Representatives and Members of the House Human Services Committee,I apologize for not sending each of you a personalized email but my time is limited as I still work part time.I write to you today as a Vietnam era vet who is close to 70 and who has a bad shoulder and extreme spinal stenosis, and as an avid but unsuccessful bowhunter to express my opposition to SB 111, a bill that would allow crossbow use by those with disabilities and remove the requirement that a person using a permit to hunt from a vehicle not have to have a companion.First let me talk to the crossbow issue. Crossbow use has no business in Montana’s Archery season by anyone. Many are saying that there is no difference between a crossbow and a modern compound bow. Well from the crossbow ads I had seen I was not so sure. Then, I was loaned one by a bow shop. I found my presumptions to be correct, that a crossbow is vastly different than a compound bow.From my experience with this crossbow, I would say that a crossbow is not inherently a weapon for those with disabilities. It is heavy, this model weighed 7.75 lbs. which is more than twice the weight of my compound bow which weighs about 3.5 lbs.This model requires the use of a crank mechanism because the draw weight is so high, 358 lbs. Other models that do not come with a crank mechanism still require between 200 lbs. and 325 lbs. force to draw and cock the weapon.The trigger mechanism had a rather stiff trigger pull, which I would think needs to be modified for those with limited hand strength.I found them not only to be heavy but also cumbersome and they require a support or tripod to shoot from.This model has two rails each of which can be loaded with a bolt.Note: A bolt is fired from a crossbow.The bolt hold-down on the bottom rail failed after a few shots. I did not notice the hold-down failure until after I had cocked the weapon. I now had to un-cock the crossbow because dry firing the crossbow could easily lead to catastrophic failure of the limbs potentially injuring the shooter. I un-cocked the crossbow using a special tool provided but I still ended up getting my fingers slammed as I worked to un-cock the crossbow to relieve the high energy stored in the limbs. Somewhat dangerous in my opinion.So, by themselves crossbows are no more useful to a person with disabilities than a legal bow and arrow without modification.Some of the specifics of the crossbow I was shooting are:The weight of the bolts supplied with the crossbow were 352 grains in comparison to 378 grain arrows I shoot from my compound.The bolt speed as measured with a chronograph was found to leave the crossbow at 364 feet per second (fps) but other models from this manufacturer have advertised speeds up to 440 fps. My compound, on the other hand, has a measured release arrow speed of 240 fps.The kinetic energy of the arrow as it is released from my compound bow is 48.3 ft-lbs.The kinetic energy of the bolt when it is fired from the crossbow is 103.5 ft-lbs. which is more than double that of my compound bow.NOTE: If you have further ballistics questions, I try to answer them. I am a Professional Engineer.All crossbows built by this manufacturer, including the one I shot, come with a scope with graduations for various distances.All models including the one I shot have a stock and forestock much like a rifle.I found the crossbow to be very accurate out to 100 yards with very little practice, a substantially greater distance than an average bowhunter can accurately shoot a compound bow, which I would say is between 30 and 40 yards.After verifying that the crossbow was sighted in at 20 and 40 yds, I shot between 2 and 3 bolts each at 50, 60, 70, and 80 yards from a rest, and then 5 additional shots at 100 yds also from a rest. Of the 9 bolts that I fired out to 80 yards only one was substantially off mark by 5 inches at 70 yards. The other 8 shots were within 3.5 inches, with my last shot at 80 yards being only .75 inches high of dead center.Of the 5 shots I took at 100 yards, one was 9 inches, one was 7 inches, two were 3 inches, and my last shot was 1.75 inches from dead center of the target. My impression was that shooting a crossbow with a scope is very comparable to shooting a modern rifle.So, you may ask why am I so concerned about allowing crossbows into the archery season if it is limited to those with a disability?Being successful at bowhunting requires a lot of practice with a bow, a lot of patience and stealth, and a lot of luck. Bowhunting is a low success endeavor. Mastering all the aforementioned skills and having the right luck just do not occur that often. Because of our low success bowhunters have been allowed to archery hunt during the early bugling season when bull elk are distracted with breeding activities.Putting the crossbow into this mix may well jeopardize our and our grandchildren's future archery opportunities to pursue bull elk when they are more vulnerable to long range weapons.With a weapon that has 100-yard accuracy, hunters will not have to master all the skills required by those that use legal archery equipment. Success will increase proportional to the number of hunters using crossbows. More bull elk will be harvested, quite likely leading to severe limitations or termination of the archery season and quite likely have negative impacts on the general season.And adding to that problem will be the abuse of certificates for a disability, as required in this bill. It will be an easy task for those wishing to abuse this option, just as the Permit to Hunt from a Vehicle (PTHFV) permit was abused between 2008 and 2012. In 2008, when special opportunities were provided to those with a PTHFV, permit numbers grew from 512 permits to 11,000 in 2012.Montana lawmakers made changes to the law in 2013 in response to requests from disabled-hunter organizations who said the existing PTHFV privilege was being abused by able-bodied hunters and that the program had lost the respect of landowners and disabled and able-bodied hunters alike.The same is likely to happen with the crossbow. Being allowed to harvest a bull elk during the bugling season with a rifle like weapon will be considered by many as a huge opportunity.Individuals wanting to take advantage of this opportunity but who are not willing or wanting to master the skills of bowhunting will likely game the system to get a certificate of disability. Dr. Olszewski’s testimony during the hearing for this bill in the Senate Fish and Game committee said as much.The Permit to Modify Archery Equipment on the other hand still requires the bowhunter to master all the skills required to be successful at bowhunting while making allowances for their unique disabilities. All archery shooting requires a lot of practice regardless of it being a longbow, a recurve bow, or a compound bow and the same applies to archery equipment that has been modified to meet individual disabilities.So, I ask that you vote NO on SB 111.I am also giving you a link to my unprofessional video of my last shot at 100 yards with a crossbow. I cannot even hit the target bag at a 100 yds with my compound bow.Please feel free to call or email me with any comments or questions. I will also be happy to meet with you personally to discuss the bill if you desire.Sincerely,Jerry Davis725 Middlemas RdHelena MT 59602(406) 475-2226
Wednesday, April 14, 2021
Montana Bowhunters Association Jerry Davis Crossbows
Wednesday, March 3, 2021
ALERT: Sportsmen Pay Attention! The Montana Sportsmen Alliance OPPOSE HB 505
The Montana Sportsmen Alliance Opposes HB 505
HB 505, sponsored by Wylie Galt, one of the largest landowners in Montana and Republican Speaker of the House:HB 505 will create Class B-13, landowner-sponsored nonresident elk-only combination license. A landowner will be able to sponsor and sell up to 10 B-13 elk licenses, if they own 640 or more contiguous acres, within a hunting district. This is pure privatization and commercialization of wildlife. Wildlife is a public resource to be managed as a public trust for all the people of Montana. This bill would take management of wildlife away from professional biologists and put it in the hands of private landowners to manage elk and deer for profit. Nevada, New Mexico and Colorado have land-owner tags. Here are just a few examples of how they are commercialized (I have left out the names of the landowners and outfitters):With the largest selection of landowner tags and hunts online, ___________ Outfitters has your one-click access to the finest hunting in the Western U.S. ... Nevada. New Mexico.New Mexico Landowner Elk Tags For Sale - Private Ranch. New Mexico is well known worldwide to hold the biggest trophy bulls in the nation. Due to this reputation, landowner elk hunting tags are very difficult to obtain.Ranching For Wildlife. __________ Outfitters, big elk. We have been fortunate to acquire some fantastic elk hunting opportunities near Hayden, CO in the northwest corner of Colorado.HB 505 is just wrong; giving a landowner with 640 acres their own tags to sell will privatize and commercialize wildlife management in Montana. Landowners will be able to manage elk for the biggest profits; denying access to the public during the regular hunting season; then using shoulder seasons; antherless elk only harvest to clean up their management mess when elk are over objective populations. Wildlife is a Public Resource, to be managed for the benefit of the public; not just the few.Section 2, Antlerless elk only option will give bonus points to a person who obtains a Class A-5, anterless elk tag, to hunt antlerless elk between August 15 and February 15, on private land in hunting districts where the elk populations are above sustainable. And a single bonus point may be purchased, due to nonparticipation in a drawing and receive an additional five bonus points for a total of six elk species bonus points.Section 3. Section 87-2-117, MCA, is amended to revise the license bonus point system to give an applicant, who has purchased more bonus points, more chances in the drawing over an applicant who has purchased fewer bonus points.Sections 2 and 3 of HB 505 is a small bone thrown out to the public to lure some to support this bill and to clean up the management mess that will be created by HB 505. The hypocrisy of sections 2 and 3 is there are other bills, if passed, that would take away limited tags in hunting districts where populations are over objective.
From an ethical standpoint, Mr. Galt will personally profit handsomely from this bill. Isn't that conflict of interest?HB 505 is no more than a subsidy for land owners, taking license income away from the state and it does not resolve elk populations being over objectives; in fact it exacerbates the issue. HB 505 would be a major step toward Texas-style management in which the landowner actually owns the wildlife, in clear violation of the Public Trust Doctrine. This bill will destroy solid Montana traditions for profit!!Thank you for the opportunity to comment!Montana Sportsmen AllianceLeadership TeamJohn Borgreen Great FallsRay Gross DillonDon Thomas LewistownSam Milodragovich ButteSteve Schindler GlasgowDoug Krings LewistownJeff Herbert HelenaRobert Wood HamiltonJW Westman Park CityJoe Perry ConradDale Tribby Miles City
Tuesday, March 2, 2021
Please get on MSA pages to get Alerts!!!
I don’t think our emails are getting to everyone. Please send these out to all your email lists. Ask that they sign up to join…get all our alerts, costs nothing and we don’t share email addresses.
Joe
MSA Facebook link
https://www.facebook.com/Montana-Sportsmen-Alliance-PAC-123400691088041/
MSA Blog
https://montanasportsmenalliance.blogspot.com/
Joe
MSA Facebook link
https://www.facebook.com/Montana-Sportsmen-Alliance-PAC-123400691088041/
MSA Blog
https://montanasportsmenalliance.blogspot.com/
Wednesday, February 24, 2021
Hunter Landowner Relations Joe Perry
Hunter Landowner Relations by Joe Perry
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. Private land outfitters, quit stirring the pot.
Joe Perry
Monday, February 15, 2021
MBA OPPOSES SB 111 to give crossbows their own season
|
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)