Byorth appointed to replace Vermillion on Fish and Wildlife commission

• By Michael Wright Chronicle Staff Writer
• Mar 16, 2019
• 
  

Pat Byorth

Pat Byorth, director of Trout Unlimited’s Montana Water Project and a former Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks fisheries biologist, has been nominated to be the next member of the Montana Fish and Wildlife commission representing southwestern Montana.
Montana Gov. Steve Bullock named Byorth, of Bozeman, as his nominee for the panel that oversees Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks on Friday.
“I’m just deeply honored and humbled to be picked by the governor and be entrusted with this responsibility,” Byorth said when reached by phone Friday afternoon.

The nomination would need to be confirmed by the state Senate, which also has to confirm three other nominees to the panel — Tim Aldrich of Missoula, Shane Colton of Billings and Logan Brower of Scobey.

A resolution for the confirmation of Colton and Aldrich has been drafted. It’s sponsored by Sen. Jennifer Fielder, R-Thompson Falls, who chairs the Senate Fish and Game Committee. No hearings have been scheduled on the resolution.
During the 2017 session, lawmakers didn’t consider the governor’s commission nominees until mid-April.
Byorth spent 17 years working for FWP. He has worked for Trout Unlimited for the past 10 years, mostly working on water right leases.
He would represent District Two, which stretches from the western edge of Beaverhead County east through Sweetgrass County, encompassing all of the state’s southwestern corner and the areas around Yellowstone National Park.
He would replace Dan Vermillion, the former chair of the commission whose term expired in January of this year.
Vermillion, a fishing outfitter based in Livingston, steps down after 12 years on the commission. He said he enjoyed the work of trying to serve a region he considers special.
“I still think that southwest Montana is probably the most fish and wildlife diverse part of our state,” Vermillion said. “But it’s also the part of our state that faces the most challenges with big population growth and huge increase and demand for recreational opportunity.”
He said he’s proud of the commission’s work on wolf management, that it serves as an example of Montana succeeding in managing a sensitive species.
It involved balancing polarized interests — the people who want them all dead and those who want to see more of them. Vermillion said the issue has calmed since he first started on the commission, although the animals still draw strong feelings.
“The bottom line is I think the wolf population in Montana at least, it’s not going anywhere,” Vermillion said. “It’s being managed in a way that should keep it around for a long time.”
He would have liked to have seen more bighorn sheep restoration around the state. Wild sheep have been extirpated from much of their historic range and restoration efforts have struggled because of disease issues and a need to keep wild and domestic sheep separate. Those dynamics make it tough to find places to reintroduce the animals.
“That is something that the public has consistently supported ... it’s not as straightforward as one would like,” Vermillion said.
As for what’s next, he’s not sure. He ran unsuccessfully for the state Senate last fall, losing to Republican John Esp of Big Timber. The Democrat said he might consider running for office again, likely at the local or state legislative level.

Michael Wright can be reached at mwright@dailychronicle.com or at 406-582-2638. Follow him on Twitter @mj_wright1.

Winter Conditions

Folks,

Just over a week ago, I sent out the below message regarding condition of ungulates given ongoing winter conditions.  I'd like to provide an update and remind all that I would appreciate hearing about any mortality you observe. Over the past week, I have received scattered and isolated reports of ungulate mortality associated with conditions.  Those reports included:  three dead mule deer fawns in a yard near Ennis; four or five dead antelope along the East Bench (west side of the Ruby Mountains), two reports of one and two dead white-tailed deer in the Madison Valley; and one report of seven dead white-tailed deer in the Ruby Valley.

 Just after I sent the previous report, the Ruby Valley received an additional 2-3 inches of snow.  Although temperatures have remained mostly below freezing, afternoon sun has been common and two days have brought highs in the upper 30s, resulting in noticeable settling and some melting of snow.  Settling brings some benefit and different challenges to wintering ungulates relative to deep and soft snow.  Settling does reduce snow depth which makes it easier for ungulates to move through while its soft (during the warm part of the day) and it often re-exposes shrubs which ungulates can use as a browse resource.  Settling also makes snow denser and afternoon melt facilitates night time freezing of top layers--creating a hard crust.  Both can impact an ungulates ability to travel through snow while it is crusted (during the night and morning) and move snow for foraging.  Conditions remain difficult across the Ruby and Madison valleys, especially for antelope and white-tailed deer attempting to find forage on relatively level areas.  I have observed the wintering herd of antelope between Twin Bridges and Sheridan foraging in the DOT gravel lot and south of Highway 287. This is the first time I have observed this--suggesting they are struggling to find recourses on typical winter range and ranging wider than typical. A positive sign is that they continue to move around. Ungulates without the energy to move and forage are likely nearing death. I completed moose surveys in hunting districts 331, 332, 333, and 334 on Sunday and observed just over 300 moose.  Except for one emaciated moose observed in the Centennial Mountains, all appeared to be in good condition.  South aspects along the west Snowcrest and east Blacktail Mountains were mostly bare of snow.  Elk that were wintering along the east Blacktail Mountains had moved up in elevation and into Little Sage Creek since we surveyed them just over a week ago.

The storm currently moving through the region mostly missed the Ruby Valley. Current forecast is for relatively low chance of snow accumulation through tonight, followed by sun and warmer temperatures over the next several days.  I expect a fair amount of snowmelt will occur--bringing ungulates some needed relief. I caution folks to avoid disturbing ungulates through the remainder of these deep snow conditions and beyond.  Moving through deep and dense snow is very taxing on ungulates with low energy reserve. Disturbing them could also mean displacing them from areas they are finding needed forage or an aspect that is out of the wind and exposed to sun energy.  Even as areas bare of snow, I caution disturbing ungulates for a while.  Low nutritional condition will remain until green-up forage allows for slow recovery.  Displacing ungulates during the early spring often leads to them moving through remaining snow drifts or onto north and east aspects where snow remains deep.

As of today, I believe elk and moose are faring well across my management area.  The mule deer I observed while completing moose surveys appeared to be in good condition. Many are browsing shrubs on steep aspects. Those in the Madison Valley and Ruby and Tobacco Root Mountains are experiencing the greatest snow depth and hardest conditions. If mortality occurs, I expect it would start in the Madison Valley, where conditions are tough, quality winter range is limited, and competition with elk is high. Antelope and white-tailed deer are being challenged in the Madison and Ruby valleys. I expect at least scattered mortality to continue in these areas. Population-level mortality will be determined by weather over the next couple of weeks. Antelope south of the Ruby Valley appear to be in good condition. I will continue to monitor conditions across ungulate winter range, document known mortality, and provide another update in about a week.  If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. 

Dean Waltee

Wildlife Biologist

Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks

Sheridan, MT

ALERT: Shed Hunting and Other Spring Activities

Most of us are anxious for warm sunny days to get out.  Been a long winter.  Please think about your actions before disturbing critters who have also had a tough winter.

The Montana Sportsmen Alliance joins FWP and others in a call for compassion for our wild critters.  In most places, heavy snow and severe cold has made life even more challenging for critters.  Any human or vehicular activity causes additional stress at a time when things are already really tough
Please, delay your activities on winter range until big game animals are in better condition. 

Montana Sportsmen Alliance Leadership 

John Borgreen, Great Falls
Sam Milodragovich, Butte
Don Thomas, Lewistown 
Steve Schindler, Glasgow
Jeff Herbert, Helena 
JW Westman, Park City
Joe Perry, Conrad 
Robert Wood, Hamilton 
Dale Tribby, Miles City

Montana on Pace for Record Wolf Hunt...Flathead Beacon

https://flatheadbeacon.com/2019/03/12/montana-pace-record-wolf-hunt/

Montana on Pace for Record Wolf Hunt

With wolf hunting season slated to end this week, 315 wolves were reported killed

By Tristan Scott // Mar 12, 2019

Gray wolf. Shutterstock photo

SHOW CAPTION

With only a few days remaining before the end of Montana’s general wolf-hunting season on March 15, a record 315 wolves have been harvested across the state, with the bulk of them taken before cold temperatures and heavy snows made hunting and trapping conditions more difficult.

As of March 10, preliminary results from Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks (FWP), the agency tasked with managing the elusive predators, indicate that hunters harvested 165 wolves and trappers killed 130. Train and automobile collisions were responsible for three mortalities, according to FWP.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Wildlife Services Division killed eight wolves after investigating reports of livestock depredation and other conflicts, while private landowners killed two. FWP lists the cause of one mortality as “unknown,” another mortality as “other” and five wolf mortalities as “illegal.”

Of those preliminary totals, 111 wolves were killed in FWP’s Region 1 in Northwest Montana, which is home to the state’s densest wolf population.

Recent population estimates — figures arrived at through a method known as patch occupancy modeling (POM) — peg Montana’s wolf population at about 850 animals statewide, with around 350 living in Region 1.

This hunting season, the state sold about 17,000 wolf licenses, according to preliminary figures. That’s down from 2013, when wolf hunters bought 24,000.

The state assumed management over the species in 2011, when wolves, once hunted to near extirpation, were delisted from the federal Endangered Species Act.

During the 2017-18 season, hunters and trappers took 254 wolves, with 166 by hunters and an additional 88 by trapping. Total wolf mortality was about 305 wolves.

In Montana, archery season for wolves ran from Sept. 1-14, 2018. General hunting season runs from Sept. 15, 2018 through March 15, 2019, while trapping season ran Dec. 15, 2018, through Feb. 28, 2018.

Neil Anderson, wildlife program manager for FWP’s Region 1, attributes the record wolf harvests to the state’s relatively mild winter in December and January, when most of the hunting-related mortalities were totaled.

Between September 2018 and December 2018, for example, 166 wolves were killed, compared to 98 in January 2019 and 47 in February, according to FWP’s preliminary figures.

“I think it had to do with the conditions on the ground, especially for trapping,” Anderson said. “We had a pretty mild December, with not a lot of snow and not a lot of changes in snow patterns. That’s more conducive for folks to get out and get after them. When the temperatures dropped and the snow started accumulating, traps start to freeze up, and we saw the harvests really taper off toward the end of the season.”

Another factor contributing to the uptick in wolf harvests, Anderson said, is the number of hunters pursuing the animal as big game while honing their hunting and trapping chops in the field.

“More people are figuring out this whole wolf-hunting thing, which takes a lot of effort and knowledge,” he said. “These are smart animals.”

The subject of wolves on the landscape has been a contentious one this legislative session, particularly as hunters complain that the state’s wolf population has had an increasingly adverse impact on deer, elk and moose populations in recent years, as evidenced by below-average ungulate harvests, even as wildlife managers attribute the fluctuating harvests to a mixed bag of environmental factors, including back-to-back heavy winters that reduced fawn recruitment.

During the first half of the legislative session, lawmakers on both sides of the political aisle proposed a host of wolf-related measures, some of which generated controversy. Among the most controversial was a bill to allow hunting wolves at night, another to reduce trapping setbacks on seasonally closed roads and still another to reimburse licensed wolf trappers for their costs.

Those bills, all of them introduced by Rep. Bob Brown, R-Thompson Falls, didn’t survive the session’s midway transmittal point, but others have gained bipartisan support.

Nick Gevock, conservation director for the Montana Wildlife Federation, said his organization supports Brown’s bills to decrease the cost of resident wolf licenses, as well as others that would provide discounts to certain license holders, such as those who purchase a combination sportsman license.

Although Gevock opposed the measure to allow wolf hunting at night, he emphasized the importance of the role hunters and trappers play in managing the state’s wolf population.

“We have supported a package of bills that lower the cost of wolf hunting, and we have worked with Rep. Brown on them,” he said. “We want to have ethical, fair-chase wolf hunters in the field helping to manage the species, but we also want to keep the wolf population healthy. They are a difficult species to hunt, and I think Montana hunters and trappers are stepping up and showing that they are able to get the job done. I think that’s reflective in this year’s record wolf harvests.”

If you enjoy stories like this one, please consider joining the Flathead Beacon Editor’s Club. For as little as $5 per month, Editor’s Club members support independent local journalism and earn a special deal every month from one of our great local business partners. Members also gain access towww.beaconeditorsclub.com, where they will find exclusive content like deep dives into our biggest stories and a behind-the-scenes look at our newsroom.

Montana Sportsmen Alliance takes a stand on bills. HJ 28, HB 550, HB 390

HJ 28

Bill Type - Number: HJ 28
Action: (H) Hearing
Date: 02/26/2019
Hearing Room: 137
Hearing Time: 3:00 PM
Committee: (H) Agriculture

The Montana Sportsmen Alliance appreciates the opportunity to comment on this resolution. While we are not commenting on the APR, we would like to make clear that we think the Montana Legislature has no business interfering with private property rights. As such, any permittee has the ability to petition the BLM and present their case. The entire process is for the public to weigh in and they should do so. The legislature once again is acting without any input from Montana’s public. The public deserves the chance to voice their opinions! For that reason alone, we oppose HJ 28.
Montana Sportsmen Alliance
Leadership
John Borgreen, Great Falls
Steve Schindler, Glasgow
Jeff Herbert, Helena
Don Thomas, Lewistown
Sam Milodragovich, Butte
Joe Perry, Conrad
JW Westman, Park City
Dale Tribby, Miles City
Robert Wood, Hamilton

 

 

 HB 550

 

The Montana Sportsman Alliance wishes to go on record as opposing House Bill 550. We oppose this bill because it is a poorly crafted attempt to change the status of roads and their use by the all members of the public across Montana. HB 550 seeks to reduce public use and access while at the same time allowing public funds to be expended for road maintenance.  Furthermore, it jeopardizes federal matching statewide road funds for Montana which may only can be dedicated for use to maintain those roads open to public travel.  As such, the bill should have a fiscal note to address potential costs as well as the loss of federal matching dollars should it be implemented. There is none.

HB 550 circumvents statutory county authority by pushing decision making on one element of contested roads directly into court, ignoring all other current statutes that require the exhaustion of other administrative remedies prior to litigation.  

We cannot support any effort to diminish the public’s legitimate use of thoroughfares, the diversion of state and federal dollars to the upkeep of roads that exclusively benefits a hand full of individuals, nor will we support efforts to diminish or unravel the counties’ critical roles in determining rights of ways and road access. 

Montana Sportsmen Alliance
Leadership
John Borgreen, Great Falls
Steve Schindler, Glasgow
Jeff Herbert, Helena
Don Thomas, Lewistown
Sam Milodragovich, Butte
Joe Perry, Conrad
JW Westman, Park City
Dale Tribby, Miles City
Robert Wood, Hamilton


HB 390

The Montana Sportsmen Alliance would like to go on record opposing HB 390.   It will not materially affect the odds so it is more of a “feel good bill".  We dislike the provision on removing kids from the draw.  It seems the effort to expand opportunity has not been realized.  Please oppose HB 390.

Montana Sportsmen Alliance
Leadership

John Borgreen, Great Falls 
Steve Schindler, Glasgow
Jeff Herbert, Helena
Don Thomas, Lewistown
Sam Milodragovich, Butte
Joe Perry, Conrad
JW Westman, Park City
Dale Tribby, Miles City
Robert Wood, Hamilton

Billings Gazette

Guest opinion: Make fine match crime of gating public lands

• By JOE PERRY
• Feb 23, 2019
• 
  

• As far as real estate deals go, illegally gating a public road in Montana is about as cheap as it gets.

Under current law, violators risk a fine of only $10 per day to close off public access for their own personal benefit. Yet that paltry fine is never even levied because it would cost the county more to enforce it than the amount of the fine. As a result, bad actors can close off access to public roads with little to no repercussions.

That is a sweetheart deal for those seeking to create exclusionary havens of prime hunting and fishing opportunity, by shutting off public access to public land. Unfortunately, there are some landowners across Montana who are willing do just that, and in doing so they threaten to undermine the rule of law and they put the county’s resources and personnel in jeopardy by ignoring a judge’s declaration regarding their illegally closed county roads.

As a private landowner, I’m dismayed by a few bad actors who would shut down access to public lands. That’s why I wholeheartedly support SB224, a bill introduced by Sen. Tom Jacobson, D-Great Falls, to increase the daily fine for illegally gating a public road. The fine of $10 per day was set in 1965. It’s long overdue to increase that fine to something meaningful that will actually serve as a deterrent. Senate Bill 224 gives local justices the discretion and flexibility to issue fines of up to $500 per day.

This is common-sense legislation that would effectively dissuade violators from excluding hunters, anglers and other users from lands that are rightfully theirs and the penalty increase would provide law enforcement and county commissioners with the tools necessary to reopen roads that been illegally gated for years.

Illegally closed public roads can create life-threatening delays for first responders, wildland firefighters and law enforcement responding to emergencies. They keep sportsmen and women from getting to their family’s elk camp and the streams where they teach their kids how to fish. There is no good reason for continuing to allow this behavior to persist in Montana.

I am a private landowner who also respects and chooses to recreate on public lands. I also take comfort in knowing that first responders can easily access public lands adjacent to my property in the event of an emergency.

Please join me in supporting SB224. It’s time for the fine to match the crime.

Hunter Landowner Relations

Published by Joe Perry · Just now ·

Hunter Landowner Relations

From a few years back but still true!!! Please take time to read.

I am a farmer/rancher and landowner. I am also a hunter, angler, and recreationist. Each of these terms describe me but I am the sum total of all. I have never charged anyone a dime for access to my property. I take on as many hunters as I can but sometimes have to limit the numbers so as not to be overrun. After 40 years on the land, I have retired. Over that time, I have watched the “landscape” deteriorate from “hunt where you want but be respectful” to one of tightly controlled – or no- access. I believe that there is more to be said, and said candidly from the perspectives of both landowners and hunters/recreationists.
The root of the issue seems to be from a growing disconnect between rural landowners and urban recreationists. We’re all busy. We are much more mobile and don’t have the same level and type of contact with close friends and neighbors as we did in the past. I remember fondly all the times our family went to stay the weekend with our country cousins. Brandings, livestock and chores, machinery and driving, real fresh eggs, milk and cream and maybe hand-cranked ice cream Great wholesome food from gardens and barnyards. We kids kept busy all weekend while our folks visited and played cards. We developed an understanding of each other’s lives and real, close relationships came from that.
The level and kinds of interaction today has declined due to many factors. Livestock handling and machinery have become increasingly high tech and expensive. Kids aren’t welcome to play here. Farms having combinations of geese, turkeys, chickens, milk cows, beef, sheep, pigs, and cattle are rare.
In addition, there are so many additional “extra-curricular” activities and sports that we didn’t have. Parents pass each other coming and going, often dividing kid’s interests and commitments between them. Social time is at these events. Golf, tennis, soccer, swimming, etc. have been added to football basketball and track. Computer games and fast-thumbing on smart phones occupies the attention of so many folks.
Yet, a major touchstone of Montana’s heritage is shared resources such as wildlife. Montanans love to hunt and fish and recreate. It is family time. Wild game is a regular feature on the menus of many homes. People move here from out of state and work for less money than they could get in big cities for those reasons. Many of us who were born here made conscious decisions to stay here even if it meant making less money. The quality- and quantity of life- was worth the trade.
The personal relationship building of the past seems to receive less emphasis. Liability issues and OSHA make free help from outside folks much riskier and far less desirable. Relationships are much harder to build at a distance. Getting Western Montana townsfolk and Eastern Montana producers together happens on fewer occasions.
Something that many people who are not rural producers don’t understand is that Private Property Rights are paramount to landowners. Management decisions and the responsibility for the results of those decisions made on private property largely rest with the owners. Their livelihoods survive or not, based on these decisions. There too, are those landowners who consider the public lands they lease for farming or grazing to be essentially their own personal property. Many of these folks fail to recognize that they are only paying leases for grazing and/or farming. Those leases do not allow limiting access to the public. Also, as a result, many lessees are inclined to deny public access across their private property to access these public lands.
One thing that has struck me is that there seems to be little focus on what I call Public Property Rights. There are those who deny that the public owns all wildlife, and that each and every one of us shares in the ownership of our public lands. For some Americans and Montanans, public lands are the only ownership they will ever have. As a result, they love their public lands, and with good reason.
Why are landowners often at odds with recreationists? I see many contributing factors, attributed to both “sides.” Some recreationists show what I perceive is an arrogance about private lands. Folks forget that the landowner owes them nothing; trespass or access is a privilege not a right. Garbage dumping, littering, thoughtless tearing up of roads, willful unethical behavior, ignoring game laws, property damage and vandalism, unauthorized driving – the list goes on and on. When these activities regularly occur, it’s hard for a landowner to want to be generous. Additionally, many recreationists are not good about turning in illegal activities. They assume it’s not their problem or simply don’t want to be bothered. We need to step up and be accountable. “If you see something, say something” is the right way to help and show appreciation for the privileges you are accorded on private land.
The story of the hunter or angler encountering a landowner who treats them unfairly and poorly is as old as the hills. Upon asking permission to hunt on a rancher’s land, are lectured about how bad all recreationists are, getting a solid chewing for other’s inexcusable indiscretions. The recreationist gets an earful about how tough the landowner has it, and is personally blamed for the state’s wildlife agency’s missteps or contentious policies. Add to that the increasing lack of public access to private lands where there is so much pent up demand that landowners get inundated. Very early morning visits and calls and those late at nite to landowners who do welcome the public become overwhelming, coupled with long hunting seasons. As a result, good, reliable folks are denied access without having a chance to prove themselves.
Along with these issues, add private land outfitters to the mix. They are profit driven, and frankly, offer an alternative to landowners in the form of good payments and responsibility to handle all recreation on the place. Since outfitters usually demand exclusive access for their clients, the public is completely left out of the equation. Some outfitters claim to “manage” these places to maximize bucks and bulls but in reality is simply restricting access and as a result putting more and more wild critters on the ground. “Managing” for trophy wildlife by restricting access can be done by anyone; it is not wildlife management. Managing overall game populations and their distribution across the landscape is the charge of FWP in Montana. But there seems to be no responsibility taken by these outfitters to “manage” (i.e.- encourage and engage in the hunting of) all critters in the herd, particularly those pesky, “valueless” antlerless critters who are protected by limited access and hunting during the regular seasons, Wildlife numbers expand, often exponentially, with the result of over-objective herds, moving onto the neighboring properties (often ones that do allow public hunting), reeking havoc on someone else’s property. Late season, antlerless-only seasons then are demanded to solve the “problem” without affecting outfitted, antlered buck or bull clientele. There seems to be no consideration to run seasons concurrently to avoid brucellosis, chronic wasting disease, and other maladies that result from unnatural concentrations of wildlife. Concurrent seasons could disperse animals on the landscape while at the same time, offer public hunters a chance to harvest on private and public lands accessible to them. Shoulder seasons (hunting season that would begin and/or end after the 5-week General Rifle Season) were recently pushed as a means to deal with these problems. But they have performance criteria that require buy-in by landowners and outfitters, which has been pretty limited except with a few notable exceptions. The problems created for the private landowners through exclusive hunting on their properties keeps going to the legislature for resolution. The Fish and Wildlife Commission is the place where such decisions need to be made. They have the time, access to resources, information and expertise to consider the best way to move. Making wildlife management policy decisions in the partisan arena only serves to slap bandaids on problems and utilizes the most convenient and politically expedient solutions. We’ve seen the can kicked down the road too many times. Nonetheless, I expect to see the outfitters to continue to try to legislate their way out of their responsibility for the problem.
Farmers and ranchers were the original conservationists. Landowners are a fiercely independent lot and often that tenacity has paid off. Farmers and ranchers are coming off the best financial decade ever and they deserve it. There have been some real tough times for producers with little or no return on their investments. Often, government help was the only way we survived. Yes, government help with crop price deficiencies and disaster aid kept many farmers and ranchers on the land. Subsidized crop insurance makes risk management affordable to producers. In addition, the services of government agencies like the Farm Service Agency, Natural Resource Conservation Service and Dept. Natural Resources and Conservation provide help with land management decisions, loans, and improvements like water and grazing systems, fencing, trees, CRP, wildlife improvements, and many others. But are these entitlements? Maybe to some, but they are paid for by all the tax paying residents of our country, “The Public.”
Leases on state and federal public lands for farming and grazing are a huge, necessary part of many producers’ operations. Generally, these leases are made far below “market”- what would be charged by a private landowner. In the case of federal leases, they are so low as to be ridiculous. Yet, these allowances have kept many an outfit in Montana in operation. Once again, who pays for the costs of these agencies who often manage at a big loss? “The Public.”
My intention is not to single out anyone. Keeping agricultural operations viable not only contributes to the economy but more often than not, has been of great benefit to wildlife, fisheries and public recreation in general. But I think it’s important to point to the fact there is legitimate and crucial financial interaction and relationship between producers and the public. Yes, those same town folks who you go to church with, basketball games, funerals, weddings, and benefits. The same folks who own the hotels, restaurants, gas stations, stores, bars, etc. The families your kids go to school with. Property taxes paid by landowners are a major component of the sustenance of our towns and counties. We need to recognize that it is a two-way street.
I believe it’s high time to realize we are all in this together and no one is getting out alive. Landowners, producers, and their city cousins all contribute to something called community, this thing we call “The Last Best Place”. FWP manages wildlife in trust for all of us. We all have legitimate and equal stakes in how it is managed and maintained into the future. Landowners as well as recreationists must realize we all rely upon one another, and, in fact, need each other. Tolerance and cooperation are the main components of our collective successful future. We all need to take responsibility for our actions!
Solutions: Sportsmen, take the FWP Hunter Landowner Stewardship course online. Report lawbreakers, “if you see something, say something.” Treat access to private lands as a privilege. Use “Fair Chase” and “Hunter Ethics” as your guide.
Landowners, know what the “Public Trust Doctrine” and the “North American Model of Wildlife Conservation” are. Remember your leased public lands are a privilege not a right. Share the resources your property can offer with your less fortunate urban cousins. Keep track of bad eggs and habitual offenders and let them pay the price for indiscretions, while allowing others to prove themselves. Have enough tolerance for the Public to harvest excess critters within the regular season.
Outfitters: Yes you are a business but, since you harvest Public Trust resources, treat it as a privilege. Look at more than just money in your pocket. Have some compassion for the critters. Work with sportsmen to allow harvest on leased lands during the regular seasons. Take responsibility for problems you create. When you run to the legislature to bypass public process, expect to pay the price of bad relationships with the Public. Public Land Outfitters, if you don’t want to pay the price for bad relationships caused by Private Land Outfitters, speak up for integrity! You have always shared the resources and have taken a shared role in management decisions. You have worked with sportsmen on a variety of issues. Be cautious who you allow to represent you.
It takes a community of all of us to find success.
Joe Perry