# MT and WY Guides Extort the RMEF



## AdamFisk (Jan 30, 2005)

I'm just playing messenger. Click on the link, read, form your own opinions.

http://onyourownadventures.com/hunttalk ... p?t=253976


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> some perceive to be anti-outfitting/landowner


So now your anti outfitter and landowner if you have a TV show that promotes do-it-yourself hunts. I wouldn't want a guide holding my hand. I can do as well in the wilderness as any of them even at my age. What happened to freedom of choice?

I have seen this many times myself. I have people attack me all the time for speaking up against organizations that are trying to shaft the North Dakota sportsmen and women. Nothing new here it has been going on all throughout history. On another site a guy posted a link to a guys wife's business to try damage them. Some have absolutely no conscience. The same guy called me a hippie (drug, sex, and booze guy who didn't go to vietnam). I guess he never knew that if you kept your grades up in college you were not subject to the draft. Most people didn't go. Liberals of the time made people go on guard duty with unloaded weapons. If I can avoid stupidity I do.

Watch your back guys they will steal the public land if they can find a way. Remember how the corner hopping bill failed in Montana? Landowners who handcuff their own residents. That's not anti landowner, that's anti individual bad people.


----------



## shaug (Mar 28, 2011)

Adam,

I looked at the web-link you provided and it seems one Randy Newburg is in the thick of things. A contest between Montana private and Montana public. It looks as if the contest is about controlling resource. Randys bio:

http://www.huntright.org/news-releases

Oh and be sure to read what Jim P. has to say about bringing back free range buffalo.

Randy Newburg falls on the side of what's public. He used to be a president or something like it with Orion-the hunter insitute.
Montana has a pile of these (wink wink) sportsmens orgs. Montana Hunters and Anglers Action, Hellgate Hunters and Angler Action and the list goes on and on. They don't really have any membership but they do have money. The one thing they do have in common is that the Board or list of officers always serve on multiple boards. Jim Posewitz started Orion and he used to make visits to North Dakota.

There used to be a picture of him here with Roger Kaseman dated 10-17-09 but the Tribune must have dumped it.

http://spotted.bismarcktribune.com/photos/208508

They have more money then they have members. Hey look here, our own Mike McEnroe contributed over $500 dollars.

http://www.huntright.org/major-supporters


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

I have never heard of Orion. I went to their site.

They do not support animal rights
They do support the public trust doctrine
They support ethical hunting - one shot kills
They support the North American Model of wildlife management

Check out their section called "Where we stand". I try give it some more time later. So far things look ok.

http://www.huntright.org/where-we-stand

I can see where those who want to exploit hunters would not like the "Public Trust" nor the "North American Model for Wildlife Management". They would throw public trust out of the constitution (wildlife is the property of the state) if they could. Obama on one side and hunter/wildlife exploiters on the other.


----------



## shaug (Mar 28, 2011)

Plains,

You have never heard of Jim Posewitz and his Orion? Plausible denial Bruce.

viewtopic.php?f=61&t=48312

Jim and Land Tawney started Montana Sportsmen for Obama

https://my.barackobama.com/page/communi ... tes/gGCVmb

MONTANA SPORTSMEN FOR OBAMA

Tim Border, Former President, Gallatin Wildlife Association
Shane Colton, Commissioner, Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks
Steve Doherty, Chairman Montana Fish, Wildlife, and Parks/ Former Senate Minority Leader
Brian and Jenny Grossenbacher, Fly Fishing Outfitters
Sen. Larry Jent , Bow Hunting Instructor
Jim Posewitz, Helena Hunters and Anglers Association/ Retired biologist, Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks
Greg Smith, Former Backcountry Ranger, Glacier National Park
Land Tawney 
Ed Tinsley, County Commissioner, Lewis and Clark County/ Avid Hunter and Angler
Rep. Kendall Van Dyk, House Democratic Chair Montana Legislative Sportsman Caucus
Dan Vermillion, Commissioner, Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks
Gary Wicks, Former Director, Montana Department of Natural Resources, Former Deputy Assistant Secretary for Land and Water

And the very best thing to date on this subject:

http://www.lobowatch.com/adminclient/WolfPolitics3/go

Do Questionable Sportsmen Groups Serve As Political Fronts?

Enlarge Image

Missoula resident Land Tawney works for both Montana Wildlife Federation and the National Wildlife Federation, plus heads Montana Hunters and Anglers. Sportsmens groups calling themselves "Montana Hunters and Anglers" and "Montana Sportsmen Alliance" covertly provide political cover for the 501(c)(3) non-profit Montana Wildlife Federation to insure a Demcoratic win in the 2012 Senate race. - Bogus Montana Sportsmen Groups Trying To Throw 2012 Elections!
Click Image For Related Information
As 501(c)(3) non-profit organizations, the National Wildlife Federation and its Montana chapter, the Montana Wildlife Federation, are prohibited by federal law from endorsing political candidates. That may very well be, but to many Montana residents it sure seems that these two non- profit organizations have indirectly gotten up to their noses in this state's politics.

Missoula resident Land Tawney is a staff member of both organizations. He serves as the Senior Manager for Sportsmen Leadership (Northern Rockies and Prairies Regional Center) with the National Wildlife Federation, while at the same time working as the Regional Organizer for the Montana Wildlife Federation. He is also the president of another somewhat spurious organization known as Montana Hunters and Anglers, which has been engaged in some serious political mudslinging in its attack on Congressman Denny Rehberg (R) (Photo Above Left), who is opposing current Montana Senator Jon Tester (D) for his seat in the U.S. Senate.

Montana Hunters and Anglers enjoys 501(c)( 4) non-profit status, which does permit the organization to become involved in political campaigns. Still, the question arises, "Have the National Wildlife Federation and the Montana Wildlife Federation violated their non-profit status by condoning Tawney's forming of the new organization, which vehemently attacks Montana's 2012 Republican senate candidate."

An official IRS directive states..." Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501 (c) (3) organizations are absolutely prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to all campaigns including campaigns at the federal, state and local level. Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes."

As should be expected, Rehberg's campaign office has responded on its website, stating, "An environmental obstructionist front group calling itself 'Montana Hunters and Anglers' has spent nearly $250,000 from undisclosed sources running attack ads against Denny Rehberg. Leading that effort was the group's President, Land Tawney, whom Tester also proudly declares to be an adviser to him in his official Senate duties. Tawney is an employee of the National Wildlife Federation."

Enlarge Image

Missoula resident Land Tawney works for both Montana Wildlife Federation and the National Wildlife Federation, plus heads Montana Hunters and Anglers. Sportsmens groups calling themselves "Montana Hunters and Anglers" and "Montana Sportsmen Alliance" covertly provide political cover for the 501(c)(3) non-profit Montana Wildlife Federation to insure a Demcoratic win in the 2012 Senate race. - Bogus Montana Sportsmen Groups Trying To Throw 2012 Elections!
Click Image For Related Information
Earlier this year, Ben Lamb, the Conservation Director for the Montana Wildlife Federation (until March 2012), led a conference call to tout attack ads against Denny Rehberg. Lamb had previously been appointed to Tester's Montana Sportsmen's Advisory Panel, joining fellow MWF staffer Land Tawney, who also sits on the Montana Sportsmen for Obama Committee. Another member of that committee just happens to be Montana State Senator Kendall Van **** - who also serves as the Secretary for Montana Hunters and Anglers.

According to the Federal Election Commission, as of this month, under the auspices of the Montana Hunters and Anglers Leadership Fund, more than $363,000 have been spent on ads to attack Denny Rehberg. Many Montanan's are now asking where that money is coming from, but as a 501(c)(4) non-profit organization, the group does not have to divulge its sources for that funding - and Montana Hunter and Anglers refuses to share just who is footing the bill for the efforts to discredit Rehberg. And that has many believing that the funding is coming from the same radical anti-hunting environmental groups which have fought to stop wolf control hunts.

More recently, another new sportsmen's organization has joined in the political mudslinging. This group calls itself the Montana Sportsmen Alliance. Their website claims the group is the "Voice of Reason on Montana Fish and Wildlife Issues" and that through this organization "Sportsmen have gathered together to support the philosophy and programs we subscribe to."

Many Montana sportsmen feel this is just another phony sportsmen group serving as a front for the Montana Wildlife Federation, and to further the agenda of the National Wildlife Federation. While these two organizations have loudly touted their efforts to open land access for sportsmen, their overzealous support of expanded wolf and grizzly bear range, and now expanded bison range, is now closing more access than opening doors. Both the Montana Wildlife Federation and the National Wildlife Federation claim to be pro-sportsman. But are they really?

(Photo Above Right - Much of Montana is publicly owned and shared land. In its zest to expand the ranges of the wolf and grizzly bear, the Montana Wildlife Federation has been a major proponent for closing off access into many areas.)

Gary Marbut, President of the Montana Shooting Sports Association, says, "The Montana Wildlife Federation once showed its true colors when its lobbyist testified before the Legislature IN FAVOR of a bill to give county commissioners the authority to ban the discharge of firearms in any or all parts of counties."

Enlarge Image

Missoula resident Land Tawney works for both Montana Wildlife Federation and the National Wildlife Federation, plus heads Montana Hunters and Anglers. Sportsmens groups calling themselves "Montana Hunters and Anglers" and "Montana Sportsmen Alliance" covertly provide political cover for the 501(c)(3) non-profit Montana Wildlife Federation to insure a Demcoratic win in the 2012 Senate race. - Bogus Montana Sportsmen Groups Trying To Throw 2012 Elections!
Click Image For Related Information
Many of those involved in the launch of the Montana Sportsmen Alliance have long been affiliated with the Montana Wildlife Federation. In Land Tawney's case, it and the National Wildlife Federation as well.

Mac Minard, currently serving as Executive Director of the Montana Outfitters and Guides Association, is a 30-year veteran professional wildlife manager, and as a sportsman his entire life he personally feels that, although they claim to have a following, they have no membership role and they have no means of electing leadership. As such, they are self-appointed, and generally represent a group of like minded folks who place partisan politics over true conservation.

Outfitter Paul Ellis, of Sunday Creek Outfitters, says the group is made up of about 30 members, according to what he has heard from sportsmen who managed to attend a few meetings. He says, "These are the same core members of the Montana Wildlife Federation, Public Land and Water Access, Sportsmen for Obama, and Montana Hunters and Anglers."

Minard points out that this is a very closed group. He attended the first organizational meeting of MSA and was surprised to see many of the I-161 advocates (to eliminate set aside outfitter big game licenses), including Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks Commissioners Ron Moody and Dan Vermillion, along with former FWP director Jeff Hagener, and Land Tawney, plus others sharing similar political views. Shortly after this meeting, the group's self-appointed leader, Vito Quatraro, called Minard and told him he was not welcomed to attend future meetings. Others were excluded as well.

"I guess as a Montana sportsman my voice does not count with this group. I have never seen or heard of such a thing. They clearly want to drive a wedge between sportsmen in an effort to jam their agenda through. No input except from those with whom they agree," states Minard.

Gary Marbut, of the Montana Shooting Sports Association, shares, "Montana Hunters and Anglers is totally missing from the Montana landscape for all periods except during election season, when it is trotted out as a paper name to offer political cover to anti-gun and anti- hunting political candidates."

Enlarge Image

Missoula resident Land Tawney works for both Montana Wildlife Federation and the National Wildlife Federation, plus heads Montana Hunters and Anglers. Sportsmens groups calling themselves "Montana Hunters and Anglers" and "Montana Sportsmen Alliance" covertly provide political cover for the 501(c)(3) non-profit Montana Wildlife Federation to insure a Demcoratic win in the 2012 Senate race. - Bogus Montana Sportsmen Groups Trying To Throw 2012 Elections!
Click Image For Related Information
Quatraro played a major role in I-161, which eliminated thousands of big game tags set aside for non-resident hunters who book hunts with a licensed outfitter. He and others now with Montana Sportsmen Alliance claimed that by allowing outfitters to lease up large ranches, resident hunters were shut out of private property. According to most hunters and outfitters, the passing of I-161 has not opened those lands, but rather drove angered private landowners to close even more land to the public.

Ellis says that Quatraro does not practice what he preaches, claiming, "I know for fact that Vito has and is continuing to lease up a ranch for his and his partner`s exclusive hunting."

Vito Quatraro is a Bozeman real estate agent who deals in recreational properties.

Mac Minard says, "Many of the regulatory actions and policies supported by this self- appointed group of sportsmen advocates have resulted in a massive decline in non-resident interest in Montana which has led to the financial collapse of FWP and Block Management - and a very real decrease in private lands available for public hunting."

Montana Hunters and Anglers and Montana Sportsmen Alliance are basically one and the same - and due to their influence with the Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks Commission, these two political fronts for the Montana Wildlife Federation have worked hard to make Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks pretty much a gutless, do-nothing wildlife agency when it comes to controlling predator impact. One has to keep in mind that one of the agendas of the National Wildlife Federation has been to see expanded predator populations, which means expanded predator impact on big game numbers - and fewer hunting opportunities for resident and non-resident hunters.

From where do you think the Montana Wildlife Federation gets its directives?

Enlarge Image

Missoula resident Land Tawney works for both Montana Wildlife Federation and the National Wildlife Federation, plus heads Montana Hunters and Anglers. Sportsmens groups calling themselves "Montana Hunters and Anglers" and "Montana Sportsmen Alliance" covertly provide political cover for the 501(c)(3) non-profit Montana Wildlife Federation to insure a Demcoratic win in the 2012 Senate race. - Bogus Montana Sportsmen Groups Trying To Throw 2012 Elections!
Click Image For Related Information
One of the hot issues that is heating up the upcoming election in November even more has been the ever growing number of wolves in Montana - and a state wildlife agency that has not been aggressive enough to alleviate the excessive losses of elk, moose, deer and other big game to wolf depredation. One 2012 gubernatorial candidate, Robert Fanning (Photo At Left), points the finger of blame right at Montana Governor Brian Schweitzer... and at the State's Attorney General, Steve Bullock.

Now, Bullock wants to be the Governor of Montana.

Fanning emphatically states, "Allegiance is a duty of fidelity said to be owed by a subject or a citizen to his/her state or sovereign. Bullock showed his loyalty is only to trial lawyers , not the people, consumers, private property... or civil, natural, and constitutional rights, customs , culture or heritage of the people of Montana. Why ? Because Governor Schweitzer got massive amounts of campaign cash from out of state U.N. certified Agenda 21 Marxist Progressive Watermelon NGO's. "

Are these the same financial backers for the mudslinging advertorials being run by the Montana Hunters and Anglers Leadership Fund?

Bob Fanning points out that not once in Bullock's term as Attorney General of the State of Montana has he shown his face or in any way, shape or form, asserted his influence or argued in behalf of Montana's sportsmen, game herds and livestock producers - all the while knowing that the radical left's lawyers were stalling so wolf populations could grow at a 30% rate and disperse. Bullock knows that the easiest thing to do in litigation is stall. Fanning says Bullock aided and abetted those extremist lawyers as they milked the Equal Access to Justice Act for legal fees, by turning his back on wolf related litigation.

Missoula resident Land Tawney works for both Montana Wildlife Federation and the National Wildlife Federation, plus heads Montana Hunters and Anglers. Sportsmens groups calling themselves "Montana Hunters and Anglers" and "Montana Sportsmen Alliance" covertly provide political cover for the 501(c)(3) non-profit Montana Wildlife Federation to insure a Demcoratic win in the 2012 Senate race. - Bogus Montana Sportsmen Groups Trying To Throw 2012 Elections!
Many are now wondering if Bullock will follow in Schweitzer's do nothing footsteps. Some are wondering why he isn't investigating the illegal, or at least unscrupulous, political activities of the Montana Wildlife Federation, Montana Hunters and Anglers or the Montana Sportsmen Alliance. Unless pressured to make a comment, he totally avoids addressing the wolf issue, even though a very high percentage of Montana's residents now consider the impact wolves have made on wildlife resources and ranching to be the greatest disaster in their lifetimes. Nowhere on Bullock's website will you find even a hint of how, as Governor, he would dramatically reduce wolf numbers to where these apex predators could be controlled. As Attorney General, he has basically done nothing.

His Republican opponent, former U.S. Congressman Rick Hill (Photo At Right), on the other hand has a very detailed wolf management plan right on his campaign website. His plan is very simple. The State of Montana would be divided into two zones. The Western side of the state would become a "Wolf Aggressive Management Zone" to bring wolf populations down dramatically, and to the East of a determined line would become a "Wolf No Tolerance Zone" to prevent wolves from spreading into the Eastern side of the state. Hill's plan would do far more to reduce the wolf population than anything MT FWP has tried in the past or has planned for the future. East of the "No Tolerance" line, under this gubernatorial candidate's plan, the wolf would be treated as a predator, not as big game, and could be shot on sight at any time on any day of the year - by anyone.

This likely does not set well with the two very questionable sportsmen organizations which are now covertly providing political cover for the Montana Wildlife Federation. It's probably only a matter of time before they begin to attack Rick Hill.

Fortunately, the true sportsmen of Montana are far from being as dumb as Land Tawney, Ben Lamb and Vito Quatraro apparently think them to be. It's easy to see through their ruse, and to realize that their only goal is to drive a wedge between honest sportsmen, in an attempt to destroy the political strength of this body of voters.

Their misdirected agendas have already backfired on them, and they are playing right into the hands of the anti-hunting movement. Mac Minard said it best, "Anti-hunters love the fact that these self-proclaimed sportsmen are doing their work for them." - Toby Bridges, LOBO WATCH


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> You have never heard of Jim Posewitz and his Orion? Plausible denial Bruce.


How do you expect a serious conversation if your always going to be a smart a$$? Yes, I have heard of Jim Posewitz. I think I heard him speak once, about 25 years ago. Isn't he the college prof from Canada? If I remember he is the college prof that makes his students get a hunting license, shoot an animal, and gut it themselves when he is with them.



> Jim and Land Tawney started Montana Sportsmen for Obama


Sportsmen and Obama should not be spoken in the same sentence. 



> Bogus Montana Sportsmen Groups


Montana sportsmen and anglers etc sound like sportsmens groups to me. Who's opinion is it that they are bogus? I really am not sure so this is a serious question.

There is a lot of information there. I wish I knew how much was true. For example on another site a guy with opinions near identical to you accused me of ducking the draft by having kids. Fathers don't get exemptions, but college students did. When the lottery came my number was so high I would never be called. Most people did not go, but this guy attacked my character on it. Simply because I was in college in the mid 1960's he insinuated I was a hippie and it was all sex, drugs, and rock and roll. I was so conservative in college I belonged to the John Birch society and helped raise funds for a guy by the name of Leo Landsburger who was running for governor under the North Dakota Tax Payers Revival Ticket. So you see there are so many liars out there that a person becomes distrustful. Can you tell us who says Wildlife Federations are bad? Isn't that what all these small town wildlife organizations are a member of? My home town was only 350 people and their wildlife club was linked to the Wildlife Federation. Isn't this just another boogie man story?


----------



## liljoe (Jan 25, 2008)

Randy has ruffled some feathers with his promotion of the do-it-yourself, public access rights, wolf control etc. within the outfitters here in the State. I guess MOGA feels pretty threathened having one guy on a board with 20 some other people.

This was in our local paper today.

http://billingsgazette.com/lifestyles/r ... 5420a.html


----------



## AdamFisk (Jan 30, 2005)

Randy must be doing something right, considering the feathers he's ruffled....

This was just posted on his forum, in a response to MOGA trying to spin this deal around saying they never initiated anything, but were contacted by others states with concerns, and we simply instructing them on where to express their concerns.....Let the backpedaling begin.



> he Idaho Outfiitters and Guide Association is the only western organization where on of their board members took the time to get the other side of the story when being asked to participate in the MOGA effort. From that call, it became apparent to me, that his organization was asked to partiicpate in the effort MOGA had undertaken, the same as WYOGA was asked.
> 
> One of their board members did call me, Joseph Peterson of Flying B Ranch. Me provided an email that he sent to all of his fellow Idaho outfitters, in his position as a board member of IDOGA.
> 
> ...


----------



## shaug (Mar 28, 2011)

Adam said,



> Randy must be doing something right, considering the feathers he's ruffled....


And birds of a feather stick together. Here is Randy and the gang sitting on a sportsmens caucus. Senator Jon Tester has surrounded himself with an Obama Czar like panel.

http://www.montanawildlife.com/news/Tes ... ouncil.htm

19 Montanans on panel 'come from all walks of life'

by Andrea Helling
Senator Jon Tester today announced members of the Montana Sportsmen's Advisory Panel, a group of sportsmen and women from across Montana who will provide input to Tester in his new role as the Chairman of the Congressional Sportsmen's Caucus.

Tester's 19-member panel of Montanans will share their experiences as men and women actively engaged in hunting, fishing and other outdoor activities. Tester plans to use the group's input to craft legislation aimed at protecting Montana's and America's outdoor heritage.

Tester plans to focus the Congressional Sportsmen's Caucus on working to strengthen gun rights, remove wolves from the endangered species list, improve access to public land, and fight for clean water and healthy wildlife.

"Montanans grow up surrounded by the many outdoor recreational opportunities our state has to offer and we learn from an early age that it is also our job to make sure we strengthen that heritage for our kids and grandkids," Tester said. "The Montanans on this panel come from all walks of life, and all of them are experts in working together to make sure the next generation has the opportunities to hunt, fish, camp and hike. I look forward to their advice on how we can move forward legislation to protect Montana's rich outdoor heritage."

"The NRA looks forward to working with Senator Tester in his leadership role with the Congressional Sportsmen's Caucus on these issues that are of great importance to the NRA and tens of millions of Americans," said Christopher Cox, executive director of the NRA's Institute for Legislative Action. "The NRA is a leader in the effort to preserve America's rich hunting heritage and improve hunting opportunities at the federal, state and local levels. For these efforts to continue to be successful, every hunter and hunting organization needs to speak with a strong and unified voice"

The following Montana hunters, anglers and outdoor enthusiasts will be part of Tester's Montana Sportsmen's Advisory Panel:

John Borgreen is a life-long hunter and angler who has been an active participant in a variety of sportsmen's organizations including Russell Country Sportsmen's Association where he served as President and Secretary/Treasurer. In addition, Borgreen has been actively involved with the Montana Wildlife Federation (serving as Vice President for Internal Affairs), the Devil's Kitchen Working Group and the Sun River Working Group. Borgreen is retired from the commercial printing industry and lives in Great Falls.

Ryan Busse has worked in the outdoor industry for over 18 years. He has long been involved in sportsman's issues and conservation. Among other things, Busse has served as board chair for Montana Conservation Voters and has been active in efforts to preserve the Rocky Mountain Front. He is a passionate hunter and fisherman and lives in Kalispell.

Bruce Farling is a life-long hunter and angler, and has hunted and fished Montana for 40 years. He is in his 18th year as executive director of Montana Trout Unlimited. Previous to that he was conservation director for the Clark Fork Coalition. He also worked for the U.S. Forest Service for 10 years, including nine years in Montana and Idaho working in wilderness management.

Bill Geer has been a Fish and Wildlife professional for 38 years. He started as a project biologist on Georgetown Lake for fisheries research in 1973 for the Montana Fish and Game Department. In 1984, Geer became the Director of the Utah division of Wildlife Resources. Geer currently works at the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership, is a board member of Hellgate Hunters and Anglers, and is a Community Councilman in Lolo.

John Gibson is the president of the Public Land and Water Access Association, which works to protect and improve public access to land and water. He is retired from the US Forest Service and lives in Billings. He is a former president of the Billings Rod and Gun Club and the Montana Wildlife Federation.

Kathy Hadley is a lifelong hunter, angler and conservationist. She lives on a ranch in the Upper Clark Fork valley, near Galen. She is a former president of the Montana Wildlife Federation and was a founding board member of the Clark Fork Coalition. Hadley is currently the Western Vice Chair of the National Wildlife Federation Board of Directors and is a member of Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks Private Land/Public Wildlife Advisory Council.

Gayle Joslin is a wildlife biologist and worked for Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks for 30 years. She is the secretary and founding board member of Orion-The Hunters Institute. Gayle is also the Issues Chair for the Helena Hunters and Anglers Association, an affiliate of the Montana Wildlife Federation. She has conducted Hunter Education Wildlife Identification courses and has taught riflery at Becoming an Outdoors Woman seminars.

Chris King has spent most of his life as a rancher and is a County Commissioner in Petroleum County. He is also a member of the Private Land/Public Wildlife organization. This group works on hunting access issues and conflicts between private landowners, outfitters and hunters in Montana.

Ben Lamb is an avid fly fisherman and big game hunter who loves to spend as much time as possible in wild country. He is the Conservation Director for State and National Issues for the Montana Wildlife Federation, Montana's oldest and largest Hunter/Angler Advocacy group. Lamb has worked for over 8 years as a sportsmen's advocate in both Montana and Wyoming, and served on the board of directors for the Wyoming Wildlife Federation and the Animal Damage Management Board of Wyoming before moving to Montana.

Perry Miller is a Blaine County Justice of the Peace. Miller is a landowner in Blaine County and avid hunter and fisherman.

*Randy Newberg* currently is the host and producer of the critically acclaimed outdoor show On Your Own Adventures, a show focused on teaching hunters how to hunt on public lands, without guides. Newberg has been a committee chairman and board member for many conservation groups. He is currently Treasurer and past President of Orion the Hunters Institute. He is a co-founder of a local rod and gun club, Headwaters Fish and Game Association in Bozeman.

Karl Rappold is a lifelong cattle rancher. His family has been in the business since 1882, located West of Dupuyer. He rode saddle broncos and bulls for more than a decade in rodeos. Karl opens his ranch up every year to a lucky group of hunters, many of which are out for their first time with family.

Joelle Selk is the first Vice President of the Montana Bowhunters Association and the chairman of the MBA's Legislative Committee. She is an active member of the Traditional Bowhunters of Montana and the Montana Wildlife Federation. Her passion for hunting and wildlife conservation spans 25 years and she is honored to collaborate with sportsmen committed to fostering healthy and diverse wildlife populations.

Pat Smith is a partner in a Montana law firm that specializes in American Indian law. He is a former managing attorney for the Confederated Salish & Kootenai Tribes, a member of the Assiniboine Tribe, and presently serves on the Montana Redistricting Commission. His fly rod, shotgun and rifle are no strangers to Montana's great outdoors.

Land Tawney is a 5th generation Montana who grew up with a fly rod and gun in hand. He served as the president of Hellgate Hunters and Anglers and Senior Manager of Sportsmen's leadership for the National Wildlife Federation. In addition he chairs the Private Land/Public Wildlife Council and serves as vice chair of the Phil Tawney Hunter Conservation Endowment.

Brett Todd is the President-elect of the Montana Outfitter and Guide Association. He is also a member of the Private Land/ Public Wildlife organization. This group works on hunting access issues and conflicts between private landowners, outfitters and hunters in Montana. Todd has been a guide since 1988. He is a former President of the Professional Wilderness Outfitters Association.

Dan Vermillion was raised on the banks of Yellowstone River in Montana. After spending years guiding some of the world's most exotic and famed fisheries, Vermillion formed Sweetwater Travel with his brothers, Jeff and Pat Vermillion. Sweetwater Travel is based in Livingston, Montana and owns and operates fishing camps in Mongolia, Brazil, Alaska, British Columbia, and Montana. He is also the Commissioner for southwestern Montana for Montana Fish, Wildlife, and Parks.

Steve Vinnedge has been a warden with Fish, Wildlife and Parks (FWP) since 1984. He trained in Billings, worked in Colstrip for four years and has since been located in Great Falls since 1989. In 2006, Vinnedge became a Sergeant with Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks. He has been married to his wife Donna for 32 years and has three daughters, all of whom still hunt. Vinnedge attended Bigfork High School and went on to graduate from the University of Montana.

Irv Wilke is the President of the Billings Rod and Gun Club and has been involved with the group for more than a decade. He is also the Vice President for the Laurel Rod and Gun Club as well as the Laurel Rifle Club. Wilke is a voting representative for the former at Montana Wildlife Federation meetings. He is also involved in maintaining the Black Otter Bowman archery courses.

The Congressional Sportsmen's Caucus is a bipartisan caucus made up of members from the House and Senate.

*Adam, Looking at this panel it is obvious that all can be traced back to the Montana Wildlife Federation. What is MWF?*

http://www.flatheadbeacon.com/articles/ ... oney/23202

Megaloads of Money
NWF

By Dave Skinner, 05-25-11 
By now, everyone is getting pretty sick and tired of the megaloads of hypocrisy spilled in the battle over the so-called "megaloads" that the oil folks are trying to haul from the Port of Lewiston in Idaho to the Kearl oil sands patch in Alberta.

Because National Wildlife Federation (NWF) is leading the lawsuit to stop the modules, NWF affiliate Montana Wildlife Federation (MWF) has been feeling a little heat. Called on the guilt-by-association carpet by the evil capitalist Montana Contractors Association, in early May MWF issued a "We're Not Them" press release, at least the second time MWF has done so: In 2008, NWF won a lawsuit against the relaxation of federal rules on haying and grazing on 24 million acres of privately-owned, good-huntin' Conservation Reserve Program lands, which of course annoyed plenty of Montana landowners.

Is MWF NWF's kept girl or not? If not, whose girl might MWF really be?

As a federal 501(c)3 tax-exempt nonprofit, MWF's IRS reports (Form 990) are public. Their most-recent 990s are posted to Guidestar's website (registration is free).

In 2009, MWF's total revenue was $486,000, with $115,000 coming from member dues, $26,000 from fundraiser events after expenses, and $338,000 from "contributions, gifts, grants." Expenses totaled $462,000, including $187,000 in salaries and $201,000 in "other expenses." The other $60,000 or so went to rent, consultants, and printing costs.

Where did the gifts and grants come from? That's the fun part - charities rarely willingly reveal their donors - yay for Google.

MWF has shared in grant funding such as $904,000 granted in 2005 to NWF by the climate-cultist Doris Duke Foundation for "implementing Wildlife Action Plans" in five states, including Montana.

Furthermore, in 2008 according to National's Form 990s, MWF got $29,000 from NWF for "conservation and education grants," and in 2009, $39,215 from NWF for "conservation advocacy."

Therefore, while NWF doesn't "own" MWF, MWF seems perfectly OK with swallowing its pride and NWF's money.

Who might really own MWF? Way down deep in the Web sewer, I found a clue: In 2003, MWF got $236,000 from the Wyss Foundation. A backcheck of MWF's record shows that single grant was fully 55 percent of MWF's $425,000 grant haul for the year, more money than the $170,000 MWF members paid.

Never heard of the Wyss Foundation? It's the tax-exempt, eco-slush-fund of Swiss citizen and billionaire Hansjoerg Wyss. He owns 40 percent of Synthes, which makes joint implants (your new knee) and other medical devices.

Wyss also owns a pretty good hunk of the environmental "movement" - and its agenda. In 2009 alone, he doled out over $13 million to Greens - a megaload of money "dedicated to conserving land in the American West" - with tax breaks on every penny.

There's also the Hansjoerg Wyss Foundation, renamed HJW Foundation in 2009. HJW has $98 million in assets, after Wyss stripped off $58.3 million to start the Wyss Peace Foundation. What does HJW support? The Center for American Progress ($400,000), Center for Budget and Policy Priorities ($600,000), ACLU ($1,000,000) and the Tides Foundation ($1,000,000). No political agenda there, no sir &#8230; these are "public charities!"

Does Wyss matter? To MWF he sure does. MWF has collected $95,000 from Wyss in 2009, again in 2008, and $102,000 in 2007, roughly 20 percent of its income.

What about other Montana environmental groups? Wyss recipients in Montana in 2009 included Greater Yellowstone Coalition ($152,800); Montana Conservation Voters Education Fund ($50,000 for a "public charity"); Montana Wilderness Association ($50,000); and Western Organization of Resource Councils "Education Project" ($110,000). Besides the state-group money, Wyss gave $3.8 million to the Nature Conservancy - and this spring, gave $35 million in order to bail TNC out from under its atrocious Montana Legacy Project "deal" with Plum Creek.

Clearly, Wyss's megaloads of money have an enormous, even distortive, influence on both the strength of the Green political machine and its agenda - and there's more on the way. On April 27, it was announced that Johnson and Johnson was buying Synthes for $21.3 billion. If the deal flies, the 75-year old Wyss will become Switzerland's second-richest man - with gigaloads of money.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> And birds of a feather stick together. Here is Randy and the gang sitting on a sportsmens caucus. Senator Jon Tester has surrounded himself with an Obama Czar like panel.


There are extremist people, then there are extremist organizations. Some of the worst sometimes have some good ideas. Now you may think I am trying to support Randy, but I'm trying to support you. That should help you understand. I have been told you are a North Dakota Farm Bureau representative. They have some very good ideas, but then they go off the deep end and are extremist. So they are a good example of an extremist organization with some good ideas. As a matter of fact I will say I perhaps agree with most of their ideas. I strongly disagree with a few.

The way you go about resisting this Randy guy whoever he is helps his stand. So often you try to make good organizations look bad for your agenda. I have a question. Are there any conservation efforts the North Dakota Farm Bureau agrees with? Are there any they would agree with if the government didn't pay them for their efforts? Serious questions shaug I am not trying to be a smart a$$.



> 19 Montanans on panel 'come from all walks of life'


 so why is Randy' "walk of life" not wanted? Which citizens of the United States should be silenced? Since all "walks of life" are represented how many represent agricultural interests? What is the ratio? How many farmers/ranchers and how many citizens are in Montana, and what percentage site on the board of the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundatio? I know it covers many states, but I'm just interested in Montana. I'm just trying to get the big picture of how this board is composed.


----------



## shaug (Mar 28, 2011)

Plainsman wrote,



> I have been told you are a North Dakota Farm Bureau representative.


Nope......go fish



> The way you go about resisting this Randy guy whoever he is helps his stand.


Never heard of him before Adam mentioned him. Didn't take long to connect the dots. Just search Randy Newberg and Land Tawney or...... Randy Newberg and Jim Posewitz or....Randy Newberg and national wildlife federation and everything usually comes full circle. Right back to a small group of men who claim they speak for tens of thousands when in fact they speak only for those who fund them. If there is one truism in all these start up conservation orgs, it's that these men (MWF) get their principles from those who fund them.



> so why is Randy' "walks of life" not wanted?


The quote "walks of life" came from Sen. Jon Testers Sportmens Caucus group. Pure propaganda. The unsuspecting reader thinks the panel of 19 are a cross section of Montana persons when in fact it is a small circle of men with an agenda.



> Which citizens of the United States should be silenced?


Nice try.



> I'm just trying to get the big picture of how this board is composed.


Did you read what Dave Skinner wrote about the Wyss Foundation giving the Montana Wildlife Federation $236,000 a year.
This money usually comes with directives. The board is composed of shills.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> Never heard of him before Adam mentioned him.


Me either. I'll have to dig some myself.



> I have been told you are a North Dakota Farm Bureau representative.





> Nope......go fish


Hmmmm that darn gst shoveled bull at me I guess.

So these guides etc now belong to the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation. If I remember some of our past debates you don't like the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, The Mule-deer whatever and groups like that anyway. So I'm left confused that you would care. What is good or bad about this guy being on the board if they are all shills? Would it make any difference?

I ask these questions because I have always kind of liked these wildlife groups. Now I am aware that there are groups that use misguiding names. One you would think is a group of hunters for firearms safety, but in reality they are an anti gun group. I can't remember their name close enough to find them on google and I tried. Anyway, I always thought that the RMEF was legitimate, as is Ducks Unlimited, Pheasants Forever, and there is a Mule-deer one also. So my question is you appear to not like some of these organizations. If that's true what is the downside to these organizations? Why should we not support one or all of them?


----------



## shaug (Mar 28, 2011)

Randy Newberg has obviosly thrown his lot in with Posewitz,Tawney types. The Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation could have made a better pick. Land Tawney is/was a regional director for the National Wildlife Federation.

The RMEF is about conservation. The NWF is about litigation.

Ever heard of the Equal Access to Justice Act?

http://tucsoncitizen.com/wryheat/tag/eq ... stice-act/

Environmental litigation gravy train

Opinion piece by Karen Budd-Falen, Budd-Falen Law Offices

September 16, 2009

Consider these facts:

• Between 2000 and 2009, Western Watersheds Project ("WWP") filed at least 91 lawsuits in the federal district courts and at least 31 appeals in the federal appellate courts;

• Between 2000 and 2009, Forest Guardians (now known as WildEarth Guardians) filed at least 180 lawsuits in the federal district courts and at least 61 appeals in the federal appellate courts;

• Between 2000 and 2009, Center for Biological Diversity ("CBD") filed at least 409 lawsuits in the federal district courts and at least 165 appeals in the federal appellate courts.

• In addition, over the last 15 years, the Wilderness Society has filed 149 federal court lawsuits, the Idaho Conservation League has filed 69 federal court lawsuits, the Oregon Natural Desert Association has filed 58 lawsuits, the Southern Utah Wilderness Association has filed 88 lawsuits and the *National Wildlife Federation has filed 427 lawsuits.*

• In total, the eight environmental groups listed above have filed at least 1596 federal court cases against the federal government.

• Every one of the groups listed above are tax exempt, non-profit organizations. Every one of those groups listed above receives attorney fees for suing the federal government from the federal government.

• These statistics do not include cases filed in the administrative courts, such as BLM administrative permit appeals before the Office of Hearings and Appeals or Forest Service administrative appeals. These statistics only include federal district court cases.

On the other end, these same environmental groups are receiving billions of federal tax payer dollars in attorney fees for settling or "winning" cases against the federal government. Accurate statistics have not been kept by the Justice Department or the federal agencies, thus there is no accounting for the total amount of tax dollars paid, however, we were able to uncover these facts:

There are two major sources for attorney fees that can be paid to plaintiffs that "prevail" in litigation either by winning a case on the merits or by the Justice Department agreeing that the group "prevailed" in a settlement by achieving the purpose of the litigation. One source of funding is called the "Judgment Fund." The Judgment Fund is a Congressional line-item appropriation and is used for Endangered Species Act cases, Clean Water Act cases, and with other statutes that directly allow a plaintiff to recover attorney fees. There is no central data base for tracking the payment of these fees, thus neither the taxpayers, members of Congress nor the federal government knows the total amount of taxpayer dollars spent from the Judgment Fund on individual cases. The only information regarding these fees that is available is:

• In fiscal year 2003, the federal government made 10,595 individual payments from the Judgment Fund to federal court plaintiffs for a price tag of $1,081,328,420.

• In 2004, the federal government made 8,161 payments from the Judgment Fund for $800,450,029.

• In 2005, 7,794 payments were made from the Judgment Fund for a total of $1,074,131,007.

• In 2006, the federal government made 8,736 payments from the Judgment Fund for $697,968,132.

• In only the first half of fiscal year 2007, the federal government made 6,595 payments from the Judgment Fund for $1,062,387,142.

• In total, $4,716,264,730.00 (that is billion with a "b") in total payments were paid in taxpayer dollars from the Judgment Fund from 2003 through July 2007 for attorney fees and costs in cases against the federal government.

The second major source of payments to "winning" litigants against the federal government is the Equal Access to Justice Act ("EAJA"). EAJA funds are taken from the "losing" federal agencies' budget. Thus, for example, the attorneys fees paid under EAJA come from the "losing" BLM office's budget. That is money that could be used for range monitoring, NEPA compliance, timber projects, archeology and cultural clearances and other agency programs. Within the federal government, there is no central data system or tracking of these payments from the agency's budgets. The only statistics we were able to compile are as follows:

• Between 2003 to 2005, Region 1 of the Forest Service (Montana, North Dakota, northern Idaho) paid $383,094 in EAJA fees.

• Between 2003 to 2005, Region 2 of the Forest Service (Wyoming, South Dakota, Colorado, Nebraska, Oklahoma) paid $97,750 in EAJA fees.

• Between 2003 to 2005, Region 3 of the Forest Service (Arizona, New Mexico) paid $261,289.85 in EAJA fees.

• Between 2003 to 2005, Region 4 of the Forest Service (southern Idaho, Utah, Nevada) paid $297,705 in EAJA fees.

• Between 2003 to 2005, Region 5 (California) of the Forest Service paid $357, 023 in EAJA fees.

• Between 2003 to 2005, Region 6 (Washington state, Oregon) of the Forest Service paid $282,302 in EAJA fees.

• Out of the 44 total cases in which the Forest Service paid EAJA fees between 2003 and 2005, nine plaintiffs were NOT environmental groups and 35 payments went to environmental group plaintiffs.

We also tried to track the fees paid to environmental groups in certain federal courts. For example, in the Federal District Court for the District of Idaho, over the last 10 years, WWP received a total of $999,190 in tax dollars for "reimbursement" for attorney fees and costs. Of the total cases filed by WWP in the Federal Court in Idaho, 19 were before Judge Winmill; eight of those cases resulted in a decision on the merits with WWP prevailing and with the total attorney fees being awarded of $746,184; six of the cases were settled by the federal government with a total attorney fees still being awarded of $118,000. WWP won one case but attorney fees were not paid. WWP lost six cases. There were two cases in which the documents indicated that the federal government agreed to pay attorney fees, but the payment amount was kept confidential from the public.

In my opinion, there are a lot of things wrong with this picture. The federal government is spending billions in tax payer dollars without any accounting of where the money is going or to whom it is going. There is no oversight in spending this money, especially the money that is coming out of agency budgets that should be funding on the ground programs to protect public lands, national forests, ranchers, recreationists, wildlife and other land uses.

Nonprofit, tax exempt groups are making billions of dollars in funding; the majority of that funding is not going into programs to protect people, wildlife, plants, and animals, but to fund more law suits. Ranchers and other citizens are being forced to expend millions of their own money to intervene or participate in these lawsuits to protect their way of life when they have no chance of the same attorney fee recovery if they prevail. In fact, they are paying for both sides of the case-for their defense of their ranch and for the attorney fees environmental groups receive to sue the federal government to get them off their land. There are also numerous cases where the federal government agrees to pay attorney fees, but the amount paid is hidden from public view. This has to stop and the government has to be held accountable for the money it's spending.

Plainsman, can you say "greed at its darkest?"


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> Plainsman, can you say "greed at its darkest?"


I can when I look at the Montana Guides Association, and ranchers that keep people off land they own. What kind of conscience does a person have when they block the rights of others for a few bucks? Those ranchers have to be some very bad people.

I think we should level the playing field. What right do those outfitters have on public land. I think throughout this nation we should throw them off public land. Perhaps we need to start thinking about doing the same with ranchers. At least we need to triple the rental if we let them stay on public land. I in the past supported them being on public land, but their greed tells me things have to change. At least if we get the cows off it will support more wildlife on land that belongs to us.

I think the reason these people hate Randy Newberg is because he promotes "do it yourself" hunts, and shows people how to do it. The opposition always tries to paint these people as animal rights because they want hunter support. Isn't it ironic that a man who travels all round the United States and Canada killing all kinds of animals is painted animal rights? It's also ironic that at the same time his opposition wants hunter support they shaft hunters in Montana. All I see is a total lack of integrity. Until the bill passes to allow corner hoping of land there should be zero landowner support anywhere in Montana.

Edit: I am going to call our Washington representation, and those in other states too, telling them if they are serious about getting out of debt they need to set grazing fees at a reasonable market value. Everyone on this site should do that. It's not just grain farmers that get subsidized. Ranchers to too, but in a way that isn't as obvious.


----------



## shaug (Mar 28, 2011)

Plains,

So then you are OK with the National Wildlife Federation suing the federal government 427 times? The money they made off with came right out of the BLM, USFWS budgets. Money that should have went to conservation.

David Allen CEO of RMEF wrote a scathing letter to the Montana Wildlife Federation about their stance concerning increasing wolf numbers. In that letter mentioned the MWF is owned by the NWF and the NWF has ripped off the taxpayers 427 times using the Equal Access to Justice Act. David Allens letter is no longer on the RMEF website.

Everyone knows Randy Newberg is running with the "pack" of Monatana Wildlife Federation cheer leaders.

RMEF could have made a better chioce. Here is the rest of the nominees:

http://www.ammoland.com/2013/02/rocky-m ... z2LYDArbpJ

Here is another poor choice: Jim Zumbo

The guy who said AR-15's are terrorist weapons. He got sacked from Outdoor Life.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

I see this very simply:
1 Montana outfitters and guides hate him because he does and teaches "do it yourself".
2 I see landowners complain because they hate anyone who does and teaches do it yourself on public land
3 I see the connection back to the bill that failed to make it legal to hop corner sections. Would those landowners stop a neighbor from getting to his private land? Then why would they stop another fellow American from getting to his land? Only one answer here shaug and it's greed again. These are very greedy bad people. If they are going to deny access then everyone better be denied access including them. A hunters tax dollars pays for his access and two thirds of the ranchers grazing access now. They pay no more than 1/3 what the land rents for on the open market. It cost more to administer our public lands than collected in grazing fees. That means John Doe is subsidizing those ranchers that deny him access.

I see you really dislike the Wildlife Federation. I googled the North Dakota Wildlife Federation. Doesn't look bad to me. I put in bold the things I think you have a problem with.

http://www.ndwf.org/



> Welcome to the North Dakota Wildlife FederationThank you for visiting the NDWF Website. Our intent is to serve as a Clearinghouse for all issues relating to habitat, wildlife, and recreation opportunities in North Dakota's great outdoors. NDWF members celebrate and cherish much in our landscape and, thus, are ever vigilant in protecting all citizens' access to quality wildlife resources. Accordingly, our website attempts to not only describe outdoor sports opportunities but also to advocate for our obligations in wildlife stewardship. Since this site will be continuously updated, your suggestions for positive changes are most welcome.
> 
> What is NDWF?
> The North Dakota Wildlife Federation is an educational and charitable organization. The purpose of the organization is to advance the cause of education, science, and the protection of our natural resources.
> ...


----------



## AdamFisk (Jan 30, 2005)

It is that simple. MOGA don't like Randy because he testified and advocated FOR the corner jumping bill. Big surprise there.

Then, they (president of MOGA Mac Minard) and a few G/O's try to strong arm the RMEF. Can you say pathetic?! It doesn't take a genius to figure out what's going on here.

Randy advocates for the rights for average joe hunters, like ME, and many others.....Are we not entitled to representation Shaug? Is it only the guides, outfitters, landowners, ranchers and farmers that deserve representation? Of course you think there are better choices than Randy. Duh!!!

At least the RMEF won't be bullied around by an elitist, selfish, group of cry babies!!!



> A Montana-based conservation group refuses to allow one sector of its membership to influence the selection of its board.
> The Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation leadership has rejected a Montana Outfitters and Guides Association effort to keep Bozeman hunter Randy Newberg off its 24-member board.
> On Feb. 13, the outfitters association sent an email to its membership, saying members from several states were concerned about the appointment of Newberg, host of the cable hunting television show "On Your Own Adventures."
> On Jan. 22, Newberg was one of six hunters nominated to the board. Since then, he's testified on a number of hunting and public-land bills in the Montana Legislature, advocating for state wildlife and hunters' rights to access public land.
> ...


----------



## shaug (Mar 28, 2011)

Actually this all may be a very clever move by RMEF. Randy Newberg can write for them and he has a large audience. Jim Zumo can write stories of campfires, foggy morning mists and dark mesas for bugle magazine. Just don't let him write about guns.



> "Randy is affiliated with, and often represents one or more organizations that some perceive to be anti-outfitting/landowner, often presenting the Western outfitting industry in a negative light," the outfitters association email said.


It's a battle for public perception public opinion. Randy Newberg can keep the right (wink wink) issues in front of the people with his social media. I believe the MOGA knows they are going to take a lot of head spankings in the near future.

Plainsman wrote,



> A hunters tax dollars pays for his access and two thirds of the ranchers grazing access now. They pay no more than 1/3 what the land rents for on the open market. It cost more to administer our public lands than collected in grazing fees. That means John Doe is subsidizing those ranchers that deny him access.


Plains, I know you desperately want to go down this path. I mean division is your thing. I very much hate to climb into your web but here goes.

Each parcel of land comes with several layers of ownership. These layers may all be owned by one person or owned by seperate people. There is the person who actually owns the surface (in this case the federal government.) There is the person or people who own the water rights (i.e., the right to use the water originating on that land), the mineral rights (i.e., the right to use the oil, gas coal etc., that originates underneath the lands surface), and then there are the grazing rights (i.e., the right to use the herbaceous plant material growing on the land).

The land and those various rights can be owned as one or bought and sold seperately. When federal lands have grazing permits, that means a private indivdual has paid fair market value for those grazing rights and they are privately owned. The federal government does not own those grazing rights. The person who owns the grazing rights pays grazing fees, which is basically a property tax on the ownership of those rights.

Plains, the term public lands in this case is a misnomer. Public land is that which is "un"encumbered.

The lands you refer to are encumbered if they have a grazing right attached a coal lease or whatever.

In the past you have tried to drive a wedge between sportsmen and grazers by hollaring the lease is too cheap or the grazers are getting a subsidy.

To charge the going lease rate for grazing on a grazing right you own would be like having to pay the going rate for rent to live in a house you own.

I hope this clears up any misconceptions that you may have.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

I don't think they have any ownership on that land. It is multiple use. If a rancher has grazing rights that's all he has and it's open to all other uses. That would include hunting. I have never seen public land posted by an individual. Not legally that is.
I do think the grazing rates are to cheap. What is it now under $3 per animal unit month isn't it? What do you get for that under $3 about 20 acres in the North Dakota Badlands isn't that about the grazing rate?



> In the past you have tried to drive a wedge between sportsmen and grazers by hollaring the lease is too cheap or the grazers are getting a subsidy.


Honestly here is how I see it. I think a few fellows want to keep sportsmen and grazers together for the purpose of support for the grazers all the while shafting the sportsmen. Back to the bill in Montana again. What exactly would be lost by the public corner hoping public land? The only thing I can see them loosing is ill gotten money for being paid for access to land they do not own. It would be like me charging people to hunt your land. Same thing. Don't tell me you would squeal like a little piggy about that.

So is it I who divides, or does the truth divide?


----------



## shaug (Mar 28, 2011)

Plains wrote,



> I don't think they have any ownership on that land.


They do have an ownership. That has already been decided by the US Supreme Court. But people just like you who work for the fed/gov surely aren't going to let the little guy win one.

http://seattletimes.com/html/nationworl ... =head_main



> If a rancher has grazing rights that's all he has and it's open to all other uses. That would include hunting. I have never seen public land posted by an individual. Not legally that is.


They own the grazing and they know it's mulitple use. They don't post it.



> I do think the grazing rates are to cheap. What is it now under $3 per animal unit month isn't it? What do you get for that under $3 about 20 acres in the North Dakota Badlands isn't that about the grazing rate?


I told you right up front that I didn't care much to go down this path with you. Is it too cheap or not cheap enough? I don't know. There is a probably a lot more to the formula the government worked out with the grazers years ago. Like developing water and maintaining things.



> Back to the bill in Montana again. What exactly would be lost by the public corner hoping public land?


You are in the wrong thread. That one is the Montana Access Law, Open Forum.

Permit me to fix the sentence you posed. "What exactly would be lost by the public corner hopping PRIVATE land?" That right there is where the wheels came off when that was debated in the Montana Legislature.

Enter Randy Newberg. What he said to the papers:



> 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.
> 
> He and others also disputed the claim by bill opponents that the measure was unconstitutional.
> 
> ...


Now that right there is funny. Randy Newberg is obviously running with the pack at the Montana Wildlife Federation. Some years the pack at MWF have received as high as $500,000 from the Liz Claibornes Foundation. I do believe they have a price. And only 17 percent of the MWF membership actually resdide in Montana.

Randy Newberg spouts a lot of jibberish. "They wish they could operate in the sanity of the middle?" jibberish.

The RMEF is looking for good people on its board. Right now would be a good time for RMEF to put on their best poker face, throw a couple bad cards and pick up some different ones.


----------



## liljoe (Jan 25, 2008)

Gentlemen:

This is politics at it's finest. You can be for or against the Randy Newberg appointment to the RMEF board but it is over and done with. Newberg is now officially on the RMEF board.

Just as a side note: The RMEF office has seen a "drastic increase" in new membership as well as life time membership funds in support of the nomination. Bottom line is: The advertising, publicity and RMEF awareness has taken a "dramatic jump" due to this appointment..

Randy Newberg has done for the RMEF what Obama has done for gun sales.

Newberg will be one board member out of a total of 24 that is made up of people from all over the U.S.. If anyone thinks that one new member is going to have that much influence as a new board member then they are pole vaulting over mouse chit. :bop:


----------



## shaug (Mar 28, 2011)

liljoe wrote,



> This is politics at it's finest. You can be for or against the Randy Newberg appointment to the RMEF board but it is over and done with. Newberg is now officially on the RMEF board.


Thanks for posting that. Just sitting here laughing. Usually Plainman is like the jinx. Every time he supports a candidate or legislation the wheels come off and that candidate or legislation goes down in a hail of fire. His endorsement is like the kiss of death.

Not this time. Chalk one up for Plainsman. He needed one.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> Not this time. Chalk one up for Plainsman. He needed one.


Thanks Shaug. I look at these things and think about keeping my mouth shut, but then that old quote keeps coming back to me. I don't know if I can get it perfect but it's something like this: "for evil to prevail only requires that good men do nothing". I also see that as the reason some of the things I would like don't happen. People don't speak up and evil does prevail. Case in point is the corner hoping in Montana. Greed prevailed. The only thing I am curious about is what is the current going price for a Montana legislator? Does it take money, power, or staying in office to purchase their vote?


----------



## AdamFisk (Jan 30, 2005)

shaug said:


> liljoe wrote,
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 :rollin:


----------



## huntin1 (Nov 14, 2003)

Come on shaug, why don't you want to go into the grazing issue. Is it because 5 minutes of Google research shows that federal land goes for $1.35 AUM and has for at least the past 10 years, while grazing on private land ranges between $18 & $26 AUM? You really don't consider that a subsidy? Grazing rights are leased, not owned. There is a difference. Leases can be revoked if the terms of the contract are violated, ownership can't.

Huntin1


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Hey thanks for googling that huntin1. That's what's happening in Montana. They are blackmailing or trying to anyway, the RMEF because the guy (Randy) promotes self hunts. They don't want people to think that way. Then on top of that they have a law that allows them to rob the people who subsidise their grazing, on land they have a right to hunt. Then these people get upset when I call them greedy? I guess it is more like theft at the point of a politician. Money worshipers.

huntin1 AUM means a 1000lb cow calf. In the eastern part of the state I think the average is 3 to 5 acres required to support a cow calf. In our area it's higher, but by the time you get to the badlands I think they say around 20 acres to support a cow/calf. So $1.35 divided by 20 means they are paying a little over 6 cents per acre. That's right 6 pennies per acre. They pay more in taxes around here on one acre than those guys pay for 20 acres. If that is subsidising I don't know what is. I don't think 90% of the people understand that.

I think knowing all these things allowes us to put those Montana ranchers and outfitters in proper perspective. Then ask yourself how much support do we owe them?

Shaug I'm confused. I asked if you were a North Dakota Farm Bureau Representative and you said go fish.



> by gst
> Thu Dec 29, 2011 1:27 pm
> Forum: Hot Topics
> Topic: Talk to a farmer
> ...


----------



## shaug (Mar 28, 2011)

Plains wrote,



> The only thing I am curious about is what is the current going price for a Montana legislator? Does it take money, power, or staying in office to purchase their vote?


Let's remember that you are the one who posed this question. I realize that the cut and paste below is very very long but.......everything that we have been talking about is in there. People naming liberals,. Plains claims he is a conservative and dislikes liberals. But everytime a liberal or a liberal sportemens org is exposed or named, Plains immediately goes into spin and starts defending them. I don't believe Plains is a conservative at all and is instead a closet lib.

Below is a story that perhaps compresses everything I have been talking about into one package. Read it thouroughly to the bottom and then check out what a blogger wrote. That blogger gets it. And remember in all of this that Independent candidate Cox pulled 6 percent of the vote and Tester beat Rehberg by only 4 percent.

http://mtlowdown.blogspot.com/2013/01/p ... elped.html

ProPublica: In Montana, Dark Money helped Democrats hold a key Senate seat

Sen. Jon Tester, right, and Rep. Denny Rehberg greet each other during their debate on Monday, Oct. 8, 2012 in Billings, Mont. (AP Photo/Billings Gazette, Casey Page)

Editor's note: The following article, about the role dark money played in Montana's 2012 U.S. Senate, race is published in its entirety by permission of ProPublica.

by Kim Barker ProPublica

In the waning days of Montana's hotly contested Senate race, a small outfit called Montana Hunters and Anglers, launched by liberal activists, tried something drastic.

It didn't buy ads supporting the incumbent Democrat, Sen. Jon Tester. Instead, it put up radio and TV commercials that urged voters to choose the third-party candidate, libertarian Dan Cox, describing Cox as the "real conservative" or the "true conservative."

Where did the group's money come from? Nobody knows.

The pro-Cox ads were part of a national pattern in which groups that did not disclose their donors, including social welfare nonprofits and trade associations, played a larger role than ever before in trying to sway U.S. elections. Throughout the 2012 election, ProPublica has focused on the growing importance of this so-called dark money in national and local races.

Such spending played a greater role in the Montana Senate race than almost any other. With control of the U.S. Senate potentially at stake, candidates, parties and independent groups spent more than $51 million on this contest, all to win over fewer than 500,000 voters. That's twice as much as was spent when Tester was elected in 2006.

Almost one quarter of that was dark money, donated secretly to nonprofits.

"It just seems so out of place here," said Democrat Brian Schweitzer, the former governor of Montana who left office Monday. "About one hundred dollars spent for every person who cast a vote. Pretty spectacular, huh? And most of it, we don't have any idea where it came from. Day after the election, they closed up shop and disappeared into the dark."

Political insiders say the Montana Senate race provided a particularly telling glimpse at how campaigns are run in the no-holds-barred climate created by the Supreme Court's 2010 Citizens United decision, giving a real-world counterpoint to the court's assertion that voters could learn all they needed to know about campaign funding from disclosure.

In many ways, Montana was a microcosm of how outside spending worked nationally, but it also points to the future. Candidates will be forced to start raising money earlier to compete in an arms race with outside groups. Voters will be bombarded with TV ads, mailers and phone calls. And then on Election Day, they will be largely left in the dark, unable to determine who's behind which message.

All told, 64 outside groups poured $21 million into the Montana Senate election, almost as much as the candidates. Party committees spent another $8.9 million on the race.

The groups started spending money a year before either candidate put up a TV ad, defining the issues and marginalizing the role of political parties. In a state where ads were cheap, they took to the airwaves. More TV commercials ran in the Montana race between June and the election than in any other Senate contest nationwide.

The Montana Senate race also shows how liberal groups have learned to play the outside money game u2014 despite griping by Democratic officials about the influence of such organizations.

Liberal outside groups spent $10.2 million on the race, almost as much as conservatives. Conservatives spent almost twice as much from anonymous donors, but the $4.2 million in dark money that liberal groups pumped into Montana significantly outstripped the left's spending in many other races nationwide.

As in other key states, conservative groups devoted the bulk of their money in Montana to TV and radio ads. But sometimes the ads came across as generic and missed their mark.

Liberal groups set up field offices, knocked on doors, featured "Montana" in their names or put horses in their TV ads. Many of them, including Montana Hunters and Anglers, were tied to a consultancy firm where a good friend of Jim Messina, President Barack Obama's campaign manager, is a partner.

The end result? Tester beat Republican Rep. Denny Rehberg by a narrow margin. And the libertarian Cox, who had so little money he didn't even have to report to federal election authorities, picked up more votes than any other libertarian in a competitive race on the Montana ballot.

Montana Republicans blamed Montana Hunters and Anglers, made up of a super PAC and a sister dark money nonprofit, for tipping the race. Even though super PACs have to report their donors, the Montana Hunters and Anglers super PAC functioned almost like a dark money group. Records show its major donors included an environmentalist group that didn't report its donors and two super PACs that in turn raised the bulk of their money from the environmentalist group, other dark money groups and unions.

"Part of what's frustrating to me is I look at Montana Hunters and Anglers and say, 'That is not fair,'" said Bowen Greenwood, executive director for the Montana Republican Party. "I am a hunter. I know plenty of hunters. And Montana hunters don't have their positions. It would be fairer if it was called Montana Environmental Activists. That would change the effect of their ads."

Cox and Tester deny the group's efforts swung the race. No one from Montana Hunters and Anglers returned calls for comment.

Tester, who's argued that all groups spending on elections should disclose their donors and also pushed against super PACs, said he wasn't familiar with any of the outside groups running ads. By law, candidates are not allowed to coordinate with outside spending groups, which are supposed to be independent.

Despite his ambivalence, he said he was glad the outside groups jumped in.

"If we wouldn't have had folks come in on our side, it would have been much tougher to keep a message out there," Tester said. "We had no control over what they were saying. But by the same token, I think probably in the end if you look at it, they were helpful."

* * *

Montana has long prided itself on a refusal to be pigeonholed. It's the kind of place that votes Republican for president but elects Democrats to state office. Politicians wear bolo ties, tout their Montana credentials and use words like "hell" and "crap." People introduce themselves by saying what generation Montanan they are.

Consistently, the state fights against any mandate that smacks of Washington meddling, from the federal speed limit to the Citizens United ruling in early 2010, which opened the door to corporations and unions spending unlimited money on independent ads, echoing an earlier court ruling that equated money with free speech.

Before that, Montana had one of the country's toughest campaign finance laws, dating back 100 years, to the time of the copper kings. After one of those kings bribed state lawmakers to back him as senator, the state banned corporate political spending.

Even after Citizens United, the Montana Supreme Court insisted that Montana's legacy of corruption justified keeping the ban. In June, the U.S. Supreme Court squashed that move, saying the Citizens United decision applied to every state in the nation.

By then, dark money groups were already weighing in on Montana's Senate race.

The TV ads started in March 2011, the month after Rehberg announced. The Environmental Defense Action Fund attacked Rehberg for his stance on mercury emissions. The Electronic Payments Coalition praised Tester for his push to delay implementing new debit-card swipe fees.

"The thing that surprised me a little bit was how early they got involved," said David Parker, an associate professor of political science at Montana State University who tracked all 160 TV commercials as part of a book he is writing on the race. "And I think that was critical, because very early on, they were able to establish the contours of this race. The candidates were just busy putting their organizations together and raising money."

Most of the money spent in 2011 on TV ads came from groups that didn't have to report their donors. They also didn't have to report their ads to the Federal Election Commission, because they didn't specifically tell voters to vote for or against a candidate. Instead of saying "Vote for Rehberg," they said things like "Call Jon Tester. Tell him to stop supporting President Barack Obama." Ads like that only have to be reported to the FEC if they air during the two months before an election.

The only way to compile data on such ad spending is by visiting TV stations, which Parker did. ProPublica helped him collect information on the last round of ads.

Parker's data shows that several heavyweight conservative groups entered the fray in mid-2011 to try to cast Tester, whom they saw as vulnerable, as a big spender.

Crossroads GPS, the dark money group launched by GOP strategist Karl Rove, ran two ads in July 2011 similar to those attacking Democrats in other states for supporting excessive spending.

Also that month, a conservative group called Concerned Women for America Legislative Action Committee ran a sarcastic ad about a new miracle drug called "Spenditol," Washington's answer to America's problems. "Call Sen. Jon Tester," the ad said. "Tell him, stop spending it all." Similar ads ran against Democratic senators up for election in tight races in Florida, Nebraska and Ohio.

Several ads run by conservative groups backfired, messing up in ways that irked Montanans.

The National Republican Senatorial Committee u2014 a party committee that reports its donors u2014 ran an ad that appeared to show Tester with all five digits on his left hand. (Tester is well known for having lost three fingers in a childhood accident involving a meat grinder.) The U.S. Chamber of Commerce misspelled Tester's first name. A Montana cable operator yanked a Crossroads ad for claims the operator deemed false.

"The first one that burned me really bad was from the U.S. Chamber," said Verner Bertelsen, a former Republican state legislator and Montana secretary of state. "I thought u2014 you buggers! We don't need you to come in here and tell us who to vote for."

Starting in July 2011, three new liberal dark money groups ran ads. Patriot Majority USA criticized Republicans for allegedly planning to cut Medicare and help to seniors. The Partnership to Protect Medicare praised Tester for opposing Medicare cuts.

And in October, weeks after forming, the dark money side of Montana Hunters and Anglers, Montana Hunters and Anglers Action!, launched its first TV ad, starring Land Tawney, the group's gap-toothed and camouflage-sporting president, who also served on the Sportsmen's Advisory Panel for Tester. At the time, the super PAC side of the group was basically dormant.

The new Hunters ad accused Rehberg of pushing a bill u2014 House bill 1505 u2014 that supposedly would give Washington politicians control of access to public lands in Montana. Rehberg, one of 60 cosponsors, argued the legislation was necessary to help the Department of Homeland Security protect the state from illegal immigrants, drug smugglers and terrorists.

"Nobody in Montana was talking about that bill," Greenwood said. "I've only heard it talked about in campaign ads. And it played a role throughout the election."

* * *

The gusher of outside money into Montana's Senate race was part of a larger pattern. Nationally, in addition to the $5.1 billion spent by candidates and parties, almost 700 outside spending groups dumped more than $1 billion into federal elections in the 2012 cycle, FEC filings show.

Of that, about $322 million was dark money, most of it from 153 social welfare nonprofits, groups that could spend money on politics as long as social welfare u2014 not politics u2014 was their primary purpose.

Relating those numbers to previous elections is a largely pointless exercise, akin to comparing statistics from baseball and lacrosse. The Citizens United ruling changed the game, opening the door to unlimited corporate donations to super PACs and to a new breed of more politically active nonprofits.

"Instead of being in a boxing match in a ring, you're in a dark alley being hit by four or five people, and you don't know who they are," said Michael Sargeant, the executive director of the Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee, which helps Democrats run for state offices.

Some of the players in the 2012 cycle were longtime activist organizations such as the liberal Sierra Club and the conservative National Right to Life Committee, with clear social welfare missions and only a limited amount of political spending. Other dark money groups were juggernauts like Crossroads GPS and Americans for Prosperity, founded years ago by conservative billionaire brothers Charles and David Koch, which crank up their fundraising during election years and devote more money to election ads than other nonprofits.

Finding out about some of the less prominent nonprofits was no easy feat. Many were formed out of post-office boxes or law firms. On their applications to the Internal Revenue Service, they minimized or even denied any political activity.

Documents for pop-up nonprofits like the conservative America Is Not Stupid and A Better America Now, both of which formed in 2011, led back to a Florida law firm that offered no explanations. The Citizens for Strength and Security Action Fund, a liberal pop-up group that spent millions on elections in 2010, closed down in 2011. In its place came a new group: the Citizens for Strength and Security Fund, which earlier this year bought almost $900,000 in ads attacking Rehberg and the Republican Senate candidate in New Mexico.

Groups picked names that seemed designed to confuse: Patriot Majority USA is liberal. Patriotic Veterans is conservative. Common Sense Issues backed conservatives. Common Sense Movement backed a Democrat.

As in the 2010 midterms, the dark money spent in 2012 had a partisan tilt. Conservative groups accounted for about 84 percent of the spending reported to the FEC u2014 mainly through Crossroads GPS, Americans for Prosperity and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Liberal groups spent 12 percent of the dark money. Nonpartisan groups made up the rest.

Despite shelling out hundreds of millions of dollars, conservatives lost big. Only about 14 percent of conservative dark money went to support winners.

Still, campaign-finance reformers say it's a mistake to minimize the influence of this money.

"What these donors were buying was access and influence, not only to the candidates but to the party machine," said Paul S. Ryan, senior counsel for the Campaign Legal Center. "And they will get that access. On the Republican side, you have people lining up to kiss the ring of (billionaire donor) Sheldon Adelson. And on the Democratic side, you have even people critical of these groups meeting with the funders of these groups. This money is not going away."

Even though liberal groups spent far less than conservative ones, they had a higher success rate. About 70 percent backed winning candidates.

Some Democrats have shown distaste for the dark-money arts, pushing for more transparency. But liberal strategists are preparing to ramp up their efforts before the next election, unless the IRS, Congress or the courts change the rules.

"We probably have a lot less comfort with some of the existing rules that allow for the Koch brothers to write unlimited checks to these groups," said Navin Nayak, the senior vice president for campaigns at the League of Conservation Voters, a liberal social welfare nonprofit for more than 40 years. "But as long as these are the rules, we're certainly going do our best to make sure we're competitive and that our candidates have a shot at winning. We're certainly not going to cede the playing field to the Koch brothers."

* * *

By the time Tester and Rehberg started buying TV ads, outside groups had been defining the race for a year.

Rehberg, 57, a six-term congressman and rancher often pictured wearing a cowboy hat and a plaid shirt, was portrayed as voting five times to increase his pay and charging an SUV to taxpayers. Tester, 56, a farmer with a flat top, was dinged for voting with Obama 95 percent of the time.

Tester's campaign went up with ads in March, mainly to counter the outside messages.

"The original plans were going up 60 or 90 days later than that," Tester said. "But it was important...We had to remind people of who I am."

His early ads highlighted his Montana roots, depicting him riding a combine on his farm and packing up Montana beef to carry back to Washington.

Rehberg had less money, so his earliest TV ads, which mainly attacked Tester, went up in May.

Neither Rehberg nor anyone from his media staff responded to requests for an interview on his views on campaign finance. In the past, he has said he supports the Citizens United ruling.

Meanwhile, conservative groups bought TV ads that hit at Tester but stopped just short of telling people how to vote. For instance, the conservative 60 Plus Association spent almost $500,000 buying TV ads featuring crooner Pat Boone criticizing Tester over the health care law. None of that was reported to the FEC.

Over the summer, the Concerned Women for America's legislative committee, Crossroads GPS and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce all weighed in. The TV spots were overwhelmingly negative, and many of them were cookie-cutter ads, similar to those that ran in other states against Democrats.

Liberal groups bought TV ads, too, but that was only part of their game plan. They spent their dark money on retail politics, hitting the streets and knocking on doors.

In January, the League of Conservation Voters set up two offices in Montana u2014 one in Missoula and one in Billings. It canvassed voters and hired a full-time organizer, reaching out to 28,000 sporadic voters to urge them to vote early by mail.

Lindsay Love, the spokeswoman at Planned Parenthood Advocates of Montana, another nonprofit that doesn't report its donors for election spending, said the group targeted 41,000 female voters. More than 1,500 people ended up knocking on 28,500 doors and making 162,000 phone calls, she said. The group sent out about 470,000 pieces of mail.

"It's hard to unpack this," Parker said. "But it's fascinating to look at groups like the League, unions and Planned Parenthood. By and large, they did phones, canvassing, mail, very little TV. One of the best ways to get out the vote is personalized contact."

Many liberal groups active in Montana, including Montana Hunters and Anglers, were connected through Hilltop Public Solutions, a Beltway consulting firm.

Barrett Kaiser, a former aide to Montana's other Democratic senator, Max Baucus, is a partner at Hilltop and runs its office in Billings. The Hilltop website notes that Kaiser helped with Tester's upset Senate win in 2006. Kaiser is also a good friend of Messina, the manager of Obama's 2012 campaign, who also once worked for Baucus.

Kaiser was on the board of the Montana Hunters and Anglers dark money group. Another Hilltop employee in Billings served as the treasurer for the Montana Hunters and Anglers super PAC.

Hilltop partners in Washington also helped run two other dark money groups that spent money on the Montana race: the Citizens for Strength and Security Fund and the Partnership to Protect Medicare.

The League of Conservation Voters and Planned Parenthood Advocates of Montana paid management fees to Hilltop.

No one from Hilltop returned calls, but Nayak and Love said they worked with Hilltop independently of other groups.

Outside groups are allowed to coordinate with each other or use the same consultants u2014 they're just not allowed to coordinate with a candidate. By working together, groups can disguise who is actually behind an ad.

In early July, for instance, the League of Conservation Voters gave $410,000 to the Montana Hunters and Anglers super PAC u2014 almost all the money the group raised as of that date.

When the super PAC spent the money on TV ads against Rehberg later that month, the spots were paid for by what appeared to be an organization of Montana hunters, not some Washington-based conservationist group. Nayak said that was not a coincidence.

"We figured having a local brand like that and partnering with them on local issues made more sense than having a D.C. brand," he said.

Nayak said the League did not donate money for the later ads pushing Cox, the libertarian.

It's not clear where that money came from. The dark money side of Montana Hunters and Anglers paid for the radio ads. The super PAC bought the TV ads and had to disclose its donors, but FEC filings show its money came mainly from two other super PACs, which in turn reported getting most of their money from unions and dark money groups, including the League.

* * *

As the Montana Senate race approached its climax, as many as five fliers landed in voters' mailboxes daily. Robocalls, supposedly illegal in Montana, interrupted meals. Strangers knocked on doors, promising free pizza for voting. People turned off their TVs, dumped their mail without looking at it and stopped answering the phone.

"My ex and I moved in together, because he had cancer and I took care of him," said Louise McMillin, 51, who lives in the university district in Missoula. "He kept getting polling calls as he was dying. After he died, I kept saying, 'He's dead, could you take his name off the list?' And they said, 'Sure, sure.' And they kept calling."

The race stayed tight. Demand for TV ad slots spiked, so the TV stations started raising their prices. The law required them to charge candidates their lowest rate. But outside groups? They could be hit up for whatever the market would bear.

Rehberg's campaign paid $400 to run a 30-second ad during the show Blue Bloods on Oct. 19 on the CBS affiliate in Great Falls. A week later, Crossroads GPS paid $2,000 for a slot during the same show.

Anything was fair game for the ads. One, from the super PAC Now Or Never, made fun of Tester's buzz cut, then showed his hair growing down to his shoulders, a bizarre sequence apparently designed to signal his ties to Obama. Another ad, from the dark money group America Is Not Stupid, featured a baby with a gravelly voice saying he didn't know what smelled worse, his diaper or Tester.

"By the middle of October, people were just so tuned out and quite frankly disgusted by all these third-party ads," said Ted Dick, the executive director of the Montana Democratic Party. "We found that face-to-face conversations toward the end were most persuasive and effective. That's the lesson we're taking forward."

There are other lessons. Tester said the Montana race made clear that candidates will have to raise money sooner, and go up with TV ads faster. Although uncomfortable with outside money, Tester also said it's just the way things are now, even on the liberal side.

"I mean, look, they did it," he said. "And with as many ads that were against me, I was glad they did. But it needs to be transparent. I mean, everybody's needs to be transparent... It's important to know who's spending money on who so you know why they're doing it. And the way the system is set up right now, there is no transparency. Very little."

Campaign finance reformers agree that knowing who is behind a message helps people assess it.

One example: Two postcards sent to thousands of Montanans just before the election didn't include the required notice saying who paid for them. One said Rehberg had wasted "hundreds of millions of our tax dollars on pork barrel projects," and urged people to vote for Cox, "a champion for fiscal responsibility." The other called Rehberg "the king of pork" and told people to vote for Cox.

Cox said he didn't send them. The bulk-mail permit on the postcards came back to a Las Vegas company called PDQ Printing, according to the U.S. Postal Service. In an online manual, PDQ describes itself as "Nevada's preeminent Union printer." No one there returned phone calls.

Greenwood, the head of the Montana Republican Party, filed a complaint with the FEC over the mailers. The complaint blames liberal groups and says they "engaged in a duplicitous strategy of supporting the libertarian candidate, Dan Cox, in a desperate attempt" to siphon votes from Rehberg.

More than likely, that complaint won't be resolved for years.

Greenwood said he didn't think disclosure was a cure-all. But he also said the current system marginalized political parties.

"Whether it's Montana Hunters and Anglers or (the conservative super PAC) American Crossroads, they are not responsive to the grassroots," Greenwood said. "These are the professionals and the money men who are not responsive at all to people. The system as it is now does not reflect what people want."

Besides picking between Tester and Rehberg, Montanans got a chance in this election to say how they want the system to work. On the ballot was an initiative u2014 largely symbolic in light of recent court decisions u2014 that declared that corporations are not human beings and banned corporate money in politics.

Gov. Schweitzer, a Democrat, and Bertelsen, the former Republican secretary of state, campaigned for the initiative. In a shocker for backers, almost 75 percent of voters supported it.

"I realized it absolutely didn't have any legal basis to do anything dramatic," said Bertelsen, who is 94. "But it's a case of saying, 'We don't like it.' I guess we could just sit down and not say a word. But the Supreme Court u2014 I think they made a mistake. Money isn't speech, anyhow. It's just money."

Correction (12/27): This story originally said that the libertarian candidate Dan Cox picked up more votes than any other libertarian on the Montana ballot. He actually picked up more votes than any other libertarian in a competitive race on the Montana ballot.

Posted by John S. Adams at 3:30 PM ShareThisEmail This
BlogThis!
Share to Twitter
Share to Facebook
Labels: 2012 U.S. Senate campaign, Dark Money, Dennis Rehberg, Jon Tester, Montana Hunters and Anglers 
2 comments:
Matthew Koehler said... 
Additional information about the players behind "Montana Hunters and Anglers Action" is below. The source for this first batch of info is this article: http://helenair.com/news/state-and-regi ... 002e0.html

"Land Tawney of Missoula, president of the newly formed group&#8230;..Tawney, a senior manager for the National Wildlife Federation , wouldn't reveal the cost of the buy, but sources told the Lee Newspapers State Bureau that it's between $200,000 and $250,000&#8230;.In addition to Tawney, its officers include Democratic state Sen. Kendall Van Dyk of Billings; Barrett Kaiser, a Billings communications consultant and former aide to U.S. Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont.; and George Cooper, a senior vice president for a Washington, D.C., lobbying firm and former news producer for CNN."

I myself 100% oppose the use of secret, anonymous dark money to influence our democratic elections no matter who's spending it and what they are spending it on. One would think that the vast majority of Montanans and Americans feel the same way. Again, this is about much more than D's vs R's&#8230;.this is about the future of democracy.

Last week the National Wildlife Federation, Montana Hunters and Anglers engaged in a new round of censorship, removal of comments and banning on their social media sites (I have screen shots of the pages if anyone wants proof) in an attempt prevent the general public from knowing about their secret, anonymous, dark money ways.

I believe much of this censorship and removal of substantive comments is coming from Land Tawney of NWF/Montana Hunters and Anglers. I've also been censored and banned by a social media site called "Sportsmen for Montana" and "Hellgate Hunters and Angler's Bully Pulpit Blog" and I believe that censorship and banning was done by Tawney and a person named Ben Lamb. Both Tawney and Lamb serve on Senator Tester's Sportsmen's Caucus advisory group (Source: http://www.tester.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=1333) and have been big supporters of Senator Tester for the past 6 years.

And while I'm bringing up censorship and banning on social media sites for attempting to have substantive discussions about things like Tester's Forest Jobs and Recreation Act, or the provision in Tester's "Sportsmen's" bill, which would have prevented the EPA from ever studying or regulating the use of lead in ammo and fishing tackle, I should point out that the folks at Montana Wilderness Association have also censored and removed my comments and banned me from their site for trying to discuss issues. (continued in next comment)

January 8, 2013 at 3:36 PM 
Matthew Koehler said... 
(Comment continued....)

As anyone can clearly see from the links below, if you simply highlight this "Dark Money" article, Montana Hunters and Anglers will censor and remove your comments and forever ban you from commenting again. Why do you think that is? SOURCE: ncfp.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/mt_hunters_anglers_censored.png

However, if you want to go onto the Montana Hunters and Anglers social media sites and use this type of foul language highlighted below, Montana Hunters and Anglers will do absolutely nothing to censor and remove this type of language or ban a future commenter:

"Burns was a worthless f#@k whose first campaign was financed corruptly, he wh*#ed himself....he was a s*&t-kickin' inbred racist scum." Or this: "The problem is we keep a lying jac#^ss like Tester...I can hear those lying piece of crap bubble head bleach blondes now!!" Or this: "Tester should be rotting in a jail somewhere." SOURCE: http://ncfp.files.wordpress.com/2012/12 ... sored1.png

Ironically, I was once a member of Hellgate Hunters and Anglers and while Land Tawney and Montana Hunters and Anglers censors and bans me from their social media site, they also sent me a snail mail invitation to become a member of MT Hunters and Anglers on Saturday. So, suffice to say this secret, Dark Money group is frantically trying to scramble and find "members" so that some of the heat is taken away from their Dark Money ways.

Yep, that's how some of these self-professed, well-funded "Sportsmen" groups roll. Like I said, this really isn't anything personal as much as it is about the future of democracy in America. Bottom Line: Secret, Dark Money has no place in American democracy...period. Thanks.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> Let's remember that you are the one who posed this question. I realize that the cut and paste below is very very long but.......everything that we have been talking about is in there. People naming liberals,. Plains claims he is a conservative and dislikes liberals. But everytime a liberal or a liberal sportemens org is exposed or named, Plains immediately goes into spin and starts defending them. I don't believe Plains is a conservative at all and is instead a closet lib.


Good luck convincing anyone with two functioning brain cells of that. As I have said a conservative that isn't Christian worships money. I'm a Christian conservative.



> Bottom Line: Secret, Dark Money has no place in American democracy...period.


That would be great if both sides played by that rule, but neither side does. It's not just dark money it's dirty underhanded theft also. Like the bill in North Dakota to give land back to the state. Originally it was to go back to adjacent landowners. I think one of those adjacent landowners was a legislator that introduced the bill is that right? How did we get to this point where people have no shame? I think it is the entitlement mentality, and support prices have given some farmers that entitlement mentality. Those adjacent landowners have no "right" to that land. They were paid for it once. Do you pay for a Big Mac twice when you go to McDonalds?

As most times shaug you have some points thrown in with some pure bull droppings. I will read the entire thing when I have time. I doubt very few people will read a post that long. I do see your complaining about the same people and organizations. Most often they are not bad organizations they just don't worship at the feet of landowners. Some people have a problem with that.

Edit: OK, I read half. It was painful. An old cliche comes to mine: "if you can't dazzle them with brilliance baffle them with bull poop" . Not word for word, but understandable.


----------



## shaug (Mar 28, 2011)

Shaug said,



> Plains claims he is a conservative and dislikes liberals. But everytime a liberal or a liberal sportemens org is exposed or named, Plains immediately goes into spin and starts defending them.


Plains answered,



> I do see your complaining about the same people and organizations. Most often they are not bad organizations they just don't worship at the feet of landowners. Some people have a problem with that.


Did I call it or did I call it.

In the article certain sportsmen and their pretend sportsmens orgs were labelled liberal. Their dark side was/is exposed and Plains immediately goes into spin in their defense. It's all so predictable.

In Montana the Republican candidate should have won but instead lost because of skullduggery. Only a Democrat would view it differently.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> In the article certain sportsmen and their pretend sportsmens orgs were labelled liberal. Their dark side was/is exposed and Plains immediately goes into spin in their defense. It's all so predictable.


Conversely every time a landowner can shaft a sportsmen your there to help bend the sportsmen over the log. I don't question that your conservative, but your one of the money worshiping conservatives. You have to be to think it's ok for landowners to purchase legislators that support no corner hoping. No pride, no integrity, no shame, only money, money, money.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

I would like to give everyone something to think about so they can get a perspective of liberal and conservative as it applies to our wildlife and natural resources.

Liberal: That is someone who wants to preserve as much as possible forever.

Conservative: That's someone who wants to conserve our natural resources so we have some left for tomorrow.

Conservative money worshiper: That's someone that doesn't see value in anything that isn't making money for them.

A liberal would preserve Yellowstone National Park forever.

A conservative sould preserve it until people started to starve to death then he would be willing to plow the Yellowstone Valley for grain and run cattle in the upland. Elk and buffalo would take preference over cattle because you can eat them just like cows.

A money worshiper would tear up every inch of ground or graze every inch of ground. There is no value in anything that doesn't make money. That type of conservative would not tolerate any federal land. He would advocate giving it to current landowners. Oh, wait we ar trying that now in North Dakota. Since it's government owned I think we hunters have as much right to it as the adjacent landowners right? Do you think those same guys would introduce a bill to give that land to you (anyone reading this that isn't a landowner) or I? Those type of people would plow Yellowstone yesterday. Selfish people who want everything for themselves would take public land and turn it into theirs, or charge to you get to it.

On an outdoor site composed of nearly all hunters nearly everyone is conservative. The debates that occur on here are between those two types of conservatives.


----------



## shaug (Mar 28, 2011)

Plainsman wrote,



> Conversely every time a landowner can shaft a sportsmen your there to help bend the sportsmen over the log. I don't question that your conservative, but your one of the money worshiping conservatives. You have to be to think it's ok for landowners to purchase legislators that support no corner hoping. No pride, no integrity, no shame, only money, money, money.


I believe in free markets.



> A money worshiper would tear up every inch of ground or graze every inch of ground. There is no value in anything that doesn't make money. That type of conservative would not tolerate any federal land. He would advocate giving it to current landowners. Oh, wait we ar trying that now in North Dakota. Since it's government owned I think we hunters have as much right to it as the adjacent landowners right? Do you think those same guys would introduce a bill to give that land to you (anyone reading this that isn't a landowner) or I? Those type of people would plow Yellowstone yesterday. Selfish people who want everything for themselves would take public land and turn it into theirs, or charge to you get to it.


It is obvious Plains what you believe. You would like all public land private and all private land public.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> I believe in free markets.


No you do not. If it was free market there would be no need to blackmailinng the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, there would be no need to hold hunters hostage for money to get to land they own, there would be no one calling for the return of land associated with the Garrison Dam project when they have already been paid for that land. All these things are simply agriculture welfare and theft. No dignity, no pride, no shame.



> It is obvious Plains what you believe. You would like all public land private and all private land public.


Not true again. I encourage everyone to go back and look over all of the posts. It's the opposite of what shaug presents. What I am trying to do is keep grubby hands off public property. Who would take from their neighbor by any means possible? Again no dignity, no pride, no shame. It's time society shines a light on the theft of public property whether direct or by denying access. This country is in a mess because we have tolerated things just like this. We complain about the welfare people on the government dole for 20 years, but not about the industries on the government dole for 75 years. Give this some thought: tolerance is not a virtue it's a lack of principles.


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

Take a look at the bills going through the Montana legislature. :eyeroll:

http://www.montanasportsmenalliance.com ... gislature/

Sound familiar? The exact same forces of commericalization at play over there. Some bills almost identical in purpose. ND sportsmen need to get our wildlife organizations on the same page instead of this current shotgun approach.


----------



## shaug (Mar 28, 2011)

Plains wrote,



> No you do not. If it was free market there would be no need to blackmailinng the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation


Blackmail????, Montana Outfitters and Guides wrote a letter explaining their dimay over RMEF considering Randy Newberg on their board. What has been written about Duane DeKrays appointment to Deputy Director at the ND G/F was much worse.



> there would be no need to hold hunters hostage for money to get to land they own


If you are revisiting that corner hopping issue, it is simple. Sportsmen shouldn't put their access wants before everyones property rights. It could someday set an ugly precedent by just giving up one freedom or one property right.

Dick wrote,



> http://www.montanasportsmenalliance.com ... gislature/
> 
> Sound familiar? The exact same forces of commericalization at play over there. Some bills almost identical in purpose. ND sportsmen need to get our wildlife organizations on the same page instead of this current shotgun approach.


I looked at the site provided and it appears the struggle continues. An equal number of Bills drafted by people who represent public interest as well as an equal number who represent private.

Below is something I borrowed from http://www.montanasportsmenalliance.com What needs to be emphasized here is that there will be more written about the publics interest compared to private as it their website.

http://www.montanasportsmenalliance.com ... -doctrine/



> KEY POINTS OF PUBLIC AND PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS
> 
> THE STARTING POINT - THE PREAMBLE TO THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES
> 
> ...


We have a lot of good state and federal employees at the The U.S. Forest Service, BLM, Fish & Wildlife Service, and State Fish & Game Departments. But they are not all good. Some will cross the line as surely as Dicks bad guy commercializers.

That emboldened last line is the very last line of defense. Dark money used to buy the seat of a United States Senator is serious. It tips the balance. They bought a politician. Jon Tester. No one knows where this dark money in Montana came from??? Well somebody has to know. A good place to look would be Land Tawney and Jim Posewitz who belong to those pretend sportsmens orgs who always pop up before an election and disappear right after it is over. These pretend sportsmens orgs have no membership. What they do have is money. Dark Money.

Dick Monson thinks our sportsmens orgs in North Dakota should get on the same page as Montana. In fact Dick Monson knows Land Tawney and Jim Posewitz personally. They have made several forays into North Dakota. They were here in 2008 at the NDWF annual meeting when David Alan Brandt was president of the club. Plainsman used to work together with Brandt when they were federal employees at the Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center in Jamestown.

Dick, what did you ever do with that ND Outdoor Heritage Coalition 501(c)3 that you and Bob Kellam formed back when? Do you still have it registered with the Secretary of State? Did you ever run any "dark money" through it like Tawney and Posewitz are doing now with Hellgate and Montana Hunters and Anglers?

Another thing Dick, do you remeber when David Pauli (regional Montana director for the Humane Society of the United States) came over to North Dakota in 2008? And then there was also when Wayne Pacelle from the HSUS gave $150,000 to you and the fellows at fair chase in 2010. You could have ran the money through your own 501(c)3 ND Outdoor Heritage Coalition. Or would it have to be a 501(c)4 or even a 527 non-profit to accept it. No matter. Dark money is "dark money."


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> Blackmail????, Montana Outfitters and Guides wrote a letter explaining their dimay over RMEF considering Randy Newberg


Yes, look at the title of the thread. Extort = blackmail.



> If you are revisiting that corner hopping issue, it is simple. Sportsmen shouldn't put their access wants before everyones property rights. It could someday set an ugly precedent by just giving up one freedom or one property right.


The adjacent landowners are giving up no rights. The property rights that are being violated is the rights of the pubic who own public land. If your a real property rights advocate then the people who own the public land should have access to the public land. No one wants to drive across any one's corn field, just take one single step from public property to public property. Don't you agree that it's childish to complain that a person's shoulders pass over private property even though their feet do not. It sounds like something you would hear in a preschool sandbox. I guess that's rancher mentality. Thank you for the continued opportunity to keep pointing out the greed. That one is so obviously greedy I'll keep using it as an example for the next couple of years.


----------



## shaug (Mar 28, 2011)

Plains wrote,



> Yes, look at the title of the thread. Extort = blackmail.


I went back and looked and it was Randy Newberg who used the word extort on his website where he went public with the email sent from MOGA to someone other then him expressing their dismay over his nomination.

http://onyourownadventures.com/hunttalk ... p?t=253976

I think he took some liberties with the use of the word "extort".



> I guess that's rancher mentality.


The ranchers will not give the final word on this. I read something where the courts or a bunch of legislators shared their opinion and it wasn't favorable to those who want to pursue their wildlife across wherever.

Of course there are those who would like to see the abolishment of private property and they recognize a side walk outdoorsmens desire to give up just a little piece of someone elses property rights in pursuit of that access.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> I think he took some liberties with the use of the word "extort".


Didn't the Montana Guides Association and some landowners say they would drop their support if Randy was appointed? That's extortion in any reliable dictionary.



> Of course there are those who would like to see the abolishment of private property and they recognize a side walk outdoorsmens desire to give up just a little piece of someone elses property rights in pursuit of that access.


The ranchers are loosing no property rights. The people loosing property rights are the hunters, hikers, and the general public who own public land. If access is denied I think grazing rights should be ended for that landowner. Perhaps that is something that can be taken up on the federal level.

What the unscrupulous landowner would give up is the leverage to take money away from hunters. The Montana Guides Association would be against corner hoping for the same reason. The reason they don't like Randy is his promotion of self guided hunts and he shows people how to do it. An estimated one million acres are being held hostage. Pay to get on your own land or you don't get access. I am confused how these people can feel no shame when people know what they do.


----------



## shaug (Mar 28, 2011)

Plainsman wrote,



> Didn't the Montana Guides Association and some landowners say they would drop their support if Randy was appointed? That's extortion in any reliable dictionary.


Extortion (also called blackmail*, shakedown, outwresting, and exaction) is a criminal offence of unlawfully obtaining money, property, or services from a person, entity, or institution, through coercion.

What the MOGA did was send a letter exclaiming their dismay over his nomination and threatened to drop out of the RMEF. That is their perogative to do so.

Randy Newberg should add some real flare to the writings at RMEF. He already knows how to sensational using words.



> If access is denied I think grazing rights should be ended for that landowner. Perhaps that is something that can be taken up on the federal level.


Name one time you have been denied access to public land? What the heck, you used to work for the fed/gov, I do believe you would know exactly what your next course of action is going to be if ever you should have encountered such a thing.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> Extortion (also called blackmail*, shakedown, outwresting, and exaction) is a criminal offence of unlawfully obtaining money, property, or services from a person, entity, or institution, through coercion.


Well there is money involved. They sent a letter and I think it included loss of support if they could not keep taking money from people they have no right to take money from.



> Name one time you have been denied access to public land? What the heck, you used to work for the fed/gov, I do believe you would know exactly what your next course of action is going to be if ever you should have encountered such a thing.


Goooood point. I think some sportsmans organizations should take these guys all the way to the federal courts. Same with the Wyoming guides. Hikers can go into wilderness areas in Wyoming, but hunters can not without a guide. It makes me sick to think I may have to hire some guy who knows no more about wilderness survival than I do. Many things that need correction in this world. Thieves don't all wear masks.


----------



## shaug (Mar 28, 2011)

Plainsman wrote,



> Goooood point. I think some sportsmans organizations should take these guys all the way to the federal courts. Same with the Wyoming guides. Hikers can go into wilderness areas in Wyoming, but hunters can not without a guide. It makes me sick to think I may have to hire some guy who knows no more about wilderness survival than I do. Many things that need correction in this world. Thieves don't all wear masks.


Social change is always about pressure. But I don't think too many sportsmens orgs are going to follow your lead. You're kind of radical.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> You're kind of radical.


If radical is not wanting to pay some goat roper $5000 for a horsey back ride then I'm radical. :wink:


----------



## shaug (Mar 28, 2011)

Plainsman said:


> > You're kind of radical.
> 
> 
> If radical is not wanting to pay some goat roper $5000 for a horsey back ride then I'm radical.


Outfitters, Guides, Dude ranches, Trail rides, River rafters, Waitresses, Stewardess's meet your kind everyday.

They are professionals. They save their condescending remarks until after you leave.


----------



## Longshot (Feb 9, 2004)

shaug, that is nothing more than a greedy narrow minded viewpiont. All you care about is that some land owners can rip off the public by charging them to access the land set aside for them. To most people this is not a radical view. Radical is keeping public property hostage and making a profit on it at the expense of the public. It's only a matter of time before the public who wishes to use their land will have had enough and things will change. You wonder why it seems more farmers and ranchers are getting a bad rap. It's these very issues that create that image.


----------



## shaug (Mar 28, 2011)

Longshot wrote,



> You wonder why it seems more farmers and ranchers are getting a bad rap. It's these very issues that create that image.


I do not wonder why farmers and ranchers are getting a bad rap. I didn't know they are? Or is that an embedded image that you sir are trying to create?


----------



## AdamFisk (Jan 30, 2005)

shaug said:


> Longshot wrote,
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Nobody is trying to create anything shaug...More and more every year I hear from farmers and landowners a negative attitude towards hunters, or a certain group of hunters. And, more and more every year, I hear from hunters about bad run ins with landowners, true story, it does happen.... It's no secret, landowner/hunter relations are slowly going down the ****ter. It's a big problem and it concerns me, but I don't know what we can do to stop it. At least here in ND we aren't a western hunting destination like MT and WY, therefore we don't have the commercialization like they do, nor the amount of greed that goes along with that. But it's coming. I don't blame just the landowners. We as hunters have some doing in this as well. Without the customers, the G/O's wouldn't be in business.... But the corner crossing bill, that is pure greed, and no doubt creates some resentment from both sides. That resentment will linger until the next issue comes up, and then you will have more guys resenting each other.....Repeat.

There are sloppy no good hunters, and there are greedy no good landowners.......They are slowly ruining it for the rest of us, and one day in my lifetime I will eventually have to buy a boat and take up fishing.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Shaug you should understand that landowners are getting a bad name from things like corner hoping in Montana. It's been a while since I explained the pay to play. Landowners expect hunters to support them. We do, but that's changing. When you purchase a car from a dealer do you feel like you owe him anything after the sale? Same with paying to hunt. In the past we always felt we owed landowners loyalty. Now when we pay we owe them nothing. 
Shaug you and groups like the North Dakota Farm Bureau say things that influence opinion. Your opinions always make me see greed. I think you always support greed for landowners, and also at the expense of hunters and habitat. You say your conservative, but only if it means withholding money from conservation. When it comes to agriculture welfare your always there to take. Your no conservative. You want yours at the expense of others.


----------



## shaug (Mar 28, 2011)

AdamFisk said,



> There are sloppy no good hunters, and there are greedy no good landowners.......They are slowly ruining it for the rest of us, and one day in my lifetime I will eventually have to buy a boat and take up fishing.


Buying a boat and take up fishing??? You need to come up with another idea. The USFWS gets money from the General Fund who get it from the taxpayers. Recently they have been making giant cut backs to fish hatcheries all across the country. Moving money from the left hip pocket to the right they are spending more of the taxpayers money purchasing easements on private land. They are offering some very hefty sums of taxpayer money. That is making a lot of farmer/ranchers angry. The slogan out there is that they are voluntary. Sure they are. Absentee landlords take the money up front and then rent their land out not having to deal with the problem.

Taxpayer money is being used but what is the taxpayer buying?

When the Garrison Dam went in, one of the things that was mitigated was that the fish hatchey would stay open and be funded.
Adam, buying a boat won't be the cure all.

The number of sloppy no good hunters and greedy no good landowners is very very minimal. I think someone is inflating the numbers and exacerbating the problems; to what end?


----------

