Galt-Vinton-Knudsen Reply Lte

 Galt-Vinton-Knudsen Reply
    This paper recently ran an opinion piece by politicians Galt, Vinson, and Knudsen that cannot go unchallenged. No matter how hard they try to spin the facts, the last legislative session hurt Montana’s resident hunters, anglers, and other outdoor enthusiasts more than any in memory. While they correctly note that Montana would not be Montana without the ability to live, work, and play outside, their own legislative agenda took dangerous steps toward making this impossible.
    Providing landowners with big game tags to do with as they please and drastically increasing the number of tags reserved for outfitters and their wealthy out-of-state clients is but the first step in the move toward the complete Texas style commercialization of our wildlife resources, which properly belong to everyone.
    I’m not sure who the “environmental groups” making these allegedly false claims are (probably the same ones whose finances Galt and company sought to “investigate”) but the people I know who were left dismayed by this agenda are hard-working Montanans of ordinary means who are tired of seeing their outdoor heritage wrested away and sold to the highest bidder. We don’t need “shooting ranges and fish cleaning stations.” We need reasonable public access to public lands and waters in accordance with the Montana constitution. We don’t need commercially exploited wildlife and more “no trespassing” signs as Montana continues to be bought up by wealthy out of state interests who will never pay their fair share of our tax burden—the real beneficiaries of the legislation Galt and company have touted.
    I am an independent voter with no partisan agenda, but as these writers acknowledge in their piece, these legislative insults originated from one side of the aisle. Personally, I look forward to a day when I can once again vote for Republican candidates based on issues and qualifications, without knowing that I’m voting to destroy my way of life by doing so.
    Do Galt and company really think Montana hunters and anglers are naive enough to swallow the nonsense presented in their recent letter? If so, I feel insulted. So do a lot of my friends, all of whom plan to vote in the next election.
                            Don Thomas
                            Lewistown, MT
                            thomasdon@me.com
                            406-366-6401

"RESPECT" Lte from Tim Thier and Toby Spribille

 Respect

Montana is home to a great diversity of wildlife with many animals not found in most states. For years, it has led the country in developing wildlife management policies that balanced sustainability with family traditions of hunting and trapping. The maintenance of these traditions have always relied on ethics and respect – respect for the land, respect for the animals we hunt and trap, and respect for each other. By acknowledging that wildlife and the outdoors belongs to all of us, a delicate balance was reached that allowed hundreds of mountain lions, wolves and black bears to be harvested each year, while maintaining populations of both predators and prey.

The recent legislative changes that allowed for the greatly liberalized taking of wolves that includes snaring and bounties and the chasing and hunting of black bears with hounds has legalized practices that have upset this balance. Not only is this opposed by the vast majority of wildlife professionals in this state, but also a great number of hunters and trappers. Numerous, unforeseen consequences are inevitable with these changes that will only further alienate the image of hunters and trappers with the public. If our traditions of hunting and trapping are going to continue, we need broader public support, not less.

By allowing and encouraging these new methods of harvest, not only will it lead to an increase in captures of pets and non-target wildlife, but also the harassment of females while they are rearing their young. Ultimately, the abuse of these new liberties will lead to increased public pressures to curtail the traditions we all enjoy. We all share this beautiful place we call home and it is imperative that we all show greater respect for each other and the animals we hunt. Just because something is legal, it does not mean it is the best for wildlife, or our community.

Tim Thier
Toby Spribille

Montana Bowhunters Association Jerry Davis Crossbows

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, 

 Crossbow at 100 yds.mp4

Jerry Davis 

725 Middlemas Rd 

Helena MT  59602

(406) 475-2226

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 Alliance

Leadership Team

John Borgreen   Great Falls

Ray Gross   Dillon

Don Thomas   Lewistown

Sam Milodragovich  Butte

Steve Schindler   Glasgow

Doug Krings   Lewistown

Jeff Herbert   Helena

Robert Wood   Hamilton

JW Westman   Park City

Joe Perry    Conrad

Dale Tribby   Miles City

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/

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

Our Montana w Mike Penfold/ tv show

 https://comm7tv.vod.castus.tv/vod/?video=de736bb5-76e4-491f-8728-8892d2b80d68&nav=programs%2FOur%20Montana