UPOM as an Anti-Hunting, Anti-Fishing Organization

[Nameless Range]

Not a deep take, but an angle from which I see.

Long ago, the Green Decoy campaign was shown to be a calculated spin, largely unsubstantiated in evidence, and borne of plutocratic propaganda. Lately, I have been thinking about the concept of organizations that truly deceive, and in Montana chief among those is the United Property Owners of Montana (UPOM).

I wouldn’t have to work too hard to convince the members of Hunt Talk that UPOM is a group contra to the interests of the DIY hunter/fisherman, but I think framing UPOM as what they are – an anti-hunting, anti-fishing organization with a name that serves the purpose of a decoy, is how Montanans should view them, and how I will talk about them moving forward. I had a conversation with someone the other day regarding UPOM, and the detriment to hunters and fishermen that their existence brings. This individual disagreed with me, so here is the rough case I made.

Anti - Fishing

One of the finest access laws in the nation is Montana’s stream access law – a bipartisan act nearly 40 years old in Montana. UPOM believes it to be a “conflict of rights”, and if they had their way would axe it. They supported Cox Kennedy's attempt to fence fishermen out of the Ruby, and their policy director called it "trespass". I really looked hard to find some stats regarding how many sportsfolk use Stream Access to pursue fish in Montana and couldn’t find anything solid. That said, I feel confident in saying something like 90% of Montanans who fish have at one point or another utilized our Stream Access Law’s tenets to do so. Millions of days of fishing have been had under its allowance, and millions more will follow. What would it mean for the quantity and quality of fishing that would never occur if it were to cease to exist? Montanans overwhelmingly support it. Not only for fishing, but…..

Anti - Hunting

I have utilized Stream Access Law to hunt waterfowl, as have tens of thousands of other hunters. Without Stream Access, thousands of hunter experiences per year would not happen – from ducks to geese.

Further, UPOM opposes the legalization of corner crossing. I suppose there is a debate to be had regarding its legality and rightfulness, but overwhelmingly, the vast majority of hunters believe it should be allowed, as it would generate legal access to millions of acres of hunting ground from which countless hunter-days on the landscape would be possible that currently are not.

Far worse, UPOM continually supports legislation that would strip Montanans the opportunity to hunt. From transferable landowner tags, to unlimited landowner permits on private land – all would unquestionably rob Montanans the opportunity to hunt their wildlife in favor of those who are not Montanans, catering to those well-connected or with fat wallets. The absolute firestorm of overwhelming public opposition from hunters that FWP experienced in the last season setting process? Proposals from UPOM. Eliminating some of the most unique and desired elk permits in Montana – from the Elkhorns to the Breaks? A proposal from UPOM. Support of HB 677 – which would have destroyed the ability of nonprofits to purchase ag land - groups like the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation? Supported by UPOM.

And on and on - from their hate of conservation easements, to trying to inject government into willing seller/willing buyer agreements, they are an organization up to no good.

Based on what Montana would be like if they got their way, UPOM really is anti-hunting and anti-fishing, far more capable and perpetually attempting to destroy those legacies in Montana than any animal rights group, and despite their name, which is nothing but a decoy, an anti-hunting and fishing organization is how they should primarily be viewed.

 

[Nameless Range]

The simple thought experiment I’m asking folks to engage in here is this.

What would hunting and fishing be like in Montana if UPOM had their way, compared to how it is now?

The answer is obvious. It would be far worse.


Or another way to look at it.

Think of how many hunting and fishing experiences you have personally had that would not have been on offer if UPOM’s model was how Montana managed its Wildlife from the get-go? I can think of dozens without much effort - from fishing with my children, to ducks on the Missouri, to the Elkhorns bull permit I had only two years ago.

One could look through dozens if not hundreds of Hunt Talk threads that would never have existed if they had their way.

 

[texwest44]

Montana needs to review their worship of big land owners in general, and quit voting for them so much. Owning 30 sections of overgrazed cattle land is not a favor provided to the public, nor is it a credential. Living in a state for 6 generations is not a favor, nor is it a credential. Being a millionaire rancher is not a favor, nor is it a credential.

It's important to respect private property, but there's a difference between respect and subservience. We need to value the ranchers in terms of food production, but there's a difference between value and worship.

Take it from a Texan: big private land owners will take everything they can, and leave the public with nothing if it's an option at all.

 

[Big Fin]

Interesting to watch them in action, stating they represent some % of landowners in Montana. Maybe they do.

In my CPA life, I get to talk to plenty of ag producers. When the topic of wildlife issues come up most are just too busy trying to make a living and have no time available for these topics so they groups represent them. Not sure if UPOM does/does not speak for them, even though we hear at testimony UPOM claiming to speak for them.

I suspect such does not exist, but it would be interesting to know what percentage of Montana ag producers actually consider UPOM their voice and what percentage of UPOM revenues come from working ag producers compared to those donors not reliant on ag income to make a living.

As to your question of what it would look like if UPOM ruled the day, one can list quite a few things that would be different, many of which you mentioned. These are ones I've been involved in where they officially testified as their position or lobbied an elected official of that position.

• Sell the public land.
• Restrict to whom a landowner can sell/donate his property, or a portion of his property rights, without oversight of County Commissioners.
• Get rid of parts of the CMR and related wild country.
• Bulls for Billionaires as the official policy of MT elk management.
• Majority of FWP Commissioners be landowners.
• Unlimited archery tags in most of Central Montana.
• Eliminate Habitat Montana.
• Zero out funding of LWCF.
• No conservation easements, even term-certain easements.
• Bison managed as livestock (which we currently have).
• Lower sage grouse habitat standards.
• Non-profits not allowed to buy properties, even if immediately transferred to a State or Federal agency.

That took about three minutes.

I know way too many good working Montana landowners/producers from decades of personal interaction to let the positions/actions of UPOM influence my positive impression of the landowners in Montana.

 

[texwest44]

We live in the time and place we do, landowner groups don't need majority-support to be successful in their goals. What every ag farmer in MT thinks doesn't matter if UPOM can get enough power and support from the desired land owners.

Would it be interesting to consider? Absolutely, statistics are interesting to consider, and they help us shape a visualization of macro-scale situations.

But there are enough instances of "small" groups or even single individuals causing mayhem with public access in MT to prove the point that sheer numbers don't necessarily matter. There's a forever thread about Hughes Creek on this forum that highlights that. Have we forgotten how very, very close the landowners got to getting all their extra bull tags out in eastern MT during the last legislative session?

No one is saying landowners are all bad, and that's not even what we're talking about here. We're talking about two opposing ideologies, and perfectly good people can oppose your best interests if they think it goes against theirs.

 

[Nameless Range]

I know way too many good working Montana landowners/producers from decades of personal interaction to let the positions/actions of UPOM influence my positive impression of the landowners in Montana.

We're talking about two opposing ideologies, and perfectly good people can oppose your best interests if they think it goes against theirs.

I totally agree with both of these statements, and to be clear I think generalizing, or worse, vilifying landowners, is a loser's errand and would be disingenuous and wrong.

I am on a working group with numerous large landowners in an over objective district. The group has done great things done together. I grew up with ranching families who are still friends. The largest landowner in the town I grew up in and someone to this day I admire greatly, was a cosponsor of the original stream access bill. None of those people - all landowners whose livelihoods are made on that which they own - seem mirrored in the majority, and very few are even slightly, by UPOM's rhetoric and goals.


My hacky attempt is just to point out that UPOM specifically, having nothing to do with the ranching families of Montana as a whole, is anti hunting and fishing, and I don't think such a statement is a stretch, and in my communication with fellow Montanans this is how I will frame them moving forward. And their name particularly, is a marketing ploy. A decoy of sorts.

 

[Gerald Martin]

As an organization, UPOM’s actions are not hunter and access friendly.

I agree with your assessment of them.

 

[MNElkNut]

Do I detect the thought of going on the offensive instead of always being on the defensive?

 

[Nameless Range]

Do I detect the thought of going on the offensive instead of always being on the defensive?

I don't know. I am not interested in a campaign, or name calling, though I could see how my post may be read that way.

Chiefly, when I hear the acronym UPOM, I think, "Oh yeah, that group whose vision would've made some of my best hunting and fishing memories impossible, and severely damage the hunting and fishing prospects of my children." I do want others to feel that way too, and if the occasion arises through conversation or discussion, to point that out. I do want Montanans to recognize the poison pill that is their model of things, and I think that can get lost in their name as well as our collective short memories.

For my own sake as much as anyone else's, I was trying to formalize that case in written form.

 

[Gerald Martin]

Unfriendly People Opposed to good Management….

 

[BRI]

@Nameless Range 100% agree. This should be an opinion piece or article in every Montana newspaper.

 

[Nameless Range]

Speak of the Devil

Lawsuit asks judge to overturn Montana's elk hunting regulations

The lawsuit accuses state officials of attempting to force public hunter access to private land through restrictive hunting regulations and programs such as game damage hunts, which require public access.

helenair.com

 

[Gerald Martin]

Speak of the Devil

Lawsuit asks judge to overturn Montana's elk hunting regulations

The lawsuit accuses state officials of attempting to force public hunter access to private land through restrictive hunting regulations and programs such as game damage hunts, which require public access.

helenair.com

Time for FWP to institute antlerless only regulations for units over objective until adequate harvest is allowed.


Talk about the people causing the problems attempting to leverage the problems they cause for their benefit….

UPOM is as anti hunting as PETA.

 

[MTelkHuntress]

"The lawsuit requests the judge declare elk regulations void, and require FWP and the commission, within 90 days to develop a plan to “remove, harvest or eliminate thousands of elk” as expediently as practicable. Regulations should be liberalized and free from special permits in over-objective districts, the lawsuit says."

Well if you can't get your way the first couple failed times good grief

"The lawsuit accuses state officials of attempting to force public hunter access to private land through restrictive hunting regulations and programs such as game damage hunts, which require public access. The policies attempt to strong-arm landowners into abandoning private property rights, the lawsuit claims, and FWP and the commission are legally required to manage to objective regardless of whether landowners allow public access."

Soooo if we raised objectives, this whole issues goes away right? At or below objective and all.... (Or antlerless only)

 

[MThuntr]

Time for FWP to institute antlerless only regulations for units over objective until adequate harvest is allowed.


Talk about the people causing the problems attempting to leverage the problems they cause for their benefit….

UPOM is as anti hunting as PETA.

Yep too if bull hunting is causing overpopulation for UPOM then let them sell cow hunts to their clientele

Remember Robbins and Co are outfitters who closed off access on Maybe Road which would have helped manage elk populations.

 

[Nameless Range]

"The lawsuit requests the judge declare elk regulations void, and require FWP and the commission, within 90 days to develop a plan to “remove, harvest or eliminate thousands of elk” as expediently as practicable. Regulations should be liberalized and free from special permits in over-objective districts, the lawsuit says."

Well if you can't get your way the first couple failed times good grief

"The lawsuit accuses state officials of attempting to force public hunter access to private land through restrictive hunting regulations and programs such as game damage hunts, which require public access. The policies attempt to strong-arm landowners into abandoning private property rights, the lawsuit claims, and FWP and the commission are legally required to manage to objective regardless of whether landowners allow public access."

Soooo if we raised objectives, this whole issues goes away right? At or below objective and all....

Some quick thoughts:

-Think of the districts that were over objective for the last decade (Elkhorns, Breaks, etc.) (The Elkhorns and Breaks are now under objective BTW). Think of how great those permits are. Now imagine if it had been open season in those places for the last decade or even for a single season within the last decade. You'd undo years and years of good management with one "Over objective" season.

-The draws have already occurred. By extension, this would undo folks draws in over objective districts. Talk about a way to piss people off.

-The legislature can undo the law right? Maybe the abandonment of Barret's bill is in order.

-Perhaps the new EMP should just remove hard objective numbers altogether.

-UPOM is the most powerful and dangerous anti-hunting group in the state in terms of a combination of the consequences and likelihood of their actual vision.

 

[TheTone]

Pass a law that does not allow for property owners to charge money for hunting of cow elk or allow outfitters to either. If these things are as burdensome as the landowners claim go full scorched earth. Haze them off private property with helicopters prior to hunting season, any that remain just aerial gun them and leave them lay

 

[Schaaf]

 

[Nameless Range]

Some other thoughts:

-We know FWP has had a "jumping of ship". I hope that is not the case in their legal dept.

-This is really going to add fuel to the fire of the landowners vs hunters delusion. Imagine hundreds or thousands of guys who drew LE permits now having to hunt in an "open season". Unfortunately, due to the intentional vagueness of their name, landowners will be generalized at a time when they needn't be, and actually quite the opposite.

-Who, if anyone, knew this was coming?

 

[Schaaf]

-We know FWP has had a "jumping of ship". I hope that is not the case in their legal dept.

I heard Becky Dockter left within the last couple weeks.