FOLLOWING MY SHOTS

Urban Deer, Mining Law, the RAT, Cabela’s, Gun Nuts and Wildernuts

By Bill Schneider, 12-26-08

When I write my column every week, I’m hoping something good happens because of it. Sometimes, it does, but often not. In both cases, I haven’t been following my shot.

Every good basketball player should follow his shots, so today, I’m shrugging off that bad habit and starting to post periodic updates on what happened after the column hit cyberspace.

For a few significant updates for 2008 Wild Bill columns, read on.

Let Bowhunters Solve Deer Problem (2-13-08)

In this column, I proposed the Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks Commission, five guys who are supposed to set policy to support hunting and hunters, reject the City of Helena’s plan to trap and kill 50 deer with bolt guns at a cost of $2,000 per animal, much of it from hunter’s license dollars. Instead, I suggested, let bowhunters make this a new hunting opportunity and revenue generator for the department, something bowhunters were anxious to do and even considered the option of managing the hunt for th department, just as they have so successfully done in many other municipalities.

Instead of supporting hunting, the FWP bought the city’s plan, and in early December, Helena’s police officers finished taking time off from crime fighting to kill the 50 deer. Adding to the insult to hunters, the commission is just now approving an extension of the plan to allow city police to bolt gun 150 more “problem deer.”

So much for our FWP commission siding with the people who fund wildlife management in Montana and using the Helena urban deer opportunity to set a pro-hunting precedent for other Montana cities.

Tester, Take the Lead on Mining Law (3-6-08)

At the congressional hearing discussed in the column, according to conservationists in attendance, Tester supported mining law reform, but even though I had predicted this much-needed rewriting of the archaic 1872 law might pass this year, wrong again. Senator Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), hailing from a state with a strong mining lobby, kept the reform bill from getting a vote in Congress. He didn’t want to bring it up before the election, and I guess that worked, since Nevada went for Obama on November 4. But now the election is history, and it sounds like Reid might allow a mining law reform to move forward when the 111th Congress convenes in January. Hopefully, it’s a good bill and not one the mining lobby writes.

Congress Needs to Walk the Talk on Recreation Fees (7-3-08)

Because of “scheduling problems,” S.2438, the Baucus-Crapo Bill to kill the Federal Lands Recreational Enhancement Act and start over with a reasonable recreational fee policy, went nowhere in the 110th Congress. However, Barrett Kaiser, a spokesman for Senator Max Baucus (D-MT) recently told me “Max is a 100 percent committed to moving it next year.” Newly appointed Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar (D-CO) co-sponsored the bill, which should improve its chances.

Revisiting the Cabela’s Controversy (10-29-08)

After this column went out, the Montana Wildlife Federation (MWF) decided to send letters to Cabela’s and the Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks (FWP) and asked both for updates. “We are asking for help in understanding what Cabela’s is doing differently than a year ago,” executive Craig Sharpe wrote.

In its response, FWP basically repeated what agenyc reps had said in the column--Cabela’s had done everything they requested the company do and has had no interactions with the company since December 2007.

In the company’s four-page response (recently published here), Gregg Severinson, director of Cabela’s Trophy Properties, “…CTP has set the standard and become a model for recreational land marketing.”

Severinson went on to detail how the company is attempted to educate both landowners and real estate agents and become a “leader” in doing what’s “best for Montana.”

After reading the lengthy letter and having a long phone chat with Severinson a couple of months ago, I’d have to say the extent of the communication and educational efforts being made by Cabela’s are clearly admirable and substantial. I believe they’d do some of this regardless of any controversy, and I sure hope more land brokers follow the company’s lead.

But as I’ve stated in the past, I suppose we can’t expect a company to do anything that hurts sales. The fact is, there’s still nothing in the company’s response to the controversy that might injure or slow down the process of converting huntable land to non-huntable land. But there’s a lot of denial about how much Cabela’s brand power speeds up the amenity land sales process, which is now threatening our outdoor heritage--and at least as much denial on how destructive CTP could be to the primary revenue stream. Even though other recreational land ‘advertising vehicles” haven’t done anywhere near what CTP has done to educate buyers and sellers, none of these other companies have a core retailing business depending on retail sales to hunters and anglers.

Gun Lobby Attack Dogs Strike Again (11-3-08)

Anybody following the gun issue knows this story. After Cooper Firearms owner Dan Cooper gave money and supported President-elect Barrack Obama, angry gun rights advocates tried to shut down his company and put his 38 employees out on the street. But the whole story has never been told.

I have an email sent out by Dan Cooper to conservation group leaders asking them to “help me out” and saying Cabela’s and Sportsman’s Warehouse had canceled their orders for Cooper Firearms because of the controversy over his support for Obama. As it turned out, this was not true. The two mega-retailers had not canceled orders because of the controversy, something Cooper knew before he sent the email. Several conservationists--including Wild Bill--rallied to Cooper’s defense. Many called the retailers to complain about the canceled orders, only to find out later that Cooper had misled them, so appropriately, they called retailers back to apologize.

What I’ve Learned From Gun Nuts (11-13-08)

In this column, I admitted I’d learned a lot from gun nuts, and after it came out, I learned, again, that gun nuts only listen to themselves. When a regular nut like me writes that we need no more gun laws and should even take some we have off the books, that still isn’t pro-gun-enough. What does that say?

I also learned the answer to a question I’ve had for a long time, but never had the moxie to ask: Why do they do it? Why does a gun guy who doesn’t hunt spend so much money to have a dozen military-style guns and 50,000 rounds of ammo? During an offline email exchange with one of my new, gun nutty friends, I popped the question.

And the answer is: They consider themselves our country’s insurgency, sort of like the American Taliban. When the government tries to take over or when China or Russia invades us, they’ll be saving all of us from the forces of tyranny. That’s precisely why, according to a new friend, the Japanese didn’t invade California during WWII. They were afraid of all those guns we free people had stacked up in our closets and basements.

I’m not saying this is bad or good, but now I know why Red Dawn is the gun nut’s favorite movie.

The Beaverhead-Deerlodge Partnership: Right Idea, Wrong Bill (11-28-08)

I’ve been involved in Wilderness legislation for 35 years and thought I’d see it all. Wrong again. The current situation is nothing short of amazing. In the comment section, not one pro-wilderness reader supported the Beaverhead-Deerlodge Partnership (BDP) “Wilderness” bill, and I had several calls and emails offline, too, all from people who want more Wilderness in Montana, but all opposed to the BDP. Think about that for a minute.

A few days later, in a related article, former congressman Pat Williams expressed some of the same concerns on the BDP and gave sage advice to wildernuts on how to proceed. Same result. People wrote in to support Wilderness, but not the BDP bill.

Here’s how we got ourselves into this predicament. A few people in a few mainstream nonprofits decided to “go it alone” with the BDP idea and basically sent out a “sorry you missed the train” message to other wilderness advocates, even many of their own members. I agree that somebody had to take the lead in ending the 25-year Wilderness Drought, but these conservation leaders didn’t even include long-time wilderness advocates active in the affected area (southwestern Montana) in the decision. They collaborated with the timber industry, but not with their own base of supporters. They figured the delegation would go with any bill earning timber industry support.

Ironically and incorrectly, those few BDP promoters sell the bill as a “bottom up” proposal, but among the wilderness community, it’s completely “top down.” And doomed because of it.

I’m among the majority of Montanans who believes timber mills need help and hopes the delegation does something to help the struggling industry, but I personally find the current situation nearly unbelievable. A handful of people have traded off the pro-wilderness base for support from segments of the timber industry, not even daring to use the word “wilderness” in the title of the bill and managing to actually increase the number of people who will oppose the legislation. There will always be people philosophically opposed to Wilderness, but now we have much of the pro-wilderness constituency opposing it, too. What politician would touch that deal?

Obviously and regrettably, the Wilderness Drought will continue until the pro-wilderness constitency get on the same page.

Like this story? Get more! Sign up for our free newsletters.