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

[JLS]

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.

The next time @Schaaf invites me up to hunt, I'll buy you a steak dinner.

 

[OntarioHunter]

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.

What are all these "liberal punitive measures" you keep harping about? Ranchers who don't allow public access to the game the public owns are denied subsidization for crop damage? Really? Who would be getting punished if those landowners got public funding compensation for damage the landowners are causing themselves purposely? The public land hunter! And can you imagine how non-landowning hunters feel about their FWP money going to people who keep them from harvesting the game they own? No one is trying to punish the game hog landowners. But why should the public subsidise them? If they want some financial help, join BMA. That's why it was created. This is not punishment. It's about proper stewardship of the public dollar for the benefit of all vs a select few who want to double dip on the wildlife resource: i.e. selling the right to hunt game they cultivate for that purpose and then expect the state to pay them for the damage the crop of animals they're raising supposedly does to their cattle business. Oink, oink.

 

[OntarioHunter]

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

Ah, it's the Republucan way. Resort to immature name calling when you don't have a logical response. I thought we'd had enough of that childishness the last four years. Well, most of us with more than a sixth grade education have had enough of it.

 

[Nemont]

Ah, it's the Republucan way. Resort to immature name calling when you don't have a logical response. I thought we'd had enough of that childishness the last four years. Well, most of us with more than a sixth grade education have had enough of it

go read the idiotic drivel you posted and it would mean that if you really did get a higher education than 6th grade then you are educated beyond your intelligence.

if you got a mirror in your house, go look in it, the guy you see is a total douche.


Nemont

 

[OntarioHunter]

go read the idiotic drivel you posted and it would mean that if you really did get a higher education than 6th grade then you are educated beyond your intelligence.

if you got a mirror in your house, go look in it, the guy you see is a total douche.


Nemont

Yep. More pointless name calling. Typical lack of substance and maturity. I rest my case.

 

[Big Shooter]

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.

! That statement just proved...to me I guess.....that you have ABSOLUTELY ZERO clue about what you are rambling on about!! Thank you for that!

 

[antlerradar]

Ah, it's the Republucan way. Resort to immature name calling when you don't have a logical response. I thought we'd had enough of that childishness the last four years. Well, most of us with more than a sixth grade education have had enough of it.

go read the idiotic drivel you posted and it would mean that if you really did get a higher education than 6th grade then you are educated beyond your intelligence.

if you got a mirror in your house, go look in it, the guy you see is a total douche.


Nemont

Like the drivel or just out right lie that OntarioHunter is a proud nonpartisan.

 

[Gerald Martin]

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.

Eric, on this point I am in complete agreement.
What I can’t reconcile is the continual opposition to manage wildlife biologically from the representatives of the landowners who are asking for a majority of the seats on the commission.

Help me reconcile “objective numbers of elk” with biology. The numbers are openly acknowledged to be arrived at from “social acceptance” rather than biological carrying capacity.
The interests who set artificially low numbers now ask for trust to manage existing wildlife. According to whose interests? Private landowners engaged in beef and crop production? Or, the residents of Montana in whose interests collectively the state is legally required to manage wildlife?

Legal precedent has established that wildlife exists as a condition of the land. Management doctrine is intended to reflect the tenets and values of the North American Wildlife Model.

Past FWP policy recognizing and formulated in harmony with those laws and principles hardly qualify as “punitive measures intended to force access.”

In fact ,I would argue that the consequences of elk shoulder seasons and a refusal to alter or limit excess exploitation of wildlife out of an unbalanced concern for ranches who don’t want competing wildlife, is in direct violation to biological management and the NAWM.

Those policies are directly tied to self identified “conservative” legislators who are in fact anything but conservative.

Political labels of conservative or liberal are worthless in determining good wildlife management policies.

You and I would probably agree with each other on the vast majority of policy that could help improve management of Montana wildlife. But I can bet you that if things you suggest ( which I do agree with) were presented to be implemented, your fellow outfitters would fight tooth and nail to kill anything that would limit their opportunity to profit from long seasons and high tag numbers.

 

[Nemont]

Yep. More pointless name calling. Typical lack of substance and maturity. I rest my case.

I will type slower so you can absorb this. Regardless of what happens with the FWP commission, calling for a boycott of Montana Beef producers is idiotic for a number of reasons. To list just a few that are obvious, there are hundreds more these come to mind while I am sitting here in the office

1. Not all ranchers are monetizing wildlife. In fact the VAST number of those who I call clients are not and have no interest or intention to do so.

2. Mainstreet Montana and especially eastern Montana is dependent on Agriculture to thrive so they can thrive. Boycotting beef is a direct assault on Mainstreet in any eastern Montana town, apparently your Montana roots are bleached blond by worshiping guys like Trudeau.

3. It would punish producers who do the right thing in regards to access, providing habitat, coexisting with wildlife, improving the range, putting in water sources, providing critical winter habitat etc, etc.

4. It would punish sportsman further by angering the above producers and other land owners who have no real dog in the fight over the commission seats and just want to produce food and fiber to sell. Resulting in less access, loss of any good will, drive deeper wedge between hunters and landowners and accomplish nothing.


It is neither Republican or Democrat position to crap in your own nest by boycotting the main industry that everything else relies upon to prosper out here in the middle of nowhere, that is reserved for half Canadian, half Bitterrooters who contribute nothing to the discourse. Calling for a Boycott of Montana beef and still expecting to be welcome in cattle country is like calling for a Boycott of the NFL but expecting Luxury Box seats when you want to really see a game.

Nemont

 

[Big Shooter]

Eric, on this point I am in complete agreement.
What I can’t reconcile is the continual opposition to manage wildlife biologically from the representatives of the landowners who are asking for a majority of the seats on the commission.

Help me reconcile “objective numbers of elk” with biology. The numbers are openly acknowledged to be arrived at from “social acceptance” rather than biological carrying capacity.
The interests who set artificially low numbers now ask for trust to manage existing wildlife. According to whose interests? Private landowners engaged in beef and crop production? Or, the residents of Montana in whose interests collectively the state is legally required to manage wildlife?

Legal precedent has established that wildlife exists as a condition of the land. Management doctrine is intended to reflect the tenets and values of the North American Wildlife Model.

Past FWP policy recognizing and formulated in harmony with those laws and principles hardly qualify as “punitive measures intended to force access.”

In fact ,I would argue that the consequences of elk shoulder seasons and a refusal to alter or limit excess exploitation of wildlife out of an unbalanced concern for ranches who don’t want competing wildlife, is in direct violation to biological management and the NAWM.

Those policies are directly tied to self identified “conservative” legislators who are in fact anything but conservative.

Political labels of conservative or liberal are worthless in determining good wildlife management policies.

You and I would probably agree with each other on the vast majority of policy that could help improve management of Montana wildlife. But I can bet you that if things you suggest ( which I do agree with) were presented to be implemented, your fellow outfitters would fight tooth and nail to kill anything that would limit their opportunity to profit from long seasons and high tag numbers.

Very well said! But...why is it that some past commissioners have claimed that by getting the numbers above objective, that it would FORCE landowners to open their property up to the DIY public? Is that a great approach? Somewhat similar to the other bill, only on the other end of the spectrum, to open the breaks as well as other permitted areas to a general tag. I don‘t agree with either.

 

[OntarioHunter]

I will type slower so you can absorb this. Regardless of what happens with the FWP commission, calling for a boycott of Montana Beef producers is idiotic for a number of reasons. To list just a few that are obvious, there are hundreds more these come to mind while I am sitting here in the office

1. Not all ranchers are monetizing wildlife. In fact the VAST number of those who I call clients are not and have no interest or intention to do so.

2. Mainstreet Montana and especially eastern Montana is dependent on Agriculture to thrive so they can thrive. Boycotting beef is a direct assault on Mainstreet in any eastern Montana town, apparently your Montana roots are bleached blond by worshiping guys like Trudeau.

3. It would punish producers who do the right thing in regards to access, providing habitat, coexisting with wildlife, improving the range, putting in water sources, providing critical winter habitat etc, etc.

4. It would punish sportsman further by angering the above producers and other land owners who have no real dog in the fight over the commission seats and just want to produce food and fiber to sell. Resulting in less access, loss of any good will, drive deeper wedge between hunters and landowners and accomplish nothing.


It is neither Republican or Democrat position to crap in your own nest by boycotting the main industry that everything else relies upon to prosper out here in the middle of nowhere, that is reserved for half Canadian, half Bitterrooters who contribute nothing to the discourse. Calling for a Boycott of Montana beef and still expecting to be welcome in cattle country is like calling for a Boycott of the NFL but expecting Luxury Box seats when you want to really see a game.

Nemont

So the public hunters are just supposed to take this autocratic game hog crap laying down? What's the state Cattlemen Association's position on this bill? If they have voiced opposition, and I'm sure they have not, then maybe I could see your point. The landed ranchers/farmers who don't have a dog in this fight probably should get one. The bill lumps them all together. They all get a black eye for it.

This bill is disgusting. It's unAmerican in the extreme and an embarrassment to Montana. As you can see from what's been written here, it can only lead to more destructive partisan polarization. Indeed, that seems to be the intent. I can see absolutely no practical value in it except to stir up trouble. It will just result in more undemocratic knee-jerking in the other direction in a few years and the cycle starts all over.

The ranchers whose property I hunt do NOT buy into this bullying stack-the-commission crap. It's very bad for their image and they are concerned about a public backlash. Doesn't make much difference if it happens at the supermarket or the legislature, they are sure to get caught in the crossfire. And for what? A temporary power grab (and don't kid yourself, it would only be temporary!). It's senseless pointless aggravation. But that seems to be the definition of this legislature.

 

[Schaaf]

Is there a term for when a group of people are discussing an issue and one person stands off to the side and yells at the clouds? @noharleyyet ??

 

[Nemont]

The ranchers whose property I hunt do NOT buy into this bullying stack-the-commission crap. It's very bad for their image and they are concerned about a public backlash. Doesn't make much difference if it happens at the supermarket or the legislature, they are sure to get caught in the crossfire. And for what? A temporary power grab (and don't kid yourself, it would only be temporary!). It's senseless pointless aggravation. But that seems to be the definition of this legislature.

You have the market cornered on senseless and pointless. You call to boycott all Montana beef and then worry about the crossfire for the ranchers you hunt on? Either you don't think through the implications of what you say or you babble incoherently to see what comes out of your mouth next.

Be sure to share your ideas with the ranchers whose property you have access to and see how long your access lasts. I doubt they support your call to boycott Montana beef and I guarantee they don't support your preferred diet of no beef and loading up on chicken and fish.

Regardless of how this turns out whether the commission is made up of 4 landowners or not, punishing all beef producers because you don't like how the legislature works is also UnAmerican and UnMontanan for that matter. You should do everyone a favor and stay in Canada next season and eat your chicken and fish there.

Nemont

 

[Hunting Wife]

Is there a term for when a group of people are discussing an issue and one person stands off to the side and yells at the clouds? @noharleyyet ??

Quixotic comes to mind in this case.

Give me a grade @noharleyyet

 

[Gerald Martin]

Very well said! But...why is it that some past commissioners have claimed that by getting the numbers above objective, that it would FORCE landowners to open their property up to the DIY public? Is that a great approach? Somewhat similar to the other bill, only on the other end of the spectrum, to open the breaks as well as other permitted areas to a general tag. I don‘t agree with either.

If you want to use the term “FORCE” to describe a process in which landowners recognize that in order to facilitate wildlife numbers getting close to objectives they want , allowing access is the means to that end,then go right ahead.

But, it is way out of context and completely wrong to imply that FWP or DIY hunters ever lobbied for required public access without landowner consent.
Quid pro quo agreements of “if you want FWP monetary compensation for wildlife damages that comes only with the strings attached to allow access” is not FORCING anyone to participate.

Those type of agreements only seek to ensure that landowners tempted to double dip by charging for or excluding access, don’t get to be compensated for the expense of wildlife.

 

[Gerald Martin]

Personally, as long as carrying capacity isn’t exceeded and the habitat doesn’t suffer, I am thrilled to see elk numbers way over objective.

Because I do recognize that wildlife does have a financial cost associated with it when it competes with private businesses, I am happy and willing to compromise and work cooperatively with landowners to mitigate their costs.

If the solutions offered don’t fix (their, not my ) problems and causes harm to my interests I have no problems advocating for my concerns to be elevated to at least equal with competing interests.

 

[noharleyyet]

Quixotic comes to mind in this case.

Give me a grade @noharleyyet

I was thinking Homer Simpson.

 

[JLS]

Is there a term for when a group of people are discussing an issue and one person stands off to the side and yells at the clouds? @noharleyyet ??

I keep thinking recess should be over?

 

[Deleted member 16014]

I would just like to say for the record that any chicken or ocean fish consumed on the HiLine probably came a loooong way to get to your belly.

 

[Irrelevant]

I would just like to say for the record that any chicken or ocean fish consumed on the HiLine probably came a loooong way to get to your belly.

U tellin' me Havre isn't the sushi epicenter of the west?