# MT Hunter seeks new rules for outfitters



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

*Hunter seeks new rules for outfitters *

JENNIFER McKEE Gazette State Bureau | Posted: Wednesday, November 18, 2009 11:55 pm

â€" If you are a nonresident hunter and you want your shot at Montanaâ€™s big game, youâ€™ve got two options: You can hire an outfitter, pay $1,500 and be guaranteed a hunting license.

Or you can pay $400, put your name in the hat and get about a 60 percent chance of drawing a tag.

Kurt Kephart thinks that is unfair, saying Montanaâ€™s system of guaranteeing hunting licenses for outfitted hunters takes the state to the very edge of privatizing and commercializing Montanaâ€™s prized big game.

â€œIt is Texas privatized hunting at its best,â€


----------



## wingaddict (Sep 16, 2009)

:beer:


----------



## Doogie (Feb 23, 2007)

Id hate to see the price of a nonresident tag if this goes through. Just what MT needs more NRs running around closing what little access is left. Its not gona solve anything, just create less access. If it comes to it the landowners are just gona close it all and let no one on, least with the outfiters they have a clue whos on their place at any given time


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Good. There is a lot of public land in Montana and that is where I hunt when I get a license. This is the third year I have not drawn a license, even though I send in $20 every year for a point. Not only do you pay $775 for a license you get no point unless you pay for it. 
Outfitters certainly don't deserve a better chance for a license on public land.
I don't understand why people think nonresidents will overrun Montana. I think there are a set number of license and that will not increase. The only difference is outfitters will not receive special treatment because they have a business. That business should not infringe upon the rights of others.


----------



## TK33 (Aug 12, 2008)

> Montanaâ€™s wildlife belongs to the public, Kephart said, and is managed by the public FWP, which is funded mostly through money from hunters





> The set-aside tags give outfitters the stability they need to â€œclose the deal on booking a hunt,â€


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

"When I NR hunt I play and pay by the rules of the state I choose to hunt in" TK apparently your quote from another thread doesn't apply to Mt. The govt isn't "giving" these outfitters any money. The NR hunter has to choose to pay the extra dollars themselves for the opportunity to hunt. Theese "extra" dollars are going to the Mt. F&W not the outfitter.

Plainsman, as to a business not infringing on the rights of others, what about the govt mandated usage of and subsidized support of the ethanol industry.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> Theese "extra" dollars are going to the Mt. F&W not the outfitter.


That doesn't change the outcome. Wildlife belongs to all of us equally. The guy with ten million dollars in the bank has no more right to a publicly owned elk than the carpenter busting his chops every day. The extra money required is prejudice and restrictive towards the poorer people, and the program grants special priveledges that the outfitter has no right to.



> Plainsman, as to a business not infringing on the rights of others, what about the govt mandated usage of and subsidized support of the ethanol industry.


Well that's simply trying to get off subject. However, I will bite and answer anyway. I don't like it either. The government is getting it's nose into personal decisions way to much. Next they will tell me what I have to wipe my behind with.


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

"Wildlife belongs to all of us equally" Kinda sounds like a good socialist!!!!

If I understand it correctly these revenues from these tags are used to provide access and opportunity to this publically owned wildlife on private lands. So in essence these "rich" are paying to provide your "carpenter" access to wildlife he may otherwise not have. The Mt. F&G are trying to provide better access onto private lands to pursue these "public wildlife" thru their block management programs funded in this manner and people aren't smart enough to realize it. Either that or I wonder if this fella pushing this measure believes that private land owners shouldn't be able to prevent the public from pursueing "their" wildlife on private lands? I wonder how long before he starts that measure.

NDG&F auctions off one of it's big horn sheep tags to the highest bidder. Most NDan's will probably never be able to afford to buy one and in all likelyhood will be luckier then hell to ever draw one. So is it wrong then that the G&F sells this tag to only the rich that can afford it ??? The percentages of sheep tags sold/ given out in ND is probably higher than outfitter guaranteed tags sold/elk tags given out in Mt.


----------



## Duckslayer100 (Apr 7, 2004)

gst said:


> NDG&F auctions off one of it's big horn sheep tags to the highest bidder. Most NDan's will probably never be able to afford to buy one and in all likelyhood will be luckier then hell to ever draw one. So is it wrong then that the G&F sells this tag to only the rich that can afford it ???


That's never sat well with me. Again, it's taking away opportunity from Average Joe. But, they claim the money goes back to help the G&F, so I guess you can't really argue. At least it's only one tag. If they did that with every tag it would be a different matter entirely...


----------



## TK33 (Aug 12, 2008)

I'm not sure what you mean gst, I have nothing against NR's, I think residents should have priority in their state. Landowners should be able to do what they want with their land within reason. It is hypocritical to mention socialism and then think the gov't should give outfitters special treatment.

You got all mad at me this past spring and called me arrogant and everything when I said the urban areas can dictate the politics. Now you are talking about socialism, what do you expect?????? Greed breeds socialism gst. When people start feeling like they are losing they turn to big brother. The more people start feeling cheated the more rules and laws you will see. You like to talk about posting land as a retalliation against policy, yet you seem to fail to see that posting land and bogarting a public resource can have consequences too.

Hunters bidding up land, bonehead crp rules, less support for ag, and more govt are all a product of greed and land access. In the long run the average hunter and family farmer/rancher all lose.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> "Wildlife belongs to all of us equally" Kinda sounds like a good socialist!!!!


It makes no difference how it sounds that is the way our government has had it set up for a long time. They understood that wildlife roamed over large areas, and they come from Europe where only royalty or the "aristocrats" had the right to hunt. When they set up this nation they made sure that the common man had equal opportunity. Now the outfitters are trying to find ways to steel our resource. I guess it gets cheaper to buy a state legislator every year.
The miniscule amount of land access that it creates is smoke and mirrors for miniscule minds.
TK, if anyone threatens posting land in protest there is nothing they can do better if they want to loose ag support. People who say things like that create enemies for all farmers. To bad there isn't a way to cut all ag support for only the nasty ones.


----------



## Doogie (Feb 23, 2007)

Outfiters stealing our rescource really? Maybe in ND but in MT I can still buy a deer and elk tag over the counter and have a solid month to hunt during the general season, I think this has to do more with the outfiters leasing land than anything else. You have to remember ALL private land is considered posted in MT if there's a sign up or not. Nothing in this bill to stop the rancher from leasing it to a group of guys if this passes, wich it probably wont

5,500 plus the non outfited NRs (ill have to look the number up when I get home tomorrow afternoon) isn't really all that many tags when you look at how many are sold to residents


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

TK, Plainsman, I'm going to have to put one of those little icons for sarcasm behind things like the socialist comment I guess :wink: is this the right one??? Some of you guys are hard to please I guess, the Mt. FW&P is trying to increase access for the general public by making the "rich" pay for it, and you guys aren't even happy about that, how do you suggest they come up with the money to fund their block management programs??? I guess the answer is start a measure and ban this too, seems to be the thing to do these days. :roll:

A few years ago while out hunting in Mt. I was fortunate enough to shoot a pretty good mule deer on these "miniscule acres". I actually appreciated the program providing these thousands of "miniscule acres" all across Mt.

I see you don't want to address the sale of a sheep permit by the ND G&F to these "rich" folk. It's almost like one of your "outfitters stealing our resource" :wink:


----------



## TK33 (Aug 12, 2008)

I missed the sheep thing, I don't agree with NDGF doing that either. Like you said the chances of actually getting drawn are slim to none so why whore one out, just raise the app fee 5 bucks or something.

I always find it funny that the very people who whine about socialism are the first ones to look for money from Uncle Sam, all over the business world, not just hunting.

A lot of outfitters are doing so with their own land, that is their right. The only real issue I see with this is if the land that they are outfitting on is receiving ag payments from the gov't. The land is not solely used for production anymore so they shouldn't receive payments, or at least get pro-rated, and should be ineligible for disaster aid. Non-ag equipment, the farmstead, and the land should be assessed commercially also. That would be an even playing field. The positive thing is that only serious outfitters would be in the business then.

Tell me where I'm wrong gst :wink:


----------



## DG (Jan 7, 2008)

Ken Kephart has a PhD Professor of Agronomy and works at the Southern Agriculture Research Center:

www.sarc.montana.edu/

The sarc used to be U.S. Bureau of Reclamation but now is part of USDA. It is federal. Ken Kephart is also a member of Cornerstone Conservation, a non-profit.

And then Ken meets Land Tawney, regional director of the (federally funded) National Wildlife Federation. I realize this post is long. Should a landowner act as a guide or outfitter? Can they lease to a guide or outfitter? Or should there only be one plan? The goverment plan where by an individual can only lease his property access rights to the government?
(Block Management). Kind of like socialized medicine where in the end there will only be one plan. The government plan.

fwp.mt.gov/content/getItem.aspx?id=31154

Private Land/Public Wildlife Council
Meeting Summary
Livinsgston, MT
December 10-11, 2007

Council Members Present: Land Tawney, Chair; Dick Iversen; Rick Miller; Lindsay Giem; Kathy Hadley; Brett Todd; Representative John Ward; Max McDonald; Senator Lane Larson; Jamie Byrne; Gordon Haugen; Donna McDonald; Mike Penfold; Dan Vermillion; Absent: Doug Schott;

FWP Staff Present: Jeff Hagener, Director; Alan Charles, Coordinator, Landowner/Sportsman Relations; Joe Weigand, Landowner/Wildlife Resource Specialist; Paul Sihler, Field Services Division Administrator;

Other Attendees: Brian Kahn, meeting facilitator; Jean Johnson; John Stillman; Louis Goosey; Dernnis Miller; Michael Nye; Kurt Kephart; George Graham; Carolyn Nistler; Glenn Hockett;

I. Welcome & Introduction: Council Chairman Land Tawney welcomed the Council, and Council members introduced themselves and gave brief background information.

II. Elk Issues Update: Jeff Hagener briefed Council members on the Elk Summit held in Bozeman on Saturday, December 8, stating that approximately 350 members of the public, including many landowners, hunters, and outfitters, had attended the summit and heard information presented regarding history of elk management in Montana, current status of elk management programs and FWP Elk Plan, overview of what other states in the West have tried and the results of those efforts, and opinions from a diverse array of people representing different interests during a panel discussion and question/answer session. Jeff said that from the Departmentâ€™s perspective, the main goal of the meeting, which was to generate discussion and heighten peoplesâ€™ awareness of issues related to elk management, was met.

Joe Weigand presented highlights of a recent FWP Survey of Elk Hunters, Elk Outfitters, and Private Landowners Concerning Montanaâ€™s Elk Population. (Summary of Research is included as Attachment #1);

III. FWP/MWF/Cabelaâ€™s Trophy Properties: Jeff Hagener conveyed information to Council members regarding a recent meeting held in Helena which included two people from Cabelaâ€™s corporate staff, staff from MWF, and staff from FWP, during which issues of concern related to Cabelaâ€™s real estate activities in Montana were discussed. According to Jeff, the tone of the meeting was very positive, and he noted that Cabelaâ€™s had already implemented some new policies and agreed to work with MWF and FWP in the future to try to address issues related to public access and wildlife habitat.

IV. Trapline Reports: Council members reported on feedback received from trapline contacts (September meeting assignment was to develop a â€œtrapline,â€


----------



## fesnthunner (Mar 16, 2009)

gst, are you suggesting that the outfitter pays more for their guaranteed tags than the hunters who apply. I think not. If I buy a tag from an outfitter for 1500.00, I know the state doesn't get that dollar amount. If the success rate for drawing a tag is 60%, then 40% of applicants are left out. (simple enough math). I do not think the state makes more money by handing out tags to outfitters than they would selling those same tags to the remaining 40%. The R and NR are not benefitting from this practice of handing out guaranteed tags. Only the Hunters willing to pay a higher price than you, and the outfitter themselves benefit here.


----------



## Doogie (Feb 23, 2007)

fesnthunner did you not read the article?



> Most of the money for block management comes from the 5,500 big-game licenses set aside for outfitters. Block management is a program in which landowners can enroll their land with the Fish, Wildlife and Parks, which helps private landowners manage private hunter requests. The program has been credited with expanding and simplifying hunter access to private land in Montana.


R and NRs (ones who do not buy the outfiter tags) do benifit from Outfitter Guaranteed tags, the tags pay for Block Management, which they probably never step foot on.


----------



## Doogie (Feb 23, 2007)

MT issues 11,500 Non resident Deer and Elk combonation licences at $643 each = $7,394,500

5,500 Outfiter sponsered tags at $1500=$8,250,000

so to keep the curent funding the same under the proposed legislation each of the 17,000 nonresident Deer/Elk combonation licence would cost $920 and some change.

If this dose go through I imagine you will start to see real "Texas type privatized hunting leases" in MT. Id rather not see that here any more than it already is.


----------



## TK33 (Aug 12, 2008)

The point is that why should outfitters get preferential treatment?


----------



## USAlx50 (Nov 30, 2004)

I can see the block management being nice for people interested in big game hunting but it sure sucks the big one for waterfowling...


----------



## KurtR (May 3, 2008)

well the way i see it is that if the outifitters dont get these license block management is gone. Then they will just lease all the land and all the whiners will have no where to hunt.


----------



## TK33 (Aug 12, 2008)

KurtR said:


> well the way i see it is that if the outifitters dont get these license block management is gone. Then they will just lease all the land and all the whiners will have no where to hunt.


I guess I didn't see where they said that outfitters are not going to get licenses, just that they have the same chance as other applicants.


> Resident hunters need to pay more for access programs





> Resident hunters express willingness to pay more to help fund access programs


Looks like the funding issue is being addressed.



> The goverment plan where by an individual can only lease his property access rights to the government?
> (Block Management). Kind of like socialized medicine where in the end there will only be one plan. The government plan


So let me get this right DG, it is bad for the government to get involved in hunting when it doesn't help outfitters, but it is ok for the government to hand out tags to outfitters to help their business????? It is corporate welfare DG, plain and simple. Not very different than the gov't handing out our tax dollars to the other corporations.

One thing not mentioned here is which outfitters get what? That would be interesting to know. How does one outfitter get more tags than another?

Before any one has a cardiac here, I do realize there are some good outfitters out there but not all of them are. If land access keeps going down you will see more government involvement in land management, as I said above, greed breeds socialism. When the gov't steps in more and takes over more land the commercializers will have no one to blame but themselves. :lost:


----------



## KurtR (May 3, 2008)

the way i understand it is that the client pays the state for the tag and picks the outfitter that they want to go with. So it is the people who decides who gets the tag. i might be wrong but that was how it was explained to me. So they could have every one go into the lottery and just raise all the prices for tags about 300 apiece and that would be the trade off. If you wanted to keep the same amount of land in block management. or leave the prices where they are at and cut the land open to the public way down.


----------



## Doogie (Feb 23, 2007)

outfitters wont get licences if this goes thru, it will be up to the nonresident to get the tag before the go looking for a outfitter if they chose to use one.



> Nonresidents applying for any other combination license may not apply. Includes a conservation, state lands, deer A, and elk license and authorizes fishing and hunting of upland game birds, excluding turkey. Outfitter certificates should be obtained from your outfitter sponsor. All big game hunting with this license must be done with a licensed outfitter. Issued to all valid applicants sponsored by a certified outfitter received by March 16.


from reading that, you get your tag from the Outfitter themselfs


----------



## swift (Jun 4, 2004)

Doogie the way it works is.... You send your check to the outfitter he then completes the application and sends the check and app to the state. You get a tag that can only be used with that outfitter. So you cannot come over a couple weeks after your guided hunt and do it yourself with the $1500 tag. You can draw a NR combination license and hire an outfitter for elk then come back and freelance it for deer/birds or whatever. Do away with outfitter tags, they aren't in the best interest of the public. Fund block management with the other license fees.


----------



## fesnthunner (Mar 16, 2009)

Doogie, I read the article, what I said was that if you take the other 40% who did not get tags that might otherwise have been available, there would be additional funding for block mgmnt land. I also said I was pretty sure that the state did not get the 1500.00, but a percentage of that, maybe equal to what you or I would pay in the lottery. (If I am wrong about that someone let me know, I am sure someone will.) So I do not think the state gets the 8.2 million, but somewhere closer to the 4.7 million. (Similar to what they would receive from the left out 40%)


----------



## Doogie (Feb 23, 2007)

I've never had to worry about putting in for a general deer or elk tag nor do I plan to.

Great make everyone fund block management that's the awnser, I pay to play in ND so should I start *****ing about NDs NR rules? I choose to hunt in your state and you choose to hunt in mine, either deal with the rules in place or choose to hunt somewhere else

I'm done with this retarted thread


----------



## fesnthunner (Mar 16, 2009)

Try the decaf next time


----------



## KurtR (May 3, 2008)

the way i was told the state gets the 1500 and the out fitter charges what ever he does for a hunt.


----------



## fesnthunner (Mar 16, 2009)

Who was it that told you that Kurt? I am going to look into this further for a definitive answer.


----------



## KurtR (May 3, 2008)

a freind that lives in boazman. He could be wrong. The way he put it was that peoples hate for guides is going to end up taking all the block mang land the state has for them away just to run all the outfitters out of town. if this happens he said they should just raise the cost of tags to 1500 plus for nr and see the shat storm that would start.


----------



## TK33 (Aug 12, 2008)

Interesting points Kurt. That is why these topics are not retarded. You get to see other views. Whether you like them or not it is a good thing.

Hopefully at the end of the day the people in montana will get to decide what is best for them. It appears that they are looking at all sides of this, hopefully other states can learn from it.


----------



## DG (Jan 7, 2008)

TK33 wrote,



> So let me get this right DG, it is bad for the government to get involved in hunting when it doesn't help outfitters, but it is ok for the government to hand out tags to outfitters to help their business????? It is corporate welfare DG, plain and simple. Not very different than the gov't handing out our tax dollars to the other corporations.


Now you want more fedgov intrusion??? Corporate Welfare????

I saved this article from Range Magazine Fall 2006. There are two sides to every story. Here is one Bob Kellam will never post. It is long, but once you start, like a good book you won't stop.

A COLLISION OF INTERESTS
The Public Trust Doctrine vs Private Property 
by Bill Yellowtail

â€œThey have the power to break us if they want to. Theyâ€™ve got the hammer,â€


----------



## TK33 (Aug 12, 2008)

> Now you want more fedgov intrusion??? Corporate Welfare????


I don't know where the feds got involved in this, except for one guy who no longer works for them. The point is you cannot expect the state to stay out of your property rights and then also expect tags to be handed out to outfitters. All be it at a cost. It is no different than certain corporations being handed gov't contracts or some "golden parachutes". The government should set and strictly enforce rules and then get out of the way and give everyone a shot, otherwise there is room for corruption and favorite playing. I am also under the impression that the tags work the way swift mentioned.



> TK33, Don't you find it a little weird how all this is being done in the name of and for sportsmen?


I don't know if weird is the right word, and I don't think they speak for all sportsmen. If you ask me as of late neither side is doing much for all sportsmen. Locking up land is not going to help landowners, and trying to step on rights is not going to help hunters.



> The Montana Stock Growers Association proposed a plan in 2003 that they call the Montana Wildlife Partnership, in which participating landowners would be allocated a certain number of big-game hunting licenses that they could sell on the open market. Landowners would be required to establish a scientifically sound wildlife management plan, and licenses would be allocated on the basis of carrying capacity. In return, the rancher would accept an obligation to open their property to a proportional number of resident huntersâ€"for free.


If this is such a problem why would they want to sell the tags on the open market? Why not go a different route, like just paying the rancher or giving them a tax break? I can see why this was DOA, it is a lot like constantly wanting to declare everything a disaster and start cutting crp in May. Without definition of a disaster or elk over-population there is room for this kind of controversy. There are definetely bad laws and too much bureaurocracy and that gets in the way of common sense.

I still cannot understand why landowners are so uptight about letting freelance hunters on their land to thin over-populations. My relatives had a deer problem, tell a few people in town, problem solved. No more $7-$8 corn laying on the ground. Is it from past disrespects? Is it an elitist, my land attitude? Is it the liability of someone getting hurt on your land? Is it money? I don't get it.


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

Was away for abit hunting with friends in Canada, They have some different rules, but given the fact I am their guest doing something I choose to do, I simply go there, accept their regs, and enjoy the fact that I am hunting. Sitting in a stand up there I thought about how it seems many on these sites seem to overlook this.

The "whoreing out" of the sheep tag here in ND provides the revenues to continue to maintain the sheep population here in ND so that I do have a however slim chance to hunt a sheep here in ND. The point is that both this and the guaranteed tag program in MT are being used to fund and provide opportunity for the "average joe hunter" thru the usage of these "rich folks" and now some people apparently have a problem with even this. I have yet to read any other ideas of how to fund these types of programs and opportunities short of taking funds from somewhere else.

My understanding is the monies from these tags goes to the state, and the only thing the outfitter recieves is the fact that yes this client did get a tag and will be paying a previuosly agreed upon price to the outfitter for someone to haul them all over a mountain, feed them, babysit them' take care of their game, and put up with everything else that comes with this, not for the tag itself.

TK as to your comment about people recieving ag subsidies not having the "right" to outfit on their property, there are several considerations to be made.First and formost is this perception that some have that ag subsidies are designed to create this "wealth" among the recipients. The entire purpose behind the govts involvement in agriculture is to maintain a cheap food policy. The true benefactors of these govt "subsidies" is the consumer, the monetary values that these consumers recieve each and everyday when they go to the grocery store far outweighs the amounts paid to the producer of this food. So tying "hunting rights" to these subsidies is kinda like double dipping. Not only do you the consumer recieve the safest, most readily avalible and CHEAPEST food of any country on earth, you also want the right to hunt anywhere you want because of these "subsidies". As you can see there is more than one way to veiw this arguement. Not to mention the fact there are any number of businesses that recieve one form of "subsidy" or another from the govt, and just because there is no hunting involved no one cares. Perhaps we should all get free oil changes from the auto dealers that recieved govt subsidies under this line of thinking.


----------



## TK33 (Aug 12, 2008)

> I have yet to read any other ideas of how to fund these types of programs and opportunities short of taking funds from somewhere else.


Above it mentions that raising license fees is an option. The options are supported by at least some residents. I am in favor of raising license fees in ND to support habitat. In the grand scheme of things a 10 or 20 dollar license fee increase is not as much as it was a few years ago given the costs of ammo, gas, etc.



> TK as to your comment about people recieving ag subsidies not having the "right" to outfit on their property


That is not what I am saying. You have it backwards or I didn't explain it well enough. They have the right to do whatever they want with their land. If they choose to outfit on their land it is now in commercial use and different rules apply. As I said above it is not an ag related business. Wipe them out and take them out of farming, no, but they shouldn't get the same payments as other producers. Also double dipping because the land is theirs but the wildlife is not. As drakekiller posted the state clearly defines wildlife as property of the public.

I am not disagreeing that the consumer sees a majority of benefits _most_ of the time. There are however many cases where the subsidies are abused and prevent programs are abused. This definetely applies more to crop production than ranching. There are also the disaster payments and the bailouts (land bailout in the 70's) that producers have recieved that comes from tax dollars. That is the difference between farming and other businesses, that and the taxes. The point here is that the general public has been there for the famer, it may be more of an investment than anything but some farmers seem to have forgotten that.

Happy Thanksgiving.


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

Tk Based off your comments regarding the commercial non ag related use of land precluding it from being elgible for farm programs. If I enter into an agreement to allow a wind turbine or coal to be mined from a portion of my land while still maintaing an ag usage of this land should this prevent me from being able to participate in ag programs??

Name me one industry that has any govt involvement that there are not abuses or fraud. Does it make it right, of course not, but you can't single out the ag programs by themselves in your argument . We have had this discussion before, and it is a two way street with differing considerations on both sides. But you can not singlely compare one situation in this discussion. Example. If a home owner that lives beside the state fair grounds in Minot has a federally subsidied home loan thru the use of "my" tax dollars, does that give me the right to park my pickup in his front yard when I come to "my" state fair that is subsidised with my tax dollars?? If a business that is recieving any form of govt monies is charging to park in their lot across from the state fair should I have to pay or should I have the "right" to just drive in and park? The way I look at it is no I don;t have the "right" to use someone elses private property just because they may be recieving a tiny percentage of my tax dollars, and if I don't want to pay for the right to use someones private property I can go park in the public parking. It may not be as nice and close and easy but I have that option. Same thing in hunting, if you don't want to pay or make the effort to secure access thru a relationship you always have the public land option.

I'm having trouble understanding how when everyone is complaining about the rich " buying up hunting" why one would advocate discontinueing a program that uses their monies to provide land access to the public and in turn put that financial burden, however slight, onto the "average joe" hunter thru increased tag fees.


----------



## TK33 (Aug 12, 2008)

The big difference is that a wind turbine or a coal mine is not a publicly owned resource.

It is not only the rich that are buying into hunting, soon it will be everyone who has the means, groups of people, etc. You may not have seen it yet in your area but it will probably happen soon. I have heard of some $400 pasture land getting run up to $700 by hunters in the Stutsman/Sheridan areas, there are probably more areas seeing this. Once again, everyone loses.

Another difference here is that this started over an over-population issue. Let people hunt them. If there are too many geese in bean fields, let people hunt them. It is that simple. But instead the answer is to try to make even more money on it.

The reason why you can't park in someone's front lawn is because it is illegal. Whether there mortgage is subsidized or not. I have been ticketed for it in my younger days, having too much fun. 

The financial burden however slight is the key. A slight increase in license fees would keep more people afield than a $1000 per gun charge for a weekend. There have been numerous articles on this site outlining who spends what and how much, how would losing hunters benefit rural ND or MT in the long run. Sure a few landowners would make more money in the now but down the end it would be a net loss.


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

TK the public seems to want to pick and choose when this is "their" public resource. When it is hunting season by God they are mine, but when they cause damage to my vehicle, the public doesn't pay my increase in premiums I do. If someone in my family were killed because of a deer collision could I sue the state or the "public" So there are differing considerations given to this "public resource" all the time. I would guess there are even some on this site that believe public funds should not be used to pay for depredation caused by these public resources.

Also your arguement in your prior statement was not that a public resource was being used, but that the business was no longer ag based but a commercial one instead for your denial of involvement in govt programs. But in regards to your public ownership concerns. If my local power coop puts up a wind turbine, who owns the wind? I am being paid for the land the tower sits on, not the wind that turns the blades. But yet the electricity it produces is indeed "owned" by the public. So is this an example when Ag program participation on these lands having dual usage, both ag and commercial should be denied under your plan if public owner ship of the resource that is being generated or used or "sold" is considered?

I still am not understading the desire to put the funding for more public access areas onto the "average" hunter instead of the "rich fella" thru license fees which this measure would end up requiring . Take away the guaranteed tag these folks buy and they go to another state that has it, along with their money. If all states do away with it then they take their dollars and buy land in that state to get guaranteed tags if the state has that program. If they don't have this program they go they HF route, ect...... The point being is that the money that some folks have will always get them access, why not use it to provide opportunities for the rest of the folks, which is what this guaranteed tag program in Mt. does. Which is back to what this thread is actually about.


----------



## TK33 (Aug 12, 2008)

> When it is hunting season by God they are mine, but when they cause damage to my vehicle, the public doesn't pay my increase in premiums I do. If someone in my family were killed because of a deer collision could I sue the state or the "public" So there are differing considerations given to this "public resource" all the time


Or you could sue the landowner who owns the land the deer came off of, since some landowners feel that game on their land is their game.



> who owns the wind?


Are you kidding me? 

The state clearly defines who owns the wildlife. If you want to get that deep it would never end, who owns the sun, the moon, the stars? Hey we got 5" of rain, I want to sue the guy who owns the severe thunderstorms! 

The coop puts up a tower and whatever they don't use gets sold and moves on down the line? I am not sure how you say that is owned by the public, unless you mean the gov't controls the grid.

I am not adovcating taking away the tags. I am saying that the outfitters would have the same chance as the average hunter. As mentioned above the resident hunters in MT apperar to have stated they support increased tag fees. Also if the program is the same as swift indicated are all the outfitters on an even field for acquiring the tags?



> The point being is that the money that some folks have will always get them access, why not use it to provide opportunities for the rest of the folks, which is what this guaranteed tag program in Mt. does.


You kind of have a point here, except for the proportion of land and tags. Once again not an even field. Still seems to me like the gov't is favoring the outfitter. As I said above the residents of MT will have the final say.[/code]


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

TK Sue the owner of the land the deer came off of  ??????? Now whoose kidding. It was the deer that caused the damage, not the owner of the land. This comment is a perfect example of the mentality that comes behind the "ownership" of this public resource. When I want to use them during the couple of weeks of season they are mine, but the rest of the time I don't want to be responsible for them attitude. If I'm renting pasture from someone and my cattle get out and are involved in an accident, I as the owner of the cattle am liable, not the fella I'm renting the pasture from.

The public, thru their membership in the power coop "own" the company and the products its turbines produce using the wind. So in essense the "public" owns the product my private land is being used to produce. Not entirely different than the "public" "owning" the wildlife that my land is being used for producing game animals on. This publicly (coop) owned product (electricity) produced on my land is being done in a commercial (non ag) business so again I ask under your idea, should this preclude me from participating in federal ag programs on this land that is still being used for ag production as well? If I set up a gravel pit in the corner of a quarter of pasture land and sell gravel out of it in a nonag commercial venture while grazing the remainder of the pasture should this prevent me from being elgible to participate in ag programs under your plan??

And while the right of ownership of game animals may be "clearly defined by state law" the usage and or limitations of the usage of the private lands these game animals reside on is as well. It appears you want to change one, but not the other to your benefit.


----------



## DG (Jan 7, 2008)

TK33 said,



> You kind of have a point here, except for the proportion of land and tags. Once again not an even field. Still seems to me like the gov't is favoring the outfitter. As I said above the residents of MT will have the final say.[/code]


The trick then is, in the final say, will the public hear the right information. That is when Posewitz and company will crank up the propaganda mill. When ever there is a headline story, related or not, a little piece of venom can subtley be injected. Let me give you an example:

Here is a headline story put right out there for public consumption.

Game and Fish crackdown
By BRIAN GEHRING Bismarck Tribune | Posted: Sunday, November 8, 2009

http://www.fishingbuddy.com/tougher_gam ... tId=310786

TK33, I'm not going to reprint the entire story here but it is about auctioning off hunting and fishing gear confiscated by North Dakota law enforcement. It is a headline story. Nothing wrong with the article until an unsuspecting person reads this part:

Law supported

Wildlife groups in the state say the same thing. David Brandt is the president of the executive board of the North Dakota Wildlife Federation, a grassroots wildlife conservation and advocacy group.

Brandt said his group supported passage of the new law for several reasons.

He said one of the group's concerns is with the growth of fee hunting and out-of-state hunters coming into the state, there is "a lot of big money in outdoor recreation."

Brandt said until now, many of those hunters were not phased by fines that could be imposed by state courts.

"A $500 fine is nothing for some of these people," Brandt said. "That's the cost of a gun or one hunting trip."

He said the new law more clearly defines what violators could be risking if they choose to engage in illegal practices. Felony convictions could result in losing the right to possess firearms as well as the loss of hunting privileges for an extended period of time.

Brandt said he thinks the law will be a strong deterrent for many. "We thought the lenient penalties were not accomplishing protecting the resources of North Dakota," he said. "The laws did not have a deterrent effect."

He said he also thinks the increased publicity of facing felony charges may keep some from crossing the line.

"We hope so," he said. "That's been one of our frustrations. A lot of these cases don't get a lot of publicity."

Now then TK33, Did you see how easy that was to attack the non-resident, the rich and create hate and division?

David Alan Brandt is a federal agent with the USGS in Jamestown. As 
president of the executive board of the North Dakota Wildlife Federation he has attended several meetings where Posewitz was a speaker. He was also at many functions where Land Tawney, regional director of the NWF, was speaking. When Posewitz, Land Tawney Kurt Kephart types come to town the meetings are quite small and the general public isn't present. But somehow their discussions are being bottled and fed to an unsuspecting public.

TK33, These guys know what your weakness is. All they have to do is exploit it. Access, Non-residents, the rich, baiting, guides, private property vs public, yada yada

Now repeat after them,"The management of wildlife should be placed squarely in the hands of highly intelligent wildlife professionals......The management of wildlife should be placed squarely in the hands of highly intelligent wildlife professionals.....The management of wildlife should be placed squarely in the hands of highly intelligent wildlife professionals


----------



## TK33 (Aug 12, 2008)

> So in essense the "public" owns the product my private land is being used to produce.


The coop members would own that power, not every resident of the state. The power that comes off the windfarms is owned by FPL, Ottertail, MinnKota, or whoever owns the turbines.



> TK Sue the owner of the land the deer came off of ??????? Now whoose kidding.


    
Now you can see how asinyne it is to expect the state or the landowner to be liable there.



> If I set up a gravel pit in the corner of a quarter of pasture land and sell gravel out of it in a nonag commercial venture while grazing the remainder of the pasture should this prevent me from being elgible to participate in ag programs under your plan??


Yes, any acreage that is non-production should not be subsidized or eligible for disaster, prevent, etc. If 120 of 160 acres are pasture, the remaining 40 should not be eligible. Most of the time it isn't for other ventures. There have already been some crackdowns on that around here and I think you will be seeing more. Once again it is an unfair business advantage.



> It appears you want to change one, but not the other to your benefit.


Again no is saying that you cannot outfit your land. But how many times does the general public have to pay to support your business? What you and DG are saying is that you don't wan't government involvement or restrictions unless it benefits you.



> TK33, These guys know what your weakness is. All they have to do is exploit it. Access, Non-residents, the rich, baiting, guides, private property vs public, yada yada


Wrong. My weakness is for the disgusting way that groups of people have decided to take a resource and through pure greed try to make it all their own. Then try to say "don't worry we are helping you". Or try to say leave our rights alone and then expect the government to look out for their business. :roll: I don't need the wildlife federation or any other group telling me what is wrong with this picture.



> The management of wildlife should be placed squarely in the hands of highly intelligent wildlife professionals


The management of wildlife should be left to biologists. Biologists who have no outside influence from politicians or any other group, including outfitters or the CVB.

Once again, who is going to cover the revenues lost to the general fund, game and fish, and rural ND when the numbers of hunters, resident and non-resident drop due to over commercialization?



> Now then TK33, Did you see how easy that was to attack the non-resident, the rich and create hate and division?


You will find that other people don't need an article to create division. The division is created every time people go out hunting.

Hopefully the people of MT get to hear all sides and make a decision based on what is good for all of them. Hopefully we have the same chance here in ND.


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

TK you are rationalizing and picking and choosing what you want instead of looking at the whole picture. The gravel pit probably wasn't the best example because the land itself is no longer used for ag production in large part even though I may still run cattle in it to utilize the wastelands. So here is a more direct example that may simplify it and more closely resembles the issue at hand. I own a ranch and am getting whatever ag program payments are avalible because it is an ag based business. I then decide to supplement my income by starting a dude ranch where folks can come and ride horse, go hiking, bird watching ect...... a non ag based commercial business which is being done on the very same acres that are also used for grazing cattle. Your statement suggests because this land is being used for a commercial purpose, the dude ranch, it would preclude me from being able to participate in govt ag programs???

Heres another example, I have a quarter of land that has 40 acres of temporary wetlands on it, I have farmed it for 3 of the last 5 years. But I decide to enroll it in the wetlands conservation program. This "usage" of this land is non ag, but yet it still recieves govt ag based payments. Perhaps this payment for these acres should be stopped as well?

As you stated the ND has laws that clearly define the " ownership" of the game animals, the state also has laws that clearly "define" that one can outfit on his private property without being penalized for it in other areas of usage of his private property. You want to talk about how some peoples ideologies are causing a rift between rural and urban, but yet you suggest things that will only further that rift yourself.

As to the lawsuit deal, heres the difference,you suggested sueing the person that owned the land the deer came off of, while I asked about sueing the "owner" of the deer. The example given, if my cattle get out and get hit I am liable as the owner of the cattle, not the fella tat owns the pasture I'm renting that the cattle came off of, backs up the legitimacy of that idea, not that it would ever happen. It was merely being used as an example of how some want the benefit of the "property" when it is convienient for them, but not the responsibility of it the rest of the time. which is kinda the gist of your very argument.

Now back to the topic of this thread, does anyone even know factually where this money from these guaranteed tags goes? I thought it was used for the Block Management Programs, but apparently some think it goes to the outfitter themselves. As to these tags, you, I, or anyone can purchase them if we choose, so in fact it is giving everyone an opportunity to hunt. So how do you think this is soley benefitting the outfitter? The fact of the matter is that if this money is indeed going to the BMP in Mt. this program is benefitting far more people thru this than it is outfitters. It seems as though the Mt. FW&P is trying to provide more opportunities for everyone and yet people are still complaining. Go figure.


----------



## TK33 (Aug 12, 2008)

> I then decide to supplement my income by starting a dude ranch where folks can come and ride horse, go hiking, bird watching ect...... a non ag based commercial business which is being done on the very same acres that are also used for grazing cattle. Your statement suggests because this land is being used for a commercial purpose, the dude ranch, it would preclude me from being able to participate in govt ag programs???


By rights it should be. You would have the option of the SBA for non prodution use. Like any other business.



> As you stated the state has laws that clearly define the " ownership" of the game animals the state also has laws that clearly state one can outfit on his private property while participating in ag programs. You want to talk about how some peoples ideologies are causing a rift between rural and urban, but yet you suggest things that will only further that rift yourself for your own benefit.


You are correct about the laws. I have stated I don't think the state should tell you that you cannot outfit. I am pretty sure that outfitting is here to stay. I think the law should be changed and that *only* landowners can outfit their land. They have a vested interest in the land, know the terrain, know the wildlife, and want the business to succeed. Third party outfitting should be banned. I still think that the subsidies, etc should be prorated or stopped, as I said above, if it is in commercial use. Once again you have the SBA and other resources to fund a business. The government should not be playing favorites to one industry or another. Everyone gets the same chance and everyone gets a shot at success, and then the government should be out of it and let the businesses compete. There should be no favorite playing.

As far as the lawsuits go, I dislike lawsuits. I think that it is ridiculous to think one can sue anyone over a car deer accident. There are implied risks to driving. To say that a person can sue the state is as bizzaare as suing the landowner. Lawsuits are a bigger reason for our high premiums than the accidents themselves. Or so I have been told by my insurance agent.

Once again how does less hunters benefit the rural areas? How does more hunters bidding on land help producers? How does less cooperation between hunters and producers help anyone?

The whole point of my debate here is why should oufitters get an advantage over any other business and the general public when it comes to a public resource. That is corporate welfare. The landowners have a say in their own land but eveyone has a say when it comes to the wildlife.



> It seems as though the Mt. FW&P is trying to provide more opportunities for everyone and yet people are still complaining. Go figure.


Obviously to some the opportunities are not worth the price. That is why people are complaining. Time will tell. :beer:


----------



## DG (Jan 7, 2008)

TK33 wrote,



> Hopefully the people of MT get to hear all sides and make a decision based on what is good for all of them. Hopefully we have the same chance here in ND.


You already have the same chance here in N.D. Draft a bill and take it to your representative. The legislature is a very formal setting. No lying, half truths, drama or hyperboyle. What this thread is about is the use of iniatives. Trial by media.


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

TK The part I'm having trouble understanding in your ideology is that wether it is a dude ranch, or an outfitting service, in my examples the primary use of the land is ag related, raising cattle on these acres. So the commercial use is secondary to the ag use. I'm not aware of any laws that put regulations or penalize someone for having multiple use of their private lands in this regard.

I'm aware that because people are passionate about hunting, to many it is much more than recreation or sport, there are ideologys that pop up in regards to regulating certain things when it comes to the opportunities of pursueing game. But just because someone is passionate about this doesn't mean the long standing standard of property usage rights should be thrown out the window to satisfy a group of peoples wishes.

As far as lawsuits go I agree with you for the most part, but even though as you state there are implied risks when driving if someone is involved in an accident with my cattle, as the OWNER I am liable. The point being made here is that a segment of this public, the hunters, are quick to point out this is THEIR game when season is open, but after it ends they really don't want to deal with the issues that go along with this"ownership". Add to this most times the reason there is plentiful game for the "public" to own is that for 365 days a year the majority of game lives and thrives on the habitat and food sources provided by the landowner. So when someone who wants usage of "their" property for a few short days suggests that there be more restrictions on what this landowner can do with his property or business when it comes to this game, it should be understandable that most landowners will tend to disagree.

Now back to the guaranteed tags, please explain how there will be MORE hunters if this program is abolished. And as to your comment "everyone has a say when it comes to the wildlife", will you still hold this veiw point when a majority of this "everybody" decides they don't want "their" wildlife killed for sport and are successful with a measure to ban all hunting?


----------



## TK33 (Aug 12, 2008)

DG said:


> TK33 wrote,
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I think the legislature already spoke for the people last spring on HB 1216. As I said above DG responsible, ethical, and managed outfitting can help all hunters but if every Joe Schmo starts up a website and calls themselves guides/outfitters things will go to hell fast, for everyone.



> TK The part I'm having trouble understanding in your ideology is that wether it is a dude ranch, or an outfitting service, in my examples the primary use of the land


The ideaology I'm using is that ag programs are there for production acreage. To ensure food supply and protect farmers in tough times. To use the land for other purposes while simultaneously using for another purpose seems to be abuse of the system. You call it primary use, I call it dual use. Hunting is not the only business causing controversy right now, this is the site for hunting so we keep at that. Why do you think there are so many people who want to cap or eliminate subisdies? My idealogies come from my landowning, farming relatives also, along with having rural ties and seeing how people who live in the "big cities" think. Most people have no clue how much agriculture effects their lives in ND, whether you live in Fargo or rural ND.



> So when someone who wants usage of "their" property for a few short days suggests that there be more restrictions on what this landowner can do with his property or business when it comes to this game, it should be understandable that most landowners will tend to disagree


I agree with that. More sportsmen should pay attention year round, no doubt. I believe that there should be more protections for landowners not only in hunting but in all forms of civil litigation. Game and Fish and the hunting public should also pay more attention to depredation and other issues and make special seasons in areas that are a problem. 


> will you still hold this veiw point when a majority of this "everybody" decides they don't want "their" wildlife killed for sport and are successful with a measure to ban all hunting


You know nobody will. If commercialization takes over ND and other areas there will no doubt be less hunters. Therefore the odds of HSUS and PETA finding more success will increase. It is simple math, strength in numbers. Producers need the general public on their side as much as the general public needs the producers need them on their side.


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

TK Part of what I see in your comments is that you seem to think everything should happen in a black and white, clear cut, perfect world manner. And it doesn't. Your statement that ag programs should be there soley for production ag use, is not completely true in a black and white sense. Ag programs are there to provide a cheap food policy as much as support for production ag, so the payments you want to take away for someone having dual usage of their land actually have a dual usage themselves. These "ag" payments also fund other non production programs that would have a pretty round about way to get back to production ag.

The guaranteed tag program in Mt uses monies from the people that as I said earlier will get access or opportunity however their monies can buy it. This program generates roughly 8 million dollars, before assuming the average joe hunter will pay this loss thru increased license fees, someone should do the math to see what that increase would actually be. What kind of outrage do you think there would be if ND raised their deer tags $20?

If you step back and take a look at our conversation, it seems as if you are saying ag needs the urban voice/vote so you had better do what it takes to keep this side happy or else. Even though many of us in ag realize the disconnect most people now have from ag and how the numbers of those involved in production ag are dwindling, when this type of attitude comes to the table so to speak, it causes more problem than it solves. So when each side thinks their position is right what is left to do. The Mt. FP&W has tried somethig of a compromise, give the outfitter/landowner the opportunity to use their lands and some of the publics resource while gaining enough monies from this to provide more hunters access to thier public resource on private lands. It seems like a type of compromise that has been working and still apparently there are some that think more in a singular sense along their own ideologies that are not happy even with this. Go figure.


----------



## DG (Jan 7, 2008)

TK33 wrote,



> I think the legislature already spoke for the people last spring on HB 1216. As I said above DG responsible, ethical, and managed outfitting can help all hunters


and



> You know nobody will. If commercialization takes over ND and other areas there will no doubt be less hunters. Therefore the odds of HSUS and PETA finding more success will increase. It is simple math, strength in numbers.


I don't believe guides/outfitters are anymore to blame for lower hunter retention rates than they are to blame for lower farmer/rancher retention rates. Signs of the times. However both are facing a threat that is very real. 85% of the public do not hunt and 98% do not farm. You are right TK33, strength in numbers. Iniatives are majority rule or mob rule!!!

Question? Should the outcome of iniatives be determined by which party can spend the most, scream the loudest, lie the best, defame their oppondent the worst?


----------



## TK33 (Aug 12, 2008)

> If you step back and take a look at our conversation, it seems as if you are saying ag needs the urban voice/vote so you had better do what it takes to keep this side happy or else.


What I am saying is that both sides need each other. Obviously hunters need the landowners a lot more than they need them. Most of the time. I do think that if things keep going the way they are now people will want more gov't control of ag and landowners. I personally do not want this to happen because it will not be good for my family and friends either.



> What kind of outrage do you think there would be if ND raised their deer tags $20?


There would be some who don't see the big picture that would scream bloody murder. Eventually cooler heads would prevail I do believe.



> These "ag" payments also fund other non production programs that would have a pretty round about way to get back to production ag.


That maybe the case some of the time but not all of the time. This is getting to be a pretty big issue with things slowing down in the trucking and construction industries. The gov't has already started looking at the hutterites, soon there will be more in the ag communities looked at. If they are playing by the rules let them go, if they are not they should be stopped. Once again an unfair advantage that goes against what our systems are supposed to be. Right now with small businesses closing up, hours and pay being cut, etc you don't see the gov't helping people out on an individual basis like you see them do for agriculture. It benefits everyone, no doubt, but then you don't seem to see any recognition of this fact from some landowners.

The problem I see here is what happens when everyone and their brother is involved in outfitting and the government helps sustain the oufitters how stable is it? Take a look at the financial mess, when the gov't tries to help they usually just provide a temporary bandage, and in the end just making the inevitable fall much harder. I still would like to know how the tags are distributed, from the MT game and fish site, it seems like it works how swift described. If that is the case is the gov't helping bigger outfitters, bigger farmers, and those who can "contribute" to the political process or are they doing it at random with no favorite playing.

The bottom line is that the public is subsidizing industries that not only could take away recreation but in some cases could also take away their jobs or small businesses.



> I don't believe guides/outfitters are anymore to blame for lower hunter retention rates


You don't think that cost and access are causing people to quit hunting?



> Question? Should the outcome of iniatives be determined by which party can spend the most, scream the loudest, lie the best, defame their oppondent the worst?


The outcome should be determined with the best interests of everyone involved. Granted not everyone will be happy.


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

TK saying both sides need each other while advocating more restrictions such as not being able to participate in ag programs if you have an outfitting business, dude ranch, ect.... is probably not much of a compromise to benefit both sides position.

Each year the FSA sends out a form that you must complete indicating that the majority of your income comes from ag to be elgible to participate in ag programs. So what you are saying is already in place, but yet it seems this apparently is not enough.

With the regulations that the ND G&F have put in place regarding guides and outfitters here in the state, I really don't think everybody and their brother are outfitting.

The reality of it is hunters want access, lots of game, and opportunities, and rather than getting it the oldfashion way of developing relationships with landowners, more and more want to regulate their way to this at the expense of how many landowners veiw hunters in general. Throw in less and less respect for the opportunities hunters here in ND have with the highest percentage of any state of private land open to the public, and it's really no wonder why what seems to be happening is. This initiated measure in Mt. is just one more example.


----------



## DG (Jan 7, 2008)

GST wrote,



> The reality of it is hunters want access, lots of game, and opportunities, and rather than getting it the oldfashion way of developing relationships with landowners, more and more want to regulate their way to this at the expense of how many landowners veiw hunters in general.


Bingo, but I would like to take that one step further. There are people with serious personality disorders who are told they may not hunt the moment they open their mouth. So they join a wildlife advocacy group and try to force what they cannot obtain through their own merit. You can veiw them at the North Dakota Wildlife Federation.


----------



## TK33 (Aug 12, 2008)

> is probably not much of a compromise to benefit both sides position.
> So what you are saying is already in place, but yet it seems this apparently is not enough.


Time will tell, once again this doesn't just apply to outfitting. I don't see how relying on the government makes for good business that can sustain itself. I also don't see why the government should be looking out for anything other than production. I still think that it is funny that the people who usually want the gov't out of their business think it is ok for the government to help them out.



> With the regulations that the ND G&F have put in place regarding guides and outfitters here in the state, I really don't think everybody and their brother are outfitting.


Maybe not in your area, but it has in other areas. It needs to be done ethically, responsibly, and with the future in mind. In other words, highly monitored and regulated.



> The reality of it is hunters want access, lots of game, and opportunities, and rather than getting it the oldfashion way of developing relationships with landowners, more and more want to regulate their way to this at the expense of how many landowners veiw hunters in general. Throw in less and less respect for the opportunities hunters here in ND have with the highest percentage of any state of private land open to the public, and it's really no wonder why what seems to be happening is. This initiated measure in Mt. is just one more example.


I agree to a point. There are also those of us who have the future of hunting in mind. I have no access issues yet I think more regulations are needed to control what can be a short sighted industry. Something else has to be going on in MT to get this kind of attention. Either giving the outfitter tags is not worth the cost and too many residents are getting upset or maybe people don't understand what is really going on. Time will tell.


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

TK, you mention in the first paragraph that you think it is funny that people that want the govt out of their business think its ok for govt to help out. Then in your last paragraph you advocate more regulations to control a short sighted recreational industry. If I'm not mistaken it is the govt that puts these regulations in place, so while thinking it is funny someone else wants more govt involvement for their benefit, it is apparent you do as well.

See it is not quite so simple and black and white. You keep throwing the benefits of the ag programs back onto the producer while it is the public that recieves the most benefit from the majority of them in the big picture. You are correct when you say time will tell, but what happens will be determined by these ideologies we each have, and I don't believe more and more regulations as you suggest will help better any relationship between hunter and landowner.


----------



## TK33 (Aug 12, 2008)

Its not me saying the gov't should be out of my business. I am not in favor in more government intrusion, I am however in favor of the government maintaining an even playing field.

There is no reason that a producer should have any advantage than anyone else, including other producers, in non production business.

I believe that more regulations and management would help hunters and good outfitters alike. Thus insuring that we can maintain hunting as we know it for generations to come and avoid intrusion into landowner rights.


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

TK It's tough to follow your logic. You claim you don't want any more govt intrusion, yet you want the govt to maintain an even playing field. How do you think they can accomplish this without "intrusion" ? You may not think it intrusion, but the fella being "regulated" surely does. I guess it's all about which side of the fence you're on wether it is "intrusion" or "management".

Give me one industry where govt involvement in assuring an "even playing field" has not ended in one company/business being given an advantage to "even" out the field. One company hires minorities the govt pays them more, one company goes green, the govt pays them more ect... on and on and on.

Please give examples of this "more regulations and management" that will not need more govt involvement or be an "intrusion into landowners rights"?

Your statement "I am in favor of the government maintaining an even playing field" could be taken as a good socialist point of veiw! People may start to question yours and Plainsmans conservative, capitalist reputation before long! :wink:


----------



## TK33 (Aug 12, 2008)

The logic is simple. Then again it isn't. I am hardly a conservative capitalist. :lol: Question that all you want.

There is no way that this outfitting can be done in a free, unreigned manner. This issue in MT is a case in point. Obviously something is wrong that has got some people in MT upset. When you have this much money and a public resoure involved there is bound to be trouble. You are counting on everyone being ethical, honest, and not in it to make a buck today and not care about tomorrow. Look at the financial crisis for any examples of troubles that de-regulation and unchecked business practices can cause.



> Give me one industry where govt involvement in assuring an "even playing field" has not ended in one company/business being given an advantage to "even" out the field. One company hires minorities the govt pays them more, one company goes green, the govt pays them more ect... on and on and on.


Those are examples of too much government.



> Please give examples of this "more regulations and management" that will not need more govt involvement or be an "intrusion into landowners rights"?


Limit outfitting to landowners only. License anyone taking money for hunting. Get rid of landowner liability for hunting. I have never been able to figure out why you can sue a land owner if you get injured or killed hunting. There are implied risks. These landowner rights are always under fire, like the mineral rights.

This has very little to do with landowner rights and more to do with business practices. In MT people apparently feel that the system favors outfitters, or certain outfitters too much.


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

TK no one is suggesting outfitting be done in a free unreined manner. Most if not all states, much like ND have regulations in place to protect the resource. Of course not everyone chooses to follow these regs, but that is the nature of people.

You claim the govt involvement in other industries is too much govt, but yet you want more involvement/regulations by govt placed upon hunting. The examples you give WILL require more govt involvement/regulation to be accomplished, so your mantra of less govt involvement is not much different than those you mentioned earlier that want less govt until it involves them directly.

To limit outfitting to landowners only will effectively reduce the numbers of outfitters because most landowners don't want the hassle nor do they have the time to invest in these enterprises. It may or may not reduce the amount of leasing done as well, either of which I suspect is the actual goal of your ideologies. However neither of these can be accomplished without more govt involvement and the taking of "rights" or opportunitys away from not only landowners, but someone that wants to start a business themselves.

So while you suggest less govt involvement in everything else, something you have an emotional involvement with, hunting, you seem to advocate more regulation and involvement by the govt to ensure this activity stays as you see fit. What is happening in Mt. is there are a few people with the same ideologies that they want put forth onto others and so you have the initiated measure. It is not much different than what is happening in ND with the HF measure. A handful of people have not been able to further their agendas thru normal legislative procedures, so they go directly to the people. Often times there is nothing wrong with this, however using the nonhunting public to become involved in regulating hunting may be a short sighted approach that ultimately puts hunting itself at risk, just to acheive the goals and desires of a few people.


----------



## TK33 (Aug 12, 2008)

> You claim the govt involvement in other industries is too much govt, but yet you want more involvement/regulations by govt placed upon hunting. The examples you give WILL require more govt involvement/regulation to be accomplished, so your mantra of less govt involvement is not much different than those you mentioned earlier that want less govt until it involves them directly


You got it, a little more gov't now and a lot less government later. Keep pushing people around and they will demand action, then we will see what socialism is all about. And that is something we both want to avoid.



> but someone that wants to start a business themselves.


The difference here is starting a business with a public resource. Like it or not, the wildlife of ND belong to all the residents of ND. It shouldn't be allowed. I cannot set up a toll booth on my sidewalk, it is on my property but it is everyone's property, even though I am required by law, under penalty in Fargo (which they enforce) to shovel it, maintain it, leave it open, and my homeowner's insurance is liable if someone gets hurt on my sidewalk.



> just to acheive the goals and desires of a few people.


That is the beauty of it man, the people of MT get to decide. :beer:


----------



## DG (Jan 7, 2008)

In the December 2009 issue of Dakota Country Magazine Roger Kaseman wrote a letter to the editor. Roger doesn't like trail cameras. He said,"Apparently the "hunter" has better things to do than actually hunt. He lets his trail camera and email hunt for him. His part in the affair is to ambush the electronically patterned buck and fire the killing shot."

He also said, "if you lack a basic understanding of fair chase, stay home."

Maybe he will start another iniative to define "fair chase" Roger style. 
With a bunch of input from Jim Posewitz, Land Tawney, Valerius Geist and Kurt Gephart types. They will have meetings, form committees, outline buzz words, make up slogans, facilitated work sessions and define the issues. (you know, they who define the issues control the debate.)

Montana sure has its share of iniatives lately. Here is another:

http://www.footloosemontana.org/

One of the board members, Dr. Tim Provow likes to tell people he is a hunter and a member of the NRA. You have to dig a little further and you will find he is also a member of the humane society. He doesn't broadcast that though.

â€œMontana Trap-Free Public Lands Initiativeâ€


----------



## TK33 (Aug 12, 2008)

> Quote:
> That is the beauty of it man, the people of MT get to decide
> 
> The non-hunters or non-trappers get to decide. Smooth move ex-laxs!!!


very clever. :roll:

So you don't think that the people should get to decide what is best for them?

This debate in MT is not about banning anything, it is about what is the best use of tags and public funds.


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

TK, Tell me when " a little more govt now and a lot less govt later" has ever happened. The measure in Mt. will indeed "ban" the use of these tags and how revenue is generated for their block management programs. In this particular measure the sponsor is asking the majority of the public (nonhunters) that have no connection, understanding, or benefit from the issue to vote to regulate the relatively few that do all because of another few's ideologies. So in the case of this measure as well as the HF measure in ND the public is actually being manipulated to achieve a small groups goal. Not really the grand democratic picture that some want to paint of these measures.

Just as in all govt. it is up to the people themselves to regulate what they believe is excessive and overreaching govt. The initited measure itself when used for issues that truly do affect a majority of the public that are not being addressed by the legislature is a valuable tool. But when it begins to be used to further small groups agendas it becomes much less than what it was intended.

You haven't addressed the wisdom of allowing the nonhunting public to begin to regulate how we hunt thru these initiated measures. It is no seceret that nonhunters outnumber hunters in every state, even rural ones with strong heritages of hunting like ND. So what happens when the groups with the agendas pushing these measures present their information in less than truthful ways and groups such as HSUS join the cause and push the envelope even further. As long as they are pushing ideologies you agree with apparently you have no problem with this, what happens when they move on to something you don't, perhaps something such as a no trespass law or banning dove hunting, ect....?

What would be your response if there where a group on here pushing a measure to ban the ownership of guns in a state such as New York? Would you still believe the beauty lay in letting the people decide knowing that a precedence maybe set there that could be used elsewhere? How long before the anti gun folks realize that instead of fighting well funded lobbys in DC they can go straight to "the people" with these state initiatives to accomplish their agendas?

If you haven't realized how the social acceptance of hunting has changed over the years, and how groups such as HSUS are spending millions of dollars pushing their agendas thru media, schools ect... you are not aware of what hunting itself is facing. I realize it is tied to a health risk, but ask any smokers you know if they believe they have been treated fairly. 20 years ago it was socially acceptable to smoke in most all public places, now as the nonsmoking public outnumbers smokers they have decided they no longer want this happening so look what has happened. The point I'm making regardless of it being a health issue, is that if a majority of the public decides they don't want something, it doesn't take all that long for it to be banned. So opening the door to this public to begin regulating hunting is in my opinion not very wise or responsible to future generations of hunters.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

I would like to inject a thought here. You make some good points gst, that voters do some stupid things. Our current president for example. However, I have not lost all faith in voters. Here in North Dakota for example I think the average voter would be fully aware of the difference in an initiative sponsored by hunters within the state trying to clean up their own ranks as compared to an anti-hunting groups such as HSUS sponsoring an initiative attacking our hunting rights. It would take a total lack of perspective for voters to miss that difference.

The only reason HSUS gets into these conversations is the same reason parents in the past told thier children about the boogyman.


----------



## DG (Jan 7, 2008)

TK33 wrote,



> So you don't think that the people should get to decide what is best for them?


In Dakota Country Magazine one of their regular columnists, Curt Wells decided to weigh in on HF iniative. He said,

"As you know there's a movement afoot to gather signatures so this issue of HFH can be put to the voters. This is the only way to go. The legislature already proved that they can't be trusted to do the right thing when they ignored the experts and the facts in the baiting debate durring the last session."

So let's understand this. The people vote for their best and brightest to represent them in Bismarck at the capitol. Our representatives read their e-mail, read letters and take phone calls from their constituents. Meaning "us". What Curt Wells is suggesting is they should have ignored "us" and instead listened to the experts.

I have met many of these "experts" and they already "know" what is the best decision for the public.

Now repeat after them,"The management of wildlife should be placed squarely in the hands of highly intelligent wildlife professionals......The management of wildlife should be placed squarely in the hands of highly intelligent wildlife professionals.....The management of wildlife should be placed squarely in the hands of highly intelligent wildlife professionals

Plainsman wrote,



> The only reason HSUS gets into these conversations is the same reason parents in the past told thier children about the boogyman.


Plainsman, Would you like to see the correspondence between Roger K., Karen Thuneshell (HSUS) and Cody Marthaller (HSUS)? I have it.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> Plainsman, Would you like to see the correspondence between Roger K., Karen Thuneshell (HSUS) and Cody Marthaller (HSUS)? I have it.


Yes. Please. Thank you.


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

Plainsman Given the conversation we had thru the PM deal on here as to what happened the first time this measure was attempted in regards to the involvement of HSUS by one of the sponsors, you should know better than anyone that it was a little more than "bogey man" scare tactics. The simple fact is HSUS is eagerly waiting for these opportunities. Those of us in the animal ag industries know this for a fact and deal with it everyday. And for someone with your past involvement and knowledge in this issue to come on this site and suggest that the mention of their becoming involved in this measure is nothing more than scare tactics is either foolish or unresponsible. Growing up we were always taught it is a little to late to close the door after the cow is out of the barn.


----------



## TK33 (Aug 12, 2008)

Since we are bringing HSUS into every debate let's discuss the biggest feather in Wayne Pacelle's hat, the fact that only 15% of Americans hunt. He goes to fundraisers and gets into the media and brings this up every chance he can to get the public thinking that they are winning the battle.

If the greedy, overcommercialization of hunting continues the hunter numbers will continue to drop and there will be less resistance to groups like HSUS and PETA. Furthermore the public will be less interested in these issues and simply not care. So basically the commercializers are cutting their own throat with their own greed. 
People get very short sighted when there is money is involved.

Gst you want some examples of how regulation can work, look at the financial crisis again. When there was some regulation in the finance market things were a lot less volitile, then some idiots fron both parties decided that de-regulation was the ticket. We were told that these derivatives and stated loans were good for everyone. Just like the commercializers tell us outfitting is good for everyone. Then things headed south and the corporations who just like the outfitters don't want the government involved unless its to their benefit started screaming for help. The public, who just lost everything is demanding the govt cracks down and takes control of the industry. If the old system of monitoring things and some regulation was still in place we would still see downtimes but we wouldn't see the crash we just witnessed. We also wouldn't have the govt so deeply involved the way we do now.

Outfitting should not be leaning on government to support them, give certain exemptions, or let them run free. It is a recipe for trouble. Take too much away from the public and they turn to the government.

Then you guys sit back and wonder how people like Obama and Franken are elected.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> Plainsman Given the conversation we had thru the PM


You know I had forgotten that. Thank you for the reminder. I guess I should preface my statement. HSUS was brought into this as a boogyman long before HSUS stuck their nose into it. It was brought up in debate against me. Anyone who has been on here for five years knows that is a joke. I'll give you an example. About 15 years ago one of the seasonal employees I had working for me was an animal rights type. One day a person was looking for me and asked how to find me. She told him to just follow the trail of bodies I leave behind. Then we have people on here who have actually accused me of being in bed with HSUS. That doesn't convince anyone, it only destroys their credability. If you guys want to start sining that song this early in the game go ahead and be my guest.


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

TK. Your first statement regarding his ability to manipulate the public and your figures from Wayne Purcell are exactly my point, you seem not to understand if 15% of the public hunts, it means 85% does not. If someone can get 20% (one fifth) of this 85% to agree with their agenda, they have as many as every hunter combined. And yet there are those in the hunting community that are willing to fracture this percentage of hunters to even lower numbers to acheive an agenda. Those numbers 15% and 85% should be a huge red flag when it comes to involving this nonhunting public in regulating hunting thru these measures. It's not the "greedy commercializers" that are opening this doorwith these initiated measures, it is a small group of irresponsible "everyone has to do things how I think they should be done" individuals that are seemingly unable to understand the consequences of what will happen if even a portion of this 85% decides to change or further regulate hunting itself. People get very short sighted when there are personal ideologies involved!

Your'e claiming that there is a possible threat that a portion of this 15% of the public will push for more govt involvement to get what they want, but yet you don't seem to acknowledge the risk that a percentage of the remaining 85% may do the same if given the opportunity.

TK I didn't ask for an example of where regulation works. What I was looking for was an example where a little govt involvment now doesn't turn into bigger govt involvement later.

Plainsman, I hope you recall what information was discussed in those PMs. Apparently the fact is there was a sponsor in the first measure that did communicate with and involve HSUS. So how can you claim this talk of involvement and their actions is nothing but "boogeyman" scare tactics? People were claiming that if that first measure proceeded that HSUS would take advantage of that opportunity and that is exactly what happened. Much more of a reality than the "boogeyman". Only a fool would think they won't again wether they are directly invited to or not unless they don't really care as long as THEIR agendas are achieved. Either way I believe that is irresponsibly "protecting the future of hunting".


----------



## TK33 (Aug 12, 2008)

> Your first statement regarding his ability to manipulate the public and your figures from Wayne Purcell are exactly my point, you seem not to understand if 15% of the public hunts, it means 85% does not. If someone can get 20% (one fifth) of this 85% to agree with their agenda, they have as many as every hunter combined.


I fully comprehend this, soon they won't even need to get 20% (one fifth) to get their pathetic agendas implemented. At the rate people are being forced out of hunting it will probably about 10 years from now, if I had to guess.



> everyone has to do things how I think they should be done" individuals that are seemingly unable to understand the consequences of what will happen if even a portion of this 85% decides to change or further regulate hunting itself. People get very short sighted when there are personal ideologies involved!


It was the commercial movement that changed hunting.



> Your'e claiming that there is a possible threat that a portion of this 15% of the public will push for more govt involvement to get what they want, but yet you don't seem to acknowledge the risk that a percentage of the remaining 85% may do the same if given the opportunity.


Ask yourself why some feel there is a need to get more government involved.



> It's not the "greedy commercializers" that are opening this doorwith these initiated measures,


no they are not the ones pushing for the measures they are the ones who are driving people to push for the measures. As I said before they are the ones who apparently are causing the problems in MT. They are the ones who are whoring out a resource that generations of public funding, state wildlife resources, federal resources, and the dreaded hunting groups have worked to preserve and in a lot of cases improve. Without the government and public funding the commercializers would not have the resource they choose to whore out and in many cases fail to conserve.


----------



## smalls (Sep 9, 2003)

KurtR said:


> well the way i see it is that if the outifitters dont get these license block management is gone. Then they will just lease all the land and all the whiners will have no where to hunt.


Wrong, marginally raise the rate of hunting to residents (I am one) to pay for it, done and fixed. As residents we currently bare too little of the burden paying for recreational improvements to the state. No need to subsidize an industry and guarantee it customers under the veil of access improvement. As far as landowners locking up land... well that is already happening and this will not significantly effect the rate at which access is disappearing. The economics of day leases and resident leasing have much more effect on that expansion than the Outfitter Welfare Tag system.

Kephart is on the right track and I hope he succeeds.


----------



## DG (Jan 7, 2008)

I have been in Montana durring the spring when the herds are down in the lowlands on private property. Have seen over 200 deer grazing on an alfalfa field. In agriculture you never put livestock on your hayfields and graze it off in the spring if you want a hay crop later on in the summer. The deer go along and nip off the new sprouts and stunt it's growth. The ranchers will tolerate a few deer but not two hundred on a hundred acre field. In years past there was a little give and take between private and public sectors to bring back these herds.

So what is a hundred acres of alfalfa worth. If it produces 2.5 tons per acre at 40 dollars per ton it equals 100 bucks an acre. What does block management pay? I'm guess-ti-mating two bucks an acre maybe? If I lived in Montana and couldn't guide or get tags or lease out (nothing) or was left with no recourse except to accept the government plan, I would tell somebody to get these animals off of my land.


----------



## TK33 (Aug 12, 2008)

DG said:


> I have been in Montana durring the spring when the herds are down in the lowlands on private property. Have seen over 200 deer grazing on an alfalfa field. In agriculture you never put livestock on your hayfields and graze it off in the spring if you want a hay crop later on in the summer. The deer go along and nip off the new sprouts and stunt it's growth. The ranchers will tolerate a few deer but not two hundred on a hundred acre field. In years past there was a little give and take between private and public sectors to bring back these herds.
> 
> So what is a hundred acres of alfalfa worth. If it produces 2.5 tons per acre at 40 dollars per ton it equals 100 bucks an acre. What does block management pay? I'm guess-ti-mating two bucks an acre maybe? If I lived in Montana and couldn't guide or get tags or lease out (nothing) or was left with no recourse except to accept the government plan, I would tell somebody to get these animals off of my land.


Yeah, it is almost like they could use a few more hunters there, huh? Maybe there would be more if the land wasn't locked up. :roll: If you choose to lock up your land you have no real ground to stand on when it comes to wildlife/predation complaints.

This is why there needs to be some middle ground. Fewer hunters, especially hunters going after all trophies are not good long term plans for both agriculture and management. Not to mention rural economics. Seems to me the best way to fix the solution is to get more land open to the public, but then a few people couldn't make a profit off of it so that probably won't work either. :bop:


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

TK accomplishing this "middle ground" you claim to want requires coming to the table with a little give and take. This means there will be something happening that maybe you don't necessarily like to get something you do. Kinda exactly like what is going on in Mt. with these guaranteed tags providing more private land accesss!! Not being a Mt. resident, I really have no say in what happens there and not using the guaranteed tag program will be fine with whatever they decide. If smalls is a typical Mt resident hunter there should be no problem with funding this block mngt. program that I do use when visiting their state. Given discussion on various outdoor sites previously about the issue of raising the cost of resident tags, I'm not to sure everyone will agree. And if I were a Mt. resident I would want to know where the funding for the BMP will come from if this measure is successful.

TK it is clear you and I have differing veiws. You claim the commercialization of hunting is driving people from hunting, yet not only in this state, but nationally the amount of dollars spent on equipment,number of licenses sold (people becoming involved) ect.. has been steadily increasing. If there is a "boogyman" scare tactic being used in these discussions it is that these "greedy commercializers" are a significant majority and that they will end hunting as we know it. While this has changed the dynamics of hunting in some areas, what is even more of a problem is the change in attitudes of many hunters anymore. Instead of considering it a priveledge that should be cherished and enjoyed along with the relationships and opportunities as were developed in years past, it is being demanded as a right and quality and opportunity must be given instead of earned by the hunter themselves. Some are even turning to the govt. to make sure this is provided them. Not even being satisfied with opportunity and quality here in ND some are pushing to regulate how one hunts to fit their personal veiws. Just a few short years ago ND had the highest percentage of private land open to public hunting, because of these attiudes this is changing even here. So go ahead and continue to push your ideologies of more govt. regulation in hunting and in another few short years when most all the land in ND is posted, you can continue to blame those "greedy commercializers" for doing so.

And when it comes to who has provided habitat, food sources, opportunities ect... so that this public resource has flourished. Even you would be pretty hard pressed to claim that is is only the govt and public programs and lands that provide a significant portion of this. It is the private lands and the people that own them that and choose to manage their lands as they do that has provided the hunting opportunities that we have in this nation, particularily here in ND. If you were to only have the govt owned lands and the game they carry avalible to hunt, then you would truly be seeing a decrease in the amount of people involved in hunting. Continue advocating more and more govt involvement and regulation and thats what you will end up with.

Continue to open the doors to the the groups that have the monies and abilities to manipulate a portion of this 85% of the public that are nonhunters, and you may not even have the ability to hunt the game on these govt lands that THEY own as a "public resource" as well. Your "public ownership" of these game animals arguement is a double edged sword, you might want to be carefull how you use it.


----------



## TK33 (Aug 12, 2008)

> Continue to open the doors to the the groups that have the monies and abilities to manipulate a portion of this 85% of the public that are nonhunters, and you may not even have the ability to hunt the game on these govt lands that THEY own as a "public resource" as well. Your "public ownership" of these game animals arguement is a double edged sword, you might want to be carefull how you use it


It's a double edge sword for both sides, other than that I agree with you. This debate however is not about high fence, although every debate on here keeps turning into that.



> It is the private lands and the people that own them that and choose to manage their lands as they do that has provided the hunting opportunities that we have in this nation, particularily here in ND


Not denying that. But it was the owners of these private lands (my family included) that contributed to some of the demise in wildlife numbers decades ago. The non-landowning public has made a huge difference though, and the government oversight and regulations have been a key too. My point here is that everyone has made a contribution to keep hunting where it is today. Now a certain few feel that they have the right to hoard the resource.



> TK it is clear you and I have differing veiws


......you are just figuring that out now? 8) My views are formed from growing up in farming and now living in the "big city". I see both sides of this but it is clear that not everyone does. My views are definetely skewed because most landowners I know have no interest in commercialization of hunting and don't think that it is right.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/200 ... nter_N.htm This is a link that clearly shows that hunter numbers are decreasing. If you read the article you will see the long term effects that the decline could lead to. The increase in spending on hunting has many factors including inflation, increased gun sales, and the fact that everything hunting has gone up. Add all that to the cost of commercialization and the numbers more than likely will not go back up.



> TK accomplishing this "middle ground" you claim to want requires coming to the table with a little give and take. This means there will be something happening that maybe you don't necessarily like to get something you do


I am ok with that. I don't want more regulations but as long as greed rules the industry it is needed. You have to think about the future and not what is going to fill your wallet up tomorrow. I don't want my license fees to go up but if that is what it takes to open up more public lands and increase habitat to offset the loss of CRP and commercializtation then we should do that. The commercializers should also have to help foot the bill because they are the ones seeing the profits and most of them are not doing anything to put the resource back. Get rid of all exemptions and free passes and keep the resource available to everyone that is willing to put the time in to do it. I agree that sloppy and lazy hunters are out there but they are no where near the majority like you and DG seem to think. And they are all over, not just the urban hunters.



> So go ahead and continue to push your ideologies of more govt. regulation in hunting and in another few short years when most all the land in ND is posted, you can continue to blame those "greedy commercializers" for doing so.


Pretty much everything in the areas I hunt is posted up tight, including black dirt quarters. That too is not the basis of this debate. It is the resource itself I agree that if you go out and make the contacts it is not that hard to get access. The issue is the resource itself. Why do outfitters have special access? How does the locking up of the land and hoarding a public resource in the name of profit benefit both hunters and rural areas? How do we make this work for everyone and keep it from becoming an elitist sport like it was in Europe? Why is it that commercializers love the government handouts but hate any regulation to ensure the future of hunting? Or is the best bet for the future just to trust that the outfitters have everyone's best interests in mind? :down:


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

TK, Can you show me where the state consitution anywere say the wild game is only property of the segment of the public which hunts? Answer this one question. When these anti hunting groups convince a large enough portion of the nonhunting public that they shouldn't allow "their" animals to be hunted and killed will you still be championing the majorities regulation of their resource? This isn't about HF or anything else. It is about the wisdom of bringing the nonhunting public into regulating hunting itself thru these measures. You don't seem to understand that.

Through the legislative assemblies and sessions there is more than plenty opportunities to gather and present information when legislation is being formed. The hunting community itself has ample opporunity to get sponsors for their issues and debate and offer point and counter point on these issues during these legislative hearings . It seems as though with these hunting issues, even after this opportunity has been had, some times several times, there are small groups of people that unsatisfied with the fact their ideologies have failed to be accepted turn to people that do not understand hunting nor have any direct affect as a result of their agendas. And in many cases this opens the door to the same parrallel agendas anti hunting groups have. You want to lay this at the feet of the "greedy commercializers" much like every other percieved wrong in hunting is, I believe it falls directly on those bringing forth these measures and their unwillingness to accept their agendas are not those of the majority of hunters.

You suggest that this change in hunter attitudes is not held by the majority of hunters, and for the most part I would tend to agree as of yet. However it does appear to be the majority of the vocal hunters viewpoints on sites such as these, which in turn carry over into how hunters themselves are being viewed.

You claim the commercializers should help foot the bill?? That is exactly what is happening with the guaranteed tag program in Mt. Because of what these outfitters are doing for their clients that are paying this higher price for these tags their are monies avalible to open more private land up to hunter access without having the average joe hunter pay for it. By allowing a "little" commercialization to occur thru your regulated means, it is decreasing the commercialization or pay for access that the average joe hunter will face by giving more opportunities on private lands that otherwise, in the no tresspass state of Mt., wouldn't be there. Give and take, compromise, middle ground whatever you want to call it, is what this whole program is about and yet you and others are not willing to allow even this to continue no matter how regulated it is. Clearly "regulating" this is not what you want, but rather an entire ban. And this is exactly the attitude that will continue to close access to these private lands. But then you'll always be able to come on sites like this and blame the "greedy comercializers" once again.


----------



## TK33 (Aug 12, 2008)

gst I have already differentiated between greedy commercializers and the ones who actually make an effort to ensure the resource for the future. How many outfitters have you talked to? Some of the ones I have talked to have said that they can't make any money if they work on habitat and management, that doesn't paint a good picture for tomorrow. Others, including a few on this site do practice ethical management and outfitting practices. Furthermore I have acknowledged that some sloppy hunters, disrespectful hunters, and those with some misplaced sense of entitlement to private property have not helped the sport. You on the other hand seem to think that landowners can do no wrong, which is not the case.



> When these anti hunting groups convince a large enough portion of the nonhunting public that they shouldn't allow "their" animals to be hunted and killed will you still be championing the majorities regulation of their resource


 Obviously I would not support an outright ban on hunting. Your bizaare logic is apparently that we should support commercialization and the corporate welfare of commercializers because they are going to save us from anti-hunters, even though commercialization is one of the driving factors in the decrease of hunters. It doesn't add up.



> Clearly "regulating" this is not what you want, but rather an entire ban


Scroll back and read what I said earlier, I have never said I want an entire ban. I do however don't see why the government in helping their business. What happens if the resource goes down? Will the outfitting industry lobby be knocking at the government's door for more help? Probably. But then you don't see why the government should be allowed to regulate them?????
Double standard, once again you only want the gov't involved when it benefits you.

Obviously the people of MT will have a choice to see if the block manangement is really worth the stretch. If it isn't then they will have to find ways to fund block management, which they appear to already have.



> And this is exactly the attitude that will continue to close access to these private lands. But then you'll always be able to come on sites like this and blame the "greedy comercializers" once again.


And your attitude is one that will further divide people and drive the sport into the ground. 
You still have not answered the question of how this commercialization and locking up land helps rural america. How would less hunters afield help the small town gas stations, cafe's, bars, motels, and other misc businesses benefit from less people spending their money there. The answer is it wouldn't. All commercialization does is help the few who can line their line their pockets.


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

TK Scroll back and read what I have said in other threads. I have never once stated "landowners can do no wrong" And apparently my idea that coming to the table to find this "middle ground" you speak of actually requires a little give and take is somehow "bizzare thinking". Please explain to me how this measure in Mt. is trying to seek this middle ground or where the give and take is???? Please explain where the "middle ground" is in the HF measure or where the give and take is ??????

Contact the ND G&F and see if the numbers of licenses sold has decreased over the last twenty years here in the state indicating this unregulated "greedy commercialization" has driven hunters from the sport. Check out any of the surrrounding states as well. Does UNREGULATED guiding and outfitting and everything else you consider commercialization help rural America? More than likely not. I've never once advocated NO regulation. Talk to these outfitters you say you do and ask them if the regulations governing them have gotten stricter in the last 20 years. If it is truly about the resource for you, in the last 20 years is there fewer deer, fewer ducks and geese, fewer pheasants, grouse ect...???? We have never had the levels of game we have during this time here in ND. So how has this resource been damaged here in ND. The G&F have had record levels of deer harvested so hunter opportunity must still be out there. I haven't read any threads on here about people quitting hunting because there is no place to go hunting. What I am against is when these "regulations" go past protecting the resource and become punative and preventive in their nature which is exactly what is happening.

Take a step back and look at much of the legislation that is being introduces each session. Look at the HF measure. This activity has no connection to the resource, this measure has no attempt to "regulate" it is simply looking to ban. This measure in Mt. is not looking to further compromise or middle ground it is looking to ban the program. You claim you don't want a ban, but your supporting this measurein Mt. aimed at doing just that. So when people like yourself come on here claiming that some "middle ground needs to be reached" as long as things are done how you want them, it comes across as being disingenuous and is what most landowners feel is the attitude that "will further divide people and drive the sport into the ground" .

Most landowners don't have issues with the majority of hunters that come on their land, but it is the vocal minority that are on these sites and going to the legislature every session pushing for more and more and more regulations many of which are punative and preventative that many land owners tire of and as a result this is why more and more land such as what you have said is the case in your area becomes closed to public access. There is in all likelyhood hunters still hunting on much of this "locked up" land, even without having to pay these "greedy commercializers", but it is ones the landowner knows is not a part of this whining minority. So continue with your ideologies of more and more regulations in an attempt to seek your "middle ground" instead of actually doing a little give and take and see what happens. All that will be accomplished in the long term is making it harder for the average Joe hunter to find access. And then how many hunters will be "driven" from the sport? If you don't realize this I can't really say much more.


----------



## TK33 (Aug 12, 2008)

The difference that I see here is that no one is looking at the future. Everyone has contributed to the resource, but some are simply taking. It may not be an issue yet but there will come a day when it is. Things are without a doubt good now, we need to keep it that way. If you haven't seen any other topics on this then you are either not reading all the topics or you are blind. There are two other active topics right now on this site. The things that I am advocating are not going to hurt landowners, they are not going to hurt ethical outfitters, they have nothing to do with HF, and have nothing to do with HSUS.



> What I am against is when these "regulations" go past protecting the resource and become punative and preventive in their nature which is exactly what is happening.


what you are advocating is special treatment from the gov't and you want FSA type rules and taxation for a non production business. Therefore it is corporate welfare and not a truly sustainable business. Furthermore it is outrageous that you think that the general public should not have a say in how public funds are used.

Believe me things aren't being done the way that I want them. We are starting to repeat conservation and habitat mistakes of the past. I have no idea how you perceive my idealogies as disengenuous when I am saying that hunters should bear more of the burden. Your views are not shared by any other landowners I know, including the two I that I hunt with on a regular basis.


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

TK I have to admit I do not read every topic or thread on this site. I doubt many do. What I stated I consider disingenuous is coming to the table on these issues claiming to want "middle ground" and not being willing to actually compromise and practise a little give and take. This is exactly what is being done in Mt., "give" a few guaranteed tags, "get" funds to open more private lands and yet you won't allow even this to continue. You haven't yet explained where the "middle ground" you claim to want is in either of the 2 measures I mentioned.

Under your stance on stopping the "corporate welfare" or govt (the publics funds) being used for nonproduction purposes, how can you support the block management program itself? Or PLOTS here in ND. Public (govt funds) are being used for the nonproduction purpose of gaining access. So under your black and white, right and wrong ideologies this should be stopped as well?

If you take the area 30 miles either side of Minot north to the Canadian border, the area in which I live, 15 years ago very little land was posted, probably less than 10%. Now that figure is probably closer to 60%. Yet there are almost no "greedy commercializers" guiding or outfitting up here. So what is driving this increase in posted land in many cases??? The very attitudes that are often seen on this site as well as in the legislative session every other year. Of course the people with these attitudes won't acknowledge they are one of the causes in this land closure, they just blame something else such as NR's "greedy commercializers" or jacka$$ landowners ect.... So they continue claiming to be seeking "middle ground" and protecting the future of hunting, all the while making access harder and harder for the average hunter. So TK after you have explained where this 'middle ground' is in these 2 measures, please explain why it is you believe all the land in your area is posted.

Before becoming to "outraged", please show me where I have claimed the general public should not have a say in how public funds are used.


----------



## TK33 (Aug 12, 2008)

> Under your stance on stopping the "corporate welfare" or govt (the publics funds) being used for nonproduction purposes, how can you support the block management program itself? Or PLOTS here in ND. Public (govt funds) are being used for the nonproduction purpose of gaining access. So under your black and white, right and wrong ideologies this should be stopped as well?


Unreal. PLOTS is public funds being used for public use. In other words no one is turning a profit on it.



> What I stated I consider disingenuous is coming to the table on these issues claiming to want "middle ground" and not being willing to actually compromise and practise a little give and take. This is exactly what is being done in Mt., "give" a few guaranteed tags, "get" funds to open more private lands and yet you won't allow even this to continue. You haven't yet explained where the "middle ground" you claim to want is in either of the 2 measures I mentioned.


The middle ground is the public saying they will foot the bill for block management. The program will still be in place, but now everyone would have the same chance to get a tag. Explain how the government looking out for a business isn't corporate welfare, how would you feel if the state of ND gave Cargill special treatment and made it much easier for them to run small ranches out of business and price set???

By saying that the public shouldn't have a say in what goes on with MT's programs you are in fact saying that the public should have no say. If it is not a good deal for MT it can be voted down, as I have said from the beginning. You have the same mentality that the executives and union bosses had before everything went south. Special government treatment, take government funds but oppose government oversight, and then rely on the public when things are bad.

Where I hunt you can still get on land also. Just ask first. There are some guys who want no one on their land and some that are leasing or want you to pay cash under the table. There is however a growing number of of outfitters that are rolling in and locking up land. The most disturbing part is that there is limited tracking of what is going on. And contrary to your belief there are not too many regulations on it, there are only a few.

I do not think that I speak for all hunters, you however always think that you speak for all landowners. Posting land out of spite is not a good answer. One downside to posting land is alot more people buying land for hunting and not production. Stepping on landowner rights is not going to get us anywhere either. You always insist that everyone answers your questions but you dodge or spin most questions answered to you. One of the greatest concerns of farmers and ranchers that I know is the increase in land prices because hunters are buying their own land. As I said earlier, taking prices from 300-400 per acre to 500-600 acre. They are also concerned that the increase in price and the outfitting will lead to increases in taxable value, therefore their taxes could go up even if they don't outfit. Of course this is not a big deal for guys taking money under the table and not following the same rules that apply to everyone else.

So gst, given your stance on land being taken out of production, and your membership to ag groups, how do you feel about land price increases and taxes increasing due to commercialization and posting of land? How do you feel about the taking of under the table or any other unreported money?


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

TK This could go on and on and on so I hope this is my last reply, and folks can read what has been posted here and come to their own conclusions.

So if I enroll my land in plots for say $4 an acre, that is not considered a "turning a profit" ?????????? This is an example of you rationalizing exactly what you are critisizing others for simply because it benefits you. It is strange how the G&F paying someone for access to their land is not considered "commercialization" but an individual paying someone for access is. I guess because one is the govt looking out for the good of all while the other is an individual taking care of himself. Maybe I'm wrong, but isn't that kinda how socialism is based????? :wink: But I guess as long as this benefits you it's ok.

TK I've never said the public should not have a say. I am questioning the wisdom of hunters giving the nonhunting public this type of say in regulating hunting thru these measures. You seem to not be grasping that. So heres an analogy in regards to this measure in MT. What if 70% of hunters in Mt. say no we don't want increased priced tags to pay for this program when it is already being paid for by NRs. But then the rest of the nonhunting public which out numbers this majority of hunters says we don't want people buying these tags to shoot these animals so they vote in favor of this measure. An issue that affects hunters in which a majority of hunters have one veiw is now regulated contrary to the "best interests" or wishes of the majority of hunters. And the ideologies of a group of hunters in the minority are accomplished. How is that responsibly 'protecting hunting" for all ????????

Here's a question. Do Mt. residents have to enter a lottery to get an elk or deer tag or can they be purchased over the counter.

Please show where I have indicated I speak for all landowners????? You claim some think one way, I simply am saying many think another. The increasing amount of land being closed to simply walking on without first recieiving permission that is not being leased is a possible indication of whose right. So if I have someone coming on my land and dump garbage, shoot equipment, leave gates open and I choose to post my land it is not a good idea. It's being done out of spite for these inconsiderate few. So if a group of people are advocating a policy that I believe negatively affects me and I say if that is how you think, I would just as soon not have you coming on my land, you don't think that is a good idea???

Of course as someone that needs and uses land to make a living anything that raises my costs is generally not veiwed as a positive when it comes to cash flow. However land selling for more beside mine possibly also raises the value of the land I own as well. This "commercialization" thru leasing ect.. might also give an opportunity to increase cashflow. So it is like I've suggested, not always as black and white as you seem to want to make it. I don't really follow your logic as to how "posting of land" raises the land value or taxes. If someone chooses to engage in an activity that breaks the law and requires them to take money "under the table" that is their choice. I would choose not to do so.

So hopefully this answers your questions and allows you to comprehend what I'm suggesting without having to continue this back and forth.


----------



## Doogie (Feb 23, 2007)

gst like I have stated before Deer and Elk tags are over the counter in MT unlike ND


----------



## TK33 (Aug 12, 2008)

> So if I enroll my land in plots for say $4 an acre, that is not considered a "turning a profit" ?????????? This is an example of you rationalizing exactly what you are critisizing others for simply because it benefits you. It is strange how the G&F paying someone for access to their land is not considered "commercialization" but an individual paying someone for access is. I guess because one is the govt looking out for the good of all while the other is an individual taking care of himself. Maybe I'm wrong, but isn't that kinda how socialism is based????? But I guess as long as this benefits you it's ok.


It doesn't just benefit me it benefits everyone. In other words it gives everyone the opportunity to enjoy a resource that we all share, not just a select few. If this is socialism than your ideas are that of an elitist. 

I still fail to see how under the table deals, insuring the resource is around for future generations, and that everyone has the chance to enjoy it with some work can be done without government regulation. You are correct gst, it is touchy and must be done with all sides in mind and careful consideration for unintended consequences.

Given the fact that your area has good access and a lack of outfitters you may not be seeing what the rest of us are seeing. Hopefully it stays that way for you guys and you don't have to deal with the access issues and cost increases, both to hunters and farmers, that the rest of us are seeing.


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

TK once again and hopefully for the last time, no one is suggesting NO GOVT REGULATION. Of course there is a need for SOME.

I thought that resident tags in Mt. were over the counter, but wanted to be sure. A couple more questions for anyone so if this guaranteed tag program is taken away, will the same number of tags be added to the NR lottery? Also I aways thought all of the monies from this program went to the state, none to the outfitter as a "subsidy". If this is the case then what it appears will happen is no fewer NR's will be hunting, they are just back in the luck of the draw to get a tag. They will still in all likelyhood hire an outfitterwhen they are drawn. So the extra dollars lost will fall onto resident sportsmen that I wonder if anyone has asked if they agree with this before it will be sent to the entire public to vote on. Perhaps someone that knows the numbers of resident tags purchased versus dollars generated by the guaranteed tag program could do the math to see what Mt. hunters will have to pony up in higher tag fees to continue funding this program. What happens if the BMP were to double in size? I guess that is the beauty of these hunting related measures for the groups pushing them, it really doesn't matter if a majority of the group that will be affected agree with you or not, as long as you can convince the general public thru whatever means you are willing to use, your agendas can be accomplished.


----------

