Congressman Pearce calls for selling of Public Lands

[Straight Arrow]

"The grand plan is to have a park or reserve with no hunting allowed. I know a guy in high up in the APF...." So that's a terrible application of private property rights?
"52 of them (ranchers) in the last Phillips/Valley County papers that just shut hunting down because of the bison debacle ... " but you think that's different?

 

[Eric Albus]

The APF is free to do what they choose.

The 52 ranches were historically open to the public to hunt, so yes, I think that is different.

 

[mtmiller]

My guess is that when Obama(hopefully) goes out in Nov., that he will sign the antiqueties act and turn NE Montana into a buffalo park. To some this may sound great. For those of us who live here not so great. Eric Albus

Eric, If the President did use the Antiquities Act for part of NE Montana, how would that change hunting opportunities? What would be the negative change for the local community?

 

[Nemont]

Eric

Can you link to the DU info supporting APR/APF? Would hate to lose your support for the local banquet

Thanks

Jeff Cole

 

[Straight Arrow]

APF lands are open for public hunting, but may close hunting (according to your source).

52 ranches have been open for public hunting, but now have closed hunting (according to your source).

If both private areas were open for public hunting, but then respective owners decided to close hunting ... please explain the difference(s) in application of property rights.

 

[tjones]

So, you are for the APF buying these lands? The folks here in Eastern MT(where I think I will stay) are certainly not....in fact there were 52 of them in the last Phillips/Valley County papers that just shut hunting down because of the bison debacle.....ranches that have always historically welcomed the public to hunt.

Apparently the ranchers that did sell out did not get the memo.

 

[Eric Albus]

mtmiller, my fear is that you will see everything from the Missouri River/Ft. Peck Lake to the Canadian border turned into a huge sister park to the "Grasslands National Park" in Sask.. There will be only "traditional use" of the land...meaning bison, wolves, grizzly bears, ect.. There will be no more hunting....which is why the landowners/outfitters and resident sportsmen best get things figured out and work together to salvage what we can.

Jeff, just read a letter from DU supporting "Treasured Landscape" in NE Mt. Call me and I will give you details. You can find my number easy enough. I hope that someone can get DU straightend out on this issue, as I hate to not support a local chapter.

arrow, there is no difference in property rights, both have the right to do what they want.

I do take exception to a foundation who is not going to pay taxes having the ability to buy up Montana thru donations(mostly foreign) and close down lands that have been open to the public, force bison/wolves/grizzly bears onto the landscape, and make use of a liberal/socialist President to sign into law another National Monument/Antiqueties Act. Call me crazy.

This said, perhaps a National Park could possibly bring in more tourism dollars than agriculture is in our part of the world. To most folks displacing a few hundred families attempting to make a living means nothing. Those of us born and raised here would like to see our children be able to have the chance to run the family farm/ranch...were it not for wanting to pass the tradition onto my son I would not have near the incentive to work as hard as I do....but again I digress, who really cares about tradition anymore....certainly not us "greedy landowner/outfitter types.

 

[shoots-straight]

I believe in the rights of landowners to sell their lands to anyone they choose. I believe in groups or individuals having the right to purchase any lands that they might be able too. I'm not for or against this organization. I for their rights, and the people selling to them. As it sits now, they are allowing the "North American Model" to work.

Are you for or against the "North American Model of Wildlife Conservation"?

I wonder if you would be more acceptable of APF, if they would work leases with outfitters rather than open their lands to the general pubic.

In a perfect world, I would rather those lands stay in family ranches, by individuals that respect the lands and work it to keep it in better shape each year than the last.

I'm afraid hysteria is running at a high level up in the northeast.

 

[Eric Albus]

nice try shoots-str8.....am i for or against the NAMWC? I am for BIOLOGICAL managment of big game, and by big game I mean elk, deer, and antelope. I am not for buffalo, t-rex, wolves, or any other beastie that could not withstand the 20th century, let alone the 21st. The model is flawed, and does not take into account the number of hunters we now have pursuing a finite resource....game populations fluctuate...as i well know....and you must manage according...which is why I ran one (1) bow hunt on the Milk River last year....whereas I ran over 45 the year before...the resource must be managed biologically.

Furthermore, I would not be supportive of the APF, APR if they gave me total control of the hunting on their aquired lands.

You may think that "hysteria is running rampant"....just come to Malta or Glasgow and ask any local rancher or businessman about it.

 

[shoots-straight]

nice try shoots-str8.....am i for or against the NAMWC? I am for BIOLOGICAL managment of big game, and by big game I mean elk, deer, and antelope. I am not for buffalo, t-rex, wolves, or any other beastie that could not withstand the 20th century, let alone the 21st. The model is flawed, and does not take into account the number of hunters we now have pursuing a finite resource....game populations fluctuate...as i well know....and you must manage according...which is why I ran one (1) bow hunt on the Milk River last year....whereas I ran over 45 the year before...the resource must be managed biologically.

Furthermore, I would not be supportive of the APF, APR if they gave me total control of the hunting on their aquired lands.

You may think that "hysteria is running rampant"....just come to Malta or Glasgow and ask any local rancher or businessman about it.

Does the flaw in the NAMWC, that you speak of, have to do with privatization of the public resource? If not please elaborate for me on the "Flaw".

The model uses the best science available to determine how many of that species is surplus and available to hunters. That means resident and non resident, guided and non guided.

The NAMWC has proven to be highly successful. The game herds we enjoy today are proof of that.

Yes we have many people and small resources. We've had far worse at the turn of the century and the model saved our big game species.

So you hire or consult with a bio for your outfitting operation?

I'm not sure there's land available in today's world for Bison, whether or not, don't you think we owe it future generations to explore those options?

I am for BIOLOGICAL management of big game, and by big game I mean elk, deer, and antelope. I am not for buffalo, t-rex, wolves, or any other beastie that could not withstand the 20th century, let alone the 21st.

So your not in favor of all the Big Horn Sheep transplants that have taken place in Montana?'
How about Ring Neck Pheasants? Turkeys? Elk? etc.

All those animals have been relocated (by man) to either boost populations or introduce, populations.

Looks like more hypocrisy!

 

[Eric Albus]

Nice attempt w/ the Bighorn comment I have always applauded the Dept.'s management of Bighorn Sheep. I also applaud the pheasant/turkeys and elks....If I forgot to mention anything be sure to point it out for me....

If the Dept. would manage deer/elk BIOLOGICALLY instead of socially we would have a lot less strife between resident sportsmen/landowners/outfitters. Killing every buck/bull is not management. A healthy herd has diverse age structure throughout the population. I have a lot of ideas on how this can be achieved, and have more hunting opportunity and less impact on the resource.

Below is the address to the article on the NAWM. I did not like what I read, but I can not disagree with them just because I don't like what I understood.

http://www.thewildlifenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/North-American-Model-Flawed1.pdf

 

[mtmiller]

mtmiller, my fear is that you will see everything from the Missouri River/Ft. Peck Lake to the Canadian border turned into a huge sister park to the "Grasslands National Park" in Sask.. There will be only "traditional use" of the land...meaning bison, wolves, grizzly bears, ect.. There will be no more hunting....which is why the landowners/outfitters and resident sportsmen best get things figured out and work together to salvage what we can.

Eric,

I agree, I don't want to see that senario either. That being said, I don't see that ever happening. I am curious how folk in the NE MT put those dots together to get to that end point? Are there similar examples of this happening in MT? Examples of private lands being sucked up by the gov't? Loss of grazing on public land? Loss of hunting on public land? Don't "buffalo" me.

I doubt I will work with outfitters to get things figured out. Their interests are not mine.

 

[mtmiller]

The folks here in Eastern MT(where I think I will stay) are certainly not....in fact there were 52 of them in the last Phillips/Valley County papers that just shut hunting down because of the bison debacle.....ranches that have always historically welcomed the public to hunt.

Is this one of the examples of us working together? We sure will show them. Let me wipe the piss off my backside.

 

[Straight Arrow]

Eric, thank-you for referencing the article on the NAWM. It was an interesting and thought-provoking read, however it was more philosophical than real in that it seemed to diminish the importance of hunting and sportsmen in advocating for wildlife and seemed to ignore PR and other MONEY that is critical to wildlife ... and comes out of the pockets of sportsmen.

With regard to the "Bison Big Open", "UN North American Grasslands" takeover, or whatever paranoia-spinning rumor prediction spewed out there ... really?? Just think about it and whatever points seem to support the theory. As Miller expressed, it takes a real stretch and some skewed logic to connect those dots.

With regard to the 52 ranches discontinuing public access for hunting, perhaps you did read something that brought you to that point, but the story is an old one. Each time FWP has made a decision contrary to the opinion of some property owners, outfitters, and others who gain financially from wildlife, the threat of a massive "block-out" of public access to private land for hunting has been threatened. The reality is that in most cases the land has not been open to public access anyway ... except for financial gain of the owner.

I do applaud you for researching and keeping abreast of wildlife issues and for developing opinions in the best interests of wildlife and hunting. FWP nor any other agency is going to be perfect or follow our opinions always ... but the key is to continue to express yourself to FWP on behalf of wildlife and hunting ... but not with the far-out paraniod land grab stuff that FWP and the state hears everyday and then ignores as "wacko". Then the good stuff you offer is ignored.

 

[Nemont]

Just a point about the lands locked up, many of these properties were in Block Management and were pulled out. Most of the others allowed public hunting as I have hunted on them and I could get access by knocking on the door.

Three of the best pheasant hunting places I used to hunt on are now locked up due to the bison issue. It isn't just outfitted places, in fact one of the places now locked up is where my kid got his first three deer his first hunting season. That place used to be leased to people who film Milk River Whitetail hunts and are big in the camo industry and the landowner didn't lease back to those people and let the public hunt. Now there is no access to it.

So for me it has had a big impact on where and when I could hunt. Just saying it isn't a zero sum game with access to these places.

Nemont

 

[Straight Arrow]

'Sorry to hear of real instances where the push-back to bison has had those negative impacts.

It is easy to understand why those landowners have a real concern about "free roaming bison", but the difference between the paranoia and myths about government land grap and an impending bison "big open" versus the reality of a few fenced-in bison pasture areas needs to be realistically sorted out.

Concerns raised by land owners in the areas proposed for bison are being considered, analyzed, and seriously taken.

Rather than turning against FWP and sportsmen by closing access to you and your son, it would be better to continue the pressure on FWP politically and through the open process of vetting these issues publicly. 'Don't know if anyone on either side of the issue has solicited opinions and information from neighbors of Turner's Flying D bison ranch in Madison and Gallatin Counties, but it does not appear there are major problems with those thousands of bison damaging farm or ranch operations.

 

[Big Fin]

Below is the address to the article on the NAWM. I did not like what I read, but I can not disagree with them just because I don't like what I understood.

http://www.thewildlifenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/North-American-Model-Flawed1.pdf

I would believe Don Peay's interpretation of the North American Model as much as I would believe anything from Michael Nelson. He has written extensively on all that is wrong with hunting as one of the wildlife management tools being used in this country.

Google some of his stuff and see if you think this guy has any appreciation for what hunters have funded. He has long stated his biases against the NAWM, the wolf management plans of the Rocky Mountain States, and a multitude of other hunting related issues.

He is a professor of philosophy and ethics. He does not look at wildlife conservation as an object of wildlife management, rather as a effort of ethical/philisophical principle. Which is why he is the person so many of the anti-hunting groups like to quote as some expert on hunting and wildlife management.

Purely my personal opinion, but to rely on Michael Nelson for interpretation of the NAWM will result in some very skewed ideas of the model, how it works, and the value it can provide as we go forward.

Now to the point of much of this thread.

I always enjoy when Eric posts on this forum, as it gives me insight to other perspectives that I won't get from my travels hunting public lands. And whether I agree with him, or not, it is helpful to have someone come here and give his opinions and impressions.

From his posts In this thread, I am learning is just how much venom has been created over the bison issue. Whether right or wrong, good or bad, our Governor (Buffalo Brian) has created some serious heartburn in his attempt to force bison into areas where locals are obviously dead set against it.

The idealistic side of me would love to have bison wherever they could exist. The practical side of me knows that is not going to happen on a very large scale. If the state is going to involve themselves in bison issues, I feel it is paramount that they seek the input from locals, not just from the Governor's personal circle of friends. If private parties are going to expand bison, such as APF, they are probably best served to seek input from locals, but are not required to do so.

I see much of this blowback Eric mentions as an expression of frustration locals have with bison politics. Given the disease issues and potential property damage issues resulting from bison, seems they are on solid ground to have concerns about this. That is about as far as I can connect the dots on this issue.

The part I can't connect is why hunters are always the dog to be kicked when landowners get pissed off about something, especially when most of us probably disagree with how the bison issue is being handled in NE Montana. To close land to hunting because we have a Governor who wants expanded bison populations before he leaves office in January, seems like just another reason to lay the leather to hunters by those in the vocal fringe of the landowner community.

Maybe locals don't see it that way. Or, maybe these vocal landowners really don't care who is a casualty of them expressing their frustrations, even if some of that collateral damage is inflicted on groups who could help them on this and other topics.

I suspect most hunters in Montana would be in favor of more bison where practical, but they would want it to be in recognition of local concerns, the same as we demanded for wolves, etc. Most would probably side with the more rational landowners, knowing their are the fringe groups like John Brenden who go the extra mile to create conflict.

To continually put hunters in their crosshairs and take their frustrations out on hunters probably moves more hunters from the camp of "Let's see what the locals think" to a mindset of "Hell with it, I am tired of being the whipping post."

It seems strange that evey time the landowner community gets pissed, no matter what they are pissed about, the first thing they do is close their lands, whether it is hunting related or not. I have a lot of landowner clients in my CPA firm and I have good relationships with all of them. They give me a lot of feedback and have helped from my opinions on many topics important to them.

None of them have yet to give me any good basis why the supposed leaders in their groups always lay the leather to hunters. In fact, most of them I deal with do not support that position, but the far fringes seem to always draw attention by leading the charge to close lands.

I struggle to understand why hunters are the ball that is always kicked in this political game. This time it is about bison. Now Eric draws DU into the mix because they are working to inprove waterfowl hunting for all of us by working with a group who holds some of the best waterfowl nesting habitat in all of NE Montana.

Seeing this time and time again has finally made me numb to the concerns landowners purport to have about most anything that happens without them having final say, almost to the point where it is an effort to even pay any attention to what they are mad about each time. They seem to be mad all the time. And they seem to take it out on hunters.

I just find different places to hunt and let these pissed landowners take their toys and go home. And when they need the help of hunters, as could have been provided in the bison issue, it will be hard to get me too excited to come to their camp, given many of them seem to find hunters as the easiest punching bag when they want to express their frustrations.

Miller probably said it best in his last post. I too have tired of a wet backside.

 

[Nemont]

'

Concerns raised by land owners in the areas proposed for bison are being considered, analyzed, and seriously taken.

The problem is the perception is that the FWP already has ignored the concerns of landowners and even the courts by transporting bison from Yellowstone Park to the Fort Peck Reservation.

The perception is the deal was done at the Governors office and we will just have live with what has already been agreed to no matter what the concerns of landowners and ranchers are.

I have been around long enough to know the for those who make decisions, that perception is reality.

Nemont

 

[BuzzH]

The ranchers in NE Montana better get the "perception" through their thick skulls that the Fork Peck Reservervation is sovereign.

For the record I hate the word "perception" as a perception of anything is usually not true or best case scenerio a small part of reality.

Again, like Randy already stated, hunters are being blamed for something the Fort Peck Tribe did with Bison. How about take it up with the tribe and leave hunters alone? Theres a novel idea.

I also get tired of the landowners/outfitters throwing their suckers in the dirt, stomping their feet, and holding their breath for an encore...every single time something doesnt go their way.

Perfect example is when the hunters in Montana regained the right to legally access and recreate on State Lands. A number of landowners where I hunted pronghorn near Rygate/Harlowton threatened (and some did) shut down their lands to hunters.

Landowners have become crybabies about every fuggin' thing...and I'm over it.

 

[Nemont]

Buzz,

That is all fine and Dandy, that the Reservation is Sovereign. The State of Montana is not, the FWP entered into an agreement with the Fort Peck Tribes to translocate those bison. Citizens of the State of Montana have a right to react to the policy decision made by a State agency, whether that policy involves a Sovereign Tribe or a surrounding state or any other entity.

Having a foot in both camps helps me understand the reaction, for the record I don't like being locked off lands but it has happened to me before and will again. I also don't like being told that just because the Tribes are Sovereign that means what ever the FWP and Governor decides is sarcosanct, I don't buy that argument for a second.

I don't like how the buffalo decision was made, I don't like the dark of night aspect to it and I will never buy that just because the Tribe is sovereign that gives cover to the State of Montana to do as it wishes.

Perception is a shitty word because of what you said but for alot of people perception is reality and that is just a fact.

Nemont