The Hedgehog
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2000
- Messages
- 11,597
What does everybody seem to care so much about this map, or its accuracy?
2015 Private lands Leased to Outfitters map
- Thread starter katqanna
- Start date
It is a legal requirement for the Boo. It has many applications.
The Board of Outfitters has, over at least the past 8 years, required less and less information from the licensed outfitters. This was, from my perspective, due to the Board not wanting to handle the data (the cost to track this through their IT was continually made an issue) and many outfitters complaining that they had proprietary information that they felt should not be made public, both for political and also business reasons. Combine that with the legislature whittling more and more away from what outfitters had to report based on the notion of “too much paperwork…” Repeatedly, the Board, under the various state agencies it has operated, has not felt that licensing info (operations areas, acreage, etc.) should be made public. This sentiment was shared to various degrees by the outfitters. What kept being left out of the equation was the effect on the overall public- “…public health, safety and welfare...” which is the legal rationale for their being licensed by the state. The struggle to recognize that access and limitations/restrictions to the non-outfitted public on both public and private lands could be viewed under the title of “public welfare” continues to be the driving issue. What the release of this map did was to further muddy the issue with a huge amount of inaccurate and unqualified information.
As you know, the Board of Outfitters works independently from FWP. That disconnect has been and continues to be a major complicating factor in trying to integrate a legitimate business-outfitting- with the greater public trust and right to the state’s wildlife and public lands. At the turn of the century (God that sounds horrible doesn’t it? I’m talking 2000 not 1900) the BoO had some firmly set out statutory responsibilities to the public. Reporting operating plans, harvest, etc. was part and parcel of their responsibility. Those have been whittled away in the past 16 years to the point where we are now. I hate to suggest legislation but since the BoO has continually been reluctant (at best) to deal up the issues, and until there is a formal, specific statutory framework that requires adequate public oversight, set out in coordination with FWP and it’s access/wildlife programs, the outfitter issue will continue to be a mess.
The Board of Outfitters has, over at least the past 8 years, required less and less information from the licensed outfitters. This was, from my perspective, due to the Board not wanting to handle the data (the cost to track this through their IT was continually made an issue) and many outfitters complaining that they had proprietary information that they felt should not be made public, both for political and also business reasons. Combine that with the legislature whittling more and more away from what outfitters had to report based on the notion of “too much paperwork…” Repeatedly, the Board, under the various state agencies it has operated, has not felt that licensing info (operations areas, acreage, etc.) should be made public. This sentiment was shared to various degrees by the outfitters. What kept being left out of the equation was the effect on the overall public- “…public health, safety and welfare...” which is the legal rationale for their being licensed by the state. The struggle to recognize that access and limitations/restrictions to the non-outfitted public on both public and private lands could be viewed under the title of “public welfare” continues to be the driving issue. What the release of this map did was to further muddy the issue with a huge amount of inaccurate and unqualified information.
As you know, the Board of Outfitters works independently from FWP. That disconnect has been and continues to be a major complicating factor in trying to integrate a legitimate business-outfitting- with the greater public trust and right to the state’s wildlife and public lands. At the turn of the century (God that sounds horrible doesn’t it? I’m talking 2000 not 1900) the BoO had some firmly set out statutory responsibilities to the public. Reporting operating plans, harvest, etc. was part and parcel of their responsibility. Those have been whittled away in the past 16 years to the point where we are now. I hate to suggest legislation but since the BoO has continually been reluctant (at best) to deal up the issues, and until there is a formal, specific statutory framework that requires adequate public oversight, set out in coordination with FWP and it’s access/wildlife programs, the outfitter issue will continue to be a mess.
Eric Albus
Well-known member
- Joined
- May 24, 2012
- Messages
- 1,579
Joe,
Lemme splain a few things....... We were not giving any less..or more, info to the board until passage of 274...which was a direct result of I-161 passing. What most of you have not clue of is the history of the OSL and the rigid stipulations the outfitting community placed itself under for the privilege of using it. When the OSL went away so did the rules regarding its use, because the license was no longer there...understand?
As for the Board of Outfitters (BoO) not wanting to handle the info, you are correct in that...the expense of handling all the info was not cost effective.
"the notion of to much paper work"??? You farm....I farm, and ranch....and outfit...the outfitting is the worst of the paperwork required and the most ridiculous/redundant of the 3....
You seemingly are hung up on the "public health and welfare".... Perhaps my vision is skewed... I do not see a whole lot of danger in my line of providing service for the public to be worried about. And if you view the fact that some lands are not accessible to the public as a public welfare issue....you are reaching for the proverbial straw.
There is no "outfitter issue mess" in anyone's mind other than a few of the people like you who do not like the thought of someone making a profit by selling access to their private land.
Now for a couple stats on MOGA, just to clear up the water as to who comprises MOGA membership.
A recent survey of outfitters in MOGA revealed that 70% of MOGA's membership is made up of landowners, this of the roughly 240 MOGA members(who are all outfitters) There are roughly 650 licensed outfitters in the state, 350 of which are FISHING ONLY outfitters.
One thing that I can tell you is that the MOGA number of 240 will go up, we (myself included) have finally woke up to the fact that we need some incentives to get our guides/landowners involved in our membership. Maybe then we can have some idea of how many people are impacted directly by the outfitting industry in a positive manner... all we hear is the negative from many of you.
Lemme splain a few things....... We were not giving any less..or more, info to the board until passage of 274...which was a direct result of I-161 passing. What most of you have not clue of is the history of the OSL and the rigid stipulations the outfitting community placed itself under for the privilege of using it. When the OSL went away so did the rules regarding its use, because the license was no longer there...understand?
As for the Board of Outfitters (BoO) not wanting to handle the info, you are correct in that...the expense of handling all the info was not cost effective.
"the notion of to much paper work"??? You farm....I farm, and ranch....and outfit...the outfitting is the worst of the paperwork required and the most ridiculous/redundant of the 3....
You seemingly are hung up on the "public health and welfare".... Perhaps my vision is skewed... I do not see a whole lot of danger in my line of providing service for the public to be worried about. And if you view the fact that some lands are not accessible to the public as a public welfare issue....you are reaching for the proverbial straw.
There is no "outfitter issue mess" in anyone's mind other than a few of the people like you who do not like the thought of someone making a profit by selling access to their private land.
Now for a couple stats on MOGA, just to clear up the water as to who comprises MOGA membership.
A recent survey of outfitters in MOGA revealed that 70% of MOGA's membership is made up of landowners, this of the roughly 240 MOGA members(who are all outfitters) There are roughly 650 licensed outfitters in the state, 350 of which are FISHING ONLY outfitters.
One thing that I can tell you is that the MOGA number of 240 will go up, we (myself included) have finally woke up to the fact that we need some incentives to get our guides/landowners involved in our membership. Maybe then we can have some idea of how many people are impacted directly by the outfitting industry in a positive manner... all we hear is the negative from many of you.
Recently, there have been articles/blogs written pertaining to Maps that were purported to show the amount of outfitted/leased acreage in Montana. Before discussing the map issue, it is important to point out some pertinent facts.
First, in the United States we have what are generally called private property rights, which are even alluded to in the Constitution. These rights include the right to determine who, if anyone, can use or trespass on property you rightfully own. Property owners must abide by all federal, state or local laws and rules. A property owner is under no obligation to provide the general public with access to their property unless specified through laws, easements, deed restrictions, etc. Private property rights are a major difference between the United States and many other countries. They need to be valued and protected at all costs.
The issue of “what about public resources and the rights of the public?” is a much more subjective topic. Public resources could include wildlife, water, timber, minerals, air, etc. It is not uncommon for water usage to be allocated according to priority based on when the right was filed. The government and/or private individuals sell timber harvest rights and mineral rights. So while timber, water and minerals are “public resources” they can be bought and sold. Free ranging, undomesticated wildlife on the other hand cannot be bought and sold.
It is 100% legal to sell/lease the right to trespass on property you own for the purpose of hunting/trapping wildlife provided all current laws established by the Federal and State governments are followed. It is legal for licensed outfitters or landowners, using their private property, to take hunters out in pursuit of wildlife. It is also legal for fishing outfitters and charter boat operators to take fisherman out fishing during the legal season structure for those species being fished for.
This brings us back to the current controversy regarding Maps produced by the Montana Board of Outfitters which attempt to show the lands currently leased by outfitters in Montana. This mapping endeavor is a total waste of time! All private lands, by definition, are inaccessible to the general public without the specific written permission of the landowner. Most landowners do not allow unrestricted access to their property for the general public. Instead, they often give permission to family members, friends and possibly a few others. So whether a landowner leases their land, outfits their land or restricts access to just a few select individual, the result is the same, the general public does not have access to the property. So does this mapping process serve any real purpose other than to be used by some sportsmen’s groups and individuals to try and paint outfitters and landowners who outfit in a bad light?
I saw one quote where the person stated that they needed this mapping information to help with wildlife management issues. Really? A landowner is under no obligation to allow any hunting on their property, if that is their choice. Trying to educate the landowner of the importance of good wildlife management practices for the wildlife resource, habitat and neighbors is an extremely important part of the equation. Making sure that outfitters, land owners and lease holders provide accurate data regarding harvest numbers, species harvested, sex of animals harvested and estimated age can all be very helpful in developing laws and season structures. A map of those private lands leased by outfitters, outfitted by landowners or leased by private parties has no value, as by default, all private lands can and should be considered as not open to the general public for unrestricted use. Maps are already provided for those private lands that are enrolled in Block Management.
Bottom line, sportsmen need to stop looking for an excuse to attack outfitters and landowners for pursuing what is a 100% legal activity under current statutes and rules. The whole rallying cry of Commercialization and Privatization of our public wildlife resources rings hollow. They are not selling the wildlife, but instead merely the right to trespass on their property for the purpose of hunting, which is a basic property right.
The sportsmen time would be far better spent in protecting against “Ranching for Wildlife” concepts that could dramatically change the hunting landscape in Montana. When special seasons, bag limits, and tags are allocated to landowners, we are in deep trouble. Already we have shoulder seasons that can run outside the general season from Aug 15th to Feb 15th, and landowners are now allowed to select a percentage of the hunters allowed on their property. All that is needed to complete the process is bull hunting to be allowed during the shoulder seasons and the landowner to be allowed to charge for access during shoulder seasons. Colorado, Utah and New Mexico already have such programs in place and there are those in Montana, including possibly within FWP, that are supportive of “Ranching for Wildlife”.
Lastly, Montana hunters need to stop their whining and complaining. We all are guaranteed a general deer and elk tag and will be able to hunt them with our bows and rifles for 11 weeks during the general season! Go see if you can find that level of opportunity in any other state. Look at all the states that require that the hunter select their weapon type and that is the only season they can hunt. Look at the states that have different season time periods where you get to hunt one-time period that generally lasts only 5-10 days. Go talk to some of the residents in those states who only draw a deer or elk tag every few years. There are people in Montana who would support a choose your weapon structure or even establishing multiple shorter season structures. WE NEED TO BE THANKFUL FOR WHAT WE HAVE AND BE EVERY VILIGENT TO MAKE SURE IT IS NOT TAKEN FROM US!
For the record, I am an avid hunter who has held a hunting license for 59 years. I have been working with/on sportsmen groups, commissions and at the legislative level in 2 states for the past 40+ years. I have never been in the outfitting business. As in all businesses/groups, there are the good, bad and ugly, whether it is outfitting or the general hunting population.
I have no interest in getting into an online pissing match and am therefore highly unlikely to respond to any posts.
Vito
First, in the United States we have what are generally called private property rights, which are even alluded to in the Constitution. These rights include the right to determine who, if anyone, can use or trespass on property you rightfully own. Property owners must abide by all federal, state or local laws and rules. A property owner is under no obligation to provide the general public with access to their property unless specified through laws, easements, deed restrictions, etc. Private property rights are a major difference between the United States and many other countries. They need to be valued and protected at all costs.
The issue of “what about public resources and the rights of the public?” is a much more subjective topic. Public resources could include wildlife, water, timber, minerals, air, etc. It is not uncommon for water usage to be allocated according to priority based on when the right was filed. The government and/or private individuals sell timber harvest rights and mineral rights. So while timber, water and minerals are “public resources” they can be bought and sold. Free ranging, undomesticated wildlife on the other hand cannot be bought and sold.
It is 100% legal to sell/lease the right to trespass on property you own for the purpose of hunting/trapping wildlife provided all current laws established by the Federal and State governments are followed. It is legal for licensed outfitters or landowners, using their private property, to take hunters out in pursuit of wildlife. It is also legal for fishing outfitters and charter boat operators to take fisherman out fishing during the legal season structure for those species being fished for.
This brings us back to the current controversy regarding Maps produced by the Montana Board of Outfitters which attempt to show the lands currently leased by outfitters in Montana. This mapping endeavor is a total waste of time! All private lands, by definition, are inaccessible to the general public without the specific written permission of the landowner. Most landowners do not allow unrestricted access to their property for the general public. Instead, they often give permission to family members, friends and possibly a few others. So whether a landowner leases their land, outfits their land or restricts access to just a few select individual, the result is the same, the general public does not have access to the property. So does this mapping process serve any real purpose other than to be used by some sportsmen’s groups and individuals to try and paint outfitters and landowners who outfit in a bad light?
I saw one quote where the person stated that they needed this mapping information to help with wildlife management issues. Really? A landowner is under no obligation to allow any hunting on their property, if that is their choice. Trying to educate the landowner of the importance of good wildlife management practices for the wildlife resource, habitat and neighbors is an extremely important part of the equation. Making sure that outfitters, land owners and lease holders provide accurate data regarding harvest numbers, species harvested, sex of animals harvested and estimated age can all be very helpful in developing laws and season structures. A map of those private lands leased by outfitters, outfitted by landowners or leased by private parties has no value, as by default, all private lands can and should be considered as not open to the general public for unrestricted use. Maps are already provided for those private lands that are enrolled in Block Management.
Bottom line, sportsmen need to stop looking for an excuse to attack outfitters and landowners for pursuing what is a 100% legal activity under current statutes and rules. The whole rallying cry of Commercialization and Privatization of our public wildlife resources rings hollow. They are not selling the wildlife, but instead merely the right to trespass on their property for the purpose of hunting, which is a basic property right.
The sportsmen time would be far better spent in protecting against “Ranching for Wildlife” concepts that could dramatically change the hunting landscape in Montana. When special seasons, bag limits, and tags are allocated to landowners, we are in deep trouble. Already we have shoulder seasons that can run outside the general season from Aug 15th to Feb 15th, and landowners are now allowed to select a percentage of the hunters allowed on their property. All that is needed to complete the process is bull hunting to be allowed during the shoulder seasons and the landowner to be allowed to charge for access during shoulder seasons. Colorado, Utah and New Mexico already have such programs in place and there are those in Montana, including possibly within FWP, that are supportive of “Ranching for Wildlife”.
Lastly, Montana hunters need to stop their whining and complaining. We all are guaranteed a general deer and elk tag and will be able to hunt them with our bows and rifles for 11 weeks during the general season! Go see if you can find that level of opportunity in any other state. Look at all the states that require that the hunter select their weapon type and that is the only season they can hunt. Look at the states that have different season time periods where you get to hunt one-time period that generally lasts only 5-10 days. Go talk to some of the residents in those states who only draw a deer or elk tag every few years. There are people in Montana who would support a choose your weapon structure or even establishing multiple shorter season structures. WE NEED TO BE THANKFUL FOR WHAT WE HAVE AND BE EVERY VILIGENT TO MAKE SURE IT IS NOT TAKEN FROM US!
For the record, I am an avid hunter who has held a hunting license for 59 years. I have been working with/on sportsmen groups, commissions and at the legislative level in 2 states for the past 40+ years. I have never been in the outfitting business. As in all businesses/groups, there are the good, bad and ugly, whether it is outfitting or the general hunting population.
I have no interest in getting into an online pissing match and am therefore highly unlikely to respond to any posts.
Vito
The Hedgehog
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2000
- Messages
- 11,597
I agree with Vito. Not really sure why the map or its accuracy is so important to anybody.
Eric Albus
Well-known member
- Joined
- May 24, 2012
- Messages
- 1,579
LOL at your last line Vito.
The map is of no use, I have always concurred with that assessment. I also agree that the argument rings hollow when paying a landowner to enroll in Block Management is O.K., but a landowner leasing to an outfitter/individual is evil....where is the consistency in their argument???
The one thing that I can't agree with is our season structure. It allows to much pressure on the male segment of our deer/elk in general season units, especially the 5 week rifle season that encompasses the entire rut. We need to change that, create more opportunity, and put less pressure on the resource. Once our accessible lands are managed and look as good the inaccessible, the access issue will go away. After all, most of us outfitter types are capitalists... I for one would have a hard time paying for access if I could find as good of quality on BLM, FS, ect.... and neither would the resident Montana sportsman pay for access, if the accessible land held as good of quality as the inaccessible.
Just something to ruminate upon for the time being.
The map is of no use, I have always concurred with that assessment. I also agree that the argument rings hollow when paying a landowner to enroll in Block Management is O.K., but a landowner leasing to an outfitter/individual is evil....where is the consistency in their argument???
The one thing that I can't agree with is our season structure. It allows to much pressure on the male segment of our deer/elk in general season units, especially the 5 week rifle season that encompasses the entire rut. We need to change that, create more opportunity, and put less pressure on the resource. Once our accessible lands are managed and look as good the inaccessible, the access issue will go away. After all, most of us outfitter types are capitalists... I for one would have a hard time paying for access if I could find as good of quality on BLM, FS, ect.... and neither would the resident Montana sportsman pay for access, if the accessible land held as good of quality as the inaccessible.
Just something to ruminate upon for the time being.
katqanna
Well-known member
The map is beneficial, if it were accurate, to compare with areas deemed "over objective". If there are harbored wildlife, for the purpose of increasing outfitter hunt success (per a number of the outfitter websites), and those harbored wildlife are not removed from the count, as the elk management plan states they should be, then the objectives are going to hammer the wildlife on the public lands and still not reach the bloody objective! Hence, the political elk shoulder season bs, etc.
antlerradar
Well-known member
Vito makes some good points. I agree with much of it.
I also agree with Eric on the season and quality. There are two parties to a hunting lease. The landowner and the hunters. Outfitters are just middle men. Landowners enter the lease for two reasons. Convenience and or money. Hunters enter the lease for quality.
I can understand wanting to keep the current season. It is a great time to hunt. The season also could not be more inconvenient for landowners if they don't lease. If you do lease the current season could not be better for make money selling access. The five week season is a big part of why access to private land is so difficult. More inconvenient and more money will increase the amount of leases landowners are willing to supply. Keep the current season and we are likely to have Texas style hunting on private and very limited or very low quality hunting on public land in the future.
I am not convinced that a different season alone will bring with it better quality hunting. Eric is right on in that better quality on public will reduce the hunters demand for private leases and decrease the amount of leases. Management that is only concerned about opportunity will result in less access and more leasing.
I also agree with Eric on the season and quality. There are two parties to a hunting lease. The landowner and the hunters. Outfitters are just middle men. Landowners enter the lease for two reasons. Convenience and or money. Hunters enter the lease for quality.
I can understand wanting to keep the current season. It is a great time to hunt. The season also could not be more inconvenient for landowners if they don't lease. If you do lease the current season could not be better for make money selling access. The five week season is a big part of why access to private land is so difficult. More inconvenient and more money will increase the amount of leases landowners are willing to supply. Keep the current season and we are likely to have Texas style hunting on private and very limited or very low quality hunting on public land in the future.
I am not convinced that a different season alone will bring with it better quality hunting. Eric is right on in that better quality on public will reduce the hunters demand for private leases and decrease the amount of leases. Management that is only concerned about opportunity will result in less access and more leasing.
Last edited:
Eric Albus
Well-known member
- Joined
- May 24, 2012
- Messages
- 1,579
mt muley, really? How inconsistent of you..... BM no outfitted clients....
Last edited:
Eric Albus
Well-known member
- Joined
- May 24, 2012
- Messages
- 1,579
well said antler....
Vito is correct on the private lands issue. Many of us are land owners and no one disagrees.
I think sportsmen have learned to distrust MOGA and to some extent the Boo. Both PLPW and sportsmen groups are very interested in "All things Access". The FWP have documented migration patterns and winter range location changes in response to low private land access. Over objective areas many times have a harboring component and also request the most help in late seasons, all paid for by sportsmen. The quantification of such in a map is a matter or requirement by law. For those of you not interested, so be it, but many of us are. We have problems with access, harboring, and over objective herds. Are we supposed to figure out solutions based on no data?
It is a shame that two branches of state government can't manage to share data. We expect the outfitting industry to provide information and they'd be so much better off with transparency than legislating their way out of it. For the "man in the arena", data is important but it must be accurate!
Joe
I think sportsmen have learned to distrust MOGA and to some extent the Boo. Both PLPW and sportsmen groups are very interested in "All things Access". The FWP have documented migration patterns and winter range location changes in response to low private land access. Over objective areas many times have a harboring component and also request the most help in late seasons, all paid for by sportsmen. The quantification of such in a map is a matter or requirement by law. For those of you not interested, so be it, but many of us are. We have problems with access, harboring, and over objective herds. Are we supposed to figure out solutions based on no data?
It is a shame that two branches of state government can't manage to share data. We expect the outfitting industry to provide information and they'd be so much better off with transparency than legislating their way out of it. For the "man in the arena", data is important but it must be accurate!
Joe
There is also the issue of public land unaccessible within private lands. Landowners lease public lands for farming or grazing and certainly do not own the hunting rights on that public land. System abused? Most certainly. With good data, perhaps win-win solutions can be found. A lack of transparency and inaccuracy don't help anyone.
Joe
Joe
Eric Albus
Well-known member
- Joined
- May 24, 2012
- Messages
- 1,579
Joe, there is no "access problem".... so let's get that one out of the way first. When you start calling it "an access to quality problem" then I will stop harping on that one.
Harboring? Were it not for the managed private lands there would be little to no quality left in the state(concerning deer/elk general season areas).
So, it is important for us (outfitters) to provide data that is accurate.... but as a landowner I have to provide no data as to what goes on with my hunting?
More inconsistency.... that is the great thing about arguments with liberals...
Let us have some fun now.. It's STORY TIME (something liberals love)
So let's say I lease an imaginary ranch that borders your place, and I have to report that I leased 2500 acres(no problems with this)...This imaginary ranch has 3 miles of river bottom on it, your imaginary ranch is identical to this one, deer numbers are the same(the great thing about story time)..... we both have 100 deer, 40 bucks each and 60 does each...(this is so much fun I may change parties!)
So as an outfitter I have to report that clients took 8 buck deer off my lease and I would also have to report that clients took 25 does, 6 rooster pheasants, oh, and don't forget the partridge in a pear tree! (if I forget that one I will be fined for not reporting :W: this I do have a problem with).... All this data is going to be used for management??? HOW?
Because, back on your imaginary ranch...you allowed access to any and all...never kept track Jack Schmidt... and have no idea what was taken, as you do not have to keep track of it.
So let's keep story time rolling....we are now into next hunting season(we paid our imaginary land taxes and are operating)... I take a reading on the deer situation, and see that this season I only have 50 does and 10 bucks. Hmm..wonder what happened to them all? So as an outfitter with a conscience, I have to ratchet back on my hunter numbers...way back... so this year I report my clients took 2 buck deer, and no does, pheasant hatch was really dismal this year, took no pheasant, but did take a sharptail in the pear tree this year. Forgot to report him, now I'm on probation!
On your imaginary ranch you let Jack Schmidt and all his cousins hunt again, but kept a running tally on things... they took 10 bucks and 45 does. Jack tells you he might not want to come back until things get good again, last season they killed 60 bucks and 130 does, along with 60 roosters, and 12 partridges out of your pear tree....
Now the Dept., MWF, and the rest of the forest fringe, all point their finger at me....saying, must be the outfitters fault...look how he went from taking 8 bucks and 25 does down to 2 bucks and no does....
Thinking about all this has made me mad I will not be changing parties. Story time is over!
The moral of the story being, what good is my good data when there is no data/management next door to me?
.
Harboring? Were it not for the managed private lands there would be little to no quality left in the state(concerning deer/elk general season areas).
So, it is important for us (outfitters) to provide data that is accurate.... but as a landowner I have to provide no data as to what goes on with my hunting?
More inconsistency.... that is the great thing about arguments with liberals...
Let us have some fun now.. It's STORY TIME (something liberals love)
So let's say I lease an imaginary ranch that borders your place, and I have to report that I leased 2500 acres(no problems with this)...This imaginary ranch has 3 miles of river bottom on it, your imaginary ranch is identical to this one, deer numbers are the same(the great thing about story time
)..... we both have 100 deer, 40 bucks each and 60 does each...(this is so much fun I may change parties!)So as an outfitter I have to report that clients took 8 buck deer off my lease and I would also have to report that clients took 25 does, 6 rooster pheasants, oh, and don't forget the partridge in a pear tree! (if I forget that one I will be fined for not reporting :W: this I do have a problem with).... All this data is going to be used for management??? HOW?
Because, back on your imaginary ranch...you allowed access to any and all...never kept track Jack Schmidt... and have no idea what was taken, as you do not have to keep track of it.
So let's keep story time rolling....we are now into next hunting season(we paid our imaginary land taxes and are operating)... I take a reading on the deer situation, and see that this season I only have 50 does and 10 bucks. Hmm..wonder what happened to them all? So as an outfitter with a conscience, I have to ratchet back on my hunter numbers...way back... so this year I report my clients took 2 buck deer, and no does, pheasant hatch was really dismal this year, took no pheasant, but did take a sharptail in the pear tree this year. Forgot to report him
, now I'm on probation!On your imaginary ranch you let Jack Schmidt and all his cousins hunt again, but kept a running tally on things... they took 10 bucks and 45 does. Jack tells you he might not want to come back until things get good again, last season they killed 60 bucks and 130 does, along with 60 roosters, and 12 partridges out of your pear tree....
Now the Dept., MWF, and the rest of the forest fringe, all point their finger at me....saying, must be the outfitters fault...look how he went from taking 8 bucks and 25 does down to 2 bucks and no does....
Thinking about all this has made me mad
I will not be changing parties. Story time is over!The moral of the story being, what good is my good data when there is no data/management next door to me?
.
There most certainly is an access problem! Sorry. When outfitters "manage" a place, they often take only antlered critters and there ends up an over objective problem. Hence MOGA's push for late seasons. If management is restricting access to grow older critters, that is hardly management unless you account for all those pesky worthless antlerless critters. You may, but many don't.
You talk about private property rights and "quality". "Quality" is a term that you don't get to define except for yourself. Quality may mean horns to you. Maybe you folks think 90-100% success is quality?? It means a nice doe for the freezer for some. It means a chance to get out and about for others. It means a great hunt for me (fair chase).
Private property rights enable each landowner to manage folks on his/her land. Neither you nor I can dictate. When it comes to public lands, it is not all about lack of quality habitat. There is pent up demand for access to critters and that translates to all kinds of side affects.
Part of the discussion is the FWP charge of managing the public trust critters. If a landowner won't allow that, it is his/her perogative. But, critters roam across property lines and neighbors may in fact want a larger scale "management" of the same critters. Are your private property rights more important than your neighbors? Who is paying the price for your "management"?
Eric, if it makes you feel better to label folks as liberals if we disagree with you, knock yourself out. Many of us would argue you don't know any of us well enough to bestow those labels.
I will be looking for solutions, not arguing semantics. Join me?
J
You talk about private property rights and "quality". "Quality" is a term that you don't get to define except for yourself. Quality may mean horns to you. Maybe you folks think 90-100% success is quality?? It means a nice doe for the freezer for some. It means a chance to get out and about for others. It means a great hunt for me (fair chase).
Private property rights enable each landowner to manage folks on his/her land. Neither you nor I can dictate. When it comes to public lands, it is not all about lack of quality habitat. There is pent up demand for access to critters and that translates to all kinds of side affects.
Part of the discussion is the FWP charge of managing the public trust critters. If a landowner won't allow that, it is his/her perogative. But, critters roam across property lines and neighbors may in fact want a larger scale "management" of the same critters. Are your private property rights more important than your neighbors? Who is paying the price for your "management"?
Eric, if it makes you feel better to label folks as liberals if we disagree with you, knock yourself out. Many of us would argue you don't know any of us well enough to bestow those labels.
I will be looking for solutions, not arguing semantics. Join me?
J
katqanna
Well-known member
Let us have some fun now.. It's STORY TIME (something liberals love)
Thinking about all this has made me mad
This issue is not about the continued attempt to polarize "the haves and the have nots". Nor is it about partisan politics, yet another artificial polarization. Focus.
It is about data collection and reporting, applicable to the management of public trust resources to determine trends, patterns of user groups/industry utilizing those resources and the affect it has on herd dynamics, for better wildlife management on the macro/statewide scale and the micro/regional scale.
In this particular case, we have two state agencies, some special interests operating in both agencies that dont want a map produced, dont want to be having this discussion at all. Burying your head in the sand to avoid, at the very least, asking questions about what may be transpiring on the landscape, is short sighted. However, if it is intentional obfuscation, a special interest political shell game, then all the more reason we need to be asking questions and looking at data/maps.
Outfitting and Guiding had a section under Title 87 - Fish, Wildlife and Parks, under Chapter 4 - Commercial Activities. They were renumbered to Title 37 - Professions and Occupations, Chapter 47 - Outfitters and Guides. Smooth move, but it still doesnt divorce this occupation from the public trust resources and the need for data for the wildlife managers of those resources. Hence the "non blue & red partisan" map.
Eric Albus
Well-known member
- Joined
- May 24, 2012
- Messages
- 1,579
Sorry, Joe, did not mean to hit a nerve, was just having a little fun... we agree, quality is in the eye of the beholder, we also agree "private property is private property, we can't dictate"... I also agree there is "pent up demand for access to the critters"....this is why Joe Six-pack is so frustrated...I had used to have a dog that was kinda frustrated too...he chewed on a towel, seemed to help... maybe the sportsmen need a towel? sorry, could not help myself, but that was funny.
There are solutions to the problem, like better management on accessible lands for a starter. I have always been for working on solutions.
Now, onto Kat...."Polarizing the haves and have nots?" is that what you think I am attempting to do? Partisan politics are artificially polarizing? hmmm, guess I have to think that one over...sure seemed to me that the politics of the left were very real in their polarization to me, just as my politics would be polarizing to someone on the left.... maybe its all make believe, what I believe is not real, just a perception...
The outfitters have provided their data to the BoO, and the board used to put forth an accurate map.... we (outfitters/MOGA) are not responsible for this, for once it ain't our fault.
Now, since you are sincerely interested in the well being of the fauna, pray tell me what good it does for me to compile information on what we harvest off private lands when there is nobody else held to the same standar(and I don't need to hear, commercializing or anything to do with the "public trust doctrine") ....The information is not used to manage wildlife biologically around me, or on the ranch that I hunted...... By the way, I can tell you every deer/elk/bird we harvested the last 10 years( I can get this info from client logs turned into the BoO). Has it been used for biological management??? No, it is just used to catch an outfitter who forgot to write down a duck a client took and penalize him... wonder why we don't like it? If it were used as a measuring stick to BIOLOGICALLY manage deer/elk/birds, I would be all for it...but it ain't. The biologists at FWP never even take a look at it.
So, what is your angle on this, tell me one good logical and Biological reason I should account to the state for what I harvest off my own, or a lessee's property? You get the state to start using it as a management tool and I will try to be 1st in signing on. (I would have to beat out a couple of my really competitive outfitter friends though, and they are smarter and faster than I)
Every year when we outfitters get together that outfit in Eastern Mt., we have a big talk about management of mule deer in particular. Try to learn from each other...and it is very competitive as to who is doing it right and best, and most all of us are keeping records for our own use, and a lot of us are sending off teeth to get the deer aged SCIENTIFICALLY at a lab....not just giving our best guess by looking at tooth wear.... the teeth of all deer are not created equal, just like people, some wear out sooner than others. The oldest mule deer I have had a client take is 10, my neighbor outfitter had one taken last year that was 11(so he has me beat, we are competitive about these things). The oldest whitetail I've had a client take was 9. So, as you can see we have no problems keeping records, as long as they are used for biology...it is when records are used punitively I have a problem.
There are solutions to the problem, like better management on accessible lands for a starter. I have always been for working on solutions.
Now, onto Kat...."Polarizing the haves and have nots?" is that what you think I am attempting to do? Partisan politics are artificially polarizing? hmmm, guess I have to think that one over...sure seemed to me that the politics of the left were very real in their polarization to me, just as my politics would be polarizing to someone on the left.... maybe its all make believe, what I believe is not real, just a perception...
The outfitters have provided their data to the BoO, and the board used to put forth an accurate map.... we (outfitters/MOGA) are not responsible for this, for once it ain't our fault.
Now, since you are sincerely interested in the well being of the fauna, pray tell me what good it does for me to compile information on what we harvest off private lands when there is nobody else held to the same standar(and I don't need to hear, commercializing or anything to do with the "public trust doctrine") ....The information is not used to manage wildlife biologically around me, or on the ranch that I hunted...... By the way, I can tell you every deer/elk/bird we harvested the last 10 years( I can get this info from client logs turned into the BoO). Has it been used for biological management??? No, it is just used to catch an outfitter who forgot to write down a duck a client took and penalize him... wonder why we don't like it? If it were used as a measuring stick to BIOLOGICALLY manage deer/elk/birds, I would be all for it...but it ain't. The biologists at FWP never even take a look at it.
So, what is your angle on this, tell me one good logical and Biological reason I should account to the state for what I harvest off my own, or a lessee's property? You get the state to start using it as a management tool and I will try to be 1st in signing on. (I would have to beat out a couple of my really competitive outfitter friends though, and they are smarter and faster than I)
Every year when we outfitters get together that outfit in Eastern Mt., we have a big talk about management of mule deer in particular. Try to learn from each other...and it is very competitive as to who is doing it right and best, and most all of us are keeping records for our own use, and a lot of us are sending off teeth to get the deer aged SCIENTIFICALLY at a lab....not just giving our best guess by looking at tooth wear.... the teeth of all deer are not created equal, just like people, some wear out sooner than others. The oldest mule deer I have had a client take is 10, my neighbor outfitter had one taken last year that was 11(so he has me beat
, we are competitive about these things). The oldest whitetail I've had a client take was 9. So, as you can see we have no problems keeping records, as long as they are used for biology...it is when records are used punitively I have a problem.
Last edited:
Straight Arrow
Well-known member
Eric, you keep saying that. Are you referring to an isolated anecdotal example or is a widespread problem for outfitters? It does not seem to be something reported to the public or seen as an unfair problem elsewhere. How did you reach that generalization / conclusion about data being used to fine or penalize outfitters?
I know I indicated that I would not repost on this thread, but out of the quagmire a possible solution has come to mind. Since the discussion has moved onto the need for reporting as a wildlife management tool, I think all the parties on this thread should join together to sponsor a bill in the next legislative session requiring mandatory harvest reporting whether successful or not, by residents and non-residents alike. This would eliminate the problem Eric mentioned regarding the two side by side ranches, one outfitting and one not. The current outfitter only reporting system provides limited and incomplete information making its value as a wildlife management tool minimal.
Here is what the report could look like:
Did you hunt in 2016_________; if yes, how many days __________
What species did you hunt: elk_______; deer_______, antelope;__________
Did you hunt with a bow;________ rifle;__________, both;__________
What units did you hunt:__________, ____________, ______________
Did you hunt on: private land;_______, public land__________, Block Management;_____
Did you harvest an animal: __________ If so, date of harvest__________
If yes, what specie;_________, what sex;_______, if male how many points per side;_______
Was the animal harvested on: private land_____, public land_____Block Management ______
If harvested on Block Management, which BMA (not for public distribution)________________
Failure to report within the required timeline would cause a fine of $100 (New Mexico I believe still requires the report or there could be a loss of hunting privileges for that specie the next year). There needs to be significant repercussions for failure to report for this to be effective.
This type of report would provide valuable data on: successful harvest rates; sex of animals taken; what percentage of people are hunting with both a bow and rifle; percentage of animals taken on private vs public land; and very importantly, how many big game animals are being harvested on block management. We need to be evaluating how much bang for our bucks we are getting on some of these block management ranches. The report could be done online or via hard copy. Would take less than 5 minutes to complete.
Be advised that both the rank and file hunting population and definitely FWP would oppose mandatory reporting. They will say their current phone surveys provide adequate info which is untrue as they do not ask the whether the animal was killed on public, private or block management nor the type of weapon used.
If you want better data for wildlife management, here is one way to get it.
Here is what the report could look like:
Did you hunt in 2016_________; if yes, how many days __________
What species did you hunt: elk_______; deer_______, antelope;__________
Did you hunt with a bow;________ rifle;__________, both;__________
What units did you hunt:__________, ____________, ______________
Did you hunt on: private land;_______, public land__________, Block Management;_____
Did you harvest an animal: __________ If so, date of harvest__________
If yes, what specie;_________, what sex;_______, if male how many points per side;_______
Was the animal harvested on: private land_____, public land_____Block Management ______
If harvested on Block Management, which BMA (not for public distribution)________________
Failure to report within the required timeline would cause a fine of $100 (New Mexico I believe still requires the report or there could be a loss of hunting privileges for that specie the next year). There needs to be significant repercussions for failure to report for this to be effective.
This type of report would provide valuable data on: successful harvest rates; sex of animals taken; what percentage of people are hunting with both a bow and rifle; percentage of animals taken on private vs public land; and very importantly, how many big game animals are being harvested on block management. We need to be evaluating how much bang for our bucks we are getting on some of these block management ranches. The report could be done online or via hard copy. Would take less than 5 minutes to complete.
Be advised that both the rank and file hunting population and definitely FWP would oppose mandatory reporting. They will say their current phone surveys provide adequate info which is untrue as they do not ask the whether the animal was killed on public, private or block management nor the type of weapon used.
If you want better data for wildlife management, here is one way to get it.
Similar threads
