spook12
New member
Yep its working great in other states ,for scumbag welfare ranchers who have figured out another way to line their pockets with the peoples resources.
MOGA - FWP "public" meeting?
- Thread starter Big Fin
- Start date
Eric,
I respect you coming on here to talk about this, you didn't have to.
I do have a question about your comment, "working in other states", what does this mean specifically?
Actually I guess I have two questions. As you say, you don't know if we need it now, but you insinuate we may need it in the future. Could you elaborate? Thanks much for posting thoughts.
I would be interested in what else was on the agenda of these meetings. Not sure why the bison introduction was included since we just had at least half a dozen pubic meetings about the subject within the last couple weeks.
WapitiBob
Well-known member
LO tag programs work in other states when those tags are Ranch Only, providing needed harvest in large tracts of pvt. There is no good reason to have transferable LO tags.
Dinkshooter
Well-known member
They work real well for the landowners, not so much for the public at large or the resource.
Eric Albus
Well-known member
- Joined
- May 24, 2012
- Messages
- 1,674
Well, I go to the MDF Show in SLC, and visit w/ a lof of regular folks off the street there...and they are pretty happy with the UT system. Granted there are some issues to work out, but they now have the hope of pulling a tag to hunt for a quality animal and access some wonderful land that they would otherwise have 0% chance of ever seeing.
LO tags are not needed in Mt., maybe not ever....but the day may come as accessable lands are further degraded and fewer animals found, an incentive for landowners may be needed to get them to open up their land for hunting opportunity.
The bison were mentioned breifly, not discussed in length. I now have a different view of FWP on the bison issue(a kinder, gentler one)
The overwhelming majority(98%+) at the meetings in Glasgow/Miles City were for NO BISON in Eastern Mt.. If bison are forced onto the landscape of eastern MT, there will be little to no hunting allowed on private lands. Already several big BM ranches in SE MT have pulled out of BM.
Spook, most of the "scumbag ranchers", including "scumbag rancher/outfitter self", see things in a little different light.
LO tags are not needed in Mt., maybe not ever....but the day may come as accessable lands are further degraded and fewer animals found, an incentive for landowners may be needed to get them to open up their land for hunting opportunity.
The bison were mentioned breifly, not discussed in length. I now have a different view of FWP on the bison issue(a kinder, gentler one)
The overwhelming majority(98%+) at the meetings in Glasgow/Miles City were for NO BISON in Eastern Mt.. If bison are forced onto the landscape of eastern MT, there will be little to no hunting allowed on private lands. Already several big BM ranches in SE MT have pulled out of BM.
Spook, most of the "scumbag ranchers", including "scumbag rancher/outfitter self", see things in a little different light.
mtlion
Well-known member
spook12
New member
Eric sure they do, money has a way of doing that. Oh you left out the ''Welfare'' title that's the important term in this conversation.
Eric Albus
Well-known member
- Joined
- May 24, 2012
- Messages
- 1,674
I suppose Harry took Bob hunting for free? Oh, that's right...it's ok to pay for hunting, as long it is not in Montana.....not saying you are one of the many complaining about outfitting in Montana, as they pay to go to other states/countries and think nothing of it....seems a bit hippocritical and inconsistent to me.
However, it is not just about the money...but, "If you value wildlife at nothing, you will eventually have nothing."
How many countries in Africa, or in the Middle East would have any wildlife left at all, were it not for a value being placed on those species, by sportsmen?
However, it is not just about the money...but, "If you value wildlife at nothing, you will eventually have nothing."
How many countries in Africa, or in the Middle East would have any wildlife left at all, were it not for a value being placed on those species, by sportsmen?
spook12
New member
If you are suggesting that we need to adopt the model of wildlife management used in Africa then we are so far apart in philosophy that i'm not sure we can have an intelligent conversation. Personally i'm not ok paying for hunting ,i would much rather pay for habitat and wildlife management. Whats wrong with Harry taking Bob hunting for free,if whatever they are hunting has been placed in the public trust ? If you are really concerned about having wildlife then the way to insure this is to include everyone not a select few with deep pockets.
The Hedgehog
Well-known member
You left out Texas. Eric, Montana's great, we have great hunting, awesome wildlife, enormous amounts of places to hunt, public and private, great outfitters and landowners, lots of quality and opportunity both. No need for that landownder tag crap.. ever.
Eric Albus
Well-known member
- Joined
- May 24, 2012
- Messages
- 1,674
spook, i am suggesting nothing of the sort. African wildlife management, depending on the country varies greatly. However, if wildlife held no value at all...well, there would not be any game left in Africa that is free roaming. There is nothing wrong w/ Harry taking Robert hunting for free, but he did'nt.
The entire problem boils down to having a finite, albeit renewable, resource. The resource has to come before the consumer to ensure a viable population. In order for a big game population to be very viable we must have a diverse age structure as well.
As to not needing the "landowner tag crap, ever"....I hope you are correct...but as accessable areas are left unmanaged for the resource and managed for consumer, further degrading opportunity for a sustainable harvest, there may come the day we need landowner tags to have a hunting season at all....personally I hope to see all big game in Montana managed biologically, not just in certain areas and for "special species".
The entire problem boils down to having a finite, albeit renewable, resource. The resource has to come before the consumer to ensure a viable population. In order for a big game population to be very viable we must have a diverse age structure as well.
As to not needing the "landowner tag crap, ever"....I hope you are correct...but as accessable areas are left unmanaged for the resource and managed for consumer, further degrading opportunity for a sustainable harvest, there may come the day we need landowner tags to have a hunting season at all....personally I hope to see all big game in Montana managed biologically, not just in certain areas and for "special species".
I was at the Glasgow meeting. Some real intelligent comments recorded.
Would you agree?Lot's of blackmail comments about closing off private lands. I guess this may work out well for outfitters looking to pick up a few more acres.
BTW, I am not advocating bison reintroduction in eastern MT.
Eric Albus
Well-known member
- Joined
- May 24, 2012
- Messages
- 1,674
I did not stay for the meeting in Glasgow(kind of wish I would have now, however I did go to the one in M.C.). I can about guess that there were some comments that ranged far from the intellegent side of things. I do not think that you can call it "blackmail" when folks are pulling out of BM and/or closing their land to hunting....call it "making a statement"...right or wrong, time shall prove.
As I stated, after learning a little about where FWP stands, I have more sympathy as to the prediciment they have been put in w/. the bison. A lot of years of hard work and relationship building by Reg. 6 & 7 staff is going by the wayside....over a handful of bison...hardly seems worth it.
As I stated, after learning a little about where FWP stands, I have more sympathy as to the prediciment they have been put in w/. the bison. A lot of years of hard work and relationship building by Reg. 6 & 7 staff is going by the wayside....over a handful of bison...hardly seems worth it.
spook12
New member
To all you guys in Montana , this is who your FWP spent 2 days behind locked doors with last week!
I think its about time we made a few threats of our own . Mr. landowner if you dont allow an easement across your land for access to landlocked public ground no grazing allotments for you, keep your animals off our land. If you are not enrolled in Bm then forget deprevation permits and payments every time wildlife gets into your haystack that you didnt bother to properly secure anyway.
I think its about time we made a few threats of our own . Mr. landowner if you dont allow an easement across your land for access to landlocked public ground no grazing allotments for you, keep your animals off our land. If you are not enrolled in Bm then forget deprevation permits and payments every time wildlife gets into your haystack that you didnt bother to properly secure anyway.
Eric Albus
Well-known member
- Joined
- May 24, 2012
- Messages
- 1,674
spook, funny, nobody on our side of the fence complained when MFW met w/ MWF or MBA behind closed doors.......as to threats...nobody on the landowner side is making a "threat"...they are just pulling out of BM and closing off access over the bison issue....as they feel their livilhoods and way of life are being threatened....I suppose if someone was threatening your livilhood(assuming you have a job) you would stand by and do nothing?
Your prevailing attitude is one that will keep the landowners and sportsmen at odds.
FYI, the depravation hunts and damage payments are only available to landowners who allow public access....those who choose to limit access are not compensated by FWP.
One more FYI, anyone know who paid for the bison being shipped to Ft. Peck? The "Defenders of Wildlife" footed the bill...and you wonder why the landowners are not happy?
Your prevailing attitude is one that will keep the landowners and sportsmen at odds.
FYI, the depravation hunts and damage payments are only available to landowners who allow public access....those who choose to limit access are not compensated by FWP.
One more FYI, anyone know who paid for the bison being shipped to Ft. Peck? The "Defenders of Wildlife" footed the bill...and you wonder why the landowners are not happy?
BuzzH
Well-known member
This "meeting" brings one word to mind...inpropriety.
When I first learned of this underhanded meeting, I immediately got on the phone tree and got the word out ASAP.
Down to the last person I called, the one thing that everyone said is, "Whatever is being discussed, you can be sure it isnt anything good for the average guy".
That is just about a given. The MGOA has repeatedly shown their lack of regard for the average hunter in the State of Montana. They are still stinging from the I-161 deal, and I suspect that a good portion of the attack at the legislative level in Montana this last session was a direct result of MGOA and associated landowners they lease from. The MGOA and Landowners, still dont comprehend that they dont own the wildlife in Montana.
I think its time that the MGOA is exposed for things like these latest closed door meetings. If there was nothing inappropriate discussed...why did the meetings have to be done without public participation? Only ONE reason why...the DIY resident and nonresident hunters were squarely chucked under the bus. I dont believe Eric Albus one bit...that it was all just innocent. The MGOA track record speaks for itself.
I've already drafted letters and will be sending them to the Governor, MTFWP Director, the 7 District Directors, the MTFWP Commission, and the Montana Attorney Generals Office.
This kind of bullshit has got to stop. The days of special interests getting closed door meetings, and deals being done in back-rooms behind the backs of the Sportsmen of Montana need to come to an end.
Finally, the landowner tag program is the biggest scam and joke of all-time. Its pure crap to claim that the DIY type hunters in Utah are "happy" with the way UT is being managed. For Christ sake, go read some threads on Monster Muleys. I can assure you that the DIY hunters in Colorado must be just happy as hell knowing that landowners are fixing to take another 5% of the total tags there. The hunters in AZ just squashed a tag grab there.
I find it amazing that Mr. Albus chooses to trumpet how great states like CO, NV, NM, and UT like the tag thievery that is going on there. Thats just plain burying your head in the sand...and also a classic case of just how out-of-touch groups like MGOA really are with the average DIY type sportsmen.
I encourage all concerned hunters to question the FWP, Governor, State legislature, and Attorney Generals office why this exclusive meeting with the MGOA even happened.
When I first learned of this underhanded meeting, I immediately got on the phone tree and got the word out ASAP.
Down to the last person I called, the one thing that everyone said is, "Whatever is being discussed, you can be sure it isnt anything good for the average guy".
That is just about a given. The MGOA has repeatedly shown their lack of regard for the average hunter in the State of Montana. They are still stinging from the I-161 deal, and I suspect that a good portion of the attack at the legislative level in Montana this last session was a direct result of MGOA and associated landowners they lease from. The MGOA and Landowners, still dont comprehend that they dont own the wildlife in Montana.
I think its time that the MGOA is exposed for things like these latest closed door meetings. If there was nothing inappropriate discussed...why did the meetings have to be done without public participation? Only ONE reason why...the DIY resident and nonresident hunters were squarely chucked under the bus. I dont believe Eric Albus one bit...that it was all just innocent. The MGOA track record speaks for itself.
I've already drafted letters and will be sending them to the Governor, MTFWP Director, the 7 District Directors, the MTFWP Commission, and the Montana Attorney Generals Office.
This kind of bullshit has got to stop. The days of special interests getting closed door meetings, and deals being done in back-rooms behind the backs of the Sportsmen of Montana need to come to an end.
Finally, the landowner tag program is the biggest scam and joke of all-time. Its pure crap to claim that the DIY type hunters in Utah are "happy" with the way UT is being managed. For Christ sake, go read some threads on Monster Muleys. I can assure you that the DIY hunters in Colorado must be just happy as hell knowing that landowners are fixing to take another 5% of the total tags there. The hunters in AZ just squashed a tag grab there.
I find it amazing that Mr. Albus chooses to trumpet how great states like CO, NV, NM, and UT like the tag thievery that is going on there. Thats just plain burying your head in the sand...and also a classic case of just how out-of-touch groups like MGOA really are with the average DIY type sportsmen.
I encourage all concerned hunters to question the FWP, Governor, State legislature, and Attorney Generals office why this exclusive meeting with the MGOA even happened.
Last edited:
billy banger
New member
- Joined
- May 23, 2012
- Messages
- 24
Spook 12- no wonder with an attitude like that you would or anyone that thinks that way would ever be welcome on private property. It is this type of thinking which is supported by the MWF and MSA that has closed more and more private property to the rest of us! You expect landowners to provide habitat 365 days a year and when it comes to hunting season they expect the landowner to open up the gates and let everyone in to hunt. Thank God that we still have landowners that manage their property or it would look like BM. It is entitlement mentality has closed a lot of gates which has affected me and other respectful resident hunters! Poor hunter behavior has closed more property than anything else!
BuzzH
Well-known member
I really doubt poor hunter behavior has closed more property than anything else.
I'd say landowners choosing to charge for hunting and leasing has closed more than anything else...and by a land-slide. I have no problem with landowners charging or choosing to lease, their land, they can do what they want with it. But, to make the claim that poor hunter behavior is closing more private lands than leasing/pay-to-play is pure bullshit.
You never heard of anyone leasing hunting rights in the 80's and early 90's in Montana. I lost several private places over $$$ and nothing else...I treated the landowners and their lands very well. I never got greedy about shooting only bucks/bulls...shot does and cows as well. But, it was interesting that even though I practiced walk-in only hunting, never drove off road, showed up to lend a hand, etc....all ties were cut over a few hundred sheckles. Also interesting that a few even whined to me about how the paying hunters were driving all over, leaving gates open, and were only interested in shooting bucks/bulls. I almost felt sorry for them...almost.
Made the decision back then to never rely on a fickle landowner again for my hunting opportunities...and I wont pay a trespass fee...period.
I'd say landowners choosing to charge for hunting and leasing has closed more than anything else...and by a land-slide. I have no problem with landowners charging or choosing to lease, their land, they can do what they want with it. But, to make the claim that poor hunter behavior is closing more private lands than leasing/pay-to-play is pure bullshit.
You never heard of anyone leasing hunting rights in the 80's and early 90's in Montana. I lost several private places over $$$ and nothing else...I treated the landowners and their lands very well. I never got greedy about shooting only bucks/bulls...shot does and cows as well. But, it was interesting that even though I practiced walk-in only hunting, never drove off road, showed up to lend a hand, etc....all ties were cut over a few hundred sheckles. Also interesting that a few even whined to me about how the paying hunters were driving all over, leaving gates open, and were only interested in shooting bucks/bulls. I almost felt sorry for them...almost.
Made the decision back then to never rely on a fickle landowner again for my hunting opportunities...and I wont pay a trespass fee...period.
Last edited:
billy banger
New member
- Joined
- May 23, 2012
- Messages
- 24
BuzzH--Boy I-161 has done the resident hunters a lot of good! We now have to compete with thousands more NR hunters on public land and BM that use to hunt with outfitters. I thought I-161 was supposed to open up more access. Funny thing is outfitters and NR hunting clubs are leasing up more private property than before I-161! Landowners were pissed after I-161 closing more private property to public hunting! So thanks a lot to the MWF & MSA!
BuzzH-“ I've already drafted letters and will be sending them to the Governor, MTFWP Director, the 7 District Directors, the MTFWP Commission, and the Montana Attorney Generals Office.”
Go ahead I know of not less than 5 closed door meetings that the FWP staff have had with MWF & others to include in your complaint!
I am getting tired of hearing how the MWF & MSA represents the majority of sportsmen in Montana, well they don’t represent me! This is representation we can do without, because everything they support has cost us more and more access to private property!
BuzzH-“ I've already drafted letters and will be sending them to the Governor, MTFWP Director, the 7 District Directors, the MTFWP Commission, and the Montana Attorney Generals Office.”
Go ahead I know of not less than 5 closed door meetings that the FWP staff have had with MWF & others to include in your complaint!
I am getting tired of hearing how the MWF & MSA represents the majority of sportsmen in Montana, well they don’t represent me! This is representation we can do without, because everything they support has cost us more and more access to private property!
billy banger
New member
- Joined
- May 23, 2012
- Messages
- 24
I really doubt poor hunter behavior has closed more property than anything else.
I'd say landowners choosing to charge for hunting and leasing has closed more than anything else...and by a land-slide. I have no problem with landowners charging or choosing to lease, their land, they can do what they want with it. But, to make the claim that poor hunter behavior is closing more private lands than leasing/pay-to-play is pure bullshit.
You never heard of anyone leasing hunting rights in the 80's and early 90's in Montana. I lost several private places over $$$ and nothing else...
That was when resident hunters respected landowner’s rights and treated them with respect. But now you think you have the entitlement right to hunt on their private property and that is poor hunter behavior, pure and simple! You are so out of touch with landowners and their concerns because trying to force access is costing all of us dearly! Good enough for now!
I'd say landowners choosing to charge for hunting and leasing has closed more than anything else...and by a land-slide. I have no problem with landowners charging or choosing to lease, their land, they can do what they want with it. But, to make the claim that poor hunter behavior is closing more private lands than leasing/pay-to-play is pure bullshit.
You never heard of anyone leasing hunting rights in the 80's and early 90's in Montana. I lost several private places over $$$ and nothing else...
That was when resident hunters respected landowner’s rights and treated them with respect. But now you think you have the entitlement right to hunt on their private property and that is poor hunter behavior, pure and simple! You are so out of touch with landowners and their concerns because trying to force access is costing all of us dearly! Good enough for now!
