May 19, 2012 – LETTER TO THE EDITOR:

Farmers and ranchers are characteristically self-sufficient, freedom-loving, ruggedly independent, hard-working individuals. In addition their industry leaders possess the awareness and stamina required to cope with increasing threats to rural life. Deceptively designed long-range goals reveal demise of private property and food production industries. Feds and environmentalists dream of “open space” free-roaming wildlife devoid of humans; concentrating severely reduced populations into high-density production centers with top-down control. Government ownership and management would replace free enterprise, profit-motivated capitalism and privately owned lands.

Government Agency and NGO Activities:

l. Agencies performing land grabs and resource lock-downs: Forest Service, Fish and Wildlife, BLM; Wildlands Y2Y, dam removal, free-flowing rivers, wetlands, wilderness designations, endangered species. Simply by Presidential signature Obama is able, through Antiquities Act, to declare millions of acres National Monument.

2. The Nature Conservancy and American Farmland Trust trick owners into contracts forever relinquishing control over land use while committing owners to all costs, ultimately assuring government ownership/control.

3. EPA disguised as “protection” controls land, water, air, animals and humans (deemed a blight on the earth).

4. Power-hungry elite aspire to complete take-over and UN world domination.

America is the last bastion of freedom and private property. Ranchers and farmers now battle for rights to water, land and air. Example: EPA is sensitive to dust. Farms are made of dirt. It forms dust. Environmentalists should return to their polluted cities allowing farmers to use their dirt to produce food essential to life. This is what farmers do. . . their job, their livelihood, their business. THIS IS AMERICA. Private property is the foundation of our Constitution.

Bob Fanning/Joel Boniek, Tim Fox and Brad Johnson would be the strong Montana team defending property rights and state sovereignty; utilizing nullification, coordination and collaborative strength with other states facing similar problems.

Respectfully submitted,

Clarice Ryan

MISSOULA, Mont. —Rejuvenating forage and controlling noxious weeds to improve habitat for elk and other wildlife are the main themes in a list of Montana conservation projects slated to receive 2012 grants from the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation.

The RMEF funding commitment totals $257,011 and affects 14 counties: Broadwater, Fergus, Lewis and Clark, Lincoln, Madison, Mineral, Missoula, Petroleum, Powder River, Powell, Ravalli, Rosebud, Sanders and Stillwater.

The newly announced grants do not include the recent $51,000 contribution from RMEF to support implementation of Montana’s approved wolf management plan.

“Prescribed burning, forest thinning and weed treatment projects will help to enhance some 18,000 acres of habitat across Montana,” said David Allen, RMEF president and CEO. “We’re also continuing to provide major funding for the high-profile, elk-survival research in the Bitterroot Valley, where preliminary findings support managing and controlling predator populations. Managing for a balance between predators and prey is so important in areas where habitat is shrinking or in less than optimum condition.”

RMEF’s mission is to ensure the future of elk, other wildlife and their habitat. Since 1985, the organization and its partners have completed 736 conservation and hunting heritage outreach projects in Montana with a combined value of more than $128 million.

Funding for RMEF grants is based on local membership drives and banquet fundraising by RMEF chapters and volunteers in Montana. Allen thanked RMEF supporters for their dedication to conservation both in Montana and all across elk country.

RMEF grants will help fund the following 2012 projects in Montana, listed by county:

Broadwater County— – Improve habitat for elk and other wildlife by treating noxious weeds on 66 acres in the northern Elkhorn Mountains area.

Fergus County – —Prescribe burn 1,200 acres to rejuvenate forage for elk, mule deer, bighorn sheep and turkeys in the Gallatin Rapids area of BLM lands.

Lewis and Clark County – —Enhance elk and mule deer wintering range via a prescribe burn on 1,100 acres in the Alice Creek area of the Helena National Forest.

Lincoln County— – Prescribe burn 334 acres to improve elk winter range in the Tobacco Plains area of the Kootenai National Forest; treat noxious weeds and prescribe burn 1,000 acres in the Warland, Bristow and Cripple Horse creek areas of the Kootenai National Forest.

Madison County— – Improve forage in elk wintering and calving areas by treating noxious weeds on 500 acres near Bear Creek Wildlife Area.

Mineral County – —Rejuvenate decadent vegetation by thinning and prescribe burning 591 acres for elk in the South Fork Fish Creek area of the Lolo National Forest.

Missoula County— – Treat 185 acres of noxious weeds at Boyer Ranch to enhance critical wintering habitat for a regional elk herd as well as for deer and upland birds; aerially treat spotted knapweed and apply bio-controls (knapweed weevils) on 398 acres in the Marent Gulch area of the Lolo National Forest.

Petroleum County— – Prescribe burn 4,065 acres of elk wintering range in the Tin Can Hill area of BLM lands.

Powder River County— – Thin encroaching conifers and prescribe burn 1,500 acres to improve elk habitat in the Threemile area of the Custer National Forest (also affects Rosebud County).

Powell County – —Enhance aspen and shrub growth by thinning conifers on 326 acres, and treating noxious weeds on 523 acres, for foraging elk in the Marcum Mountain area of BLM lands.

Ravalli County— – Provide continued funding for research on elk survival and recruitment in the Bitterroot Valley; thin encroaching conifers and prescribe burn 4,000 acres to improve habitat for elk, mule deer, bighorn sheep, moose, black bears, great gray owls and other wildlife in the East Fork Bitterroot River area of the Bitterroot National Forest.

Sanders County— – Enhance 700 acres of elk habitat by treating noxious weeds and introducing bio-controls (knapweed weevils) in the Thompson River area; thin encroaching conifers and prescribe burn 400 acres in the Falls Creek Flat area of Lolo National Forest.

Stillwater County— – Treat noxious weeds such as leafy spurge, spotted knapweed and sulfur cinquefoil on 1,500 acres of elk habitat in the upper Stillwater River watershed.

Projects are selected for grants using science-based criteria and a committee of RMEF volunteers and staff along with representatives from partnering agencies and universities. RMEF staff and volunteers select education projects to receive grants.

Partners for 2012 projects in Montana include the Bureau of Land Management, Montana Dept. of Fish, Wildlife and Parks, U.S. Forest Service and other agencies, organizations, corporations and landowners.

From the Great Fall Tribune:

GOP Candidate for Montana Governor Robert T. Fanning, Jr.

“I am the only candidate in the 2012 race who understands and vows to honor the founders’ intent regarding the system of ‘dual sovereignty’ preserved in the U.S. Constitution,” Fanning said. “I am the only candidate who understands how rebuilding Montana’s sovereignty under the Montana Constitution can free our people from federal bondage. I am the only candidate who knows how and why it is important to return personal freedom to all Montanans. I believe Montanans can and will restore their once-proud independence and prosperity as my administration removes the federal barriers and allows the bountiful treasure which is our birthright to once again flourish.”

MISSOULA, Mont.—The Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation has offered, and the Montana Dept. of Fish, Wildlife and Parks (FWP) has accepted, $51,000 in funding assistance for the state’s wolf management efforts.

Funding from RMEF will be paid directly to Wildlife Services.

Wildlife Services is the federal agency contracted by FWP to resolve wolf conflicts associated with livestock depredation. Wildlife Services also assists in monitoring wolf populations by placing radio-collars in as many wolf packs as possible. The supplemental dollars from RMEF will be used for radio-collaring wolves in packs that are currently not monitored, removing individual problem wolves as authorized by FWP, and improving science-based management of wolf populations overall.

The gift from RMEF is not being taken from membership dollars or other funding for habitat conservation, but from a separate account supported by special donations. In fact, RMEF leaders first offered $50,000 but donations added $1,000 to the available total.

“RMEF supporters have stepped up to help biologists restore some balance in certain areas,” said David Allen, RMEF president and CEO. “Wildlife Services is a vital tool for controlling wolves in areas of heavy livestock depredation. That effort helps wildlife conservation, too.”

FWP Director Joe Maurier said, “We’re grateful for the partnership from RMEF. Wolves are an additional predator on the Montana landscape, and we’re finding that managing for overall conservation now requires additional attention, manpower and budget.”

John Steuber, Montana state director for Wildlife Services, said, “Until wolf-hunting season begins next fall, adding radio-collars, controlling problem wolves and managing overall wolf numbers are the keys for keeping Montana’s wolf population from causing more damage to livestock. This gift from RMEF will be a big help.”

Allen added, “It is important that we get more wolves collared in more areas, and in packs where there are no collared animals, to get more accurate wolf population counts and to help track wolf dispersal. Additional collaring will add to the body of science behind wildlife management and play a major role in FWP’s long-term wolf management strategies—and that’s important for elk, especially in areas where habitat issues are exacerbated by too many predators.”

Montana’s big-game hunters have been unable to meet the state agency’s wolf harvest quotas, leaving wolf populations in certain areas well above target objectives.

RMEF in the next few weeks will announce additional grants for habitat conservation efforts in Montana.

Montana Republican Governor’s Primary Election Race
The View from MSSA

Usually, after pouring over candidate voting records from previous public service, and examining returned candidate questionnaires, MSSA would like to make an endorsement in a race as important as the one for Governor of Montana.

There are seven Republican candidates facing off in the upcoming Primary Election on June 5th. Historically, to endorse any one candidate, MSSA wants to see one letter grade gap between the endorsed candidate and others, an “A” versus a “C”, or a “B” versus a “D.” (We don’t endorse candidates for the Primary who don’t earn at least a “B” grade.)

In the Republican Primary race for Governor, we simply cannot identify any candidate that is head-and-shoulders better than the rest – with a letter grade gap above the others. So, MSSA will make no endorsement in the Republican Primary for Governor.

If I ended this message right here, I can imagine that most GOP Governor candidates would be satisfied, although maybe some disappointed.

However, I can also imagine many MSSA members saying or thinking, “Come on Gary. You know these candidates. You’ve worked with them, tracked their votes in the Legislature, talked with them, watched their performance, and surveyed them. We need whatever information you can pass along in order to make an intelligent choice in the Primary.” Right.

So, I feel MSSA owes its members at least some information about the various candidates. In lieu of an MSSA endorsement, let me tell you what I know and what I think (I’ll mix the two) about the various candidates.

I tend to want to place political figures on a spectrum from liberal to conservative. Because those are fuzzy terms as commonly used, let me tell you how I define them. I think of a modern (not classic) liberal as a person who tolerates or favors shifting power, choice and money from people to government. I think of a conservative as a person who would prefer to shift power, choice and money from government to people. Those are generally the definitions I will apply here. I will also discuss what is known about each candidate’s position on the right to keep and bear arms, MSSA’s prime focus.

As far as I know, there are no out-and-out liberals in this Republican Primary race, but some appear to be more or less conservative than others. Here’s what I know or believe, working from the most conservative to the least conservative. (BTW, these candidates will ALL probably end up disliking all or parts of my assessment – comes with the turf if I’m to give MSSA members an honest review. I know most of these candidates personally, and count them as friends. I hope they’re still friends after they read my comments.)

Bob Fanning & Joel Boniek

The most conservative of the candidates is Bob Fanning. Fanning has a good grasp of constitutional principles. He’s a firm advocate for states’ rights. He has far more time and energy invested in wolf control than any other candidate, maybe than all candidates combined. Fanning has been a CEO and a member of the Chicago Board of Trade. He understands economics. Fanning returned a great MSSA candidate questionnaire. Bob likes to describe himself as a “Montanan by choice; not by accident.” He moved here over a decade ago to deliberately become a Montanan. Fanning has not previously held any public office in Montana. Bob buys big game tags every year and is an elk hunter. He is not as acquainted with the details and processes of state government as some other candidates. Fanning hasn’t raised a lot of money, and he got off to a late start with is campaign. His running mate is former Rep. Joel Boniek, a philosophically-pure guy who carried the Montana Firearms Freedom Act for MSSA when it passed in 2009. I’d say Fanning’s chances of getting into the Governor’s office are a long shot. He’d have a steep learning curve if he got there, but would be something of a breath of fresh air for Montana in the Governor’s chair.
http://www.bobfanning.com/

Ken Miller & Bill Gallagher

Former State Senator Ken Miller is very nearly as conservative as Fanning. Miller also has a strong bent towards states’ rights and individual liberty. Miller has FAR more effort invested in the Governor race than any other candidate. He’s been actively campaigning for over a year and has crisscrossed Montana multiple times meeting locally with any groups of people who wanted to meet him. Ken was Chairman of the state GOP for a cycle, and managed to shake up and out that good-old-boy GOP structure some to make the GOP a more effective organization. As GOP Chairman, he was willing to make more hard decisions than some others who have held the post. When in the Montana Senate, Miller always supported MSSA’s pro-gun bills. Miller returned a very good MSSA candidate questionnaire, although with reservation about MSSA’s proposal to stimulate smokeless powder and primer manufacture in Montana. Ken and his wife Peggy are both big game hunters. Ken grew up in Montana, and has been a successful small business owner in Montana. In statewide polling, Miller continues to run a close second place in terms of support among likely Republican voters. Miller’s running mate is Bill Gallagher, a Helena attorney currently elected to the Montana Public Service Commission. Because both Miller and Gallagher have served in elected public office at the state level, they have a good grasp of how state government works and perhaps, because of that, an enhanced ability to translate Miller’s philosophy into deeds.
http://www.miller4governor.com/

I see a bit of a gap on the liberal-to-conservative spectrum between these candidates and the next two.

Neil Livingstone & Ryan Zinke

Neil Livingstone is an interesting guy, albeit a bit mysterious. Although born in Montana, Neil has spent much of his life immersed in the murky world of international business, intelligence and clandestine operations, both in Washington, D.C., and overseas. Livingstone speaks forcefully about his commitment to constitutional principles, and he definitely wishes to roll back what he sees as extreme environmentalists’ suppression of the natural resource industry in Montana. Livingstone returned a fine candidate questionnaire, although he had some un-detailed concerns about MSSA’s “Sheriffs First” proposal. Livingstone has not held elected office in Montana. While expressing strong support for the right to keep and bear arms, Livingstone did select a running mate, State Senator Ryan Zinke, who formerly expressed a very definite opinion that “civilians” should not be allowed to own .50-caliber rifles. Livingstone quickly explains that he and former SEAL commander Zinke have come to terms about .50-caliber rifles, and Zinke now whole-heartedly supports civilian ownership of such firearms, as does Livingstone. Livingstone has a forceful personality. There are concerns expressed by some, however, that he has not spent enough time in Montana in recent years to have a good sense of Montana issues and Montana culture. Livingstone has not hunted in Montana, but says he has hunted in Eurasia and Africa. Livingstone is supported by a number of former high-ranking military and government officials of excellent national repute, many of whom are not Montana residents. Were Livingstone elected Montana Governor, one gets the impression he would kick ass, and that the timid and naysayers would do well to keep out of his way. With his long employment, connections and experience with the federal government, one would hope that his total allegiance would be to Montana, rather than to the federal government or influences from D.C. or elsewhere.
http://neil2012.com/

Corey Stapleton & Bob Keenan

Both Stapleton and Keenan are former state senators, both with good conservative credentials, and both of them are known as proven supporters of the right to keep and bear arms – excellent guys. Stapleton is a graduate of Annapolis, a strong recommendation by anyone’s standard. Stapleton did not return MSSA’s candidate questionnaire, but, based on his past votes in the Montana Senate, I believe he would support most of the issues MSSA plans to have before the 2013 Legislature. Because both Stapleton and Keenan have long experience in the Legislature, they also know how state government works and how to translate their philosophy into deeds at the state level. They would also be realistic, even pragmatic, about what a Governor can accomplish. Stapleton’s campaign has not been highly visible. There is a concern that because Stapleton has been (and presumably still is) an officer in the U.S. military, the federal government might be able to “pull rank” and command his loyalty in any disagreement between Montana and the federal government.
http://www.coreystapleton.com/

Continuing to work from the conservative end of the political spectrum gets us to:

Rick Hill & Jon Sonju

Rick Hill was formerly elected to represent Montana in the U.S. House of Representatives, and his running mate, Jon Sonju, has been in the Montana Senate. Both are experienced hands in the process of politics. Hill is currently thought my many to be the front-runner in this seven-way Republican Primary. He is reported to lead in fundraising, and is known to be supported by many “old guard” Republican figures. Although Hill did not return MSSA’s candidate questionnaire, he did speak to the MSSA Annual Meeting in Helena in March (as did Fanning, Miller and Livingstone), where he expressed strong support for the right to keep and bear arms. It is unknown how this strong expression will translate to the details of MSSA’s legislative agenda in 2013. I expect he would support most of those issues, but with no returned candidate questionnaire and no voting record from the Montana Legislature, that’s just my educated guess. Hill is reputed to occasionally hunt upland game birds. Sonju has been a solid supporter of gun issues in the Legislature, and his family manufactures firearms in the Kalispell area. It is argued by some that the nature of Hill’s work and experience in D.C. and Montana may make him more vulnerable to attacks by the Democrats in the General Election, making it difficult for him to win the General Election, although Democrats will certainly attack whomever becomes the Republican candidate for the General Election. Hill recently released a statement asserting need to better manage wolves to prevent negative impact on game herds. While quite welcome, this recent interest by Hill is seen by some as being a bit late and lacking the strong intent needed to resurrect Montana’s predator-decimated game herds.
http://www.rickhillforgovernor.com/

Jim Lynch & Al Olszewski

Current Governor Brian Schweitzer (a Democrat) appointed Jim Lynch to be Director of the Montana Department of Transportation. In that office, Lynch says that he has made maintenance of the Montana highway system much more effective and efficient. He wishes to bring the same management techniques to the Governor’s Office. Lynch has been an insider in state government long enough to know how things work, although he hasn’t been involved in the political machinations used to turn eggs into an omelet. Lynch did return a very good MSSA candidate questionnaire, a plus for him, although MSSA puts more credence in a voting record history than in a candidate questionnaire. I know nothing about Lynch’s running mate, Al Olszewski. It is said that Lynch has made numerous political donations on record to Democrat candidates, although that may just be an unspoken job requirement to work for Governor Schweitzer. It is my fuzzy opinion that Lynch is probably a pretty good manager, but I have not heard others who know him speak of his conservative philosophy or credentials.
http://lynchforgov.com/

Jim O’Hara & Scott Swingley

Jim O’Hara is elected as a County Commissioner of Choteau County. He did not return MSSA’s candidate questionnaire. I haven’t met O’Hara and really don’t know anything about Jim or his running mate, Scott Swingley.
http://www.oharagov.com/

Conclusion?

I’ve tried seven times to write a conclusion, but I’m just not getting there. I guess you’ll have to draw your own conclusion. I hope this has been helpful.

ENDORSEMENT OF BOB FANNING AND JOEL BONIEK

~

The serious problems which confront America will not be solved in the District of Columbia, because the District of Columbia is the source of just about all of them. Solutions will have to come from the States. And soon. So the election of a Governor in each State is the concern of every patriot in every State.

Although myself a Virginian, I have been watching political events in Montana for several years. The emergence of Bob Fanning and Joel Boniek as candidates for Governor and Lieutenant Governor convinces me that Montana is ready to take the lead in restoring the principles and practices of America’s Constitution “from the bottom up”, as this country’s system of federalism requires.

Economic stability, let alone progress, is impossible without a sound currency composed of silver and gold, which the Constitution requires the States to make “a Tender in Payment of Debts”. Bob Fanning and Joel Boniek understand this—and when elected will do their utmost to introduce such a currency into Montana, as an alternative to the Federal Reserve System’s depreciating paper currency. This will provide an example and an encouragement to the People in every other State.

True “homeland security”—the “homeland security” that comes from a Republican Form of Government in which the People themselves exercise the ultimate sovereign Power of the Sword at the Local level—is impossible without the “well regulated Militia” the Second Amendment declares to be “necessary to the security of a free State”. Bob Fanning and Joel Boniek understand this—and when elected will do their utmost to revitalize constitutional Militia throughout Montana, County by County. This, too, will provide an example and an encouragement to the People in every other State.

Ultimately, both economic stability and homeland security are means to achieve what the Declaration of Independence calls “the pursuit of Happiness”. But the People of Montana—or the People anywhere in America—cannot pursue their own happiness in their own way unless they exercise actual dominion over the land in their States. Far too much land in Montana—and elsewhere throughout the United States—is controlled by aloof bureaucracies in the District of Columbia, in service to domestic and foreign special interests antagonistic to the People’s “pursuit of Happiness”. Bob Fanning and Joel Boniek understand this—and when elected will do their utmost to return full ownership of this land to the People of Montana, as the Constitution requires. And this will provide an example and an encouragement to the People in every other State as well.

For these reasons, I endorse the candidacy of Bob Fanning and Joel Boniek—not just for Montana, but ultimately for Virginia and every other State in the Union. As the Chinese say, “a journey of a thousand li begins with but a single step”. If the People of Montana take this first step, by electing Bob Fanning and Joel Boniek, patriots everywhere will see the direction in which this country must move, and can move, and State by State will join in the march towards the restoration of America.

Dr. Edwin Vieira, Jr. Ph.D, J.D.

08 April 2012

*Editor’s Note* The statement below I received in the form of an email. I extracted what I believed to be the message behind candidate Robert Fanning’s future plans for fish and wildlife management and the protection of land rights.

While we weren’t looking ;how wildlife management has changed! Fish and Game Departments are no longer that despite the many , many billions of sportsmen’s dollars that sportsmen have poured into wildlife and the wildlife agencies entrusted to protect the game in our states. Montana FW&P needs to focus on the original constitutional and lawful intent of the creation of their department under the North American Wildlife Conservation Model, the only one of its kind in the world. The model’s two basic principles—that our fish and wildlife belong to all North American citizens, and are to be managed in such a way that their populations will be sustained forever. As Governor my appointees , agency and relationship with the counties will have a creed; “People above predators”.. This creed will be enforced to cleanse our wildlife agency of agenda driven non -consumptive promoters who have had their way for far too long. The adherence to the creed and the success of the fish and game department can only be measured by the return of the Shiras moose, the restoration of big horn sheep numbers, and healthy elk and deer herds based on multiple standards in each traumatized district adhering to 50 year averages from the brink of wolf caused near extinction. This will be a condition of employment on a going forward basis for our game managers who will be mostly native Montanans Schools of higher learning pump out individuals who don’t know or respect the North American Wildlife Conservation Model or our Montana values that I memorialized and had codified in 2005 HJR 029

http://data.opi.mt.gov/bills/2005/billhtml/HJ0029.htm

Our customs , culture, traditions and values are guaranteed in NEPA the National Environmental Policy Act which is the governing law above the Endangered Species Act. Due to a decade of flawed , fraudulent science as a result of court delayed wolf control we are now in a wildlife emergency state . As governor I will declare that emergency. The counties and / or the governor can intervene with the law squarely on their side in this extreme additive predation emergency state and restore the egregious damage done and threat to: public health, commerce, public safety, private property, game herds, livestock production and pets done by extreme wolf densities in what was promoted before wolves were released as a “non -essential experiment”.

Congress has breached the public trust with it’s failure to define the mission of the USFWS. Since Congress has failed to do their duty and has created a forced wolf based “reintroduction” extreme predator density state of emergency in Montana. The county commissions and or the Governor must declare that state of emergency and take action to protect our game like the Shiras moose and big horn sheep which are destined for extinction themselves as well as our $237.6 million per year hunting industry{as per the USFWS 2001} . Rivalli County recently quantified that an out of state hunter used to spend on average $10,600 when he came to hunt in Montana to hunt.

The Endangered Species Act is for saving species from extinction, NOT for letting the USFWS and Marxist progressives take over the country in compliance with the first plank of the Communist Manifesto and the UN’s Agenda 21 . It is time to stop the “Distinct Population Segment” charade which is about controlling land and people. The “historic range” scam allows the USFWS to extend “recovery” further afield than ever imagined or was promised to the courts, Congress or provided for in the pre wolf “reintroduction” science and it’s profoundly flawed computer model. “Wolves for Yellowstone Vol 1,1992″ was the deal that was promised when the recovery plan was built; then, through litigation and it’s stall tactics, a bait and switch was crammed down on the entire American west .The bigger issue is “historic range” where the wolf was fraudulently used allowing “Distinct Population Segment” into an American nightmare. “Expand to the entire former range” is a full frontal assault on the Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

The problems are very real and escalating on a geometric basis.State and federal bureaucrats are aggressively obstructing with policy and withholding funding for lawful lethal wolf control when A.P.H.I.S attempts to control problem wolf packs . Sport hunting and the myth of epizootic disease controlling wolf population growth is scientific fraud.

To defend private property , the cornerstone of a “free enterprise system”, we must bifurcate the laws, attitudes in agencies and enforcement differentiated between public and private lands.There is a big difference between sport hunting and predator control.

My Administration will make it’s policy clear between sport hunting on public lands and predator control on private property , in defense of private property. Land owners will not be required to seek permission, fear prosecution, or be confined by licences or bag limits.Land owners will be given wide discretion to determine the need for lethal predator control., the staff of professionals that he needs to control wolves and the methods of taking problem wolves on his private property. This means that there is no such thing as “fair chase” on private land. Those engaged in predator control must be allowed to operate during all hours , not just daylight. Electronic or other calls can be used, illuminated optics, artificial light, night vision, sound suppressors, bait,same-day fly & shoot.

Experienced wolf hunters and trappers in defense of private property will be trained in protocol , terms standards and conditions and given a blanket open licence jointly granted by the DOL & FW&P as they pursue as agents , the defense of private property. The harvested hides and pre-specified internal organs will be taken into custody from each harvested wolf and turned over to the state of Montana who will test for Echinococcus granulosus and 28 other diseases that wolves are vectors for and make those results a matter of public record so disease mapping can begin in real time and make all this information available to Montana public health officials and the Center for Disease control so Montana health care providers can make accurate diagnosis and treat Montanans if and when there is a risk. The state will, after the hides and organs are examined , send those hides for tanning and resale into the marketplace or returned to the control agent who will be paid with his choice of either the tanned hide or $1,000 per wolf taken on private property.

MSSA has endorsed 13 candidates for the Montana Legislature for the Primary Election, three for the Montana State Senate and ten for the Montana House of Representatives.

MSSA is VERY CAREFUL with these endorsements. We look at all sorts of information before endorsing candidates for the Primary Election. We give the greatest value to the voting records of incumbents, good records and bad records. Some of these people are endorsed because they are running against an incumbent with a very bad voting record. Some are endorsed because they are incumbents with very good voting records. We also look at how candidates answered our questions on the MSSA Legislative Candidate Questionnaire.

We do not do endorsements of candidates who have no Primary Election competition. We don’t endorse challengers who have not sent us a Candidate Questionnaire, no matter how bad the incumbent may be that the candidate is challenging. Finally, although we don’t issue or release letter grades for the Primary, we rarely endorse candidates unless at least one letter grade separates the candidates – an A and a C, or a B and a D, minimum.

We will be doing another round of endorsements, including grades for all candidates, before the General Election in November.

In every one of these races, we believe there is very good reason to endorse and support the candidates we have endorsed. We recommend these candidates to you. Please spread the word, especially among neighbors if you live in a district where one of these candidates are running.

Help these good people get elected. Passing MSSA pro-gun bills in 2013 is depending on you.

Here is the list of 13 certified good guys who MSSA has endorsed and who have active competition for the Primary Election.

Don Richman, Senate District 17
Scott Sales#, Senate District 34
Fred Thomas#, Senate District 45
Alan Doane, House District 38
Alan Hale*, House District 77
David Halvorson, House District 37
Kathy Haman, House District 60
Pat Ingraham*, House District 13
Sarah Laszloffy, House District 57
Randy Pinocci, House District 18
Dan Skattum*, House District 62
Russ Vogel, House District 89
Bob Wagner*, House District 71

* Incumbent
# Has served in the Legislature before

Best wishes,

Gary Marbut, president
Montana Shooting Sports Association
http://www.mtssa.org
author, Gun Laws of Montana
http://www.mtpublish.com

Yesterday in the Missoulian, republican gubernatorial candidate Rick Hill stated, “One of the things I’ve heard everywhere that I go is that the relationship today between Fish, Wildlife and Parks and landowners and sportsmen is at an all-time low.”

Should this come as a surprise to anyone? Do people think that this is something that has happened overnight? No and no! And this seemingly newly discovered phenomenon isn’t relegated to Montana. It’s an epidemic that reaches every state in this Union. Sportsmen and landowners have almost as bad an opinion of their fish and game departments as Americans do of their Congress or the presidency. And why is that?

There once was a day when fish and game departments were constructed with the idea to devise plans that would perpetuate game species so that everyone had a chance to stock up on food and/or sell animal furs to supplement or provide income. These fish and game departments originally were a direct extension of the outdoor sportsmen.

Not anymore! Fish and game departments have become giant government agencies with too many powers and a focus that caters to environmentalism and animal rights and animal protection. Along with this demented change in direction and overreaching power grab, landowners are not only losing rights to use their land as is necessary but in some cases they lose their land altogether. And with this do we really need to doubt what Hill says, that this relationship between sportsmen/landowners and fish and game is at an all-time low?

When fish and game departments functioned as a supporting entity of the sportsmen, there was also a certain degree of ownership and pride in that ownership. Are any readers old enough to remember the day when you could actually talk with a representative from a fish and game department and be treated as an equal, one with respect and an understanding of who paid whose salary? That pride of ownership kept sportsmen involved in the process. They knew their voice would be heard and when it wasn’t, fish and game personnel were out of a job.

Today, fish and game departments pretend they are interested in the sportsmen. Some even masquerade as humans who understand their role and function as that of serving the public. But don’t be fooled. They are a government organization. Governments are not any friend of the people and they certainly are not friends of sportsmen or landowners. This is because sportsmen and landowners are what stand in their way to fulfill their agendas of protecting wildlife, ridding human presence from the forests and fields, relegating us all to concrete jungles and levying control over us all. Get rid of us and they get what they want, or at least think they do.

But the problem that perpetuates this insanity is that government attempts to fix government with more government. It’s what keeps them collecting a salary. Talk is cheap. Words in this case are nothing more than campaign rhetoric, meaningless drivel to placate the masses in order to steal your vote.

Until states regain control over their environmentalism-strangled fish and game departments and change the direction and goals back to game management combined with an understanding and respect for landowners, nothing will change. Actually look for it to get worse.

The people are lazy, brainwashed robots who want government to do their bidding. Why do you think we are where we are now? Government is not the answer to government.

Tom Remington

One of the complaints residents of the Northern Rockies region have had since the introduction of Canadian grey wolves into the Greater Yellowstone area and Central Idaho is that the rules are always changing, or as has been described far too often, someone keeps moving the goal posts.

Granted, the wording found in miles of sometimes seemingly senseless bureaucratic drivel, says that deference be given the Secretary in making decisions and changes and those changes should be based on “best available science”. Unfortunately “best available science” has also become a political football.

It appears that now, with some inroads being reached by those demanding stricter controls over grey wolves, wolf advocates are attempting to move the goal posts yet again. The impression is given that this is another attempt at public persuasive propaganda, where “best available science” becomes a session of human interaction and sensitivity training. One Ph.D. wants to survey people about how wolves should be managed and find out how the feel about it; the best available science of feeling?

Through email exchanges, I’ve discovered that Jeremy Bruskotter, a PhD at Ohio State University, began seeking participants for his survey. The copy of the inquiry letter is printed here:

Dear study participant,

We are contacting you because you expressed an interest in wolf management policy and a desire to participate in future research related to wolves. As a participant in our previous study, we’re interested to learn if and how your views on wolf conservation and management have changed since gray wolves were removed from Endangered Species Act protections in the northern Rocky Mountains and Great Lakes states last year.

Please note: We have greatly reduced the length of the prior survey. This survey should only take about 5 minutes of your time to complete. Also be aware that your participation in this study is voluntary. Should you choose to participate, you may leave the study at any time. If you decide to stop, there will be no penalty to you. All information gained in this study will be kept completely confidential and at no time will this information be connected with your name.

If you agree to participate, please click the link below to proceed to the survey.

CLICK THE LINK TO PROCEED TO THE SURVEY:

http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=FJHJ1r_2bAH_2bh4MTcTEwOXpw_3d_3d

Thank you for your time and participation!

Jeremy Bruskotter, PhD

As one might suspect, some people began questioning all aspects of such a survey. Robert T. Fanning, a gubernatorial candidate for Governor of Montana, responded to Dr. Bruskotter with a bruising and factual email, in which Fanning takes Bruskotter to task of his lack of knowledge of historic fact concerning the entire grey wolf introduction. Fanning wrote:

Jeremy,

In 2000, I, we, {FOTNYEH} paid a total of $17,000 for three consulting Ph.D’s, one of which was Dr Robert Taylor, Ph.D ,who, among other duties, reached out at my direction and appealed in writing to Mike Phillips of the Turner Endangered Species Fund, and the federal biologist in charge of the YNP introduction to bring all the “stakeholders” represented by Ph.Ds from both sides to the table and participate in the “adaptive management” process so a wildlife cataclysm could be avoided and the economic , customs, culture and traditions mandated by NEPA of those States impacted by forced wolf “reintroduction ” could be represented transparently and equally.

Phillips replied in writing on TESF letterhead and essentially told Dr Taylor to “stick it where the sun don’t shine”.

As the next governor of Montana I will introduce that letter as evidence in litigation seeking restitution and restoration for the harm done by Turner, Phillips et. al. and their bad faith dealing..

Now 12 years later you want to take a vote on “management”? The “deal” was 78-100 wolves in Yellowstone National Park over a 10 to 20 year period; now you have “concerns” about “statutory obligations” with over 4,000 or 5,000 wolves reproducing at a 30% rate.?
You’re joking , right Jeremy?
Who is paying for this “study” that is 12 years late ?
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Bad+Faith

I wrote this and other Montana and Idaho legislation http://data.opi.mt.gov/bills/2005/billhtml/HJ0029.htm

Mr. Fanning makes reference to the “deal” in his email response. Just over one year ago, I wrote a two-part series about “The Deal”. This should help readers to better understand exactly what Mr. Fanning is referencing when he questions Dr. Bruskotter’s request in surveying residents.

Understand as well, that it seems that Mr. Bruskotter makes reference, according to the response from Mr. Fanning, that now with the present management policies in place for wolves, i.e. they are hunted and trapped in some states, there should be concern for abiding by “statutory obligations”. Fanning’s reference to “The Deal” is all the statutory obligations that were presented to the people prior to wolf introduction and those wishing wolves in every dooryard, didn’t seem to have much concern about abiding by these so-called statutory obligations.

By hand selecting only those obligations that fits one’s agenda, has contributed significantly to the constant moving of goalposts making it impossible to properly manage and control the species. With years of historic statutory obligations tossed aside to achieve personal agendas, now that things are seemingly not going the way of wolf proliferation, those who disregarded the rules, like a spoiled child, once again are demanding rule changes.

Tom Remington