Bill with no sporting reps, three landowners on Commission one vote from passage

[Straight Arrow]

Seems like a ligit source, almost as good as “a rancher buddy told me while fuel up at Town Pump.....,”

Or like, "Buy me another beer and I'll tell you a really good one!"

 

[westbranch]

Does Montana have any sort of government agriculture commission? Maybe the majority of it should be made up of hunters that don’t farm or ranch

Save 1-2 spots for vegans.

 

[TheTone]

Save 1-2 spots for vegans.

No way, they’ll be all about saving pulse crops from the unfortunate burden of wildlife

 

[Nameless Range]

Anyone have Cliff Notes about how the hearing went?

 

[MTelkHuntress]

Landowners should have 4 people on the Commission because they own most the land in Montana and that's why they should have a bigger say in wildlife matters. They are also sportsmen who feed animals in the winter which makes them the perfect representation. ....okay that might be my cynical review of it.

I feel like a lot of landowner points were reiterated over and over but I felt the opponents had some good and diverse things to say. Senator Pat Flowers made a good point that sportsmen provide a lot of funding....also wildlife is a public resource. Him and Mr. Lang had an interesting back and forth.

I cant remember who said it, but one of the opponents was talking about the need for representation from more nonconsumptive users...but I cant help but feel like all outdoor recreation is consumptive in some way?

The tone of landowners taking care of wildlife was interesting to me. I know there are landowners that care, but I've run into quite a few that want the elk killed off their property.

I dont have my notes on me but those are some things that stuck out to me.

 

[Gevock]

Landowner commission bill heading to full Senate.



The Senate Fish and Game Committee on Thursday passed SB 306, which would require

that four of the seven Fish and Wildlife Commissioners be landowners engaged in agricultural production. Already under state law, one of the current five commissioners must be a landowner, and agricultural groups always have their voices heard in fish and wildlife management issues to strike a balance.



We need your help to stop this bad bill. This proposal makes it clear that sportsmen and sportswomen’s concerns will be shut out in key decisions on wildlife management. The bill will be on the floor soon, and it’s time for Montana hunters and anglers to let the full Senate know that we need a proper balance on the Fish and Wildlife Commission.



PLEASE WRITE YOUR OWN MESSAGE. But hit these key points:

• The Fish and Wildlife Commission is the trustee for our public resources, and must consider everyone – including agricultural producers, and already does.
• The Commission is supposed to represent everyone under state law, and not favor any one group while working to strike a balance on key issues.
• The Commission already has one landowner, and our agricultural groups are always at the table to strike a balance on key wildlife management issues.

You can find your senator here, and send a message to tell them to vote NO on SB 306.

• Fill out the form provided.
• Select Legislator
• Select Bill Type (SB) and Bill Number SB 306
• Select Against
• Provide your message

Or you can call the Capitol switchboard at 444-4800 and leave a message for your senator to oppose SB 306.




For more complete reports, please join our Legislative Action Team, or go to our homepage and click on “Capitol Report 2021.”



Thanks for supporting MWF, Montana’s wildlife, habitat and public access.

 

[tjones]

Landowners should have 4 people on the Commission because they own most the land in Montana and that's why they should have a bigger say in wildlife matters.

While this might be the case in eastern MT it’s definitely not the case in western MT.

 

[OntarioHunter]

I would find this bill less objectionable (although still entirely objectionable) if the four landowner board members were restricted to only those participating in Block Management Program. Those are the ones who have a history of involvement with public resource stewardship for the benefit of ALL the public. I am surprised someone didn't at least attempt that amendnent. Of course that would keep outfitter ranchers off the board but I don't see a problem with that. Eliminates an obvious conflict of interest.

 

[Brad W]

Landowners should have 4 people on the Commission because they own most the land in Montana and that's why they should have a bigger say in wildlife matters. They are also sportsmen who feed animals in the winter which makes them the perfect representation. ....okay that might be my cynical review of it.

I feel like a lot of landowner points were reiterated over and over but I felt the opponents had some good and diverse things to say. Senator Pat Flowers made a good point that sportsmen provide a lot of funding....also wildlife is a public resource. Him and Mr. Lang had an interesting back and forth.

I cant remember who said it, but one of the opponents was talking about the need for representation from more nonconsumptive users...but I cant help but feel like all outdoor recreation is consumptive in some way?

The tone of landowners taking care of wildlife was interesting to me. I know there are landowners that care, but I've run into quite a few that want the elk killed off their property.

I dont have my notes on me but those are some things that stuck out to me.

The major issue with this bill is that it guarantees a tiny fraction of Montanans a majority on the commission at the expense of everyone else. Go to the UPOM website and look at their priorities and keep in mind that the FWC regulates more than hunting. Not all landowners are sportsmen, not all of them care about the long term sustainability of the game resource, how many of them want to work for greater public access to public land? This legislative session shows what happens when you hand one group complete control.

 

[Luke_with_a_lab]

Anyone have any ideas on if this might actually pass the legislature and the Gienforte's position on this?

 

[Schaaf]

Anyone have any ideas on if this might actually pass the legislature and the Gienforte's position on this?

GG would sign it before the ink from the printer was dry leaving the House

 

[Eric Albus]

I fear the unintended consequences of this passing. I hope this has been thought through, because Dems will one day have control of the Governorship again.

Perhaps its on account of living in a microcosm like I do, but landowners I speak with here in Eastern Mt have a clue about wildlife, more than most FWP biologists I have spoken to. My favorite quote of late from an FWP "biologist" is "there are just as many big bucks out there as there was in the late 50's, there are just more hunters today, so not as many big bucks to go around". These are the guys you want managing? Really?

Even if some of these biologists know what needs to be done they lack the testicular fortitude to buck the brass on how to manage wildlife. I hope this changes with a new commission.

To those who raise the points about crop damage concerns by wildlife. If a deer or elk ate 20-50% of your paycheck I bet you'd do a little re-evaluation.

 

[Eric Albus]

tjones, no myself and a friend of mine heard that at a Reg 7 meeting.

 

[mtmiller]

tjones, no myself and a friend of mine heard that at a Reg 7 meeting.

Interesting how the story evolved. Cool your friend heard it as well, very important.

 

[BourbonSnowCone]

To those who raise the points about crop damage concerns by wildlife. If a deer or elk ate 20-50% of your paycheck I bet you'd do a little re-evaluation.

They try but we provide public access during hunting season. Keeps the deer moving out of the fields and fish and game provided materials for multiple hay yards over the years and the occasional scare gun.

 

[mtmiller]

Perhaps its on account of living in a microcosm like I do, but landowners I speak with here in Eastern Mt have a clue about wildlife, more than most FWP biologists I have spoken to.

I agree, no FWP biologists should be on the Commission.

 

[OntarioHunter]

I fail to see how an eastern rancher who "manages" his private herd on his posted property for his and his family/friends/clients benefit is more qualified than an educated FWP biologist who has experience/training dealing with the management of public resource that is freely accessed and harvested by the public. As far as knowledge, skill, and ability it's apples and oranges.

Here's an example. A few years ago I was surprised when a BMA rancher informed us we could not shoot a buck unless it was 4 points or better (on one side). I asked him why. "So the young bucks have a chance to get big." But if the young bucks are stupid enough to get shot, shouldn't they be shot? Is preserving stupid deer really good for herd health? I also pointed out he was creating a situation where the protected "scruff bucks" would be doing all the breeding while the big boys who usually keep them off the does were either going into the freezer or running for their lives. Definitely not good for herd health! Next year the 4 pt rule disappeared.

 

[Schaaf]

Hell, why stop with the Fish and Wildlife Commission.

I think landowners should make up a majority of the Public Service Commission. Those big power lines go across their land and who could possibly know more about those things than someone that has them go across their land.

 

[Hunting Wife]

Hell, why stop with the Fish and Wildlife Commission.

I think landowners should make up a majority of the Public Service Commission. Those big power lines go across their land and who could possibly know more about those things than someone that has them go across their land.

Works great in North Dakota! When the wind company wants to put a new wind farm, they just make sure to offer turbines to the landowners on the Commission and the project gets a green light with 90% resident opposition. What’s not to like?

 

[Eric Albus]

Ontario, are you a Montana Fish, Wildlife, and Parks biologist? What you've laid out suggests you are an eligible candidate. "Shoot the stupid ones" ranks right up there with "those hunters are going to harvest all the barren old does", and "those whitetail deer breed like Norwegian rats, don't worry about killing to many does".