Hb 361
- Thread starter Ben Lamb
- Start date
Committee voted 5-4 to advance HB 361.
Senators Hamlett, Jent, Facey and Gallus voted no.
Senators Wittich, Hinkle, Barrett, Bayleat, and Brenden voted yes.
Senator Shockley's proxy vote was not read. By the sounds of the debate from Senator Bayleat, the proxy vote was no. Senator Bayleat refused to read Senator Shockley's vote in committee.
Unbelievable.
Senators Hamlett, Jent, Facey and Gallus voted no.
Senators Wittich, Hinkle, Barrett, Bayleat, and Brenden voted yes.
Senator Shockley's proxy vote was not read. By the sounds of the debate from Senator Bayleat, the proxy vote was no. Senator Bayleat refused to read Senator Shockley's vote in committee.
Unbelievable.
Senate Rule S30-100. Pairs prohibited -- absentee or proxy voting. Pairs in standing committee are prohibited. Standing and select committees may by a majority vote of the committee authorize Senators to vote in absentia while engaged in other legislative business. Authorization for absentee or proxy voting must be reflected in the committee minutes.
Not sure what a pair constitutes but it appears the committee can vote to count or not count proxy votes. I heard several other votes by proxy read in this committee this morning. That's why I'm curious if the vote to authorize is taken ahead of each meeting or on a bill by bill basis.
Not sure what a pair constitutes but it appears the committee can vote to count or not count proxy votes. I heard several other votes by proxy read in this committee this morning. That's why I'm curious if the vote to authorize is taken ahead of each meeting or on a bill by bill basis.
Generally a committee makes a standing decision to allow for proxy votes. Proxies are common in committee, and have been used extensively on all bills.
It was clear to me that the reason Senator Bayleat did not want to read the proxy vote was because it was a no vote.
It was clear to me that the reason Senator Bayleat did not want to read the proxy vote was because it was a no vote.
elk_hunter
Active member
Ben, sorry for dredging this up, but what is 361?
elk_hunter
Active member
Oh my.............
T
tjones
Guest
pig,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Lawnboy
Well-known member
Wish it just said would eliminate LE permits in the surrounding units.
howler
Active member
I am curious on the amendment that was voted in, it appears that that amendment precludes the 2007 clause in the original 361 bill, It appears,, it almost combines 285 with 361 with out a few of 285's provisions ????
Seriously? So the Elkhorns, South Gallatin, etc..are now included in HB361?
shoots-straight
Well-known member
We got it handed to us today. There scheduling bills and ramming them home all at once. Terrible day for sportsman.
We'll be getting 5400 min. more NR hunters out of the legislature.
We'll be getting 5400 min. more NR hunters out of the legislature.
(i) unless the elk population for a hunting district falls below 85% of the objective level
14 determined according to 87-1-323(1), may not:
15 (i) limit or reduce the number of archery-only elk permits available in a hunting district from the
16 number issued for that district in 2007 and shall issue those permits in the same manner in which they
17 were issued in 2007; or
18 (ii) implement limited-entry archery-only elk permits in a district in which archery-only elk permits
19 were not required in 2007.
14 determined according to 87-1-323(1), may not:
15 (i) limit or reduce the number of archery-only elk permits available in a hunting district from the
16 number issued for that district in 2007 and shall issue those permits in the same manner in which they
17 were issued in 2007; or
18 (ii) implement limited-entry archery-only elk permits in a district in which archery-only elk permits
19 were not required in 2007.
Seems like HB 361 has shown that hunters are willing to go against 75 years of process, if you promise them some small thing to make them happy. Many hunters will take the bait for today, even if it furthers the legislative process of what is screwing us over.
This bill actually gives me what I had wanted in 2007, when I did not want these limited permits in those units. But, the means by which it was accomplished is not anywhere near the small benefit it provides.
I know some will follow and post that the Commission was not playing ball and not listening. I am not going to deny that. But, we have a process to work with those disagreements with the commission. A process that has served us far better than this, or any other, legislature has served us.
Oh well, hopefully the Commission has taken note.
I know the legislature has taken notes. Their notes tell how easy it is to get the hunting community to side with them if you just throw some hunters a little bone while you undermine the foundation.
This bill actually gives me what I had wanted in 2007, when I did not want these limited permits in those units. But, the means by which it was accomplished is not anywhere near the small benefit it provides.
I know some will follow and post that the Commission was not playing ball and not listening. I am not going to deny that. But, we have a process to work with those disagreements with the commission. A process that has served us far better than this, or any other, legislature has served us.
Oh well, hopefully the Commission has taken note.
I know the legislature has taken notes. Their notes tell how easy it is to get the hunting community to side with them if you just throw some hunters a little bone while you undermine the foundation.
howler
Active member
You seem to be saying 2 things at once, prior to 2007 HD 631 and HD 632 has limted entry archrey permits, you said that ;
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The amendment fizes the "problem" that was discovered by the proponents in that they would be stuck with the permit levels of 2007. The amendment eliminates all LE permits entirely, and makes them unrestricted.
then you go on to say that:
(i) unless the elk population for a hunting district falls below 85% of the objective level
14 determined according to 87-1-323(1), may not:
15 (i) limit or reduce the number of archery-only elk permits available in a hunting district from the
16 number issued for that district in 2007 and shall issue those permits in the same manner in which they
17 were issued in 2007; or
18 (ii) implement limited-entry archery-only elk permits in a district in which archery-only elk permits
19 were not required in 2007.
I am concerned about lines 16 and 17
Still confused.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The amendment fizes the "problem" that was discovered by the proponents in that they would be stuck with the permit levels of 2007. The amendment eliminates all LE permits entirely, and makes them unrestricted.
then you go on to say that:
(i) unless the elk population for a hunting district falls below 85% of the objective level
14 determined according to 87-1-323(1), may not:
15 (i) limit or reduce the number of archery-only elk permits available in a hunting district from the
16 number issued for that district in 2007 and shall issue those permits in the same manner in which they
17 were issued in 2007; or
18 (ii) implement limited-entry archery-only elk permits in a district in which archery-only elk permits
19 were not required in 2007.
I am concerned about lines 16 and 17
Still confused.
Similar threads
