another MT legislative gem

[onpoint]

SB 90 comes up for hearing this next week. This is the "$3 from certain licenses to hunters against hunger account" fraud. If I'm reading the bills contents and the fiscal note correctly, although I shouldn't be, I am absolutely amazed. The fiscal statement assumptions(?) state (Il'll paraphrase, anyone so interested can read it for themselves):

1. Federal regs require that "revenue from license fees....shall not be diverted to purposes other than administration of the state F&W agency". this bill diverts those fees into this account
2. New sect.1 of SB 90 says that if USFWS determines provisions of this bill constitute a diversion, no license fees will go into this fund. so how will it be funded and if it can't use these license fees and why is this bill still alive.
3. USFWS has determined that the amended versionof SB 90 still constitutes a diversion of fees, therefore resulting in a loss of PR/DJ federal grants amounting to $20,433,953/year. refer to above, #2, why is there still going to be a hearing this week if the funds from this bill won't go into the account due to the finding that this is indeed a diversion?
4. Therefore the program "contemplated" by SB 90 would not be funded... read 1-4 again and ask "are you kidding me"

The way I (mis)understand all this is that the smoke screen of "hunters against hunger" is actually a way to turn back federal funds for all F&W mgmt under the guise of a nice sounding program. But written into the bill is a clause to "nullilfy" the very program the bill funds if it causes the federal funds to be lost. The feds have already determined that it does just that...yet there is another hearing on the bill coming up?

I hope I am misunderstand something here and somebody can set me straight, or else . This is our legislative process?? These people can actually determine the mgmt of our public resources?? Sorry this post is as hard to follow, I'm having a hard time making sense of the senselessness, as reflected here.

 

[shoots-straight]

Already alerted all our activists in the Root to send a message of NO!

 

[onpoint]

Tuesdays hearings schedule is a smorgasboard of anti sportman bills. They really loaded it up. A bunch of hearings on a bunch of bad bills, many in different halls and at the same time. These legislators an endearing bunch..... It's too bad 400 pissed off hunters and fishermen can't show up again and spread out allover the rooms on Tuesday. A few more weeks, keep :hump:.

 

[Ben Lamb]

What's amazing is SB 157, which would have created the same set up, but would have been a donation, rather than a forced controbution (and not a diversion) has been sitting in committee since February 1st.

The reason? Some have speculated that since it's sponsor is Kendall Van Dyk, leadership won't move it forward.

 

[onpoint]

A quick and dirty legislative scorecard after so many many painful weeks...bills in the fish and game category:

105 introduced bills...
3 of which have actually made it to the governors desk
11 have been tabled
24 missed transmittal deadline
67 still alive... many of which we know are floundering in limbo as the legislators contemplate (the ones that have the mental ability) the consequences of their votes.

62 unintroduced bills

I would be so bold to state that sportsmen/women have most likely had a gigantic hand in the above statistics. How many of the above "dead bills" would still be alive, how many would have made it to Schweitzer's desk, how many wouldn't be mired down in indecision, and how many more would have been introduced if those of that are doing the heavy lifting wouldn't have showed up?? This session has been a galvanizing event for a lot of sportsmen in Montana...unfortunately somewhat of a polarizing one too. If anyone out there thinks there ain't much they can do about this stuff, they are wrong. And to the ones who sit on the sidelines and /or just reap and enjoy the benefits...from those who do get involved....your welcome.

 

[Ben Lamb]

General Transmittal for all bills is on the 20th. If a bill has not passed out of the House of origin by then, it's probably dead.

67 bills - seems like only yesterday it was over 200.

I can say without a shadow of doubt that the folks showing up, emailing and calling in have made a huge difference. In 10 weeks, I've seen sportsmen go from divided over about every issue to united in most to defeat a well orchestrated attempt to privatize wildlife, erode public access to public land and water, and seek retribution for the good work that FWP's Commission has done over the last 2 years.

The issues that have divided Montana's hunters are far fewer than those which united us.

We are not done yet. At least two more weeks of hustling and maneuvering will take place as folks try to get bills blasted through. Expect a lot of little twists and turns as the politics of the 62nd get uglier.

We will keep fighting, and if there is a special session, then we will be there too.

I just hope we can get SS there in his braveheart outfit for the next rally

 

[onpoint]

What's amazing is SB 157, which would have created the same set up, but would have been a donation, rather than a forced controbution (and not a diversion) has been sitting in committee since February 1st.

The reason? Some have speculated that since it's sponsor is Kendall Van Dyk, leadership won't move it forward.

Hey Ben, SB 90 was supported 47 to 3 in the vote. Our "friends" the Dems also voted to pass this one, including Van Dyke. The way I read the text, this bill is nonsensical at best, at worst much worse. Is this bill not as stupid/sinister as I read it to be from the text. Or were the Dems asleep at the yea/nay button.

 

[Ben Lamb]

It's hard for a democrat to vote against a welfare bill.

 

[onpoint]

It's hard for a democrat to vote against a welfare bill.

Funny, but disturbing. "Welfare" at the expense of $20 mil if I read this right. Oh, wait, I forget, the circular wording kicks in, everything will be OK...somehow. If as it seems, Get rid of all of em?? next election and start fresh........Like Lewis Black says, "two parties, one of bad ideas and one of no ideas"....

 

[Ben Lamb]

The reality of politics is sometimes a deal gets cut for other reasons. That's what it looks like with SB 90. It's going to die anyway due to the diversion issue, so they let it go.

We are still trying to get the bill amended, or killed. I'd not smack folks around too much on this one, as offensive as it is. We have bigger fish to fry.

 

[onpoint]

The reality of politics is sometimes a deal gets cut for other reasons. That's what it looks like with SB 90. It's going to die anyway due to the diversion issue, so they let it go.

We are still trying to get the bill amended, or killed. I'd not smack folks around too much on this one, as offensive as it is. We have bigger fish to fry.

Agreed, let the stupid stuff slide, work on the threatening.......nontheless, this will be one of the nine comments I'm making to legislative committees this week. It might be "a small fish(?)" but nothing is out of the question this session.