The Politics of Barstool Biology

[HighWildFree]

Came across this paper the other day and it resonated with me given all the discussion on here about outfitter tags, breaching dams, etc.

It's a bit jargony and maybe a little out of date, but the upshot is that hunters local knowledge and economic power is often ignored or derided, which in turn reduces our political/social power as a group.

I find figure 5 pretty interesting in that hunters tended to prioritize access and "non-intervention" whereas ranchers and outfitters prioritized exclusion and intervention. I think this dynamic is really playing out with the outfitter tag bill and the shoulder season.

Also on page 198:

"On the other hand, many environmental groups and recent migrants to the region have begun to espouse a ‘‘respect’’ for landowner knowledge, especially that of ranchers. Landowners are ‘‘close to the land’’ and have ‘‘generations of experience’’ in land management. As a result, the concession towards embracing or tolerating a view of private wilderness on the part of environmentalists has been coupled with a shift in claims about who knows more about the land. This shift has made apparently intractable problems appear more amenable to negotiation."

Nobody ever gives hunters any credit for their respect for the land or "generations of experience"

Having been at meetings where @BuzzH read folks the riot act, he might be an abrasive son of gun, but he has a ton of local knowledge, but he gets brushed off as a "barstool biologist". But some rancher gets up an rails against elk and they get deference because of their "generations of experience" and closeness "to the land."

 

[BuzzH]

I think part of the problem is that many agencies, and even hunters, bow down to the landowners since they do control their land, and in many cases, control access to landlocked public.

They also control access to the publics wildlife in a de facto way as well. I can't tell you how many times, even when a rancher is dead wrong, I've heard agency people make concessions as to not "piss off the landowners". Funny thing is though, the same land owners have NO problem pissing off anyone and everyone that has a different idea.

I was talking to a really good friend of mine that lives in Montana about this very subject. He brought up something that I had not thought of. Even within the landowner community, you can have say 5-6 landowners that are all the same page with elk management. Yet, there will be one rancher that doesn't agree with the other 5-6, yet many times the one will get his way.

That is damaging to everyone...rather than tell the ONE guy to suck it up, the hunting public and the 5-6 ranchers that are all in agreement get told to pound sand.

That creates angst toward the FWP by everyone but the ONE guy that they're unreasonably making happy. Many times it comes down to politics, the one rancher may have a hot button to the FWP, the Legislature etc. or perhaps has a bit more control over the situation.

Its a joke and I get tired of mincing words when testifying in front of the commission, agencies, legislatures, etc., so I don't. The truth of the matter is what it is...and apparently some take that as abrasive when its said. So be it.

The article was a good read, BTW.

 

[Straight Arrow]

Many times it comes down to politics, the one rancher may have a hot button to the FWP, the Legislature etc. or perhaps has a bit more control over the situation.

Especially if that rancher happens to be the Speaker of the House in the Legislature!

 

[Straight Arrow]

Especially if that rancher happens to be the Speaker of the House in the Legislature!

Oh, forgive me. I forgot to add, and is also related to the Lieutenant Governor, who has come out previously in opposition to the STREAM ACCESS LAW.

 

[elkduds]

 

[VikingsGuy]

I think part of the problem is that many agencies, and even hunters, bow down to the landowners since they do control their land, and in many cases, control access to landlocked public.

They also control access to the publics wildlife in a de facto way as well. I can't tell you how many times, even when a rancher is dead wrong, I've heard agency people make concessions as to not "piss off the landowners". Funny thing is though, the same land owners have NO problem pissing off anyone and everyone that has a different idea.

I was talking to a really good friend of mine that lives in Montana about this very subject. He brought up something that I had not thought of. Even within the landowner community, you can have say 5-6 landowners that are all the same page with elk management. Yet, there will be one rancher that doesn't agree with the other 5-6, yet many times the one will get his way.

That is damaging to everyone...rather than tell the ONE guy to suck it up, the hunting public and the 5-6 ranchers that are all in agreement get told to pound sand.

That creates angst toward the FWP by everyone but the ONE guy that they're unreasonably making happy. Many times it comes down to politics, the one rancher may have a hot button to the FWP, the Legislature etc. or perhaps has a bit more control over the situation.

Its a joke and I get tired of mincing words when testifying in front of the commission, agencies, legislatures, etc., so I don't. The truth of the matter is what it is...and apparently some take that as abrasive when its said. So be it.

The article was a good read, BTW.

And it goes beyond just hunting/wildlife stuff. A few year back when MN put in place some erosion and polution rules around field run off the farmers made a lot of noise about blocking all pheasant hunting access on their land if it went through. Some hunters were beside themselves at the threat and were running around trying to figure out how to help the farmers block these rules. But as predicted it was all "huff and puff". The rules went in place, hunters still hunted, life went on as normal. But wow - did the famer's whip everybody up.

 

[BWALKER77]

I think part of the problem is that many agencies, and even hunters, bow down to the landowners since they do control their land, and in many cases, control access to landlocked public.

They also control access to the publics wildlife in a de facto way as well. I can't tell you how many times, even when a rancher is dead wrong, I've heard agency people make concessions as to not "piss off the landowners". Funny thing is though, the same land owners have NO problem pissing off anyone and everyone that has a different idea.

I was talking to a really good friend of mine that lives in Montana about this very subject. He brought up something that I had not thought of. Even within the landowner community, you can have say 5-6 landowners that are all the same page with elk management. Yet, there will be one rancher that doesn't agree with the other 5-6, yet many times the one will get his way.

That is damaging to everyone...rather than tell the ONE guy to suck it up, the hunting public and the 5-6 ranchers that are all in agreement get told to pound sand.

That creates angst toward the FWP by everyone but the ONE guy that they're unreasonably making happy. Many times it comes down to politics, the one rancher may have a hot button to the FWP, the Legislature etc. or perhaps has a bit more control over the situation.

Its a joke and I get tired of mincing words when testifying in front of the commission, agencies, legislatures, etc., so I don't. The truth of the matter is what it is...and apparently some take that as abrasive when its said. So be it.

The article was a good read, BTW.

That is a problem. Mostly because people in government refuse to make tough choices and the squeaky wheel gets the grease.

 

[HighWildFree]

Dredging this back up because I saw something yesterday that irritated me and is pertinent to this topic.

I'm sure folks in MT have seen the FWP sponsored billboards that say things like "Ask Permission to Hunt Private Lands" or whatever. These seem to be an attempt to placate the growing conflict between landowners and sportsmen/women

Fine. Whatever

A little patronizing as it suggests that hunters don't ask for permission and must be constantly reminded with large, public billboards. However, there was another FWP billboard on I-90 that was a little hard to read in the crappy weather but I could make out "Appreciate Access" and the image of two people, seemingly conversing.

And I saw what these billboards were really; a PR show for landowners. Nobody who's out there trespassing is going to be persuaded to change their ways by a sign on the highway. All these signs do is say that hunters are the problem. Imagine if FWP had put up a billboard that said "Appreciate Hunters" or "Let Hunters on Your Land" or God forbid "Appreciate Elk", Suggesting that landowners, not hunters, were the problem.

All of this is just to highlight how the power dynamic is so shifted to landowners that even the state agency recognizes this and is actively brown-nosing landowners.