Hunt Talk Radio - Look for it on your favorite Podcast platform

Ballot initiative to repeal HB637

MTGomer

MTGomer

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 25, 2015
Messages
5,635
Location
MT —> AZ
Last edited:
I think it will be important to target the press on the east side. I seem to recall the Great Falls Tribune was friendly to sportsman issues. Where's the Billings paper standing these days? Almost every paper on the west side gets branded ultra liberal already so they are often ignored by fence sitters on east side who don't own big ranches. Need to target those folks and wake them up. They're the ones who have the voting power to turf their arrogant cattle baron/sodbuster legislators. And maybe get to work on the Indian reservation folks. There's an untapped resource. Find a way to get them fired up and involved. It would be challenging but what have we got to lose?
 
MTGomer said:
The governor signed 637 today, so that makes today the first day to get to work undoing it.

I ask that debate and argument around it’s merits or the merits of failed SB143, be kept in the 130+ page thread that can also be found here in the State Specific Issues/Montana thread.

Where do we start?

How much money do we need?

What are the legal filing requirements to get rolling?

I’ll put $500 toward it, whatever ‘it’ is.


@Big Fin @Gevock @Ben Lamb
Click to expand...
ballotpedia.org

Laws governing the initiative process in Montana - Ballotpedia

Ballotpedia: The Encyclopedia of American Politics
ballotpedia.org ballotpedia.org
 
Well I am a tribal member, so you could start with me. Please help me understand why this hurts our state and our hunting heritage. Why should we as Montana residents fight for non-resident DIY guys? I for one support tourism. I would never support something that would hurt my ability to hunt my favorite places. I got sick and tired of seeing so many non-resident plates last fall. I would rather those guys hunt with an outfitter any day! I am glad the governor signed this bill, more pro-business legislation is what we need.
 
NativeHunter20 said:
Well I am a tribal member, so you could start with me. Please help me understand why this hurts our state and our hunting heritage. Why should we as Montana residents fight for non-resident DIY guys? I for one support tourism. I would never support something that would hurt my ability to hunt my favorite places. I got sick and tired of seeing so many non-resident plates last fall. I would rather those guys hunt with an outfitter any day! I am glad the governor signed this bill, more pro-business legislation is what we need.
Click to expand...
There is 134 pages on the other thread that should help you understand.
 
NativeHunter20 said:
Well I am a tribal member, so you could start with me. Please help me understand why this hurts our state and our hunting heritage. Why should we as Montana residents fight for non-resident DIY guys? I for one support tourism. I would never support something that would hurt my ability to hunt my favorite places. I got sick and tired of seeing so many non-resident plates last fall. I would rather those guys hunt with an outfitter any day! I am glad the governor signed this bill, more pro-business legislation is what we need.
Click to expand...
Glad to hear that you are “pro-business”! Thank you! You seem like an intelligent person as well as a great business man.
 
Big Shooter said:
Glad to hear that you are “pro-business”! Thank you! You seem like an intelligent person as well as a great business man.
Click to expand...
NativeHunter20 said:
Well I am a tribal member, so you could start with me. Please help me understand why this hurts our state and our hunting heritage. Why should we as Montana residents fight for non-resident DIY guys? I for one support tourism. I would never support something that would hurt my ability to hunt my favorite places. I got sick and tired of seeing so many non-resident plates last fall. I would rather those guys hunt with an outfitter any day! I am glad the governor signed this bill, more pro-business legislation is what we need.
Click to expand...

BAEDD88F-5CE6-473A-98FA-F904E1682E85.png

You are being redirected to the following url: https://www.hunttalk.com/threads/no...-2-2-2021-sb-143.304784/page-134#post-3205243
 
In... Another initiative drive - sad we have to use the same process as the firsrt time the people of Montana spoke though... Round two.

Initiative stop Montana Outfitter Government Assigned Clients.
 
I’m in. Pretty sure it won’t be near as hard to come up with enough signatures this time.
Can we add language into the initiative that forbids the sale of existing commercial use permits from one outfitter to another for outfitting on FS lands? If an existing permit holder goes out of business, the permit goes back to the FS to reissue to another prospective outfitters ONLY after a public hearing and an assessment of whether the affected wildlife populations are numerous enough to withstand commercial exploitation.

A commercial use permit has become a valuable commodity that many outfitters make a lot of money on when they decide to go out of business or retire.

A classic example of where something like this would be beneficial is Sanders county with something like a dozen or more public land outfitters in an area that can probably support four outfitters. Elk herds on public lands have been declining a lot over the past decade but they still pack in as many clients as they ever did. And they can sell their permit for a lot of $$$ if they want to retire.
 
Last edited:
OntarioHunter said:
I think it will be important to target the press on the east side. I seem to recall the Great Falls Tribune was friendly to sportsman issues. Where's the Billings paper standing these days? Almost every paper on the west side gets branded ultra liberal already so they are often ignored by fence sitters on east side who don't own big ranches. Need to target those folks and wake them up. They're the ones who have the voting power to turf their arrogant cattle baron/sodbuster legislators. And maybe get to work on the Indian reservation folks. There's an untapped resource. Find a way to get them fired up and involved. It would be challenging but what have we got to lose?
Click to expand...
Billings paper is where you will want to start, its the most vile liberal rag in Eastern Montana.

You last sentence asks a good question. What do you have to lose? I pose another question to you, what do you stand to gain?
 
Gerald Martin said:
I’m in. Pretty sure it won’t be near as hard to come up with enough signatures this time.
Can we add language into the initiative that forbids the sale of existing commercial use permits from one outfitter to another for outfitting on FS lands? If an existing permit holder goes out of business, the permit goes back to the FS to reissue to another prospective outfitters ONLY after a public hearing and an assessment of whether the affected wildlife populations are numerous enough to withstand commercial exploitation.

A commercial use permit has become a valuable commodity that many outfitters make a lot of money on when they decide to go out of business or retire.

A classic example of where something like this would be beneficial is Sanders county with something like a dozen or more public land outfitters in an area that can probably support four outfitters. Elk herds on public lands have been declining a lot over the past decade but they still pack in as many clients as they ever did. And they can sell their permit for a lot of $$$ if they want to retire.
Click to expand...
I say keep this simple and to the point. Sportsman are solid behind getting rid of 637 and have 6 or 7 percent to play with if I-161 is any kind of guide. Everything extra added will cost votes. The worst thing that could happen is to put forth an initiative loaded up with a bunch of I wants and have it fail.
 
I haven’t been a taxpaying resident of MT for over a year now and don’t have any legitimate say in this. But, I’d like to spitball something: hows about a ballot initiative that gives sole discretion of wildlife management and license allocations to FWP (as opposed to the legislature)? Would such a thing even be feasible? I can already anticipate a whole host of arguments against (that the legislature can hold FWP hostage via the budget being one of them). But it seems maybe logical on the surface?

Otherwise, good luck getting the recall going!
 
Eric Albus said:
Billings paper is where you will want to start, its the most vile liberal rag in Eastern Montana.

You last sentence asks a good question. What do you have to lose? I pose another question to you, what do you stand to gain?
Click to expand...
Why won’t they answer the last question? Just curious.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
113,668
Messages
2,029,009
Members
36,276
Latest member
Eller fam

Share this page

Back
Top