Congressman Pearce calls for selling of Public Lands

[Straight Arrow]

"Joe Public hunter seems apathetic until their own little piece of hunting ground is not available."

Nemont, that is unfortunately so true. However, as previously pointed out with the list of issues resulting in NO HUNTERS WELCOME as expressed by theat, the lock-out strategy has not only been ineffective, it has served to drive the "wedge" described by Fin even deeper.

As attested to by my own frail mental state, insanity has been described as doing the same thing over and over ... expecting the outcome to be different.

 

[Ben Lamb]

I can see your side of the issue....something I realize that most folks are unable to do, dis-engage themselves from their own little world and look at the issue from the other side.

Those 63 landowners(who all allowed access to the public) are very unhappy w/ FWP. The local sportsmen, like Nemont, understand the closing down is not aimed at them, but at FWP. The landowners are giving the sportsmen credit for understanding and they want to have them back their stance......now I can see the thanks that the landowners will get. You find out who your friends really are when these kinds of contentious issues occur. Most of these ranches will be open to the public again, most will allow hunting this fall. The show of solidarity in the paper is for FWP, and to show them that the landowning community is not happy about "free range bison".
Landowners are fearful of the thought of "free range bison". Who is going to be responsible for fixing the fences they tear up, who will be responsible for bison inter-breeding w/ cattle, and vice-versa? Who is going to pay for fixing up an irrigated field when 100 bison tromp and wallow in it? I have seen first hand what damage elk do, and that is bad enough to have to deal w/.

This thread has certainly turned away from public lands being sold off to why we hate the idea of "free ranging bison."

Eric, I too appreciate you coming on here and talking with folks about an extremely contentious issue. For the record, I am speaking only for myself, and no group or other entity. These are my own thoughts.

During the last legislature, led by Chuck Denowh, John Brenden, Bill Harris and many, many others, the MT legislature did try and take it out on sportsmen for the management of FWP. Bills like HB 361, SB 303, HB 309, etc, etc, etc all tried to eliminate access funding, access to rivers, purchase of new WMA's, hand over FWP to outfitters and landowners, etc. That all hurts hunters more than it hurts the agency. We also had a bill by Derek Skees, who is now running for State Auditor, to eliminate all federal lands in MT.

I think we can see where the wedge is coming from, and how it's being driven. There was one bill that would have helped clear up the county road issues that we are continually seeing, it was killed early on in the session. The rest of those 5 months sportsmen simply played defense.

However, that does not dismiss the real and substantial concerns that landowners have when it comes to FWP, bison, and wildlife management. But it also does not excuse the poor behavior we've seen over the last 3-4 legislative sessions, nor will it excuse the attack on hunters and anglers coming in the next session.



As for the closure of private lands in response to FWP, I guess I don't get it. You can be mad at FWP but how does eliminating hunters from your towns, hotels, grocery stores, gas stations, restaurants, etc do anything other than hurt your own communities? We heard throughout the entire session how your communities were starving for economic benefit from wildlife, and the next thing you know, 63 landowners say "no economic development this fall."

As many have said before, the hunter outside of NE MT looks at that and thinks that landowners hate the average guy. It's not that far of a leap when you combine the last efforts at the legislature, the attempts to eliminate access, illegal road closures, the elk archery issue and resultant backlash (where hunters and their advocacy groups get slammed and derided and defamed), privatization of wildlife and now, the bison issue which many hunters in MT are not so sure about.

That is their right to close off their land. To be sure. It's also the right of the average hunter to stand up and let those landowners know that their decision doesn't hurt FWP, it hurts them. Sportsmen have been more than willing to step up and work with the landowners community on contentious issues. Unfortunately, those representing folks in NE and Central MT have not.

Sportsmen are helping reshape block management so that it works better for landowners and hunters. They're doing this with the help of the MT Stockgrowers and individual producers who have voiced their displeasure with the program.

The mold exists to have hunters and landowners work together. Hunters have stood up to be counted, landowners, not so much it seems. That does not dismiss the real and substantive concerns that landowners have in relation to bison trans-location. But the current track is the wrong way to go about forming a coalition willing to work together. It just breeds more distrust and anger between the two groups.

In regards to bison, nobody is talking about free ranging bison so far as I know. The scoping process has become a political hot potato, intentionally , by folks on both sides of the issue. There is a lot of misinformation, something that Kerry White is very adept at.

SB 212 was passed with support from both conservationists and landowners. The Bill's sponsor, Rick Ripley, worked with Mike Phillips (D-Bozeman, and the Executive Director of the Ted Turner Endangered Species Fund) to craft language that all sides supported. That language is very clear as to what will happen, and what the sideboards are. Stockgrowers, Wool Growers, Farm Bureau, all lined up and supported the bill that forced FWP to start a statewide management plan for bison. Until that bill passed, the project was going nowhere fast. My own testimony on the bill went from opposition to support after we worked out the amendments among the varying parties. I felt the bill offered an adequate level of protection to landowners, but also provided a clear path to starting the discussion about where, or if, bison belong anywhere in limited numbers, on geographically isolated parcels of public land. Nowhere was anyone talking about free-ranging bison. In fact, most sportsmen stood up and said no when it came to placing bison on WMA's around the state because we all felt it was too much like a game farm, and even as simply a holding facility, these WMA's wouldn't be sufficient to accomplish the long term task of ensuring that wild bison do not become listed under the Endangered Species Act, which is a very real possibility.

The bill provides for the protection of private land and livestock. Landowners do not have to tolerate bison on their lands, and can either call FWP to haze, or to kill any bison that comes onto private property.

The allegation that the Bison that were illegally transferred to the Tribes is just that, an allegation. The judge has not ruled on the case, and the stay is on future transportation of bison. Those bison were not moved in violation of any law that I can see. The Legislature said "Go forth and make a plan before you transfer." They did. It didn't say "make a plan and then notify the attorneys of your detractors three weeks before moving forward." I'd be surprised to see any ruling that FWP acted illegally to stand. What they did was come up with a plan, that a lot of people commented on, and voiced their opinions, issue a notice of decision, and move forward. They did not have to give a timeline or notify anyone of when the move would occur.

Landowners are protected from unintended consequences of bison reintroduction. Both in state statute and in the EA Decision. Bison that wander off tribal lands can be shot on sight. People are misrepresenting what that bill does, and why it ended up the way it did. It was one of only 2 bison bills that passed last session. Over 10 bills were introduced (at an average cost of about $6,000 per bill). Most died or were vetoed.

 

[shoots-straight]

Just curious how these landowners helped create the bison issue? I know most of the 63 and I wouldn't classify any of them as "ignorant". Many of them are dedicated hunters as well.

The Bison issue, for the most part, is hear say, and speculation. I think alot of the hysteria is started with a drink at happy hour. Self induced! What's going on in the Reservation, IMO isn't any of their business. Even if they live there. That's the price you pay for living in a soverign nation.

Stupid is as stupid does.

In Western Montana, we have had major landowners close the hunting on their lands because the MTFW&P's wasn't doing enough to control wolves. They didn't even have management control at the time. Some landowners, never had a wolf cross their property.

Like I said, "Strong arm tactic" the bullet may be intended for MTFW&P's but the general hunting public was the one that got shot.

It's a good bet those 63 landowers were in favor of attacking Iraq for what happened to the World Trade center too!

Their not doing themselves any favors.

 

[Nemont]

I see your true colors come out, so it is safe to say your broad brush doesn't discriminate. I will have to tell the landowner who has the Julie French for Senate on his gate post that he is a knuckle dragging conservative.

The problem is not the FPT, they are immune to protest from landowners given their being sovereign. Again the State of Montana is not sovereign and if one disagrees with the policies of the State they are residents of they can still protest those policies.


Let's keep this simple and not conflate support or lack of support for the war in Iraq with the Bison issue. That is comparing apples and Tuesday.

If the landowners aren't doing themselves any favors then I guess the results of their actions will be theirs to deal with.

Nemont

 

[Ben Lamb]

The problem is not the FPT, they are immune to protest from landowners given their being sovereign. Again the State of Montana is not sovereign and if one disagrees with the policies of the State they are residents of they can still protest those policies.


If the landowners aren't doing themselves any favors then I guess the results of their actions will be theirs to deal with.

Nemont

I don't disagree with any of that. I would simply point out that 2013 is going to be exactly like 2009, 2011, etc. The lock out will be used by politicians to hurt hunters, eliminate access programs and privatize wildlife. The lock out is part of the set up for 2013 and the political agenda of a few groups.

The results of the lock out will be all of ours to deal with in 3 months.

 

[Nemont]

I don't disagree with any of that. I would simply point out that 2013 is going to be exactly like 2009, 2011, etc. The lock out will be used by politicians to hurt hunters, eliminate access programs and privatize wildlife. The lock out is part of the set up for 2013 and the political agenda of a few groups.

The results of the lock out will be all of ours to deal with in 3 months.

I don't disagree with that. I don't want to spend all my time writing, calling, emailing or traveling to the legislature again but I will.

Nemont

 

[Big Fin]

I can see your side of the issue....something I realize that most folks are unable to do, dis-engage themselves from their own little world and look at the issue from the other side.

Those 63 landowners(who all allowed access to the public) are very unhappy w/ FWP. The local sportsmen, like Nemont, understand the closing down is not aimed at them, but at FWP. The landowners are giving the sportsmen credit for understanding and they want to have them back their stance......now I can see the thanks that the landowners will get. You find out who your friends really are when these kinds of contentious issues occur. Most of these ranches will be open to the public again, most will allow hunting this fall. The show of solidarity in the paper is for FWP, and to show them that the landowning community is not happy about "free range bison".
Landowners are fearful of the thought of "free range bison". Who is going to be responsible for fixing the fences they tear up, who will be responsible for bison inter-breeding w/ cattle, and vice-versa? Who is going to pay for fixing up an irrigated field when 100 bison tromp and wallow in it? I have seen first hand what damage elk do, and that is bad enough to have to deal w/.

Maybe it is my desire to see hunters and landowners working together that causes me to not connect these dots when hunters are again kicked in the crotch. Or, maybe it is the scars of past skirmishes with the far fringes who claim to represent landowners. Or, maybe I am just dense (best odds).

Some things that seem to be apparent. Or at least from my perspective as someone who lived in a small logging town that in the course of one generation went from 600 people to 200 as the result of things that were pretty much beyond control of the locals living there.

> The way of life in NE Montana is undergoing rapid change.

> Much of that change is beyond control of the small number of folks in NE Montana.

> Much of that change is merely economics in a country of free enterprise.

> There are huge pressures by outside groups with large bankrolls to bring free ranging bison to private lands they can acquire and they will use the free enterprise system to acquire the necessary lands.

> Much of NE Montana is public land, and whether we like it or not, public land issues are influenced by people outside Phillips and Valley County; influenced by people outside Montana; even influenced by people outside the United States.

> Agriculture is being impacted by many forces; commodity markets, mechanization, global trade, currency fluctuations, energy price/policy.

> Given the money being offered to Eric's neighbors, I think his concerns are very real. The $20 million that APR has paid his neighbors over the last decade is small spuds compared to the war chest they are building. APR has resources to quadruple that tomorrow, if they so wanted. Eventually, those neighbors are going to sell, either due to the money involved, or because they don't have any heirs to take over.

> And many more.​

Seems Eric's concerns of challenges to the way of life in NE Montana are valid. Many of those changes have been ongoing and are now accelerating.

In a time when these landowners could use all the help they can get, they seem to be kicking their largest potential ally, hunters, even though Eric asks hunters to see it otherwise. Using hunters as the leverage tool seems to be the default position by the most vocal of these leaders, making it hard for hunters to see it as Eric asks.

This response has become the norm for leaders supposedly representing these interest groups. It does nothing positive, only serving to further isolate the good folks who are following these leaders. Eric can go on all day explaining what it is meant to do, who it is aimed at, etc. I don’t doubt any of what he says, but it that is not how it comes across, as evidenced by the responses from hunters outside his area.

Maybe I should be asking Eric to explain to me how this benefits the cause of these landowners. Both today and in the future when the factors I listed above will be bearing down even harder on landowners.

* Are the same old vocal folks we normally hear bitching and whining in the media the true voice of landowners?

* Are the elected legislators who are always hammering hunters really representing the feelings of most landowners in Montana? In my experience the answer would be, “No,” but it gets harder and harder to convince myself of that each time hunters are put in the crosshairs of these folks supposedly representing landowners.

* Are these leaders going to start reaching out and working with people, or are they going to continue making decisions that make the island smaller and smaller with each threat?

* Are the elected officials who claim to represent landowners planning to come to the legislature in January and work on ideas that could help their cause, or are they going to push stupid bills that further fracture potential allies and put this way of life on a more precarious precipice? Given what I see as place marks on bills for the upcoming legislative session, it looks like they intend to take some further whacks at the wedge between hunters and landowners.​

The leadership of the vocal minority (or at least I still have faith they are the minority in the landowner community) over the last twenty years have made it hard to build alliances. Unfortunate, but not unexpected. They may have felt good by making their statements and pushing their bills, in the process digging deeper holes for those landowners they are supposed to be representing. Not sure when these supposed leaders will realize that none of this temper tantrum stuff happens in a vacuum.

Merely my opinion, but if I was a landowner who felt the pressures Eric has explained, I would start trying to build alliances across the state. If I felt hunters could be one of my largest allies, I would get rid of the short-sighted leaders in my groups who think that using hunting access as some ransom demand is a way to create alliances with hunters. I wouldn't wait until the next time a gun is at my head before I made some of these changes.

Enough of my stupid opinions. Probably time to wind this thread down. No one is arguing the concerns Eric pointed out; concerns that are valid for any ag producer. Folks here are just struggling to connect the dots of how the continued attacks on hunters, with this closure, past closures, past legislative sessions, and this upcoming legislative session do anything to help the cause

Hopefully any landowners reading this will see how hunters have become numb to their cause after years of being the whipping post of their most vocal leaders who operate out there on the fringe. If nothing else, it shows just how difficult it will be for landowners to build alliances by following the tactics promoted by the most vocal in their leadership.

Time to go plan some elk hunting once I finish these last tax returns on this wonderful extension deadline of October 15th.

Carry on .......

 

[shoots-straight]

The problem is not the FPT, they are immune to protest from landowners given their being sovereign. Again the State of Montana is not sovereign and if one disagrees with the policies of the State they are residents of they can still protest those policies.

So the landowner with a Julie French sign is one of the 63? Your colors have shades of what ever they need to be. When in Rome, you know!

And what policy are they protesting exactly?

 

[Nemont]

So the landowner with a Julie French sign is one of the 63? Your colors have shades of what ever they need to be. When in Rome, you know!

And what policy are they protesting exactly?

Think as you wish.

Nemont

 

[Eric Albus]

well, I posted a response yesterday, but it apparently is lost in cyber space.

You all still fail to understand. FWP is going right along and wants a "free range bison herd". The reason 63 landowners have shut down is to let FWP know they are not happy. They are hoping the sportsmen will step up and voice an opinion against the bison as well. Overwhelming public comment at the bison meetings this summer in several towns across Montana was against having a free range herd. Right now the Dept. of Livestock does oversee domestic(personally owned) bison. W/ the free range moniker the bison will be no different than deer or antelope. I have seen the damage elk do to grain fields first hand, and do not want to see a herd of buffalo tromping thru my crops/pastures.

I did not realize how little some folks actually think about things like this 'til last night. I was talking w/ a friend of mine who happens to work for the Corp. of Engineers in Ft. Peck....he is also an avid sportsman and voiced the same senitiment as all of you toward the landowners, not understanding why they would close their land....then about 20 minutes later we were talking about elk, and he says that we(the Corp) have some land that has a couple really big bulls on it and some cows(close to the Pines), we won't let anyone hunt (archery) there because we are pissed at FWP over some serious issues......hmmm says I, where is the difference? His reply, "you got me". I understand now.

 

[Straight Arrow]

"You all still fail to understand."

Your anecdotal example of a friend understanding you does little to satisfy the hunting community that has been peed on time after time by the lock-out intended to get them to complain to FWP. NO HUNTERS WELCOME lockouts did not get that result in the past and it won't happen now. It merely soldifies the backlash toward these landowners as it did previously. 'Did not effect FWP.

Let me reiterate, as attested to by my own frail mental state, insanity has been described as doing the same thing over and over ... expecting the outcome to be different.

With regard to this issue, at the end of the day we will merely have to agree to disagree. Roger, Out.

 

[Eric Albus]

Ben,

In spite of a court order calling for a halt truck loaded w/ bison was moved, and from what I have been told it was done at night. I have a problem w/ that, I also have a problem w/ whomever allowed the Defenders of Wildlife to foot the bill, what is up w/ that?

I have no problem w/ bison if they are taken care of and called livestock, and neither does any other rancher w/ whom I have spoken w/. Where we all have a problem is w/ the "free range" status.

Randy, thanks for looking at things objectively.

 

[JoseCuervo]

well, I posted a response yesterday, but it apparently is lost in cyber space.

You all still fail to understand. FWP is going right along and wants a "free range bison herd". The reason 63 landowners have shut down is to let FWP know they are not happy. They are hoping the sportsmen will step up and voice an opinion against the bison as well. Overwhelming public comment at the bison meetings this summer in several towns across Montana was against having a free range herd. Right now the Dept. of Livestock does oversee domestic(personally owned) bison. W/ the free range moniker the bison will be no different than deer or antelope. I have seen the damage elk do to grain fields first hand, and do not want to see a herd of buffalo tromping thru my crops/pastures.

I did not realize how little some folks actually think about things like this 'til last night. I was talking w/ a friend of mine who happens to work for the Corp. of Engineers in Ft. Peck....he is also an avid sportsman and voiced the same senitiment as all of you toward the landowners, not understanding why they would close their land....then about 20 minutes later we were talking about elk, and he says that we(the Corp) have some land that has a couple really big bulls on it and some cows(close to the Pines), we won't let anyone hunt (archery) there because we are pissed at FWP over some serious issues......hmmm says I, where is the difference? His reply, "you got me". I understand now.

With all due respect, that is a pile of "bison" shit. A bunch of Welfare Ranchers trying to extort hunters is a big steaming pile of it and you know it. The sportsmen had nothing to do with whatever imaginary taking of rights that a bunch of Welfare Ranchers are whining about.

Again, how many of those 63 are sucking off the public teat Welfare Ranchers?

 

[Ben Lamb]

Eric,

The Bison were moved at night. I don't know if the translocation was funded by DOW, but it wouldn't be surprising. FWP would want to claim that no license dollars were used to move the bison. RMEF offered to give FWP $50,000 for wolf control, and while I don't agree with that, I admit that I'm conflicted about DOW paying for anything related to state management of wildlife. I think it does underscore a discussion we've had on here, and across the state for a while now, which is how do we get non-consumptive users to pay their freight when it comes to wildlife management.

The bison were moved on March 19th before the stay was in place on March 22. Here's an article from the Glasgow Courier that has the accounting: http://www.glasgowcourier.com/cms/news/story-580250.html

The outcome of the lawsuit will determine whether or not FWP illegally moved those bison, but again, my understanding of MEPA indicates that FWP fulfilled all of their legal requirements under current state statute. That may have been different prior to 2011, when the Legislature removed large portions of the public's right to oversight under MEPA.

Hope you guys are getting this rain that we are in Helena. It's a godsend.

 

[Eric Albus]

Ben, the DoW did fund the transfer. If the bison were not going to have the "free range" thing tacked on them nobody would have had any heartburn over them. Keep said shaggies designated as livestock and the mutiney would be quelled.

I do not think that closing down hunting on those 63 ranches is going to make a difference either, but those landowners feel we(meaning all landowners here in Reg. 6) have been painted into a corner and they needed to do something. Most of the aforementioned ranches will still allow hunting to take place.....something that they have always done. If a few really do close down for the season....well, just maybe there will be a 3 yr. old mule deer buck again in Region 6......

We are not getting much rain here, and we could use it.

 

[Ben Lamb]

I think you and I are on the same page with the deer. We could grow some monsters on public land if we did things a little differently. We'd both get strung up if we proposed it though.

I guess I see this as a failure on everyone's part. The Free Roaming moniker has been abused. Most folks I know working on this are looking at the Henry's and Book Cliffs herds as the way to have some small herds that will be geographically isolated and any transfer would have to be done in conjunction with a plan that everyone signs off on. I wonder if this was the same discussion and controversy when FWP put elk in Central and Eastern MT?

The department hasn't put a good vision forward, nobody wants to work together, and everyone wants to make hay for political purposes. It leaves the landowners and the sportsmen (and women) in the middle yelling at each other for perceived slights that the politicians put on us. I do honestly believe that those of us who would like to see bison in some place like UL Bend do not want to roll landowners in order to get it.

For what it's worth, I think Montana is a lot poorer place without family farms and ranches. I'd not want to see anyone lose out. My family just sold out in Wolf Point. Hated to see it happen.

 

[Eric Albus]

As to the mule deer on public lands, yes we could grow some monster deer(we used to)...but until the Dept. will step up and manage biologically it is not going to happen. People will not police themselves, and will continue to "get their buck" the last day or 2 of the season...I hate hearing the excuse "well, it was all I could find and it was the last day, so I shot him"... One thing I can tell you for certain,
"100% of the bucks you shoot this year...have no chance of being bigger next year".

The elk were hauled into the breaks in ranchers trucks, and there was a memorandum of understanding between FWP & the landowners, a number was set(almost in stone) of elk that was deemed tolerable by the landowners and FWP agreed to keep numbers at that level. Numbers got to high for a while and landowners were fed up....the fear w/ the bison is that the same thing would happen. Last time I looked, bison are a lot bigger than elk...and more destructive. It would be nice for Montana to have a "free range bison" herd, but I do not think that it can happed without a lot of conflict and further wedging between the landowners, FWP, & sportsmen.

 

[mtmiller]

Sounds like you think deer should be managed biologically, but breaks elk not so much?