roadhunter
Banned
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2013
- Messages
- 719
So you are saying that the BLM made 3.5 billion in profit for 2013?
Wilks Bros Proposed Exchange
- Thread starter MThuntr
- Start date
So you are saying that the BLM made 3.5 billion in profit for 2013?
jryoung
Well-known member
Assuming it is an apples to apples comparison, yes.
katqanna
Well-known member
Wilks are trying another route now
BLM-Wilks land exchange off table, but online
This is the website the Wilks have set up to promote their land trade. I find it kind of ironic they bought the domain - Montana Public Access.
Its registered with GoDaddy with a private registration so you cant see who the registrant is or any other data.
BLM-Wilks land exchange off table, but online
This is the website the Wilks have set up to promote their land trade. I find it kind of ironic they bought the domain - Montana Public Access.
Its registered with GoDaddy with a private registration so you cant see who the registrant is or any other data.
bigskyblueman
Member
Ironic and Orwellian. Act II begins.
double_a85
Member
I wonder how far they will get with this...
starvingoutdoorsman
Active member
I imagine I am missing some fine print or something. Id be curious to hear Big Fins thoughts, I finally found the maps on the site. Still does not seem like a super deal.
Last edited:
Tell the lie often enough and people will believe it.
The Wilks brothers do not care one bit about you or public land.
katqanna
Well-known member
Ive had calls that the Wilks are clearing area to set up a 6 wire tall fence around the Durfee Hills area on their property. I dont know at what stage this project is at right now. It would be nice if someone who is scouting for hunting season could check on perimeter progress.
So part of my recent rash of work is dealing with the fencing laws and cases. Gathering all the data from these older hunter conservation warriors that were involved here in Montana, so that we have an accessible archive for the public to reference whenever something comes up. Interestingly one involved corner crossing and a legal case which was won in 2013, because those hunters knew the laws. If more of the public was armed with this information and the FWP Game Wardens aware, it would reduce some of the issues that hunters face.
So part of my recent rash of work is dealing with the fencing laws and cases. Gathering all the data from these older hunter conservation warriors that were involved here in Montana, so that we have an accessible archive for the public to reference whenever something comes up. Interestingly one involved corner crossing and a legal case which was won in 2013, because those hunters knew the laws. If more of the public was armed with this information and the FWP Game Wardens aware, it would reduce some of the issues that hunters face.
mdunc8
Well-known member
Looks like a decent offer. Other than folks not liking the Wilks brothers or land exchanges in general, am I missing something? There's one chunk of BLM they want that might be big enough for someone to think about hunting. Otherwise, I don't see an issue with the lands they'd like to have. On the flip side, it appears the public gains easier access to a ton of land and we get to keep the Durfee Hills.
double_a85
Member
That was my thoughts as well. The only chuck would be the F-14 next to the section of state land. Not having hunted these landlocked parcels, I guess I can say I am not "informed enough" to say this is a good or a bad thing, but on paper it seems to be a good deal with the Bullwacker access.
mdunc8
Well-known member
I think there's an easy solution to the Bullwacker access issue regardless of the swap. It would save the government some money and reduce our footprint in the area though. Not sure if there's any way to solve the access issue to the other big chunk they highlight on the website though.
I'm unsure why access to Bullwacker is even a topic of discussion... There IS multiple access points to the the public land surrounding Bullwacker rd. Cow Island Trail goes right through the BLM. Albeit you can't drive to every square inch of it... you can surely walk. The furthest point from any public access is less than 10 miles... A very short distance in comparison to many of our wilderness or even large state sections that do not allow motorized access...
roadhunter
Banned
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2013
- Messages
- 719
Ran across this on another site. I knew it sounded too good to be true. More like a 13 billion $ cost to taxpayers.
Overview The Department of the Interior oversees more than 500 million acres of land, which is about one-fifth the land area of the United States. Most of Interior's land is managed by three agencies: the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), with 256 million acres; the National Park Service (NPS), with 85 million acres; and the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), with 96 million acres.1 The department has about 70,000 employees and 2,400 offices across the country. Interior had gross budget outlays in fiscal 2011 of $20.5 billion.2 However, the department collected $7.5 billion in offsetting receipts from charges for the use of its lands and resources. Thus, Interior's net outlays—financed by taxpayers—were $13 billion in fiscal 2011. - See more at: http://www.downsizinggovernment.org/interior/reforming-federal-land-management#sthash.PIVuagv4.dpuf
jryoung
Well-known member
Hence my comment about apples to apples, I was talking about the BLM, the reference you have provided is for the entire DOI which is dozens of Departments and Offices. There are significantly more layers of complexity which requires quite a bit of analysis. That said, I am having trouble coming up with that $20.5M number that is noted for the DOI budget in full for 2012.
Here the estimate for 2012 total outlays is $11.3B
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BUDGET-2013-BUD/pdf/BUDGET-2013-BUD-15.pdf
Here the full detailed requests for 2012 from the DOI is $12.1B
http://interior.gov/budget/appropriations/2012/highlights/upload/Appendix-A.pdf
And finally, as referenced by the above link to table 33-1 the total outlays for the DOI in 2012 were $13.8B
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2012/assets/33_1.pdf
None of the above references total economic impact of the DOI lands which is a staggering amount. We know that that outdoor economy as well as the energy industry generate a tremendous amount of jobs and opportunity. At the end of the day even if the $13B "costs to taxpayers" was true and accurate, offset that amount with dollars invested in rural communities from hunting, fishing and outdoor recreation (which is a $646B industry).
Compare that to HUD, DOD, HHS, HS and DOE and that drop evaporates before it hits the bucket.
300stw
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jul 6, 2008
- Messages
- 861
when you build a 6ft tall fence all the way around the property, are you locking the public owned elk out of the private or are u locking the public owned elk out of the blm, restricted the elks free range
Topgun 30-06
Active member
If it's 6' high with single strands of barbed wire, it probably will restrict many animals at least to some extent, but an adult elk could probably go over and could definitely go through single strand type fencing. I've repaired a lot of 3 and 4 strand barb wire fences out in Wyoming that elk have taken down like it's made of string. However, if we're talking woven wire fencing that is 6' high that they may be putting up, I would suggest that would be very close to high fencing a place off to restrict ingress and egress. Does Montana have a maximum fence height or strand number in place at the present time that they would have to adhere to?.
Last edited:
MThuntr
Well-known member
I don't know if Montana has any laws that restrict types or heights of fences. I've never really thought about it. For livestock, the general consensus is that 42-46" is the maximum that is really needed for barbed wire livestock fences. I have several pairs of pants that would suggest 38-42" as a max. I know that most people agree that woven wire is bad news for wildlife. A 6' fence on level ground will only slow down an elk or grown deer but a 6' fence built on steep slopes will easily allow elk/deer over downhill but will act like a 8-9 foot fence when trying to go uphill. Either way they'll definitely be repairing the fence a lot due to elk, snow, and downfall.
Bambistew
Well-known member
When/how did a 6 wire fence become a 6' tall fence? Most good cow fences are either 5 or 6 wire. I doubt its higher than 48"
Don't think there is any law regarding height of fence. I believe that you can't "fence in" wildlife, but nothing against fencing them out.
Don't think there is any law regarding height of fence. I believe that you can't "fence in" wildlife, but nothing against fencing them out.
MThuntr
Well-known member
dang you're right I managed to cross my wires on that one.
Yeah a 6 wire fence could be just about anything. Heck some old sheep fence I've seen had 7 wires but I could have stepped over it.katqanna
Well-known member
Montana Legal Fencing defined 81-4-101-108 states not more than 44-48", 3 wire, bottom wire not less than 15-18 inches. Then there are other fences "all fences constructed of any standard woven wire not less than 28 inches in height, securely fastened to substantial posts not more than 30 feet apart, provided that two equidistant barbed wires shall be placed above the same at a height of not less than 48 inches from the ground; " and "all fences consisting of four boards, rails, or poles with standing or leaning posts not over 17 feet and 6 inches apart, provided that, if leaning posts are used, there shall be a pole or wire fastened securely on the inside of the leg or support of such leaning post; "
This is what the Skyline guys used concerning Turner when he fist set up the tall fencing for bison that was killing elk. He had to take down that fencing and make it compliant. They said they periodically drive out that way and make sure he is still in compliance.
Than I came across a quote of a law, which I need to make time to find the full document, which stated that a landowner, in trying to fence his land, couldnt enclose public lands and wildlife and that a natural barrier, in conjunction with fencing could not be used to inclose public lands or erecting fencing to other neighbors already existing fencing to inclose.
I cannot speak to the intention of the Wilks to erecting fencing around the Durfee Hills, though I am concerned with reports of landowners hazing ungulates to their private lands or prohibiting them from leaving to, public during hunting season. I know efforts in Texas of property owners to keep deer (which they viewed themselves the owners of) on their places from moving to neighbors property. Grandpa spoke of this also with one of his rancher neighbors, which at the time I found amusing, but not since leaving Texas and finding our that the wildlife are a public trust.
This is what the Skyline guys used concerning Turner when he fist set up the tall fencing for bison that was killing elk. He had to take down that fencing and make it compliant. They said they periodically drive out that way and make sure he is still in compliance.
Than I came across a quote of a law, which I need to make time to find the full document, which stated that a landowner, in trying to fence his land, couldnt enclose public lands and wildlife and that a natural barrier, in conjunction with fencing could not be used to inclose public lands or erecting fencing to other neighbors already existing fencing to inclose.
I cannot speak to the intention of the Wilks to erecting fencing around the Durfee Hills, though I am concerned with reports of landowners hazing ungulates to their private lands or prohibiting them from leaving to, public during hunting season. I know efforts in Texas of property owners to keep deer (which they viewed themselves the owners of) on their places from moving to neighbors property. Grandpa spoke of this also with one of his rancher neighbors, which at the time I found amusing, but not since leaving Texas and finding our that the wildlife are a public trust.
Similar threads
