Caribou Gear

SFW on public lands?

Big Fin

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 27, 2000
Messages
16,725
Location
Bozeman, MT
So, as if SFW did not create enough problems for public land hunters and anglers when they fought, successfully, to change the Stream Access Law in Utah, we again see their true colors when it comes to public land hunters. I will provide another example with an email from the ranks of SFW that has to make any hunter shake their head and wonder what SFW really stands for.

There is a bill in the Montana legislature, SB 237, that would place a "No net gain of public land" doctrine over FWP. The bill is sponsored by Senator John Brenden, a known anti-public land hunter and self-proclaimed PITA for FWP. The list of co-sponsors have not shown to have much use for public land hunters and anglers.

Here is a link to the bill.

http://data.opi.mt.gov/bills/2013/billhtml/SB0237.htm

Some resident hunting groups sent out emails to ask for opposition to this bill, illustrating the negative impacts this bill can have on purchases of key wildlife habitat. Think Porcupine, Robb-Ledford, Taylor Fork, Wall Creek, Sun River, Beartooth, Royal Teton, etc.

I don't know of any hunter/angler group that would support a bill that imposes a no-net gain policy on FWP, given how critical it is that we continue to acquire our best winter ranges in this time of continued development activity and ability to acquire access when access is so heavily under attack. Well, with one exception of one group.

Many times, these critical wildlife properties are acquired at a bargain sale from landowners who have a conservation ethic that makes Montana such a wondeful place. Many times they are handed over to FWP from other groups or agencies, with FWP paying a small fraction of the price FWP would have to pay if they did the deal all by themselves.

Look at Taylor's Fork as a recent example. USFS, RMEF, and the Trust for Public Lands put up about 80% of the money and bought the land from a guy who sold it at a discount from FMV.

As a result, hunters, via FWP ownership, ended up with control of the best elk migration corridor in SW Montana, for pennies on the dollar. This bill would prohibit that kind of collaborative acquisition with conservation-minded landowners and other non-profit groups.

Maybe it is not reasonable to expect the recent carpetbagger groups to understand anything about Taylor's Fork, given they arrived in this state five years after the heavy lifting was completed by hunters and other groups. Nor would the recent immigrants understand the same thing was done with Royal Teton, etc.

Since these legislators have publicly expressed their firm position to stop critical land acquisitions, the bill itself and the list of co-sponsor comes as no surprise. What comes as a big surprise is that a "supposed" hunting group is supporting the bill that would prohibit FWP from acquiring such lands, unless they sold the same amount of acreage.

Below is a copy of the email where one group appears to be supporting the no net gain bill. It was issued in reply to one action alert sent by a resident hunting group asking hunters to defeat this bill. Read this and see who is the "phony sportsmen group?"

----- Forwarded Message -----
From: XXXXX XXXXXXX<[email protected]>
To: XXXXXXXXX
Sent: Thursday, March 21, 2013
Subject: SB 237 & SB 397

Here is an example what the phony sportsmens groups are doing, with regard to opposing bills that would improve on how FWP manages current land and allow more predators to be harvested where elk are in decline.

There is never any guarantee that when the government acquires land it will provide access or hunting, fishing, trapping opportunity. In fact in many cases the government owned ground has been targeted as special habitat for one species or another that precludes multiple use and access. Also these government grounds are subject to have the anti-hunting/trapping extremists demand shifting from consumptive use to non consumptive use.


The only way to overcome them is to support these bills.

Keith Kubista

I suspect when the spotlight heats up that some in SFW will claim that Mr. Kubista supported this bill as his own person, not as a part of SFW. Surely could be the case.

Maybe he is a different guy than the one shown in the image below. Here is a screen shot of a public information record showing the MT SFW annual report that was filed on 3/22/2013 and is available for $2.00 from the Montana Secretary of State website.

SFW.jpg

Really, I am not making this up. If not for their proven track record of anti-wildlife and anti-public land hunter/angler, it would almost be too incredulous to believe, but SFW supporters never cease to amaze. Decide for yourself who is on the side of the public land hunter.

And hopefully you will decide to email the committee members to defeat this bill. Link to the legislative message system provided here.

It is most efficient to message the entire House Natural Resources Committee. Make reference to SB 237. Let them know how you feel about restriction public land acquisitions. If you can't make it to the hearing, emails and calls are greatly appreciated.

http://leg.mt.gov/css/Sessions/63rd/legwebmessage.asp

Note how the bill was put in the Natural Resources Committees, rather than the House Fish and Game and House FWP committees.

If you know any of these members personally, a personal phone call to them can make a big difference. The bill is being heard on April 3rd at 3pm in Room 172.

Bennett, Jerry (R - Ch)
Connell, Pat (R – V Ch)
Court, Virginia (D – V Ch)
Doane, Alan (R)
Eck, Jenny (D)
Fitzpatrick, Steve (R)
Galt, Wylie (R)
Hoven, Brian (R)
Lieser, Ed (D)
Lynch, Ryan (D)
Miller, Mike (R)
Pomnichowski, JP (D)
Shaw, Ray (R)
Warburton, Wendy (R)
White, Kerry (R)
Williams, Kathleen (D)
 
I don't have a dog in the struggle for MT land (at least as of yet I have never tried to hunt there). But, originally coming from a state (IN) with a very small amount of public land where opportunities to hunt are limited unless you are a landowner, thi saddens me. How would anyone think that acqistion of land for pubic enjoyment through voluntary transactions? I hope you all in MT can beat this back.
 
At the risk of sounding naive and uninformed, can someone even begin to articulate the opposing view? What's the downside to FWP acquiring wildlife habitat? What's the problem with the state working to conserve at-risk pieces of ground that hold game and fish? Fin, can you educate me???? What's their argument?
 
Once again SFW slithers in with a message not supported by reasonable Montana Resident sportsmen. They never show unless it is rabidly anti predator, self-serving, or MOGA supported. SFW uses Toby Bridges as a biological expert.
One might be able to make the argument that Debbie Barrett, John Brenden, and crew who were recipients of the max. political contribution from all the Wilk bros and wives are SFW and MOGA folks. They group together to promote the leasing of Eastern Montana and corresponding erosion of resident hunters wanting to go there. They encourage more tags for the NR and/or affluent. Seems like a full blown attack on the North American Model to me.
If you look at the leased land map, some of the areas are so leased up, why go there. Are E. Montana towns suffering because of all the leasing...YES. Do we need the ability to protect key parcels of land for habitat, winter game ranges, migration corridors, on and on. These are sportsmen $ and SFW, MOGA, John Brenden, Debbie Barrett, and thew Will bros should not be allowed to bull the game!
 
In case you are curious, MSA is the "phoney sportsmens group" that Keith was alluding to in his email. We are the ones who have been testifying in Helena 2-3 times a week since the session started in Jan. SFW has been rarely seen opposing those bills attacking our wildlife resources and the rights of the average hunter. It was MSA that pushed the FWP commission to authorize 3 wolf tags for trapping which they approved prior to the season starting. But then none of us make any money off our wildlife resources so we must be a bunch of phonies.
 
At the risk of sounding naive and uninformed, can someone even begin to articulate the opposing view? What's the downside to FWP acquiring wildlife habitat? What's the problem with the state working to conserve at-risk pieces of ground that hold game and fish? Fin, can you educate me???? What's their argument?

The recent Milk River purchase certainly didn't help matters. Plus, all the paranoia such as "taking land out of the county tax rolls", which isn't true either.
 
At the risk of sounding naive and uninformed, can someone even begin to articulate the opposing view? What's the downside to FWP acquiring wildlife habitat? What's the problem with the state working to conserve at-risk pieces of ground that hold game and fish? Fin, can you educate me???? What's their argument?

I can only surmize and take from the email they sent out. Copy of the most telling lines below:

There is never any guarantee that when the government acquires land it will provide access or hunting, fishing, trapping opportunity. In fact in many cases the government owned ground has been targeted as special habitat for one species or another that precludes multiple use and access. Also these government grounds are subject to have the anti-hunting/trapping extremists demand shifting from consumptive use to non consumptive use.
I struggle to connect those dots they are advocating, but I cannot say I have good luck at following the path SFW promotes.

It does fall in line with Don Peay's efforts with Utah SFW to completely re-write the Utah Stream Access Law. Utah had a court case that was settled on behalf of anglers, almost identical to the Montana Stream Access Law.

Citing abuse by "greedy sportsmen," Mr. Peay and SFW lead the charge to get a bill passed, HB 141 that would show "more respect for private property rights." Really, I am not making that up either. Link provided here -

http://www.sltrib.com/ci_14839041

Research the history of Utah House (?) Bill 141 from 2010. See who was the big promoter of that bill. SFW and Don Peay. Then decide if SFW is on the side of the public land hunters and anglers.

Looks like the money that comes from Utah has strings attached that require the same perspective on public land hunters. Or, the MT SFW guys mirror Don Peay's and Utah SFW's ideas on public land access for hunters and anglers.

All the key winter ranges in Montana were put together by groups who then sold at a huge discount to FWP, or by outright purchases of FWP. I am talking the best of the best. And right now, some of the best is still for sale adjacent to one of our most critical game ranges and if ever it became available at a reasonable price, I can see FWP and other conservation partners making a run at it.

We all knew some legislators would be PO'd as FWP for the way the Milk River Ranch went down. You read my complaints about that on this site. But, we have a new Governor, a new FWP Director, and looks like we will have a new Commission. Things are changing and most of the reasonable legislators have commented positively in what they hope will be less political useage of FWP by the Governor.

That is why it comes as no surprise that the usual suspects in the Legislature will push a bill like this.

The big surprise comes when SFW will support such a bad bill and that they would grasp for such strange foothold as reason to support the bill. Looking at how new they are to Montana hunting and conservation issues, I can understand lack of historical perspective. Yet, it is hard to understand the lack of concern they demonstrate for public land hunters and anglers. I can't understand that from a supposed hunter group and I won't sit idly by while they continue to support such stuff.

The body of evidence of SFW actions across the west makes it hard to understand their motives in the context of a public land hunter/angler. But, that body of evidence sure shows some patterns that are not beneficial to the public land hunter/angler.
 
And right now, some of the best is still for sale adjacent to one of our most critical game ranges and if ever it became available at a reasonable price, I can see FWP and other conservation partners making a run at it.

You wouldn't happen to be referring to the Dome Mountain Ranch, would you? I exchanged emails with the RMEF and FWP lands folks about the feasibility (however remote) of acquiring that place. I've quite literally said a prayer about that place. I would love to see it annexed to the existing WMA. It's an awesome slice of elk country that the struggling herd needs to see protected.

Wish I had the means to scratch out the check myself.
 
Nope, not Dome Mountain, as nice as that would be for an addition to the winter range. The area I am talking about is two valleys to the west.
 
Ahh.. Okay. Well, it just underscores the need for bills like this to be shot down. There are so many worthy projects. Thanks for bringing it to our attention.
 
The "Habitat Montana" program they talk about comes from hunters dollars. The majority of that money comes from non resident license fees. This is partly why Montana resident are enthusiastic to share our wildlife with others. We in tern purchase land that holds great potential for habitat and hunting opportunity.

If you or your organization is against that, then I question you and your groups motives.:mad:
 
This is partly why Montana resident are enthusiastic to share our wildlife with others.

Sure could have fooled me shoots-straight, or were you crossing your fingers when you typed that? "Enthusiastic to share" with non-residents? Right. Just between you, me and the tooth fairy...MSA isn't particularly enthusiastic about sharing much with with non-residents except paying for the majority of Montana's wildlife management.

If you or your organization is against that, then I question you and your groups motives.
Better look in the mirror shoots.
 
Last edited:
Sure could have fooled me shoots-straight, or were you crossing your fingers when you typed that? "Enthusiastic to share" with non-residents? Right. Just between you, me and the tooth fairy...SFW isn't particularly enthusiastic about sharing much with with non-residents except paying for the majority of Montana's wildlife management.


Better look in the mirror shoots.

Take away the Habitat Montana money and see how Enthusiastic we become.

internet-troll-troll-cat.gif
 
One might be able to make the argument that Debbie Barrett, John Brenden, and crew who were recipients of the max. political contribution from all the Wilk bros and wives are SFW and MOGA folks. They group together to promote the leasing of Eastern Montana and corresponding erosion of resident hunters wanting to go there. They encourage more tags for the NR and/or affluent. Seems like a full blown attack on the North American Model to me.
If you look at the leased land map, some of the areas are so leased up, why go there. Are E. Montana towns suffering because of all the leasing...YES. Do we need the ability to protect key parcels of land for habitat, winter game ranges, migration corridors, on and on. These are sportsmen $ and SFW, MOGA, John Brenden, Debbie Barrett, and thew Will bros should not be allowed to bull the game!

Joe, give me a break. I have never met Debbie Barrett, and I know John Brenden a little as a fellow farmer, and neither are "MOGA" folks. They do not "group together to promote leasing of Eastern Mt."....that is pure garbage. And do tell, how are Eastern Montana towns "suffering from leasing"?

I do agree that we need the ability to protect key pieces of habitat, and I could even make an exception to my "no net gain" philosophy, IF the parcel were a key piece for the resource. The Milk River Ranch would not qualify, and sticks in the craw of a lot of folks, evidenced by the amount of access LOST due to the purchase.
 
Eric, If you spent much time at legislature you'd know that Debbie Barrett and John Brenden are resident sportsmen haters. Mac has them in his pocket...good for you. The worm will turn. And they do group together to promote the agenda of E. Montana land leasing outfitters. Take a look at the outfitter leased map and tell me why a resident sportsmen would want to go to Broadus Mont. We have heard from folks there and all over E. Montana including Lewistown to the same tune. "Pure garbage" my butt!
You saw MSA, MWF, and most other sportsmen groups rise up against the Milk RR deal. We crucified Maurier, the commission and the former Gov. Because the former Gov used his position to ram this thru doesn't make every purchase a bad thing. Purchases of key parcels of habitat, migration corridors, winter range, etc. are more than justified if sportsmen agree on what their money is spent for.
Certainly there was access lost by the Milk RR deal but nothing compared to what outfitters are locking up in E. Montana.
 
As far as NR hunters are concerned, Shoots is right, we welcome them. Hopefully they go with an outfitter who isn't locking resident hunters out then whining about too many antlerless critters. But we will draw a line on numbers and % of permits. Certainly MOGA has promoted all those bills and tried to bowl us over. MSA, MWF, and many sportsmen groups have testified as to leaving the number of NR licenses allowed static and the % static. To say that we will oppose your efforts to increase that share is an understatement.
 
Joe, you would rather see non-res. hunters competing on accessable land than hunting private lands that 99% of the residents don't have access to? I would much rather see non-residents hunting private land that I can't/don't have access to than competing w/ me on the CMR or BLM, but that is just me.

I am not in favor of more permits for non-res., but I do think 10% is unreasonable, not "up to 10%", but an actual 10%.....what I am really in favor of is managing accessable lands so I do not have to listen to the incessant whinning about "outfitters have all the best hunting locked up"....and by the way, outfitters are leasing roughly 6.4 million acres now....hardly a dent in a state of 96 million acres.
 
Joe, give me a break. I have never met Debbie Barrett, and I know John Brenden a little as a fellow farmer, and neither are "MOGA" folks. They do not "group together to promote leasing of Eastern Mt."....that is pure garbage. And do tell, how are Eastern Montana towns "suffering from leasing"?

I do agree that we need the ability to protect key pieces of habitat, and I could even make an exception to my "no net gain" philosophy, IF the parcel were a key piece for the resource. The Milk River Ranch would not qualify, and sticks in the craw of a lot of folks, evidenced by the amount of access LOST due to the purchase.

If this bill passes, you better hope the wildlife numbers bounce back. If they don't, then with or without the legislature we will be going after the 17,000 combo tags.:W:What encentive do we have to share with NR anymore? At least not in the numbers we have been. Cut your nose off, and see what it gets you.
 
Last edited:
Joe, you would rather see non-res. hunters competing on accessable land than hunting private lands that 99% of the residents don't have access to? I would much rather see non-residents hunting private land that I can't/don't have access to than competing w/ me on the CMR or BLM, but that is just me.

I am not in favor of more permits for non-res., but I do think 10% is unreasonable, not "up to 10%", but an actual 10%.....what I am really in favor of is managing accessable lands so I do not have to listen to the incessant whinning about "outfitters have all the best hunting locked up"....and by the way, outfitters are leasing roughly 6.4 million acres now....hardly a dent in a state of 96 million acres.

So as a non-resident, I am welcome to hunt in MT as long as spend the extra $4-6000 to hunt with a guide?
 
GOHUNT Insider

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
113,556
Messages
2,024,981
Members
36,228
Latest member
PNWeekender
Back
Top