Outfitters vs hunters again

PrairieGhost

Founding Member
Founding Member
Joined
May 15, 2015
Posts
10,678
Likes
1,346
Points
558
Location
Drifting the high plains
Montana is at a crossroads in our management of wildlife. We will either maintain our decades-long tradition in which everyone has equal opportunity to enjoy our public wildlife, or we hand control to a handful of wealthy landowners and outfitters to pick who gets to hunt.
















icon_adchoices.png

Skip Ad


A bill pending in the state Legislature would allow unlimited elk “B” cow elk tags in some areas to residents, and give non-residents who draw a bull elk license a second cow elk tag, in addition to the one they’re already guaranteed based on a law passed a couple years ago. There are no sideboards on which areas would be allocated these tags, leaving the discretion to the Fish and Wildlife Commission.

What’s really going on here is the privatization of our public wildlife resources to cater to a handful of large outfitters and landowners. SB 270 would create a system in which outfitters control nearly every aspect of wildlife, to their benefit to sell trophy hunts while elk herds continue to grow over the objectives set by the state. It was brought by the Montana Conservation Society, a dark money group run by an out-of-state lobbyist, outfitters and large landowners.

Sound wildlife management is based on getting a broad harvest of big game, spreading wildlife out across the landscape, and distributing hunters to ensure fair chase, ethical hunting. That requires a partnership between landowners and hunters. If a landowner has issues with the public’s wildlife, the public hunter needs to be part of the solution.

What’s the common denominator in these areas where some landowners are complaining about an overpopulation of elk? It’s locking the public out from its wildlife and purposely harboring animals to sell trophy hunts. The result when no cow elk are taken throughout the general season is burgeoning herds. This bill creates an incentive for landowners to harbor huge elk herds to profit off of them.

SB 270 would allow wealthy landowners who restrict all public hunting access to pick and choose who hunts, allocate tags for their friends, and facilitate elk culls by employees. Public hunting opportunity for what are supposed to be public resources would be eliminated.

It’s not far-fetched. In Europe, a few aristocrats come out to kill trophies. Then landowner staffers are brought in to kill hundreds of animals when they reach high population levels.

That approach isn’t just limited to Europe. In Wyoming, state wildlife officials are already culling elk on private ranches. Idaho took a similar approach several years ago, gunning down more than 200 elk in a night in what it called an experiment.

This is just the latest move by outfitters and wealthy landowners to privatize public wildlife. They’ve pushed through landowner licenses based on acreage, expanded elk “shoulder seasons” that last six months, and given preference to non-resident hunters who hire an outfitter.

SB 270 represents the next step in destroying the public trust doctrine for our wildlife, in which it’s held by the state for all citizens, and making us a system in which people buy access. It would end decades of cooperation that made Montana successful in managing our elk for everyone.

Write your state House and Senate member and tell them to vote NO on SB 270.
 


SDMF

Founding Member
Founding Member
Joined
Apr 24, 2015
Posts
11,204
Likes
1,074
Points
563
Write your state House and Senate member and tell them to vote NO on SB 270.
Your voice and my voice don't count, and shouldn't. This is an issue for MT residents to manage with their legislators.

I've obtained 20 different big game tags in MT since 2001, 17 of those being Elk/Deer combos. In no way does that give me a voice in what Montanans decide to do with Montana.

I sincerely hope that MT resident DIY hunters see NR DIY hunters as their ally, but, in the end, it's their state and NR's gotta play by the rules they set forth.

Seems it'd be awful arrogant of me to think that any MT resident hunter give a flying fornication what I think.
 

badlands13

Established Member
Joined
Jan 20, 2018
Posts
118
Likes
15
Points
103
Location
Dickinson
Your voice and my voice don't count, and shouldn't. This is an issue for MT residents to manage with their legislators.

I've obtained 20 different big game tags in MT since 2001, 17 of those being Elk/Deer combos. In no way does that give me a voice in what Montanans decide to do with Montana.

I sincerely hope that MT resident DIY hunters see NR DIY hunters as their ally, but, in the end, it's their state and NR's gotta play by the rules they set forth.

Seems it'd be awful arrogant of me to think that any MT resident hunter give a flying fornication what I think.
Good chance he just did a cut and paste. There are people from Montana on this site. Doesn't hurt to highlight it. Shoot, if you are on other hunting websites like Rokslide and Hunttalk, they discuss all kinds of wildlife issues in a bunch of states. It doesn't mean they are all arrogant.
 

PrairieGhost

Founding Member
Founding Member
Thread starter
Joined
May 15, 2015
Posts
10,678
Likes
1,346
Points
558
Location
Drifting the high plains
Your voice and my voice don't count, and shouldn't. This is an issue for MT residents to manage with their legislators.

I've obtained 20 different big game tags in MT since 2001, 17 of those being Elk/Deer combos. In no way does that give me a voice in what Montanans decide to do with Montana.

I sincerely hope that MT resident DIY hunters see NR DIY hunters as their ally, but, in the end, it's their state and NR's gotta play by the rules they set forth.

Seems it'd be awful arrogant of me to think that any MT resident hunter give a flying fornication what I think.
I'm fully aware, but what radicals do in other states is only years from happening in other states. Montana reside ts need to be aware now, and nonresidents need to know what's coming. I should have used quotation marks so people didn't think they were v my words. They were written by a Montana resident.
 

Jiffy

★★★★★ Legendary Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2018
Posts
2,445
Likes
2,100
Points
623
Location
West of Minntucky
Who cares!?! ND is already a piece of shit hunting state with shit access unless you flash the Benjis. The rich might as well have at it!! At least someone would be making money off of them. It’s already here!!
 


Fritz the Cat

Founding Member
Founding Member
Joined
May 11, 2015
Posts
5,312
Likes
914
Points
483

bravo

Founding Member
Founding Member
Joined
Oct 17, 2015
Posts
830
Likes
790
Points
338
He won’t man up and say it on here, but Fritz doesn’t believe that a hunter or fisherman should be able to enjoy access without paying a landowner. The European system where kings decide who can hunt. When he doesn’t have an actual counterpoint, he points out that the author has ties to something liberal. Lather, rinse, repeat.
 

Kurtr

Founding Member
Founding Member
Joined
Apr 12, 2015
Posts
19,219
Likes
3,704
Points
883
Location
Mobridge,Sd
He won’t man up and say it on here, but Fritz doesn’t believe that a hunter or fisherman should be able to enjoy access without paying a landowner. The European system where kings decide who can hunt. When he doesn’t have an actual counterpoint, he points out that the author has ties to something liberal. Lather, rinse, repeat.
You mean like this......... Seems opposite of what you say

https://nodakangler.com/forums/threads/unfilled-bull-elk-tag.17599/
 

bravo

Founding Member
Founding Member
Joined
Oct 17, 2015
Posts
830
Likes
790
Points
338
I’m not too proud to commend him when he sets someone up for an elk. It’s a win win since it keeps them from wrecking his fences holding his elk herd. Landowner’s property safe, hunter goes home with meat - awesome. That doesn’t negate the anti-freelance politicking he does elsewhere.
 

Trip McNeely

Founding Member
Founding Member
Joined
May 16, 2015
Posts
2,038
Likes
1,593
Points
553
Location
Burleigh county
He won’t man up and say it on here, but Fritz doesn’t believe that a hunter or fisherman should be able to enjoy access without paying a landowner. The European system where kings decide who can hunt. When he doesn’t have an actual counterpoint, he points out that the author has ties to something liberal. Lather, rinse, repeat.
Thats not accurate at all and I don’t think you have any clue. Hardly against freelancers. How does being for landowner rights and freedom to do what you want on your own land equate into anti-freelance? He’s offered people to hunt on multiple occasions on this very site and never asked for a dime. I don’t think you could be further from the truth. You’re losing credibility the more you talk out of only one side of your mouth
 


bravo

Founding Member
Founding Member
Joined
Oct 17, 2015
Posts
830
Likes
790
Points
338
I don’t know. Being vehemently anti-public land, anti-conservation, pro-outfitter. That to me seems anti-freelance. I’ll cede and give him the chance to speak his stance. I’m all for landowner rights. My landowner rights end at my fence line. I don’t give a single shit if you want to be a guide or use one. But the wild game animals are everyone’s and I nor any other landowner should get to decide who hunts simply because some acres are in my name. That’s a fast track to fewer hunters, less hunter support, less 2A support.

Also, couldn’t give a shit less what you or anyone thinks about my NDA credibility, lol.
 

bravo

Founding Member
Founding Member
Joined
Oct 17, 2015
Posts
830
Likes
790
Points
338
Wrong again. Not a big R3 guy, enough competition the way it is. Same reason I don’t care for YouTube and influencer hunters. Just a believer that hunters are the main driver to keeping 2A rights.

What else ya got?
 

Kurtr

Founding Member
Founding Member
Joined
Apr 12, 2015
Posts
19,219
Likes
3,704
Points
883
Location
Mobridge,Sd
Well if you like math there are 14.4 million hunters and 107 million gun owners so if you do some mathing there 92.6 million gun owners who dont hunt. Now tell me who is the main driver.

Then you have people like Jim Zumbo who is a hunter...........or Ryan Busse real helpful guys
 


bravo

Founding Member
Founding Member
Joined
Oct 17, 2015
Posts
830
Likes
790
Points
338
Just feel like fighting today eh Kurtr? 2A is of course primarily to protect self defense. But how many guns are in a non-hunting household vs a hunting household? How much more public support does the 2A lobby receive because of hunting? I’m done replying to this topic unless it gets back on the rails.

Busse tries to play both sides and Zumbo got what he deserved when his career tanked.
 

Jiffy

★★★★★ Legendary Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2018
Posts
2,445
Likes
2,100
Points
623
Location
West of Minntucky
I guarantee he’s not offering people the opportunity to come kill the pesky wild elk out of the goodness of his heart. He’s protecting his pocketbook. Anyone who thinks otherwise has screws loose.

I guess who can really blame him. It still doesn’t sit right with most freelance hunters. Personally I don’t give a shit anymore either way, I’m pretty much done hunting altogether anyway.

Have at it guys!!
 

Trip McNeely

Founding Member
Founding Member
Joined
May 16, 2015
Posts
2,038
Likes
1,593
Points
553
Location
Burleigh county
I don’t know. Being vehemently anti-public land, anti-conservation, pro-outfitter. That to me seems anti-freelance. I’ll cede and give him the chance to speak his stance. I’m all for landowner rights. My landowner rights end at my fence line. I don’t give a single shit if you want to be a guide or use one. But the wild game animals are everyone’s and I nor any other landowner should get to decide who hunts simply because some acres are in my name. That’s a fast track to fewer hunters, less hunter support, less 2A support.

Also, couldn’t give a shit less what you or anyone thinks about my NDA credibility, lol.
You are not for landowner rights. Being opposed to 2137 is a dead giveaway. Why do you want to tell others what they can’t do on their own land?…… Is it possible fritz opposes conservationists or legislation in disguise as conservation? The same conversationists who want to set rules and infringe on private property owners? Not all conservation is the same. Some very wolf in sheep’s clothing people out there….im fortunate enough to be able to enjoy a section of land the landowner lets only relatives hunt. Very very rare for a free lancer to gain permission. Is that landowner anti free lancer because he wants his family to enjoy the land and not some strangers? Something stinks with you bravo. Something’s off. Youre not what you say you are or you’re trying to shift perception somehow.
 

Trip McNeely

Founding Member
Founding Member
Joined
May 16, 2015
Posts
2,038
Likes
1,593
Points
553
Location
Burleigh county
I guarantee he’s not offering people the opportunity to come kill the pesky wild elk out of the goodness of his heart. He’s protecting his pocketbook. Anyone who thinks otherwise has screws loose.

I guess who can really blame him. It still doesn’t sit right with most freelance hunters. Personally I don’t give a shit anymore either way, I’m pretty much done hunting altogether anyway.

Have at it guys!!
Hahaha yes that pesky antelope he put a guy on last year must have been really fucking shit up 😂🤣
 


Recent Posts

Friends of NDA

Top Posters of the Month

  • This month: 337
  • This month: 195
  • This month: 121
  • This month: 83
  • This month: 71
  • This month: 65
  • This month: 59
  • This month: 59
  • This month: 47
  • This month: 44
Top Bottom