Wilks open up Bullwacker temporarily
- Thread starter wingman1
- Start date
MThuntr
Well-known member
smoke and mirrors...get the public fooled and then pull a fast one on them.
huntin24/7
Well-known member
I think the reason he's saying smoke and mirrors is that this new access will most likely all go away if the land swap doesn't go through. I think it's reasonable that most of us are skeptical about the Wilkes intentions.
Maybe, maybe not. But don't you think that respect is a start. At some point something has to change. The animosity on both sides is sickening. You will never gain the access you wish with branding landowners into an US against them campaign. You may think I have a bit of a nieve view, but pissing off those that have game you want to hunt is about as dumb as pissing in the wind.
I've never hunted near the Wilkes, probably never will. But, I have read everything in the threads here at HT about the issue. So far, the Wilkes haven't exactly respected anybody else. Extreme wealth can do that. mtmuley
Gerald Martin
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2009
- Messages
- 8,637
http://www.greatfallstribune.com/st...8/bullwhacker-road-open-temporarily/71331442/
Oh goodie! I think you guys are giving the Wilkses way too much grief. See they want to be good neighbors and are making the first move. We should definitely make sure and swap them the Durfee hills parcel now.
What part of "Thanks but no thanks, we don't need your land for access, we'll build another road to ensure public access stays public", don't you understand?
Oh goodie! I think you guys are giving the Wilkses way too much grief. See they want to be good neighbors and are making the first move. We should definitely make sure and swap them the Durfee hills parcel now.
What part of "Thanks but no thanks, we don't need your land for access, we'll build another road to ensure public access stays public", don't you understand?
huntin24/7
Well-known member
Here's what I don't understand. They already own everything around the durfees public land. They have basically exclusive access to the best elk herd in the state. Why can't they be happy with that and not worry about the handful of hunters on the public land a few weeks every fall. When is having enough enough?
Funny stuff, for sure. After last year's fiasco and knowing this was going to be a continuing saga, I did not even apply in the Durfees this year. I doubt I'll ever apply there again. It is great elk hunting. I've just decided to move on and find other places to hunt, though I hope hunters continue to hunt there.
Anyone think the Wilks would enter into a trade where they get promises in exchange for tangible assets (land) gone forever?
Really, how long do you think Farris and Daryl and Jimmy would entertain that idea before they rolled on the floor laughing at the person who made such a proposal?
If they want to open the Bullwhacker as part of a changed approach to their interaction with others, then I will be the first to thank them.
I met with them last summer. Farris seems like a very nice guy. He is professional, courteous, and respectful. He makes it very clear where he stands and does so in a manner that I appreciate his honesty of where he comes from and what his objectives are. If you have a meeting with him, you will understand why he has been a successful business person.
All that said, he got some bad advice on many fronts in 2014. First bad advice was that somehow the Anchor Ranch was worth a King's Ransom. They way overpaid for that place and now they realize it. That land is not worth much and is worth even less now that the BLM realizes they public can fix the Bullwhacker access in short order, both logistically and financially. Much of the money has already been pledged to the BLM to prepare an alternate route.
The other bad advice they got was to go and pitch a big fit when their first lopsided proposal got rejected by the public. It was at that time when I lost a lot of respect for their group. You can disagree with someone/group you negotiate with and still respect the objectives of the other party. Happens all the time in my world as a CPA.
Yet, either Farris himself or those advising him, decided it was time for a "We'll show you" event. They can do all they want on private land. It's their land. They can burn it, till it, destroy it, improve it, whatever. Just might want to remember that your actions are going to cause people to form impressions of you and your motives; sometimes good and sometimes not so good.
They have no right to encroach their fences on the public lands as they did on the west side and the north side of the BLM and did so in the most strategic elk crossing areas. They have no right to harass hunters who are legally accessing adjacent public lands. They have no right to run their bulldozer across the BLM land. If the public did any of those things to them or their property, the "fertilizer would hit the ventilator." I can assure you the Fergus County Sheriff would be in your face in a hurry if you did to them or their land, any of the things they did to public hunters and public lands.
When you do that, your respect with others you are negotiating with goes down the crapper. That past activity is very relevant to the discussion of these new promises. To think otherwise is foolhardy. You judge the character of people by how they respond when things go south. Things went south for them last year and they responded. Now, they come back with a more polished sales pitch, acting like nothing ever happened, and somehow all the past issues are to be forgotten.
Sorry, but I'm not that naive. I don't operate that way and neither do most Montanans. If there is one thing that is probably eye-opener for them, it is how Montanans have a different public land perspective than they would have, given they come from a state with very little public land. Montanans usually don't forget when you put a boot in their eye and I suspect the same of residents they would have dealt with in other states. Still dumbfounded why they listened to the "pitch a fit" advice that they had to know would be detrimental to the trust and respect needed for any future negotiations.
I'm not sure why the BLM is even talking to them after last year. I'm not sure why the BLM would even consider a trade that includes the Bullwhacker, when the BLM knows the Bullwhacker is all but fixed, both in terms of a route that could handle ATV/UTVs and the funding is already committed to do so. To combine the Bullwhacker and the Durfees is foolish. They are two separate parcels, both having different issues and both have different paths that could lead to solutions. Combining them only helps one party to this negotiation and that party is not the public.
Remove the Bullwhacker component and look at the remainder of the proposal. It's a laugher. Any public official who would approve of a trade like the remainder of that proposal should be dismissed. It is so lopsided that it doesn't even deserve consideration. Do you think Wilks and their agents would agree with the remainder of the proposal focusing on the Durfees? Not a chance.
They preface some of their comments and summary that this trade will help with some inholdings that make for difficulty in management of lands. Fine. Yet, this was not an inholding to the N-Bar Ranch, until such time that they made it that way by purchasing the Pronghorn Ranch to the south. This BLM land was adjacent to both those ranches and not an inholding to either ranch, until they bought every piece of property surrounding the Durfees.
If they find inholdings to be problematic, it is a self-created problem. They made it an inholding; a problematic situation. The public did not do this, they did. Now, they want the public to bend over backwards to try help solve this self-made inholding problem. Sorry, but my empathy meter has a hard time getting red-lined over problems people create for themselves.
And if inholdings are so hard to manage, why does the proposal not suggest cleaning up the other inholdings? Is it because the other inholdings are small enough that hunters will not fly into them, so those inholding are not "problematic."
If they were really interested in solving the "inholding problem," it seems they would put together a proposal to address all the inholdings, rather than just the inholdings that hunters can justify accessing via air. Given that omission of the other inholdings, it is hard to take them seriously about their inholding concerns.
Now, if they really came forth with a valid proposal that was not promises in exchange for real estate deeds, then we might have something worth discussing. Once these lands leave public ownership, the land is gone in perpetuity. Whatever is given in exchange for these lands must be something the public receives in perpetuity.
If they wanted to grant hunting or access easements, those are in perpetuity. A promise to enroll in Block Management is so lame, it is not even worth out time to consider. Perpetual rights for perpetual rights only seems like the fair starting point. That is what they would require if the tables were turned.
I don't blame them for bringing forth another proposal that is so favorable to them. That is part of negotiation. Doesn't make them evil. It makes them like most other business people; looking to get the best deal they can.
And they should not be surprised that the public is up in arms protesting such a lopsided proposal. That is how negotiations work. That is how it works in a system where you have trustees appointed to represent the interest of the public. Right now, the proposal is not favorable to the public interest.
The BLM will take a serious credibility hit if they agree to this proposal. Fortunately, enough people have been involved and know the reality of each path forward. If the BLM were to take one of the paths that they might deem to be the path of least resistance, they will create far more long-term headaches than they might alleviate in the short-term.
Until then, the public needs to keep holding the BLM accountable to get a fair deal for the public. If it is not fair, then walk away. Things were just fine in MT before the Wilks showed up. Things will be just fine the way they are today.
The folks who seem in a big hurry are the Wilks and a few of their home teamers. I'm in no big hurry. If I ever do draw a sheep tag for the Breaks, I can come in by boat, I can walk around the Anchor Ranch, I can fly in for less than $1,000, I can ask some of the other landowners who control different access points. And by the time I might someday draw a 680 sheep tag, the money to re-route a trail around the Anchor Ranch should already be invested in creating that route.
As for the Durfees, I know of over 200+ hunter days that were invested in that 3,000 acres piece. I suspect it is more than double that, due to the many guys who hunted it that I don't know about. Tell me another public land place in Montana where 3,000 acres can host that much elk hunting pressure with that high of success rates? There is none.
I hear them talk about "exclusive aerial access." Someone posted on this forum that those who hunt the Durfees are "elitsits." Really, now that's some funny stuff.
It costs about $700 per person to fly a helicopter in to the Durfees for ten days of hunting, when you divide by 3 or 4 guys. If you have your own aircraft, which many of the guys in Central Montana have, it probably is a lot less than what we pay to fly our crew in there.
If I drive to my favorite public land elk place down near West Yellowstone each weekend of elk season, it costs me about the same amount in gas for my truck over the course of elk season. I guess all those guys who drive down to Taylor's Fork, Hebgen Lake, Cabin Creek, Tee Pee Creek, and hunt every weekend of season are also the "elitists" of the hunting world.
Nothing about the Durfees is exclusive or elitists when you measure what the average hunter spends in gas to hunt elk each season in Montana. Yet, some who have their own agendas to see the public give these lands away for little more than some scrubby sage and grass like to use those terms to further their agenda.
So far, nothing in the Wilks' proposal has impressed me. Nothing they have provided in terms of promises (not perpetuity) is even worth interrupting me to lower the volume on Willie's Roadhouse to even hear what more they would have to promise. I hope those in charge at the BLM see it for what it is and represent out interest to get a far better deal than what is currently proposed.
Now, if Wilks want to get serious about it; if they want to trade perpetual rights for perpetual rights; if they want to really solve the inholding problem of all inholdings and not just the self-created inholding problem; if they want to separate the Bullwhacker topic from the Durfee topic, then I am all ears. Until then, I've got weeds to pull and broadheads to sharpen.
Thanks to them for opening the Bullwhacker. Maybe it is the start of a new day. I guess time will tell. If their repackaged proposal also gets rejected and the Bullwhacker stays open, then we will know this was a true gesture on their part. If the proposal gets rejected and they close the Bullwhacker, we will now this was merely a leveraging tactic to further their position in a business negotiation. Time will tell.
Having met with them last year, I would have given them the benefit of the doubt, until such time they threw their sucker in the dirt and pitched their big tantrum of last hunting season. With those actions to demonstrate their approach to negotiations, pardon me if I have some skepticism of their motives. I suspect they would have the same if in my shoes.
Anyone think the Wilks would enter into a trade where they get promises in exchange for tangible assets (land) gone forever?
Really, how long do you think Farris and Daryl and Jimmy would entertain that idea before they rolled on the floor laughing at the person who made such a proposal?
If they want to open the Bullwhacker as part of a changed approach to their interaction with others, then I will be the first to thank them.
I met with them last summer. Farris seems like a very nice guy. He is professional, courteous, and respectful. He makes it very clear where he stands and does so in a manner that I appreciate his honesty of where he comes from and what his objectives are. If you have a meeting with him, you will understand why he has been a successful business person.
All that said, he got some bad advice on many fronts in 2014. First bad advice was that somehow the Anchor Ranch was worth a King's Ransom. They way overpaid for that place and now they realize it. That land is not worth much and is worth even less now that the BLM realizes they public can fix the Bullwhacker access in short order, both logistically and financially. Much of the money has already been pledged to the BLM to prepare an alternate route.
The other bad advice they got was to go and pitch a big fit when their first lopsided proposal got rejected by the public. It was at that time when I lost a lot of respect for their group. You can disagree with someone/group you negotiate with and still respect the objectives of the other party. Happens all the time in my world as a CPA.
Yet, either Farris himself or those advising him, decided it was time for a "We'll show you" event. They can do all they want on private land. It's their land. They can burn it, till it, destroy it, improve it, whatever. Just might want to remember that your actions are going to cause people to form impressions of you and your motives; sometimes good and sometimes not so good.
They have no right to encroach their fences on the public lands as they did on the west side and the north side of the BLM and did so in the most strategic elk crossing areas. They have no right to harass hunters who are legally accessing adjacent public lands. They have no right to run their bulldozer across the BLM land. If the public did any of those things to them or their property, the "fertilizer would hit the ventilator." I can assure you the Fergus County Sheriff would be in your face in a hurry if you did to them or their land, any of the things they did to public hunters and public lands.
When you do that, your respect with others you are negotiating with goes down the crapper. That past activity is very relevant to the discussion of these new promises. To think otherwise is foolhardy. You judge the character of people by how they respond when things go south. Things went south for them last year and they responded. Now, they come back with a more polished sales pitch, acting like nothing ever happened, and somehow all the past issues are to be forgotten.
Sorry, but I'm not that naive. I don't operate that way and neither do most Montanans. If there is one thing that is probably eye-opener for them, it is how Montanans have a different public land perspective than they would have, given they come from a state with very little public land. Montanans usually don't forget when you put a boot in their eye and I suspect the same of residents they would have dealt with in other states. Still dumbfounded why they listened to the "pitch a fit" advice that they had to know would be detrimental to the trust and respect needed for any future negotiations.
I'm not sure why the BLM is even talking to them after last year. I'm not sure why the BLM would even consider a trade that includes the Bullwhacker, when the BLM knows the Bullwhacker is all but fixed, both in terms of a route that could handle ATV/UTVs and the funding is already committed to do so. To combine the Bullwhacker and the Durfees is foolish. They are two separate parcels, both having different issues and both have different paths that could lead to solutions. Combining them only helps one party to this negotiation and that party is not the public.
Remove the Bullwhacker component and look at the remainder of the proposal. It's a laugher. Any public official who would approve of a trade like the remainder of that proposal should be dismissed. It is so lopsided that it doesn't even deserve consideration. Do you think Wilks and their agents would agree with the remainder of the proposal focusing on the Durfees? Not a chance.
They preface some of their comments and summary that this trade will help with some inholdings that make for difficulty in management of lands. Fine. Yet, this was not an inholding to the N-Bar Ranch, until such time that they made it that way by purchasing the Pronghorn Ranch to the south. This BLM land was adjacent to both those ranches and not an inholding to either ranch, until they bought every piece of property surrounding the Durfees.
If they find inholdings to be problematic, it is a self-created problem. They made it an inholding; a problematic situation. The public did not do this, they did. Now, they want the public to bend over backwards to try help solve this self-made inholding problem. Sorry, but my empathy meter has a hard time getting red-lined over problems people create for themselves.
And if inholdings are so hard to manage, why does the proposal not suggest cleaning up the other inholdings? Is it because the other inholdings are small enough that hunters will not fly into them, so those inholding are not "problematic."
If they were really interested in solving the "inholding problem," it seems they would put together a proposal to address all the inholdings, rather than just the inholdings that hunters can justify accessing via air. Given that omission of the other inholdings, it is hard to take them seriously about their inholding concerns.
Now, if they really came forth with a valid proposal that was not promises in exchange for real estate deeds, then we might have something worth discussing. Once these lands leave public ownership, the land is gone in perpetuity. Whatever is given in exchange for these lands must be something the public receives in perpetuity.
If they wanted to grant hunting or access easements, those are in perpetuity. A promise to enroll in Block Management is so lame, it is not even worth out time to consider. Perpetual rights for perpetual rights only seems like the fair starting point. That is what they would require if the tables were turned.
I don't blame them for bringing forth another proposal that is so favorable to them. That is part of negotiation. Doesn't make them evil. It makes them like most other business people; looking to get the best deal they can.
And they should not be surprised that the public is up in arms protesting such a lopsided proposal. That is how negotiations work. That is how it works in a system where you have trustees appointed to represent the interest of the public. Right now, the proposal is not favorable to the public interest.
The BLM will take a serious credibility hit if they agree to this proposal. Fortunately, enough people have been involved and know the reality of each path forward. If the BLM were to take one of the paths that they might deem to be the path of least resistance, they will create far more long-term headaches than they might alleviate in the short-term.
Until then, the public needs to keep holding the BLM accountable to get a fair deal for the public. If it is not fair, then walk away. Things were just fine in MT before the Wilks showed up. Things will be just fine the way they are today.
The folks who seem in a big hurry are the Wilks and a few of their home teamers. I'm in no big hurry. If I ever do draw a sheep tag for the Breaks, I can come in by boat, I can walk around the Anchor Ranch, I can fly in for less than $1,000, I can ask some of the other landowners who control different access points. And by the time I might someday draw a 680 sheep tag, the money to re-route a trail around the Anchor Ranch should already be invested in creating that route.
As for the Durfees, I know of over 200+ hunter days that were invested in that 3,000 acres piece. I suspect it is more than double that, due to the many guys who hunted it that I don't know about. Tell me another public land place in Montana where 3,000 acres can host that much elk hunting pressure with that high of success rates? There is none.
I hear them talk about "exclusive aerial access." Someone posted on this forum that those who hunt the Durfees are "elitsits." Really, now that's some funny stuff.
It costs about $700 per person to fly a helicopter in to the Durfees for ten days of hunting, when you divide by 3 or 4 guys. If you have your own aircraft, which many of the guys in Central Montana have, it probably is a lot less than what we pay to fly our crew in there.
If I drive to my favorite public land elk place down near West Yellowstone each weekend of elk season, it costs me about the same amount in gas for my truck over the course of elk season. I guess all those guys who drive down to Taylor's Fork, Hebgen Lake, Cabin Creek, Tee Pee Creek, and hunt every weekend of season are also the "elitists" of the hunting world.
Nothing about the Durfees is exclusive or elitists when you measure what the average hunter spends in gas to hunt elk each season in Montana. Yet, some who have their own agendas to see the public give these lands away for little more than some scrubby sage and grass like to use those terms to further their agenda.
So far, nothing in the Wilks' proposal has impressed me. Nothing they have provided in terms of promises (not perpetuity) is even worth interrupting me to lower the volume on Willie's Roadhouse to even hear what more they would have to promise. I hope those in charge at the BLM see it for what it is and represent out interest to get a far better deal than what is currently proposed.
Now, if Wilks want to get serious about it; if they want to trade perpetual rights for perpetual rights; if they want to really solve the inholding problem of all inholdings and not just the self-created inholding problem; if they want to separate the Bullwhacker topic from the Durfee topic, then I am all ears. Until then, I've got weeds to pull and broadheads to sharpen.
Thanks to them for opening the Bullwhacker. Maybe it is the start of a new day. I guess time will tell. If their repackaged proposal also gets rejected and the Bullwhacker stays open, then we will know this was a true gesture on their part. If the proposal gets rejected and they close the Bullwhacker, we will now this was merely a leveraging tactic to further their position in a business negotiation. Time will tell.
Having met with them last year, I would have given them the benefit of the doubt, until such time they threw their sucker in the dirt and pitched their big tantrum of last hunting season. With those actions to demonstrate their approach to negotiations, pardon me if I have some skepticism of their motives. I suspect they would have the same if in my shoes.
I agree with almost all of that. But, don't you think the same applies to them?
They are the ones who left the negotiating table when their first lame attempt was rejected. They are the ones who decided to act like grade schoolers by doing what they did when they didn't get what they wanted. Until that time, the public was listening.
Who was pissing off who? If not for the tantrum of last year, this process would be much further along. Who threw the tantrum?
Why do you imply that we want to "gain access?" Nobody in the public went to the Wilks and asked them to open their lands to the public. Nobody expects access to the N-Bar, the Pronghorn, the Anchor, the .......... Their land. They can do with it what they want. They come from a place where the land ethic is more based on leasing than on public access, so any Montana hunter who is foolish enough to think they will just open the gates to the public is probably a bit short on common sense.
They are the ones who came to the public and asked if we would enter into a negotiation. Fine, happens all the time. Sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't. I've been involved in hundreds of thousands of acres of land exchanges. Afterwards, both parties got what they wanted.
If anyone should understand how negotiations work, it would be them. You have to offer something to the other party that they value as much as they value the item you are asking them to give up. If not, no deal. To go and act like a victim when you do not meet that basic premise of business negotiations is pre-puberty behavior. They know it, you know it, and I know it.
I don't agree that "something has to change." Montana hunters were doing just fine when Seibel owned the N-Bar, when Sinclair Oil owned the Pronghorn. We were just going about our business, as were they. Everyone seemed to get along. Nothing changed on the public land or in the public attitude about private property rights.
What changed is the ownership of the N-Bar, the Pronghorn, and many other ranches in the area. What changed is that some group decided their newly created inholding situation is a problem.
To me, nothing had to change. And as far as I'm concerned, nothing has to change. They can continue owning their lands. The public can continue accessing the Durfees as they always have. The sheep hunters in the Breaks can continue accessing Unit 680 as they always have.
If something changes, it needs to be beneficial to both sides, not just the side who has created the changes some find so problematic. I've yet to hear any public hunters complaining that "something needs to change" in the Durfees.
Hunts
Member
Thank you Randy. Exclamation point.
antlerradar
Well-known member
If the Wilks and BLM are concerned about the management of the small inholdings of BLM The solution would be to block them up with the larger chunk BLM ground in the Durfees. Every one would gain. The Wilks would get ride of the small inholdings and the Durfees would be made better for sportsman. This sounds like a good counter offer to me. Any down sides to this?
katqanna
Well-known member
In the Gazette yesterday, which is spreading to the other Lee newspapers today, French wrote an article, Wilks brothers offer hunting access through ranch in north-central Montana. There have been a plethora of these articles of late.
But this one really pisses me off. Concerning the Block Management lure it states, "Although the offer can't be considered by the BLM in its process, the move would help Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks cut the growth of an expanding elk herd that seeks refuge during the hunting season on the Wilkses' private N Bar Ranch."
Those elk have always been there, it is elk habitat, the Wilks knew that when they bought the place. The statewide elk plan for the Snowy EMU states, "A large proportion of the occupied elk habitat is comprised of privately owned land, which the majority of the elk use year-round."
Supreme Court of Montana. State V. C. R. Rathbone decision, "Montana is one of the few areas in the nation where wild game abounds. It is regarded as one of the greatest of the state's natural resources, as well as the chief attraction for visitors. Wild game existed here long before the coming of man. One who acquires property in Montana does so with notice and knowledge of the presence of wild game and presumably is cognizant of its natural habits. Wild game does not possess the power to distinguish between fructus naturales and fructus industriales, and cannot like domestic animals be controlled through an owner. Accordingly a property owner in this state must recognize the fact that there may be some injury to property or inconvenience from wild game for which there is no recourse." C.R. Rathbone was convicted for shooting an elk, out of season, for eating the grass at his ranch.)
That elk herd belongs to the public, and those elk are not seeking "refuge" on the NBar, they came with the NBar, even before the original NBar that was created in 1882, here in Montana - the Niobrara Cattle Company, "Although N Bar headquarters was established in 1885, the story of the N Bar actually dates back to 1878 with two brothers. E. S. 'Zeke' and Henry H. J. Newman were originally from Texas and were some of the first ranchers to settle in the Nebraska sandhills and to trail cattle from Mexico and Texas into Montana. "
The NBar website states,
The Wilks knew exactly what they were getting when they bought that place - lots of gorgeous elk. What they may not have known, was that they "werent in Kansas anymore" and those public elk belong to the people, not the landowner, like back in Texas.
But this one really pisses me off. Concerning the Block Management lure it states, "Although the offer can't be considered by the BLM in its process, the move would help Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks cut the growth of an expanding elk herd that seeks refuge during the hunting season on the Wilkses' private N Bar Ranch."
Those elk have always been there, it is elk habitat, the Wilks knew that when they bought the place. The statewide elk plan for the Snowy EMU states, "A large proportion of the occupied elk habitat is comprised of privately owned land, which the majority of the elk use year-round."
Supreme Court of Montana. State V. C. R. Rathbone decision, "Montana is one of the few areas in the nation where wild game abounds. It is regarded as one of the greatest of the state's natural resources, as well as the chief attraction for visitors. Wild game existed here long before the coming of man. One who acquires property in Montana does so with notice and knowledge of the presence of wild game and presumably is cognizant of its natural habits. Wild game does not possess the power to distinguish between fructus naturales and fructus industriales, and cannot like domestic animals be controlled through an owner. Accordingly a property owner in this state must recognize the fact that there may be some injury to property or inconvenience from wild game for which there is no recourse." C.R. Rathbone was convicted for shooting an elk, out of season, for eating the grass at his ranch.)
That elk herd belongs to the public, and those elk are not seeking "refuge" on the NBar, they came with the NBar, even before the original NBar that was created in 1882, here in Montana - the Niobrara Cattle Company, "Although N Bar headquarters was established in 1885, the story of the N Bar actually dates back to 1878 with two brothers. E. S. 'Zeke' and Henry H. J. Newman were originally from Texas and were some of the first ranchers to settle in the Nebraska sandhills and to trail cattle from Mexico and Texas into Montana. "
The NBar website states,
The Wilks knew exactly what they were getting when they bought that place - lots of gorgeous elk. What they may not have known, was that they "werent in Kansas anymore" and those public elk belong to the people, not the landowner, like back in Texas.
Last edited:
Straight Arrow
Well-known member
smithrmk
Those of us who have been on Hunt Talk awhile will freely express background, opinions, attitudes, political bent, or whatever you wish to know. smithrmk, you have been called out by several now to explain your motivation in coming on so strong in support of the Wilks. By appearing to be disingenuous in expression, now it's not only your information but also your integrity that is in question.
For the third time in a couple threads, why have you recently jumped on Hunt Talk to so strongly advocate for the Wilks and their agenda? Your rhetoric begs the question, "What's in it for smithrmk?"
Those of us who have been on Hunt Talk awhile will freely express background, opinions, attitudes, political bent, or whatever you wish to know. smithrmk, you have been called out by several now to explain your motivation in coming on so strong in support of the Wilks. By appearing to be disingenuous in expression, now it's not only your information but also your integrity that is in question.
For the third time in a couple threads, why have you recently jumped on Hunt Talk to so strongly advocate for the Wilks and their agenda? Your rhetoric begs the question, "What's in it for smithrmk?"
JWP58
Banned
Just because you don't like a couple of people, making broad sweeping statements is ignorant. Game animals don't belong to private individuals in Texas (hence why the state not only issues licenses, but offer....wait for it....PUBLIC LAND HUNTS via a draw system just like the great montana).
You can run down those bozos all you want, but this has nothing to do with Texas.
noharleyyet
Well-known member
Default disparagement JWP....a legacied 'tanny attention grabber here.
Straight Arrow
Well-known member
JWP58, if you don't think the wildlife fences and the wildlife "ownership" is different in most of Texas than in Montana ... then our disagreement on that reflects that someone is ill-informed.
But we agree on one thing, being a "bozo" is not related to Texas. "Bozos' are everywhere!
And most Texans are squared away folks.
But we agree on one thing, being a "bozo" is not related to Texas. "Bozos' are everywhere!
And most Texans are squared away folks.
JWP58
Banned
Then go ahead and inform me. Please describe what "most of Texas" means, and what you're actually referring to in regards to that statement (im assuming "high fence" operations, which encompass an incredibly small about of Texas hunting....but Im sure im wrong since Im "ill informed"). It would almost sound like some folks here are talking out of their arse, in regards to the "ownership" of game animals in Texas. But Im sure Im wrong because Im not from MT.
To be completely honest, I was/am totally against the illegal fencing job that started this whole mess. But the more bitching and moaning I read on this site concerning the owners and land issues surrounding their property, the more I don't care. I find myself wondering if this is the only parcel of land the superterrific state of holy montana that has any elk???
Last edited:
Straight Arrow
Well-known member
'Puzzles me how someone closely tied to Texas could be so sensitive and so green with Big Sky envy.
But you're right the only elk in Montana are in the Durfees / N Bar and the Breaks. The woofs ate the rest up. So Montana ain't so much. It really ain't worth your angst.
But you're right the only elk in Montana are in the Durfees / N Bar and the Breaks. The woofs ate the rest up. So Montana ain't so much. It really ain't worth your angst.
