Attn: Montana Hunters

[Nemont]

If you are interested in public wildlife policy you should be paying attention to HB 235. On the surface it appears to be harmless but it is opening a door to more commericalization of your public wildlife. It proposes giving a transferable big game tag to those enrolling land in the Block Management Program, including Non resident land owners. While it is transferable only to family members it is sure to bring a push to fully transferable land owner tags which can be sold. In addition this bill would start a lottery for one tag each for a deer, elk, moose, mountain sheep and mountain goat. The winners of one of these lottery tags is also exempt from waiting the seven years to apply again. This is a bad bill and it starts us down a very slippery slope. Contact your legislator and tell them that is needs to be stopped.

March 25, 2005

Last modified March 25, 2005 - 12:38 am



GOP uses silver bullet on hunting bill
By BRETT FRENCH
Gazette Outdoor Writer

House Republicans used one of their 12 silver bullets Thursday to shoot a controversial bill out of committee that would supplement funding for the state's hunter access program.

House Bill 235 would, in part, allow a lottery of big game permits and would grant a hunting license to landowners participating in the state's block management program. It would also allow the landowner to transfer the license to an immediate family member. For nonresident landowners, the license would be granted in addition to the money already paid to them as block management participants.

The plot thickened once the bill hit the House floor. In its second reading, an amendment was added that would fund two game warden positions at a cost of $114,000 in 2006 and $104,500 in 2007. In the first fiscal year, the lottery would not generate any money to fund the positions, meaning the money would have to come from Fish, Wildlife and Parks.


"It's a damaging amendment," said Rep. George Golie, D-Great Falls, who chairs the House Fish, Wildlife and Parks Committee. He said funding two investigators could poison the bill, although he said he wished it would have been shot down in committee instead.

The bill passed on second reading, 72-28. If the House approves the bill on third reading, it moves to the Senate.

Rep. Mike Lange, R-Billings, introduced HB235, which was drawn up in consultation with the Public Lands and Public Wildlife Advisory Council. His attempt to blast the bill from the House Fish, Wildlife and Parks Committee on Wednesday failed, 52-47. Sixty votes are necessary to blast a bill from committee to the House floor.

Lange was angry.

"We need to rally some Democrats to quit playing politics and get that out on the floor," he said Wednesday. "George Golie doesn't like that bill, and he's playing politics."

But Golie, who chairs the committee, said his disapproval of the bill wasn't about politics. He said he opposes the transfer of game licenses.

"That's never been the policy in Montana," Golie said.

Charlie Johnson, president of the Montana Bowhunters Association, said his group opposes the transfer of licenses.

"You and I can't transfer a license to a family member," Johnson said. "I think it sets a dangerous precedent of commercializing wildlife. And it's discriminatory in nature."

The most objectionable part of the bill, Golie said, is the lottery system for big game permits. Although the funds raised by the lottery would go to sign up more landowners for the block management program, he said, the way the bill is written is unfair to average Montanans. Participants would have an unlimited number of chances to win the lottery.

The state's largest conservation organization, the Montana Wildlife Federation, hasn't taken a position on the bill but has voiced its concern.

"How would the grass-roots, blue-collar Montanan compete with a guy who can buy 500 tickets?" asked Craig Sharpe, executive director of the federation. "We stand up for the everyday hunter. And while we support the block management program, there are elements in this bill that are problematic."

Golie said the lottery would set the stage for making hunting a rich man's sport.

"We already have ways in the law to increase the funding for block management," Golie said, such as an increase in the cost of conservation licenses. "What we have now is a bunch of gimmicks to raise money."

Earlier Thursday, Rep. Robyn Driscoll, D-Billings, who sits on the House Fish, Wildlife and Parks Committee, said she could not support HB235 as it was written.

"For me, the funding source is the key to me not being able to support this bill," Driscoll said. "I don't think we are desperate enough to fund block management that we jeopardize our hunting heritage by instituting a lottery to pay for it. The block management program is not going to go away just because we don't pass HB235."

But when amended, Driscoll supported the bill.

The block management program is set to sunset in March 2006 unless it is reauthorized by the Legislature this session. Senate Bill 77, which would make block management permanent, is also stalled in committee although it has received strong support throughout the session.

"SB77 is going to pass," Golie said

. .
HB 235 Actual Text

 

[BigHornRam]

Thanks for the heads up Nemont.

 

[mtmiller]

Thanks, I just printed it out and will give it a read tonight.

 

[ELKCHSR]

The plot thickened once the bill hit the House floor. In its second reading, an amendment was added that would fund two game warden positions at a cost of $114,000 in 2006 and $104,500 in 2007. In the first fiscal year, the lottery would not generate any money to fund the positions, meaning the money would have to come from Fish, Wildlife and Parks.

I would see this as a dangerous point right off the bat, not that we would get two more game wardens, but that the money would have to come out of the hard budget verses the tags paying for the extra help.

"You and I can't transfer a license to a family member," Johnson said. "I think it sets a dangerous precedent of commercializing wildlife. And it's discriminatory in nature."

This guy said it right, why would we allow any one in the state or if we do to a point, let any one else be able to just hand off tags to others when no one in the general populace can.

"How would the grass-roots, blue-collar Montanan compete with a guy who can buy 500 tickets?" asked Craig Sharpe, executive director of the federation. "We stand up for the everyday hunter. And while we support the block management program, there are elements in this bill that are problematic."