DROPPING THE BOMB
Outfitter Initiative Foreshadows Much Bigger Issue, Saving Hunting
Supporters of Montana's ballot measure to eliminate outfitter-sponsored licenses might be addressing the symptom instead of the disease, but they have unearthed the top of the mountain.
By Bill Schneider, 1-13-10
While working on my recent article on a ballot initiative to eliminate Montana’s outfitter-sponsored big game licenses, I started wondering if this was really the best way to address perhaps the most serious problem facing the sport of hunting--and not just in Montana, but everywhere--rapidly declining public access to private land.
The real issue is a pay-to-play trend that’s leading us to the day when free public hunting on private land might only exist in the history books. Let’s look at the core cause of the problem and how to solve it.
First, though, let’s put one issue on the sidelines. Yes, I know it’s private land, but I also know wildlife is a public resource, so everybody is a stakeholder in this debate.
Farmers and ranchers close their land to public hunting for various reasons, but one is definitely the chance to make some extra cash leasing out the hunting rights to outfitters, big corporations or private clubs. I find it difficult to fault landowners who have been giving it away for decades for taking the money. They not only have some found money, but as a bonus, they have little or no hassle compared to monitoring and managing public hunting--and rarely have any damage caused by poorly behaved hunters because leasers usually manage their clients, employees or members and educate them on proper use of private land.
I see both sides of the I-161 issue and don’t really have a position on the ballot measure, but I sure see why it has energy behind it. Ethical hunters who have fostered good relationships with landowners are understandably frustrated when their traditional hunting ground is suddenly leased to rich guys who have done nothing to develop such relationships.
I see the outfitting industry as one of the brightest spots in our less-than-rosy economic future. In Montana and other western states, we’re slowly moving from a mining and agriculture economy to a tourism and recreation economy. Outfitters can be--and should be--a big part of that new economy, but keep in mind that we had lots of outfitters before we set aside guaranteed licenses for them and before they leased millions of acres of private land.
Are outfitters the culprits? Or simply small business owners doing their best to prosper? Ditto for big corporations or hunting clubs. Are they to blame for the loss of hunting access?
Or should we hunters take a long look in the mirror? Are we to blame? Not only have some hunters behaved badly, which increases the number of locked gates, but also as a group, have we agreed to pay the price of free public hunting on private land?
Ranching and farming is a tough business and getting tougher, and that comes from a guy who remembers his father losing the farm. I grew up in an agrarian culture and understand it. Today, like it or not, ranchers and farmers need incentives to provide public hunting. A few still support free public hunting, but most have moved onto a new era where money talks.
To me, the best solution is building up hunter-funded public access programs such as Montana’s Block Management Program. This program has is critics, and they have some valid points, but conceptually, this seems like the way to go--giving landowners incentives to open land to public hunting.
There are other incentives besides cash, of course, such as property tax breaks and special licenses for the families and friends of landowners, but after forty years in the business world, I persist in thinking money is always the best incentive.
The problem is, multi-national corporations, big city hunting clubs and successful outfitters can and do pay more that Block Management offers, so what should we hunters do? How about paying more for the privilege of hunting on private land? Get aggressive and compete, financially, for these leases. Could the best defense be a good offense?
Outfitters who fear the specter of I-161 might have a coronary at the thought of a state wildlife agency on conservation group competing with them for leases, but something major must be done. What we’re doing now obviously isn’t working for hunters or hunting.
I realize such thinking conflicts with the North American Mode of Wildlife Conservation and worsens the distasteful trend of commercializing wildlife, a public resource, but is it time for a reality check?
The sport of hunting is on the ropes. Every year numbers decline; recruitment becomes more difficult; and for various reasons, far too many long-time hunters leave their hunting heritage behind, chief among them the difficulty of finding a free place to hunt. Even some hunters who can afford to pay won’t because they consider it repulsive.
Do we want to be a society where the only people who hunt are those willing and able to pay for it? Right now, that’s the future.
Montana is more fortunate than most states. We have around 30 million acres of public land. But in many states, such as where I grew up, eastern South Dakota, try find a place to shoot pheasants without paying for it.
Given all that reality, I’ve decided to drop the bomb. How about substantially increasing license fees, both nonresident and resident, and not just the normal inflation-based increases, but doubling or tripling resident fees and substantial raises in nonresident fees and earmarking all the new revenue for Block Management-like programs? Doing this would, much to the chagrin of current leaseholders, essentially create a bidding war between public hunters and private leasers. In doing so, hunters would, once again, put their money where their mouth is and be in the game instead of on the bench watching the big boys play.
We hunters don’t want to commercialize wildlife, nor do we want double our license fees, but we have to do something radical to reverse this trend because let’s face it, we’re getting our asses kicked.
Hunters have always paid their way. With license fees and excise taxes, they have funded wildlife conservation. We wouldn’t have huntable game populations without hunters paying the bills, so now we have to do the same to preserve a place to hunt, if not the entire sport.
I’m talking about real money here. In Montana, for example, resident hunters pay $20 to hunt elk--a major league bargain, in my opinion--and less than they pay for a box of cartridges or for gas every time they go hunting. Most elk hunters spend hundreds of dollars annually, not counting the $1,000 rifle and $30,000 pickup truck. The point being, an extra twenty bucks seems like a small price to pay for access to quality hunting.
Ditto for antelope, deer, turkey and all other permits. Hunters often spend more on breakfast than they would to double the cost of their license.
Montana, for example, sells 17,000 nonresident and about a 130,000 resident elk licenses. Adding $20 to each would raise $3 million annually to buy or lease hunting access. Doing something similar with all nonresident and resident licenses, and before you know it, you’d have something north of $10 million annually, which in Montana would double, if not triple. the amount of money in Block Management.
I suppose some hunters will jump into the comment section and complain that they can’t afford it, and these are the same folks who go to the legislature to say a $2 increase in deer tags makes it impossible to feed their families. To this, I say, hello, you can hardly get a cup of coffee for two bucks. We’re talking about the future of hunting here.
In Montana, Block Management has an annual budget of $6.5 million, from five funding sources, 80 percent of it from the sale of outfitter-sponsored license targeted by 1-161. This money goes to landowners in exchange for keeping the gates open to about 8 million acres of private land.
Incidentally, Block Management and similar programs in other states do more than pay landowners to provide free public hunting. State wildlife agencies also help manage hunters and the wildlife resource on that land, stressing science-based management, such as antlerless-only seasons, to keep populations and habitat healthy.
Conversely, outfitter-leased land almost always emphasizes trophy hunting, which can result in overpopulation and habitat deterioration. Also, as any big game hunter knows, deer and elk herds rapidly head for security as soon as the season opens, so that elk herd led by a 20-year-old cow beats a path from Block Management or public land over to the private lease, where the absence of antlers keeps most of them safe from hunters who’d welcome the opportunity to put a doe or cow in the freezer.
I know government hates earmarked money, but I say tough cookies. The people paying the extra fees want to be sure their money goes for the stated purpose, so agencies and lawmakers will just have to deal with earmarking. Hunters shouldn’t trust agencies to not divert their money to the budget crisis of the day. Case in point: Politicians would’ve diverted all or most excise-tax money from the Pitman-Robinson Fund long ago if it had not been earmarked for wildlife conservation.
How to do it? Well, again, let’s be real. The most state legislatures aren’t going to pass anything close to what I’m proposing or put it on the ballot. Remember back in the 1990s when Montana hunters tried to get the legislature to ban game farming and canned hunts? Frustrated after three failures, they went directly to the people with a ballot initiative and passed it. We need to do the same with this issue. Call it something like the Save Hunting Initiative.
And not just for Montana. Let’s do it in every state, even Texas. In fact, now that I think about it, especially Texas.
So, there’s a wild idea from Wild Bill. What do you think?
I have a hunch that some readers won’t agree, so if you don’t like my idea, I can deal with it, as long you tell me your better idea.
[End of article]Nice job, Bill.
The problem with a "free good" such as hunting for the askin' -- there always comes a point where there isn't enough to go around. Montana got there about 30 years ago.
Raise the license fees and make it more attractive to enter into block management for landowners.
As you so aptly pointed out, these animals are not private property, the land many of them inhabit is.
Its difficult times for ranchers and most outfitters benefit the local economy.
What kind of sense does it make to destabilize a significant part of the Montana tourism economy? Outfitters bring new money to the state and that money filters through many of our rural communities. I don't like the long lines at the ski hill, but that doesn't mean I don't appreciate what out of state skiers bring to our economy. Those ski lifts don't guarantee a good run, they just provide access. Perhaps we should limit the number of skiers who can come to our state so Montanans don't have to stand in line so long? Doesn't sound like Montana is very friendly to those not fortunate enough to live here. We complain because only the rich can afford a guided hunt yet we price our out of state licenses so high only the wealthy or those who save for years can afford them. Sounds more like sour grapes to me. If outfitting was so easy, every one would be doing it.
Comment By jdj, 1-14-10Bill makes some good points. Let’s look at some facts. First, the literature on ranch management says that out of state (and many in state) landowners do not shut off hunters for economic reasons. They do so because they want a private hunting/recreation preserve, they are opposed to hunting, they bought the land as a getaway and want privacy and, they are intolerant of slob hunters. Those that chose to contract with outfitters preserve some accountability on their land and the outfitter behaves because he wants to continue the lease. The decision is as much about efficiency as money.
Second, Bill thinks hunters should look in the mirror, I agree. Hunting has migrated in states like MT and ID from a utilitarian sport to trophy hunting and the separate activity of shooting. They should be mutually exclusive but many so-called hunters are actually just shooters – listen some day to the number of shots fired in an afternoon up Hyalite during hunting season. Witness the trash and behavior of those who shoot up the woods on any Saturday afternoon. Old TVs, pallets, bottles, and all manner of trash end up on public lands shot up and left for someone else to clean up. The non-hunting public identifies that behavior with hunting. Go to a range or pick up after yourself. If you shoot in the woods (I do) be low key and courteous to others, clean up your mess. You would on your private land. Don't blame money, blame hunters.
This forum has (mostly) criticized the state of trophy hunting – feeding stations, snuff videos, etc. - and rightly so. The sport of taking a trophy has degraded into full- camo bubbas on four-wheelers buying bragging rights to a set of horns. Hunting and taking a trophy should be a capstone hunting experience; many simply have no appreciation of the process. Blame hunters, hunting media, sporting stores.
The average age of MT elk hunters ten years ago was ten years younger than it is now. There is no new recruitment. Sincere hunters have a problem. Quality guiding is not the problem, sloppy hunting ethics, lack of self policing by other hunters, poor leadership, and confusing NRA politics with hunting politics are all parts of this issue the hunting community needs to think about.
Nice piece Bill. Proactive is good.
As a Montana resident, I'm more than willing to pay more for my tags. I think FWP does a great job with the money they get from my license fees.
But, there could be some downsides. While you may see revenues remain the same or even increase, participation may decline. Poaching could also increase. But you never know until you try. I say go for it.
I would dare say Montana has more hunting acreage, both private through block management and public, available for sportsman than any other state in the lower 48. And of course you could even get access the "old fashion way", ask before the season begins. Trying to force access onto private property will not work, I-161 will only hurt landowner - sportsman relationship.
We allow people we know both outfitted and non-outfitted to hunt our property with out charge or compensation from block management. By screening our hunters we know that our gates won't be left open, tractors or cattle won't get shot and my boys can do the day to day work on our property with out worring about all the above.
Yes, Glenn,
I was thinking about your point last night. If the point is more access for Montana hunters, the last thing you should do is annoy the people who own the ground you want to access.
If "Montana hunters" sign this petition, and "Montana hunters" vote in this initiative, "Montana landowners" are going to be unhappy. Real unhappy.
Access for public hunting is becoming a serious issue no doubt about it. Federal and state (DNRC) has not done much at all to improve access to/on public lands. DNCR (State Land Department) required a law suit and 13 years effort to get access on state land(5.2) million acres with H.B. 778 signed into law on April 22,1991 by Gov. Stevens(R). Currently, more state land has been sold in the last 3 years than all years together since statehood. Most all were a public rip-off and we lost access to the N.F. and BLM and lost wildlife habitat!The appraisal of DNRC does not place dollar values on access and wildlife habitat how convenient it's agrculture aum dollar values and timber. Get your public land cheap for private land/hunting and real estate talk to DNRC they are there to help you!
Now what is happening. Testers Bill is a wilderness bill and will be terrible for public land access to 600,000 acres of public land. Also included is 56,000 acres of BLM public lands.The wilderness will receive many more rules and regulations to keep us off our lands.Wilderness is supposed to be 'untrammeled by man' and they will be.We will loose thousands of acres of important hunting lands is that the plan? Yes it is Jon. Two of the so-called 'partners' in the Tester Bill is the National Wildlife Federation and a Wilderness group and both anti-hunting organizations. A few wildernes outfitters will be happy with Testers Bill we won't be there or can't get there. Two are behind Ted's locked gates and Ted will get the Cowbow Heaven wilderness added under Tester's bill and the Lee Metcalf Wilderness Area he has now.Nice gift for Ted from the Gov. with the 'genetically pure bison' we paid FWP for and with 10 million of federal 'homeland security' dollars.What did the 'genetically pure' bison do for "homeland security"? Ted will get them free for the Greene Ranch and we loose more public land access in the process..great!
When less firearms and ammunition are purchased because the desire to hunt with less due to less public access that will effect revenue to support fish and game agencies including FWP under the Pittman -Robertson Act of 1937.That will make the anti-hunters happy. More problems with Testers Bill. The remaining public lands(BLM/State) adjacent to the wilderness will be subject to more regulations/rules because access has been lost and more hunters will show up there thank's to Tester's Bill.More pressure will be placed on private lands for hunting as well and they will want more money to allow us to we don't have. The BLM wilderness study areas(WSA) include the Centennial Mountain Range, Ruby,Humbug Spires and a number of other valuable hunting areas.These are for the most part 'primitive' now and that is working fine and we can hunt on them why do we need "wilderness"??? Follow the money trail on wilderness and see where it leads and to campaign funding as well!!Wilderness means less land for hunting and not good wildlife management as well.Testers bill must be apart of the discussion.
Important to this dicussion is Executive Order 13443-Facilitation of Hunting Heritage and Wildlife Conservation signed August 20,2007(Bush).Look it up."(c) Manage wildlife and wildlife habitats on public lands in a manner that expands and enhances hunting opportunities,including through the use of hunting in wildlife management planning". I cannot find out if this E.O. is still in effect and it's excellent and bi-partisan. Agencies are forced under the law for planning/implementing access and management for hunting and must review and change all programs to accomplish this.This administration is not very pro-hunting or pro-guns and that bothers me.
As far as private lands are considered that is not the answer to the future of hunting, why? Private land is becoming more difficult to hunt on,more expensive,many pulling out of block management to lease to outfitters and many becomimng private landowner outfitters as well. Don't plan on the future of hunting being on private lands it will be on our public lands.Private land will be for the 'right people' with the big-bucks $$$. The futute of hunting will be on PUBLIC LANDS our land and we need better 'management'. The author fell far short on the value of public lands. The focus must be on public lands for the future of hunting.
Now Rehberg is lining up to support Testers Bill 'political back scratching'. I would expect strong public opposition from the hunting public and organizations on the Tester bill but where were they?? Tester does not have a clue what the real issue is and Baucus as well. We need laws like E.O.13443 to assure public hunting and public access on public lands.Nearly 1/2 of all public lands is not accessible now. The' rich and famous' buy a ranch and block public land access to thousands of access of public lands and with Testers 'new wilderness' real estate is already on this.They also contribute thousands of dollars to organizations like the National Wildlife Federaion and Wilderness Society who want more public land in wilderness with restrictive regulations/rules for public use and hunting. Their objective is anti-hunting animal protection. Don't be fooled change your 'focus' to public lands private lands is not the solution to the future of hunting. We have private landowners who do in fact provide access for hunting now but real estate and taxes will force them into something else.I know a few landowners who allow hunting and have no desire for block management. Most block management areas are overrun with hunters and hunting is poor there and no security for game animals,they are shot off or chased off. FWP is allowing landowner outfitting for the same landowner in the BMP how convenient.Walk access on on the BMA only and the animals are then cased onto the 'outfitting area'.
Don't forget about the wolf issue if you value hunting as well.We will sacrifice more hunting opportunity to feed more wolves(icreasinfg 27% /yr.) and FWP more intestested in wolves than "game management" and big game animals. Look at Alaska Fish & Game web page if you want to learn something about wolves and 'game management' for moose and caribou. FWP-Montana has to be 'waterboarded' to admit wolves are killing elk,deer,moose and wild sheep probably mountain goats as well like YNP.The answer is PUBLIC LANDS and stop selling state lands Governor you said during the campaign you wouldn't sell an acre. Focus on 'public lands' don't be fooled young sportsmen and you need to watch this issue closely if the plan to hunt.Sporting goods stores will loose big time and all businesses connected with hunting. Iam not ready to hang up my .300 Weatherby for golf clubs.
Sorry about those typo's.
Comment By Jack, 1-14-10Of concern here also is "privatization" of wildlife. There are a number of wealthy landowners in SW Montana for example and I have seen some in eastern Montana who control wildlife with lush alfalfa fields and sprinkling systems. It's not difficult when the public rangeland vegetation has dried up in the fall and green alfalfa then is like a magnet to deer,elk,wild sheep and antelope What at one time was 'depredation' of wildlife on crops has shifted to 'we want them here now' and will use alfalfa fields,sprinkling systems and cleverly designed fences(open the gate then close it) to hold them on the private land. Some don't support hunting at all but like a 'refuge area' for elk like near Lima for their own enjoyment others are in the outfitting business. This is what will happen more on private land in the future unfortunately. Allocation of wildlife by law places the state as the owner of wildlife even on private lands. This policy makes every citizen a de jure "shareholder" of wildlife in the United States. When anti-hunting organizations buy private land ranches we will be in big trouble.
Dr. Geist stated it best in his paper "Game ranching :threat to wildlife conservation in North America. Geist,V.1985b, Wildlife Society Bulletin 13:594-598.
Aldo LLeopold(1933)made recreational hunting an integral part of his definition of game management. "Game management" is a term seldom used by FWP anymore.
you say raise the price of the resident licences, maybe that wouldnt be a bad idea for those who can afford it, but i personally know, being raised in a small community there are still a lot of people that love to hunt and cant afford to pay more,the average wage just isnt that much. loosing the outfitter sponsored tags is going to take away millions from our block management areas. this is going to make the price of our resident increase by a lot more than twenty dollars, non residents are fed up with the high cost of montana licences. They are going elsewhere, where the state wants the added revenue.If you raise the cost of the general non resident tags enough to offset the difference from the outfitter sponered, i believe you will have a drastic decline of nonresident hunters applying therefore that absence of income will have to be made up somewhere. This is where the residents of montana will have to pay the difference again. Raising there tags yet again, from the additional twenty you had spoke of earlier, to about eighty dollars for a deer tag. As far as outfitters not letting people in, thats not true with all.I am an outfitter and have let a good number of people with cow tags hunt, and some with bull tags especially kids and handicapped people. As far as getting rich, havent yet. I personally spend a lot of money in our community and im happy to do so. Im for hunting, for every body rich and poor.
Comment By mike huff, 1-14-10You spoke of hunting becoming a commercialized sport, unfortuntely it has, and its not going to change. there is a huge percentage of land leased by residents and nonresidents alike that pay way more than outfitters for the land. Therefore are outfitters the down fall of our hunting opportunities? There are many more variables then the easy out(blame it on the outfitters). A lot of these ranches being leased are from bad experiences with the public, a select few.Just because of the word guareenteed, people think we get as many licenses as we want, not true. We have a certain number we have to stick to, plus you have to book these hunters,which means run a good operation, not just have an outfitters licence, and run to the bank with a big bag of money. Times have changed, the days of going for a drive and just stopping by a ranch and gaining access is not going to happen. Maybe people should stop by and ask if they need some help, gain access that way or do people just think, that because they have a hunting license there entitled. As far as all the game, being on leased land, not true , people are going to have to work harder and do there home work to enjoy better sucess. As far as the hunting goes, unfortunately mother nature can only produce so many animals. so maybe getting rid of a few more wolves and regulating the numbers of animals we do have better, would benifitt us more, than blaming outfitters, who have been here long before these problems arrised!
Comment By Jack, 1-14-10We hired a deputy director for FWP in Montana that stated 'hunting game is not the purpose of FWP anymore' @$85,000/yr. Perhaps he thinks the funding comes from the general fund. What is the purpose of FWP then? An audit of FWP is far overdue in Montana. The resource has been over-obligated to sell licenses and permits and the animals are not there. Put "adaptive deer management/adaptive harvest management" to bed FWP it is a farce.
Comment By jed, 1-15-10It would be a shame if sportsmen were deprived of the thrill of killing sentitnt creatures.
Comment By Will-da-Beast, 1-16-10Jack - from your point of view how does the proposed 600,000 acres of Wilderness in Tester's FJRA negatively impact hunting opportunities? Most of these landscapes are all ready non-motorized in the Forest Plans and a Wilderness designation would not affect foot and horse hunting.
And as for an increase in licenses - for the cost of foregoing one or two 18-packs of Schmidt 'animal' beer during the year, I'd be willing to pay double the price of an elk or deer tag if the proceeds went to more block management and an education program that targeted all hunters to the responsibilities and ethics of hunting on public and private lands. Kinda like the Meth Project but depicting open gates, shot up televisions, illegal ATV use, fair chase, litter and etc.
Explaination: Wilderness areas create a whole new series of regulations and rules place there by federal agencies.The objective of wilderness is "untrammeled by man". Are you familar with the regulations/rules now where you have to hang an elk 14 feet above the ground if you leave it overnight? How would you hang an elk(500-700#) 14 feet above the ground? Also no hunting from trails.Bear regulations are plain crazy. Everything is written to 'discourage' hunting. Wilderness outfitters are fine with it they will have exclusive use and for their wealthy clients.
Then we have the wealthy(the right people) who will continue to block public access to the wilderness areas right over the fence and with locked gates and more closed roads. It happened on the Lee Metcalf Wilderness Area with Turner.Not only was access blocked from the east but DNRC (State Land Department) traded away our access on the North Fk. of Spanish creek to Turner and Bear Trap Canyon as well.It took two years of court hearings and money paid for by sportsmen for an attorney to open Little Trail Creek east of Ennis Lake the only access from the west to the Wilderness Area and to Red MT. and Cherry Lake. Two outfitters operate there and have exclusive use with Turner.Tester bill will add Cowboy Heaven custom made for Turner.
Federal agencies have no problem coming up with one regulations/rule after another and they will. Not only will it be difficult to access these wilderness areas the rules/regulations will prevent access and discourage public use. Oh yes, there will be a hiker or two but public hunting forget it unless you pay an outfitter big bucks$$. Real estate has already been looking into the value of ranches that could be sold for exclusive use just over the fence from Tester's wilderness and with more locked gates and road closures.Tester never presented any data on public use recreation days in the wilderness areas we have now and access problems,why?Are you aware that 42 official appeals were filed on the Beaverhead-Deerlodge Plan and many related to wilderness?Those appeals are yet to be heard by a federal Judge.
So rules/regulations will be written to discourage most people from even going there or trying to get there plus more road closures.The unqualified people in these federal agencies now will come up with some dandy regulations count on it.
What is the alternative? There is one. Maintain the "primitive" status of these areas and they can be protected under the current multiple-use laws they have already. "Primitive' we can still get to these areas and have some reasonable access and game retrieval.The BLM study areas to wilderness will be terrible for hunting and other uses.The Centennial Mountains (I have hunted there alot including Hellroaring Creek/Baldy Mountain) mostly "primitive" now would be wilderness and the rules/regulations would discourage use and hunting. About 1/2 the Mountain Range is in Tester's bill.As you see "primitive" is a good classification and as they are now.
Follow the money on wilderness. Big promoters are anti-hunting organizations like the National Wildlife Federation and Wilderness Society. Have I ever been in a wilderness area? Better than that I spent time hunting on the Alaska Peninsula 80 miles south of King Salmon.The area is not even classified as wilderness but more wilderness that anything in Montana.Many people that are close friends of mine do a lot of hunting and all over the world and let me tell you they agree 100% with me and have testified and written letters like myself.
Wilderness means 600,000+56,000 acres that will almost fall out of the picture for public hunting opportunities. After talking to these politicians promoting all this they just plain don't have a clue and don't understand the consequences of all this wilderness doubt if they even hunt. For sure they don't hunt and wildlife management will get worst not better with wilderness. Other problems as wilderness is created more pressure will be place on the remaining public lands adjacent to these wilderness areas. More regulations there and more prssure on private lands and paid hunting.If you look at all the consequences of Tester's bill it will be devastating to Montana but nice for the easterners who may never set foot on it. Anti-hunting is behind Testers bill and he sold us out he doesn't have a clue what this is all about.Timber harvest is a smoke screen and timber could be harvested now based on 'best science' but the USFS has no backbone. Do you hunt?
I am really getting tired of all this 'crap' that everyone drives around in an ATV and throws 'crap' out on the ground. I don't have one and I don't have one. I do know a few people that do and they use them responsibly and as a matter of fact they pick up 'crap' they find and put it in garbage bags and I do as well. All the years I have been out I never seen one ferderal 'cop' BLM or FS. What do they do all day besides set on their hind end we pay them big taxpayer dollars for setting on their hind ends and travelling to "meetings" and practacing at the shooting range? We bought the guns and ammo as well. The 'bleeding hearts' always use the 'crap on the ground' as an excuse for "wilderness". How about the wilderness outfitters and weeds? Do they run the horses through the local car wash and clean them out before they enter the wilderness? We have one of those local horse riders and his horse riding outfit promoting Tester's wilderness here. It will be a 'wild place' to ride his nags but doesn't want anyone else there more 'crap'. Tester with all his wisdom thinks it's great. You can ride the nag in the 'primitive' area now so what's the motive? Simple, keep everyone else out! Run the horse through the car wash and clean the nag out so no weed seed in the wilderness to blame on the hunter.These 'bleeding hearts' come up with all these excuses but the motive is selfish greed! Wilderness will be a prime issue in the Tester re-election campaign and I will do my best to have him voted out(Independent voter) wake up Montana hunters and users of public land vote Tester out.We are responsible users of public land and no more of the litter beer can crap!!
Comment By Horst, 1-16-10Looks like lou dobbs got to Jack...
Comment By Jack, 1-16-10Thanks Horst! Lou Dobbs is an Independent to. But I guess I like Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin best you must to the same Horst!
Comment By Jefe, 1-17-10Tough to not get cynical about following the money. There is a surreal economic disparity between those who are locking up private land and those of us who have chosen to live day-to-day, paycheck to paycheck, in relative low-income 'Little Appalachia of the West'
I'm concerned the tenor here is that the marketplace and money are the only acceptable solution here. Certainly, we are helping them get animals off their land!! Yet Landowners are opening up their 'homes' to armed women and men that they only see for a day or two of the year. How can we make that a less hollow relationship? Or, to paraphrase Mr. Rumsfeld, is it just what it is?
Maybe we need to get landowners in control of offering this directly to the hunters, to be ratified in advance of the season, by the FWP BIOLOGISTS. Rancher A wants to get thirty whitetail does off his land; wants to lease privetely, not participate in BMA. He tracks the season, and discovers he still needs 14 does harvested. In December, the folks who need want and need does are contacted, for managed hunts. Extra fees? Maybe not. Is it a positive sum game? Are the hunters not helping the landowner out?
How about this: more flexibility: creating and allowing a one-off tresspass BMA compensation for landowners, tied to days and a specific harvest tag, without having to sign up for a full-on BMA? I am not sure how much a hunter day is worth in the BMA program, but compensating the landowner seems to be the marketplace solution. (Marvel at how well the markets are allocating things these days?!)
It's not a single solution. License fees could use attention: there is relative inelasticity of demand by out-of-state hunters...you could REALLY jack up the fees for out-of state tags for non-resident Montana landowners--those tags could be increased. Ditto for the resident tags, but not punishingly so... We could nuance more on a species/gender basis: no reason for a whitetail doe tag to be as much as a Deer A; ditto a bull-versus cow tag--especially where there are burgeoning populations.
But that money would not accumulate to the degree necessary to compete with outfitters and Wall Street incomes.
Can't fault the landowners for wanting some of that to trickle down their way, even though this last year the money came from ALL of us!?!
Maybe it's also an ad-campaign and awareness to get people thinking: ask hunters to be responsible; show worst-case abuse. Ask landowners to ponder a mix of leased and permission hunting , all in a single season--- and encourage those who choose to, to participate in Block Management.
All things in Real Estate are negotiable: Landowners are sharp cookies, and can and do choose to participate in leasing, BMA, permission without fees, or a combo of all three. That choice is their right--even if they don't own the wildlife--don't forget it.
You'll never get onto certain places: get over it, grow up, and go forward!
Those who put in time, off season, seeking relationships and permission with landowners, generally are not losing hunting priviledges. I think we can urge landowners to keep that handful of hunters in mind, the short list if you will, of folks thay would STILL allow to hunt, even if they enter into an outfitter lease arrangement. The landowners are in control of whatever they negotiate, and it doesn't have to be mutually exclusive.
It doesn't hurt to ask the landowner to keep you in mind if this eventuality occurs.
The outfitter who mentioned helping the landowner manage the population by extending invitations to management hunts for cows/claves/does-- is right on as well.
There is an array of hunters, looking for various experiences from the hunt. Some want a hunt, on foot, for a wiley animal like a pronghorn... others just want the meat, and a short drag. I am not convinced that the marketplace and money are necessarily the only way to match up the demand and supply.
Maybe its that we communicate these opportunites better, to match up hunters with opportunities and need: it's the information age, for criminy's sake! It KILLS ME to see the blooming whitetail doe populations some places that I can't get at... and to even hear the landowner gripe about wildlife damage/competition while denying permission, or saying he's leased!! I bite my tongue, but sometimes I want to point out the lack of logic.
I have signed up in the past for depredation hunt lists, and have never, ever been contacted by FWP to help a landowner harvest an animal off a ranch or farm that is plagued with wildlife competing for forage. But I can't contact the owner directly, or hunt after-the-season. This needs work.
We can and should manage all of this more closely. I hope the FWP official was mis-quoted or mis-spoke when he said it's not about hunting. I hope he meant it is that we are starting to have to manage people over-subscribing a limited resource.
Bottom line, unfortunately, is that there are too many of us... and that's not going to change. We are the third most populous nation in the world.
But it IS a management Issue, and we can nuance it to a much better degree .
I'm sure we all do it, but thank the landowners! I know they have thanked me when I have eliminated a doe from the pool of fecundity down on the crick bottom!
BTW...look at the harvest rates on ELK... while a fair number are pulled off of private ground, the majority...more than half-- come off of OUR public lands!
Have a great new year... good article, Bill!
Jack -
With all due respect, I couldn't disagree with you more about the potential effect of Tester's bill on hunting opportunities. This bill will protect prime elk, mule and whitetail deer habitat, and preserve access.
This is precisely why pro-hunting conservation groups such as the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership and Backcountry Hunters and Anglers have signed on in support of this bill.
Smithhammer you must be aware that there are 'higher densities' of elk,mule deer and whitetail deer found 'outside' wilderness areas then inside,it's always been that way. That also includes wild sheep,grizzly bears and even wolves unfortunately.Why? The habitat is far more productive and with more diverse vegetation and diverse wildlife species. Longer growing season outside wilderness as well for diverse vegetation, the habitat.
Grizzly bears on the east front use lower elevation areas consistently,Pine Butte swamp ,etc.which is far more productive than high wilderness. For a 'low density' of wildlife in Montana go to a wilderness area. YNP? In YNP the wolves have destroyed the diversity of wildlife there:elk ,mule deer,moose,wild sheep and even coyotes. The wildlife diversity in the upper Gallatin is gone as well thanks to 'killer wolves'. A 'refuge' is not the answer in wildlife management. More wilderness is not good for Montana and over 1/2 of all public lands are inaccesssible now. I favor 'responsible' public access and people staying on the designated roads and trails. We have lost so much public access in Montana. I was part of the group that got access to 5.2 million acres of public state land in Montana .We hired the best attorney in Montana and won with HB778 signed into law in April 1991.Don't be fooled that wilderness/refuges provide the highest densities of wild ungulate populations because they don't it's just the opposite. That is not an opinion wildlife research points in that direction on many research studies in Montana. Just look at the harvest results of elk,deer,wild sheep,moose,etc. The majority are harvested every year 'outside' wilderness areas.Hunters go to where the game is.The trend is for the rich and famous to buy a ranch and block access to thousands of acres of public land. Why do you thing they are buying ranches at lower elevations as well like Cabela's they want to 'privatize' Montana wildlife and they know they are there?Look where all these big game animals are coming from and it's not wilderness. In a 'wilderness' you do a lot of looking before you even see one.They also want to control access to and on public lands.We will loose access to thousands and thousands of acres of public land now "primitive" we can use now with the Tester's bill. Over 1/2 includes the Centennial Mountain range(BLM) a prime elk hunting area is in the Tester bill.His bill is anti-hunting in my view.
If you are referring to Tester's wilderness bill he doesn't have a clue about wildife, hunting or access perhaps he is mis-guided by his overpaid 'staff'. He sure doesn't have a clue about 'wildlife science'.It's all political to say he sponsored a bill to justify his existence like the state legislature. Follow the campaign money trail on Tester's bill it will lead to anti-hunting organizations like the Wilderness Society and National Wildlife Federation the so-called "partners". The easterners don't vote for a Congressman in Montana!..... Good news in Mass. don't you think it could happen here?
Jack -
I don't know where you're getting your information from, but I could just as easily point to piles of studies that have shown that non-mechanized wilderness is essential for healthy wildlife populations.
To cite "where hunters go" as proof of where the game is, is deceptive, given that many hunters will only go where they can get their ATV's into. That's kind of like saying that you can only find apples at the grocery store, since that's where most people buy them.
And the suggestion that there is a "longer growing season" and "more diversity and productivity" outside wilderness areas is absurd, not to mention a sweeping statement that could hardly be applicable to the vast diversity of wilderness that we're talking about, even if it were true.
As far as Tester goes, this bill isn't about his personal knowledge of wildlife, nor that of his staff, though they have certainly been involved (and I would suspect they know more than you would give them credit for). Rather than focusing your criticism personally on Tester, take a look at the organizations and individuals who really crafted the three land mgmt. plans that eventually became S. 1470. Much of the information that guided thes processes were provided by hunting and angling conservation org's that DO heavily rely on wildlife science to inform their conservation strategies.
As someone involved in access to public land for the past 30 years I can tell you that one of the main problems with outfitters is that they not only take private land away from the average hunter but also thousands of acres of public land as well. When an outfitter moves into an area you can be sure old roads will be closed that have been open to the public for years. The fight is on to hold on to access to BLM and Forest Service land. The PLWA has spent thousands of dollars to retain this access and, frankly, receive very little help from the agency who manage the land being locked up.
County commissioners are often reluctant to challenge these closures and the agencies often add to the problem by issuing the same outfitter a permit to operate on the public land behind his locked gate.
If you think i am making this up check out the Maybee Road, The Scenic View Road , Washington gulch and Jefferson gulch. I could name more.
I say clip the wings of these outfitters and landowners by using the permit system and doing away with the outfitter Sponsored Licenses. Let them perform a service to their clients rather than blocking access to our public land.
Gib
................................Cite one...just one!
Comment By Jack, 1-20-10The Pumpkin Creek land exchange in eastern Montana was another land and wildlife grab. We lost access to the National Forest, public state land and other BLM public land.After the BLM land exchange an outfitter got our land and now exclusive hunting for the 'right people'. I guess BLM has an advisory committee who promotes 'ridding us' of public lands!
Comment By L. J. Martin, 1-22-10Yes, we have lots of public land in Montana, but it's not always easy to get to those prime hunting areas unless you've got mountain goat legs. I'm against most things that infringe on private property rights, so how about buying access to public land across private land? Most ranchers have roads already in place, and many have roads, now private, that reach to or even into public lands. Purchased lanes, or right of ways, and parking areas for cars, trucks, and horse trailers would do much to relieve the pressure on currently accessible areas where there are lots of roads. Let the rancher keep his private land to do with as he wishes, but open up that public land behind him. And, of course, get the wolves under control so there's some game left on both private and public land.
Comment By Jack, 1-22-10Good comment Mr. Martin I see you speak from experience.Tester's 'wilderness bill' and that's all it is will make the situation worst much worst even controlling wolves which is becoming nearly impossible. Federal agencies haven't done anything for public land access,nothing, all they know is close more roads and trails.The more the feds and Congressmen mess up public land access the more pressure on private land. "Wilderness" will probably cost Tester the re-election looks that way he only won by by less than 3500 votes and refuses to answer questions about wilderness he just reads 'prepared' speeches,rehearsal and read again.
Comment By Smithhammer, 1-22-10"Yes, we have lots of public land in Montana, but it's not always easy to get to those prime hunting areas unless you've got mountain goat legs."
For what it's worth, I don't think all public land needs to be "easy to get to." And I think there should be places that you need "mountain goat legs" to access. How long would many of those "prime" hunting areas continue to be prime if they were easy to get to?
And it gets a little tiresome to hear the ORV contingent continually complaining about limited access, when, in large part, they are doing it to themselves. I know that there are many responsible ORV users out there, but increasingly, everywhere I go on public lands, there is significant, long-term impact from ORV's that feel they can go anywhere they want and in the process tear the hell out of everything. If you want to stand up for your "rights" as ORV users, you need to first get that reckless segment of your user group under control. Otherwise, not surprisingly, expect more closures.
Don't know if you hunt at all smithhammer actually don't really care but I do and public land access to and on public land is a serious problem. ORV's must be used in a responsible manner and stay on roads and trails and no littering as well. The problem is bigger than that however. We are loosing responsible access to public land every year. More public land is being blocked off by wealthy private landowners,many out of state and federal agencies compound the problem by closing more traditional public access and sportsmen have to fight for public land access.
Federal agencies have all these 'cops' and plenty of them but all the years I have been out there I have never seen one. What do they do all day anyway? People that abuse public land should be fined. Sometimes I wonder where some of these access groups are coming from as well. They talk about public land access but support a bill like Testers that will deney us access to thousands more acres of public land and with more stupid government regulations and rules. Some of these groups favor Tester's bill is that double standards? Looks that way to me.
"deny"
Comment By Smithhammer, 1-22-10Jack -
Yes I do hunt. Quite a bit, actually.
And you'll find no argument with me the fact that public land access is a big issue throughout our region. I agree, and it's something we need to continue fighting for. But I am also making a distinction between "access" and "ORV access." Contrary to what many people have come to think in a relatively short time span, ORV's are not "essential" to hunting. I think there are some places where they should be allowed, and a lot of places in the backcountry where they shouldn't, due to the amount of damaging impact they create.
Can you explain to me how Tester's bill will "deney (sic) us access to thousands more acres of public land?" If by "us" do you mean motorized users? Because I see the bill protecting a lot of excellent hunting and angling habitat in the backcountry, but yeah, it probably means you're going to have to put one foot in front of the other.
As far as "federal agencies having all these cops" - where? I never see them when I'm out in the field. I would actually love to see more enforcement going on. We have one conservation officer for our entire area. We have poaching, we have illegal
(con't) We have poaching, we have illegal off-road use, and a host of other issues, and there is no way one person can effectively stay on top of it.
Comment By Jack, 1-22-10REGULATIONS AND RULES DEVELOPED BY FEDERAL AGENCIES AFTER WILDERNESS DISCOURAGE PUBLIC USE AND HUNTING. MANY OF TESTER'S AREAS DONT EVEN QUALIFY AS WILDERNESS WITH SOME ROADS,STRUCTURES AND ROADS TO MINING CLAIMS.WILDERNESS OUTFITTERS FINE WITH IT THEY WILL HAVE EXCLUSIVE USE FOR WEALTHY CLIENTS! GAME RETRIEVAL BY ANYONE ELSE IS NEARLY IMPOSSIBLE.MOST ARE PRIMITIVE NOW AND THAT IS FINE AND WE DON'T HAVE ALL THESE NEW DUMB REGULATIONS. AGENCIES WILL WRITE MORE DUMB REGULATIONS TO PREVENT HUMAN USE 'UNTRAMMELED BY MAN".
Comment By L. J. Martin, 1-22-10Please note that I didn't say "access" to off road vehicles, I said parking. And parking in an area that's five miles from another public road access will only open an area that requires a lot of mountain goat legs to get to, and probably overnight camping in order to get more than five miles from the parking. I'm 68, and yes, I hunt areas that I can "walk around" rather than climb. And this kind of access through private land would increase poaching, but poachers will poach no matter where they are. I, for one, hate all the logging roads in our public lands. If you fly over Montana you'll see far more of this than any other western state. I have an ATV, but I've probably hunted off it three times in the 13 years I've been privileged to live in Montana. I'm only saying don't let private land close off foot and horse access to public land, and use money to BUY that access from land owners. We've got lots of wilderness and I won't complain if we get more, so long as the trade off is acceptable.
Comment By Smithhammer, 1-22-10Jack - Coming in loud and clear. You can take your "caps lock" off now.
L. J. - Agreed.
It's off...................see!
Comment By Oak, 1-22-10First I would like to say that the article is one of the best I have seen on the subject and it got some of you talking. Second of all the reason the outfitter sponsered licenses were created was to help outfitters know if they will even have hunters. Under the random draw system an outfitter would lets say book 50 people hoping he got 25, if the luck of the draw went against him he may only get 10. Like any bussiness there is fixed overhead that has to be paid. It was very hard to run a bussiness that way. Wyoming has helped stabalize that with the preference point system instead of outfitter sponsered licenses.
All this being said it still won't change the leasing of private land by outfitters. My bussiness leases over 700,000 acres of land for hunting in Wyoming and Montana. The reason is during the 90s when the cattle market was in the toilet and even big ranches were in trouble we were a way to save the farm. I grew up on a farm in Nebraska and it is a difficult way to make a living so when someone tells you that he is going to give you 30,000 to 50,000 dollars of income every year and you don,t even have to start up your tractor, well what would you do.
In all respect Oak I would like to ask you a question. I have looked at a lot of these 'big ranches' on land status maps and I have many maps,plenty of them.I found very few are 100% private lands,damn few. Most have BLM,state leases and N.F. If you have access to the public land it doesn't make any difference if they are leased for outfitting or not the public can use their public lands anytime if they don't cross private lands. Most have a road or other public lands next to them,also corner crossing is legal.The federal agencies should not give outfitter permits on public land where the resource is limited and conflict would occur. Makes no difference to me if they are leased to outfitters or not public land is just that "public". A good land status map is the best tool you can have and posting public land is illegal. There have been recent problems/fines on the Wyoming/Montana border with outfitters from Wyoming posting public land in Montana. As I said very few of these ranches are 100% private land look on a land status map we do. I do and I don't need permission to hunt on my land. Few of the ranches you are talking about are 100% private land ...damn few most all have public land in them and the rancher has public land grazing.I don't like out of state outfitters outfitting in Montana anyway. Have good land status maps hunters and don't be fooled and report posting of public land OUR land.These big ranches so-called advertise in magazines about all the land on the "ranch" but don't say how much is public land ..that is false advertizing.We can hunt on any accessible public land even in block management and don't have to ask anyone.
Comment By L. J. Martin, 1-23-10I had no idea "corner crossing" was legal and would like to have some written verification of that if you can tell me where to find it. I actually had a BLM official in an eastern Montana small town office tell me that if cattle were grazing I wasn't allowed to hunt. Being a wilting violet I told him he'd better call the sheriff because I believed that multiple use was still the norm on public, my, land and I was headed out to get my antelope. Ranchers and outfitters are blatent about posting public land and tearing down BLM signs--and often have the support of other locals, no matter if they work for the BLM or Forest Service as they all have to live together. Now, with the advent of GPS, it's much more difficult for them to make the case that "you're on private land." It's up to the hunter to know where he is and to stand up for his rights. I'm always polite and respect gates and fences, and prior to GPS was ticketed for trespass, and to be truthful, was questioning myself as to where I was. To the FWP's credit, the kid who wrote me worked very, very had to make SURE I was on private land--and the outfitter didn't have it posted, to his discredit. Not that it's his duty, but good hunter relations is his obligation, to his industry, if he wants to keep away the kind of legislation outfitters now face. Maybe the FWP kid worked so hard to prove me innocent was because he was so very busy on the opening day of antelope season that when called by the outfitter he asked me to meet him in town, and I did. The lamb drove himself to slaughter. But at that time the $170 fine was a lot less than the $2,500 the outfitter wanted for a three day place-and-leave hunt.
Comment By Jack, 1-23-10I will have to locate my file on this. One case was in Park county Montana. No ones owns the 'air space'. You should always carry to important maps the larger scale BLM or USFS map and the USGS quad map about 21/2 inches to the mile.The later map shows where the section corners and quarter corners are and if they were brass caps or rock corners.Also many of these sections are off-set that is the result of the cadastral surveys and bringing the lines together.Some of these off sets are as much as 15 yards plenty of room to walk across.These maps are the best tools you can have and better than GPS.
Don't be fooled by this 'big ranch for hunting by the right people bull'.Most all of these big ranches are 30-55% public land and they want our public land to control for their own profit and privatize wildlife.These "big ranches" so called have federal or state grazing "privileges".If public land is posted illegally the ranch has violated the Federal Range Code ( Title 43CFR) -BLM and they can 'loose' these grazing privileges to graze livstock on our land.Also, if they chase you off public land the same thing,take notes and photographs,evidence don't be fooled and dazzled. I have done this and made real believers out of the "big ranch". When I was harassed on one the rancher didn't even have a land status map he said this land is all his and get off. 'B.S.' I had maps and turned him in. Remember when they advertised they owned the rivers and streams? Be prepared for the "big ranch" leased to outfitters.The 'outfitter from Wyoming' who posted public state land in Montana got his tit in the vise.
By the way if livestock are out on public land you can damn well hunt there.Check the grazing license from BLM as well and they have to send it to you "public information". I came across a few in eastern Montana who had livestock out after the licensed grazing season...trespass!
Comment By Smithhammer, 1-23-10Agreed, Jack. Unfortunately, it seems to be up to us to keep the BLM honest on this. I just returned from a bird hunting trip to central Wyoming, where formerly excellent Hun habitat has been completely nuked down to bare earth by cattle and sheep. It doesn't appear that there is any rotation going on, and if it is, it certainly isn't happening anywhere near often enough. They'll be receiving letters from several of us, and I hope for an explanation.
Comment By Jack, 1-23-10Keep the heat on the BLM. They don't have a "clue" what they are doing these days.I have never seen so many unqualified people working for BLM these days. At one time they had some credibility. They wouldn't know rotation grazing if they fell into it especially rest-rotation grazing. A friend and I went to the local BLM office about 3 weeks ago. We asked for a paper copy of a grazing license they said "we don't have them anymore". How about a computer copy then? Answer "our computer is broke down". We have a BLM state director in Montana now who is "totally clueless" only interested in "ridding us of public land". He must be the BLM czar!! Send letters to congressmen on BLM if you expect an answer. You can also use the Freedom of Information Act for "documents". For example, copy of the grazing license and the field data on the present range condition,trend and utilization.Sounds like they left a lot for wildlife..bare ground!
Comment By yakimaman, 1-26-10Late to the "party", but want to say there's alot of interesting and valuable dialogue here.
I'll add my perspective which doesn't take sides with either the Tester Bill or the outfitting issue.
It deals with the image of hunting and whether or not the demographic change in population base cares one bit about either issue and they're relationship to hunting.
I grew up hunting and as a kid, I remember the neighborhood gatherings whenever a successful hunter in the community arrived home after a hunt. Lots of 'atta boys and celebration of the big elk, bear, deer etc.
That's no longer the case, in fact more and more neighbors look at the "hunter" as a demented killer. Maybe because of the publicity and photos so often viewed on the front pages of dead wolves, elk, etc that have turned people against hunting. I know it has influenced some of my friends. Maybe all the publicity of trapping and animal cruelty has influenced many. People are associating one with the other, unfairly.
There are also many who feel betrayed by the "back room" politics of some groups like the National Wildlife Federation, who have crafted bills such as Testers without public participation.
My whole point is that the hunting groups and "conservation" groups need to "clean up their act" if they expect the people of this state to take any interest in supporting initiatives or wilderness bills.
Big Pimpin' Outfitters Will Lease to Please
In Montana, things have gotten out of hand
With all the pimpish outfitters leasing up land
For instead of pandering pretty girls,
They sell big antlers and full curls
Because prostituted wildlife's always in great demand.
Just like the early Market Hunters of old
Outfitters see wildlife as glittering gold.
They want to increase their yield
From all the beasts of the field
So they kill it, if the animal can be sold!
When an outfitter sights a piece of prime ground
He tries to get the landowner lease bound
Just like a pimp dating your daughter,
This outfitter intends to slaughter
Every bit of marketable game that's to be found.
Now the outfitters love the guaranteed tag
To help their limited skills clients to bag
All the game that they please
Off of land that they lease
So they can go back to the Big City and brag.
You see, their john-clients don't hunt out of need.
Instead they've got big Freudian issues to feed.
So the outfitters lock up lots of land
To grease their client's little issue at hand
And in the process, they satisfy their money greed!
But for the outfitters to be able to increase
The amount of land that they have under lease
It's set aside licenses they'd need
If they want to proceed
With their plan that public hunting should cease.
The Game Pimps always work at improving their stature
Every two years they gather at the Helena Legislature
They put on vests, neckerchiefs, and cowboy hats
When they should wear big fedoras, long mink coats, and spats
To get more rights to sell their crimes against nature.
Now, the average hunters of Montana have had enough
Of putting up with the Game Pimp's land leasing stuff
So they've decided to use the mallet
Of Initiative 161 on the ballot
To drive these New Market Hunter's balls into the ruff.
So if you see the I-161 petition, sign your name
If you value your God given right to hunt game
If you want to be able
To put game on the table,
End the game pimping outfitter's land leasing shame!
----------------------------------------------------
Charles Ulysses Feney
Outstanding article, Bill. Probably one of your finest.
As a veteran I pay minimal fees to hunt in our great state. If paying extra means saving hunting, then I am all for it.
I grew up around outfitters and one thing that I can say is that the outfitter is only as good as the area of the country he came from. Though I've never hired the services of an outfitter, I have had enough experience with them to know that there are some on the "Trophy" side and some on the "Utilitarian" side, as you have mentioned. Cash is King, as they say in business, and trophy hunters are all about paying top-dollar for their hunting here. We can't articulate our disdain for a hand-full of the trophy/big-money outfitters by supporting an initiative that sets its sights on all outfitters. When I hunt, I usually hunt on land owned by outfitters whom I support. The principles of outfitting may all be the same, but the methods and morals differ greatly.
Block Management can morph into a "grassroots" organization of individual hunters who can guide the outfitters, set the precedents of hunting in this state. Call it Independent Hunters vs. Big-Trophy Outfitters, but we can set the standards of fees and principles by organizing hunting communities with the guidance of FWP. Pay dues to the organization which will ensure a voice for all hunters. We don't have to rely on NRA or Rocky Mountain Elk, because, in my opinion, they have lost touch with the reality of hunting; a recreational activity that not only puts meat in the freezer, but controls the population of the herds as set forth by conservationists within the Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks.
Bill:
Years ago I worked for FWP as one of the First Block Management patrollers out of Missoula. I though then that the program was super great - it evened the playing field as your article suggests. In the year's since I've used Block Managment areas many, many times. Each time I felt like a john at the brothel. When I grew up you worked for a farmer or rancher, gained his trust and were maybe allowed to hunt that fall. I've built fence, bucked bales, and helped in so many ways only to see somebody lease "hunting rights".
Nobody likes a prostitute except the one paying for her temporary attention and I've never met someone willing to pay for her upkeep after she's worn out and used up. That's why I'm against against pay for prey in any way. Only the ones able to pay (public or private funding) get to hunt. Outfitters use the resource for money. I've known several, worked for two and never found one who wouldnt bend the laws when it meant a buck in his pocket - pun intended.
Webster defineds bribe as: Money given to someone of influence in order to influence their conduct. Why do so many American's think that taking a bribe in order to do business is corruption? Isn't taking money for hunting priviledges a bribe of sorts? Why aren't we angry about that?
Ranchers do have a tough life. I'd feel sorrier for them if so many of them couldn't sell everything and move to the bahamas so easily. But making money off wildlife resources is not the answer. Not to me anyway. As the punch line goes in the old joke - "We've established what you are - now we are haggling price".
Great Article though! Thanks for stirring the pot!
Are you aware of the latest FWP BMA inovation? Some ranchers/farmers in the BMA program are also "landowner outfitters",yes, that is correct. Here is how it works..The "landowner outfitter" enrolled takes out the best hunting area and puts that under his outfitting permit area. Then the same "landowner outfitter" changes the access on the BMA, now it will be 'walk access only' and retrieval the same way.We may have to walk a mile or more across the pvt. land just to get to our public land. Us 'dummy hunters' who hunt on these go out there to hunt. By walking and 'maybe shooting' we move the animals onto his outfitting area. Quite a deal right?
I spoke with one 'landowner outfitter' on the phone he said "It has worked out well for us"! I told him I can imagine!! But you closed off the road access on BLM and state sections as well. Our public roads might as well be on the surface of the moon we can't get to them or retreive! Response 'DNRC was glad to help us its our lease area and BLM is our grazing land'! !He told me I better not show up there to hunt! Isn't that 'descimination' on a BMA then? But those state sections were closed off with no public input! We pay extra money to FWP to use OUR public state lands when we buy a license. Lets see now, there are about 15 in eastern Montana and one I know of in SW Montana (last count a year ago) one a big ranch 65 % public lands in sw Montana but we can't drive to most of our land under the BMA program. Alan Charles , FWP could probably enlighten us. We pay the 'landowner outfitter' in the BMA program($13,000/yr.) and he makes big bucks,dollars that is,on the same area that was at one time all in the BMA program but now where the animals go to the 'outfitting area'. Who are the 'dumb ones' here then? Our sportmen's dollars being use of course....ask Charles? I guess you will be a happy hunting if you can just walk on the private land but nothing to shoot, right? Good exercise however! I would sure like to see the hunter statistics on these capers!The landowner outfitter doesn't have to pay a percent of the gross money he makes for clients I understand like a regular outfitter.Alan should enlighten us on this. One other thing, most BMA are over-run with hunters and animals shot or chased off to adjoining private land. Antelope camped around sprinkling systems in SW Montana closed to hunting as well as elk.....We can walk on our public land with no game there however. It will be a real challenge to find a 3 point mule deer in sw Montana..forget about a 4-pt. FWP over obligated the mule deer resource for about 15 years now. Thanks 'adaptive deer management'!!Where does the state land money go we pay FWP Alan? We paid for a 12 month license before to DNRC?? Now we need two licenses to use OUR land after the hunting season or we will be fined!!If you take photos of wldlife on OUR state land after the hunter season or go on a 'tour' you better have the second DNRC license it's a $500-$1000 fine!! Great management going on out there!!The BMA program is great right?