New West Feature of the Week
In Montana, A Clash of Populism and Property Rights
By Hal Herring, 1-20-07
 |
|
 | |
| Photo courtesy US Fish & Wildlife Service. | |
|
Bernie Nowack, a Wisconsin logging contractor turned real estate investor, came to Montana ten years ago to hunt elk and fell in love with the place. He bought a ranch near Philipsburg, and now owns, by his own estimate, some $9 million to $10 million worth of land in the state.
But his hunting dreams have run into a snag, one that infuriates many of the wealthy out-of-state landowners who are transforming the rural landscape of the Big Sky state: even though he owns a lot of property, he has to enter a lottery for a non-resident hunting license if he wants to pursue game on his land.
“I’ve invested all this money, and a lot of time, and I can’t even get a tag to hunt on my land - not even a deer tag," Nowack said, speaking from a cell phone in Eagle River, Wisconsin, where he had just returned after hunting Montana’s big game season. "I feel like I pay the same land taxes as any ranch owner who lives there, and all I’m asking is to be able to hunt on my own land. It just doesn’t make sense to me.”
Nowack is more baffled than angry. “It’s only my opinion, you know. But I feel like the state is losing out because of this. As a property owner, I’m losing out. I wish they would take a new look at it.”
Nowack is hardly alone in his criticism. James Cox Kennedy, the CEO of Atlanta-based Cox Enterprises and owner of large properties in the Ruby and Smith River valleys, cited the issue as a major concern in an interview with New West last year. Tom Seibel, who has drawn praise for funding the Montana Meth Project and otherwise "giving back" to his adopted state, raised the hunting issue in a recent talk about Montana's relationship with wealthy newcomers.
Yet these complaints, though understandable on their face, run headlong into a major philosophical divide. One the one hand, many Montanans are more than sympathetic to protection of private property rights, and the notion that people should be allowed to do as they like on their own land. On the other hand, property rights in this case conflicts with the legal concept of wildlife as a public resource – and with the widespread desire in Montana, supported from Governor Schweitzer on down, to preserve public access to state's remarkable natural resources.
Currently Montana issues only 11,500 nonresident hunting tags every year, through a lottery system, with another 5,500 reserved for nonresidents who hunt with an outfitter. It's quite possible to own a ranch in the state and, if you don't live there full-time, find yourself unable to get a license to hunt deer or elk or antelope on it, at least during some years. Even if you get the tag, you may be limited to shooting one deer on your property, even if you own 50,000 acres that's crowded with whitetails.
Non-resident property owners point out that they pay taxes too (though they don't pay state income tax, which in sales-tax-free-Montana is a significant part of the tax picture).
But a continued boom in Montana hunting land sales is going to force the issue of nonresident tags, as well as a host of traditional game management questions. For one thing, according to game wardens like Steve Vinnedge of Great Falls, the current system opens the door for the abuse of the outfitter reserved tags. “If you’ve got the millions to buy a ranch in the first place, you’ve got the money to hire an outfitter and get one of the reserved tags. That is going to be a problem, eventually,” Vinnedge explained.
Fellow game warden Brian Golie of Cascade, Montana, agrees that the nonresident landowner issue is a problem that will be tackled fairly soon, whether the state wants to or not. “My region is pretty unique,” Golie said, “we have several nonresident landowners who have worked so closely with us in every way. We have Tom Seibel, for instance who has sponsored the Montana Meth Project, saving I don’t know how many lives, he’s spent his money from Wolf Creek to Craig and all the way to Great Falls, hired local guys to work, and provided a lot of public access to his property that wasn’t there before, and he still can’t always get a tag to hunt his own property? A lot of our laws have not kept up with the times here in Montana.”
But there is good reason for the reluctance to change, Golie said. “Seibel and some of our other nonresidents around here are exceptions to the rule, I know. The people of Montana have said pretty clearly that they don’t want to give tags to landowners who buy property just to lock it away from any public access. We don’t really have an incentive to get resident landowners to work with us, but with the nonresidents, we have the offer of the tags if they will put some of their land in Block Management. That’s the only leverage we have.”
Block Management is a cooperative agreement between private landowners and the Montana Department of Fish,Wildlife,and Parks (MDFWP) to allow public hunting access. Landowners are paid according to how many hunters use their property, with the funds coming from license sales and various fees, including nonresident upland bird licenses and tags sold to nonresidents for outfiitter-supported big game hunts. In 2006, hunters could access 8.5 million acres of private land, owned by 1250 landowners that were enrolled in the program.
While Block Management was really designed with agricultural landowners in mind, it also provides a strong incentive for non-resident amenity ranch owners to allow public access: a guaranteed big game license. Still, few such ranch owners are interested in opening their lands to the public, leaving a host of wildlife management issues on the table. For example, big game animals that have been protected (game managers use the word “harbored") on private lands sometimes roam to destroy crops and range on traditional working ranches. And disease is always a threat where there is overcrowding of wildlife.
The dilemma is based in the American legal concept of wildlife as a public resource, that must by necessity live on private lands. So far, in the West, there has been enough public access, and enough space, that the issue has not been critical. Also, as long as land was primarily used for producing commodities, it’s wildlife value was secondary, as was its value as a hunting ground.
But when the primary reason for purchasing a ranch is for hunting and wildlife, the potential for conflict and negative effects rises, even as the privately-owned wildlife habitat is vastly improved. As public access to hunting declines, license sales fall, which means that there is less and less money to deal with those conflicts, and less money for the state to purchase critical wildlife habitat that may be under threat of development, or to pay for programs like Block Management. It is a domino effect leading back to the fact that wildlife is a public resource, and cannot truly be maintained in the modern west unless there is a great deal of public interest in doing so. And public interest, in trun, can be maintained only if there is access.
“Montana is such a private property state, and a private rights state,” said Brian Golie. “And the question is how do you honor that, and also honor the public, which has done so much to restore all this wildlife. In my opinion, it’s a game warden’s job to do everything legal to maintain and increase public access to the wildlife resource. We have the wiggle room and the flexibility to to solve these problems, and I think we will.” Golie added, “We’re arguing here over things that other states lost fifty years ago. We owe it to ourselves to figure it out.”
The Schweitzer administration, at least for now, seems determined to maintain Montana's populist approach. "From time to time we get these proposals to change over to programs like (Colorado's) Ranching for Wildlife, or things like that," said Mike Volesky, Schweitzer's natural resource policy adviser. "But we just see those programs as further privatizing wildllife, and we don't want that here. Montana's wildlife has always been in the public domain, and we've always had a strong property rights ethic, and I think we've struck a good balance there... Do I think this issue is dead? No, I don't. But I think we've got it worked out for now.
"I guess we see this like we do the stream access law. If you want to buy a big ranch with a river or stream running through it, and then you want to close that river off for your own exclisive use, then don't buy in Montana."
Jeff Buerger is the grandson of Colorado ranchers, an avid hunter, and an agent for Hall and Hall, selling properties in Colorado and New Mexico. Buerger takes issue with Montana’s wildlife management policies, at least as they apply to non-resident landowners who buy a property for hunting. “I would rank Montana last in recognizing the right of landowners in managing wildlife. In New Mexico, the game and fish department allows you to renogotiate permits to take more bulls or cows (elk) off of your land. While you have to go through the draw (a lottery system) to get tags in other states, in New Mexico, if you want to hunt mountain lion or bear on your land you can go in and get those tags. It is geared toward landowners, and Montana is really geared toward the public. In Montana, you have to go though all kinds of processes just to be able to hunt your own property.”
Thor Sichveland, a Cabela’s Trophy Properties affiliate from Phillipsburg, Montana, also says he hopes that there can be some solution to the problem. “We are going great guns here with Cabela’s,” he said, “and its hard to explain to a guy that’s bought 1,000 acres, is feeding herds of elk and deer all year long on his ranch, that he has to go into the lottery to get a tag to hunt them.” Sichveland said that he is sure that some buyers who research the situation decide to look for property in Oregon or New Mexico, which allow landowners to buy tags. But, he said, Montana still has a mystique that attracts people looking for wild country and ranchlands. “We show them property in Idaho, and it just won’t do. They want a piece of Montana, want to say that they own a ranch here.”
Even those who are enjoying the powerful upsurge in business express their concerns that one day the American tradition of hunting and the outdoors will be mostly reserved for the wealthy. “I come from a small town in Kansas,” said Dax Hayden, a Cabela's affiliate selling recreational ranches in Colorado, “where we always had a place to hunt. I would hate to think that someday I’ll have to buy a place just so my son will have a place to go hunting. But I don’t know what anybody can do about that.”
Greg Schmeenk, who is selling property as a Cabela’s affiliate around his home country in South Dakota’s Black Hills, expressed a similar concern. “Sometimes I wonder where I’m going to go, too.”
Like this story? Get more! Sign up for our free newsletters.
Comments
In this clash between populism and property rights, it might be possible to make a deal that wouldn't be a complete sellout to the wealthy few. If you can't be bothered to establish residency and want to hunt, maybe the state could trade you a hunting permit for public access hunting on your property.
And quit sniveling.
" . . . Montana is really geared toward the public."
Yep.
Being rich shouldn't equal having special hunting privileges.
Missing in the article is any mention of the Montana conservation easement racket.
How this works is out of state blow-ins with more money then they know what to do with,buy prime Montana land, dump it into a conservation easement, take the lucrative tax breaks and lock it off to the public.
This is a strategy promoted by trophy home realtors selling Montana plantations to wealthy sahibs. Just look at the ads on the Internet.
Actual participants in this deplorable racket are James Cox Kennedy, Ted Turner, Ken Siebel, Charles
Schwab and Huey Lewis.
Greg Lemon
Naturally, private interests object to these two elements of wildlife jurisprudence and do everything they can do to eliminate them, subsituting concepts of private ownership of wildlife. All of us who have at one time run into the problems posed by commercial enterprises in wildlife--game ranching, marketable hunting licenses, trespass fees on private land, privatization, etc.--should not be surprised that as wealthy people flow into the West at ever increasing rates they should demand changes in the bedrock principles of wildlife law. Legislatures in the West, unfortunately, have been more than willing to accomodate these demands.
The only thing that limits the reach of these demands is the determination of hunters and anglers to work againsgt them. A decade ago in Wyoming, hunters and anglers killed a proposal from the Wyoming Game & Fish Commission, fronting for the Stockgrowers and wealthy landowners, to grant landowners marketable hunting licenses because the landowners "needed" incentives to protect wildlife habitat on private land. Of course, the only landowners in Wyoming who would have benefited from these "set-aside" licenses were already wealthy, with considerable control over land and thus animal migration corridors, which made many of us wonder just what additional incentives these wealthy landowners needed to improve wildlife habitat on their properties. (Eligibility for receiving these licenses was restricted to those landowners owning 5000 or more acres of land).
What these individuals wanted, of course, was not incentives. What they wanted was free and clear title to the wildlife on their properties. That is, they wanted feudal privileges to do with the wildlife on their properties what they wanted.
In one lawsuit filed by wealthy landowners against the State of Wyoming to force complete privatization of wildlife, the Clajon lawsuit, lead by Texas oilman Clayton Williams, the plaintiffs demanded that the courts declare unconstitutional Wyoming's wildlife management system. The plaintiffs used feudal English concepts of property law to drive their claims, one of these concepts being the claim that because wildlife are the product of the landowners' soil and land, the wildlife themselves belonged to the landowners.
This claim of course directly contradicts the status of wildlife as wild by nature, unowned by anyone.
The court threw out the Clajon lawsuit, but that hasn't stopped the very wealthy who have power and money to assert continually their demands for privatization of wildlife for their own purposes.
It is precisely the role of the public trust, which is a burden on a state's very sovereignty, to prevent the privatization of the public's resources, including wildlife. However, it's up to the people to force the state to apply the public trust. Otherwise, we'll lose everything.
Thanks.
Hal
Every day I wake up in Montana I thank God that we have a populist Governor and two great senators who understand the cultural importance of hunting and fishing to average citizens like me.
Well, I have to do something with all that stuff in my head.
The issue of the commons is a hard one to raise in the United States, with its unquestioning glorification of private ownership of everything. The American dream is, every man an owner, but the American reality is that sooner or later, the owners will be few and the serfs many. This is precisely what we've seen in the West for the last century, and what we're seeing now with the phenomenon of the amenity ranch is simply an extension of the privatization of our land and wildlife heritage. About all we have left are public wildlife, public lands and waters, and a citizenry that still remembers in its bones the ugliness of European feudalism, aristocracy, and autocracy. The modern American aristocracy we see buying up the West is no different from the old aristocracies--wealth acquired through theft, graft, and conquest, and no amount of alleged good works will change that. These are not the people who can be stewards of our heritage. They can, however, if we let them, take it from us. Then, who will be Robin Hood?
The challenge has always been, this is a free country--if we can keep it that way.
Robert
I have friends whose property border's Turners near Townsend. they witnessed Turner's men on horseback hazing elk back into the hills (Turner's property). There they'd be greeted by the fat-cat nonresidents who pay for outfitters tags.
We're moving to the feudal system where the rich lords hog all the game and keep them from the filthy massess shooting mossberg shotguns and savage rifles.
Let Seibel, Turner, Kennedy and the rest set up residency here. What about the guy who owns a condo at Big Sky and no big ranch? How much land would it take to qualify? Where do you draw the line. They call them "nonresident tages" for a reason.
If you don't like having to share, then buy land somewhere else. If you're willing to contribute to the state like many generous landowners ( Mr. Sieble, for example), then welcome. Hunting is part of the culture of the West. I would hate to see hunting in Montana turn into what it is in Europe, the sport of royalty and elites. Access is vital.
Re: Jackies's comment on internet selling, Hall & Hall is one of the best at promoting Montana as a play place for the priviledged few. determined by your net worth. Jeff Buerger and the Cabela's guys complaint is simply from the idea they may miss out on another commission from a multi-million dollar sale.
How many of these folks own properties in several states? Quite a few. Should they be given tags in montana, colorado & new mexico because they are non-resident land holders in multiple states?
If they want to hunt on their own place maybe MT could sell them a tag at non-resident prices good only for a specified period, on only their place, for 1 animal if public access was part of the deal. Verification of some sort as part of the package. That would be more compromise than I'd like but the $500/hr lawyers will keep at this until they wear down the resistance.
Unfortuantely those of us who like to hunt & fish are a shrinking crowd as more and more of the country lives in large metro areas and become disconnected from the land except by a hollywood version that bears little reality except for the scenery in the background.
Simple! Just declare yourself a resident and pay taxes to the state of Montana. You'll get to vote in local elections for the planning board, state elections for governor, and realize what it means to be a part of the place. Otherwise, you're just a visitor--no matter how much property you own or how big an SUV you drive.
Residents pay their fair share to manage public wildlife. Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks generally does a pretty good job of managing our wildlife. Residents pay the taxes and FWP works for us, and we work hard for them, too--through our membership and participation in groups such as the Montana Wildlife Federation.
Thank you, - Pat Munday (aka http://www.ecorover.blogspot.com)
"I'm rich and bought land here, and I will continue to buy anything I want and need here in Montana, just as I have been able to do in all of the other states where I own land. This includes buying influence and getting my way for every desire I have, because I have more money than you rural residents, and I will use that money to get what I want. No matter how much I have, it is never 'enough' for me. Having lots of money (and more money than you) means having lots of power--and this includes the power to abuse and take advantage of all governmental processes too. Complain all you want, little people, but we will get our way on this issue, as we will on all other plans that allow us to be the new lords of the West."
We have sponsored and attended symposium after town-hall meeting. We've sponsored bills in the Legislature only to watch them die of public lack-of-interest and opposition from the major privatizing organizations such as MT Stockgrowers and Farm Bureau.
Access to public wildlife on private land is a complex issue with built-in cultural divisions. I encourage all to care about this issue to start attending meetings of the FWP 'Private Land Public Wildlife' (Consensus) Committee. That group, which is composed of equal parts hunters, outfitters and landowners, has put forward several proposals for non-resident landowner courtesy licenses in exchange for allowing reasonable public access. All died in the Legislature (see paragraph above).
Montana now includes more than one brand of rural landowner. More harm than good will come from not knowing the difference. Public hunters still have some of the best friends in the world among traditional agricultural producers. Some are Block Management Cooperators and some are not. These folks deserve and should get all the thanks and respect we can give them. Most importantly public hunters should be looking out for their interests.
On the other hand the Trophy Amenity landowner typically has no thought for anything but his own advantage. Each is playacting their own version of a wild west myth. More pointedly they are, as a group, so narrow-minded they can look through a keyhole with both eyes. Feudalism would be just right for them and they will have it if Montana residents continue to fail as conservation citizens.
Having said that, I've learned not to prejudge the individual non-resident landowner until they've showed their stripes.
That's hard to remember when your public land hunting ground becomes locked behind a new steel gate that mysteriously appears on what you and your grandfather thought was a county road. Unorganized sportspeople who don't join together to exert real political power will never see the other side of that gate again. Meanwhile, the new landowner will have bought a personal licensed outfitter who will then provide the required licenses for new-guy's band of buddies.
If you actually would like to DO something about this problem then join up with and write big checks to any or rall of the Montana Wildlife Federation, MT Trout Unlimited and the Public Lands/Waters Access Assn. Forget the rest they're busy elsewhere and most of them have national board members who are zillionaires actively causing the problem. As good as this article is, it barely scatches an extremely broad and complex public issue. You'll have to do some homework to save your hunting ground.
Giest,Valerius.1988.How Markets in Wildlife Meat and Parts,and the Sale of Hunting Privileges.Jeopardize Wildlife Conservation Conservation Biology.Vol.2,No.1.March 1988. The United States District Court for the District of Wyoming Case No.C85-0136-8 Red Rim Fences and a violation of the Unlawful Inclosures of public Lands Act,43 U.S.C.1061-1066. (95% of fences on pvt land),Foundation N.A.Wild Sheep Fall 2004.Volume 27,Number 3."Wild Sheep Habitat Under Siege with Man -Made Fence Barriers" p 80-84. Range Magazine and Outdoor Life Magazine had to excellent articles on the Cherry-Lake Cherry Creek fish poisoning 'boondoggle' as well.
Montana Fish Wildlife & Parks
PO Box 200701
Helena, MT 59620
Hal
Craig, thanks for the reference to Owning Eden. Unfortunately, with my ancient 1999 HP Pavilion laptop, I was able to get only the video stream, poorly at that, without the voice. You get the message, however, from the video. I'll order it.
My question would be, did FWP conduct focus groups among landowners to develop the theme and message of this video, and how has it been received among landowners who've seen it? Are Montana realtors even giving this video to clients? The message of the video, as I understand it without actually having heard it yet, isn't exactly one that realtors anywhere in the West seem to be interested in purveying to clients. All the advertisement in the glossy magazines scream EXCLUSIVE!!! YOURS YOURS YOURS!!! For the big ranches, they hire their own "game managers/keepers" and do everything to shut out the state wildlife agency, not to mention shut in the wildlife.
Around here in NW Wyoming, the amenity ranchers sure aren't interested in granting public access for hunting and fishing and in most cases are interested in setting up their own private hunting reserves for both commercial and private use--just as in Europe in the days of yore. We've just had a very nice ranch nearby on the Wind River sold to such amenity investors that at present is very fine mule deer habitat. You ought to see the lodge they're building for themselves, which is visible from the highway. Many of us are hoping that these investors drive the deer back up onto the Forest.
Another potential source for the video is:
Montana Stockgrowers Association
420 N. California
Helena, MT 59601
(406) 442-3420
Hal
In Iowa, we have too many deer (sounds like a beer drinking song). We have many sanctuarys. We also have a problem with land usage: we grow lots of deer, but when it gets cold and the crops are harvested, the deer are squished onto about 10% +/- of Iowa's landmass--forestland.
On our farm, we peaked at 300 deer per square mile four years ago. Through free, legal, and aggressive hunting, we have reduced the herd to around 30 to 60 deer per square mile.
However, the time and money invested in "managing" the herd and the dollar loss to our tree farm is very substantial.
There are many in Iowa that believe if the Iowa DNR can't/won't manage the deer population biologically, private landowners should have the right to reduce the herd any way they deem necessary to protect their property from damage (Iowa is 90%+/- privately owned).
To that end, a tree farmer in Iowa notified the DNR that he shot a deer (out of season) decimating his trees. He was ticketed and faces trial. He will be using an unchallenged 1915+/- Iowa Supreme Court ruling that holds that a landowner has the right to protect his property from destructive wild animals--deer.
The questions will be: Are they the peoples deer? When do they become a landowners deer? Does a person have a right to protect his livelyhood and property from overpopulation directly linked to the DNR?
You have reached one of the best answers to them, right here:
"Through free, legal, and aggressive hunting, we have reduced the herd to around 30 to 60 deer per square mile."
I realize that doing that must have been expensive and time consuming -- somewhere, the hunters and the general public who appreciate/value wildlife will have to step up and offer some incentives for landowners like yourself to deal with the herds in the manner you describe.
I sympathize with the landowners. If I were them I guess I would want some damage-reducing shooting permits, or some compensation from Fish and Game, as is paid frequently in other states. It's a delicate subject, a delicate balance. I would hope that it never gets so unbalanced that fury makes people want to clear the land of all wild game, as it was cleared prior to 1915.
We've got the brainpower to work this out, surely. Yet another chapter in the balance between private and commons, waiting to be worked out....
Hal
Here is agriculture at its worst--it's cleared the land, industrialized the landscape, killed off all wild predators, and literally created a smorgasborg of food that invariably attracts an edge species like the whitetailed deer and drives its population dynamics way out of whack.
And then, as farmers always do--I know, having been raised in agriculture--they complain about the problems they themselves have created, and then want someone else to pay for it.
While Hal is correct that aggressive hunting strategies can reduce the "problem" in the short term, it does nothing to address the larger problem: agriculture has created an ecological monster, and every day, the monster comes home to roost. And every day, the monster gets bigger. Gunning down the exemplars of the monster won't solve a thing.
The issue is not "whose" deer these deer are. Legally, they are no one's deer; they are, in the Latin term, fera naturae, wild by nature, owned by no one. They are not "public property" in the strict sense of the term. They are wild animals, to which we govern our access through the legal fiction of "state property" or some other term that's equally fictional. We need the fiction because as agricultural people, we can't imagine a "resource" that isn't "owned" and "controlled" by someone. We don't like free spirits, and that's what wild animals are. Free.
The issue is the extraordinary restructuring, simplification, and retarding of ecological relationships that agriculture has committed. To solve the problems that agriculture has created, it's going to take a lot more than whacking a bunch of deer on the land. Agriculture creates pests; they aren't a natural phenomenon. It's going to take a significant reassessment of what agriculture is and whether it will be pursued in ways that are more ecologically appropriate.
For example, Iowa farmers might look more favorably on the presence of predators. I understand mountain lions are making their way east. And that would be just a very simple beginning of a very difficult and complex adjustment in attitude.
Regarding quality habitat in Iowa: Quality habitat supports and attracts a much higher diversity of all species than the "West". This is not a function of human intervention, but a function of geography (when my labs boil out of the car in the West, they are interested in the countryside, but both prefer the intensity of the Midwest). That's why the most species in North America are in the Appalachians.
Given that, "whacking a bunch of deer" is a vital tool in improving and maintaining quality habitat.
To me, all areas will soon be facing overpopulation of certain species--either from wildlife agencies mismanagement or private sanctuarys.
In the Midwest and apparantly soon in the West, the question is not just access to hunting, but control of overabundant species: Keystone herberivores.
When the "right" action is done to balance the enviroment and it still isn't enough, then what course of action is next?
Then the question is again: Who's deer are they?
GREAT FALLS TRIBUNE EDITORIAL
"The influx of wealthy out-of-state, part-time Montanans arriving with the idea that our wildlife belongs to them" has changed the balance.
Monday, January 22, 2007
EDITORIAL
Do nothing to diminish access to rivers, streams
Here's hoping the watchdog groups will keep a close eye on the big-and-getting-bigger stream-access bill working its way through the state Senate.
Introduced by Sen. Lane Larson, D-Billings, the measure started out as an effort to compromise on an old hot-button issue by letting landowners attach fences to bridges, as long as they provided a way through the fence for anglers.
The bill even provided a little money that Fish, Wildlife & Parks could use to help defray landowners' costs of modifying fences. Seems reasonable enough, although we haven't observed many problems with access in the places where we go to let the fish torture us.
More problems seem to arise in southwestern Montana, where there are more newcomers on both sides of the equation.
And partly because of that, testified Jack D. Jones of Bozeman, the days of handshake agreements between landowners and anglers are fading into the sunset.
"The influx of wealthy out-of-state, part-time Montanans arriving with the idea that our wildlife belongs to them" has changed the balance.
A decades-old law and court cases have upheld the right of the public to go between the high water marks in rivers and streams, but getting to the streambed can be problematical in areas where the land is privately owned.
It's often accomplished at bridge abutments, and an attorney general's opinion a few years ago upheld that practice.
But that hasn't kept some landowners from erecting — and attaching to the bridges — fences designed not to keep livestock in, but rather to keep people out.
Larson's bill would allow the fences, as long as there was a relatively easy way through them — stiles, a gate, or even just plastic pipe in a stretch so anglers don't tear their waders going through.
Access to wildlife — even the kinds that swim — is one of the biggest attractions of Big Sky Country.
The bill, SB78, is five pages long, and eight pages of amendments are lined up for inclusion, most of them by access-oriented watchdog groups.
Nevertheless, there is potential for mischief here.
Anything that yields less public access to Montana's rivers and streams is unacceptable.
------------------------
But the SILENCE is deafening ...
... and WHY would that be??? ...
There's nary a mention here that I can see
Of groceries consumed
By the wildlife at bay
Who surely MUST eat as they live every day?
I've not seen a one
In the lines at a store;
They ain't buyin' lettuce nor carrots no more.
The "word on the street"
Says they ain't got no coins
That rattle in pockets, puts meat on their loins.
As one who provides
The FREE food that they eat
Why is there NO notice of my constant feat?
Where is reimbursement
For dollars, the cost?
Is GRATITUDE missin' for groceries I've lost?
Would each one who bitches
Do same thing for ME?
THAT would be day I'm still waitin' to see!!!
If "Public Good" colors
The voices now raised,
Should "public" be "good" 'bout providin' FOOD grazed?
But nary a voice,
'Cept for John up above,
Has mentioned the GROCERIES for those that you "love".
Yes, Robert, I've noted
You think they are "FREE"
And ain't seen NO groceries sent from you to me.
If you've fathered children
Are they also FREE?
Do they just breathe air and survive and just "BE"?
And while you are damning
Those farmers you hate
What was it you set down this evening and ate?
Are socks made of wool
That encompass your feet?
Are shoes made of leather like chair 'neath your seat?
How many wild animals
Graze on YOUR lawn?
How many are welcome on each day at dawn?
Ahhhhhhh, yes ... it's a quandary ...
And PUNISH we should
Each owner of land who provides what they could.
I'd say that for starters
We shoot each in line.
Then YOU can provide for the wildlife to dine?
Perhaps you'll pay taxes
And pay for their land?
Or would you prefer it was FREE in your hand?
Ain't "sumpthin' for nuthin' "
Landowners think right.
They are feedin' those groceries all day and all night.
And YOU have placed belly
Right up to that bar ... ???
Please ***SOMEBODY*** tell me what YOU'VE done so far??!!!
For these subsidies, we get:
Unlimited water and air pollution through nitrates, nitrites, anti-biotics, and animal wastes, including CH4, you know, methane, just to keep global warming in high gear...
Genetic pollution ...
Slaughtered wildlife ...
Predator and animal damage control to slaughter more wildlife...
Forests slashed, soils flushed to he rivers and mineralized, and rivers and streams damned and concreted into canals ...
Flood control that makes floods worse ...
Pests and weeds spread across this great land ...
Marginal agricultural land (but good wildlife habitat) occupied and planted just for one more buck ...
Mass-produced, low-nutrition, additive-charged, tasteless food ...
Oligarchical state and local governments beholden to agriculture that don't know what democracy is, and could care less ...
and
Constant whining from farmers and ranchers to politicians and bureaucrats for more subsidies to stop doing the above ...
So much for free enterprise.
This is why I hunt and gather my own food, thank you very much.
I had elk roast last night. Tasted great.
Farmers and ranchers would get a lot more respect if they whined less and took full responsibility for their role in the myriad problems they've caused.
For these subsidies, we get:
Unlimited water and air pollution through nitrates, nitrites, anti-biotics, and animal wastes, including CH4, you know, methane, just to keep global warming in high gear...
Genetic pollution ...
Slaughtered wildlife ...
Predator and animal damage control to slaughter more wildlife...
Forests slashed, soils flushed to he rivers and mineralized, and rivers and streams damned and concreted into canals ...
Flood control that makes floods worse ...
Pests and weeds spread across this great land ...
Marginal agricultural land (but good wildlife habitat) occupied and planted just for one more buck ...
Mass-produced, low-nutrition, additive-charged, tasteless food ...
Oligarchical state and local governments beholden to agriculture that don't know what democracy is, and could care less ...
and
Constant whining from farmers and ranchers to politicians and bureaucrats for more subsidies to stop doing the above...
This is why I hunt and gather my own food, thank you very much.
I had elk roast last night. Tasted great. Had several deer out with the horses this morning.
In closing, farmers and ranchers would get a lot more respect if they whined less and took full responsibility for their role in the myriad problems they've caused.
Is it possible that you might be able to account for the FACT that as one of those dastardly devils to which you refer I have "contributed" ZERO to the ills-of-the-world you have listed and received ZERO of those "benefits" you listed in your outrageous comments?
When you start your listings of supposed-to-be faults and outrages at any sector of any community perhaps you should first look in the mirror? Ignorance is never bliss and the TRUTH never fades just because you fail to recognize it.
You say " (you) hunt and gather (your) own food "? I see. Who fed that "elk roast" you ate last night? Did you "gather" your food from the confines of "the public" or did you crawl over the fence and "harvest" from private land?
It would seem rather evident you did NOT "harvest" from your own back yard.
Dear Robert ~ AKA "Mr. Public"?
Are you a "person" or a "public"?
Just a "one" or part of "all"?
Are you "caring" or "destructive"?
"Crashing through" or "walking tall"?
If you're surveyed as a "person",
You're environmental minded.
If you're a "public" you destroy;
Sensitivity is blinded.
As a person at the meetings,
You make quite a penetration.
You profess to want to save
The earth for future generations.
As a public you destroy
Everything within your sight.
You have tramped and raped and plundered
With a thoughtless, careless might.
As a person you recycle,
Sorting garbage, very neat.
As a public you distribute
Cans and trash upon the street.
As a person you promote
And gather funds for hiking trails.
As a public you destroy
Habitat for bear or quail.
In your home you train your children
Not to play with matches there.
After camping in the forests,
Smoke and fire fill the air.
You may freely give your funds
To museums for displays;
Crowds on site at sacred places,
Fill their pockets there for days.
As a person you support
Legislation to protect.
As a public you continue
To treat all things with neglect.
If a neighbor tramps your rose bush
You will take him into court.
When you drive into the country,
Trespass there will be your sport.
You fence your private, personal boundaries,
To keep the passerby at bay.
But you snip, destroy, or climb
A wire fence near fields of hay.
As a person you distribute
Chemicals upon your lawn.
As a public you protest
A cow who pees at early dawn.
You may leave your sprinkler running
When you leave your house in haste.
But you think that farms and ranches
Producing food, with water: waste.
Though your shoes are made of leather
And your coat is virgin wool,
You will march into the streets
Against the grazing ram or bull.
You say cowboys are on welfare,
Crush their economic base.
But you will spend public money,
To buy farms for "open space".
You'll spend half-a-million dollars,
Build large homes on platted land.
When your neighbor subdivides,
Their "open space" is your demand.
As a person you commute
To work in cars that create smog.
As a public you will lobby
To protect a wetland bog.
As a person you inhabit
Wooden house with redwood deck.
As a public you profess
To want the trees for owls with 'specks'.
If a bear or mountain lion
Eats your dog you raise a cry.
But if wildlife kills at range
You do not notice babies die.
You want wolves reintroduced,
On the range that livestock grazed;
Transplanted in that "open space",
Where only ranchers' babes are raised.
But when wolves with dogs are mated,
Turned loose on the city streets,
You will vote to kill, destroy them,
Put an end to bloody feats.
You send food to hungry people
Throughout the world who do not eat.
You think supermarket shelves
Provide the food to do this feat.
Should we lobby to protect
The conscientious "person" now?
Or shall we open hunting season
On the "public" beast, so foul?
© 1994 ---> HOW LITTLE THINGS CHANGE AS THE YEARS GO BY!!!
The driver, a young man in a Brioni suit, Gucci shoes, Ray Ban sunglasses and YSL tie, leans out the window and asks the cowboy, "If I tell you exactly how many cows and calves you have in your herd, will you give me a calf?"
The cowboy looks at the man, obviously a yuppie, then looks at his peacefully grazing herd and calmly answers, "Sure. Why not?"
The yuppie parks his car, whips out his Dell notebook computer, connects it to his Cingular RAZR V3 cell phone, and surfs to a NASA page on the Internet, where he calls up a GPS satellite navigation system to get an exact fix on his location which he then feeds to another NASA satellite that scans the area in an ultra-high-resolution photo.
The young man then opens the digital photo in Adobe Photoshop and exports it to an image processing facility in Hamburg, Germany.
Within seconds, he receives an email on his Palm Pilot that the image has been processed and the data stored.
He then accesses a MS-SQL database through an ODBC connected Excel spreadsheet with email on his Blackberry and, after a few minutes, receives a response. Finally, he prints out a full-color, 150-page report on his hi-tech, miniaturized HP LaserJet printer and finally turns to the cowboy and says, "You have exactly 1,586 cows and calves."
"That's right. Well, I guess you can take one of my calves," says the cowboy.
He watches the young man select one of the animals and looks on amused as the young man stuffs it into the trunk of his car.
Then the cowboy says to the young man, "Hey, if I can tell you exactly what your business is, will you give me back my calf?"
The young man thinks about it for a second and then says, "Okay, why not?"
"You're a Congressman for the U.S. Government", says the cowboy.
"Wow! That's correct," says the yuppie, "but how did you guess that?"
"No guessing required," answered the cowboy. "You showed up here even though nobody called you; you want to get paid for an answer I already knew, to a question I never asked. You tried to show me how much smarter than me you are; and you don't know a thing about cows ... this is a herd of sheep.
Now give me back my dog.
Kinda makes ya wonder what the guy shoots when he "goes hunting", does it not?!
;-)
I've lost money trying to hold on to the farm for farming and family. I could have sold it and invested the money and made a lot more than I do holding it for ag and farming. And yes, I do receive a small CRP payment on part of the land, but how is that wrong? Am I not entitled to income from the land I pay taxes on, as much as my siblings are, simply because I had to relocate out of State to work and they didn't? That's not fair treatment, and if you want Montana to be owned by Montanans, then realized that a whole lot of us Montanans actually had to move and don't label us as "rich" or "millionaires" when we're no different than you.