I wish I had been feeling better when I testified on this, as I think my comments were as (in)coherent as you would expect from a guy dealing with a week of serious liver ailments. Seeing how I function on bad liver days, Mrs. Fin tried to keep me home and I think I should have listened. With some meds and sleep, I will post these thoughts below in hopes to provide a better explanation than what my testimony provided.
To the point I had hoped to make and did a crappy job, this bill assumes that everything under the purview of FWP is somehow related to private land hunting. FWP and the Commission oversee a lot more than hunting, especially that part of hunting that is private land hunting.
The 2018 survey MOGA loves to cite from the U of M shows that of the surveyed respondents, hunting comprised 2.3% of days outdoors among all things under the purview of the FWP Commission. Compared to fishing, boating, floating, hiking, wildlife watching, (insert other outdoor activity), hunting was 2.3% of days afield while the rest of FWP oversight activities were 97%+.
We know from the USFWS and NSSF studies that 70% of western hunters hunt primarily on public land. That means 30% is primarily on private land. So, 30% of 2.3% is less than 1% of the days afield are from private land hunting activities.
If we take the dollar amount, which slants things heavily toward private land hunting, that survey showed 24% to non-resident hunting. If 30% of that was on private lands, that is 7.2% of the surveyed revenues of non-residents was private land.
Does a group who is impacted, and often compensate for, less than 1% of the days afield deserve 57% (4/7) of the seats on the FWP Commission? Nope.
To give the benefit of the doubt and measure it by dollars, does a group that is responsible for less than 8% of the total revenue from outdoor activities deserve 57% of the seats on the FWP Commission? Not even close.
If one listened to the sponsor, MOGA, or some private land outfitters, one would be left to think the only activities that FWP and the Commission are responsible for revolves private land hunting. Hardly the case.
This is a complete bullshit bill, even though I like the idea of 7 Commissioners, one from each Region. That increase skews the per-capita benefit heavily to low-population Regions like Region 6 and 7. That dilutes the per-capita representation from other Regions with higher human population density. Even with that dilution, I'm good with adding two more Commissioners and giving one to each Region.
This is an other of the big land grabs that gives the middle finger to the rest of the state. If you are a fishing outfitter, a packtrip outfitter, a retailer that relies on the 97% of other daily activities, you and your business don't mean chit according the folks pushing this bill. I'd love to see FOAM bust MOGA's chops over this one.
It is rather arrogant to present a bill that implies that the major issue FWP deals with is hunting, when hunting is a small portion of what this Commission deals with, whether measured by days afield or dollars spent. And the portion of hunting that is private land is a lot smaller than the days/dollars on public land and surely not deserving of 57% representation on the Commission.
None of that discounts the good conservation work private landowners do in Montana. Yet, there is a lot more going on that the FWP Commission deals with than just public land hunting.
To the point I had hoped to make and did a crappy job, this bill assumes that everything under the purview of FWP is somehow related to private land hunting. FWP and the Commission oversee a lot more than hunting, especially that part of hunting that is private land hunting.
The 2018 survey MOGA loves to cite from the U of M shows that of the surveyed respondents, hunting comprised 2.3% of days outdoors among all things under the purview of the FWP Commission. Compared to fishing, boating, floating, hiking, wildlife watching, (insert other outdoor activity), hunting was 2.3% of days afield while the rest of FWP oversight activities were 97%+.
We know from the USFWS and NSSF studies that 70% of western hunters hunt primarily on public land. That means 30% is primarily on private land. So, 30% of 2.3% is less than 1% of the days afield are from private land hunting activities.
If we take the dollar amount, which slants things heavily toward private land hunting, that survey showed 24% to non-resident hunting. If 30% of that was on private lands, that is 7.2% of the surveyed revenues of non-residents was private land.
Does a group who is impacted, and often compensate for, less than 1% of the days afield deserve 57% (4/7) of the seats on the FWP Commission? Nope.
To give the benefit of the doubt and measure it by dollars, does a group that is responsible for less than 8% of the total revenue from outdoor activities deserve 57% of the seats on the FWP Commission? Not even close.
If one listened to the sponsor, MOGA, or some private land outfitters, one would be left to think the only activities that FWP and the Commission are responsible for revolves private land hunting. Hardly the case.
This is a complete bullshit bill, even though I like the idea of 7 Commissioners, one from each Region. That increase skews the per-capita benefit heavily to low-population Regions like Region 6 and 7. That dilutes the per-capita representation from other Regions with higher human population density. Even with that dilution, I'm good with adding two more Commissioners and giving one to each Region.
This is an other of the big land grabs that gives the middle finger to the rest of the state. If you are a fishing outfitter, a packtrip outfitter, a retailer that relies on the 97% of other daily activities, you and your business don't mean chit according the folks pushing this bill. I'd love to see FOAM bust MOGA's chops over this one.
It is rather arrogant to present a bill that implies that the major issue FWP deals with is hunting, when hunting is a small portion of what this Commission deals with, whether measured by days afield or dollars spent. And the portion of hunting that is private land is a lot smaller than the days/dollars on public land and surely not deserving of 57% representation on the Commission.
None of that discounts the good conservation work private landowners do in Montana. Yet, there is a lot more going on that the FWP Commission deals with than just public land hunting.
