SB 380 Reconsideration of Bill!

[ingomar]

Big Shooter

Your rancher friends made some good points but also missed the point on some items. First, for the most part, sportsmen are not behind, and often do not support dumping bison on the landscape without proper vetting by all parties including the landowners. By blaming sportsmen it is like you punching me in the nose, so I get mad and punch the guy standing next to me who had done nothing to me.

Second, I agree that there are a few resident sportsmen who want access to public lands that are landlocked by private land. Where public land is totally surrounded by private land, not checkerboard ownership, the landowner is not under any obligation, nor should they be, to provide access across their lands to the public ground. This does not preclude a person from accessing the public land without touching the private lands.

Regarding corner crossing, the point is, sportsmen just want to know what is legal. As it exists today, it is a grey area that has never been decided by the Supreme Court. If corner crossing is unconstitutional, so be it then everyone knows what the law is. Right now, only the law abiding person is locked out as those who want to trespass do it anyway and probably not at a property corner. Why do landowners not want to know what is legal and what is not?? Sportsmen, for the most part, will gladly abide by the decision of the courts.

Regarding I-161 and landowners not liking how it was handled. With the makeup of the legislature over the last several years with Brenden, his cohorts and MOGA, there were not going to be any changes to the OSL. The initiative process was the only thing left for the public to use to change a flawed, unfair system. Why would landowners be angry with using the legal tools available to the public? Non-residents who use outfitters now pay $350 less for their tags than they did under the OSL system, so why is that a bad thing?

By shutting off their ranches, the opportunity of working together to solve the many issues facing landowners and sportsmen is severly diminished. From what I have heard, most ranchers were extremely upset, as they should be, with the Milk River Ranch purchase, but so were most sportsmen. It was opposed at the hearing by sportsmen groups but by closing their ranches they are only hurting their best allies not the people who actually made the decision to go forward with the purchase. Does this make sense??

Landowners and sportsmen used to be allies and worked together to solve common problems. Until we get back to that model, we have created a lose-lose scenario for all concerned.

How do we sit down with these landowners and discuss this in an intelligent manner for the benefit of all??

Vito Quatraro

 

[BuzzH]

The bison, and the corner hopping issue and the way that I-161 was handled, via an initiative, is what pisses them off. The one fella actually did not agree with the OSL's and thought that everyone should be on an even playing field when applying for tags, but the way it was handled is what chapped him because he knows it will happen again in some way shape or form.

All I'm relaying on to you guys is that the landowner community is getting a little grumpy over some of the "times that are a changing" FACT, so when there is all of this talk about citizen initiatives for this and that, and the other, their might be better ways of handling it that aren't so abrasive. Just saying.

Bigshooter, thanks for clearing up the ownership of wildlife in Montana. I'm pretty sure your buddies refer to the publicly owned wildlife residing on their property as "theirs", in particular during hunting seasons when they can turn a quick buck on it (pun there). I cant tell you how many times I've heard landowners deny ownership of the "states wildlife" when said wildlife is causing them crop damage, fence damage, etc. As per usual, its "their" wildlife when its convenient for them...not so much when its not.

Still not sure why corner crossing from one piece of public land to another would cause your landowner buddies to become irritated and red-faced. Unless they just dont understand the meaning of PUBLIC land? Well, actually I do know, I guess it would be "tough" if you'd been using yet another public resource, largely free of charge, for generations. Funny there is no consideration for the generations of Montana Residents, as well as United States Citizens in general, that they have been denied access to THEIR public lands and Wildlife?

The real reason the landowner community is upset is because the public has decided to take a page out of the landowner/outfitter handbook...look out for yourself first.

I'm 100% committed to get as much access to public land and the public wildlife found there as possible. If landowners dont like it, well, I guess they can either start working with the public land hunters or prepare to see a lot of this view:

 

[BigHornRam]

I hunted Antelope on a block management ranch in S. W. Montana last fall. Some jackass filled the log book in the sign in box full of bullet holes. I would not blame the owners if they took their ranch out of B. M. Ignorant rants from guys like Buzz H are going to lead to less sportsmen access, not more. Get some help buddy.

 

[Big Shooter]

Ingomar....unfortunately, landowners feel that the only way they can get the attention of the FWP is through the sportsman, and by shutting them out. The resident sportsman won't be alone though because if things get bad enough, outfitters will be shut out as well. I know that landowners don't blame sportsman for issues such as bison, but they are the ones that will suffer because of it.

 

[Eric Albus]

There certainly are a lot of uninformed voters in Reg.6...the reason Valley County carried 161. As to Brendan....I fail to see where he is so "anti-sportsman"...and "anti-wildlife"....but then again, my perception may be skewed? Enlighten me.

Vito, I can see your (sportsman's)point of view w/ closing off land due to bison and Milk River purchase....at first I could not see how anyone could be so blind as to not understand the landowners point of view...until I stepped back and looked at the whole picture..... I can see how sportsmen would think that the landowners are giving them a kick because they are not looking at the whole picture. The ONLY recourse a landowner has against FWP is to close off hunting...it is not done to alienate the hunting public...but this is the result....so the public loses trust in the landowners...in turn the landowners get tired of the public, and more land is closed, some to never be opened again.....this is the reason that clear thinking folks (there are a few here...and there are some of the other types as well) need to procatively work on some viable solutions...landowners are tired of being attacked....and they precieve the corner crossing as an attack(right or wrong..i am of the camp that I would like a supreme ct. decision as well).....

I think that solutions can be reached. It will take monumental efforts on behalf of Dept., Sportsmen and Landowners. A few of the main voices of reason need to sit down along w/ Dept. Officials and work on solutions.

This is not about "me"...it should be about "our" resource.

 

[Straight Arrow]

Big Shooter, as a landowner of small tracts in a couple of counties and as someone whose grandparents homesteaded and began life in Montana as farmers and ranchers, I understand why the following is occuring.

landowner community is getting a little grumpy over some of the "times that are a changing"

However, as a sportsman, wildlife advocate, and taxpayer I am also getting a little grumpy about those landowners who pay low agricultural land taxes when capitalizing on wildlife commercially on those lands, who individually receive hundreds of thousands of dollars in subsidies while complaining about a tough life, whose idea of hard times is not being able to purchase a new truck and horse trailer every year and then writing the purchase off (I get no tax advantage from my eight-year-old pickup), who pay low grazing fees for public land leases and then block the public from access, who are opposed to public recreationists stepping from one tract of public land onto another tract of public land, who continue to appear opposed to best interests of wildlife and sportsmen, who perpetuate the unwarranted paranoia and unsubstantiated myth of some conspiracy to irresponsibly release wild bison all over the agricultural lands of northeast Montana (while seemingly refusing to step up to join the existing ongoing process to resolve issues), and who continually interpret "private property" rights of the US and the Montana Constitutions as selfishly and excessively far beyond what intent and precedent has actually been established.

 

[Big Shooter]

Straight Arrow.....fair enough and understandable. However, when all of the different groups (sportsman, outfitters, landowners) start generalizing and assume that all members of the opposing groups are all alike, that's when we get in trouble in my opinion. We are all guilty of it, but it doesn't make it right. Take for instance resident sportsman. I would venture to say that anyone that partakes on this forum are great sportsman, without a doubt, but because not all are like these folks, the sportsman get a bad reputation. Same with outfitters and landowners. They are for the most part good people, look out for the game and try to be decent.......BUT...we all know that isn't always the case.

 

[Straight Arrow]

Big Shooter, you are correct. And if there were bad sportsmen voted into the Montana Legislature who purported to represent all sportsmen and were sponsoring bad bills adverse to the best iinterests of farmers, ranchers, and landowners, I would be grumpy about those bad sportsmen/ legislators and I would oppose those bills.

However, the past two legislative sessions the ag and landowner interests have been represented by legislators who have proposed bill after bill with proposals not good for wildlife, sportsmen, or FWP.
The result has been heretofore Republicans like myself who no longer can support the Republican party and sportsmen coming together in large numbers and with loud voices to oppose those bad bills. It has further widened the rift between all the good folks who are landowners and all the good folks who are sportsmen.
The best solution is collaboration. I think it starts with electing good folks who can work together in the legislature. The end of the session was encouraging in that some of the more thoughtful legislators who are truly wanting the best for Montana stood up to those others of their party whose agenda is driven primarily by selfish ideology and fear-mongering. Let's agree to support those legislators who can unselfishly work for what's best for all interests.

 

[elk_hunter]

None of them are leased to outfitters, one of them will let people hunt if they ask, two ranches allowed out of state groups to hunt......free of charge.

That sounds awesome! But I'm guessing, according to my mileage, that most other ranches don't subscribe to the same...

The answers were as follows and in no particular order: Resident hunters that think they can go where ever, when ever; (that really chaps their ass); a season that encompasses the rut
(very detrimental to the quality of hunting in their opinion); resident sportsman that think they should have access to not only the game that lives there but also any and all public land that lies in the middle of their private ground ( really makes their faces turn red); corner hopping (really gets their blood pressure up); and the number one turn off..........free ranging buffalo (makes them throw their hats down and yell f@&$,) Because of these issues, they are shutting their ranches down totally......to everyone, until these problems go away.

How about non-resident sportsmen? Maybe it's bad luck, but I haven't had much success to hunt ranches when I've asked - and I've offered to mend fences, help on the ranch, etc. for that access. I understand it's the ranches right to not allow me access and while that can be frustrating, I suck it up.

 

[Big Shooter]

I really do think that there are more landowners out there that would allow more access to the general public, but in the past few years there has been quite a lot of tension in the air amongst all parties involved. In turn, who suffers? Guys like elk_hunter do. I think that we are close..well, getting closer, to some of that collaboration that your talking about. Do I think that it will ever be like it was 20 or 30 years ago? No. But it might get better for the average sportsman if we can come up with a plan that is good for all involved.

 

[Eric Albus]

Rod, the problem is you and I are not the exception to the rule....most of us who outfit want to get along....and work to help fix the problems....which all boil down to managment of the resource.

elkhunter, keep working on those relationships...sooner or later it will pay off...I have a guy from Bozeman who has offered to help me for a weekend in exchange for some turkey hunting...(there I go again, letting residents hunt.....and I give free access for elk, and antelope...give youth cow elk hunters my first 2 days ahead of general season opening......nearly impossible to maintain an image of a ruthless outfitter...believe me, it galls me to tell any of you this, but if I don't who will?
I am not the only outfitter who "gives back"...most of us do, and some a heck of a lot more than I.

 

[shoots-straight]

Rod, the problem is you and I are not the exception to the rule....most of us who outfit want to get along....and work to help fix the problems....which all boil down to managment of the resource.

So by asking for more NR tags every legislative session your trying to do whats right for the resource?

Is the "FREE ACCESS" your giving, to your lands, or just access to public?

We might all agree on the fact that the EMP is outdated.

Where applicable, we need more game allowed on public lands, (science wise). The key is getting those harbored reduced, or get enough pressure on them to move em.

 

[Big Shooter]

Shoots..did you not read one of my more previous posts? Apparently you did not, because there you go again generalizing and "assuming" that because Eric and I are both MOGA board members that we wanted more non-resident tags. Never one time did either of us give you, or anyone else that impression.

I've got to be honest, I strongly disagree with the last statement of your previous post where you say "The key is getting those harbored reduced, or get enough pressure on them to move em." Wow! Now that is some sound management strategy there. So let's move them from where they are comfortable and relatively safe to an area where they will get the shit hammered out of em. Great idea, not to mention that it should really help not only the numbers but also the quality. I do believe that game is allowed on public ground, where applicable (science wise), but they too get the shit hammered out of em so pretty soon it appears that they are not allowed. Shoots...do you not notice a pattern here? I'm not going to say that "harboring" does not take place because I'm sure that it does in some places, but as long as they are not being baited to stay there other than good grazing practices and/or farm crops, then why should they be dispersed by pressure?

 

[shoots-straight]

Shooter, on the subject of more NR tags, I never heard either of you say you didn't want the tags.

Eric has told us time and again that there's too many elk in the Breaks, and surrounding areas. I know from personal experience that game populations are not out of wack on public lands. (See my previous posts). So if there's a problem, then those land owners that are bitching need to pony up to get them reduced.

Didn't MOGA endorse the bill to have MTFW&PS (sportsman's dollars) pay for crop damage? WOW is right! So your would think that MOGA would have no problems endorsing a bill to make people that harbor elk herds liable, when those animals damage crops, Right?

Your right there is a pattern here, it's having your own cake and eating it too!

I've asked a lot of questions and have not had one answered yet. Maybe you could answer this?

Does MOGA poll their constituents before moving forward on a bill? Just how does that work? Every time I call you guys out on something MOGA has done, you claim your innocent. If that's the case stop belonging to MOGA. They give all outfitters a black eye. No sportsman's group that I know of will speak publicly without authority from the group.

I think your having comprehension problems. If you re read my post, I said the EMP needs revisited. Most management of game occurs on public lands. If the objective is held higher and you utilize page 55 of the EMP you can have more game on public (were they are assessable to mash em up type season structures). You take the harbored elk numbers out of the equation, and can have more elk on public lands.

I could care less if people harbor elk, that's their choice, but if their bitching about the elk populations being to high then they either need to open up , or shut up. I

 

[Straight Arrow]

"because Eric and I are both MOGA board members that we wanted more non-resident tags. Never one time did either of us give you, or anyone else that impression."

You and Eric effectively and clearly express your views on this forum in constructive debate that causes me to open my eyes to some good points, perhaps not otherwise considered. If you are an active member of the MOGA board and were not in favor of promoting legislation requiring more non-resident tags, then did either of you speak up and oppose the bill(s) pushed by MOGA?

The point is that merely sitting back and allowing a bad idea to go forward is de facto supporting it ... as contrasted by the act of opposing the bad idea by stating the obvious reasons for not wasting time on legislation for more licenses when many existing are unsold and promoting a bill which MOGA knows will be opposed by resident hunters and others.

Some of MOGA's proposals appeared to be outfitters peeing into the wind ... hoping to somehow hit and irritate resident sportsmen.

 

[Eric Albus]

I spoke in opposition of 380...personally I thought a waste of time to ask for more tags when there is an undersell....all it would have resulted in was the Dept. selling 150-200(if that many) FEWER general elk, or elk/deer combos....there would not have been any more non-residents showing up, just less tags sold out of the general pool.

The "free access" I give is to my own private ranches and my private leases...(i really do not know why I answered that question, other than it pissed me off to have anything other suggested)

The breaks are over objective in elk numbers. I will know more in a few days assuming I can stop farming/ranching long enough to attend the Breaks Elk Working Group in Malta. There needs to be some incentive for a couple key landowners to allow access for cow elk...such as a 4 week bull season and last week cow only, or a late cow season....and remember, I have no dog in this fight...I just want to see the landowners who are allowing access to the public continue to do so...if they get mad enough over to many elk, they may well close their land, or worse.

As to "dispersing the game"...if the public hunted like they had a brain, the elk would not all wind up on a small piece of private land...the elk are forced onto "refuges" of private, an elk hates nothing worse than to be scared out of their day beds...I have seen elk in the breaks run 10 miles or more after some nimrod walks into "their bedroom" in the middle of the day...but we are not going to change hunter behavior or ethics(not that there is anything to unethical about scaring elk...its just stupid )....so we have to deal w/ what we have...private owners who are savy enough to not scare the elk off their property....and then we get to many elk and the neighbors complain...the neighbors allow hunting, so let's figure out how to keep the neighbors land open...and it may mean capitulating and have a late cow season, or a bulls for 3 weeks, cows for last 2....pains me to have to explain in such detail what is so obvious to me....or we can tell the landowners "pound sand"...and lose some access...anything you want me to tell the good folks at the meeting?

 

[shoots-straight]

Where did you speak in "opposition"? Was it at a MOGA BOD meeting?

The hunters of the state of Montana, want a 5 week hunting season. Is what your buddies and you are trying to do is dictate a lesser season structure.

Less season for open access in your area, where it makes no scientific sense is ridiculous.

Back and forth on the "over elk-population" theme. You and Shooter need to get together on this one.

Hmm, to many elk, so you want less season? The bull numbers are controlled by limited entry, so how does less season work? Those hunters will just hunt harder in the time frame given.

If they close off their lands, then Page 55 goes into effect there, and we remove those elk from the objective.

Take that to the meeting.

 

[The Hedgehog]

Why is this thread still going? SB380, obviously a completely retarded idea to throw more licenses to Montana outfitter clients with complete disregard to logic and wildlife management, ... was defeated.

As to "dispersing the game"...if the public hunted like they had a brain, the elk would not all wind up on a small piece of private land...the elk are forced onto "refuges" of private, an elk hates nothing worse than to be scared out of their day beds...I have seen elk in the breaks run 10 miles or more after some nimrod walks into "their bedroom" in the middle of the day...but we are not going to change hunter behavior or ethics(not that there is anything to unethical about scaring elk...its just stupid )....

Your comments make me think of a recent conversation I had with a Bozeman bowhunter who visits "the breaks" annually. We both laughed about our similar hunting ways, being impatient, and going right on in, fast and direct, when we see an elk we want. Different strokes for different folks- I guess. The hunter I'm talking about name is Lucas and from the looks of his recent successes in the breaks, I'd be inclined to think the top end bulls are far, far better than you claim (top end 280-300).

Since this subject is a dead issue, could you please start a new thread, maybe on on-line clinic on how to hunt elk.

Please keep in mind there's a good number of folks that don't give a rats ass who shuts down their ranch due to some temper tantrum. Just the elk hunting tips please. That would be more interesting and less full of drama.

 

[The Hedgehog]

Maybe I should be asking those outfitters down by Gardiner how to hunt elk. I've fond memories of them corralling herds of elk up on the flats and having clients banging away at them (on public), cowboy style. Lots to learn about non-stupid ways of hunting.. I went off a horse yesterday and broke my back, should have consulted with Hoppe, the Johnsons, etc. on cowboy skills.. It's never too late to teach an old dog new tricks. Heck, maybe Big Shooter could have helped... he's a rodeo coach. Why is it all those rodeo kids get thrown and never seem to break bones?

 

[Big Fin]

As to "dispersing the game"...if the public hunted like they had a brain, the elk would not all wind up on a small piece of private land...the elk are forced onto "refuges" of private, an elk hates nothing worse than to be scared out of their day beds...I have seen elk in the breaks run 10 miles or more after some nimrod walks into "their bedroom" in the middle of the day...but we are not going to change hunter behavior or ethics(not that there is anything to unethical about scaring elk...its just stupid )....so we have to deal w/ what we have...private owners who are savy enough to not scare the elk off their property....and then we get to many elk and the neighbors complain...the neighbors allow hunting, so let's figure out how to keep the neighbors land open...and it may mean capitulating and have a late cow season, or a bulls for 3 weeks, cows for last 2....pains me to have to explain in such detail what is so obvious to me....or we can tell the landowners "pound sand"...and lose some access...anything you want me to tell the good folks at the meeting?

That may be some isolated instances in your area, Eric, but over here, that is not even remotely what is the cause of elk ending up on private sanctuaries.

First, most the summer range is public and the winter range in our part of the state is private. Elk are headed there about the time hunting season starts, regardless of how stupid the hunters are in their manner of hunting them. Just a natural migration from high country (mostly public) to low country (private).

Second, we have a ton of "new age landowners" who don't give a rats ass about hunting, about their neighbor trying to raise cattle, or about game management. They moved to this part of the world to enjoy their wealth, build a huge mansion in the middle of elk ground, put a big arch over the ranch entry, and watch the elk feed in their yard for the two weeks each year that they are here.

The areas with the greatest problems we deal with related to over abundance of elk, is because of out of state owners who don't let anyone hunt, not even outfitters. So, how do you solve that problem, when the elk congregate on these places from pressure by both public hunters and outfitted hunters?

These people aren't going to let any of us hunt, but when hunting season is over, the elk move over to property of guys who let us hunt during season and eat him out of feed. Even though the working ranch neighbor let us hunt, it did no good, as all the elk headed to the sanctuary once the first bullets were shot.

Since property rights in this country are protected, I am at a loss as to how you manage elk in that situation. Unless you are Department of Livestock and you can enter private property to kill animals, regardless of the 5th Amendment.

Lastly, we can thank HB 42, the Debbie Barrett bill for complicating the process even further. That bill said we had to shoot the crap out of elk, per legislative mandate. So, either-sex tags, extra cow tags, late seasons, early seasons, you name it. Since we didn't have access to the sanctuary ranches where the huge number of elk were located, all the hunting pressure was deflected to the cows on public to the point where hardly any cow elk were left on public in some of these areas.

What elk remained were the sanctuary elk who never were very migratory, or if migratory, the GPS collar data shows they move low well before rifle season starts. So, now we end up with a lot more elk that migrate earlier or are permanent residents of the lower country areas that we cannot get to. These are the elk that are eating the working ranches out of feed, not the few remaining cow elk that hang up in the public high country until the bitter end. And we have fewer and fewer elk on the public, the elk that were migratory and over hundred of years had been conditioned to stay high (public) until the winter got bad. Most those cows got show, due to all the pressure we put on elk and the fact that the only place they were accessible was on the public.

The situation created by these elk sanctuaries is very complicated. Unless some advocate giving DOL the right to trespass and kill elk the way DOL is allowed to trespass and kill bison, it is not going to be solved. It is not a function of stupid hunting methods. It is a function of private property rights and some property owners not caring if their high elk tolerance causes their neighbors a huge financial burden.

Point being, what might be an example you use in Region 6 is probably a completely different set of circumstances that what we see in Region 2 or 3.

Big Shooter mentioned meeting with people from each constituent group. Count me in, if I would be allowed. Say when and where, and I would love to meet with the landowners Shooter referenced, meet with you, and a few other outfitters (some I won't meet with).

A lot more progress is usually made by meeting face to face than lobbing artillery on the internet. Look forward to visiting.