Fresh Tracks TV Series Supports The Loss Of Big Game Hunting Opportunities

[bearpaw]

Just because someone works for an agency does not mean they are a friend of hunters and fishers, in increasing frequency it may mean the exact opposite. 

Just because an association is involved in hunting does not mean it's your friend either.  Utah Division of Wildlife, Sportmen for Wildlife, Don Peay, there is some corruption in this circle also.  Don Peay has openly voiced his opinion against the North American model of wildlife.  If that's his take, he may as well be associated with PETA as far as I'm concerned.

http://www.adn.com/2012/03/03/2350508/private-hunting-rights-weighed.html#

Note the opposition to Rossi's plan by BCHA?  Toby Bridges is also a SFW affiliate.

As a licensed outfitter in Utah I hunt in Utah every year and know the state and the politics quite well. Utah has arguably the best point system in the country. Half the tags are random draw and half the tags go to applicants with the most points. Unlike Washington, in Utah you will eventually draw one way or the other for most hunts. Utah also has one of the most successful landowner programs in the nation. In their program at least 10% of all land owner tags are given to the residents through a draw. This program has opened up many thousands of acres of private lands to public tag holders, lands that otherwise would not be available to the public.

I will admit that Don Peay has a thirst for auction tags, but so do many other large sportsman's groups, Peay has just been more successful than most groups at getting those tags. However, please cite where Don Peay has denounced the North American wildlife model. 

Big Game Forever and SFW has taken a lead role in denouncing the ridiculous wolf management that has been forced upon the western states, perhaps that is why you do not like those groups or Don Peay? 

Thus far Utah has fewer wolves and has had no losses of their elk herds to wolves, I would say Utah has done pretty well under their UDWR and sports groups like SFW and Big Game Forever. 

I remember the WDFW stacking the wolf working group with pro-wolfers and using propaganda promoted by the wolf groups in promoting their wolf plan. Then WDFW used a bunch of pro-wolfers to peer review the plan. Some of the propaganda was removed or reorganized out of public sight after hunters complained. But the bottom line is that the wolf groups have been in the driver's seat on these state wolf plans and in destroying big game hunting opportunities throughout the west. Now to top off everything WDFW has done in developing an undesirable wolf plan to please I-5 corridor residents, now they hold meetings in western Washington to determine how to deal with our wolf problems in eastern Washington. How's that for corruption?

++However, please cite where Don Peay has denounced the North American wildlife model.  ++

From the article:

"Rossi's move to give landowners special rights to the wildlife on their property coincides with the ideology of Don Peay, a Utah guide and founder of Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife.

Peay, who stressed that the Utah chapter isn't trying to push its view in Alaska or even with the Alaska chapter, said it's time to revisit the widely accepted principle in the United States and Canada that game is a public resource. Peay described that egalitarian doctrine, found in Alaska's state constitution and laws throughout the West, as "socialism." It offers no economic incentive for landowners to kill predators, improve big game habitat and even provide food and water for target species.

"We understand the North American model where wildlife belongs to the people, but we're also seeing dramatic reductions in game populations in the western United States under that model," he said. Population pressure, habitat loss from development and the rise of environmental organizations opposed to predator control have put pressure on game herds that weren't envisioned when the laws were written a century or more ago, he said.

"When wildlife is a very highly valued asset, people want more of it and they'll invest additional funds to make sure it's abundant," Peay said.

The same is true of professional guides and outfitters, he added. "They tend to be more involved to make sure there's abundant game herds than a lot of guys who just buy their license the day before the hunt starts and then, when game disappears, the masses tend to complain -- but what did they do to allow that situation to happen and why weren't they more involved to fix it?"

Read more here: http://www.adn.com/2012/03/03/2350508/private-hunting-rights-weighed.html#storylink=cpy


He hasn't explicitly denounced the NAWM with that statement, but he's taking a sharp turn in that direction. To men with his views, using the word "socialism" in any form is meant as derogatory.

I'm not a member of SFW and not a huge supporter of Peay but your comment that Peay denounced the North American wildlife model seemed way off base to me and your attempt to show proof that he denounced the North American wildlife model has failed. Peay makes no denouncing statement in that language as you claim and there is nothing written there that seems untrue to me, Peay's comments seem spot on about the direction of predator management and the impacts on our herds.

Please try again to show your proof that he has denounced the North American wildlife management model.

[bearpaw]

ABCHA won't benefit, of course they are against the plan. Backcountry hunters is pro-wolf and SFW is pro-wolf management. I submit this is likely the primary reason BCHA is opposed to SFW and Rossi.

Rossi is opposed because he's a crook. He had to step down because of illegal hunting activities.

Here you go.

http://www.alaskadispatch.com/article/spectacular-rise-alaska-wildlife-manager-corey-rossi

Thanks for the link, if you break the laws as Rossi did, he should answer for it. No arguments from me on that. 

[bearpaw]

My take on how Randy Newberg got involved/drug down/run through the mud on this is he supports roadless areas. Roadless areas are not an outfitter's best friend. Not a rancher's best friend. Outfitters and ranchers and whoever else got pissed off at Randy for promoting roadless areas and are now throwing around this crap in order to run down his name. Read the thread that JLS posted from the OYOA Hunttalk forum where he explains all this. I can't figure out why hunters and outdoorspeople in general would be against support for roadless areas. I guess maybe because they're tougher to access? I don't have a problem with that. When I can't go deep into roadless areas because I'm an old geezer, I won't. But until I get to that point, I will keep at it and keep supporting roadless areas.

Sorry but you are wrong on your assumption about outfitters and roadless areas. Many outfitters are kept in business by operating in and providing access and services in roadless areas. As an outfitter I could financially benefit by supporting more roadless areas in NE Washington and in any other state I operate in. As a compassionate sportsman who understands that not all people are fit enough to carry a backpack miles into a roadless area or cannot afford to hire an outfitter to access roadless areas, I have put my compassion that all citizens should be able to use remaining multiple use lands ahead of my own personal gain and that's why I am opposed to creating more wilderness or expanding roadless areas. We have enough roadless areas. If you want more game, we need more predator management combined with more logging. History has shown that is how you improve habitat, provide employment, and keep access open to the average person. 

[bearpaw]

Northway, in one of your posts you made a comment about habitat improvement. Roadless areas and the reduction in logging actually are a huge detriment to habitat improvement. What our national forests need is more logging to improve habitat, logging works in the same way as fire, except that employment is provided for humans, that's actually a good benefit in my book. I agree with closing new roads made for logging jobs, but I do not agree with making more huge tracts of roadless/wilderness land that is inaccessible to the average person.

[huntnnw]

Northway, in one of your posts you made a comment about habitat improvement. Roadless areas and the reduction in logging actually are a huge detriment to habitat improvement. What our national forests need is more logging to improve habitat, logging works in the same way as fire, except that employment is provided for humans, that's actually a good benefit in my book. I agree with closing new roads made for logging jobs, but I do not agree with making more huge tracts of roadless/wilderness land that is inaccessible to the average person.

[JLS]

Roadless areas and the reduction in logging actually are a huge detriment to habitat improvement.

Maybe a huge detriment if you only view logging as the method for improving habitat.  I can show you plenty of places that are roadless, have not been logged, and provide very good wildlife habitat. 

Before you go jumping to the conclusion that I am anti-logging as well as pro-wolf, I'm not.  There is a balance, but the assertion that roadless and unlogged areas do not or cannot provide premium habitat is untrue.

I do freely admit that I find great value in roadless areas where one can distance themselves from any motorized traffic.

[NumaJohn]

Hello, all.

I also offer my thanks to Mr. Newberg for his thorough response. His post suggests that Toby Bridges' words may not be worthy of our time and attention. But perhaps Mr. Bridges could clear things up by offering a thoughtful rebuttal on H-W Forum?

On a related note, I support Backcountry Hunters & Anglers because, well, I am a backcountry hunter. That organization is not perfect, of course, but I share Mr. Newberg's appreciation that BHA advocates for habitat conservation, sound wildlife management, and fair chase hunting. Last weekend, two BHA buddies and I mountain biked behind a locked gate and, several miles in, came upon a beautiful 6-point bull elk with several cows. I do consider that the locked gate will keep my 81-year-old dad out, will prevent a wheelchair-bound veteran from ever seeing those elk and that country, will keep my young kids out, and will someday in the not--too-distant future keep me out, as well. But as long as the elk have some remote country in which to roam in relative peace, I can accept that imperfect reality. I find it satisfying and appropriate--not just consoling--that wild critters have places besides just National Parks, wildlife sanctuaries, and wilderness areas where they can live away from most of the chaos of our modern way of living. That is a BIG part of the North American approach/model/tradition concerning hunting and wildlife conservation, at least as I understand it. Also, given that many on this site say "We hunters have to work together, not work against each other," I want to emphasize that I would gladly sign well-crafted petitions for re-introducing hound hunting and for allowing ATVs on National Forest roads in Washington where cars and trucks are currently permitted. I would be even enthusiastic about doing so IF there was reciprocity, if others who don't share all of my values about hunting would publicly acknowledge that we are all in this together by joining people like me in advocating on behalf of remote country (and, in some cases, voice their support for restricting certain kinds of access to that country). If it's true we are all in this together, then I hope you won't simply dismiss BHA members, Randy Newberg, and nobodies like me as elitist blowhards who are trying to destroy everyone else's hunting heritage or are naively serving as puppets to allow that to occur. Nothing could be further from the truth. If you do tilt to dismiss, then I would humbly suggest that hunting as we know it is that much more in trouble.

Thanks for your consideration, and yes I am going to try to kill that bull if my muzzy friends don't find him first!

John

[bearpaw]

Randy Newberg
First of all, welcome to the forum and thanks for keeping a civil tongue in your response, I respect that. 

FYI - I post a lot of Toby's writings on the forum and will continue to do so.

In most cases compromise comes somewhere in the middle on any issue,  I see Toby and a few others in much the same way as I see Ted Nugent. We need some guys who are more extreme to counter the extremists on the other side of the issue, the common ground found in the middle may be a little more acceptable to the rest of us.

I've been pretty busy myself with hunters and business so I admit I didn't read this last release from Toby very closely. However, as you probably know there has been a slurry of emails back and forth between numerous individuals over that story, I haven't even had time to read them all to form an opinion on everything that's been said.

I did read through your whole post. You have been outspoken against outfitters so understandably the industry is going to be opposed to you. Just look at your frantic response when Toby took your hunting business (show) to task. I don't know you and have never seen your show, we might get along pretty good if we were to meet, I don't know, but I do think your position opposing outfitters is a bit hypocritical when you yourself are making a business out of your hunting. Furthermore, I see your stance on increasing wilderness as a detriment to the average sportsman. Your comments seem to indicate that you like the fact that wilderness limits other hunters from participating. Even though I could profit by expanded wilderness areas I cannot agree with limiting access for the average person and physically limited hunters and setting up more huge tracts of land to benefit only the fittest hunters. That just doesn't seem right to me. On the other hand, some good logging practices will improve habitat and increase elk herds far more than limiting access to the average hunter.

I don't know Toby either but I think he has a sincere interest in saving our game herds. You launched a pretty strong counter attack and I have no idea how many of your statements are factual and I really don't want to be in the middle of this spat between you and Toby, but one thing I would point out is that Rehberg was running against Baucus who was very popular, as we all know it's hard to unseat a popular incumbent, honestly that seems more the reason Rehberg lost. I think your insinuation that Toby Bridges was the reason Rehberg lost is a bit of a stretch. That would be like saying Jay Inslee was elected as governor of WA because I supported McKenna, that would be a stretch.

I would like to see a copy of your show that seems to have excited people, please let me know if there is a way I can see that show online.

Thanks In Advance,
Dale Denney

FYI - I am not opposed to roadless areas, I think we currently have a good balance of roadless and multiple use lands, but I am opposed to the never ending thirst by environmentalists to lock up more land and more land everywhere but where they live. Sort of like the wolf fiasco, it's fine if wolves over populate Montana, Idaho, and eastern WA, but the wolf lovers don't want wolves where they live and that was proven by Representative Joel Kretz.. 

[huntnnw]

Roadless areas and the reduction in logging actually are a huge detriment to habitat improvement.

Maybe a huge detriment if you only view logging as the method for improving habitat.  I can show you plenty of places that are roadless, have not been logged, and provide very good wildlife habitat. 

Before you go jumping to the conclusion that I am anti-logging as well as pro-wolf, I'm not.  There is a balance, but the assertion that roadless and unlogged areas do not or cannot provide premium habitat is untrue.

I do freely admit that I find great value in roadless areas where one can distance themselves from any motorized traffic.

Here in NE WA and N ID logging has a direct effect on animals and population. Areas that are not logged here are void of animals! or very few. Other parts of the country this may not be the case, they have meadows, open timber and etc that this region doesnt have

[bearpaw]

Another interesting area is the book cliffs in Utah. It's full of roads and all kinds of oil and gas exploration, but also has excellent elk and deer hunting, sort of shows how false the theory is that elk and deer can't do well around roads and human activity.

[mkcj]

My take on more road-less/wilderness area's is this, We have 10's of millions of acres around this country if you choose to walk into and hunt and I'm pretty sure those that do it in this state have never came close to using all of it let alone needing more. Hunting to me has always been and always will be a family affair, I could not imagine giving the time I had with my dad or with my boy's when I get older because I will not be able to walk the 10 miles or whatever distance you would need to walk. Bearpaw is correct, In  the fact that his business would grow with more wilderness, are lands are crowded enough now take away part of that so a very small part of the hunting population will have more land doesn't make sense. The area I know is around Winthrop and there is so much land at the end of the dirt roads to start walking and it won't take long before you could hunt the whole season and never see another hunter. Now if the purpose is so someone could have closed/vehicle less area's so they have those nice roads to walk on well...There is a lot of road-less area already so go for it.

[Bigshooter]

Randy Newberg
First of all, welcome to the forum and thanks for keeping a civil tongue in your response, I respect that. 

FYI - I post a lot of Toby's writings on the forum and will continue to do so.

In most cases compromise comes somewhere in the middle on any issue,  I see Toby and a few others in much the same way as I see Ted Nugent. We need some guys who are more extreme to counter the extremists on the other side of the issue, the common ground found in the middle may be a little more acceptable to the rest of us.

I've been pretty busy myself with hunters and business so I admit I didn't read this last release from Toby very closely. However, as you probably know there has been a slurry of emails back and forth between numerous individuals over that story, I haven't even had time to read them all to form an opinion on everything that's been said.

I did read through your whole post. You have been outspoken against outfitters so understandably the industry is going to be opposed to you. Just look at your frantic response when Toby took your hunting business (show) to task. I don't know you and have never seen your show, we might get along pretty good if we were to meet, I don't know, but I do think your position opposing outfitters is a bit hypocritical when you yourself are making a business out of your hunting. Furthermore, I see your stance on increasing wilderness as a detriment to the average sportsman. Your comments seem to indicate that you like the fact that wilderness limits other hunters from participating. Even though I could profit by expanded wilderness areas I cannot agree with limiting access for the average person and physically limited hunters and setting up more huge tracts of land to benefit only the fittest hunters. That just doesn't seem right to me. On the other hand, some good logging practices will improve habitat and increase elk herds far more than limiting access to the average hunter.

I don't know Toby either but I think he has a sincere interest in saving our game herds. You launched a pretty strong counter attack and I have no idea how many of your statements are factual and I really don't want to be in the middle of this spat between you and Toby, but one thing I would point out is that Rehberg was running against Baucus who was very popular, as we all know it's hard to unseat a popular incumbent, honestly that seems more the reason Rehberg lost. I think your insinuation that Toby Bridges was the reason Rehberg lost is a bit of a stretch. That would be like saying Jay Inslee was elected as governor of WA because I supported McKenna, that would be a stretch.I would like to see a copy of your show that seems to have excited people, please let me know if there is a way I can see that show online.

Thanks In Advance,
Dale Denney

FYI - I am not opposed to roadless areas, I think we currently have a good balance of roadless and multiple use lands, but I am opposed to the never ending thirst by environmentalists to lock up more land and more land everywhere but where they live. Sort of like the wolf fiasco, it's fine if wolves over populate Montana, Idaho, and eastern WA, but the wolf lovers don't want wolves where they live and that was proven by Representative Joel Kretz.. 

Randy said that Rehberg didn't lose because of one guy.  He said he lost because of his poor record of supporting hunting, fishing and public lands.

[bearpaw]

Randy Newberg
First of all, welcome to the forum and thanks for keeping a civil tongue in your response, I respect that. 

FYI - I post a lot of Toby's writings on the forum and will continue to do so.

In most cases compromise comes somewhere in the middle on any issue,  I see Toby and a few others in much the same way as I see Ted Nugent. We need some guys who are more extreme to counter the extremists on the other side of the issue, the common ground found in the middle may be a little more acceptable to the rest of us.

I've been pretty busy myself with hunters and business so I admit I didn't read this last release from Toby very closely. However, as you probably know there has been a slurry of emails back and forth between numerous individuals over that story, I haven't even had time to read them all to form an opinion on everything that's been said.

I did read through your whole post. You have been outspoken against outfitters so understandably the industry is going to be opposed to you. Just look at your frantic response when Toby took your hunting business (show) to task. I don't know you and have never seen your show, we might get along pretty good if we were to meet, I don't know, but I do think your position opposing outfitters is a bit hypocritical when you yourself are making a business out of your hunting. Furthermore, I see your stance on increasing wilderness as a detriment to the average sportsman. Your comments seem to indicate that you like the fact that wilderness limits other hunters from participating. Even though I could profit by expanded wilderness areas I cannot agree with limiting access for the average person and physically limited hunters and setting up more huge tracts of land to benefit only the fittest hunters. That just doesn't seem right to me. On the other hand, some good logging practices will improve habitat and increase elk herds far more than limiting access to the average hunter.

I don't know Toby either but I think he has a sincere interest in saving our game herds. You launched a pretty strong counter attack and I have no idea how many of your statements are factual and I really don't want to be in the middle of this spat between you and Toby, but one thing I would point out is that Rehberg was running against Baucus who was very popular, as we all know it's hard to unseat a popular incumbent, honestly that seems more the reason Rehberg lost. I think your insinuation that Toby Bridges was the reason Rehberg lost is a bit of a stretch. That would be like saying Jay Inslee was elected as governor of WA because I supported McKenna, that would be a stretch.I would like to see a copy of your show that seems to have excited people, please let me know if there is a way I can see that show online.

Thanks In Advance,
Dale Denney

FYI - I am not opposed to roadless areas, I think we currently have a good balance of roadless and multiple use lands, but I am opposed to the never ending thirst by environmentalists to lock up more land and more land everywhere but where they live. Sort of like the wolf fiasco, it's fine if wolves over populate Montana, Idaho, and eastern WA, but the wolf lovers don't want wolves where they live and that was proven by Representative Joel Kretz.. 

Randy said that Rehberg didn't lose because of one guy.  He said he lost because of his poor record of supporting hunting, fishing and public lands.

Maybe I should have went back and read it again, I thought he was laying blame on Toby and a few others for Rehberg losing, sorry if I misread. He also made some strong comments about Rehberg, I didn't follow that race close enough to comment too much, but when I was in Eastern Montana it seemed the east supported Rehberg and it seemed the more populated western MT supported Baucus. Not positive of the election results, but that's the way it seemed.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/senate/mt/montana_senate_rehberg_vs_tester-1826.html

Race Analysis

While Big Sky Country has been Republican at the presidential level for quite some time, at the state and local levels it has a strong Democratic streak extending back to the Progressive era.  The western mountains are heavily unionized (Montana is one of the Mountain West states without a right-to-work law), and Democrats with a populist streak, like Gov. Brian Schweitzer, are popular in the state.

In 2006, Jon Tester defeated Sen. Conrad Burns.  Burns is the only Republican who had ever been elected to successive terms in Montana history, despite his penchant for cringe-inducing gaffes (such as telling a group of firefighters, returning home from the field, that they had done a "piss-poor job").  Tester was a rancher and state senator who became a darling of the left-leaning Netroots in 2006, and ran a populist campaign against Burns.  Despite the pro-Democratic tone of that cycle, Tester won only narrowly.

In the Senate, Tester has had a voting record toward the right edge of the Democratic caucus.  That might not be enough in 2012, however.  He's facing Republican Rep. Dennis Rehberg, who already represents the entire state in Congress.  Most polling has shown a tight race, perhaps with a slight edge for Rehberg.

[Randy Newberg]

Randy Newberg
First of all, welcome to the forum and thanks for keeping a civil tongue in your response, I respect that. 

Thank you for allowing me to post.

I did read through your whole post. You have been outspoken against outfitters so understandably the industry is going to be opposed to you.

Do you have any citation of where I have been outspoken against outfitters/outfitting?  If so, please post it here for any and all to read.

As a Montana outfitter, you know well the ballot initiative of 2010, called I-161, the initiative that removed the Outfitter Sponsored Licenses where non-residents were guaranteed a license if they used the services of an outfitter.

You may have been falsely told by Mac Minard, the Executive Director of MOGA, that I supported I-161.  He told many outfitters that, in an effort to get them to oppose my nomination to the RMEF board of directors.  Here is the irony of that.

I opposed I-161, not just in the ballot box, but with my platforms - my large DIY hunting website and my editorials and my speaking.  I took a ton of heat from the self-guided hunters who are my audience for my position of opposing that legislation.  A ton of heat and it was not a pleasant time to oppose some of your close friends on a topic they were very passionate about.

MOGA loved me at that time.  Think about it.  The guy with the biggest platform in the self-guided hunting sphere, living in the state where the initiative is being debated, comes out on the same side as the outfitters and tries to kill that initiative.  He does so in a very public way, taking a ton of criticism along the way.

Now, for whatever reason, Mr. Minard decides he doesn't like me.  He enlists the WYOGA (succesfully) and the IDOGA (unsuccessfully) in an effort to accomplish his personal agenda.  He tells those outfitters in other states, and may have told you the same, that I was one of the ring leaders of I-161, when he knows damn well that is a lie.  So, if Mr. Minard, or any of your fellow MT outfitters told you I was in favor of I-161, the biggest outfitter change in MT politics, you might want to inform of their bad information.

Today, with three years of hindsight, those of us opposing I-161 have been proven correct in our assertion that it was a bad idea.

In my TV show, I refer more people to outfitters than many booking agencies.  Most people watch our hunts and email me with something to the affect, "Randy, that was a great elk hunt, but I live in Maryland and I know nothing about elk hunting.  I would really like to do that.  Can you recommend a good outfitter to show me the ropes?"

I always send them to guys I know.  I don't ask for or want a referral fee, as booking agents ask for.  I want these people to know they are going to a good operation and that I referred them because I know and trust that outfitter, not because I got some commission.

This happens almost weekly.  I have a handful of guys I know in each western states and when someone asks about that state, they get sent to those I know and trust.

Sorry to sound confrontational in just the second post, but for you to assert that I am anti-outfitter or outspoken against outfitters, is ridiculous and follows the same line of axe grinding that Mac Minard embarks in.

If you doubt what I have stated here, ask Eric Albus.  Ask Rod Pascke.  Ask Brett Todd.  I can give you a list of others, if you want.  They are all on the board and in leadership positions of MOGA.  They know me.  If you are a member of MOGA, you have all of their contact information.

I don't expect to always agree with outfitters and they don't expect to always agree with me.  We can work together when it is useful and understand that there will be times that we will disagree.

If you are a member of MOGA, it might be helpful for you understand that your executive director, Mac Minard, has lost any working relationship with the hunting and fishing groups in Montana.  I have stated this publicly and will state it here.  I refuse to work with a person of his character and integrity.  Since many of us are very involved in hunting politics in Montana, having an ED that is completely written off by hunters in this state makes MOGA's work much harder in the legislature.

Assertions such as you just made, without any proof or evidence, seem a rather strange way to start a discussion.  For what it is worth, I have been on outfitted hunts, before starting the TV show.  I had a great time.  I have sent a lot of people to those people I hunted with.

Just look at your frantic response when Toby took your hunting business (show) to task.

You might view that as frantic.  It is factual.  In person with Toby Bridges, there is a good chance the response probably would be frantic.

It is a response to a continued pattern of a fringe operator standing in the cheap seats, lobbing volleys at the folks in the trenches.  I have no use for those who do nothing, other than sit behind a keyboard and criticize groups such as Federal Ammo, Sportsman Channel, and many other organizations Mr. Bridges had put in his crosshairs over the years.

Some may agree with him.  Fine.  A free country and their right to form what opinions they want, from whatever information they get.  I don't agree with him, or any of his cadre of like-minded operators.

I have been involved in wolf politics in Montana since beginning.  I have seen a lot of good people work very hard to gain state management control of wolves.  They took a lot of heat against some very tough odds, yet they prevailed in getting state control.  None of that was made any easier by the fringe operators who accomplished nothing, only to criticize those doing the heavy lifting.

I don't know you and have never seen your show, we might get along pretty good if we were to meet, I don't know, but I do think your position opposing outfitters is a bit hypocritical when you yourself are making a business out of your hunting.

We probably would get along pretty good if we were to meet.  I get along with most hunters and most outfitters.  I suspect if you took the time to talk to a few outfitters who know me, you would retract your comment about "your position opposing outfitters."

If I end up on the opposite side of outfitters on an issue, it is not for the sake of opposing them.  It would be because we disagree on an issue or a solution.  I don't view them being on an opposite side at times as a default position to oppose me.  It is because they are operating a business and they will have a different perspective on the topic than I will.

As to me "making a business out of your hunting," yes, it is a business.  But, not one that pays any bills.  As my wife says, "It is the best job he ever bought."  If not for my real life as a CPA, my ability to provide the platform of my TV show and website would not exist.

I see no hypocrisy in my positions that I take.  I do them because they are what I think is in the best interest of hunting and conservation.

Furthermore, I see your stance on increasing wilderness as a detriment to the average sportsman. Your comments seem to indicate that you like the fact that wilderness limits other hunters from participating.

We can disagree on the opinion of whether wilderness is good or bad for the average sportsman.  I am not an advocate of wilderness in every place.  There are a lot of places where wilderness would be a bad idea.  There are parts about wilderness designations that are bad for invasive weed management, and some other problems impacting the summer ranges found in wilderness areas.

The irony of Toby criticizing the Rocky Mountain Front Heritage Act is that the Act establishes a new classification of land status.  It is called "Conservation Management Areas."  It takes existing uses, locks them in, and makes wildlife conservation the priority for those areas.  That is a common sense compromise that hopefully negates the problems that can come with designated wilderness and benefit wildlife and hunting.  It is a new approach; a new land classification.  Never been used before.

Some wanted it to all be wilderness, but that would not be good.  There are local people using those lands and their existing uses need to be protected.  If it did not protect those uses, I would not be for this Act.  You might want to ask your MT outfitter buddies in that area why they support the Act.  Many of them were on the local planning groups who came up with the idea.

And in classic style, rather than get involved in this effort and be part of the solution, the fringe sits on their butts, then when people try to craft workable solutions and try something different, those fringe elements go off half-cocked, uninformed about the proposed solution, and take shots in a manner that fills their agenda.  That is not my way of operating and I am tired of that style of behavior.

I come from a logging family.  I fully understand the resource industry and the benefits logging can provide for wildlife habitat, when done correctly.

Not sure where you gather the idea that I like wilderness because it limits other hunters from participating.  Never said that and never will.  Wildernesses are not beneficial because of any impediments they might impose.

In Montana, our wilderness areas provide the longest rifle elk seasons in the country.  Rifle hunting starts September 15th and runs until the Sunday after Thanksgiving.

They serve as areas that can provide some security for animals, allowing for longer seasons and better age classes.  The animals that summer in wilderness areas usually migrate out of those areas in hunting season, making them available to hunters not able to get into the wilderness.  That increases opportunity for all, allows MT to have the longest general seasons in the Lower 48, prevents us from having only limited entry draws for elk and deer, and gets us away from choose your weapon situations.  That is all good for hunter opportunity, whether you hunt backcountry areas or on the fringe of those areas when the animals migrate out. 

The episode Mr. Bridges is whining about took place east of the Bob Marshall Wilderness Area, along a migration corridor where the deer are headed to winter grounds.  There were guys a lot older than me, in different health than me, who shot big bucks last year, when those deer migrated out to the foothills and became more accessible.  That happens because those deer have some security cover in the early season and the archery season, allowing them to get some age.  Tough country provides that, whether official wilderness area, or not.

My entire platform is about encouraging and helping people participate.  It is also about providing the greatest opportunity for long seasons, general tags, and diverse age classes of animals.

I don't know Toby either but I think he has a sincere interest in saving our game herds.

We can disagree on that.

You launched a pretty strong counter attack and I have no idea how many of your statements are factual.....

Not strong at all.  The best will be forthcoming in the next week.  I can provide you citation for every item I mentioned.

...... but one thing I would point out is that Rehberg was running against Baucus who was very popular, as we all know it's hard to unseat a popular incumbent, honestly that seems more the reason Rehberg lost....

Rehberg was not running against Baucus.  He was running against Tester.  Rehberg was the incumbent Congressman who had served in the House of Representatives longer than Tester has served in the Senate.  Both had incumbent advantage.

I think your insinuation that Toby Bridges was the reason Rehberg lost is a bit of a stretch. That would be like saying Jay Inslee was elected as governor of WA because I supported McKenna, that would be a stretch.

I did not insinuate that Toby Bridges was the reason Rehberg lost.  Not sure where you got that.  It is my opinion, not insinuation, that Rehberg lost because his voting record on hunting, fishing, and public access was a huge negative in a state where the majority or registered voters hunt and/or fish.

I would like to see a copy of your show that seems to have excited people, please let me know if there is a way I can see that show online.

PM your address and I will mail you that episode when it comes out on DVD.  I will also send you the DVD with our two-eipsode wolf hunt, the first wolf hunt in the Lower 48 to be aired.  You will see why my unapologetic approach to wolf huntng offended those at the NY Times, the Chicago Sun, and most of mainstream media.  It was reason for me and my family to receive hundreds of death wishes from the lunatic fringe on the other side.

I suspect it was give you reason to wonder why Toby Bridges would imply that I, Federal Ammo, and Sportsman Channel are so pro-wolf.  I doubt you will find any anti-outfitter sentiment in any of the episodes I send you.

Best of luck to you and your clients this season.  May your hunts be pleasurable, safe, and abundant.

[JLS]

Roadless areas and the reduction in logging actually are a huge detriment to habitat improvement.

Maybe a huge detriment if you only view logging as the method for improving habitat.  I can show you plenty of places that are roadless, have not been logged, and provide very good wildlife habitat. 

Before you go jumping to the conclusion that I am anti-logging as well as pro-wolf, I'm not.  There is a balance, but the assertion that roadless and unlogged areas do not or cannot provide premium habitat is untrue.

I do freely admit that I find great value in roadless areas where one can distance themselves from any motorized traffic.

Here in NE WA and N ID logging has a direct effect on animals and population. Areas that are not logged here are void of animals! or very few. Other parts of the country this may not be the case, they have meadows, open timber and etc that this region doesnt have

I completely agree.  I am very excited to see the amount of selective cutting that is taking place along the Clark Fork.  I'd like to see more.  Selective cutting, thinning, and controlled burning are wonderful things when done in appropriate areas.