No Net Gain in Public lands passed Senate!

[Pierre]

Eric, I am not a service provider to the public, using public trust critters. You and MOGA have an image problem big time. You and MOGA also have a character flaw if you haven't publically apologized to Randy...hence part of the problem. There are no limits to the number of outfitters allowed in E. Montana. Just keep on proliferating and then running to the leg. for more tags. There would be nothing wrong in that logic now would there? Who doesn't get it??
It is difficult to find spots to hunt in many places. I have many folks come to my door begging because they have the two kids and a dog and can't get anyone to let them hunt. That tells me something. Ever been there? If not, just ask around.
Made that call yet?

 

[Pierre]

Nemont, I think the only thing you are missing is that shoots was including APF in large $ NR buying ranches.

 

[Eric Albus]

pierre, if I felt that I owed Newberg an apology I would have already have done so....if Newberg thinks that I owe him an apology he has my number and can call me(i do not hide behind an anonymous moniker) or let me know thru email or on his forum here that he thinks I owe him an apology...I am going to guess he feels I owe him nothing. I think Randy is probably capable of taking care of himself...but it's nice his fans are looking out for him.

I have no problem w/ Habitat Montana buying lands...just No Net Gain.

Perhaps a moritorium on the number of outfitter license in the state, along w/ an allocation of license to each outfitter would be a viable solution, as long as we agreed to a reduction of current use? I have been throwing this notion out to a few folks, some like it, some do not...I do not know that I am sold on being limited w/ an allocation, but it appears that something is going to have to be done.

Yes, I have been there, w/ folks asking to hunt. We have always allowed a measure of access to the public. I have always tried to help and have encouraged my guides to help the public (we packed out an old man's antelope for him this past fall, and pulled a couple folks out who were stuck)....I have taken a number of kids in horseback to hunt elk in the breaks, taken kids antelope hunting, and I could go on...I hope that this does not destroy my capitalist image in any way...One thing that I have learned is that we(the outfitters) are very reluctant to tell the public about the good things we do...but then most folks do not care about the good, they just dwell on the bad, or percieved bad.

 

[----]

It's kind of getting ignored, but a lot of these purchases aren't necessarily for access or hunting opportunity as much as they are for protecting vital winter range and wildlife habitat. Some of these WMA's were in the process of being subdivided when either RMEF, TNC or FWP stepped in.

This doesn't benefit a certain type of hunter, it benefits the resource.

 

[Rat Fink]

It's kind of getting ignored, but a lot of these purchases aren't necessarily for access or hunting opportunity as much as they are for protecting vital winter range and wildlife habitat. Some of these WMA's were in the process of being subdivided when either RMEF, TNC or FWP stepped in.

This doesn't benefit a certain type of hunter, it benefits the resource.

Very good point Randy

 

[Pierre]

Randy Newburg of Bozeman, host of the television program “On Your Own Adventures” and a recent appointee to the board of directors of the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, said the top reason people quit hunting, or never start, is about lack of access.

 

[Pierre]

Eric, Randy is not going to call you and ask for an apology. Sorry, that is not how it works. The person making the mistake tries to correct some wrongs by apologizing. Does the nearly 17000 hits on the subject tell you anything? No wonder there is an image problem. It is always the better man who can REALIZE a mistake was made and admit it. Suit yourself.

 

[shoots-straight]

Nemont read these two lines.

See if you can find a difference?

I would rather have APF buy up all the lands than the billionaires. That would mean exactly what I said. What your implying I want.

The conversation was talking about the State buying more lands, Eric said he couldn't in good conscience support anymore government lands. Then I said:

Eric, I guess you would rather American Prairie Foundation buy the large properties available.

Meaning he would rather choose APF over the resident sportsman. MTFW&P's.

 

[Eric Albus]

pierre, when I need to you tell me when to apologize I will ask...I have not said anything for or against Newberg's appointment...I do not care one way or the other...I do not know Randy, nor have I ever watched his show...I am not representing MOGA.

If Randy said that "lack of access is why people quit or never start hunting" I would have to beg to differ....there are millions of acres open to the public to hunt on....If Randy(or anyone else said) access to quality hunting is the reason", well then I could agree completely.

 

[shoots-straight]

pierre, when I need to you tell me when to apologize I will ask...I have not said anything for or against Newberg's appointment...I do not care one way or the other...I do not know Randy, nor have I ever watched his show...I am not representing MOGA.

If Randy said that "lack of access is why people quit or never start hunting" I would have to beg to differ....there are millions of acres open to the public to hunt on....If Randy(or anyone else said) access to quality hunting is the reason", well then I could agree completely.

The spin doctor is alive and well.

Of course if you have access to lands that contain no game, it's worthless. So you agree that access to our game is the most important cause sportsman can take up?

 

[Eric Albus]

shoots, if I were picking, I would choose neither APF or FWP. FWP can buy but no net gain, I and others can live w/ that.

APF is a privately funded organization, w/ roots all the way to China....I do not like them buying up my backyard, but I can not fundamentally fight their right to do so, and can not throw stones at those who choose to sell to them. Who knows, one day I may want to sell to them....I hope not, but one never knows.

 

[shoots-straight]

shoots, if I were picking, I would choose neither APF or FWP. FWP can buy but no net gain, I and others can live w/ that.

APF is a privately funded organization, w/ roots all the way to China....I do not like them buying up my backyard, but I can not fundamentally fight their right to do so, and can not throw stones at those who choose to sell to them. Who knows, one day I may want to sell to them....I hope not, but one never knows.

Then your against private property rights, and also public property rights. The will of the majority of sportsman of the state of Montana.

Cool, tells me a lot about the hypocrisy that exists with certain segments of our society.

"You damn resident hunters should be happy with your 30% of the state that's public lands. Even if 100's of thousands of acres is granite, above treeline, and holds no significant wildlife values".

The more lands bought by us, the less outfitters potentially have to lease, and lock off.

You also claimed that there's to many elk in Eastern Montana, management of private lands is tough. If more lands, in the right places were public, then we would have a better chance at management.

The division is huge. May the masses win out!:W:

 

[shoots-straight]

If Brenden's bill passes then, I would be in favor of doing away with Habitat Montana, along with all 40,000 Non resident tags. Just leaving around 11,000 combos. This would take a citizens initiative, but I-161 was a long shot, and we got that through. I see no reason to support sharing our wildlife with the NR hunters then.

 

[Pierre]

Eric, you are on the board of MOGA. That certainly puts that idiot Mac under your direction and responsibility as well as the MOGA organization. Strap on a set of balls.

 

[theat]

WOW...so according to outfitters lack of access is not an issue to todays hunters. Funny...considering that every single survey of hunters, enquiring about what are the limiting factors to their ability to hunt, results in "lack of access" as being very significant. I guess when you have tens or hundreds of thousands of acres locked up for yourself "access" doesn't concern you.

 

[sweetnectar]

So the republicans introduce a bill to use the habitat funds to increase access....then some hunttalkers squawk that it is a bad bill because it takes from habitat. So what do you want more, access or habitat?
If it is still habitat then come out and say it like it is. You would rather have less hunter access for more habitat.

Also, are you saying that private land has more game per acre? If so then would you suggest that landowners get a bigger share of the tags? Or would you suggest that who ever is hunting these private lands get a bigger share of tags? Whats your take?

 

[BRI]

Eric how would a no net gain be a negative to you? I can't think of a single negative impact from the State (FWP or DNRC) owning more land.

I've heard you mention you'd be in favor of selling isolated parcels of state land. The State (DNRC) has the ability to do that and a few have been sold. In fact the Tongue River Ranch was purchased using funds from the sale of various lands and was a that is a huge benefit to Montana sportsmen. However, many of the landowners who have landlocked parcels want the state ground but when they realize they have to pay appraised market price rather than the $100/acre they think it's worth, they decide it isn't in their best interest. Do you think it would be good business for the State to sell cheap. I don't think it is. So selling many of these isolated parcels is not that realistic.

 

[shoots-straight]

So the republicans introduce a bill to use the habitat funds to increase access....then some hunttalkers squawk that it is a bad bill because it takes from habitat. So what do you want more, access or habitat?
If it is still habitat then come out and say it like it is. You would rather have less hunter access for more habitat.

Also, are you saying that private land has more game per acre? If so then would you suggest that landowners get a bigger share of the tags? Or would you suggest that who ever is hunting these private lands get a bigger share of tags? Whats your take?

You've probably not been following along. So I will clue you in.

Habitat Montana became law to buy up habitat, for wildlife, and give hunters more places to hunt.

We have another program that was started using "Come home to hunt Money" that is used exclusively to lease properties for access, and to hunt on. Around $500,000 is brought in a year through that program, and it's separate from Habitat Montana funds.

Only around $300,000 a year is spent on leasing. You have to have two willing parties, and that's not always the case. We don't want to lease lands that give us access to a gravel pit.

What we're bitching about is a bill to stop the use of Habitat Montana funding for outright purchases, or many other types of deeded transfers.

There's a couple of other bills dealing with access issues, that are also seperate.

The Block management funding bill, HB 404 is also a different bill and we are not arguing that right now.

How is more habitat less access? I'm not sure you understand the situation.

 

[sweetnectar]

However, many of the landowners who have landlocked parcels want the state ground but when they realize they have to pay appraised market price rather than the $100/acre they think it's worth, they decide it isn't in their best interest. Do you think it would be good business for the State to sell cheap. I don't think it is. So selling many of these isolated parcels is not that realistic

I've heard this is what happened in Oklahoma. The figuring was that there was no sense in having a bunch of landlocked public land so they got rid of the public land....I don't know how much they sold it for but my gut thinks it was cheap compared to market value but a net gain in what the state got it for.

 

[sweetnectar]

Shoots, here is my reasoning: I can take $100,000 and buy a permanent easement across private land to access 1000 acres of public land that is landlocked by private land or I can take $100,000 and use it to buy private land at $1200/acre. Here are the result for access of what the $100,000 got us: 1000 acres to hunt or 83.33 acres to hunt.

Now I'm sure there are many variations of this but I think you get my point.

Montana is land rich with public lands. Some public lands are not accessible to the public and therefore not benefiting the public like they could.