen have worked for years to consider the needs of ranchers and landowners within the framework of the North American Wildlife Model.

 

[OntarioHunter]

This current crop of legislators have been raising a prominent middle finger of “peace” towards Montana sportsmen, when sportsmen have worked for years to consider the needs of ranchers and landowners within the framework of the North American Wildlife Model.

Well said.

 

[Straight Arrow]

“Free ranging” bison is probably not a complete reality because somewhere there will be fences keeping them in or out.
Since MT is a fence out state, I see no reason ranchers can’t fence out bison, just like I have to fence out cattle if I don’t want them on my lawn or in my garden.

UPOM and the other bison verminizers choose to ignore the reality and the factual history of decades of bison "free roaming" across the western Montana landscape of the Flying D and other ranches just across the fence from neighboring farms and ranches. At least one large herd of those bison actually came from Yellowstone Park. Problems have been negligible.

 

[Eric Albus]

Gerald, disappointed that you'd cut of your nose to spite your face.

I won't say that bison may not be more profitable to the landscape of Eastern Mt. than cattle are. Any business that operates on a 2-4% profit margin is continually in jeopardy. One mistake and as you point out, marginal operators are gone.

 

[Walkalot]

Eric albus curious. If u did not have ties to outfitting or ranching, what in your opinion is fair. Just an honest answer.

 

[Eric Albus]

To which question? The commission? I’d lean towards the recommendation of 4 landowners 2 sportsmen and a business owning sportsman. The landowners are the ones who house and feed “our wildlife”. If there is going to be a way to bridge the gap between the LO and sportsman this is the beginnings of change. I can understand the fear of it from the opposition because change is frightening to most people. I would probably not have much faith were this a dem gov and have him making the picks of liberal Democrats who worried more about politics and forcing access than the wildlife. This is the kind of commission the Nick Grevocks and MWF want. It’s pretty much what they’ve had the last 16 years
I may be proven wrong on this (won’t be first time) but most landowners have a clue about wildlife and feel the Dept has not done a great job of managing deer and elk in general season areas. The Dept feels they have because of an archaic belief in max harvest which also equals max revenue with license sales.
Whether this passes or not I hope that we will have a commission that will listen to all parties concerned and make sound decisions. The past 25 years the commission has been been swayed way to much by political BS and not listened to the public. I’m hoping one that is slanted to landowners will say no more politics, let’s do what is right by the wildlife. If this happens everything else falls into place.

 

[Walkalot]

To the public view it is not good to have 4 ranchers on the commission. Ranchers have taken advantage of everything they possibly could and left the public out in the cold. The dept truly does not and has not been able to manage wildlife because of ranchers and politics. Just my opinion

 

[OntarioHunter]

If this passes I can envisage a very destructive campaign among Montana sportsmen encouraging consumers to NOT buy beef raised in Montana. When the general public sees the signs outside and inside the stores they will want to know what that's all about. I think they will be outraged when they learn the reason. The ranchers in Alberta and North Dakota are probably smiling about now.

 

[TheJason]

If this passes I can envisage a very destructive campaign among Montana sportsmen encouraging consumers to NOT buy beef raised in Montana. When the general public sees the signs outside and inside the stores they will want to know what that's all about. I think they will be outraged when they learn the reason. The ranchers in Alberta and North Dakota are probably smiling about now.

I highly doubt there will be any consequences like you mentioned.

 

[Straight Arrow]

To which question? The commission? I’d lean towards the recommendation of 4 landowners 2 sportsmen and a business owning sportsman. The landowners are the ones who house and feed “our wildlife”. If there is going to be a way to bridge the gap between the LO and sportsman this is the beginnings of change. I can understand the fear of it from the opposition because change is frightening to most people. I would probably not have much faith were this a dem gov and have him making the picks of liberal Democrats who worried more about politics and forcing access than the wildlife. This is the kind of commission the Nick Grevocks and MWF want. It’s pretty much what they’ve had the last 16 years
I may be proven wrong on this (won’t be first time) but most landowners have a clue about wildlife and feel the Dept has not done a great job of managing deer and elk in general season areas. The Dept feels they have because of an archaic belief in max harvest which also equals max revenue with license sales.
Whether this passes or not I hope that we will have a commission that will listen to all parties concerned and make sound decisions. The past 25 years the commission has been been swayed way to much by political BS and not listened to the public. I’m hoping one that is slanted to landowners will say no more politics, let’s do what is right by the wildlife. If this happens everything else falls into place.

I agree to a large extent, only with the caveat that the landowner commissioner does not gain financially from any wildlife related commercial public or private business. Moreover, I am opposed to any commissioner with financial ties to wildlife whatsoever. IMO, the Fish & Game Commission should be seated for the purpose of enhancing and protecting wildlife entrusted to the state and managed by FWP. Hunting and fishing are certainly a part of that, but seem to be the source of politicization, due to self-focused interests, whether they be interests of hunters, fishermen, for-profit landowners, outfitters, or whoever. I agree that any changes should strive to eliminate the financial gain potential and the political bent of each and all commissioners. Those various groups can lobby the commission and explain that whatever position they advocate is to the benefit of wildlife.

Yeah, I know ... good luck with that!

 

[OntarioHunter]

I highly doubt there will be any consequences like you mentioned.

I know I'll only be eating chicken and fish when I return. Too bad the sportsmen of Montana can't get it together even that much. Seems the only way to send these arrogant aristocrat ranchers a message is via their pocketbooks. The legislature certainly is dysfunctional for that purpose.

 

[Carnage2011]

If this passes I can envisage a very destructive campaign among Montana sportsmen encouraging consumers to NOT buy beef raised in Montana. When the general public sees the signs outside and inside the stores they will want to know what that's all about. I think they will be outraged when they learn the reason. The ranchers in Alberta and North Dakota are probably smiling about now.

How do you dream this shit up?

 

[Nemont]

I know I'll only be eating chicken and fish when I return. Too bad the sportsmen of Montana can't get it together even that much. Seems the only way to send these arrogant aristocrat ranchers a message is via their pocketbooks. The legislature certainly is dysfunctional for that purpose.

It's too bad we can just bar your entry into our state or a least require you to put a placard on your vehicle that would identify it, like a big sign that would state: Idiot on Board. Like those baby on board signs in the windows. If you are eating fish and chicken while traveling in Montana, especially eastern Montana, then you truly are either ignorant or clueless or both.

The legislature is working exactly like it was designed, the majority is in power, per the voters wishes and debate is open. It is not dysfunctional it just isn't doing what you want or think it should.


Nemont

 

[Eric Albus]

straight, i would have no problem with the landowners having to be either in BM or allowing access at their discretion. Maybe make it so landowners who lease or take fee hunters are ineligible for service on commission. As I stated in a different thread what good is having a cake(wildlife) it is locked in a safe and you don't have the combination? The landowners hold the key helping fix the problem with access. The last 16 years(dem controlled) we have seen a liberal biased commission attempt to use punitive measures to gain access. How did that work? Not to well is the answer for those wondering. I hope this new commission whether 5 or 7 is going to put politics aside and find way to incentivize landowners to provide some measure of access and manage our wildlife biologically. If wildlife were managed biologically it solves the rest of the problems.