MOGA - FWP "public" meeting?

[Straight Arrow]

"Want to get the ruler out and measure who has done more for wildlife, conservation, and the resource?"

I don't think you really want to follow-up seriously. You are challenging some heavyweights when it comes to donation of time, energy, and personal resources for wildlife and hunting.

And there is a definite distinction between those who donate ... expecting no fiscal advantage nor really even a thanks, but only for the love of hunting and wildlife ... and those whose annual $$$ bottom line is derived from the wildlife resource and hunting. Crow about it all you want, but you cannot possibly deny that distinction. If you think the weight of your wallet does not skew your opinions as one exploiting hunting and wildlife, then it's no wonder you are going round and round over these issues.

 

[Eric Albus]

So, I am "exploiting hunting and wildlife"?

I will agree w/ you on the distinction...but is not simply about the bottom line, as most of you would like to believe....it is about doing right by the resource(land and wildlife)...which is why I cancelled nearly all my hunts on the Milk River last season.

 

[BuzzH]

Yes, you are...is there any other way to see it?

You make your living through the graciousness of Montana Residents who afford you the gift of exploiting THEIR PUBLIC WILDLIFE for your personal gain.

Instead of challenging them...a simple thank you would serve you better.

MOGA: 249 MONTANA LICENSED HUNTERS: 200,000+....I wonder why the OSL's went the way of the dinosaur?

Keep it up Eric...you're making all kinds of friends.

 

[Straight Arrow]

So, I am "exploiting hunting and wildlife"?

Yes, there's no other way of viewing it. It is legal, a historically great tradition, and an economic advantage for Montana ... but selling of services and access to hunt the state's publicly entrusted wildlife is expoitation of the resource for personal monetary gain. 'Not saying it's wrong or anything like that, but that's what it is. There's nothing new about it. I'm just glad it's mostly Montana people taking advantage of the resource, instead of entities from back east or elsewhere, as has been the history for Montana resources.

If it was like selling a "couch" that you purchased from a manufacturer or selling a fallow deer on your high fenced place in Texas, then it would be different. But that's not the way it is.

Let me get a big tub of popcorn and settle back to learn of your altruistic perspective on your economic business plan for selling hunts.

 

[billy banger]

Straight Arrow-Ben Lamb

"Want to get the ruler out and measure who has done more for wildlife, conservation, and the resource?"

Your efforts if any; pale to the landowner when it comes to providing habitat and improving the wildlife resource. I would like you to give me examples of what you all have done!

The only things you have accomplished is to take the best hunting in the lower 48 states for the resident hunter and wrecked it. Sometimes I wonder if you aren't anti hunters!

Examples: I-161 you have deregulated the outfitting industry which has allowed them to expand and lease up more land post I-161. Not to mention the fact that there are thousands more NR hunters hunting on public land. So explain to me how this is helping the resident hunter. Now landowners can just lease directly to NR hunters and they are doing so at alarming rates.

You guys promised that it would open up more access and it has done just the opposite! I am beginning to think I-161 was an effort to get the outfitters out of way so you all could lease up own private property for yourselves. Just ask Vito, he leases up private property for his and his buddies exclusive hunting. How do you spell hypocritical?

The archery elk permits in the Breaks is another example of destroying our hunting which the MWF & MSA supported. Now there are many residents that can't draw an archery elk permit in these Hunting Districts. Someone told me that there were more residents that didn't draw a permit this year than NRs. I just don't see the benefits of the things you are supporting!

I suppose it will be like you liberals to attack me again like above, "crybaby bitch" just because I don't agree with you. Or is it your way of dealing with the truth! You all just won't accept the facts when it doesn't support you agenda.

 

[BuzzH]

Does your Mom know you're on the computer?

 

[Big Fin]

I just opened my mail and in there is a hard copy of the MOGA survey conducted of their membership regarding the relationship MOGA members have with FWP. That survey being the reason and topics MOGA wanted the meeting with FWP, and, the reason this thread got started.

I would recommend anyone to get a copy of that survey from the Department. It is interesting to read. Particularly, which questions were asked of the members. Not sure why those were chosen, but none of my business, since I was not sponsoring the survey.

Interesting to read the perception MOGA members report in this survey, of their attitudes towards FWP and what they think is the FWP attitude towards their members/industry. We can argue with the facts of that form perceptions, but their perceptions are their perceptions. Also interesting to see the demographic profile of the outfitter community, compared to what it was prior to the OSLs.

If, as Eric Albus states, I-161 was such a boom to him and other outfitters, it is interesting to read the comments the MOGA members have about FWP and the passage of I-161.

The percentage of respondents who cited the greatest frequency condition resulting in poor landowner FWP relations was violations of private property rights. That has me scratching my head.

I wish I could see the question of how that one was worded such that violation of private property rights would be considered a high frequency condition. Maybe I am missing something, but I did not think FWP was violating any private property rights. If so, and to this great extent, I suspect there would be court cases of such. Maybe Eric has some insight as to what that question was and examples that would demonstrate the violations some are feeling.

As a private property advocate, FWP violations would be a concern to me.

Since the meeting was a public meeting, anything that was provided to FWP is part of the public record and available to the public upon request. Feel free to contact FWP HQ and get a copy. Worth the time to read the 8 pages.

 

[ingomar]

Billy Banger

Have you ever heard of DU, RMEF, TU, Pheasants Forever, Wild Sheep Foundation, etc.?? Have you ever donated your time to any of these organizations? My question is what have you done for the resource? By the way, are you an outfitter??

I-161 created a much fairer system where everyone has an equal opportunity for non-resident tags. Have you read the revenue report on the impacts of I-161 (www.montanasportsmenalliance.com)? Block Management would have been in the red without I-161.

I have not read on this blog where anyone said a landowner should not be allowed to lease their ground or close it off. Hunters support private property rights!! MSA supports private property rights!!

How is a resident hunter a hypocrite for leasing ground from a rancher for their family to hunt on, but an outfitter is not a hypocrite for leasing ground to make a money off the wildlife resource?

 

[Straight Arrow]

"Your efforts if any; pale to the landowner when it comes to providing habitat and improving the wildlife resource." That is true, Billy, but those were the ranchers who hauled the Yellowstone elk in their cattle trucks to the Breaks decades ago. With a few exceptions, those landowners are gone.

"I just don't see the benefits of the things you are supporting!" Another of few true statements, Billy.
And categrorizing me and others as "liberal" merely reflects how far you are off base.

Other conclusions and observations claimed as "truth" regarding permit changes, I-161, "deregulation of outfitting", "wrecking" of hunting, and others are opinions you certainly are welcome to, but are far from valid. You have been debated and deflated before regarding those opinions, of that I'm sure. However, don't let real truths and logic sway you from your vitriol.

 

[CabinFever]

" However, don't let real truths and logic sway you from your vitriol.

Had to google search vitriol.

Easy with the big words on the simple minded please... There's been a lot of toughies in this thread.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Straight Arrow-Ben Lamb

Your efforts if any; pale to the landowner when it comes to providing habitat and improving the wildlife resource. I would like you to give me examples of what you all have done!

I helped lead the team that got the Wyoming Wildlife and Natural Resource Trust Account established. That Trust has conserved thousands of acres of Ag land in Wyoming so that family producers can stay on the land, and have the advantages that come with Conservation Easements and increased productivity of their lands. Funny thing, SFW made sure that access wasn't a component of those conservation easements. That fund, last I knew, was sitting at around $110 million.

I helped write the initial language that eventually became the Simpson/Tester amendment that got wolves delisted, and was lucky enough to be on the phone with Tester when the vote was cast to delist wolves (also, was on the phone with the press).

I've got 7 legislative sessions under my belt working for hunters and anglers in MT and WY.

I volunteer hundreds if not thousands hours to various rod and gun clubs and organizations as well as a few grand in donations.

I help set up fundraisers for NGO's who are doing good work.

I'm a member of Tester's sporsmen's advisory panel, which asked for relief for livestock producers on brucellosis regulations, and got this to begin with.

I've worked with various stakeholders to increase the amount of available public land to hunters and anglers while maintaining good relationships with a large number of landowners. Currently, folks are working on some changes that we'd all like to see to Block Management that would increase payments and allow for greater flexibility of landowners when it comes to managed hunting on lands enrolled in Block.

I was one of three full time sportsmen's lobbyists in the last session who worked to organize hunters and anglers and defeat over 200 bad bills, including ones that would have eliminated our ability to conserve elk winter range, purchase fee title lands to open up large blocks of public land, and (and I take great pride in this), I was able to help kill SFW/MOGA's wolf bill that would have kept us listed in spite of S/T.

I've worked on the farm bill, and helped ensure that programs that benefit landowners like NAWCA, CRP, GRP, etc, receive enough funding so that those farmers and ranchers who want to enroll in those programs can.

I've worked extensively on the Land and Water Conservation Fund, which provides funding for over 70% of the Fishing Access Sites in MT, as well as millions of dollars in conservation easements for willing sellers.

I've fought the extremists on both sides of natural resource issues and while some folks like Mike Garrity at Alliance for the Wild Rockies and Dave Galt at the Montana Petroleum Association both don't care for me too much, I did it while living below the median income for close to a decade.

I'm working on trying to kill the Simpson Sheep Rider with a bunch of other hunters and anglers because I like wild sheep. I may very well never draw a tag, but that doesn't matter.

I spent the last 4 years working on the Rocky Mountain Front Heritage Act alongside landowners and outfitters. That bill has had a hearing. Nobody managed to show up against it. The only real opposition it has is political in nature.

I've worked with oil and gas companies on legislation that benefits wildlife, I've helped secure over $1 billion in funding for wildlife and ag, I've gone to DC numerous times to lobby for hunters and anglers and wild country. I've spent a career making the west better for hunters and anglers, including defending MT's stream access law against groups like UPOM, the Farm Bureau and many, many others who don't seem to share what most Montanan's hold dear.

I spent 5 years as the sportsmen's representative to the Wyoming Animal Damage Management Board and helped push through funding that has been utilized to develop the first portable electrical fencing (NOLS out of Lander was the originator), and provide backcountry caches for food, etc, so hikers and hunters wouldn't get grizz stuffed into their tent along with the Doritos.

I suppose I could go on, but I'm feeling kinda shitty for talking so much about myself.

your turn.


Eric, this isn't directed at you. I know you do a ton for conservation, and while we may have our difference of opinions, I do believe you're looking for an honest dialog. I hope you get it.

 

[Straight Arrow]

Ben, thank-you for all you have accomplished ... and like my grandad (homesteader on the Big Flat at Turner, MT) once told me, "If you really did it ... say it proudly and it ain't braggin!"

 

[Zach]

Does your Mom know you're on the computer?

Thank you for the levity!

 

[Eric Albus]

Thanks Ben, and I will extend the same courtesy to you. We do have a difference of opinion, but at least you are willing to see it as that. I too could go on for several paragraphs about what I have done for wildlife, conservation, and conservation groups, monitarily, donations and w/ habitat improvements..but, like you, will not bore everyone w/ the details.

Fin....I for one do not feel FWP is violating any private property rights, and do not quite yet understand that part of the survey....I do think that FWP could do a better job listening to some of us un-educated ranchers and outfitters when it comes to deer managment in Reg.'s 6 & 7. If I had my way we would have more hunting opportunity and less impact on the resource.

I have not read the results from the MOGA survey yet. Been to busy typing on this stupid comment page...ha ha.... I do not know what the results say about 161, but if you call me I will give you the names of a couple other outfitters who feel the same way I do about it. Sure, there are some guys that say it hurt them...but how can having a cheaper license that has been 100% draw hurt you? Simple, it can't....like someone posted earlier not all folks are business people...

161 did hurt the value of NCHU(net client hunting use)....when passed there were a fairly limited number of Cat. 1 NCHU(which allowed you to take a client using an OSL, soft capped at 5600 elk/deer and 2300 deer)...there were/are tons of Cat.2(non-resident general draw deer/elk, resident hunters, antelope, moose/goat/sheep, all fell into Cat.2)....when 161 passed we(check that, I) was stupid(and to busy) to fight the state turning all the Cat. 1 NCHU into Cat 2....so now we have more NCHU than there are non-residents hunting in the state....so that part did hurt...what sucked is that I bought nearly all of mine, and now it's worth about 1/3 what I paid for it... we should have probably filed suit for a takings issue, but I did not have the time, or resources to do this...and we let the state push the Cat 1 into Cat 2, and operated for a year that way.....like I have told a couple friends of mine, get over it and figure out how to move forward...there are a lot of worse things that can happen.

 

[Straight Arrow]

"figure out how to move forward...there are a lot of worse things that can happen" 'Great perspective, Eric. Like said before, the only constant in life is change.

I am relieved that we are not still debating about I-143, the game farm initiative ... but really, how far do we have to keep kicking the pros and cons of I-161 down the road? It's a done deal. 'Seems like you and most other large landowners have more in common with the Montana hunting and angling community than you have at odds. The demographic shift of political power to urban Montana communities full of hunters and anglers appears to be tough for the heretofore farm/ranch predominant political power to accept. Most on this thread are supportive of the Montana tradition of superb outfitter services, of our great agricultural economy, and especially of property rights, so it would be much better for us to collaborate in preserving the Montana hunting heritage and our wonderful wildlife resource.

Furthermore, it would serve MOGA much better to gain the support and trust of Montana hunters than to pursue questionable coalitions with SFW and/or other controversial fringe organizations.

 

[mtlion]

Want to get the ruler out and measure who has done more for wildlife, conservation, and the resource?

I too could go on for several paragraphs about what I have done for wildlife, conservation, and conservation groups, monitarily, donations and w/ habitat improvements..but, like you, will not bore everyone w/ the details.

So now that the ruler has been brought out you no longer want to play that game eh? :hump:

 

[The Hedgehog]

Ben Lamb, My hat's off to you. Your dedication to it all is something to really be proud of. Thanks - and the details did not bore me.

It appears that no partner of SFW is a friend of the resident Montana hunter.

And to the crybaby little bitch, for what it's worth - I never voted for I-161 and have never been called a liberal before today. It sounds like you better polish up on your fallatio technique so you can secure some "access" in the years to come.

 

[shoots-straight]

Ben Lamb, My hat's off to you. Your dedication to it all is something to really be proud of. Thanks - and the details did not bore me.

It appears that no partner of SFW is a friend of the resident Montana hunter.

And to the crybaby little bitch, for what it's worth - I never voted for I-161 and have never been called a liberal before today. It sounds like you better polish up on your fallatio technique so you can secure some "access" in the years to come.

Now, now, that's totally uncalled for. I'll bet he's not all that little.

 

[tjones]

Game, set, match, Ben Lamb.