bigskyblueman
Member
I 'm expecting another call back from Sen. Tester's office shortly. They have been good about staying in touch.
Wilks brothers true colors are shining through.....
- Thread starter wingman1
- Start date
MThuntr
Well-known member
FYI: The last day to comment on the Bullwhacker road EA is this Thursday, 3/5/15.
Bullwhacker bypass road BLM proposal
Attention Public Land Access Advocates
The BLM Missouri Breaks Monument Manager, Mike Kania, has started an Environmental Analysis (EA) process to decide whether BLM should construct a new, by-pass road around the Wilks property to gain public road access into the Bullwhacker watershed.
The scoping comment period is open until this Thursday, March 5, 2015
You may submit written scoping comments by email to: [email protected].
Send written comments by regular mail to:
Bullwhacker Road Comments
Upper Missouri River Breaks National Monument
920 NE Main
Lewistown MT 59457
The three primary road construction alternatives proposed by BLM are:
1. West Side Route – Build a new road around the west perimeter of the Wilks property.
2. East Side Route – Build a new road around the east perimeter of the Wilks property.
3. NO ACTION – Do not build a new by-pass road.
Central Montana Outdoors supports the East Side Route option to construct a new public road into the Bullwhacker area.
Your comments are needed by BLM – here is what is going on --
- This preliminary step in the decision process now ongoing is called: ‘scoping.’
- In this stage BLM is gathering comments from the public that identify the strength of public support both in favor or opposed to the road construction.
- Scoping comments also include public proposals for options different from the BLM plan. At this stage any ideas the public puts forward are considered relevant. This is the first of several steps before a final decision is made.
Bullwhacker bypass road BLM proposal
Attention Public Land Access Advocates
The BLM Missouri Breaks Monument Manager, Mike Kania, has started an Environmental Analysis (EA) process to decide whether BLM should construct a new, by-pass road around the Wilks property to gain public road access into the Bullwhacker watershed.
The scoping comment period is open until this Thursday, March 5, 2015
You may submit written scoping comments by email to: [email protected].
Send written comments by regular mail to:
Bullwhacker Road Comments
Upper Missouri River Breaks National Monument
920 NE Main
Lewistown MT 59457
The three primary road construction alternatives proposed by BLM are:
1. West Side Route – Build a new road around the west perimeter of the Wilks property.
2. East Side Route – Build a new road around the east perimeter of the Wilks property.
3. NO ACTION – Do not build a new by-pass road.
Central Montana Outdoors supports the East Side Route option to construct a new public road into the Bullwhacker area.
Your comments are needed by BLM – here is what is going on --
- This preliminary step in the decision process now ongoing is called: ‘scoping.’
- In this stage BLM is gathering comments from the public that identify the strength of public support both in favor or opposed to the road construction.
- Scoping comments also include public proposals for options different from the BLM plan. At this stage any ideas the public puts forward are considered relevant. This is the first of several steps before a final decision is made.
300stw
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jul 6, 2008
- Messages
- 839
I wonder if Daryl JAmes will come on this forum and explain some of these accusations of trespass,ect that outdoorsman have witnessed in the field,,,,,
Remember - Every American collectively owns the BLM lands in the Bullwhacker. It would be nice to know that comments were coming in from all over the USA. - Build the new road on the East side!
Comments are due Thursday! Don't forget to send yours in!
[email protected]
Comments are due Thursday! Don't forget to send yours in!
[email protected]
BuzzH
Well-known member
Maybe the Wilks, along with their paid hack Daryll James, should have considered "dialogue with mutual respect" first.
Instead they tried to bully their way with crap proposals and attempting to strong-arm the BLM, State, and every Montana Resident.
Now that they've been called out on their BS ideas and methods, now they want to be respectful.
Pure propaganda...nothing more.
Instead they tried to bully their way with crap proposals and attempting to strong-arm the BLM, State, and every Montana Resident.
Now that they've been called out on their BS ideas and methods, now they want to be respectful.
Pure propaganda...nothing more.
AGREED - Stand by, strong arming backfired so it's time to start up the Spin Cycle. Can't wait to hear how the Wilks' new reputation and intentions will be portrayed.
bigskyblueman
Member
Out-of- state bullies questioning the motives of others. What misinformation?
katqanna
Well-known member
I find it interesting that Bill Harris, the House Rep. from Lewistown (all 4 Wilks contributed max to), submitted HB 557, an Act Revising what constitutes a legal fence in Montana, adding three-wire+ electric fence to the list of legal fencing.
Harris' original version struck out the height maximum of 44"-48". Rep. Alan Redfield amended it to add that back in, though it was changed to 42"-48", which is a benefit for fencing so that if one has settled or is a wee bit lower, someone cant say it doesnt meet the legal fencing requirements.
They have added electric fencing to the description. While that may just sound simply like a modernization, Montana public lands, such as DNRC lands follow Montana Legal Fencing. An electrified three or more wire fence can be set up to curtail or direct wildlife on a large scale. With the ability of solar power arrays, you can set up electric fencing in remote areas easier than it used to be. Now this is an ag law, so it doesnt take wildlife into consideration.
So I am curious if the Wilks are planning on a lot more electric fencing.
Harris' original version struck out the height maximum of 44"-48". Rep. Alan Redfield amended it to add that back in, though it was changed to 42"-48", which is a benefit for fencing so that if one has settled or is a wee bit lower, someone cant say it doesnt meet the legal fencing requirements.
They have added electric fencing to the description. While that may just sound simply like a modernization, Montana public lands, such as DNRC lands follow Montana Legal Fencing. An electrified three or more wire fence can be set up to curtail or direct wildlife on a large scale. With the ability of solar power arrays, you can set up electric fencing in remote areas easier than it used to be. Now this is an ag law, so it doesnt take wildlife into consideration.
So I am curious if the Wilks are planning on a lot more electric fencing.
A couple of years ago, I was archery hunting the 700 unit. There was an Outfitter/Landowner named Harris that was running the county road 24 hours a day to keep the Elk on his property. I have never seen anything like it and the game warden wouldn't do anything about it. I heard that his father was a State rep, I can almost bet that Bill Harris is that guy. I wonder who the Wilks brothers have outfitting there property?
Eric Albus
Well-known member
- Joined
- May 24, 2012
- Messages
- 1,579
So far as I know, nobody outfits the Wilks Bros. property....like they need the income.. I have also heard that they are thinking of putting some of their holdings into Block Management....
I thought long and hard about the rest of my post, but decided to put it out there...for some to perhaps look at a different angle on the subject.
...it is fine for someone to parachute/helicopter/airplane in on public land(which is legal) and cry out it is their "right to access"... but when the Wilks boys put up a fence the public cries "foul!" so if I have this right...it is o.k. for me to hang-glide onto this ground that it is not alright for the Wilks brothers to fence off from their private holdings?? am I the only one who finds the hypocrisy ludicrous?
and I know about elk/deer getting hung up in fence, I don't like it either, but that is not what this discussion is about....we want to talk about that, start a different thread.
I thought long and hard about the rest of my post, but decided to put it out there...for some to perhaps look at a different angle on the subject.
...it is fine for someone to parachute/helicopter/airplane in on public land(which is legal) and cry out it is their "right to access"... but when the Wilks boys put up a fence the public cries "foul!" so if I have this right...it is o.k. for me to hang-glide onto this ground that it is not alright for the Wilks brothers to fence off from their private holdings?? am I the only one who finds the hypocrisy ludicrous?
and I know about elk/deer getting hung up in fence, I don't like it either, but that is not what this discussion is about....we want to talk about that, start a different thread.
BuzzH
Well-known member
Eric,
You must own stock in chap stick and knee pad companies...good grief.
You must own stock in chap stick and knee pad companies...good grief.
If you're not the only one that finds this ludicrous - I'm going to bet that you're in company with a small minority.
This is coming from a land owner - you run an illegal fence inside my property line and leave a mess that will take years to restore the original growth (if ever) - well let's just say it won't be settled by some keyboard commandoes nor be hashed out on some hunting chat forum - and I don't care how many billions you're worth. Get real.
MThuntr
Well-known member
Eric no hypocrisy...that would be if those that flew in built a fence to keep out the Wilks. The issue at hand is that GPS indicates that they built a fence on public land without consent of the agency and the BLM would never had let do what they did. Not to mention their help destroyed a bunch of country in the process. There was no need to doze a giant buffer when cutting a few trees would have sufficed.
katqanna
Well-known member
Eric this whole thread is about the fence, including the structure of it, since it is surrounding BLM Public lands which has certain regulations on fence construction, as well as the Unlawful Inclosures of Public Lands. The Wilks have a right to build a fence if they want, for whatever reasons they want, but they have to be in compliance with the laws, they cant cut off access by the wildlife and they cant encroach on our public lands as well as other trespass violations.
There are other reasons to have an outfitter or guide on your land besides need of money. Rob Arnaud outfits Turners Flying D and other properties (He earned an animal science degree from Montana State University in 1980 and was trained for the wildlife manager/outfitter job on the Flying D Ranch by Turner Enterprises, Inc., a position he has held since 1989. Rob lives on the Flying D Ranch with his wife and four children.). Do you think Turner needs the money?
As to outfitting, or guiding hunters on the N-Bar, perhaps it is just part of the regular job descriptions of the hands, or certain hands? Semantics?
Eric Albus
Well-known member
- Joined
- May 24, 2012
- Messages
- 1,579
kat, I know Rob personally. And what does he or Ted Turner have to do w/ the N Bar?
As far as I know, there is no outfitter operating on the N Bar....I even took up the time to check out the N Bar website before responding to you...there is nothing about hunting or outfitting on the N Bar.
cowboy...if someone put up an illegal fence inside your boundary I would expect a problem...but I have not seen anywhere official that this happened on the N Bar.
Mthntr....as a person who has no claim to the BLM surface(grazing) I/you could not legally put up a fence on said land.... the hypocrisy is that it is legal for you to access this land...but think it is illegal for them to fence it.
I do not know the Wilks, nor do I hunt the area that was fenced. If the fence was not done legal, it should be moved to actual boundary, and a hefty fine as well as restoration costs paid. But my guess is that folks w/ the brains to amass a fortune large enough to buy a good portion of Montana most likely did not build where they were not supposed to. I would be willing to bet if there was an error the contractor made it.... are any of you really that stupid to think they(Wilks) would not think there would be controversy and this would be examined w/ a microscope?
As far as I know, there is no outfitter operating on the N Bar....I even took up the time to check out the N Bar website before responding to you...there is nothing about hunting or outfitting on the N Bar.
cowboy...if someone put up an illegal fence inside your boundary I would expect a problem...but I have not seen anywhere official that this happened on the N Bar.
Mthntr....as a person who has no claim to the BLM surface(grazing) I/you could not legally put up a fence on said land.... the hypocrisy is that it is legal for you to access this land...but think it is illegal for them to fence it.
I do not know the Wilks, nor do I hunt the area that was fenced. If the fence was not done legal, it should be moved to actual boundary, and a hefty fine as well as restoration costs paid. But my guess is that folks w/ the brains to amass a fortune large enough to buy a good portion of Montana most likely did not build where they were not supposed to. I would be willing to bet if there was an error the contractor made it.... are any of you really that stupid to think they(Wilks) would not think there would be controversy and this would be examined w/ a microscope?
Nameless Range
Well-known member
Your mistake Eric, is to assume there is reason to equate riches with intelligence.
Does history provide us with any examples of rich and successful people displaying incredible stupidity and acting as if the law doesn't apply to them? hmmmm.....
As to the fence's location, let's see what the survey says. As to what they did to the land, the pictures speak for themselves.
Does history provide us with any examples of rich and successful people displaying incredible stupidity and acting as if the law doesn't apply to them? hmmmm.....
As to the fence's location, let's see what the survey says. As to what they did to the land, the pictures speak for themselves.
Last edited:
MThuntr
Well-known member
I spent the last 6 years working with the Lewistown BLM office on projects. It is illegal for them to fence it without permission from BLM.
katqanna
Well-known member
Eric, you stated, "nobody outfits the Wilks Bros. property....like they need the income". I was showing another example of a wealthy landowner that does not need the income, yet still outfits their land. And just because the N-Bar does not have it on their website, does not mean it is not happening. They certainly dont advertise everything they are doing on all of their websites - emeth?
Amassing a fortune does not constitute intelligence. Now me, I would have thought it would have been intelligent to get a survey done before erecting a fence around our public lands to make sure of boundary lines.
I and others know that there are encroachments, and yes, we are waiting on the investigation and the first of the survey to be filed in the Federal Register, which I check every morning, first thing when I turn on the computer. In fact I called BLM about that today, wondering if the BLM had changed their mind about treating the 3 surveyed and investigated sections as a segment, releasing that first, then go back in as weather permits to finish the rest of the survey and investigation or if they were thinking that it might be better to go in and finish the survey and that investigation - deal with it as a whole.
At a certain point, a hell of a lot of information will be coming out on this between the surveys, the investigations and the FOIA's and you can make your own determinations.
RobG
Well-known member
I and others know that there are encroachments, and yes, we are waiting on the investigation and the first of the survey to be filed in the Federal Register, which I check every morning, first thing when I turn on the computer. In fact I called BLM about that today, wondering if the BLM had changed their mind about treating the 3 surveyed and investigated sections as a segment, releasing that first, then go back in as weather permits to finish the rest of the survey and investigation or if they were thinking that it might be better to go in and finish the survey and that investigation - deal with it as a whole.
Hmm, I wonder why the Lewistown BLM is taking so long? Totally unrelated I am sure, I just got a note that Rep Bill Harris's (R-Lewistown) HB 557 bill would redefine what a legal fence was, including removing the 48" height limit, which would make that big ol fence of the Wilks' legal. The bill passed the house 74-26, however the height change was reportedly amended out.
So the WIlks bought their local congressman and had him introduce a bill that would make their fence legal, but it didn't quite work.
There is some concern that it enables the Wilks to replace the existing fence with an electric fence which might be constructed to be a far more effective barrier. Maybe we will hear more about this.
Last edited:
Similar threads
