MOGA - FWP "public" meeting?

[Straight Arrow]

"One of the biggest fears in NE Mt right now is that when the current President leaves office(hopefully in a few months) that he will sign Ft. Benton to Ft. Peck as a National Monument also." Yet another guvment land grab paranoia. It's not going to happen. We already have enough real hunting, wildlife habitat, and access issues; let's not fabricate new ones.

"We all see the demise of bison as another nail in the coffin of our way of life." Chief Crazy Horse

As a VietNam vet who just spent the day remembering those no longer with us, please forgive me for expressing some funky philosophy. For each the end day is uncertain, but what is certain for each is constant change. How you accept it and deal with your fellow man and wildlife entrusted to us is what's important.

 

[tjones]

Agenda 21, seriously? Break out the tin foil hats.

 

[schmalts]

This thread about a private meeting with the MT F&G only brings me bad thoughts of a Don Peay type of future......

 

[mtmiller]

This thread about a private meeting with the MT F&G only brings me bad thoughts of a Don Peay type of future......

Would you rather have a Monument or a Peay? Which is better for the "average Joe" hunter?

 

[Eric Albus]

Peay is better...no comparison

Do any of you realize what the end goal for these Eastern/foreign funded groups is? They want to have vast parks, full of bison, wolves, grizzly bears, a return to the "natural eco-system". The first level is to attain the lands from Ft. Benton to Fort Peck and to the Canadian border. Then work on Y2Y(Yellowstone to the Yukon)...the Y2Y sounds far fetched right now(but so did the "Big Open" back in the 70's)......Take a look at all the land AFP, Nat. Conservancy has bought...then look at what happens when we get signed into a Nat. Monument....chipping away, inch by inch, acre by acre. It may be inevitable the tide can not be stopped. But do not stick your head in the sand and pretend that your grandchildren are going to hunting these places. The last word I got from the APF is "we are pro-hunting for now". A lot of emphasis put on the "for now"....and was told "we do not know what direction APF will take when we have a new board of directors, most likely it won't always be this way". Still like bison, easements, and monuments? Think there will be public hunting allowed there in 5-10 years? I hope it takes 30-40 years, as I most likely won't be around to see it.
5 years ago I would have never believed that would think this way...time/events have a way of changing your perception on things.

 

[tjones]

Ohh boy,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

 

[MattK]

Think there will be public hunting allowed there in 5-10 years? I hope it takes 30-40 years, as I most likely won't be around to see it.
5 years ago I would have never believed that would think this way...time/events have a way of changing your perception on things.

Part of the problem with this entire subject is based on the above statement...You hope it takes enough time that YOU will no longer have to deal with it as you will be dead or retired. The great thing about a lot of people on this site...they want to leave a legacy. They want MANY generations to have the same or more opportunity than they have. It's not all about today and the dollar signs...It seems you look at the resource in what it can do for you...many here look at what they can do for the resource.

 

[mtmiller]

Too good.

 

[Straight Arrow]

The ironic thing is that APF acquired deeded land the old fashioned American capitalistic way when willing ranchers/sellers employed their property rights to sell grazing lands. Yet now other private property rights radicals are criticizing them. The bulk of the grazing lands are currently comprised of grazing leases on public land mostly BLM, which are subject to public scrutiny and control.

The only "monument" status proposal recently discussed for the area died on the vine and is not to be.

Who is the "they" who will institute the Y2Y? It is clear there are those who advocate for such an open expanse, but that is nothing new. What happened to the "Big Open" concept?

Again, we have real issues to resolve and we should expend energy and time in continuing to preserve the Montana hunting tradition and nurturing of our wildlife. The other pie-in-the-sky paranoia detracts from solving real problems. APF is just like any rancher or other entity owning property. They have their rights too. Do you want to deny their rights at the same time you are crowing about yours?

 

[billy banger]

billy banger:

MSA has never taken any position on the Bison issue. Try to get your facts straight. MSA had not even been formed during the last legislative session so, as a group, was not involved in the testimony on HB 361 dealing with the Missouri Breaks archery tags. We were involved with the process that went thru the Commission on the Breaks after the session. Since the primary landowner/outfitter complaints in the legislature revolved around those herds being over objective and that they needed to bring down the numbers, MSA proposed (and was incorporated in the regs.) that the Commission issue 1000 anterless tags only valid on private land to address the verbalized concerns. Any biologist will tell you to bring down a population you need to shoot cows not bulls.

Also, please review the financial data on I-161 so you can understand that without I-161, Block Management would be in real trouble financially. Also, note how HB 607 has had a negative impact on the revenue to the Dept.

MSA is made up of pretty much the same guys as the MWF, if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it most likely is a duck! True MSA wasn't formed when testimony was given on HB-361, but their President Vito did give untruthful testimony opposing HB-361. And that is why I am so upset, those archery elk permits has caused me not draw a permit and for what reason?

You could give out a million cow tags for those Hunting Districts and that still doesn't mean the landowners are going to open up their ranches when they can't draw a either sexed permit for their friends, family, clients and themselves. You just don't get it do you? It isn't about population objectives, it is about trying to open up more access to private property, pure and simple, and that is what is what is pissing me off! I am caught in the middle, losing more and more access. The MWF & MSA are not doing us any good and don't say you are representing the majority of the sportsmen and women in Montana.

I-161 has the Department worried because of I-161 they have over 3,000 elk licenses still available. The main thing I-161 has done is to decrease the over all number of applicants by 40% for the big game licenses. The typical nonresident just isn't willing to pay the higher priced license. The last two years since I-161 were the first years in recent history that the FWP hasn't sold all of the licenses and have had many hunters on the alternate's list.

I don't know much about 607 but what I have heard is that we should be happy that they kept their deer licenses or they would have return both licenses causing even more lost revenue. What has really hurt the Department is all of the Nonresident hunters that have returned their elk licenses because they didn't draw an archery elk permit. So the Department should also be thanking the MWF & MSA for their support of both of these blunders!

 

[The Hedgehog]

That is why I am so upset, those archery elk permits has caused me not draw a permit and for what reason?

You could give out a million cow tags for those Hunting Districts and that still doesn't mean the landowners are going to open up their ranches when they can't draw a either sexed permit for their friends, family, clients and themselves. You just don't get it do you? It isn't about population objectives, it is about trying to open up more access to private property, pure and simple, and that is what is what is pissing me off! I am caught in the middle, losing more and more access.

You're a little crybaby bitch.

 

[tjones]

The MWF & MSA are not doing us any good and don't say you are representing the majority of the sportsmen and women in Montana.

!

Billy, you do understand the MWF is made up, in part of, 24 rod and gun clubs and all their members scattered out across the state?

 

[Big Fin]

Peay is better...no comparison.

I guess that opinion helps clear the air on some of these topics. Enough on that.

Do any of you realize what the end goal for these Eastern/foreign funded groups is? They want to have vast parks, full of bison, wolves, grizzly bears, a return to the "natural eco-system". The first level is to attain the lands from Ft. Benton to Fort Peck and to the Canadian border. Then work on Y2Y(Yellowstone to the Yukon)...the Y2Y sounds far fetched right now(but so did the "Big Open" back in the 70's)......Take a look at all the land AFP, Nat. Conservancy has bought...then look at what happens when we get signed into a Nat. Monument....chipping away, inch by inch, acre by acre. It may be inevitable the tide can not be stopped. But do not stick your head in the sand and pretend that your grandchildren are going to hunting these places. The last word I got from the APF is "we are pro-hunting for now". A lot of emphasis put on the "for now"....and was told "we do not know what direction APF will take when we have a new board of directors, most likely it won't always be this way". Still like bison, easements, and monuments? Think there will be public hunting allowed there in 5-10 years? I hope it takes 30-40 years, as I most likely won't be around to see it.
5 years ago I would have never believed that would think this way...time/events have a way of changing your perception on things.

Wow. That is a lot of dots to connect for that UN Agenda 21 theory to be put together.

Regardless of who believes what theory, this is a classic irony that I find so amusing. Loaded with hypocrisy.

I gotta ask, Eric. You state you are a landowner, worried about property rights, small government, etc. I suspect whether we are landowners or not, smaller government and property rights are high on the list of everyone reading this thread.

Yet, you imply that there is something wrong with American Prairie Foundation purchasing land from willing sellers. What is wrong with that? It is an exercise of the property rights of the seller.

Are you implying that you would want government to get bigger by stepping in and telling a property owner who they can or cannot sell to?

I don't think you feel that way, but if one reads your comments, that is what conclusion is drawn. To paraphrase what I got from your comments, you seem to think, "It is OK to sell your land, so long as it is to someone I like."

And once you acquire the land, your comments seem to say, "It is OK for you to own the land, so long as you do what we think you should do with it."

That is hypocrisy in spades. Bitch about what someone did with their land, yet claim to be a private property advocate.

Advocacy of property rights in not a one-sided religious ideology as practiced by the fringes of this discussions. One right starts where the other right ends. Whether it is a private right or a public right, a right in deeded land, a right held in trust, a right held individually or collectively. We may not like what some do with their property, but the 5th Amendment protects their right to do as they damn well please.

The 10th Amendment establishes rights held collectively by citizens, via being held the states, either outright or in trust. This 10th Amendment is one Amendment that many in the fringe think is no longer in play; that somehow it is not as important as the 5th, because it came 5 Amdendment later in the Bill of Rights. They are equally important, or at least if you believe in our Constitution, they are equally important.

It can't go both ways. Either we are property rights advocates and we let willing buyer-willing seller markets determine prices and eventual ownership. Or, we have government dictate the market.

Whether we like who bought the property, or not, it was sold in a willing buyer-willing seller transaction. As one fringe element of the landowner community once told hunters, "If you don't like what I am doing with my land, you should have bought it."

I would say the same appliies here. If you, or others who subscribe to the Agenda 21 theory, do not like it, I guess you should have bought the land now owned by the American Prairie Foundation.

I may not agree with who a landowner is, or what they do with their property, but if they own, they should do as they damn well please, regardless of what conspiracy theories I might have as to their motives and long-term plans.

To complain about a land transaction, or what a landowner is doing with the land, while professing to respect private property rights, is hypocrisy at its finest. No other way to say it.

I hope the APF land stays open to hunting and that they continue to lease pasture/farm ground to producers that can work within what plans they have, But if not, there is nothing I can about it - I don't own it. If I don't like it, I guess I should have bought it before they did.

I thought your earlier reference to Agenda 21 was an attempt at humor and did not even reply, only smiled at the humor I found in it. This convoluted weaving of conspiracies from the UN, to the APF, to the Y2Y, and now the new control of the entire Montana Hi-Line from Ft. Peck to Ft. Benton makes me smile even more.

As far as the Ft. Peck to Ft. Benton problem, I think Denny Rehberg is behind that one. Those concerned should demand a meeting with him. He has sponsored a bill, H.R. 1505, that would give Homeland Security control of not only that area of Montana, but anything within 100 miles of the Montana-Canada border.

So, some seem really worried about American Prairie Foundation buying land on the free market, but not a word about one of the "Good Old Boys" giving government control over millions of acres right in their own back yard. Seems if Agenda 21 is going to happen, Denny Rehberg is leading the charge. Maybe he is friends with the inept wingnuts over at the UN.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Ben,

your post did not come off as an attack...even as remedial as I am it did not come off as an attack.

A. I am not on here representing MOGA....I am representing my self, as a landowner/sportsman and outfitter.

1. The wilderness bill...a couple of the MOGA members thought it was a good idea...I wished them luck w/ it and told them it would never fly...and I was right...it did not.

2. What "scientific management of wildlife"....i see a lot of social managment, but no biological management. I really do not remember SB 155's wording and what it sought to do.

3. The arguement to go that direction on 414 I was not in on...so can not really tell you anything, other than the decision was made to support it....in the east here where I live we do not have a wolf problem..so I can not really tell you anything about it..other than we seem to "manage" ours quite well.

Bison relocation protocol...and the Gov. forgot about it...and then they let the Defenders of Wildlife foot the bill for it? Over-reacting? Think about it for a minute, w/ a "free-range" moniker on those bison...they can go anywhere and destroy fences...breed domestic cattle, destroy crops, and nobody is really responsible for them...'cause they are "wild"....if they were labled as "livestock" the ranching community would have had a lot less heartburn with this deal....Do me a favor, go look up "agenda 21" on the internet.....I do not think we are reacting enough...especially when I see outfits like the APF and Nat. Conservancy buying ranches...and the Defenders of Wildlife paying for the illegal bison relocation.
One of the biggest fears in NE Mt right now is that when the current President leaves office(hopefully in a few months) that he will sign Ft. Benton to Ft. Peck as a National Monument also. We all see the bison as another nail in the coffin of our way of life.

Eric,

Appreciate the response.

It might be worthwhile asking those questions to folks at MOGA. It might also be worthwhile to question the relationship that MOGA has with SFW and what that relationship does to MOGA's reputation. Peay is a 4-letter word to the majority of hunters in the West after the Rossi affair, their attempts to kill our wolf delisting rider, and the major tag grab in AZ.

I'm well aware of the Agenda 21 paranoia unfortunately. As for bison and who pays, are you as concerned that RMEF is donating $50,000 to FWP for a handout to wildlife services? It's exactly what you're fearful of - one group exerting influence through money over FWP. Personally, I don't have a problem with Defenders paying the transport costs, or NWF paying for fencing to keep those bison in their pasture.

According to the EA, those bison have very strict terms for existing. If they get out, they get shot. Pure and simple. If they destroy fencing, they get shot, if they breed your cows, then FWP is going to have a big expense fixing the situation. How many times have these nightmare scenarios actually played out with APF's herd though? They're running 5 wires, w/one of them electrified. Elk, deer and pronghorn have passage through those fences, and we've yet to hear of bison ripping apart the place.

The truth about bison is that people are using this critter just like they used wolves to whip up a frenzy of support and opposition. I don't think anyone who wants to see wild bison is looking at millions of acres opened up to the big shaggies, but more like a Henry's type of herd: small, manageable and well within social limits (There's that dang social necessity in wildlife management again). Nobody with any common sense thinks we can turn them loose like we did with elk and deer. That's just not going to happen. FWP has rules to follow under SB 212. It took a lot of work to get that bill passed (and I helped on the amendments to make it palatable). I think if we continue to follow that law, we'll be fine on bison. Now, whether or not the Gov followed the law is in the hands of the court, at least for the this cohort. I tend to think that he did. He just didn't provide anyone an opportunity to grandstand on the shipping.

That slow chipping away of the rural lifestyle we all love isn't because of NWF, APF, TNC, etc, it's more because there's nobody left who wants to take over the ranch and live in Sun Prairie. Funny enough, APF is providing some young ranch families the ability to live out there and make a living, hopefully get them enough of a start so they can buy their own place.

Lastly, here's an interesting economic survey that came out not too long ago that speaks to the economic benefits that communities next to National Monuments can have: http://headwaterseconomics.org/land/reports/national-monuments/

 

[thecrittergitter]

You're a little crybaby bitch.

LMFAO................

Banger, I too have not drawn, make that 3 years in a row. Maybe I should go cry in my milk now because someone didn't give me what i wanted.

Or, wait, maybe since there are millions of other public places to go, maybe I will go there and kill a big bull instead...

 

[Mudranger1]

You're a little crybaby bitch.

Well now! That settles it!:hump:

 

[BuzzH]

Not having much luck sending email to Mr. Noonan...maybe his inbox is full?

Got through to Maurier and Gov. Schweitzer though no problem.

 

[Pierre]

I am glad to see a mention of the connection between SFW and MOGA. It seems very obvious to us and has for some time.
NO, we aren't going to tweak the Model to suit you folks. It is a fine model and solutions to problems do not mean we won't defend it! Decide if it is worth pitting yourselves against resident Montana sportsmen? How is your image working out for you?
Maurier will go down as the worst director in my lifetime. He has torn the Dept apart and caused morale to go into the toilet. Vindictiveness is a one word characterization. Folks fear for their jobs and that is affecting how they do their jobs. Risley is playing footsie with MOGA and jockeying for the Directors job. Any secret meeting with no notes smells bad. This is not a guy we want in a top position!
We need to take our Dept back!

 

[Ben Lamb]

Not having much luck sending email to Mr. Noonan...maybe his inbox is full?

Got through to Maurier and Gov. Schweitzer though no problem.

Noonan is no longer with the Dept. He took a job as a Government Relations Director for Northwestern Energy.

 

[BuzzH]

So, who replaced him? Cant find it on their website.