MOGA - FWP "public" meeting?

[Mudranger1]

Dinkshooter...thanks for the concern as to where I was, I wouldn't miss this for anything!! Billy and Albus...welcome to my world!! Trying to reason with the "sense of entitlement" attitude can be a bit challenging at times and I have been fighting this battle alone for quite some time ever since "Blue Yummies" pussed out and left. Some of these "Square Heads" (sorry Buzz), just don't get the fact that access to private ground is not a right !

this is what I don't get. I've been reading this thread and I could be wrong but I have yet to see anything about someone saying they should have access to someone else's private property. You two keep saying "sense of entitlement" (and I will leave the Eric fellow out of this because although he may or may not feel that way I don't remember him saying anything about it) and no where is that being brought up. But what would I know I'm from Florida

 

[Big Fin]

I have to agree with Albus on the fact that I doubt anything was discussed at that meeting that was "under handed" or detrimental to the resident DIY sportsman or had any direct affect on the resident sportsman's ability to access their public ground that has public access available.

I hope that is the case. Not sure why the meeting was held, but how it was put together seems suspicious.

I'm guessing that Big Fin was just a little butt hurt over the fact that he wasn't invited to the party since he's kind of a "Big Deal" around here. I'm still not real sure how a guy that owns a Television show that is filmed on public ground, harvesting public wildlife....FOR A PROFIT.......can be so worried about the outfitting industry which has been such a huge part of the economy in Montana for close to a century! I know the whole song and dance about expensive permits and yada, yada, yada.....just like members of other industries that utilize public ground have to pay.

"I'm guessing" your "just a little butt hurt" that the lid got pulled off this secret meeting. I really have no interest in going to such meeting, or I would have just went, invited or not.

Since you are "not sure" about my business issues, I could care less if outfitting industry makes millions, or goes bankrupt, so long as it happens without a subsidy of some sort from the public trough of wildlife. Knock yourself out and best of luck.

This show and site are hardly in place to extract a profit from a public resource. It is here to hopefully cover expenses and to keep a platform in place to allow self-guided hunters to have a voice and to share ideas. Lots of guys do a lot to keep the interest of the self-guided hunter in play, and if this site and show can help that, I am glad to be a small part of that process.

Not sure why that pisses off a few of the Montana outfitters so bad, but such seems to be the way it is.

Not sure why some outfitters are so worried about this site and this show, when I pay a hell of a lot more than they would for use of public lands they might operate on, and have a lot less impact. But, I guess it provides a target to snivel about, so please carry on.

Good news is that there are plenty of really good oufitters out there who are happy and able to work within the existing rules, and many make a good living doing it. I consider many of them friends. They seem to not worry much about talk forums and TV shows.

So, I guess my point is Fin, is that no matter what happens with the Outfitting Industry, you will still be able to film your show on the ground that you and Buzz own so it shouldn't really have a huge affect on either of you at all.

My point is, you completely missed the point of this thread. Filming a show is pretty low on the list of priorities in all of this. A few outfitters seem to struggle with the idea that other people might be involved in this debate for reasons other than personal profit; that some view it as more important than dollars or political control and are willing to stand up and say something when the organized forces seem to be laying groundwork to put the pipe to the average guy.

So, I guess my point is that something seems to have altered your impression of why this thread was started.

Happy Memorial Day to all of you and keep it safe!

And to you, also. Beer is on me, next time you are in town.

 

[Eric Albus]

I hope you are willing to eat a little crow when you find out that the meeting was platonic.

Pesonally I could care less if you make millions from your show, hope it does not hurt your feelin's but I do not watch "hunting tv"...I did not even know this web site exsisted until 3-4 days ago, when someone emailed me a link to this comment page....and I thought that maybe a little clarification was in order, so's to keep the peanut gallery calmed.
Have a nice Memorial Day, and thank a veteran for their service.

 

[Straight Arrow]

" ... these "Square Heads" just don't get the fact that access to private ground is not a right" by Big Shooter

Why is it that whenever public rights are employed or public access to public domain is proposed or viable management of wildlife held in public trust is proposed or fair public regulation or policy is pursued, this gets misconstrued as an attempt at "access to private ground". Not one post here even hints at that. Most of the ranchers and large landowners I know are well educated and can decipher the written word ... they don't interpret any public concern about any groups' issues as infringement on their rights to farm, ranch, outfit, put up a gate, or whatever ... let alone a run at access to their property. Where do you get that, Big Shooter?

Exactly what terms, words, or phrases do you interpret as referring to "access to private ground"???

 

[billy banger]

Billy Banger - curious to know how, MWF, MSA, ABC, XYZ, or any other group has caused hunters to lose access. Only the owner of the land can determine access. None of those groups or no other hunter groups own land in MT, so I am confused how they have closed any hunting access.

I know for fact that there was much more access being provided before I-161, Archery elk permits and the Bison issue, all which were supported by the MWF & MSA. These groups say they want to work with landowners but they don't! Actions speak louder than words! Montana sportsmen are the ones paying the price and for what? So some of you radicals can promote a personal agenda against outfitters! That is what I-161 was all about! If you don't think that is the truth, what Kool-Aid you are drinking, I'd like some! Pure and simple we Montana resident hunters are not better off now than we were before I-161, Archery Elk Permits and now the Bison issue! And we have groups like the MWF and MSA to thank for supporting these issues!

The main point I want to get across to you all is that we all need to start working together on these issues or we all will continue to lose out. This has to start with working with landowners because they hold the keys to the gates!

If you have evidence of where any group is trying to force access, post it up here. I have been involve in hunting politics for twenty years and I can tell you that if any group came forward with a bill to force access to hunt private land, myself, my hunting buddies, and just about every hunter I know would come out against it.

You will be surprised on this one! Just wait!

Enough Said! There is no reason to keep responding to people with such closed minds, and who will not listen to reason.

 

[Big Shooter]

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.

Uhhh...Straight Arrow....right here is where I get that impression. Even though it is just for an "easement" across private property to landlocked public...it is still an attempt to "force" access. We all know how that would go down now don't we? With all due respect to everyone on this site I am positive in my own mind that none of you would hunt while traveling this "easement" corridor....but the folks on here represent a very small part of the hunters that hunt Buzz's Public Land. The remaining 98% would have a hard time resisting the temptations that would present themselves in this whole "easement" area and/or would be so confused as to where the dividing line was between the private and Buzz's Public. They struggle the way it is now when they are on Buzz's Public Land and see something of interest over the fence on private, say like a 3 1/2 year old four point or a ten inch goat that was left to grow for a couple of years......just little things like that.

I sure hope I don't have to use my Holiday Inn example again:hump:

 

[ingomar]

Very interesting comments. First, with regards to the "meeting" between MOGA and FWP, can anyone tell me the last time a meeting was held with one special group where all the Regional Supervisors and Bureau chiefs were REQUIRED to attend by Dave Risley or anyone else in FWP leadership? Second, why was it agreed that no note taking would be allowed by anyone in attendance? Third, what was being discussed that they did not want heard by others? Fourth, how is it that the 250+ members of MOGA have more political clout than the app. 182,000 resident hunters? Fifth, while Montana Dept. of FWP has great field people, why is it's current leadership so anti resident hunter? Is this nothing more than the political agenda of a couple of people at the top of the chain in the Dept. who want to further their careers at the expense of the resident hunters?

When discussing the outfitting community, we need to recognize the different types of outfitters: public land outfitters; private land outfitters; landowner outfitters; and outfitters who lease land and then sublet it to non-residents. Each provide a different level of services. IMO public land outfitters provide a true wilderness style hunting experience where the experience is as important as the quality of the animal taken. Private land outfitting seems to be more dedicated to providing "trophy" animals without the same work and effort as required on public land hunts.

I have seen several comments regarding MSA from individuals who either know nothing about us or are purposely making misleading statements. We are not anti-landowner or anti-outfitter! We are pro the North American Model of Wildlife Management and the Public Trust Doctrine. We are pro responsible wildlife management by the FWP. We are pro hunting. We are pro the Montana resident hunter. We are pro resident hunter in every state. We are apolitical. We are supporting both Republican and Democratic candidates and sitting legislators. Please check our website @ www.montanasportsmenalliance.com under MSA-PAC for our list of endorsed candidates.

MSA wants to work with landowners in finding ways to address their concerns and re-build the once great relations between landowners and hunters. We fully support landowners private property rights which allow them to close their lands, lease their lands or outfit on their lands. We want to work with reasonable outfitters as well but not by selling our wildlife or issuing excessive tags to fill their coffers. We oppose anything that looks like "ranching for wildlife". MSA wants to be a "voice of reason" on wildlife issues. We are not radicals and the statements we make are based on the best available information and data we can find. Many articles and statements are being made that are not accurate. Look at our website under "news & clips" and you will find much of the hard data on the financial aspects of I-161 and other issues of importance.

The face of hunting in Montana is at a tipping point going into the election and next legislative session. Only by getting rational, moderate individuals working together can we solve the many challenges facing us for the betterment of our wildlife resources and the sport of hunting.

 

[ingomar]

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.

 

[theat]

The way I look at this situation is that the livestock industry and MOGA have gotten their way in this state since pretty much the begining. The resident hunting public is finally taking notice that this imbalance of power is having a detrimental impact on the wildlife and hunting opportunities for us regular folks. We are trying to gain our rightful say in how hunting and wildlife are managed. As a result those that always got their way in the past are doing everything they can to keep their complete control over the FWP and the state legislature through sneaky meetings and plenty of threats. I very rarely hunt private land and the little private I hunt is either family or friends land or a few of those "worthless BMA's" so the threats don't play well with me other than to make me realize that we are having an impact and some of the pwerbrokers are getting scared.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Eric,
First, I appreciate your discourse in this thread. It's good to see that we agree on a lot of the issues surrounding the public hunters and private lands. We may disagree on how to get to a more amicable working relationship, but the seeds are still there.

I've noted a few times now that you've mentioned that we need to manage the resource in a responsible manner, or remove politics from wildlife management. I think we all agree that is an outcome we'd like to see. Given that you are apparently representing MOGA on this discussion, perhaps you could answer a couple of questions?

1.) How did SB 400 which would have forced the Dept to issue 2,000 combo tags in wilderness areas remove political influence? This was MOGA's signature bill last session.


2.) SB 155 would have placed the economic interests of landowners and outfitters over the scientific management of wildlife. MOGA was a big supporter of this bill. Luckily the Governor vetoed it. Why was this not political meddling and special interest influence of one set of interests over others?

3.) SB 414 would have negated our state wolf management plan and kept wolves listed under the ESA. This bill had full MOGA support, in spite of Congressional action that was pending to force the delisting of wolves in MT and ID. Why did MOGA think that following the lead of Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife and Toby Bridges was better than following the game plan that they helped write?

I don't mean this to sound like an attack. I'm just curious as to your perception of MOGA's actions and how that affects the ability of folks to have a good conversation.

As for Bison, well, there's a lot of overreaction on that. FWP was directed by the Legislature (especially by Rick Ripley and John Brenden) to follow certain protocols for the transfer of wild bison. They were also directed to come up with a state management plan for Bison. So if you want to blame anyone for the bison issue, blame the Legislature as well.

 

[Topgun 30-06]

Good questions Ben and it will be interesting to see if there are any reasonable answers forthcoming from Eric. It's sort of ironic, but reading posts from these other two guys (BB and BS) on this thread are like reading the stuff that Birdman posts on behalf of the SFW over on MM, LOL! In other words, they're putting up lots of statements and accusations, but have nothing to back themselves up with!

 

[Big Shooter]

Good questions Ben and it will be interesting to see if there are any reasonable answers forthcoming from Eric. It's sort of ironic, but reading posts from these other two guys (BB and BS) on this thread are like reading the stuff that Birdman posts on behalf of the SFW over on MM, LOL! In other words, they're putting up lots of statements and accusations, but have nothing to back themselves up with!

Ohhh......? Soo.......which of my statements and/or accusations can I not back up with not only what I have witnessed but what other landowners and outfitters have had to deal with. Now, remember......I have enough of an open mind to realize that there are bad apples on both sides of the fences and that no one side is perfect. Often times some common sense and reality need to come into play on these issues, which all too often is overlooked.

So....I can assure you that I can back up what I have said on here as can Billy Banger and Albus. Example: The abbreviation for Montana Outfitters and Guides Association is "MOGA" not "MGOA". Just an example really.

 

[The Hedgehog]

Billy and Albus...welcome to my world!! Trying to reason with the "sense of entitlement" attitude can be a bit challenging at times and I have been fighting this battle alone for quite some time ever since "Blue Yummies" pussed out and left. Some of these "Square Heads" (sorry Buzz), just don't get the fact that access to private ground is not a right and that landowners hold way more of the cards in the game then most would like to think....

Rod -Your opinions (and Eric's) are appreciated. I've had beers with both of you and know you're good folks, as are many other outfitters/landowners. You mention this "sense of entitlement" with resident hunters. You also mention Blue Yummies (your guide Russ) who I only know from him kicking legal hunters off a property he claimed you guys had recently leased (in preparation for the Eastman's film crew to show up) which turned out that you actually didn't have leased. That's the "sense of entitlement" I've experienced.

These days, I hunt private land as infrequently as possible. There's some tremendous hunting on public land in Montana. The groups looking out for that are the ones I'm going to support.

 

[Big Fin]

I do think it is helpful for Eric and Big Shooter to be giving posts in this thread. Always gives some perspective from their side.

I have thought more about the threat of closing access for this reason or that. It has become an old game to hear that every time. I think it has reached the point where resident hunters are no longer worried about that threat. Not because resident hunters want less private access, but the practical impact is realized to be increasingly negligible as more propties are closed off due to change of ownership, or leasing by outfitters or leasing by private parties.

Many don't hunt private land, so no impact.

Many own or lease their own private land, so no impact.

Many have family that own private land they can hunt, so no impact.

Many use Block Management, and given we have more people wanting to enroll than what we have funds to pay for, if some withdraw as a statement of principle others will take their place, so probably smal impact.

Some have long-term personal or business relationships that are stronger than the isuue of bison, stream access, etc., so probably not much impact.

That leaves the guy who lets you hunt by knocking on his door. These are usually salt of the earth long time good folks who are happy to see the critters thinned out. Since this is the ever shrinking segment of the landowner community, the impact of a very few of them closing for whatever stayement they might want to make, is negligible to the big picture.

I don't want to see less access, but rather more access, whether on public or private. Yet, how long are we going to continue having these discussions with the "we're gonna close access" card always being played, before the threat no longer has any practical value? Since many people inclined to limit public access be already done so, this card is more like a Five of Diamonds than an Ace of Spades.

Like very person on this thread has stated, and I state once again; if it is private ground, go ahead and close it, lease it, open it, burn it, lock it up to anyone or anything. It is your land. You should do with it as you please.

Seems to stir some people up when hunters are unphased by such a threat. It just seems to have reached the point where that threat is a yawner to resident hunters.

A funny part of that threat is how seldom it comes from any landowner, or from the Stockgrowers, or The Farm Bureau. The threat is often stated or implied by a small handful of vocal outfitters, more than it is stated by the lanowners.

I work with a lot of landowners. None of them have changed their access arrangements, whether leasing, BM, by permission, no hunting access, or whatever, as a way to make a statement.

Maybe I interact with a different group of landowners, but all the ones I work with are great people who are concerned about stewardship of the land. Their decisions on hunting access are part of their stwewardship plan, not the other way around.

 

[mdunc8]

The only thing this thread has done is to reinforce my dislike for people who use exclamation points in their writing.

 

[The Hedgehog]

The main point I want to get across to you all is that we all need to start working together on these issues or we all will continue to lose out. This has to start with working with landowners because they hold the keys to the gates!

I think what you're trying to say is resident hunters should bend over and take it right in the ass, in hopes some surly landowners will open up their place or keep a place open for hunting? Not. Lock them down - Lots of places to hunt.

 

[Topgun 30-06]

BS---Your post number 86 where you intimated that a majority of people don't or won't respect private property when you were talking about easements is what I was referring to. That may be your opinion, but I don't feel it's a legitimate argument since it is just that. That is my opinion, so I guess we cancel each other out. I also question how you can say that Eric and BB can back up the statements in their posts. Your MGOA and MOGA is also pretty flimsy IMO when all we are obviously talking about is a typo by someone that can easily happen to any of us. From my many years experience hunting out in Wyoming, I have experienced myself and heard many others say that various outfitters and landowners themselves have tried to keep hunters off public land under the pretense that it was deeded or leased private property. In fact, one large outfitter actually pulled that on me and several others such that I filed charges with the WY G&F for hunter harrassment. No further problems have been encountered in the last 7 or 8 years after the outfitter was warned that he would lose his license if further complaints were registered. The other instance I was referring to was post 85 by BB. In that post he made statements, opinions, and mere conjecture that can't be substantiated and then he ended with this: "You will be surprised on this one! Just wait! Enough Said! There is no reason to keep responding to people with such closed minds, and who will not listen to reason." If he has anything that can back up his posts, then I would suggest that he spit them out and not make childish comments like that to end a post.

 

[Big Shooter]

Topgun.....actually post #85 was not me....it was Billy Banger. Don't hate on me anymore than I deserve please. The whole MGOA vs. MOGA thing is just my lousy attempt at being a wise ass, but amusing to me when it's pointed at Buzz.

Kurt....I appreciate all that you said and you are correct when it comes to your one and only experience with Russ. Not a real good one, and no excuses, but miscommunication on his part with the landowner. I mean this honestly....fair enough and point well taken. Hence the both sides of the fence statement I made previous. On a different note though, not everyone is a "Greenhorn".....meaning not every resident hunter has the want to and skill and ability to hunt the places and hunt the way that you do, and those are the ones that cause the hard feelings and poor hunter/landowner relations. Again, like I have stated numerous times on this site......I would never accuse anyone on here of being "that guy" when it comes to these issues.

Fin...I think the reason that the whole "we are going to shut our land down" threat is used so much is that it is the only way landowners feel that they have any pull at all when these issues come up such as bison or wolves and so on. Often times it is not pointed toward the resident sportsman as it is pointed to the FWP as a way to get their attention and the DIY hunter gets caught in the middle. That is just my observation but I don't think that I am far off. It's not a way to hold their breath or to stomp their feet or to throw their suckers in the dirt as Buzz would say, but more of a means to try to protect their livelihood.

 

[Topgun 30-06]

BS---Read my post again, as I did state that post #85 was by BB. I'm glad to hear your play on the association letters was exactly that and shame on you for giving it to BuzzH, LOL! Also, there is no hate involved here, but rather a simple disgareement we may have. I would hope we all have the same goals in mind so that all can have good hunting and that we just differ a little on how to get there. Your comment to Fin is also well taken and probably may be the only way for a rancher to be heard if I was in their shoes on certain things.

 

[Eric Albus]

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.