If You're Wanting to Come Hunt in Montana.....

[100percent]

My bad, I should have been more specific, you don’t hunt elk in mt due to the above.

 

[BuzzH]

My bad, I should have been more specific, you don’t hunt elk in mt due to the above.

Wrong yet again...I hunt elk in Montana every year, just let my family do the trigger work.

 

[100percent]

Sure!!! Get your story straight.

Wrong again? Impossible! I wasn’t wrong before! i stand by my posts. My conservative viewpoint is just opposite of yours and you can’t accept that. So bully on if you must!

 

[wind gypsy]

Ok! I have finally heard enough crying!
I hear all this bitching about MT legislature and mistreatment of the diy hunter but, nobody ever mentions that MT is 71% private land and 29% public. Should the private landowner not be represented in this equation? Should they not have a say in the management of game on their own land? MDF, RMEF and obviously the state representatives think they should! If they seek revenue from leasing to an outfit for purposes of hunting, would it not seem remotely fair that they should receive a proportionate share of the tags? This isn’t Nevada, Utah, Wyoming or idaho where the majority of land is public. These landowners and their outfits should be protecting their opportunities in the same way each and everyone of us should protect our own. Leftists I90 politics has created this thought that everyone should get a trophy while the landowners are footing the majority of the bill. These landowners, who absolutely matter, are outvoted and pushed in a corner by this movement and it has forced them to play politics due to ballot box game management that began with bill 161 in 2010. Thank the ever popular Buzz Haynes and cronies for that! Popular opinion is rarely wholly considerate of the facts and is rarely just. When you see legislative actions like this and it seems underhanded, it is usually where popular opinion and an impossible reality meet! Don’t blame the player—-blame the game!

They didn’t give licenses to private land owners, they gave them to outfitter clients, many of which hunt public land. So your whole argument about private land rights is out the window from the start.

The bulk of the elk population lives in areas with big swaths of public land. Deer already have landowner sponsored licenses do they not?

My guess is you’re not going to like hearing “don’t hate the player, hate the game” once the pendulum swings the other way in response to this garbage.

 

[BuzzH]

Sure!!! Get your story straight.

Wrong again? Impossible! I wasn’t wrong before! i stand by my posts. My conservative viewpoint is just opposite of yours and you can’t accept that. So bully on if you must!

May perhaps be the first thing you've been correct about.

I'm having a hard time seeing your "conservative" viewpoint though.

I guess I was unaware that subsidizing business's via a public asset and favoring one business over all others was a "conservative" viewpoint. In particular when done via legislation opposed by the majority.

I also THOUGHT that conservative viewpoints were all about free market capitalism rather than passing legislation that picks winners and losers...good old crony capitalism.

If those really are "conservative" viewpoints, then yes, my views on capitalism and how the Legislature should function in regard to equitable access to wildlife, would be opposite of those.

 

[Billinsd]

I also THOUGHT that conservative viewpoints were all about free market capitalism rather than passing legislation that picks winners and losers...good old crony capitalism.

Absolutely. However, free market capitalism ended with Progressivism, Theodore Roosevelt, and government picking winners and losers over 100 years ago. All we have now in America is Crony Capitalism. People now just argue against or in favor of more or less cronyism based on how it benefits them. How I view all this through my Conservative lens is what the Republicans have done appears very corrupt and dishonest whatever their intentions were, good or bad at the very least. It appears shameful. Republicans calling themselves Conservatives can and sometimes do practice cronyism and become corrupt. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely, by Sir John Dalberg. That's why Conservatives are in favor of smaller and limited government.

 

[cgasner1]

In a state managed for opportunity, I’m batting 12 for 16 on mature 171-196” bucks on mt private land. Do you think many public land hunters could say the same? Your rhetoric about landowners not “managing” the states assets is ridiculous! Go pet your wolves!

Cool story don’t care if this state is going to issue 3k more general tags they shouldn’t just be given to outfitters hunters they should do a second draw for those 3k tags. That is the issue is they aren’t being drawn but handed out as a participation trophy if you are willing to participate with a outfitter we voted this out once. This may very well happen this year but it will cost people that made it happen


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Montana Slim]

Cool story don’t care if this state is going to issue 3k more general tags they shouldn’t just be given to outfitters hunters they should do a second draw for those 3k tags. That is the issue is they aren’t being drawn but handed out as a participation trophy if you are willing to participate with a outfitter we voted this out once. This may very well happen this year but it will cost people that made it happen


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I really hope you're right (about it costing them)... I am skeptical though.

 

[cgasner1]

Couple of our Montana organizations should step up and start a petition to recall Gianforte for this only take 75k signatures probably wouldn’t be very hard to get at nothing else shows them people are serious and they need to start listening


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Deadfall]

Personally I wish 143 would of passed. Would of been more money for the state. I personally dont give 2 farts in the wind if any NR comes to montana. Out of states are a huge problem with access. They buy land and close access. Which is their right. Bring their B.S. with them.

I agree with 100percent.
Might be in the minority, I really don't give a crap about that either.

From what I see, it's NR DIY guys that think they're being infringed upon. They come here and want to act like they own the world. Go hunt colorado. Trespass, poach, threaten locals, try running people out of their areas. Flatten tires, rude inconsiderate punks. I wish montanas NR tags were 1000 bucks more tgen anywhere else. Which, before 161 montanas tags were more then anywhere else, which made the state better hunting. 161 messed that up by capping the price and rate of raising the price.

Hunters with that, its my right crap, irritates me to no end.

Resident landowners, should absolutely be able to gave a tag, or 2 and be able to hunt thier own property.

 

[Deadfall]

I just got out of mountains. Where I was, a bunch of no trespassing signs have been posted where there's never been any before.
Why, well because jerks are taking their motorized nonsense off the roads. This is ground thats in the BLM program. They cutting switchbacks short for no good reason at all.

People don't respect anything anymore. Suppose if this ground gets pulled out of the BLM PROGRAM everyone will flap their great big jibs about more crony capitalism, or how selfish landowners are.

Even just a little freaking respect would do the trick.

But no. Everyone thinks they entitled to do whatever the world want.

 

[wind gypsy]

Personally I wish 143 would of passed. Would of been more money for the state. I personally dont give 2 farts in the wind if any NR comes to montana. Out of states are a huge problem with access. They buy land and close access. Which is their right. Bring their B.S. with them.

The later versions of 143 would have been better than where this ended up. Doesn't erase the stink of selling 40% of a public resource only to those with sufficient financial means.

From what I see, it's NR DIY guys that think they're being infringed upon. They come here and want to act like they own the world. Go hunt colorado. Trespass, poach, threaten locals, try running people out of their areas. Flatten tires, rude inconsiderate punks. I wish montanas NR tags were 1000 bucks more tgen anywhere else. Which, before 161 montanas tags were more then anywhere else, which made the state better hunting. 161 messed that up by capping the price and rate of raising the price.

Hunters with that, its my right crap, irritates me to no end.

Wow. You really think NR are more likely to trespass, poach, threaten locals, and try to run people out of their areas than local hunters? That is not what I have observed in my interactions. Generally (over generalization) people seem to get more comfortable pushing the boundaries and feeling like they are entitled to something the longer they have been around it.

If you want to keep raising the financial burden of the NR to fund the MT FWP you can plan on NR to continue having a bigger impact and say in MT wildlife management. The R to NR elk tag cost ratio favors the resident more in MT than any other state and most aren't even close. So maybe you can convince all of your upstanding non trespassing, non poaching, non local threatening, non running people out of areas, non tire flattening, non rude, and definitely non "its my right" attitude having residents to fuckin pony up rather than relying on non-residents to pay their bills?

Resident landowners, should absolutely be able to gave a tag, or 2 and be able to hunt thier own property.

I do lean more towards mending these relationships with landowners who we absolutely need to be good stewards of the land and wildlife and making sure they are encouraged to support the publics wildlife rather than just expected to - much more so than just giving all outfitters a handout.

 

[wind gypsy]

I just got out of mountains. Where I was, a bunch of no trespassing signs have been posted where there's never been any before.
Why, well because jerks are taking their motorized nonsense off the roads. This is ground thats in the BLM program. They cutting switchbacks short for no good reason at all.

People don't respect anything anymore. Suppose if this ground gets pulled out of the BLM PROGRAM everyone will flap their great big jibs about more crony capitalism, or how selfish landowners are.

Even just a little freaking respect would do the trick.

But no. Everyone thinks they entitled to do whatever the world want.

Must be those entitled NR out there rippin things up.

 

[Deadfall]

The later versions of 143 would have been better than where this ended up. Doesn't erase the stink of selling 40% of a public resource only to those with sufficient financial means.


Wow. You really think NR are more likely to trespass, poach, threaten locals, and try to run people out of their areas than local hunters? That is not what I have observed in my interactions. Generally (over generalization) people seem to get more comfortable pushing the boundaries and feeling like they are entitled to something the longer they have been around it.

If you want to keep raising the financial burden of the NR to fund the MT FWP you can plan on NR to continue having a bigger impact and say in MT wildlife management. The R to NR elk tag cost ratio favors the resident more in MT than any other state and most aren't even close. So maybe you can convince all of your upstanding non trespassing, non poaching, non local threatening, non running people out of areas, non tire flattening, non rude, and definitely non "its my right" attitude having residents to fuckin pony up rather than relying on non-residents to pay their bills?


I do lean more towards mending these relationships with landowners who we absolutely need to be good stewards of the land and wildlife and making sure they are encouraged to support the publics wildlife rather than just expected to - much more so than just giving all outfitters a handout.

Oh no not just NR.

 

[Deadfall]

Must be those entitled NR out there rippin things up.

Nope it's both

 

[Deadfall]

The later versions of 143 would have been better than where this ended up. Doesn't erase the stink of selling 40% of a public resource only to those with sufficient financial means.


Wow. You really think NR are more likely to trespass, poach, threaten locals, and try to run people out of their areas than local hunters? That is not what I have observed in my interactions. Generally (over generalization) people seem to get more comfortable pushing the boundaries and feeling like they are entitled to something the longer they have been around it.

If you want to keep raising the financial burden of the NR to fund the MT FWP you can plan on NR to continue having a bigger impact and say in MT wildlife management. The R to NR elk tag cost ratio favors the resident more in MT than any other state and most aren't even close. So maybe you can convince all of your upstanding non trespassing, non poaching, non local threatening, non running people out of areas, non tire flattening, non rude, and definitely non "its my right" attitude having residents to fuckin pony up rather than relying on non-residents to pay their bills?


I do lean more towards mending these relationships with landowners who we absolutely need to be good stewards of the land and wildlife and making sure they are encouraged to support the publics wildlife rather than just expected to - much more so than just giving all outfitters a handout.

Gladly

 

[Deadfall]

The later versions of 143 would have been better than where this ended up. Doesn't erase the stink of selling 40% of a public resource only to those with sufficient financial means.


Wow. You really think NR are more likely to trespass, poach, threaten locals, and try to run people out of their areas than local hunters? That is not what I have observed in my interactions. Generally (over generalization) people seem to get more comfortable pushing the boundaries and feeling like they are entitled to something the longer they have been around it.

If you want to keep raising the financial burden of the NR to fund the MT FWP you can plan on NR to continue having a bigger impact and say in MT wildlife management. The R to NR elk tag cost ratio favors the resident more in MT than any other state and most aren't even close. So maybe you can convince all of your upstanding non trespassing, non poaching, non local threatening, non running people out of areas, non tire flattening, non rude, and definitely non "its my right" attitude having residents to fuckin pony up rather than relying on non-residents to pay their bills?


I do lean more towards mending these relationships with landowners who we absolutely need to be good stewards of the land and wildlife and making sure they are encouraged to support the publics wildlife rather than just expected to - much more so than just giving all outfitters a handout.

Not 40 percent of a resource. Thats what already goes with outfitters. 161 didn't change that number

 

[Deadfall]

Must be those entitled NR out there rippin things up.

Yeah predominantly it is. Never been a problem in tgat area until this winter. Which, I find weird since 8 out 10 houses sold in the last year were to out of state folks. Now all of a sudden we are seeing this....hmmmm...

Locals seem to have more respect as we are seeing first hand how fast we loosing ground. Trying to stay on the right side. Poo poo heads everywhere. The Idea that NR are so much more important then anyone else is absurd.

Let ya in on a little secret....NOONE is that important.

 

[Deadfall]

By some estimates the housing number is 9 out of 10

 

[Deadfall]

Everyone around here as the utmost respect for this particular landowner because of all the access that is allowed. That was until a couple months ago.