Bulls for Billionaires - MT EQC Meeting today 1:30 PM

[Eric Albus]

And we heard from several legacy landowners that they'd never put in for them either due to how poorly this round was executed. Plus, I think the landowner at EQC Tuesday did a great job talking about how generous MT is to landowners now, given that 15% of all LE permits are set aside for the Landowner Preference pool, which is about 75% or greater chance of draw, compared to the general draw, which is around 24% I think?

This white sheet (attached) was handed out to all EQC members, and I know that @406LIFE has a copy as well. The MT Elk Coalition will be presenting in Lewistown for the May PLPW meeting, so you'll get a chance to talk directly with them about their ideas as well.

454 could be a good program, but not when it's handled by Helena insiders, big money lobbyists and the director's office. Would everyone in the hunting community support 454 after this? Nope, but they're going to recommend changes rather than scrapping it. The easiest and cleanest thing would be to go back to the original model. The program wasn't promoted by the agency in the past, and I think it's certainly out of the bag now, so with a little direction from Helena to the regional offices to seek new participants, and actually make it about wildlife management and not bulls for billionaires, I think 80% of the controversy goes down.

Now, why do billionaires need trophy bull tags to let kids with cancer hunt? Hank said that they wouldn't have had that opportunity during the February 4th commission hearing.

And why wasn't the previous program where they were allowing (up to 300) in some instances good enough? To paint this whole debacle as being "for the people" is a lobbyists tale. Billionaires got caught with their hands in the cookie jar, and now they're trying to do damage control.

Again, I'm a proponent of giving landowners licenses and permits so they can hunt their own land, but it needs to be an honest, open and thoughtful process, and this administration has delivered none of that.

I’d like to know the complete background of the landowner who got up and spoke, and his affiliations.

 

[Ben Lamb]

That they(elk) are.
The private land is owned by individuals, and they control access, pay the taxes, and are feeding/housing “your” elk.

And there are a host of programs beyond privatizing the resource to pay landowners for that access, and those issues relative to damage.

Which is what we're talking about, how to keep one good program from turning into Ranching for Wildlife (which given how the statute is written, is where we expect the bill to originate from for transferable tags).

 

[Eric Albus]

Input from biologists would be a good start. If you look at the contracts for the 454 deals that have been around a long time, you will see that they were signed by the local biologist and the landowner. Last years contracts were signed by the landowner and Hank. I’m pretty sure the biologists in my area had no idea about the deals being made until they were waiting commission approval.

I’d like to see these deals made at the discretion of the local biologists. The biologists are aware of landowners that are harboring elk. Landowners that have caused these elk management disasters should not be rewarded with bull permits. Telling landowners “not only can you harbour elk, but we will even give you bull permits now” is a terrible precedent to be setting if we ever want to get elk numbers down.

Add the fact that there’s no limit on the permits granted through the 454 program and they are in addition to the permit quotas set by the biologists. I can see the number of 454 permits being pretty substantial if things continue in the direction they are headed.

The same biologists who manage the public land in Montana?

 

[S-3 Ranch]

The Constitution of the State of Montana declares that wildlife exist as a condition of the land, and are owned by no-one, and are held in trust for the citizens of the state. If you don't like that, stay in Texas, and bring some of the billionaires who are trying to turn MT into TX with you.

Texas wildlife is held in trust by the state of Texas same as Montana
we just have a different view on landowners rights, in Texas any federal taxpayers are equal to apply for and hunt federal owned land under the wildlife trust . From my brief glance at this it looks like Montana residents want access to private property and exclude NR to a smaller portion of permits, same as Wyoming and Idaho.
seems very obtuse

 

[The Hedgehog]

I’d like to know the complete background of the landowner who got up and spoke, and his affiliations.

I’d like to know how much MOGA pays mark Taylor to give those tear-jerking speeches..

 

[Nameless Range]

And we heard from several legacy landowners that they'd never put in for them either due to how poorly this round was executed. Plus, I think the landowner at EQC Tuesday did a great job talking about how generous MT is to landowners now, given that 15% of all LE permits are set aside for the Landowner Preference pool, which is about 75% or greater chance of draw, compared to the general draw, which is around 24% I think?

This white sheet (attached) was handed out to all EQC members, and I know that @406LIFE has a copy as well. The MT Elk Coalition will be presenting in Lewistown for the May PLPW meeting, so you'll get a chance to talk directly with them about their ideas as well.

454 could be a good program, but not when it's handled by Helena insiders, big money lobbyists and the director's office. Would everyone in the hunting community support 454 after this? Nope, but they're going to recommend changes rather than scrapping it. The easiest and cleanest thing would be to go back to the original model. The program wasn't promoted by the agency in the past, and I think it's certainly out of the bag now, so with a little direction from Helena to the regional offices to seek new participants, and actually make it about wildlife management and not bulls for billionaires, I think 80% of the controversy goes down.

Now, why do billionaires need trophy bull tags to let kids with cancer hunt? Hank said that they wouldn't have had that opportunity during the February 4th commission hearing.

And why wasn't the previous program where they were allowing (up to 300) in some instances good enough? To paint this whole debacle as being "for the people" is a lobbyists tale. Billionaires got caught with their hands in the cookie jar, and now they're trying to do damage control.

Again, I'm a proponent of giving landowners licenses and permits so they can hunt their own land, but it needs to be an honest, open and thoughtful process, and this administration has delivered none of that.

Good comment. The attachment contains balanced and reasonable sideboards and everyone should take a look at em.

 

[Eric Albus]

What a bummer. I’ll trade them my home in town straight up. Never had an elk problem, but have had a couple yard moose eating my hard earned apples

Do what an FWP biologist told my dad when we were dealing with and elk problem… the biologist told him, and I quote, “plant your crop elsewhere “

 

[Ben Lamb]

Texas wildlife is held in trust by the state of Texas same as Montana
we just have a different view on landowners rights, in Texas any federal taxpayers are equal to apply for and hunt federal owned land under the wildlife trust . From my brief glance at this it looks like Montana residents want access to private property and exclude NR to a smaller portion of permits, same as Wyoming and Idaho.
seems very obtuse

Well, sounds like that's one Texan who isn't moving to MT.

 

[Ben Lamb]

I’d like to know how much MOGA pays mark Taylor to give those year jerking speeches..

Not sure, but I think he was there on the Wilk's Brother's dime for that one.

 

[Ben Lamb]

The same biologists who manage the public land in Montana?

DNRC, USFS & BLM all have biologists that work on land management. FWP biologists work on wildlife issues across almost all of MT, except reservations, a few national park units and some wildlife refuges, but on those, it's mostly a collaborative effort.

 

[S-3 Ranch]

you completely miss the point…. The bull permit give incentive. Punitive measures have been tried, and proven to fail. Give a landowner an incentive to tolerate the public.

leasing the private land would be the answer, in most states if you want to hunt a private ranch you lease it, turning private property into public property sounds like commie move

 

[The Hedgehog]

leasing the private land would be the answer, in most states if you want to hunt a private ranch you lease it, turning private property into public property sounds like commie move

Who’s turning private property into public property? And what kind of crack cocaine do you recommend for a first time user?

 

[TheTone]

Do what an FWP biologist told my dad when we were dealing with and elk problem… the biologist told him, and I quote, “plant your crop elsewhere “

Do what one of my dirtbag relatives did; plant an nrcs food plot of alfalfa and then your own alfalfa next to it and then complain that elk are eating your crops.

 

[Eric Albus]

The rotten intolerable public.. Hell yeah - give the landowners some bull permits for having to deal with all those pieces of shit. Makes total sense.

You are either belligerent or totally ignorant.

When does the “public” show up on a landowners doorstep? Day before season opens.

I bet you would welcome me in for supper if I knocked on the door at 5:45?? Oh, if my steak(that’s what I’d be expecting) wasn’t cooked perfectly bitched about it, came back next night you’d welcome me in again.

 

[DFS]

Texas wildlife is held in trust by the state of Texas same as Montana
we just have a different view on landowners rights, in Texas any federal taxpayers are equal to apply for and hunt federal owned land under the wildlife trust . From my brief glance at this it looks like Montana residents want access to private property and exclude NR to a smaller portion of permits, same as Wyoming and Idaho.
seems very obtuse

I could give a care less to access anyone’s private, the landowner can manage their property however they feel fit. Landowners have access to landowner tags which the public waits 10-15 years to draw they get them every year or every other year. They also have the tools in cow tags to remove problem elk if they feel there are too many.

 

[Ben Lamb]

leasing the private land would be the answer, in most states if you want to hunt a private ranch you lease it, turning private property into public property sounds like commie move

Most of these states have programs funded by hunters to do just that. MT, for example, pays millions each year to "lease" over 7 million acres for the Block Management Program.

Roughly $10 million a year goes into the hands of landowners for conservation and access payments. It's a good deal for all.

 

[Ben Lamb]

I’d like to know the complete background of the landowner who got up and spoke, and his affiliations.

respectfully Eric, out everything I put out there, you want a background check on a dude who said something you disagree with?

Nothing about that white sheet with ways to fix the program, nothing about previous hunting seasons where more people were involved, or why Billionaires need bull tags to let kids with cancer hunt their kingdoms?

 

[The Hedgehog]

You are either belligerent or totally ignorant.

When does the “public” show up on a landowners doorstep? Day before season opens.

I bet you would welcome me in for supper if I knocked on the door at 5:45?? Oh, if my steak(that’s what I’d be expecting) wasn’t cooked perfectly bitched about it, came back next night you’d welcome me in again.

Is that so? I’m glad all your friends who pay you for a hunting vacation get exactly what they pay for.

And Again, appreciate to hear again how terrible the “public” is. I’d cook you a steak, give you a bad beer, and tell you EXACTLY what I thought, without asking for money, access or bull permits..

 

[S-3 Ranch]

Most of these states have programs funded by hunters to do just that. MT, for example, pays millions each year to "lease" over 7 million acres for the Block Management Program.

Roughly $10 million a year goes into the hands of landowners for conservation and access payments. It's a good deal for all.

A $1.08 per acre per year is a tough pill to swallow, about equal to what ranchers pay for BLM land, seems obtuse and incoherent

please tell me one good reason why y’all want control of private property

 

[DFS]

A $1.08 per acre per year is a tough pill to swallow, about equal to what ranchers pay for BLM land, seems obtuse and incoherent

They can lease to outfitters or other individuals and make much more money. Don’t worry Texas we aren’t trying to take your deeded ground and landowners are doing just fine.