The Last Roundup --- An incredible success! Thank you all for your support,
your help, your love of horses and this event. A special thanks to our
family, neighbors, friends, crew, and the riders and photographers who made
this year so very special and such a FLAWLESS end to a real west way of
bringing home the herd. What a weekend of great memories, lifelong friends,
and a connection to something so truly meaningful. HATS OFF TO YOU ALL!

Dear Readers - This was sent to us Sunday at 2:50pm while you were all
still unsaddling your horses. We just had chance to check email this
morning.

Hope you find this as humorous as we did. For the past ten years we've been
keeping the local little mindset to ourselves, but since this is the last
year we thought you could all use a little entertainment.



Kail



From: R Huff [mailto:batzion27@hotmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, May 06, 2012 2:50 PM
To: info@montanahorses.com
Subject: horse drive



I just wanted to say it was thrilling to watch the horse drive on Saturday.
however, a good many people, hundreds, were SORELY disappointed at the stunt
you pulled by letting the horses out down below. That was a pretty low blow
just to keep the photographers happy, if that's what you did. We, my family
and I, and hundreds of others waited for the horses to show, when they
weren't budging from below. That was a HUGE disappointment and a bit
angering, since there's no reason that the horses coudn't be brought up. I
understand the photographers who paid to get good shots, but when you
advertise the drive, and you can't be bothered to inform people that they
will NOT see them run into the clarkston pasture, well,t hat's pretty low,
and a good many people are NOT happy to have wasted a couple of hours , and
gas/money today. I am sorerly disappointed in those actions. I had hope to
see the horses fly into the pasture, to have photos for painting references,
of which, when a painting sold, to send you a print, but well, kind of hard,
when we didn't get to see that finale.

Rebecca



From: Montana Horses [mailto:info@montanahorses.com]
Sent: Tuesday, May 08, 2012 7:49 AM
To: 'R Huff'
Subject: RE: horse drive



Rebecca,

The home pasture is 2000 acres, the horses were let in the same gate they
always go in and once they enter the gate, we let them go where they wish.
This year, they chose to head north to the top of the ridge where NO ONE
could see them.don't know why, that's just what they did. We don't stage
anything. NO photographers got any shots, including the paying
photographers. The horses run for a mile and a half from Trident and we
WILL NOT make them do anything else except rest, where ever they choose to
do it. The Drive has always been about the horses and their safety. Last
year they ran through the fence down low by the road and several got cut up.
We were happy they chose to put their heads down and rest instead this year.



Sorry you were disappointed - but you never have to be disappointed again.
We are not conducting this Drive again. YOU and your ilk, the "something
for nothing" crowd, are EXACTLY the reason we will be gone. You have never
thanked us, you have never helped us, you have never even talked to us, but
were courteous enough to send this bitch letter to air your frustrations and
be mad at us because the horses did what horses do.



We conduct a Horse Drive to bring our horses home from winter range.
Period. Any benefit the public ever got from witnessing this beautiful
event was free. As it was this year. It costs us thousands of dollars to
bring these horses through town, and paying guests and photographers cover A
PORTION of it. We lose money every year. Next year we will not.



Again, sorry you were disappointed and angered. But, you'll have to go find
something else to be offended by next year.



Kail and Renee



Montana Horses, Inc.

Kail Mantle & Renee Daniels-Mantle

9700 Clarkston Road

Three Forks, MT 59752

(406) 285-3541 | (406) 285-0918 fax

info@montanahorses.com

www.montanahorses.com

Montana Department of Livestock

301 N. Roberts/PO Box 202001

Helena MT 59620-2001

On the web at http://liv.mt.gov



cid:image001.jpg@01CA06CF.EAF1EA00



Thursday, March 15, 2012 / For Immediate release

Contact: Steve Merritt

Public Information Officer

Montana Department of Livestock

406/444-9431



Board of Livestock Temporarily Suspends Brand Recording Policy



The Montana Board of Livestock has temporarily suspended its brand conflict policies, giving brand holders who missed the December 31, 2011, rerecord deadline an opportunity to reapply for their brands.



“Out of 55,000 registered brands, we had a handful of ranchers who missed the deadline,” said board chair Jan French, a cattle rancher from Hobson. “This suspension will allow those who missed the deadline but actively use their brands to get those brands recorded. In short, they’re not going to lose their brands.”



Conflict and recording policies will be suspended for owners of brands that expired January 1, 2012 under the following two conditions: Brands can only be issued in the same name, species and position as previously held, and brand owners must prove the brand was active during calendar years 2009-2011 through one of the following methods:

· Per capita fee payments;

· change of ownership inspection;

· change of pasture inspection;

· lifetime inspection;

· annual inspection;

· market tally;

· hide inspection.



Copies of these documents will be accepted. Department staff may provide duplicates. The cost of any duplicate is $10 per copy.



As a result of suspending its brand conflict policies, the department will not have a list of expired brands available until after May 15.



The fee for application will be $100 for recording plus a $500 late fee. The suspension will remain in effect through Monday, May 14 at 5 pm. All payments must be received by this time. POSTMARKS WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED.



###

We recently heard from a woman interested in buying one of our trail horses.
She just looked at two horses from other sellers and though they fit all of
her criteria, they "failed" their vet checks at a local vet (who will remain
nameless). This is the second time we encountered a buyer in the same
unfortunate situation. This is our response:



I respectfully want to discuss your experience with your vet checks. It is
almost unheard of to have two horses, offered in good faith with the
qualifications you mentioned in your email to me, legitimately "fail" a vet
check. It is either the worst luck in the world or there are other factors
to consider. First, if they failed the flexion test, take it with a grain
of salt. It is widely known to be an unreliable gauge of soundness. In
some clinics as many as 75% of all horses tested fail it, the older the
horse the more likely they are to fail it, and some horses fail it one day
and pass it the next, or fail it with one vet and pass it with another. Dr.
X has a higher than average percentage of horses fail the flexion test and
have a negative vet check than any other vet we have ever heard of. Please
understand the nature of vet checks; when a vet is asked to find something
wrong with a horse, he will. It seems that Dr. X is especially careful to
take his commitment to alert the buyer of any and all potential issues very
seriously. Unfortunately, buyers do not know how much weight to give his
report and are not equipped to pull apart the elements of a vet check and
apply them to their specific situation. He apparently does not explain this.
This results in many great horses being considered unsound who are perfectly
able to handle the job they are asked to do and live long and productive
lives. I hope the two horses who "failed" their vet check and broke your
heart did not fall prey to this.



A vet check should be a tool you use to help assess the health and
suitability of the horse for your situation, not and yes or no judgment.
Horses do not FAIL or PASS a vet check, it is simply an assessment. There
are some things that are deal breakers, like sight, lungs, disease, or real
physical unsoundness. A flexion test should not be a deal breaker. We
categorically refuse to consider the flexion test a basis for our assessment
of a horse's soundness and will not offer a horse to a buyer who would use
it as a deal-breaker. It is that ambiguous, unreliable, subjective, and
misunderstood.



Is there are chance one of those two great horses you just looked at might
deserve another look?



Renee

Thank you all for the overwhelming response to our earlier plea for help
concerning the loss of our brand. We are off to the Board of Livestock
meeting in Helena on March 12 & 13 to plead our case. We hope you can
attend in person and/or send letters of support so that we can present them
to the Board during our appeal. When we find out the exact time we are to
appear, we'll let you know.



The letters should include some or all of the following and explain:

1. You know Montana Horses and/or the Mantles, personally or by
reputation,

2. We have many horses and actually use our brand as a major part of
our daily horse business,

3. ALL of our many horses have the brand and ALL have lifetime brand
inspections issued by the MT DOL,

4. We are responsible and respectable people and have a legitimate and
large scale horse business with name recognition around the world,

5. You know us to respect the laws and that we would not knowingly
place ourselves in such a position to compromise our livelihood,

6. That the circumstances that caused us to record our brand late were
extenuating and caused by a death in the immediate family at Christmas,

7. Since honest mistakes happen and sometimes there are legitimate
extenuating circumstances that cause oversights, DOL policy should include a
"grace period"; that those brand holders about to lose their brands should
be notified prior to the loss; and that late filings should be subject to
normal and reasonable penalty instead of immediate revocation with no means
of appeal. Though the Mantles situation is in your immediate influence and
attention, you understand this might apply to others in a similarly
unfortunate predicament and you believe it is in the best interest of the
livestock industry to re-visit the policy.

8. Brands have value, are often considered property, some have been
known to sell for thousands of dollars, and the )V( is particularly
attractive and easy to read and is assumed to have great value.

9. Describe how you are familiar with our operation, how you know us,
and how you view our presence in the livestock and horse world. You might
be able to speak to the size of our ranch, our good reputation as
responsible horse owners, and how far our sphere of influence extends
throughout the US and other countries.

10. Explain that you have seen us utilize the brand, seen the brand on ALL
of our horses, that you have seen and understand our horses travel
frequently and are pastured on ranges away from our home, that the brand is
highly recognizable and recognized as ours, and you consider the brand not
only part of our horse's identity, but also a major part of our ranch's
identity.

11. Our contribution to the Department of Livestock, through brand
inspections and per capita livestock taxes alone, is substantial and
documented and should be taken into consideration.

12. The )V( is still recorded to the Mantles in Wyoming in the same
location on horses, is in good standing and has been for many years. The
Mantles still maintain a family ranch in Wyoming. (Wouldn't it be an
unnecessary hassle and cost to have to brand our horses in WY and ship them
into Montana, only to re-inspect them in Montana with a Wyoming brand that
USED to be a Montana brand?)



CONTACT: Please address your letters to: (http://liv.mt.gov)

Montana Department of Livestock

Executive Officer Christian Mackay

Board of Livestock

301 N. Roberts, #3

Helena MT 59620



And please send a copy of your letters to us:

Montana Horses, Inc.

Kail Mantle & Renee Daniels-Mantle

9700 Clarkston Road

Three Forks, MT 59752

(406) 285-3541 | (406) 285-0918 fax

info@montanahorses.com



BRAND RE-RECORD FACTS AND POLICY: Every 10 years, the DOL requires existing
brand owners to re-record their brands and pay $100. ALL registered brands
will be re-recorded into your name if you apply for your re-record by
December 31st. A letter is sent to your last known address explaining this.
You are NOT notified if you missed the rerecord deadline. If you missed the
rerecord deadline, you have until March 31, 2012, to reapply for your brand.
Your application will, however, be processed as a new brand application and
there is no guarantee your brand will be reissued. During a re-record year,
The DOL reserves your previously recorded brand exclusively in your name
until March 31st (a 90 day period), after which it is released to anyone who
wishes to purchase it for $100. You may make a new application for a brand
anytime. However; regardless of prior ownership, it will be considered a
NEW application and is required to adhere to other stipulations. Currently
in Montana, there are certain brands that are no longer allowed (for
instance, single iron brands, ) brands, or others that might be easy to
alter or are in a certain location on the animal). If you apply for a newly
disallowed brand REGARDLESS OF PRIOR OWNERSHIP, you will be denied if you do
not do so prior to the December 31st deadline in a re-record year. There is
NO GRACE PERIOD for late re-records of brands no longer allowed under new
application. There is NO NOTIFICATION to those about to lose their brands.
There is NO FORMAL REGULATION OR POLICY explaining the process that led to
or the standards applied to new brand applications.



OUR INFRACTION: We sent in our paperwork to re-record our brand 2 weeks
after the December 31st deadline and our )V( horse brand is no longer a
brand they will issue under a new application. We have been told there are
many other livestock/brand owners in the same situation.



OUR EXTENUATION CIRCUMSTANCES: We did not receive the letter informing us of
the upcoming deadline. (Many producers have explained they did not either.
It is conceivable that many addresses change over ten years and forwards
expire.) We did not become aware of the re-record until late November after
an unrelated call to the DOL. Immediately after, Renee (I am solely
responsible for this paperwork) was called away from the ranch and ranch
business to deal with the illness, hospitalization, and death of an
immediate family member. I lived with my Dad until early January. Sherrie
Daniels died December 23rd. Upon my return, I began catching up with the
paperwork and was notified by a friend who happened to be perusing potential
brands to purchase and noticed ours had not been renewed. (FYI - ours would
not be purchasable by another party either.)



OUR RECOURSE: The Department of Livestock has not sent our official
rejection, but we have been informed they will. With the exception of the
public information officer, the Department of Livestock, in particular
Christian Mackay and John Grainger, have been very helpful in explaining
this situation and how we must proceed. We can appeal the decision to deny
our brand to the Board of Livestock (http://liv.mt.gov/public/board ). We
have asked to be put on the agenda for the next BOL meeting. We have been
notified that we will be on the agenda, but not yet sure which day. If we
fail at that level, we will be forced to resort to the courts, where we feel
(and have been told by legislators and attorneys) we will prevail.



Again, we cannot thank you enough for your help on this. Though it is
unfortunate we have put ourselves in this position, we sincerely believe the
Department of Livestock will be convinced to reissue our brand to us and
change policy to allow such ill-fated situations from causing destruction to
the very industry it represents.



Most gratefully,



Renee



Montana Horses, Inc.

Kail Mantle & Renee Daniels-Mantle

9700 Clarkston Road

Three Forks, MT 59752

(406) 285-3541 | (406) 285-0918 fax

info@montanahorses.com

www.montanahorses.com

I have lost a family legacy. I am in need of help from the people of
Montana, our friends, clients, and the livestock world to convey to the
government of Montana the tragedy in this mistake on my part and
misapplication of policy and regulation on theirs. For this purpose, I ask
you to weigh in, on my behalf to plead my case. I hope that with this
process we can also see that laws are made for reasons, the enforcement of
which must speak to the reason for the law, not to the process. I think in
Montana we can still hope this is the case. If not, more is lost than I
feared.



So, here's the story, uncomfortable as it is to tell:

Our horse brand is a )V( on the right hip of our horses.
The brand was given to Kail when he was a boy in Wyoming. When we got our
start in Montana we brought his horses up here to start our business. We
registered the brand here so we didn't have to re-brand our horses and so we
could be a legitimate Montana operation. The family ranch and brand still
exist in Wyoming. It is synonymous with our herd of horses and the Mantle
name. It is sort of a badge in the West, a source of pride. It brands the
owner, too. It has become part of our ranch and family identity.

We've branded hundreds of horses with this brand, as we grew our initial
herd of just a few to several hundred here. It is a safe assumption that
right now there are more horses with the )V( brand in Montana than any other
brand. Our horses are freeze branded, so they show up really well and it is
a nicer process for the horse. We have had the Department of Livestock
write hundreds of lifetime brand inspections with this brand, costing
thousands of dollars. Thousands of people know the )V( brand is ours, as we
trail hundreds of horse through town every year in the Horse Drive and send
hundreds of horses across the country every year to work. It is recognized
across the West. Most brand inspectors know this is our brand, since our
horses travel for a living and it is their travel license. We are compliant
with all brand laws. We do it right, we pay the fees, we obey the laws.
This also costs thousands of dollars, but we genuinely respect the
institution. This is our livelihood.

Every ten years it is necessary to re-record your brands. Everyone in the
livestock world and in their right mind makes sure their brand is
re-recorded on time. It is extremely important. This re-record was due
December 31st, 2011. It is an easy procedure, costs about $100 a brand, and
is accessible now online. I am told the Department of Livestock issues
reminders in the mail and announces this process in newspapers and radio,
maybe even local TV. (The next brand re-record deadline will be December
31st, 2021, FYI.)

I, however, did not re-record our brand on time. So I have lost it.forever,
I am told.

Why? Here's the uncomfortable part and where I ask you and the State of
Montana to be human: I just found out in late November from the Department
of Livestock that the re-record was happening. I did not receive a notice
in the mail (they still might have our old address from the last decade), I
do not listen to the radio or get local TV or newspapers where I live. I
called the Department of Livestock about a lien filing in late November, or
I would never have known it was due. So, I put that info in the "get to that
sometime before the end of the year" category in my mind. Shortly
thereafter I was called by my father to come live with him while we cared
for his wife of 34 years in her last few weeks of life. I lived in the
hospital, away from my ranch and business, caring for my family until just a
few days ago. Sherrie died on December 23rd from bone cancer. Her obituary
was in the paper at Christmas, I know this because I wrote it. That was
about the only business-like deadline I handled. I missed the deadline for
the brand re-record, among many other things. (I was late with the
thousands of dollars of Department of Livestock taxes I was to pay on
November 30th for those same horses, but they just charged interest on that
- they didn't take our horses away.)

When I returned to the ranch, I filed for the brand two weeks late. I am
told that it will not be re-issued. PERIOD. It is now considered a new
application, not a re-record. There is no grace period, despite the fact
that they hold all unrecorded brands until March 31st before they release
them. The )V( today will not be issued because its location and content
might conflict with another brand (a legitimate concern). However; had I
filed in time it would have been re-recorded to us with no problem. These,
apparently, are unbending rules that date back hundreds of years. Three
weeks ago we had our brand. Today we do not.

Kail's legacy (now ours) is gone. The )V( in Montana is no more.because of
a technicality. I am told there is no way around this.

If we do not get the brand back in the State of Montana we have few options.
Here they are, as I understand them: 1) Re-brand hundreds of horses. 2)
Spend thousands of dollars and countless hours for new lifetime brand
inspections. 3) Lose forever priceless years of marketing and identification
(it is honestly like having to change your name) OR - Move to Wyoming. The
latter is honestly the more enticing option. In Wyoming (which might have
more livestock than Montana) our brand is safe and secure and the DOL does
not have a public relations officer or an unbending set of concrete rules
which somehow along the way lost their original intent - to protect and
serve the livestock industry and community in the state.

Please understand, this is not an issue of the brand - it was ours 3 weeks
ago. It is an issue of a deadline. If we thought for a moment that
re-issuing this brand to us would be harmful to horses, people, or the
industry, you know we would not request it.

The intent of the law, the very Department, is lost.



In March, I will appear in front of the Board of Livestock to plead my case.
The Board of Livestock are just people, like us, who are livestock producers
in the State and who represent us. In as dignified a manner as I can
muster, I will ask them to re-issue our brand to us, hopefully without
crying. I will explain the legitimate extenuating circumstances that caused
my tardiness. I will verify the size and scope of our operation and provide
detailed accounts of the number of horses and their travels. I will provide
evidence of the familiarity most brand inspectors have with the brand. I
will show records and details about our compliance with the laws and
financial investment in the brand and the enforcing agency. I will exhibit
the material damage losing the brand will cause. I will reiterate our
presence and influence in the industry. I will beg for understanding.

And I will bring reinforcement. That's where you come in.

Please help us, if you can, by providing letters (or personal testimony if
you want to travel to Helena) that might help me with the above. Help me
explain to the Board of Livestock the importance of our brand to us and to
our business, your familiarity with it, your experience with our legitimate
use of the brand, your witness to our compliance with brand laws and
deference to the enforcing agency, your understanding of the size of our
operation and the number of horses who have this brand, your experience with
our horses, your respect for the way we conduct business, your feelings
about the brand, and especially your hope that a government agency might
still have rationale rooted in the people it serves.

The question I will ask the Department of Livestock, The
Board, and you is this, "Are we a nation of laws for law's sake? Or are we
a nation of people who create and fund the enforcement of laws to protect
and serve ourselves, the people? Why does the Department of Livestock, a
government agency funded by livestock producers exist if not to serve and
protect the very livestock producers who created and fund it? And are we
not livestock producers? If the harm in re-recording our brand did not
exist on December 31st, but did on January 1st because of an arbitrary
deadline, then is there real harm in re-recording a legitimate brand to a
legitimate livestock producer, the allowance of which will not serve or
protect other livestock producers?

If a motion is necessary to legitimize it, then I will
suggest this and hope you will too, "I move to allow a grace period
following a ten year re-record, to take into account human error." I
suggest March 31st, the same as all other brand holds. I will suggest a
delinquency letter of warning be issued to those about to lose their brand
and even suggest a hefty monetary penalty to discourage late filings and
cover department costs. I believe this is in the best interest of the
livestock producers of Montana.

Direct your letters to the Montana Board of Livestock or send them to me, be
sure to identify yourself and I'll take them along in March.

We are deeply indebted to you for this.



Many, many thanks,

Renee

Montana Horses, Inc.
Kail Mantle & Renee Daniels-Mantle
9700 Clarkston Road
Three Forks, MT 59752
(406) 285-3541 | (406) 285-0918 fax
info@montanahorses.com
www.montanahorses.com

When a million prehistoric grasshoppers of a now-extinct species got caught
in a storm and died of the cold, they landed on a glacier where they are now
embedded in ice in the Grasshopper Glacier in the Beartooth Mountains, in
Montana, at 11,000 feet.



The Beartooths are our absolute favorite summer pack trip destination.



Let us help you plan your backcountry trip into the mountains this summer.
We have great horses, trailhead advice, and itinerary planning services.



Montana Horses, Inc.

Kail Mantle & Renee Daniels-Mantle

9700 Clarkston Road

Three Forks, MT 59752

(406) 285-3541 | (406) 285-0918 fax

info@montanahorses.com

www.montanahorses.com

Why is it a good idea to slaughter horses? A lot of folks are having a knee
jerk reaction--like Black Beauty is going to end up in a Big Mac. You posted
something a while back bringing up issues I think people don't realize. Care
to reiterate for your old pal?



Thanks for asking, pal.

We don't actually slaughter horses, but support the continuance of legally
processing horse meat governed in the US.

Horses are considered livestock (governed by the same laws/transportation
rules/FDA/USDA/etc) and taxed as livestock. Because there is still a real
market for horse meat, and because they are private property, there must be
a utility value for the commodity. Granted, the US widely regards them as
pets and the country rarely eats horse meat, but there is still a base level
of utility entrenched in the agricultural world and highly
regulated/taxed/governed by animal agriculture institutions.

When you jerk the utility value out of the market, you instantly turn
hundreds of thousands of horses into this ambiguous classification, and
drastically reduce the value of the property. It's literally a "taking".

In real world speak, here's the nitty gritty:

When a horse is "unwanted" (or crippled, dangerous, sick, old, unrideable)
or has no other higher or better use or isn't someone's pet, he can be sent
to a processing facility and some value in meat can be retained. He has
monetary value, though at the lowest level. He feeds the masses. I've eaten
it, in Switzerland, weird, but not bad - won't probably do it again. Horses
die, just like humans, but their natural end is to slowly starve to death
because they can't process feed after a certain age. Humans almost always
interrupt the starvation, by putting them down. Most responsible owners do
it humanely - some use a vet, some use a gun, some send them to a processing
facility for meat, and some horses die horrible neglected lives from shitty
owners who don't feed them or put them down humanely.

Until 2007, there were US regulated meat processing facilities in the
States. The well intentioned (but completely out of touch) animal activists
could not get a bill passed in Congress to outlaw horse processing after
many years of attempts, so they outlawed it through the backdoor - they
unfunded the federal meat processing inspectors, who were mandatory in the
US to process meat for human consumption. In one stroke, they put four US
facilities out of business. There are still facilities in Canada and in
Mexico processing horse meat. They are still processing as many horses as
before, except now the horses travel ungodly hours to facilities in Canada
and outright macabre unregulated facilities in Mexico. It is truly inhumane.

The utility value of the horse dropped to ZERO. So, those owners who might
need to put down their horse now do not have humane processing as an
alternative (where they would in years past have even seen a value for the
meat in the amount of about $300 per horse - for reference, ours cost an
average of $2400 to purchase and cost $700 a year to feed, so you can see
this isn't much, but at least something). Most can't afford to feed them,
let alone hire a vet to put them down, and most don't have the ability (or
balls) to do it themselves. US slaughter was a HUMANE alternative to
starvation and neglect. (More regulated than cattle, by far.)

Recently, after the GAO released an in-depth study about the unintended
consequences of the end of US slaughter facilities, Obama signed a bill to
re-fund the federal meat inspectors, which opens the door for construction
of US regulated and owned horse processing facilities. If in the US, we can
keep them humane and re-establish the value of the horse. (Even PETA praised
it, as well as the Vet Associations, not just the horse industry.) This is
why you are seeing a rush of end-of-the-world freak-outs.

Unfortunately, all the activists did was cause the SAME NUMBER of horses
slaughtered each year to endure trips to unsavory out of country facilities.
In addition, those who might have fallen on hard times and were no longer
able to care for their horses just turned them out to starve or fend for
themselves, because they knew if they went to the sale they would likely get
charged a disposal fee instead of being paid for the meat.

Like I said, we don't slaughter our horses, we put them down on the ranch
when their times comes and end their lives gracefully. The owners of Black
Beauty would not turn him into a Big Mack. But the reality is: Humane, US
regulated horse processing of unwanted horses does need to be available as a
choice.

No, I don't eat horse, but many people do. That's their choice. It would be
the same if some group (like the HSUS dinks) decided it was inhumane to eat
chicken, or beef, or fish - and went about stopping all beef processing. OR
better yet, if perhaps the anti-smoking crowd decided it was wrong to smoke
cigarettes, but knew an all-out ban was impossible, so passed a bill to
un-fund the licensing process.

Long enough explanation?!

Thanks for caring enough to ask -

R



Montana Horses, Inc.

Kail Mantle & Renee Daniels-Mantle

9700 Clarkston Road

Three Forks, MT 59752

(406) 285-3541 | (406) 285-0918 fax

info@montanahorses.com

www.montanahorses.com

Thankfully, hunting season is drawing to a close. I have developed an
ardent distaste for most hunters. Though we have spent most of our lives
promoting and defending hunting, which was a source of business revenue and
a sport and family tradition in which we frequently participated - no more.
I am inflamed right now because there are two trespassing hunters shooting
their guns within a few hundred feet of my home.again. I just posted a "You
Are Trespassing" note (with phone number, I am not anonymous) on their black
Dodge Durango from Bozeman, but really wanted to paint it with orange spray
paint on the side of their vehicle. I didn't, because ultimately I would be
punished legally far worse than they. Last week, we chased forty head of
horses back into their pasture through the gate left open by trespassing
hunters. Last year, hunters in a river boat took six bucks off of the
neighbor's private hunting ranch. My father and I actually watched them
through binoculars as they wiggled the post that held the No Trespassing
sign from the ground.

Notice a higher percentage of irresponsible, illegal, resident hunters in
recent years? They drive up and down the roads in orange, glassing private
property for which they have no regard, trespassing, leaving gates open,
driving through private property and over public land, spotlighting,
injuring countless animals with no kill, shooting out signs, and
disregarding their surroundings. They use their 4-wheelers and pickup
trucks to drive to the game, shoot it out their doors, and then load it in
the back. This clearly isn't for meat, since they are all well employed,
judging the gear and vehicles they drive and the fact they come out in
droves on the weekend. Sportsmen! With the passage of I161, we have further
constricted the ability of licensed outfitters to escort hunters responsibly
into the backcountry, so the inept are pouring in there, too. A record 95%
incompetence was seen this year with men leasing our horses for self-guided
hunting trips. Their ignorance was surpassed only by their arrogance. No
more! I won't put my horses through it.

Here's my public statement: STAY OFF PRIVATE LAND. GO BUY YOUR OWN. I
HAVE AN ORANGE CAN OF SPRAY PAINT IN EVERY SADDLE BAG AND VEHICLE I OWN AND
AM ITCHING TO USE IT. At the very least, go use the public land for which
we ALL pay, just don't cross my property to do so. And don't whine when the
money from out-of-state hunters drops to a level that the public can no
longer afford access, or when the private land owners all lock you out, or
when the tags go up in price, or when the ticket writing regulators turn
their eyes to you for lost revenue. No doubt, regulation, tags, or
permission will not enter in to your decision to grab a six-pack and head on
down the road to your nearest railroad access. That's not the public,
right? That's just business.

Unfortunately, those who need to read this won't. And some who do will use
it as fodder for a wacko ill-conceived gun-control or anti-cowboy or hunting
agenda. Well, so be it. I'm tired of defending the booger-eating-morons.

I say, CALL THEM OUT. I'm not content to watch the last of a very noble
tradition choked into extinction.
R