Ballot initiative to repeal HB637

@Beignet, you make the most relevant point. Without changing the system, there will be no change.

The average Joe/Jane hunter, resident and non, celebrated the passage of 161 as a win. But was it? What did we gain in the aftermath? What ever it was, it was short lived.

Here's a short list of what the Outfitter industry has gained since 161:

1) The ability to spit the Nonresident Big Game Combo in order to double the amount Nonresident deer tags available. Outfitter-WIN....
2) 2,000 Landowner sponsored Nonresident deer tags with the unused going back into the general draw. Outfitter-WIN....
3) Come-Home-TO-HUNT, 500 deer/elk, 500 deer only and 500 elk only. Removing these folks from the Nonresident general draw. Outfitter-WIN....
4) Nonresident Native, unlimited deer/elk, unlimited deer only and unlimited elk only. Again, removing these folks from the draw. Outfitter-Win....
5) Nonresident Youth, unlimited deer/elk, unlimited deer only and unlimited elk only. Every nonresident can bring their kids at a reduced cost. Outfitter-WIN....
6) Nonresident Student, unlimited deer/elk, unlimited deer only and unlimited elk only. Freeing up addition tags via the draw. Outfitter-WIN...

and recently:

7) Using hounds to hunt bears. Outfitter-WIN....
8) New muzzy season added. Outfitter-WIN....
9) New war on wolves with unlimited means of taking on the private, Montana wildlife needs to have a safe place, right? Outfitter-WIN....

This is the shortlist, there are more. War on elk? Yes, Outfitter-WIN....

All pushed as a good/needed idea for the general public and lobbied for by the Outfitter Industry. Outfitter-WIN-WIN-WIN.

The only way to change the way things are headed is:

Montana needs to give "Wildlife Management" back to our Fish & Game Department and remove the lobbing of our politicians to gain the system.

Otherwise, I fear that Ranching-for-Wildlife, landowner allocated tags, etc., is in our future.
 
@Mtnhunter1 - The amount of ever shifting bureaucratic rigmarole you listed is exhausting, no? As you mention, that's just the short list. All these stakeholders are getting wins, yet the resident Montana hunter can scarcely find a four year old mule deer. Where's the legislation that says "grow more mature mulies?" It's really time to get back to the basics of wildlife management and ensure that the resource is healthy and durable for the long term.
 
Mtnhunter1 said:
Montana needs to give "Wildlife Management" back to our Fish & Game Department and remove the lobbing of our politicians to gain the system.
Click to expand...

Interesting. I was researching how I-161 played out. How some call it the pot calling the kettle black for what is felt necessary... same here. Odd enough, on google I found this on the first Google page and even more striking, it was a thread from close to the same time frame in 2013... even more odd - who initiated the thread. haha! Lot learned over the course of time and figure it's a good thread for the Joe and Jane Outdoor enthusiasts, regardless the state - Some really great responses that detailed the process(es) we may question today.

Bills, Initiatives, and the Commission?

For the gurus on the political side of fish and wildlife issues - help us Joes and Janes better understand the intent / use and desired function for the means of 'regulating'. We have some very knowledgable HT members here and I believe sometimes there is a separation between high tech talk and...
www.hunttalk.com www.hunttalk.com
 
Sytes said:
Interesting. I was researching how I-161 played out. How some call it the pot calling the kettle black for what is felt necessary... same here. Odd enough, on google I found this on the first Google page and even more striking, it was a thread from close to the same time frame in 2013... even more odd - who initiated the thread. haha! Lot learned over the course of time and figure it's a good thread for the Joe and Jane Outdoor enthusiasts, regardless the state - Some really great responses that detailed the process(es) we may question today.

Bills, Initiatives, and the Commission?

For the gurus on the political side of fish and wildlife issues - help us Joes and Janes better understand the intent / use and desired function for the means of 'regulating'. We have some very knowledgable HT members here and I believe sometimes there is a separation between high tech talk and...
www.hunttalk.com www.hunttalk.com
Click to expand...
Ah, seems like only yesterday.
 
Sytes said:
Interesting. I was researching how I-161 played out. How some call it the pot calling the kettle black for what is felt necessary... same here. Odd enough, on google I found this on the first Google page and even more striking, it was a thread from close to the same time frame in 2013... even more odd - who initiated the thread. haha! Lot learned over the course of time and figure it's a good thread for the Joe and Jane Outdoor enthusiasts, regardless the state - Some really great responses that detailed the process(es) we may question today.

Bills, Initiatives, and the Commission?

For the gurus on the political side of fish and wildlife issues - help us Joes and Janes better understand the intent / use and desired function for the means of 'regulating'. We have some very knowledgable HT members here and I believe sometimes there is a separation between high tech talk and...
www.hunttalk.com www.hunttalk.com
Click to expand...
Good read, thank you.

So the question is??? What has been gained since that thread, 2013, who have been the winners and who have been the losers?....I think the answer is crystal clear.
 
Mtnhunter1 said:
Montana needs to give "Wildlife Management" back to our Fish & Game Department and remove the lobbing of our politicians to gain the system.
Click to expand...

IMO, this is what an initiative should be. We can mess around with allocation all we want, but until political influence from all sides is reduced and the legislature can't use their 90 days as a coliseum for stakeholders to fight, there isn't going to be advancement.

Any initiative needs to ensure that the public trust doctrine is enshrined, and that the role of the Legislature is limited. other states have done this, and I think it would work well.
antlerradar said:
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.
Click to expand...

I tend to agree. I also think that if you simply look at the allocation issue as underlined in 637 or 143/505 we miss the opportunity to actually reform wildlife management. There are bigger issues at play and focusing only on the allocation issue misses the other 90% of the management pie.

MT has some of the most politicized wildlife mgt in the west. A large part of that is because we've rewarded politicians with all kinds of largesse if they signal that they support hunting, fishing and guns. The buck ultimately stops with the voters. Legislators, Governors and commissioners all work for the people, and the citizens need to remind them of that from time to time. It's easy to get into the bubble of Helena when you work in this space, and you will see a lot of pushback against the idea of removing legislative oversight of wildlife, because legislators and lobbyists love the power they have. But for the last 25 years, I'm not sure those folks have proven they deserve to retain that much authority.

Limiting gov't in this regard is critical to the future of wildlife management, and it's a far more conservative approach that we've been taking since '95. The legislature will always have a critical role in wildlife management, but Montana's citizens need to redefine what that role is.
 
Mtnhunter1 said:
Good read, thank you.

So the question is??? What has been gained since that thread, 2013, who have been the winners and who have been the losers?....I think the answer is crystal clear.
Click to expand...
I think the ungulates ---> conservationists are on the losing end, unfortunately. No matter what, residents cheer for more weekend warrior active hunts, go nuts if suggestions to raise resident fees, and god forbid we reduce the B tags and shoulder seasons.

This new agenda to squeeze science down to two years is absurd. but hey, Montanan voters changed direction...
 
Ben Lamb said:
Limiting gov't in this regard is critical to the future of wildlife management, and it's a far more conservative approach that we've been taking since '95. The legislature will always have a critical role in wildlife management, but Montana's citizens need to redefine what that role is.
Click to expand...
This is what I was alluding to in my above post. If things are not changed, the snow ball will continue rolling down the hill, getting bigger and gaining speed.

Sytes said:
I think the ungulates ---> conservationists are on the losing end, unfortunately. No matter what, residents cheer for more weekend warrior active hunts, go nuts if suggestions to raise resident fees, and god forbid we reduce the B tags and shoulder seasons.

This new agenda to squeeze science down to two years is absurd. but hey, Montanan voters changed direction...
Click to expand...
I would agree with you but times are changing. I believe that the masses are starting to get it. Seems that the season has disappointed more folks than those that viewed it as acceptable, especially in Region-1.

My frustration is that we are facing a rigged game and the "Commercialization" of our wildlife folks always have an ace hidden up their sleeve.

The people's voice falls flat, the wildlife management suffers and the $$$ win. From your link, Elk-B tags were a concern, people came out in mass against them, now we have today's "War-on-ELF" and a six month season.

My point, until "The System" is changed, there won't be change.
 
Ben Lamb said:
IMO, this is what an initiative should be. We can mess around with allocation all we want, but until political influence from all sides is reduced and the legislature can't use their 90 days as a coliseum for stakeholders to fight, there isn't going to be advancement.

Any initiative needs to ensure that the public trust doctrine is enshrined, and that the role of the Legislature is limited. other states have done this, and I think it would work well.


I tend to agree. I also think that if you simply look at the allocation issue as underlined in 637 or 143/505 we miss the opportunity to actually reform wildlife management. There are bigger issues at play and focusing only on the allocation issue misses the other 90% of the management pie.

MT has some of the most politicized wildlife mgt in the west. A large part of that is because we've rewarded politicians with all kinds of largesse if they signal that they support hunting, fishing and guns. The buck ultimately stops with the voters. Legislators, Governors and commissioners all work for the people, and the citizens need to remind them of that from time to time. It's easy to get into the bubble of Helena when you work in this space, and you will see a lot of pushback against the idea of removing legislative oversight of wildlife, because legislators and lobbyists love the power they have. But for the last 25 years, I'm not sure those folks have proven they deserve to retain that much authority.

Limiting gov't in this regard is critical to the future of wildlife management, and it's a far more conservative approach that we've been taking since '95. The legislature will always have a critical role in wildlife management, but Montana's citizens need to redefine what that role is.
Click to expand...
Sounds like two initiatives are needed, one for 637 and one for the role of the legislature in wildlife management.
 
Iam in also. Where do i send my $500.

Also skimming through might a been a different thread. I believe ben lamb said we need something in place for better wildlife management. In on that also.

Prob need to fire all fwp but first replace gianforte.
 
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...
Your "pro-business" citation is silly. No one is anti-business. This isn't pro-business in the way capitalism intends, which is pro-competition. It is a handout to specific businesses/people at the cost of the others. The defense of NR DIY people on this issue is about fairness and the ability to hunt with family and friends who live out of state. The other problem people have is that it was crammed in a bill as a small piece in the 11th hour without any public input. We all need to stop thinking in terms of "what is best for me?" and "what is best for all?".
 
SAJ-99 said:
Your "pro-business" citation is silly. No one is anti-business. This isn't pro-business in the way capitalism intends, which is pro-competition. It is a handout to specific businesses/people at the cost of the others. The defense of NR DIY people on this issue is about fairness and the ability to hunt with family and friends who live out of state. The other problem people have is that it was crammed in a bill as a small piece in the 11th hour without any public input. We all need to stop thinking in terms of "what is best for me?" and "what is best for all?".
Click to expand...
“What’s best for all is what is best for me.”-MOGA 2021.
 
antlerradar said:
Sounds like two initiatives are needed, one for 637 and one for the role of the legislature in wildlife management.
Click to expand...

I think you can do it with one. Just ensure that the allocation of licenses is based on the equitable distribution thereof, and the set-aside issue becomes moot. Make it a constitutional initiative and you can expel politics from large swaths of wildlife management pretty easily.
 
Personally rather than see a huge investment of time and money wasted on an initiative a sit down and coming to a compromise is a better idea.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
113,671
Messages
2,029,127
Members
36,277
Latest member
rt3bulldogs

Share this page

Back
Top