Sweet Grass Hills!

[shoots-straight]

​

Sorry we have not sent out any recent emails but that does not mean we have not been busy working behind the scenes and with groups to protect the Montana resident sportsmen.
Below is a link to an article regarding an outfitter that wants to lease BLM land in the Sweet Grass Hills. Hopefully you can open the link.
While the public will still be able to hunt the ground, the application calls for up to 24 hunter days which means they could actually take 1 hunter a day for 24 days.
The outfitter, Northern Rockies Outfitters LTD, according to their website already leases 65,000 acres of private land and now they want to start leasing BLM ground as well.
MSA has gone on record in opposition to this application/permit. The deadline for comments is Aug. 9, 2013. Feel free to forward this email to all your hunting friends.

Please let your thoughts known.

Montana Sportsmen Alliance Leadership group

http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/greatfallstribune/access/3023953711.html?FMT=FT&FMTS=ABS:FT&type=current&fmac=04552ad5deb5600c24dd3145f168d6ee&date=Jul+19%2C+2013&author=Karl+Puckett&desc=BLM+to+look+at+big-game+guide+permit






Send comments to Kathy Tribby at the Malta Field Office, 501 South 2nd St. E., Malta, MT 59538 or via email at [email protected] Comments must be received by Aug. 9. For more information, call Kathy Tribby at 406-654-5124.

friend on Facebook | forward to a friend ​

Copyright © 2013 Montana Sportsmen Alliance, All rights reserved.
You are receiving this email because you are a member of Montana Sportsmen Alliance.
Our mailing address is:
Montana Sportsmen Alliance 5205 Eclipse Drive
Bozeman, MT 59715

Add us to your address book
​

​

unsubscribe from this list | update subscription preferences ​

 

[mtmuley]

My grandparents, parents and myself are all native of that area. I remember hunting the Hills as a kid. I went back a few years ago with a friend that drew an elk tag. How things have changed. mtmuley

 

[Eric Albus]

I know Rich really well,and generally let's residents hunt elk if they ask, and only wants this permit so he won't get in trouble if he has a client shoot a buck on a ranch he is hunting. He is not trying to compete w/ the public on accessable lands, he just wants to do the right thing and pay a fee so he does not get a ticket for hunting on an isolated tract of BLM. But as usual anything that an outfitter tries to do is viewed w/ suspicion by the "haters".

 

[The Hedgehog]

I've also met the guy, seemed like a pretty good man.

Why is MSA against him being able to lease public for hunting? Isn't that what lots of outfitter do? Why is this any different? I don't get it.

Because the natives have vision quests there? WTF.

 

[mtmuley]

Rich offered to let us hunt, but later in the season than we planned on being there. Sure gets pounded for deer these days. Rich has a lot of ground leased that my family could hunt years ago. Economics I guess. We hunted through an area where the natives have the ceremonial blankets or whatever they are. Kinda creepy. mtmuley

 

[dexnrex]

I don't understand the resistance to the idea either. All other BLM in MT is accessible to outfitters and to the public. If the lease excluded the public there would be an issue, but that is not the case. It seems to me that by opposing something as trivial as this the MSA has more to lose than gain. I was right there during the legislative session commenting in favor of resident sportsmen so I'm up on the issue, but at some point someone needs to step up and be the bigger man and do something positive and unifying. This would have been an opportunity for the MSA to just that. I think it is possible there was more to gain than to lose by not opposing the permit.

 

[shoots-straight]

I've also met the guy, seemed like a pretty good man.

Why is MSA against him being able to lease public for hunting? Isn't that what lots of outfitter do? Why is this any different? I don't get it.

Because the natives have vision quests there? WTF.

MSA is a group that stands up for resident sportsman.

Outfitters pay a very small fee to commercially hunt public lands. If he takes 4 hunters in there, and gets $4000 a hunter then the fee to BLM will amount to a petty $480.

The permit is for 24 hunter days. He'll be able to put pressure in there everyone of the days with several different hunters, where the average resident hunter or unguided non resident will only hunt a third of that. It's an unfair advantage to the outfitters.

It's relatively a small area with a lot of pressure, there's no need for more, especially commercial. Also we understand that he has 65,000 acres of land already tied up.

How can we make sure that residents can hunt on those lands he has leased. It would be nice to broker a deal, but I'm not the one that could address that.

If our mission statement is to support and stand up for the resident sportsman, then that's what we are going to do.

Outfitters lease a bunch of private lands, do we want the rest of the accessible public given to them too?

 

[mtmuley]

I'm betting he doesn't use all 24 hunter days anyhow. Probably only if he knows a good mule deer buck is there. Seems to be just covering his rear. I don't believe any outfitter should have an unfair advantage on private land over public hunters, and am having a hard time seeing one here for Birdsell. mtmuley

 

[shoots-straight]

The other thing that I'd like to point out to all of you, is that of the last two legislative sessions, MOGA has come out trying to increase non resident tags. If we allow more growth in this industry we are helping to perpetuate the need for the increase.

Makes me wonder about how short the resident sportsman's memory is?

 

[howler]

several guys I've talked to in the general area are against the request not because they are against an outfitter competing with them on public land but they are concerned that the adjacent private lands which are now enrolled in BM might change if the outfitter wants to expand again, this outfitter might be good as gold, but the sportsmen of Mt have been burned so many times there is a real trust issue, this outfitter already leases ranches with over 65K acres, why would he want to get an outfitter's permit on a piece of BLM land surrounded by private land that hold the access to the BLM. Now getting back to the trust issue, well I might have been born at night but it wasn't last night. Also like I said this guy may be a good solid citizen but to me the risk is to high...

 

[1_pointer]

I've also met the guy, seemed like a pretty good man.

Why is MSA against him being able to lease public for hunting? Isn't that what lots of outfitter do? Why is this any different? I don't get it.

Because the natives have vision quests there? WTF.

This! Will MSA be protesting/appealling all outfitter permit request on public lands?

FWIW, I am unaware of an reg/rule/law that would allow the BLM to grant him sole access for hunting on these lands. I cannot imagine how there could be any curtailing of public opportunity by granting this permit.

I will agree that access to these lands through adjacent private lands could be an issue, but that is a totally seperate issue. To me this sounds like axe grinding with little upside for MSA...

 

[mtmuley]

From some of what I saw, and stories from a manager of a large property enrolled in BM, the sportsmen themselves may end up causing a loss of access. mtmuley

 

[Eric Albus]

shoots, we do not need those extra tags, we have plenty of them left over right now, and yes it was STUPID and against my urging that those extra tags were asked for this last session.

If MSA is worried about the resident sportsmans access why are you not looking to find solutions to the problems? FWP has been very busy alienating themselves, a lot of acres went out of BM this year, a lot of ranches open to the public were locked up over Milk River Ranch, Bison and a litany of other reasons.
Protesting Birdsell's appeal for a permit to take 3-4 hunters (figure out 24 days divided by 6-7 day hunt) is not going to make a difference....what has made a difference is passage of 161 and us outfitters going up exponentially on leased acres. Pre-161 we were basically on an allocation or qouta and limited to the number we could take....leased acres were static, around 6.2-6.3 million....but as I warned, those acres are way up....if you want to see expansion end, put us back on an allotment or set number of license.
No need to ask me any questions about this posting, as I will be unable to respond I am headed back to live in my camper and finish haying as it appears the rain may be over for a week or so.

 

[The Hedgehog]

MSA is a group that stands up for resident sportsman.

Outfitters pay a very small fee to commercially hunt public lands. If he takes 4 hunters in there, and gets $4000 a hunter then the fee to BLM will amount to a petty $480.

The permit is for 24 hunter days. He'll be able to put pressure in there everyone of the days with several different hunters, where the average resident hunter or unguided non resident will only hunt a third of that. It's an unfair advantage to the outfitters.

It's relatively a small area with a lot of pressure, there's no need for more, especially commercial. Also we understand that he has 65,000 acres of land already tied up.

How can we make sure that residents can hunt on those lands he has leased. It would be nice to broker a deal, but I'm not the one that could address that.

If our mission statement is to support and stand up for the resident sportsman, then that's what we are going to do.

Outfitters lease a bunch of private lands, do we want the rest of the accessible public given to them too?

How does the price of a BLM lease make your point? The low price is somehow unfair? Whose fault is that? The outfitter?

It's an unfair advantage for the outfitter - how? What's keeping you, me, and anybody else from camping out and hunting whenever we want?

So the guy has 65000 acres leased? What's that have to do with the price of tea in China? MSA thinks he somehow should be forced to allow the public on one of his paid leases -- why?

I'm usually all for the MSA position on things, but this one sure looks like BS to me.

 

[The Hedgehog]

The Browning guys having their vision quest interrupted was a more sensible reason to be opposed to it.

 

[shoots-straight]

This request is in area that historically hasn't been outfitted. It a request for a new area. The locals that have just found out about this are against it. There's is a lot of resistance now. Some have a lot of questions as to the BM thing, and the potential to change that.

How does the price of a BLM lease make your point? The low price is somehow unfair? Whose fault is that? The outfitter?

Did I say it made my point? I said it was a good reason. The fee is a joke! Did I say it was the fault of the Outfitter? They do have good lobbyists though.

How much does Randy pay for a permit to film on the same ground? I really don't know, but just a guess it's more.

It's an unfair advantage for the outfitter - how? What's keeping you, me, and anybody else from camping out and hunting whenever we want?

The request has the potential for outfitted hunters will be out everyday. There will be no rest from them in there. The non guided hunter won't. They either have to work, or take a certain time off. Should we give permits to all public ground regardless of the situations? He is a nice guy!

So the guy has 65000 acres leased? What's that have to do with the price of tea in China? MSA thinks he somehow should be forced to allow the public on one of his paid leases -- why?

Because it's adjacent to the Sweet Grass hills area, and he has the potential to close off access to those public pieces. Just because he's a good guy doesn't mean much to me.

mtmuley made the statement that the public gets to hunt his leases, so he's a good guy and should get the permit to hunt the Sweet Grass hills. My statement was in reference to that. There's no guarantee that what he was doing will continue. MSA doesn't want to force anyone with private lands or leases to have to let the public in.

Eric, I know MOGA doesn't need more tags, but they keep running bills to request more. Why is that.

MSA doesn't want to see outfitter expansion at the expense of the resident sportsman.

 

[ingomar]

First, MSA is not anti-outfitting as some try insinuate. We are definitely pro-resident sportsmen and pro-wildlife resources. Public land outfitters and private land outfitters provide two different types of services. The public land outfitter who sets up camps deep in the woods provide a tremendous service for non-resident hunters who want to enjoy the overall experience as well as the hunt. The private land outfitter provides more of an opportunity for "quality" animals and a different type of experience.

Landowners have every right to lease their land or choose who they allow to hunt on it, and MSA supports private property rights.

This is not about about attacking this particular outfitter and from what I have heard he is a very good guy. According to one of the earlier comments, he is just covering himself in case one of his clients kills a buck on the BLM land. This would indicate that he leases land adjacent to this BLM ground. This also means he may be able to access it from that ranch which could allow him to access the country by a much faster means than the unattached hunter coming in from the "normal" access points. BTW, if he is just worried about an accidental kill, does he really need 24 hunter use days??

One of MSA's primary concern is regarding the adjacent lands that are currently under block management. The Block Management program cannot compete with the lease fees that private outfitters can pay. Eric is right when he says we have lost some BM lands in the last year or two based on the Milk River deal etc. Please remember that MSA fought against that purchase and took the Commission to task for their decision.

Let's face it, the unattached hunter cannot compete with an outfitter with horses that hunts/scouts the property virtually every day looking for a "trophy" animal. That's why MSA has fought so hard to protect the unattached hunter. Also, MSA has not advocated or suggested that the outfitter should be forced to open their leased private lands up to the general public.

It sounds like this outfitter works well with local hunters and that is greatly appreciated. With only 8000 acres involved and the openness of much of the land, over-crowding is definitely a concern.

Once again, MSA is not an "outfitter hater", but we are very pro-resident and unattached hunter.

 

[Straight Arrow]

MSA doesn't want to see outfitter expansion at the expense of the resident sportsman.

I think that is the basic premise and rightfully distinguishes the MSA position on many issues.
The outfitters' interests must also be respected and they are from my perspective. However, when a minority commercial interest works against the best interests of the broader hunting population, then the situation is awry and out of balance.

Admittedly, many of you who consistently post in support of outfitting likely hold a hunting philosophy and attitude much different from mine. For me, it is about maintaining the traditional Amercan hunting legacy and perpetuating programs on behalf of wildlife. I recognize the outfitting tradition and the rights of those who gain financially from hunting through established laws and regulations, however I view commercial gain from hunting as secondary and to be necessarily constrained by what's best for the larger tradition of hunting and for the health of wildlife. As an old hunting curmudgeon and advocate for wildlife, I easily tire of the rhetoric about something creating a few fleeting jobs and a temporary influx of money for a minority at the expense of the whole and at the cost to the future for great American legacies.

 

[1_pointer]

I'd like to see an ownership map of the property this guy leases. I've been around enough checkerboarded land that my guess is that one of the reason he may be applying for a permit is to not get in trouble incase a client shoots a deer on a landlocked piece of federal land. You know those 40's, 80's, and even whole sections of yellow on the map that most folks can't access anyway without his services.

 

[Redwood]

This guys intentions may be pure, what happens when the next guy comes along to do the same thing but with different intent. A precedent will have been set. I love to hunt and do it all on publicly accessible land. What happens when all the game is pressured of the public and on to private, happens everywhere every year. I feel this a slippery slope resulting in less quality public access to the everyday hunter. Has little impacted on the hardcore guys looking at bigger chunks, what about the guy/kid that wants to go out for an hour or two after work.