Alert! SB 255 Call now!

[shoots-straight]

They just scheduled a vote on SB 255 call you representatives now. Tell them to vote No on this bad bill. It would force the MTFW&Ps to manage with social, and economic concerns on any decision they make. They will have to hire more personal, and it will cost $3/4 of a million a year more.

Make the call. Everyone. 406-444-4800

Leave a message for all the reps in your area. If you don't know who they are ask or look it up, here.http://leg.mt.gov/css/find a legislator.asp

 

[BRI]

Is this clarification of an existing law or completely new? It's confusing when reading the text of the bill?

A BILL FOR AN ACT ENTITLED: "AN ACT REQUIRING THE FISH, WILDLIFE, AND PARKS COMMISSION TO FOLLOW CERTAIN CRITERIA FOR MAKING DECISIONS RELATING TO THE OPPORTUNITY TO HUNT, FISH, OR TRAP OR FISH."

WHEREAS, the Montana Fish, Wildlife, and Parks Commission is responsible for the department's overall policy direction and is required to set policies that protect, preserve, manage, and propagate state wildlife; and

WHEREAS, the commission is responsible for establishing hunting, fishing, and trapping AND FISHING rules that manage fish and FISH AND wildlife in a sustainable manner; and

WHEREAS, Montanans and nonresidents alike are affected by commission decisions allocating the opportunities to harvest fish and FISH AND wildlife; and

WHEREAS, commission decisions should be guided by clearly stated management criteria and objectives that seek to optimize the social and economic benefits of fish and FISH AND wildlife resources within biologically sustainable limits.

BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF MONTANA:

NEW SECTION. Section 1. Criteria required for commission decisions. (1) Any commission decision under this part that sets seasons, manages the hunting, fishing, or trapping of wildlife, fish, game, furbearers, waterfowl, or nongame species of the state or otherwise relates to providing an opportunity to hunt, fish, or trap ANY ALLOCATIVE COMMISSION DECISION MADE ONLY DURING A BIENNIAL OR QUADRENNIAL SEASONAL RULE ADOPTION CONDUCTED PURSUANT TO THIS PART THAT SETS SEASONS, QUOTAS, PERMITTING, OR LICENSING FOR THE HUNTING OR FISHING OF WILDLIFE, FISH, GAME, OR WATERFOWL IN THE STATE must include:

(a) a statement of management intent or purpose for the decision;

(b) measurable objectives considered necessary to accomplish the intent or purpose stated in subsection (1)(a);

(c) a finding of impact that considers the:

(i) current biological status of the resources affected by the decision and what effect the decision will have on sustainability of the resources;

(ii) number of residents and nonresidents who have participated in the activity affected by the decision and the number of residents and nonresidents who can reasonably be expected to participate in the future;

(iii) importance of resident, nonresident, and guided participation to the economy of the region and local area affected by the decision; and

(iv) impacts on private or public lands, including whether the decision affects land use in the area; and

(d) a stated time period of not more than 2 years in which the commission must evaluate the effectiveness of the decision by determining if the objectives required by subsection (1)(b) were met.

(2) Prior to making a decision pursuant to subsection (1), the commission shall provide:

(a) notice to interested members of the public of the proposed decision;

(b) opportunity for public comment on the proposed decision;

(c) a clear and complete statement of the purpose and objectives of the proposed decision; and

(d) the biological or management purpose of the proposed decision.

(3) The commission shall maintain a full and complete record of the process required by this section, including responses to public comment. All records created pursuant to this section are open for public inspection.

NEW SECTION. Section 2. Codification instruction. [Section 1] is intended to be codified as an integral part of Title 87, chapter 1, part 3, and the provisions of Title 87, chapter 1, part 3, apply to [section 1].

NEW SECTION. Section 3. Severability. If a part of [this act] is invalid, all valid parts that are severable from the invalid part remain in effect. If a part of [this act] is invalid in one or more of its applications, the part remains in effect in all valid applications that are severable from the invalid applications.

 

[Big Fin]

Completely new law. Puts economic and social concerns on the same level of importance as biological issues.

(c) a finding of impact that considers the:

(i) current biological status of the resources affected by the decision and what effect the decision will have on sustainability of the resources;

(ii) number of residents and nonresidents who have participated in the activity affected by the decision and the number of residents and nonresidents who can reasonably be expected to participate in the future;

(iii) importance of resident, nonresident, and guided participation to the economy of the region and local area affected by the decision; and

(iv) impacts on private or public lands, including whether the decision affects land use in the area; and

Any Montana hunter who does not weigh in on this bill, loses any credibility in the future if they say,

"It's all about the money" Yeah, it would be.

"It's never about biology" Yeah, it won't be.

This is a major change to how wildlife decisions would have to be made in Montana.

One does not need to look very far to see which parties want to protect the "economic" interest, regardless of the impact it has on the resource.

And anyone can make the case for social issues. "Me and my brother have hunted there for years. It is a big part of our social gathering. You can't change this season."

This is big stuff. Call now.

 

[WT_in_MT]

So did they vote on this right before they broke for lunch?

 

[tjones]

We are not going to get this one.

 

[The Hedgehog]

I left a msg/vote for the appropriations committee. How can this one be getting so much support?

In the case of SB400, does passed 3rd reading, mean it's a done deal?

 

[tjones]

It means its done in the Senate.

Its headed to House committee and hopefully dies there before hitting the House floor. BS will be the last stop with his veto brand.

 

[The Hedgehog]

I'm glad to see that Wilmer and Jent haven't dissappointed on some of these ultra-crap ideas. I rarely vote D, but did in both their cases, and also for BS. Some of these folks supporting these full-cocked ideas need to know they are going to lose substancial votes from sportsman. When this is all over there needs to be a summary of Tier 1 through Tier 3 crap ideas for sportsman, a summary of who invented/supported them, and an overall ranking of which politicians are on our side, down to the true Fs.

 

[TBass]

I left a msg/vote for the appropriations committee. How can this one be getting so much support?

Because those who want to privatize/commercialize lost their cash bull. Prior to the elk archery permits, the guaranteed license coupled with no permit requirements, equaled unfettered opportunity to privatize/commercialize bull elk during the archery season. One of their arguments against the permits has always been that it was done for social reasons. I wonder how many that have used that argument are now supporting SB 255. Oh, the irony...

 

[Drake4]

Some of these folks supporting these full-cocked ideas need to know they are going to lose substancial votes from sportsman. .

It seems like they don't care. I got an email back from a Senator last night who said he was tired of people telling him they are re-thinking votes.

 

[shoots-straight]

Give these guys and gals some info!

We have another shot at SB 255. It's more important that ever for everyone to send this info to at least three of your buds. Tell them to send it to at least three of there buds and so on. Then hit the House (H) Appropriations Committee with the onslot.

Walter McNutt Chair
Jon Moe Legislative Branch Staffer
Duane Ankney Member
Randy Brodehl Member
Tom Burnett Member
Rob Cook Member
Mike Cuffe Member
Champ Edmunds Member
Ron Ehli Member
John Esp Member
Steve Gibson Member
Roy Hollandsworth Member
Ryan Osmundson Member
Don Roberts Member Doesn't have e-mail box call him 406-444-4800
Jon C Sesso Member
Bill McChesney Member
Galen Hollenbaugh Member
Robert (Bob) Mehlhoff Member
Trudi Schmidt Member
Tony Belcourt Member
Cynthia Hiner Vice Chair
Jaret Coles Legislative Branch Staffer
Sandra Sullivan Secretary
Bill Beck Vice Chair

[email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected],

 

[onpoint]

I'm glad to see that Wilmer and Jent haven't dissappointed on some of these ultra-crap ideas. I rarely vote D, but did in both their cases, and also for BS. Some of these folks supporting these full-cocked ideas need to know they are going to lose substancial votes from sportsman. When this is all over there needs to be a summary of Tier 1 through Tier 3 crap ideas for sportsman, a summary of who invented/supported them, and an overall ranking of which politicians are on our side, down to the true Fs.

There needs to be a summary... +1

 

[shoots-straight]

I'm glad to see that Wilmer and Jent haven't dissappointed on some of these ultra-crap ideas. I rarely vote D, but did in both their cases, and also for BS. Some of these folks supporting these full-cocked ideas need to know they are going to lose substancial votes from sportsman. When this is all over there needs to be a summary of Tier 1 through Tier 3 crap ideas for sportsman, a summary of who invented/supported them, and an overall ranking of which politicians are on our side, down to the true Fs.

We have kicked this around. We want our elected Senators and Representatives to come to our meeting. We know that if they get wind of it's intent they won't show. Any ideas on how to get them there?

Like maybe a Invitation for them to give us a rundown on the "GOOD" work that they accomplished during this session, and then nail them upside down on a cross.

 

[onpoint]

I think you just gave your position up to your enemy.

 

[onpoint]

Headwaters has had a couple of candidate forums pre-election. Some interesting things came out but nothing earth shattering. My memories from those are that the Gallatin Valley GOP was a pretty good representation of what we see in Helena today. Gallatin Valley Dems were pretty flat line in general. The GOP tipped their hats towards a lot of their anti public sportsmen views. The Dems seemed pretty oblivious to sportsmens issues, but open to listening. Lewis Black's "the parties of bad ideas and no ideas" seemed to apply in general. If any Headwaters guy have any other useful recollections..... Anyways,with all the acrimony between "us and them" lately, good luck. This next election, we may have a hard time attracting good folks just to run due to shell shock. Maybe sportmens allover the state, if so inclined, may want to start putting out feelers for candidates who are actually, honestly, sincerely pro public Montana hunter/angler/etc.

 

[shoots-straight]

I think you just gave your position up to your enemy.

Maybe, but I think their busy making deals behind closed doors right now.

It is funny how many lurkers there are. Hi Bob, Jim, Ron, Ed, Gary, and Pat. Did you vote for anymore bad bills today?