Some interesting and unanticipated events in Montana
http://www.mtstandard.com/articles/2009/11/01/area/hjjaijgihgeheg.prt
Landowners increasingly shut down popular spots
By Nick Gevock - 11/01/2009
Alan Charles had a hunter nearly in tears in his office last week who had tried for years to draw a moose tag in the Big Hole Valley.
The hunter, from Helena, had drawn the tag, said Charles, landowner-sportsmen relations coordinator for the Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks. Yet days before he planned the trip of a lifetime, the man learned that the Hirschy Ranch in the west valley — a prime spot for moose where he was planning to go — was shut down to a popular hunting access program.
Fred Hirschy, the ranch owner and longtime participant in the state's block management program, had three days before the opening to rifle season for deer and elk withdrawn his property from the program, which pays landowners to allow public hunting. Hirschy said after years of enduring wolf attacks on his cattle he was fed up with the lackluster response from FWP officials.
In a move to get hunters to go to bat for him, Hirschy said he would withdraw from block management and asked hunters to call FWP officials if they too shared his disgust with the agency's wolf management policies.
Charles said he heard from plenty of other hunters, too.
"I fielded quite a few calls from people asking ‘What do I do, where do I go, how do I deal with this?'" he said. "Some of those people were saying ‘Wait a minute, this doesn't seem right.'" But for Hirschy, who still allowed some hunters on with permission, the response was different. He said he too heard from plenty of hunters, yet they weren't upset with him.
"I haven't talked to any that didn't support us," he said. "I had a guy call me from Billings — I have no idea who he is — and he said ‘You know what, we were coming hunting but we can go someplace else; we support you and we don't even want to ask.'" Landowners say blocking hunter access to their property is one of the few tools they have to get government agencies to understand their concerns.
But state wildlife officials say using access to wildlife can damage a relationship between two entities that is vital for all parties.
CASES ABOUND It's a growing trend, Charles said. In recent years he's seen numerous examples statewide in which landowners cut off hunter access, or threatened to, to push their point of view. In some cases landowners have required hunters to sign petitions in support of a cause, or asked landowners to call a public agency in an effort to affect policy.
In northeastern Montana, a group of large landowners disagreed with FWP on the length of the hunting season for buck deer, Charles said. The landowners posted signs stating their disgust with FWP after its commission refused to shorten the season to three weeks. The landowners, some of whom were enrolled in block management, ended their contracts with the state.
In another instance, landowners near Great Falls were upset with changes to federal policy on lands enrolled in the conservation reserve program, which pays landowners to keep land in native grasses. The National Wildlife Federation, a nationwide conservation group, had supported the changes and the landowners out of protest posted signs stating members of the affiliated Montana Wildlife Federation weren't welcome on their block management lands.
Charles said because the landowners were enrolled in block management, he explained that they couldn't pick and chose which sportsmen were allowed on the property.
In that instance the lockout was misguided, Charles said.
"Ironically the Montana Wildlife Federation had not supported the change," he said of the CRP rules.
And in northwest Montana, a logging company several years ago was requiring hunters to sign a petition in support of a timber sale, Charles said.
NUMEROUS REASONS The issues prompting landowners to shut off their land ranges from wolves, grazing and group affiliation to more philosophical disagreements.
A ranch owner who was enrolled in block management pulled out of the program because he disagreed with FWP buying a ranch near Billings to be managed as a state park and wildlife management area. Charles said the rancher had good relations with FWP, but he was strongly opposed to a government agency buying private property.
This season has seen a couple cases, including the Hirschy Ranch and another in southwest Montana.
In September, Roger Peters, owner of the Dragging Y ranch west of Grant, took out newspaper ads stating he was withdrawing from block management. Peters cited a disagreement with FWP over its recommendation to the U.S. Forest Service that it quit flood irrigation along Selway Creek. He said that would jeopardize his grazing leases that are crucial to his ranching operation.
Peters, of the Dragging Y ranch, urged hunters to contact FWP officials to lobby in an effort to keep Selway Creek open to grazing. He said his actions weren't meant to punish hunters, but rather to get officials' attention when they were ignoring his concerns. Peters eventually took out ads saying although they were out of block management, hunting would still be allowed.
"We have literally hundreds of hunters that come here every year and FWP listens to them," he said. "I felt it was an emergency situation that called for strong measure."
STRAINED RELATIONS Charles, whose job entails fostering good relations between landowners and sportsmen, said while landowners have the right to control who hunts their land, in the long run using access to wildlife can sour relations between two parties with similar goals.
"When people use hunter access to make a political statement or to gain leverage on a particular issue, sometimes the implications or consequences go far beyond the target that the landowner might have intended," he said.
For example, if a group of hunters has a trip planned and learns it won't have access to a particular ranch days ahead of time, it's left scrambling. The group could quickly make plans in the same area and keep its accommodations, or decide on an entirely different part of the state.
That could hurt hotel owners, restaurants and other businesses that count on hunting season business.
"Hunting is a huge part of Montana's economy," Charles said. "It's important to these small towns." And at the same time, the loss of hunting opportunities can have an effect on neighboring landowners. Charles said when a property gets shut down, hunters determined to take to the field either head to public land or look for other options on private ground.
"They start pounding on the neighbors' doors," he said. "That can result in increased pressure on the neighbors from hunters." A loss of hunting access also poses problems for wildlife management. With abundant populations of deer, elk and antelope, biologists are under pressure to keep wildlife numbers under control. Landowners trying to make a living off the land need hunters to thin herds.
But Charles said in his view, the worst consequence of landowners cutting off access is the fractured relationship with people who are often allies on numerous issues. Landowners and hunters share a love of wildlife, a conservation ethic and an understanding of the need to manage game animals so they don't damage crops.
Charles said while a landowner might be frustrated with a public agency, using hunters as a tool might not be the best solution to their problems.
"I understand and empathize with the feeling of helplessness of their lives being affected by something that may be beyond their control — they feel that the last avenue they have is the gate," he said. "It's just a question as to whether or not in the long run it gets the best result."
USEFUL TOOL Peters agrees that landowners and sportsmen share similar goals. But he said that's exactly why they need each other to make their views heard.
"There are small details and intricacies of public land management that the public is not aware of that make a huge difference to the guy on the land," he said. "Sometimes this is a good way to make people aware of these and say ‘It's going to affect me and in turn it's going to affect you.' "The people who are most affected are a good ally because we have parallel goals." In his case, Peters said he was potentially going to lose grazing access to a piece of land along Selway Creek that he sold to the Forest Service a few years ago. The 1,400 acres have been flood irrigated for decades and Peters said that's why it's excellent wildlife habitat where elk have their calves.
But this spring, an FWP fisheries biologist in a report recommended irrigation cease there, citing the presence of a rare native species of mussels that would benefit if more water were in the stream.
Peters said that would have hurt not only him because he'd lose an important grazing allotment, but also hurt wildlife and ultimately hunters.
"They were recommending something that would have been destructive to wildlife," Peters said. "(Elk) are there calving because there's a lot of nutrition in six-inch high grass that's been irrigated for 100 years." He said if he lost the grazing lease it would jeopardize his entire ranching operation. And that in turn could almost assuredly mean an end to hunting on the Dragging Y.
"I can guarantee you the next guy isn't going to allow hunting," he said. "Name me one ranch that's sold in Montana over the past 10 years that allows more hunting than it did before; it just doesn't happen."
BALANCING ACT FOR FWP Peters' withdrawal from block management prompted a meeting with Pat Flowers, FWP Region 3 supervisor. Flowers said after reviewing FWP's report, he stands behind it. And Flowers said he reminded Peters that under a contract for an FWP conservation easement on part of his ranch he's required to allow some public access.
But FWP agreed that there was more for the Forest Service to consider than strictly the effect on the fishery.
"What changed was there are more considerations about how you manage that property other than how it affects the fishery," he said. "When the Forest Service does their analysis, they're going to consider all of those tradeoffs; they're a multiple use agency." Flowers said in both the Peters and Hirschy cases, FWP heard from some hunters miffed about the closures who spoke in favor of the ranchers' positions. But he added in the case of Hirschy, he was asking FWP to break state law and require indiscriminate killing of an animal with an established hunting season about to start.
Flowers said when a landowner uses hunting access for his cause, FWP isn't going to change its positions if it is harmful to fish and wildlife.
"Hunting access is vitally important to us and we do everything we can to provide good opportunities throughout the state," he said. "But we're not going to compromise our fundamental responsibility of conserving fish and wildlife to get that access.
"If we don't have strong fish and wildlife populations, all the hunting access in the world isn't going to satisfy hunters if there's no game to hunt."
SPORTSMEN CONFLICTED Hunters may go to bat for landowners in some cases, but can feel alienated when access is lost, said Tony Schoonen, a Ramsay hunter and member of the Public Land/Water Access Association. He said for years his group has supported ranching, including on public lands.
But he said as a trade off, many landowners have long allowed public hunting.
It's an arrangement that's worked well for both sides and when access gets threatened, it's a tough pill for hunters to swallow.
"It just creates some pretty hard feelings," Schoonen said about hunting closures. "It's pretty fragile agreement because there are so many tough issues out there."
Reporter Nick Gevock may be reached at nick.gevock@mtstandard.com.
http://www.mtstandard.com/articles/2009/11/01/area/hjjaijgihgeheg.prt
Landowners increasingly shut down popular spots
By Nick Gevock - 11/01/2009
Alan Charles had a hunter nearly in tears in his office last week who had tried for years to draw a moose tag in the Big Hole Valley.
The hunter, from Helena, had drawn the tag, said Charles, landowner-sportsmen relations coordinator for the Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks. Yet days before he planned the trip of a lifetime, the man learned that the Hirschy Ranch in the west valley — a prime spot for moose where he was planning to go — was shut down to a popular hunting access program.
Fred Hirschy, the ranch owner and longtime participant in the state's block management program, had three days before the opening to rifle season for deer and elk withdrawn his property from the program, which pays landowners to allow public hunting. Hirschy said after years of enduring wolf attacks on his cattle he was fed up with the lackluster response from FWP officials.
In a move to get hunters to go to bat for him, Hirschy said he would withdraw from block management and asked hunters to call FWP officials if they too shared his disgust with the agency's wolf management policies.
Charles said he heard from plenty of other hunters, too.
"I fielded quite a few calls from people asking ‘What do I do, where do I go, how do I deal with this?'" he said. "Some of those people were saying ‘Wait a minute, this doesn't seem right.'" But for Hirschy, who still allowed some hunters on with permission, the response was different. He said he too heard from plenty of hunters, yet they weren't upset with him.
"I haven't talked to any that didn't support us," he said. "I had a guy call me from Billings — I have no idea who he is — and he said ‘You know what, we were coming hunting but we can go someplace else; we support you and we don't even want to ask.'" Landowners say blocking hunter access to their property is one of the few tools they have to get government agencies to understand their concerns.
But state wildlife officials say using access to wildlife can damage a relationship between two entities that is vital for all parties.
CASES ABOUND It's a growing trend, Charles said. In recent years he's seen numerous examples statewide in which landowners cut off hunter access, or threatened to, to push their point of view. In some cases landowners have required hunters to sign petitions in support of a cause, or asked landowners to call a public agency in an effort to affect policy.
In northeastern Montana, a group of large landowners disagreed with FWP on the length of the hunting season for buck deer, Charles said. The landowners posted signs stating their disgust with FWP after its commission refused to shorten the season to three weeks. The landowners, some of whom were enrolled in block management, ended their contracts with the state.
In another instance, landowners near Great Falls were upset with changes to federal policy on lands enrolled in the conservation reserve program, which pays landowners to keep land in native grasses. The National Wildlife Federation, a nationwide conservation group, had supported the changes and the landowners out of protest posted signs stating members of the affiliated Montana Wildlife Federation weren't welcome on their block management lands.
Charles said because the landowners were enrolled in block management, he explained that they couldn't pick and chose which sportsmen were allowed on the property.
In that instance the lockout was misguided, Charles said.
"Ironically the Montana Wildlife Federation had not supported the change," he said of the CRP rules.
And in northwest Montana, a logging company several years ago was requiring hunters to sign a petition in support of a timber sale, Charles said.
NUMEROUS REASONS The issues prompting landowners to shut off their land ranges from wolves, grazing and group affiliation to more philosophical disagreements.
A ranch owner who was enrolled in block management pulled out of the program because he disagreed with FWP buying a ranch near Billings to be managed as a state park and wildlife management area. Charles said the rancher had good relations with FWP, but he was strongly opposed to a government agency buying private property.
This season has seen a couple cases, including the Hirschy Ranch and another in southwest Montana.
In September, Roger Peters, owner of the Dragging Y ranch west of Grant, took out newspaper ads stating he was withdrawing from block management. Peters cited a disagreement with FWP over its recommendation to the U.S. Forest Service that it quit flood irrigation along Selway Creek. He said that would jeopardize his grazing leases that are crucial to his ranching operation.
Peters, of the Dragging Y ranch, urged hunters to contact FWP officials to lobby in an effort to keep Selway Creek open to grazing. He said his actions weren't meant to punish hunters, but rather to get officials' attention when they were ignoring his concerns. Peters eventually took out ads saying although they were out of block management, hunting would still be allowed.
"We have literally hundreds of hunters that come here every year and FWP listens to them," he said. "I felt it was an emergency situation that called for strong measure."
STRAINED RELATIONS Charles, whose job entails fostering good relations between landowners and sportsmen, said while landowners have the right to control who hunts their land, in the long run using access to wildlife can sour relations between two parties with similar goals.
"When people use hunter access to make a political statement or to gain leverage on a particular issue, sometimes the implications or consequences go far beyond the target that the landowner might have intended," he said.
For example, if a group of hunters has a trip planned and learns it won't have access to a particular ranch days ahead of time, it's left scrambling. The group could quickly make plans in the same area and keep its accommodations, or decide on an entirely different part of the state.
That could hurt hotel owners, restaurants and other businesses that count on hunting season business.
"Hunting is a huge part of Montana's economy," Charles said. "It's important to these small towns." And at the same time, the loss of hunting opportunities can have an effect on neighboring landowners. Charles said when a property gets shut down, hunters determined to take to the field either head to public land or look for other options on private ground.
"They start pounding on the neighbors' doors," he said. "That can result in increased pressure on the neighbors from hunters." A loss of hunting access also poses problems for wildlife management. With abundant populations of deer, elk and antelope, biologists are under pressure to keep wildlife numbers under control. Landowners trying to make a living off the land need hunters to thin herds.
But Charles said in his view, the worst consequence of landowners cutting off access is the fractured relationship with people who are often allies on numerous issues. Landowners and hunters share a love of wildlife, a conservation ethic and an understanding of the need to manage game animals so they don't damage crops.
Charles said while a landowner might be frustrated with a public agency, using hunters as a tool might not be the best solution to their problems.
"I understand and empathize with the feeling of helplessness of their lives being affected by something that may be beyond their control — they feel that the last avenue they have is the gate," he said. "It's just a question as to whether or not in the long run it gets the best result."
USEFUL TOOL Peters agrees that landowners and sportsmen share similar goals. But he said that's exactly why they need each other to make their views heard.
"There are small details and intricacies of public land management that the public is not aware of that make a huge difference to the guy on the land," he said. "Sometimes this is a good way to make people aware of these and say ‘It's going to affect me and in turn it's going to affect you.' "The people who are most affected are a good ally because we have parallel goals." In his case, Peters said he was potentially going to lose grazing access to a piece of land along Selway Creek that he sold to the Forest Service a few years ago. The 1,400 acres have been flood irrigated for decades and Peters said that's why it's excellent wildlife habitat where elk have their calves.
But this spring, an FWP fisheries biologist in a report recommended irrigation cease there, citing the presence of a rare native species of mussels that would benefit if more water were in the stream.
Peters said that would have hurt not only him because he'd lose an important grazing allotment, but also hurt wildlife and ultimately hunters.
"They were recommending something that would have been destructive to wildlife," Peters said. "(Elk) are there calving because there's a lot of nutrition in six-inch high grass that's been irrigated for 100 years." He said if he lost the grazing lease it would jeopardize his entire ranching operation. And that in turn could almost assuredly mean an end to hunting on the Dragging Y.
"I can guarantee you the next guy isn't going to allow hunting," he said. "Name me one ranch that's sold in Montana over the past 10 years that allows more hunting than it did before; it just doesn't happen."
BALANCING ACT FOR FWP Peters' withdrawal from block management prompted a meeting with Pat Flowers, FWP Region 3 supervisor. Flowers said after reviewing FWP's report, he stands behind it. And Flowers said he reminded Peters that under a contract for an FWP conservation easement on part of his ranch he's required to allow some public access.
But FWP agreed that there was more for the Forest Service to consider than strictly the effect on the fishery.
"What changed was there are more considerations about how you manage that property other than how it affects the fishery," he said. "When the Forest Service does their analysis, they're going to consider all of those tradeoffs; they're a multiple use agency." Flowers said in both the Peters and Hirschy cases, FWP heard from some hunters miffed about the closures who spoke in favor of the ranchers' positions. But he added in the case of Hirschy, he was asking FWP to break state law and require indiscriminate killing of an animal with an established hunting season about to start.
Flowers said when a landowner uses hunting access for his cause, FWP isn't going to change its positions if it is harmful to fish and wildlife.
"Hunting access is vitally important to us and we do everything we can to provide good opportunities throughout the state," he said. "But we're not going to compromise our fundamental responsibility of conserving fish and wildlife to get that access.
"If we don't have strong fish and wildlife populations, all the hunting access in the world isn't going to satisfy hunters if there's no game to hunt."
SPORTSMEN CONFLICTED Hunters may go to bat for landowners in some cases, but can feel alienated when access is lost, said Tony Schoonen, a Ramsay hunter and member of the Public Land/Water Access Association. He said for years his group has supported ranching, including on public lands.
But he said as a trade off, many landowners have long allowed public hunting.
It's an arrangement that's worked well for both sides and when access gets threatened, it's a tough pill for hunters to swallow.
"It just creates some pretty hard feelings," Schoonen said about hunting closures. "It's pretty fragile agreement because there are so many tough issues out there."
Reporter Nick Gevock may be reached at nick.gevock@mtstandard.com.
