Calling all (Sportsmen) Ranchers, and or Landowners!

[Nemont]

well having dealt with the Schweitzer administration on easements and purchase of lands all I can say the process is way too profitable for friends of Brian. In addition it matters who has lands that are to be protected, if for instance a rancher supported a Republican in the past, regardless of the ability to secure access to over 25,000 acres of deeded lands and 80,000 acres various parcels of public lands then you are not a friend of Brian's and you get veto at the State land board even though the local FWP office vested years in working out the deal. Now that land is withdrawn from the Block Management Program and orange paint abounds.

The point is that the process is over political and friends of Brian get some sweetheart deals. Like the Spotted Dog Property, Rock Creek Cattle Co. buys the Spotted Dog for $9 million and the State of Montana turns around the next day and write Rock Creek Cattle Co a check for $15.2 million. It is good to be a friend of Brian.

Yet the state, ie Gov. Schweitzer determined a $5 million easement guaranteeing access was over priced for 4 times the acreage of Spotted Dog.

I have zero issue with the State owning land but the process is far too political and is used too often to give politcal pay offs to the chosen.

I hate the idea of RFW. Elk numbers should be managed by carrying capacity and what the biologist said and not by the legislature.

Nemont

 

[Straight Arrow]

Nemont, with respect to your concern about "friends of Brian" profitting, he will soon be out of the Governor's chair. However, to think that the next one in that seat (R or D) will not function politically, would be naive on our part. I guess I just have to have some faith in the process since there are other members on the land board, are there not?

Since you appear to be "in the know" about the politics and pay-offs, it would help if you would step up to make your points where they could make a difference. Why were these "sweetheart deals" so thoroughly vetted, completed, and you were the only one aware of the political payoff? They seem questionable and newsworthy as you described them.

 

[shoots-straight]

I don't believe one party is anymore of a saint or villain when it comes to that type of crap. Hunting and Fishing decisions shouldn't end up as to whether your a R, or a D. We should do what's right for the next generations.

Our local Rep. helped us beat SB414. The one that would have ended up with the wolf back on the list. He's an R. After he did that his own party killed his bill that had moved through the house. It was on it's third reading, and the Senate republicans killed it by 2 votes. It was retaliation for his work on the wolf bill.

The bill they killed would have required a Trappers Safety course.

 

[Big Shooter]

OK, I'll throw my two cents worth out there since Shoots called me out. (Damn, about two years ago I swore I wouldn't do this anymore ).

Do we have enough elk?:

In some areas yes. In the areas that the public can access them....probably not.

Should we move forward and attempt to increase numbers?:

Certainly we should. More for the next generation, stimulate the economy again in small communities through out the state during the fall yada yada.....but not while throwing the industry that feeds the American people under the bus.

Ranching For Wildlife?:

Not a fan of this either nor are a lot of landowners in this part of the state. The whole "We will give you these tags but you have to let Tom, Dick, and Harry on in return" doesn't set well.

Does the state own enough land?:

I believe so. We need to keep as much of it as we can in production as it is disappearing fast enough as it is with "foreigners" buying it up and not using it properly. The public land that I have seen has terrible hunting on it anyway due to lack of proper management from both the agency responsible and the sportsman that use "My Public Land" (as Jose puts it every single time).

Stream access laws?:

Private property rights.......again!! Honestly, I am sure that some landowners have had people throw out trash, disrespect it....whatever, but the whole liability issue comes into play quite often too I know. Way too many "lawsuite happy" recreationists out there. Valid point I would hope. Or maybe......they just don't think that they have to cater to people that think they have a "right" to go wherever.

Should a Landowner be able to block access to public ground that historically had access?:

If their is an easement on record then no. But in the case that went on in the eastern part of the state, there was no easement recorded and the reason he was shutting it down was a liability issue....oh yeah, and he didn't want people driving through his calving pastures that had no right to. Just little, common sense things like that. He bought it to run it as a working ranch, not a goddamn amusement park like a lot of people on here think a ranch should be.

Shoots.....you get up on your soap box and continually flap your soup coolers about how "sportsman need to get together and do this and do that and show these landowners who has bigger muscles". Well guess what, you might have more voting power and all that BS, but the landowners hold the deeds and the keys to the gates, so I would be careful what you wish for. Unless you have a real short memory you will remember the last time that you all "banded together" and got something passed, it did no good for anyone involved, but by God the resident sportsman were legends in their own minds but gained nothing.

 

[belly-deep]

Stream access laws?:

Private property rights.......again!! Honestly, I am sure that some landowners have had people throw out trash, disrespect it....whatever, but the whole liability issue comes into play quite often too I know. Way too many "lawsuite happy" recreationists out there. Valid point I would hope. Or maybe......they just don't think that they have to cater to people that think they have a "right" to go wherever.

Have you read the law?

First off, private property rights only exist to the extent that they are recognized by the law. The Montana Constitution provides that all surface waters are owned by the public.

Second, I'd like to know about these "lawsuite happy" recreationists out there. Montana law specifically carves out an exception to liability for landowners under the stream access laws. In other words, these "lawsuite happy" recreationists can't sue them. Don't believe me? Look here: http://data.opi.mt.gov/bills/mca/23/2/23-2-321.htm

 

[Big Shooter]

Belly-deep......apparently I have not read that law, but I am assuming that you have and are somewhat correct in what you are saying on the issue. My bad but thanks for the correction.

See.....some of you should learn from what just happened! I was wrong.....and admitted it. Neat concept huh Buzz?

 

[shoots-straight]

Thanks Shooter, I appreciate the honesty, I think! It seems to me, there is some common ground with sportsman that you share. Even a hard headed cowboy like you have some similarities..

The attack on sportsman started slowly years prior to I-161. In no way was it an attack on landowners. Unless of course you were abusing the system. Remember is was set up to provide better planning for outfitters, and to stabilize their industry, not a paycheck for landowners, faking forms that they were just working as a guide.

We will band together, I would rather work with our good land owner, ranchers, we have, and explore where we have common ground. .

The other areas, such as land acquisitions we will have problems.

Just as you feel the foreigner is using the land improperly, we feel the foreigner will keep Montanans off that land, and use it to further privatize our wildlife. Wouldn't those lands be better in public hands than that guy? They would still be grazed, and used like they had been historically.

 

[mtlion]

Does the state own enough land?:

I believe so. We need to keep as much of it as we can in production as it is disappearing fast enough as it is with "foreigners" buying it up and not using it properly. The public land that I have seen has terrible hunting on it anyway due to lack of proper management from both the agency responsible and the sportsman that use "My Public Land" (as Jose puts it every single time).

You're kidding right? I can tell your only hunting is behind orange penceposts with a chevy as a rest. Every single year I hunt and kill some awesome animals on state, blm, and forest service. Elk, bear, deer, lion, antelope, turkey...It's all there for anyone who is willing to go get it. You'd be amazed what you'd see if you burned some boot leather and sweat.

 

[shoots-straight]

You're kidding right? I can tell your only hunting is behind orange penceposts with a chevy as a rest. Every single year I hunt and kill some awesome animals on state, blm, and forest service. Elk, bear, deer, lion, antelope, turkey...It's all there for anyone who is willing to go get it. You'd be amazed what you'd see if you burned some boot leather and sweat.

Shooter hasn't seen a Root Mule Deer!

 

[Big Shooter]

Shoots...that ground would be better utilized as public......as that is the lesser of two evils. I just hate to see that ground come out of production is all. Of course I share common ground with sportsman.....can't a guy be both?

Mtlion.....you can take your "Chevy as a rest" and "burn some boot leather and sweat" comments and shove em up your a&$!! Good for you that you kill some great turkeys and antelope every year on public ground and don't let your arm get too sore patting yourself on the back. I do well myself in that area as well. Let's not get into a dick measuring contest on here. All I was saying is that in eastern Montana a lot of the public ground is terrible hunting. Just a fact. Many people would agree. But it's different here due to the terrain and how accessible that ground is.

And Shoots you are correct....I have never killed a mule deer in the Bitter Root. I will have to add that to my "Bucket List".

Happy Easter everyone.....even you BuzzH.

 

[jmcd]

Shoots Straight,
Amazing the difference between this thread and the grazing thread. Excellent discussion.
Amazingly enough, I too don't think there are enough elk , especially in SW MT, I agree with you 100% that Barret's Bill and the EMP are no good and need scrapped. I don't support RFW. (Block Management could use an upgrade though) I think our Stream Access is great but, I see it abused often. And, I don't think a public road should be closed if it leads to public land.
Also, sorry I called you a Dumb SOB.

 

[jmcd]

Forgot one. I don't think the state really needs to buy any more land. I don't think they can really manage all that they currently have too well. Yeah, it'd be nice to have more places to hunt, but I'm not sure that should be the sole reason for the state to be in the land business.
As far as having more places to hunt, I think it should be legal to cross corners. With today's tech. in gps, maps, etc. I think it is possible to do legally. that would stop a pile of the whining about access in my opinion.

 

[mtlion]

Mtlion.....you can take your "Chevy as a rest" and "burn some boot leather and sweat" comments and shove em up your a&$!! Good for you that you kill some great turkeys and antelope every year on public ground and don't let your arm get too sore patting yourself on the back. I do well myself in that area as well. Let's not get into a dick measuring contest on here. All I was saying is that in eastern Montana a lot of the public ground is terrible hunting. Just a fact. Many people would agree. But it's different here due to the terrain and how accessible that ground is.

Not just turkeys, elk deer, lion, bear...The ground and terrain are different here so the huntings harder. It's different in Eastern MT. BS just because I live in western mt it doesn't mean I don't know anything about the east. I havn't always lived in Hamilton as a matter of fact just moved here about a year ago...came from parts of Montana a little further east. If your wondering I have family in every corner of the state and hunt all 7 of MT's regions...and love to go hunt deer on public land in eastern MT. So you can tell me all about the deer hunting out there but I already know how it is. Freakin' awesome. Oh it's not accessible to you? Why don't your big rancher buddies let you on all that awesome private ground they have?

You seriously leave me laughing...stick to your orange fence posts you'll do just fine.

 

[mtlion]

Public land hunting sucks.

Had to settle for this guy off a piece of state land last season...would have looked for better because I know they are there but due to time constraints I pulled trigger on this one. It took my wife and I the better part of a morning to get him out.

 

[Straight Arrow]

"I don't think the state really needs to buy any more land. I don't think they can really manage all that they currently have too well." jmcd

With respectful disagreement, I think the state manages pretty well considering the conservative funding for such. If it weren't for public vandalism of fishing access sites, trailheads, and other areas, together with overly demanding neighbors of state land, management would be much easier and less costly.

Acquisition of wildlife management areas, Wild Horse Island, and many other critical habitat spots has meant viable habitat for wildlife (and for us to hunt and recreate on) that otherwise would likely have been developed and lost forever.

If it weren't for our state and federal public lands, Montana would be just like most every other state ..... acres and acres of pavement and a few overcrowded recreation spots .... with no bows, arrows, guns, or hunting, mind you.

 

[bjtc_brian]

I think management of the state land could use some help. My cousin is married to one if the inspectors, and if I remember correctly, they only have enough inspectors to check each piece of property once every three years or so. And they recently cut down on how many inspectors they had. In three years if you have a rancher overgrazing, or a couple of dry years, you can "make it look like the moon" pretty easily. Now the ranchers could do their own management and only be charged for the animals they put on, based on what the rancher thought as long as it isn't more. Problem is, some jerk would lie and then the trust would be gone. I think it could work.

I think when the state buys land, the thought of someone having to manage it isn't taken in to account. That should be some of the stipulation/consideration when buy state grounds. I'm actually very much for the state buying ground and leasing it out. That helps our kids out greatly! They get land to hunt on in the future and the schools get some money.

I do have one question. How do you guys feel about someone that has state lands leased and then uses BM. The BM agreement extends to the state lands and you have to abide by the BM rules. I think you should be able to hunt the state land, if you can access it without crossing private land, by following the hunting laws. Now this is how I understand the law, but I only found out about it last year.

 

[Straight Arrow]

brian, I ran into the same situation on a large BM area that included private, State, and BLM lands. The BLM officer explained that part of the deal in establishing the BM was the rules for that particular BM area. Nearby are separate public State and BLM lands which it was explained are open under the general regulations, as long as you can access by public road.

Since the BM area was such a large and good hunting area, the BM rules seemed reasonable. Actually, there was nothing that really limited my hunting, other than a reasonable several acre no-shoot zone around buildings.

 

[shoots-straight]

Sweet,we need your addional thoughts on these subjects. Come one now.

 

[sweetnectar]

OK I'm comming Shoots. My thoughts are MtLion shot a big deer

 

[sweetnectar]

Ya I remember when I first started hunting I had permission from a landowner and permission from a landowner was a lot easier to get. It was similar to the way Shoots described it. These days I see a bigger disconnect between landowners and sportsmen in general. Times have certainly changed. Landowners didn't have to worry about the EPA regulating something, or worry about their water rights, or someone running into one of their cows and suing, or hunters shooting holes in the stock tanks, or someone stealing their fertilizer to make meth, etc. Hunters didn't have to worry that if they asked to hunt they would be chewed out for asking. Seems pressures have come in various ways to try and get landowners to act in certain ways and as a result more disconnect. These pressures can be anything from crop loss to meth heads, to a simple feeling of being pushed in one direction. Then along came BigFin telling people to wake up and look at the huge resource of public land that hunters are missing. It still takes a lot of convincing to get people to try it. Then Newmont posts up perfect sense and I hear angelic music playing when I read it being that the public dollar can get more if spent making landlocked public land accessible through purchasing easements....I'd even add doing land swaps,,,,etc. Also, the landowner/hunter disconnect can be reduced by hunters getting to know the landowners or becoming true friends. Please note I said true friends...that means not just friends in hunting season but a true friend is someone that show up even regardless of circumstance or where a relationship of trust exists.
Anyway, there are some of my thoughts. They may be a bit off topic as a briefly scanned over the thread.