HB 505: A Lack of Thought On The Road To Commercialization of Our Wildlife

[Deleted member 28227]

Spent last night working on improving the data.

The Landed Gentry Welfare Bill only applies to districts at "sustainable" populations, i.e. At Objective. But what is currently at objective is irrelevant to showing the grossness of this bill, as that status changes from year to year. I am building landowner tag counts that I will have more faith in than the previous ones, for every district, because these Kings Deer Tags could be gifted out of thin air as soon as a district meets the criteria.

I'll try and wrap that up tonight, but in the meantime, since I haven't seen FWP put one out, here is a most recent status map of our districts and their objective statuses. Really kind of surprising how many districts don't have quantifiable objectives.


View attachment 175009

This map and the conflation of the terms objective and carrying capacity pisses me off.

During the Colorado wolf reintroduction ballot initiative, numerous organizations (PETA-esk) presented this map (not yours obviously but the same thing from MFWP) and said, see Elk are kicking ass in Montana after wolves were introduced, they are over objective all over the state.

Objectives have absolutely nothing to do with science.

 

[Sioux33]

This bill doesn't take into consideration the fact that it could instantly create orders of magnitude more tags than there are elk in an HD (the 700s for example, if 700 were at objective and this bill's criteria were applied, it could create 1,700+ tags for a district that if at objective, would have 200-300 elk in it!) It doesn't take into consideration the fact that plenty of people own land on which no elk live. It doesn't take into consideration the distribution of elk. If a district is at objective, by creating landowner tags out of thin air, FWP will necessarily have to take tags from the pool of plebes who don't pay to hunt. This bill would be very detrimental to Block Management.

All of those are non-issues really. These aren't the King's Elk, and the landed gentry doesn't just get to sell our wildlife because they own large chunks of earth.

Wow, this is insane. So, the way it's written, all the 640 acre+ landowners in HD700 that don't even have elk on their property, could each sell 10 tags. That army of new tagholders could then run around all over the unit, on the CMR, BLM, BM properties, etc., since it says it's not limited to the landowner's property. Can't hardly make this stuff up.

 

[Straight Arrow]

Can't hardly make this stuff up.

For sure ... it's bat guano crazy. This legislative session was characterized in a Montana news op-ed as a state government version of Alice in Wonderland, where up is down and good is bad, with many hastily written pieces of legislation aimed at fixing problems which do not exist. Plus the conservative principle of less government and allowing for more local decision making authority is being flipped downside up.

 

[teamhoyt]

The way the bill is written, I don't see that distinction being made. The new landowner tags would be designated B-13, while Section 2 states A-5 tags (or nonresident equivalent) can designate to shoot a cow and get 6 points. But correct me if I'm wrong. While I agree your scenario is terrible, it actually concerns me even more that if I'm reading it right every resident hunter could spend a few years shooting cows in shoulder season to get 30 points for the Elkhorns. Talk about point creep!

This is the way I read it also. Point 3 seems to be any general tag license holder, resident or non. This part of the bill seems to have zero to do with landowner tags, just that the cow must be shot on private land. Seems awful hard to enforce. And a sure way to get a hundred bonus points for your favorite elk area.

 

[teamhoyt]

Wow, this is insane. So, the way it's written, all the 640 acre+ landowners in HD700 that don't even have elk on their property, could each sell 10 tags. That army of new tagholders could then run around all over the unit, on the CMR, BLM, BM properties, etc., since it says it's not limited to the landowner's property. Can't hardly make this stuff up.

Not exactly, in theory all the landowners owning 640 contiguous acres could apply for up too 10 tags, correct. But those tags can ONLY be used on that guys land.
Sure there might be 1000 landowners but 750 of them may have never had an elk on their property. I don't think they'd sell any tags with no elk.
It's interesting to me that these tags that the landowners can apply for are only non resident tags. So if your a resident and say an extended family member has a ranch in the breaks, you could NOT get a tag from him to rifle hunt that area since they only get nonresident tags.

 

[antlerradar]

At the heart of this bill - it's ranching for wildlife.

With out any of the access requirements. Ranching for Wildlife would be an improvement over this bill.

 

[golfer]

Not exactly, in theory all the landowners owning 640 contiguous acres could apply for up too 10 tags, correct. But those tags can ONLY be used on that guys land.
Sure there might be 1000 landowners but 750 of them may have never had an elk on their property. I don't think they'd sell any tags with no elk.

I wonder if the same line of thought will be used as current landowner tags. Currently only those that the elk reside on at some point of the year are eligible for those current pool of tags going to landowners?

 

[Sioux33]

Not exactly, in theory all the landowners owning 640 contiguous acres could apply for up too 10 tags, correct. But those tags can ONLY be used on that guys land.
Sure there might be 1000 landowners but 750 of them may have never had an elk on their property. I don't think they'd sell any tags with no elk.
It's interesting to me that these tags that the landowners can apply for are only non resident tags. So if your a resident and say an extended family member has a ranch in the breaks, you could NOT get a tag from him to rifle hunt that area since they only get nonresident tags.

In reading the fine print at the bottom of Section 1 below, it sure sounds like it's opening the door to unit wide tags:

NEW SECTION. Section 1. Class B-13--landowner-sponsored nonresident elk-only combination license. (1) The department shall offer for sale, for the same fee established in 87-2-511(6), Class B-13 landowner-sponsored nonresident elk-only combination licenses to persons otherwise qualified to purchase a license pursuant to this part and who are sponsored by a qualifying landowner to hunt solely on that landowner's deeded land or property in accordance with rules adopted by the commission for a general elk license in the applicable hunting district.

 

[teamhoyt]

In reading the fine print at the bottom of Section 1 below, it sure sounds like it's opening the door to unit wide tags:

NEW SECTION. Section 1. Class B-13--landowner-sponsored nonresident elk-only combination license. (1) The department shall offer for sale, for the same fee established in 87-2-511(6), Class B-13 landowner-sponsored nonresident elk-only combination licenses to persons otherwise qualified to purchase a license pursuant to this part and who are sponsored by a qualifying landowner to hunt solely on that landowner's deeded land or property in accordance with rules adopted by the commission for a general elk license in the applicable hunting district.

Looks like your right, for some reason my mind was putting a comma after property.

 

[Nameless Range]

Someone who understands how a bill becomes a law better than me:

I see that this does not have a hearing date yet.

LAWS Detailed Bill Information Page

I also see that transmittal day is Wednesday:

https://leg.mt.gov/content/Sessions/67th/2021-session-calendar.pdf

I also read in the House Rules, that (b) except as provided in H30-40(3)(b) and H30-50(3)(b), schedule all bills assigned to committee for a hearing prior to 3 legislative days before the applicable transmittal deadline for the bill as provided in Joint Rule 40-200;

https://leg.mt.gov/bills/2021/billpdf/HR0002.pdf

So, we are within 3 days of the transmittal deadline and no hearing has been set. Does that mean this bill is done for now? I'm embarrassed to not understand this, but it is what it is.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Someone who understands how a bill becomes a law better than me:

I see that this does not have a hearing date yet.

LAWS Detailed Bill Information Page

I also see that transmittal day is Wednesday:

https://leg.mt.gov/content/Sessions/67th/2021-session-calendar.pdf

I also read in the House Rules, that (b) except as provided in H30-40(3)(b) and H30-50(3)(b), schedule all bills assigned to committee for a hearing prior to 3 legislative days before the applicable transmittal deadline for the bill as provided in Joint Rule 40-200;

https://leg.mt.gov/bills/2021/billpdf/HR0002.pdf

So, we are within 3 days of the transmittal deadline and no hearing has been set. Does that mean this bill is done for now? I'm embarrassed to not understand this, but it is what it is.

There are essentially two transmittal dates to keep in mind. This week is transmittal for general bills, i.e. bills that don't spend or generate revenue. These are simply things like the hound bill or the crossbow bill - those bills simply change a line of code and do not have financial implications.

Transmittal for revenue bills is later, April 1st (kind of appropriate).

The calendar for the session is a decoder ring of sorts for figuring out timing in terms of passing and killing bills. You can find it here: https://leg.mt.gov/content/Sessions/67th/2021-session-calendar.pdf

The session page on the legislature's website provides a lot of key information, for those so inclined to delve into the arcane rules & such: https://leg.mt.gov/session/

 

[Nameless Range]

There are essentially two transmittal dates to keep in mind. This week is transmittal for general bills, i.e. bills that don't spend or generate revenue. These are simply things like the hound bill or the crossbow bill - those bills simply change a line of code and do not have financial implications.

Transmittal for revenue bills is later, April 1st (kind of appropriate).

The calendar for the session is a decoder ring of sorts for figuring out timing in terms of passing and killing bills. You can find it here: https://leg.mt.gov/content/Sessions/67th/2021-session-calendar.pdf

The session page on the legislature's website provides a lot of key information, for those so inclined to delve into the arcane rules & such: https://leg.mt.gov/session/

Thanks Ben,

So this would be considered a revenue bill because it would generate revenue for landowners?

 

[Ben Lamb]

Thanks Ben,

So this would be considered a revenue bill because it would generate revenue for landowners?

Yes, but in a more pure sense, it generates revenue for the state (look at the fiscal note), theoretically, since it messes with the allocation & funding of programs, etc.

The simplest way to tell if you have a revenue bill or general bill that you are tracking is at the bottom of the page:

 

[Nameless Range]

Yes, but in a more pure sense, it generates revenue for the state (look at the fiscal note), theoretically, since it messes with the allocation & funding of programs, etc.

The simplest way to tell if you have a revenue bill or general bill that you are tracking is at the bottom of the page:

View attachment 175848

Ah, thank you. I was looking for an attribute like that.

 

[OntarioHunter]

I'm nonpartisan and proud of it, but if I was a Montanan (again), I would vote straight Democrat next election and any homeless person on the ballot would definitely get my attention. It is time to toss those ignorant landed aristocrats who think they can manipulate the public resource for their personal enjoyment/economic benefit. Oink, oink!

 

[Spartan_Eric]

This is the way I read it also. Point 3 seems to be any general tag license holder, resident or non. This part of the bill seems to have zero to do with landowner tags, just that the cow must be shot on private land. Seems awful hard to enforce. And a sure way to get a hundred bonus points for your favorite elk area.

I read the new Section 2 the same way – that it is independent of the new Section 1 and could also apply to resident Class A-5 elk licenses. Further, to qualify for the additional 5 elk bonus points the way the new Section 2 is written, it would appear that you only have to intend to hunt cow elk on private land at the time of the A-5 elk license issuance, and not necessarily fulfill your intentions during the August 15th through February 15th hunting season. Maybe this is just badly worded legislation, or I am trying to solve the riddle of the sphinx, but it takes quite a bit to get your head around the new Section 2 language and its potential impact on elk bonus points.

 

[SAJ-99]

I read the new Section 2 the same way – that it is independent of the new Section 1 and could also apply to resident Class A-5 elk licenses. Further, to qualify for the additional 5 elk bonus points the way the new Section 2 is written, it would appear that you only have to intend to hunt cow elk on private land at the time of the A-5 elk license issuance, and not necessarily fulfill your intentions during the August 15th through February 15th hunting season. Maybe this is just badly worded legislation, or I am trying to solve the riddle of the sphinx, but it takes quite a bit to get your head around the new Section 2 language and its potential impact on elk bonus points.

Wow. My mind immediately turns to the the question of ‘what is the value of those 5 pts”. A landowner could essentially sell you the “intent” to hunt just so you could gain the 5 pts. I don’t know how they would police that out.
oh, I’m guessing $300-$500 on the value. $50-100 per point.

 

[Nameless Range]

Wow. My mind immediately turns to the the question of ‘what is the value of those 5 pts”. A landowner could essentially sell you the “intent” to hunt just so you could gain the 5 pts. I don’t know how they would police that out.
oh, I’m guessing $300-$500 on the value. $50-100 per point.

It’s creating an additional private market for bonus points

 

[JLS]

Wow. My mind immediately turns to the the question of ‘what is the value of those 5 pts”. A landowner could essentially sell you the “intent” to hunt just so you could gain the 5 pts. I don’t know how they would police that out.
oh, I’m guessing $300-$500 on the value. $50-100 per point.

You wouldn’t even have to hunt on the cow tag.

 

[SAJ-99]

You wouldn’t even have to hunt on the cow tag.

Point creep become point sprint.