Wilks open up Bullwacker temporarily

[noharleyyet]

Just a guess, but maybe if your game and land cops did their jobs....?

John Kerry's advocacy services will be available soon.

 

[BuzzH]

I think a bunch of people are missing the big point...that Montana does not want the Texas approach to game and land management.

Whether the animals in Texas belong to the State or not (I'm still not quite sure about free ranging exotics?)...the lease to hunt, essentially no public lands, etc. is what most Western State hunters don't want to see happen in Montana, Wyoming, etc.

That's the issue, keeping federal lands that we currently have, not peddling, or in the case of the Wilks proposal...practically GIVING, them the BLM lands in the durfees.

In the case of Texas, its a classic example of what happens when public lands are severely limited. Not only do you lose 100% of the public influence of land management, but you also lose just about all public influence over game management, as well as 100% of your access to the "states" wildlife (without owning private property, paying lease, etc.).

This is why I don't want to see the BLM land in the Durfee's given to the Wilkes...once its gone, the public will have NO access to the "states" wildlife resources found there. As it is now, for a few hundred bucks, I can access that BLM and hunt MY public wildlife there, on MY public land. I don't need to ask anyone for permission, don't have to know anybody, don't have to pay a trespass fee, lease it, etc.

I somewhat agree that the constant cheap shots at Texas get a little old, however, using Texas as a cautionary tale of what happens to the public land and wildlife when everything is privatized is still a valid point.

I wouldn't go to Texas and try to force private land owners to give their lands to the BLM, and I don't care for Texans coming to Montana and trying to force the BLM to give them my public lands either.

 

[Big Fin]

Like Buzz, I'm completely tired of the crackpots taken at Texans. The highest profile access battles in Montana are because of a guy from Georgia. Don't hear anyone talking about that. Most of the roads where counties get petitioned to abandon the road and stop public access are from folks who have lived in Montana for generations. Funny how some don't want to mention that.

A joke here and there about some stereotypes are fine. Hell, if you guys went back to my home town in northern MN, you would have years of fodder for harassment.

I don't really care where the Wilks Brothers are from. If they have a good deal, I'll listen. If they have a bad deal, I'll advocate against it. And it really makes no difference whether the public land in question is in Montana, Michigan, or Maine. If it is public land, the public needs to get a good deal from any sort of exchange.

If some Montanan came forth with a similarly lopsided proposal, I would advocate rejection of it the same as I am advocating rejection of this proposal. It is the details and facts that matter, not a stereotype we can hang on someone.

Where people come from may form their perspectives on a lot of things, whether public lands, hunting traditions, maybe even religion or hobbies, but lumping people into a stereotype based on where they are from surely does nothing beneficial to a discussion such as this.

Carry on ......

 

[Lawnboy]

Carry on ......

Please no

 

[Straight Arrow]

And most Texans are squared away folks.

'Don't see that as a cheap shot.

Texans are good folks. But I also do not want to see other western states follow the example of much too little public land on which to recreate,.

Regardless of generalizations about Texas and Texans and completely regardless of the home state of the Wilks, I question their motives at this point.

 

[bigskyblueman]

The Wilks behavior is a reflection of them, not the good folks of Texas, just as James Cox Kennedy' s attack on the Stream Access Law has nothing to do with the nice folks from Georgia who fish our trout streams every year.

 

[katqanna]

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.

JWP, I have never met the Wilks personally, only know of them from their Yahwist group back in Texas and their actions up here. This is not personal to them as people, so I cant say I dont like them personally, but I can say I dont like their actions and what they did to our public lands that I have first hand witnessed, in several places.

I was born and raised in Texas, married into an ag ranching family, hunted on the family lands and the general landowners out there, everywhere in Texas I lived, viewed the fish and wildlife as being theirs just because they owned the land/waters. They would strategize about how to keep/lure the wildlife to remain on their land, mostly during hunting season. Grandpa, like the other neighbors, called the wildlife "theirs'. This European/Texas Model is very much what is coming into play here.

I just spent 20 minutes trying to find the news article that was written, after June 22nd, around the time of one of the last Wilks roundtable discussions. I had just sent out a newsletter with the video of the access project, in which I state being born and raised in Texas, never hearing about the public trust doctrine or north american model of wildlife conservation until I moved here to Montana. There was a quote in the news article explaining that the Wilks had never heard of the public trust doctrine or north american model of wildlife conservation back in Texas. Then a quote from Hugo Tureck, friends of the monument, who advocates for this land exchange, stating the Wilks were great guys, that he had been teaching them about the PTD and NAMWC, that they were understanding. I laughed to myself when I read it because it was so similar to what I just put out in the access video, almost co-opted for their purposes.

In 2012, the Gazette wrote an article, "Forbes magazine quoted Staci Wilks, of Wilks Brothers LLC, as saying the brothers like to spend their spare time hunting and fly fishing with friends, family and corporate guests, and that their ranch properties are used for farming, ranching and wildlife management."

Which then prompted John Gibson, of PLWA to write a letter to the editor,

"Hold on. This is Montana, not Texas. We have an agency called the Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks that manages wildlife. Sportsmen fund this agency and we expect certain results. These include managing wildlife as a public trust resource while subscribing to the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation.

The model includes the requirement that allocation of hunting opportunities for game species be made by law and be democratic in nature. If you combine this with the limit of 10 percent of opportunities Montana residents have agreed to share with nonresidents, you have reached the first point where landowners can begin to assert their control over who harvests wildlife.

Landowners determine who may access their private land as well as how that land will be managed. But their management does not include wildlife. The Montana Supreme Court states that the presence of public wildlife upon the land implies no claim of ownership and is a condition of acquisition or something the buyer should have recognized at the time the land was purchased.

I hope the land buyers know this."

I was following a research trail from the "wildlife management" statement, that had me saving tons of webpages in case they disappear, while dealing with this post, so there are some others that have chimed in on the subject in between. It was a little tricky having to go through all the ownership, subsidaries, different family members and such. This isnt about Texans per see, but the Texas Model. Like this:

This is the face of WIlks "wildlife management".

 

[Straight Arrow]

The difference is, Texas Kat, regarding the NAWCM, you get it. The Wilks seemingly do not.

 

[roadhunter]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G4xs3wQusjo

 

[RobG]

I don't know their motives, but by opening the road it preserves a bargaining tool. If they keep it closed the Anchor will become completely worthless because the BLM will build a road around them.

 

[Oak]

I don't know their motives, but by opening the road it preserves a bargaining tool. If they keep it closed the Anchor will become completely worthless because the BLM will build a road around them.

Yep.

 

[katqanna]

Well this brought back memories of hunting in Texas, where people network hunting leases. Sure is a hell of a lot different from this forum.

Texas Hunting Forum - The best place in Texas to talk hunting.

"If it backs up to any of the Wilks' places, take binoculars and watch the bruisers they are raising. That is your best shot on seeing deer in that area."

This cannot be said of the Anchor Ranch.

 

[1_pointer]

I don't know their motives, but by opening the road it preserves a bargaining tool. If they keep it closed the Anchor will become completely worthless because the BLM will build a road around them.

In Utah, the public would have used it enough already that maintenance would be the issue...

 

[bigskyblueman]

Frankly, the BLM, bless their hearts, is woefully outmatched here, and the WILKS boys know it. They only make good deals for themselves , not bad ones. That's why they got paid 3.5 billion dollars for a 9 year old company. Good businessmen . They know what it takes to get what they want, but they so far , have refused to accept the idea that if they want the Durfee Hills , the public expects them to pay for it. Wildlife models vary, and they've been here long enough to realize that. A parcel here and there, a promise here, an open road there, isn't payment. Come to the public with a plum, wildlife landscape property, a big one, and maybe the public discourse would change for the better.

 

[RobG]

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???

The people who have lived here have seen their public land stolen one parcel at a time. We can't keep saying, "Oh well, we can go somewhere else." The Wilks are especially obnoxious and disingenuous. If they make Texans look bad maybe you should take it out on them, not the people who are doing what it takes to protect what is theirs.

 

[noharleyyet]

The Wilks are especially obnoxious and disingenuous. If they make Texans look bad maybe you should take it out on them, not the people who are doing what it takes to protect what is theirs.

Who said they weren't?

IMO, JWP is directing his comments to blanket disparagement, to which I agree.

Frankly, the BLM, bless their hearts, is woefully outmatched here, and the WILKS boys know it.

..this right here. Change is constant.... and money, power, and politics grease the change skids. Wasn't it a couple years back when the impune Killeen rich dude built the mansion obstructing access right under the noses of your public officials?

 

[RobG]

Who said they weren't?

IMO, JWP is directing his comments to blanket disparagement, to which I agree.



..this right here. Change is constant.... and money, power, and politics grease the change skids. Wasn't it a couple years back when the impune Killeen rich dude built the mansion obstructing access right under the noses of your public officials?

Yes dear.

 

[Z Barebow]

Number one hunter complaint. Access! Now you get some access restored and its smoke and mirrors. Number one reason landowners(who don't outfitt) don't open up land to hunt. Respect!

Charlie Brown has shown respect to Lucy when she offers to hold the football. (And we know how that arrangement has turned out). Yet, the same scenario is repeated time and time again.

Sorry, I am not as trusting(IE Naïve) as Charlie Brown.

 

[roadhunter]

Amazing that after these types of incidents (Wilkes/Schuleter) happen that everybody in Montana gets mad at the state of Texas instead of getting mad at the people responsible for the public interests in these areas.


At what point do Tannys hold those people in charge of the land and access responsible?

 

[Straight Arrow]

Amazing that after these types of incidents (Wilkes/Schuleter) happen that everybody in Montana gets mad at the state of Texas instead of getting mad at the people responsible for the public interests in these areas.

That quote is an irresponsible blatantly false statement. The only reason for such an expression would likely be to once again stir up a roadhunter self-centered debacle. The obvious contempt for others is only exceeded by the inability to offer a positive helpful post.