A Wakeup Call

A Wakeup Call
As a retired physician, I am writing to express my deep concern with the irresponsible attitude too many Montanans are showing toward current “shelter in place” guidelines enacted in response to the coronavirus epidemic. All around our state, people continue to gather for clearly non-essential purposes as a result of magical thinking. It can’t happen here. There are effective medications that can save us. I’m too young and healthy to contract the disease. If only any of this were true.
    Really, really wanting to believe something will not make it true. It may have worked for Peter Pan, but it will not alter the course of the current epidemic. Critics of recent actions to limit the spread of coronavirus have suggested that the efforts of Governor Bullock and state agencies represent governmental overreach, but nothing could be further from the truth. These actions represent government attempting to fulfill its highest obligation: protecting the welfare of its citizens. That’s why we have laws against drunk driving. Ignoring social distancing guidelines is just as irresponsible.
   
    The country’s coronavirus death toll has now surpassed that of the 9/11 terrorist attacks. We responded to that tragedy with an investment of billions of dollars and thousands of lives that produced equivocal results at best. Is it now really too much to ask that people simply self-quarantine until this epidemic is under control?
During my working years I cared for many patients dying on ventilators, and it was a grim experience for all involved. Recent communication with front-line physicians in New Orleans suggests that most coronavirus patients on ventilators don’t survive to leave the hospital. More ventilators won’t stop this epidemic. Neither will a vaccine—which is likely a year away—or hydroxychloroquine, or other exercises in magical thinking.
We are fortunate to live in one of the states that has taken some of the proactive steps to control the epidemic that have been so sorely lacking at the federal level. Now it is up to us as individuals and Montana communities to pay attention to them.
                        E. Donnall Thomas Jr. M.D.
                        Lewistown

MSA Leaders Discuss Conservation issues on Community 7TV

https://comm7tv.vod.castus.tv/vod/?video=de736bb5-76e4-491f-8728-8892d2b80d68

Hunter Landowner Relations

Hunter Landowner Relations
Joe Perry
Please go viral

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 band aids 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!
Joe Perry

MSA Comment to Commission on ESS

 Folks, this is our comment.  Please send in your comments as the 27th is the deadline.

January 26, 2020

Chairman Colton & Commissioners:

The Montana Sportsmen Alliance, MSA is the voice of reason for Montana resident hunters and anglers.  Our leadership group and the many sportsmen and women hale from many places on the Montana map. 

MSA would like to thank Chairman Colton and the Commission for making substantial changes to the 2020-2021 elk proposals. 

First things first; the present Elk Management Plan is still valid today, it is the standard of the industry, so to speak, and as relevant today as it was in January 2005 when it was unanimously approved by the Commission.  Although the EMP has never been fully implemented we strongly feel The EMP has been violated many times resulting from individuals, both in and out of the Department that wanted to take shortcuts or substitutions to circumvent the plan.  Actually, the ESS is one such substitution for the EMP.

The next thing is the matter of the third elk tag.  This is unbelievable that special interests can run something through our Montana Legislature while not even hiding their intended goals. The third elk tag is a travesty and needs to be watered down as much as possible.  It is nothing more than turning our public trust elk into so much vermin.

MSA has never agreed with the ESS, we went along because we are team players that want to help with any situation that may arise.  We also grudgingly agreed to the ESS because they came with specific criteria.  We took the department at their word and we intend to have them keep it. 

Regarding the ESS, we do want to thank those individuals within the Department that made strides to remove ESS from those Hunt Districts not meeting the criteria. 

We have formulated some ideas that we will briefly put to paper, as with anything MSA puts out to the public we will be happy to expound upon and visit with any of the Commissioners, Department personnel and others in the hunting community.

●      The ESS were never meant to replace the general seasons, let’s ensure the ESS do not become the season of choice.

●      Eliminate all ESS prior to the regular archery and end them no later than January 1, with special attention paid to those landowners that have made every effort to help themselves while helping hunters. Real “Skin in the Game”  These landowners are our neighbors, let’s treat them as such.

●      Elk numbers have to be trending in the right direction prior to continuing any ESS.

●      As per the valid EMP, let’s place strong consideration on antlerless-only seasons until objectives are achieved. 

●      We suggest coming up with not only objective numbers but distribution numbers as well, extra work for sure, but we’re all Montanans and used to hard work.

●      Quantitatively evaluate all elk hunting seasons and according to harvest criteria and base decisions on actual performance.

●      Provide a transparent database of the numbers of elk harvested by non-residents; broken out by bulls, cows, and calves; outfitted or non.

●      As per the EMP, exempting from objectives “inaccessible elk” (primarily on private lands)

1)    Use of sub-objectives, again part of the present EMP.  We will offer a further review of this use according to the EMP.

●      Realistic elk objectives

●      Establish elk working groups with equal stakeholders statewide as the Devil’s Kitchen group.  Set the rules at consensus-driven.  Each group messages the Commission and Department directly on items where consensus is reached, not through Department employees or commissioners individually.

●       A clear need to revitalize the hunt roster/damage hunt program to ensure effective and equitable participation while maintaining expediency to benefit all stakeholders. 

To continue the stated 1. From the last page. In the present EMP, it was presupposed that the Adaptive Harvest Management would provide tools necessary to manage elk to accomplish the objectives.  We have to realize that in many areas of Montana that “de facto” refuges exist.  Reality is these elk numbers are mostly impossible or completely impossible to manage to an objective, in those instances, elk in those refuges could be counted separately and sub-objectives established.  This could be very helpful to those landowners that suffer the negative effects of neighboring elk that are off-limits to the public.

In closing MSA again, wishes to thank the Commission for their work.  We wish to have our comment added to the official record.

Respectfully submitted,

MSA Leadership Group

John Borgreen, Great Falls

Jeff Herbert, Helena

Doug Krings, Lewistown

Laura Lundquist, Missoula

Sam Milodragovich, Butte

Joe Perry, Conrad

Steve Schindler, Glasgow

E. Don Thomas, Lewistown

Dale Tribby, Miles City

JW Westman, Park City

Robert Wood, Hamilton

Will Montana leaders stand up to Weyerhaeuser? Missoulian

Will Montana leaders stand up to Weyerhaeuser?

• BEN LONG
• Jan 19, 2020
• 
  

Montanans enjoy the world’s greatest backyard. But much of that heritage is up for grabs.

I am referring to 1,000 square miles now owned by Weyerhaeuser Co. Historically, timber companies — Champion, Plum Creek and Weyerhaeuser — allowed people to use these lands to hunt, fish, pick berries and whatnot.

But being a good corporate neighbor is apparently out of style. Shortly before Christmas, Weyerhaeuser announced it intends to sell 600,000 acres in northwest Montana at a paltry $250 per acre. Even the folks who track these issues closely were shocked by the news.

The buyer is Georgia-based Southern Pine Plantations. While the company says it has no plans to change access policies, it’s naïve to take that at face value. The company has a track record of selling land to developers and billionaire land hogs who buy up acreages in Idaho and Montana, locking out traditional uses and blocking access to adjacent public land.

There are very good reasons why Montana's elected officials need to engage. One is the hundreds of good, family-wage timber industry jobs that are at stake. Second is the damage done to our economy and outdoor heritage if these lands are locked behind no-trespassing signs. Third is the enormous costs to taxpayers as we pay to extend police, firefighting and other expensive services to more and more remote developments.

One wonders if Weyerhaeuser’s shareholders are paying attention. Is dumping this land at $250 an acre really the best value for the company? Did Weyerhaeuser even approach public agencies or conservation groups about a better deal?

The good news is, Montanans have a track record of protecting both our outdoor freedoms and our productive timber land. We already have the tools and potentially the dollars to succeed.

But do we have the political leadership? There is little sign of that so far.

The Montana Legacy Project is our largest success story, conserving habitat and access in the Seeley-Swan and beyond as Plum Creek liquidated its holdings starting in the 1990s. More recently, Weyerhaeuser, public agencies and the Trust for Public Lands secured the Whitefish Lake Watershed Project.

If Montanans are going to have a seat at the table, we need continued funding through programs like the Land and Water Conservation Fund and the Forest Legacy Program. These are proven tools to fund solutions.

Ironically, the recent announcement also proves that conservation efforts work. Decades ago, Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks and Plum Creek signed a conservation easement protecting habitat and access in the Thompson and Fisher river drainages. The land was sold to Weyerhaeuser, but the easement stays intact. No matter who buys that Weyerhaeuser land, our right of access will be protected there valleys because of that contract. But that easement covers just 100,000 of the 600,000 acres Weyerhaeuser wants to sell.

We don’t have to sit by and be force-fed our future. We can engage. But time is short.

From our county commissioners, legislators and congressional delegation, now is the time for elected officials to demonstrate they are for Montana workers and outdoor families over corporations and billionaires. Voters will reward elected officials who protect our freedoms.

Weyerhaeuser’s bombshell threw a lot of dust in the air. Now is time to act. Once our access, habitat and timber base are gone, there’s no getting them back.

BHA Speak Up for Reasonable Elk Management in Montana

Speak Up for Reasonable Elk Management in Montana

Note:  MSA and most other sportsmen organizations are on the same page.  Here is a concise package from BHA.  We would include the request to go to Bulls only in the districts not meeting performance objectives!  Please send in comments!!

Joe   MSA 

 

 

Posted by Montana BHA Chapter | January 13, 2020

The Montana Chapter of Backcountry Hunters & Anglers is deeply concerned about the manner in which Elk Shoulder Seasons (ESSs) are being used to manage elk in Montana.
The Shoulder Seasons were created as an emergency tool in response to legislative pressure to meet population objectives set in Montana’s 2004 Elk Management Plan. The ESS was meant to be temporary, used only on private land, and used only when and where effective.

Image courtesy of Erik Petersen Photography

However, according to Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks (FWP), the ESSs have proven ineffective in many areas and have been damaging to accessible elk herds in other areas. Yet, they continue to be applied in many of these districts across the state.
You can make a positive change: Montana FWP Commission is seeking an alternative to ESSs and is requesting public input for the 2020 and 2021 hunting seasons. FWP is accepting public comment through January 27th, 2020.
We encourage you to speak up and make your concerns known. Comments are being accepted via email.
The official comments from the Montana Chapter of BHA can be found here. If your concerns mirror ours, we suggest and invite you to consider using the talking points below in your comments, as you see fit:

• Eliminate all ESS prior to the regular archery season and end them no later than Jan. 1.
• Continue ESS in only those hunting districts where harvest criteria are being met and elk herds are trending in the desired direction until objectives are met.
• Explore additional regular season antlerless harvest opportunities in districts with ESSs.
• Evaluate all elk hunting seasons quantitatively and according to harvest criteria and make decisions based on actual performance.
• Exempt “inaccessible elk” (those residing primarily on private land) from the objective number as provided for in Montana FWP’s current elk management plan (#5, p. 55).
• Finalize the revised elk management plan prior to the 2020 fall hunting season including establishing realistic elk management objectives.
• Establish elk working groups statewide (similar to the Devil's Kitchen group and recent efforts by FWP Region 2) to work collaboratively among diverse and representative stakeholders.
• Revitalize the hunt roster/damage hunt program to ensure effective and equitable public participation. 

Send your comments to fwpwld@mt.gov, or by mail to FWP Wildlife, PO Box 200701, Helena MT 59620-0701.

Thank you for speaking up for reasonable elk management in Montana.

MSA-PAC Endorses Kathleen Williams for U.S. House of Representatives

The Montana Sportsmen Alliance is proud to announce our endorsement of Kathleen Williams for U.S. House of Representatives.

We have worked with Kathleen for many years.  We know her well.  She is truly a proven commodity!  Her background in natural resources, as a legislator, and as a Sportswomen has prepared her well!

We endorsed her for her seat as Representative in the Montana House.  She was a pleasure to work with!  Smart, quick, dedicated, and a true friend of conservation and Sportsmen.

Our endorsement process is rigorous and points to Kathleen as the Best candidate!
We are confident that she is the best person to represent Montana in Congress!

We encourage voters to look at Kathleen’s record and her commitment.  She is the clear leader in this race.  We urge all to vote and to vote for Kathleen Williams!

 https://kathleenformontana.com/

Montana Sportsmen Alliance
Leadership Team

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