Montana Wildlife Federation rebuttal to attacks on sportsman!

[shoots-straight]

Many of you know that myself and other "Hunt Talkers" are actively working the political side of hunting spectrum.

After the "Blood Bath For Sportsman" fizzle that occurred, there are those that won't let it go. They are trying to spread misinformation about MSA, MBA, MWF and others.

Paul Ellis is one of those holding more sour grapes than most from the past legislative session. He's working the opinion columns trying to sway people away from joining in the next battle.

Please take the time to read Montana Wildlife's rebuttal to his hogwash.

 

[Pierre]

It can be found in this issue of Montana Sporting Journal where Nick Gevock of the MWF takes issue with yet another bout of blatantly false and misleading information. It srtikes me that MOGA has defined itself by Ellis, Minard, and Toby Bridges' mantra "don't confuse me with the facts". There have been thousands of sportsmen actively watching MOGA's performance in print and at the legislature. We can thank MOGA's self serving drivel and legislation for putting MSA together and uniting sportsmen. It has become obvious that their leadership has chosen a path of confrontation, deceit, antagonism, and superiority against sportsmen. Their slant toward ranching for wildlife is alienating sportsmen. We know there are good outfitters who share our values of the N. AM. model, public trust, and fair chase. Are they going to form their own organization or follow like lemmings?

 

[RobG]

Hopefully this is readable.

 

[mtlion]

Hopefully this is readable.

Thanks Rob. now my eyes are bleeding.

I'd like that on facebook!

 

[RobG]

Thanks Rob. now my eyes are bleeding.

I'd like that on facebook!

It's up on MSA'a page too. [/like]

https://www.facebook.com/pages/Montana-Sportsmens-Alliance/123400691088041?fref=ts

 

[katqanna]

here you go. I converted this yesterday for Perry. For those of you that need it larger, just hit the plus sign at the top and it will enlarge it.

http://www.gallatinwildlifeassociation.org/MWF%20Sets%20Record%20Straight.pdf

 

[Eric Albus]

Again, the mis-info runs both ways.

MWF did work with Senator Tester to help get wolves delisted; however this was after the MWF supported the reintroduction of the wolves in the first place.

The limit on the Missouri River Breaks elk archery permits had nothing to do with equity between rifle and archery hunters. The true reason was as stated by FWP employees were to stop outfitter leasing and force landowners to allow access.

There have not been any conversations about wanting to implement “Ranching for Wildlife”. This has been a total fabrication in order to create a cause to rally the troops.


The criticism regarding HB-274 is totally unfounded. It did not water down outfitter standards it only removed duplicate sections and unnecessary wording. It did not reduce any of the reporting requirements and this included the amount of leased lands included in their operations. Mr. Gevock simply is misinformed or is misrepresenting the facts.

 

[mtlion]

Gettin' my hip waders on!

:hump:

 

[Ben Lamb]

Again, the mis-info runs both ways.

MWF did work with Senator Tester to help get wolves delisted; however this was after the MWF supported the reintroduction of the wolves in the first place.

The limit on the Missouri River Breaks elk archery permits had nothing to do with equity between rifle and archery hunters. The true reason was as stated by FWP employees were to stop outfitter leasing and force landowners to allow access.

There have not been any conversations about wanting to implement “Ranching for Wildlife”. This has been a total fabrication in order to create a cause to rally the troops.


The criticism regarding HB-274 is totally unfounded. It did not water down outfitter standards it only removed duplicate sections and unnecessary wording. It did not reduce any of the reporting requirements and this included the amount of leased lands included in their operations. Mr. Gevock simply is misinformed or is misrepresenting the facts.

Nick can answer for himself but as the guy who was the conservation director during the elk archery permits and wolf delisting fight I can asure you of two things:

Elk archery was about taking back wildlife from market forces and instituting the North American Model over the lend/lease model that saw up to 80% of bull elk harvest in some districts go just to outfitted non-residents.

On wolves, MWF had clubs with different view points on the reintroduction so they did not support or oppose.

They were the group that got Tester turned on to this and together with Baucus, helped craft the bill that became law as well as provided a lot of covering fire from SFW et al when it came time to getting something done rather than play more politics. They took meaningful action when all other legal avenues failed to produce a delisted population and they did it in an politically savvy way. They don't raise money off the backs ofmwolves or fear and they continue to this date to advocate for seasons that in my mind are too aggresive. Trying to paint them as wolf lovers completely ignores the record and falls squarely on the rethoric of Toby Bridges and others.

 

[Pierre]

Eric, equity in the Breaks is what it was all about. FWP employees commented on their own and were not part of the process...sportsmen were. The system works. MOGA got whipped repeatedly and runs to the legislature whining. Keep it up and burn even more bridges. Much of it has to do with outfitters not participating in herd health and management and instead only focusing on antlers. We are certainly ready with some real solutions that include all parties.
There have been conversations about "ranching for Wildlife". What do you think it means to incentivise landowners?? MOGA had a chance to work with us and clearly tried to ram its legislation up our backside.
Claims of needing to kill more bulls when the herd is over objective are pure BS.

 

[Eric Albus]

You will never get an arguement from me on the permitting the breaks, should be even fewer permits given out...like 40 either sex tags for each 622, 621, and 620...good for first 3 weeks of season only, and 500 archery permits either sex...then give each permit holder a "cow only permit", and issue 250 rifle cow permits good for the last 2 weeks of rifle season....

"equity"? for whom? archery vs. rifle hunters, or res. vs. non-res?

 

[howler]

the breaks archery permits were all about over crowding, to many Bowhunters hunting the area,, by going to permits the NR were limited to 10%,, the 22 other archery elk districts in eastern Mt. had an all together different reason for going limited archery permits. albeit most people lump them into the same basket while giving explanations why there are limited permits in the first place, but each of the area's had their own unique reasons. the breaks permits were a work in progress for many years b4 the permits in the other archery elk districts in Eastern Mt. were even given any thought. when the permits in the breaks finally gelled circa 2007, although the first permits were started in 1988
+ or - a year or so,,

 

[JMG]

The limit on the Missouri River Breaks elk archery permits had nothing to do with equity between rifle and archery hunters. The true reason was as stated by FWP employees were to stop outfitter leasing and force landowners to allow access.

Eric this statement in itself is not entirely accurate. This "equation" had many varibles. One major part of the equation that got the process started was the number of non-resident hunters hunting in those "breaks" hunting districts and the number of days they were "camped out" chasing elk. This was "painfully obvious", the situation got so bad, residents were willing to limit themselves. And only way to limit the non-residents in Montana is to place limits on the residents. Compounding the problem was the Private Land Outfitters leasing up ranches and additional ranches try to secure themselves opportunities that purposely excluded the resident hunter. They don't care about the average resident hunter, they were in it for themselves ($$). This action started a chain reaction with other "Outfitters" and the leasing of land by Outfitters, non-residents and even residents. It was like tossing a stone in a pond, it rippled out and negatively affected other fellow hunters (Outfitted/Guided hunters, DIY Resident and DIY Non-resident).

The proposition of limited elk archery permits in the breaks was the only way (at the time) to "level the playing field". It had and still has nothing to do with FORCING landowners to allow access. This is impossible, so the statement is just a plain stupid statement. Unfortunately, it was at the expense of non-residents now being limited to 10%. The archery hunter numbers/quotas are a moving target; in that it is the intent that 100% of resident applicants will draw a permit if they put in. The quotas are based on last years applicants, so the actual draw statistics are more like 99% - 97%. This "land grab" that got started by some of the Private Land Outfitters is what kicked off this whole process.

The "Rifle vs Archery Hunter" inequity got started when FWP's own Commssioner (I forget his name, but he was from Great Falls) made the comment that he has and/or many of his "buddies" have not drawn a rifle permit and the archery hunters are harvesting a lot of big bull elk every year. This is where the perception of inequity was first made public at a FWP meeting. There was and is no reason a "rifle" hunter cannot pick up a bow and go archery elk hunting. No one is stopping them. If it was that easy to harvest a "big" bull, just go do it.

Its thanks to organizations like MWF, MSA, MBA, PLWAA, and others that MT residents are able to have what they have. Many of the organizations spend a lot of time and resources "defending" the average MT residents hunter. This in unfortunate, because could you image if folks just went out and enjoyed the recreational activities and not tried to make it their "own" experience at the expense of others?

 

[howler]

Stan Meyers was the commissioner, and I agree with all of your post

 

[Straight Arrow]

Good recap, Jim, with many accurate statements and valid points.

 

[Eric Albus]

JIm, thanks for pointing out "my stupidity"...glad somebody other than my wife is willing to....

However, one of the reasons that FWP publicly stated for going to permits "is to limit leasing and force access".... Notice, I did not say that it would work, but was a publicly made statement.

I can agree w/ the non-res. camped out in the breaks...there were to many of them...still are, and way to many non-resident-residents...to bad we still don't have to have plates w/ our county # on them, and to be present at the Glasgow civic center to draw a permit.... ; )
In the breaks on the north side there are less than 100k acres that do not allow public access.....there was no "land grab" on the north side of the breaks anyway.

i have always called B.S. on the archery vs. rifle equity, you make it sound like I think there is an "inequity" , I never have and never will buy the arguement about "inequity"...every rifle hunter has the option of picking up a bow....