So what is being argued then, is that the people who are forced to board the publics wildlife can only address their losses by allowing the public to trespass on their property and kill said wildlife, and, they have no say in who those trespassers are? (I use the term trespass is simply somebody on somebody else's property, not in the illegal sense.)
I am no fan of leasing. I lease one property a 200 acre river bottom ranch for my livestock. We also hay the ranch. I know first hand the agitation of watching critters eat away your hay crop. We allowed bow hunting on the lease in 2011, after open gates, truck tracks in the hay field, and broad heads found in the horse pasture where we absolutely forbid shooting, we ended it after one season.
I think the larger problem isn't private ownership of ranches, or of the outfitting, rather, it is the new dynamic of the property buyer. Many people are moving to Montana and buying large parcels that have a different political mindset about hunting the old school Montana rancher.
It seems to me the general public, despite have millions of acres of public land, is constantly complaining about where they can't hunt, instead of enjoying the bounty the Montana offers in the form of public land. Public land in which many have contributed little or nothing in tax dollars to support, but still use right along with those who have paid much more in taxes. That is the beauty in the system. The other beauty is that anybody can buy their own private hunting paradise, as private property affords us that opportunity.
