Second reading was 27-23. Not a slam dunk. Third, after a great deal of lobbying, was 29-21. Lots of people in the hook and bullet conservation community aren’t speaking to one another, and there is a great deal of distrust and anger inside and outside the elk coalition. It’s a crappy...
The bill passed on 3rd reading yesterday. It was a great day for Mark Taylor, lobbyist for MOGA, the Wilks brothers, and the Yellowstone Club as well as one non-profit that pushed it relentlessly.
https://missoulacurrent.com/viewpoint-helena-lobbyists/
The MFP writer contacted me for a quote, and since I didn’t know much about it but had a very dim view of such efforts in other states (e.g. Donny Beaver’s leasing up a lot of trout water in PA and CO that used to be open) I contacted a couple of the ranches and one of their founders, Jeff Reed...
Take a look. The meat of it is in Section 3:
“For
4 game animals, migratory game birds, and upland game birds as defined in 87-6-101(12), (17), and (34), the
5 number of licenses, tags, or permits issued to nonresidents through special drawings in an administrative
6 region, hunting district...
I didn’t think the angry face was for me, Gerald, but thanks for your care.
And I have been thinking about your query about what the 635 naysayers suggest. I’m not ignoring it. Though I believe the devil is in the details, and I’m just smart enough to know that there are a lot of things I...
Randy, as usual your post gives me a lot to ponder, and I’m not done pondering. For instance, I had not really thought through the value of transferrable tag in areas with a 75% draw rate. I do have some corollary perspectives and questions to put in front of you and this group, however. I’m...
I was one of those who called John to raise holy hell when I heard of that support. He calmly explained the source of their misjudgment and what he intended to do from there. No defensiveness, no rationalization, no excuses. I was impressed.
Gerald, I just don’t see tolerance of wildlife being a big issue on the NR amenity ranches. I sure do on the resident-owned working ranches. There we agree completely, I suspect.
Gerald, these are excellent questions that I think about quite a bit. I don’t have time right now for an adequate answer, but I’ll throw this right out—that Montana hunters have a lot more important work to do building bridges with Montanan ag and forestry owners as a priority before we get all...
There is no compromise. Given the small number of NR LO’s with that kind of acreage, they get de facto guaranteed tags—1 to 5, depending on the size of their place. Residents are promised some alleviation of pressure on public land, but it’s insignificant given that the state is selling over...
Gerald, I do consider landowner preference a toe over the line of the NAM, and maybe a very worthwhile toe for the reason you cite above. I consider this bill, however, where tags increase as acreage increases in multiples over that minimum threshold, a kick in the face of the NAM.
You heard...
Another point of difference is that 635 awards tags by landholdings in increments of 2500 acres. A NR LO with 12,500 acres gets 5 tags—500% the benefit that one with 2500 gets. That’s not true of the resident landowner program, and, to be blunt, it both offends me and makes me suspicious of...
Ben, here is a quote from your post on Friday: “100% agree that the amount of pressure on public land isn't fixed by this bill”. In the face of exploding NR big game tag numbers—more than 66K in 2021—this bill’s accomplishments disappear. I don’t understand why you and Kendall reference the...