Careful...it actually could get worse. Can you imagine if old Greg had selected Mac Minard for that position?
In the end, Hank isn't the boss.
Governor Gianforte is.
This is his agency, and his bill.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Careful...it actually could get worse. Can you imagine if old Greg had selected Mac Minard for that position?
Hank clearly isn’t a politician. It was weird and refreshing to see him actually give a straight up answer to a question that was pretty damning to his cause. “No” pretty much said it all. He probably needs to sit down with Mac Minard to get some lessons on evasion. I thought Mac’s chat with Randy on the podcast was a pretty impressive display of politicking.In the end, Hank isn't the boss.
Governor Gianforte is.
This is his agency, and his bill.
The non-resident Hunter still purchases the tag from FWP. The landowner does not control the tag sale. The Hunter does have to have a landowner to sponsor them before they can purchase the tag however, and that “sponsorship” will almost certainly come with a dollar figure attached.Could some explain to me the confusion about the transferable or sellable landowner tags?
It’s all semantics. Technically, transferable tags are issued to the landowner who can then sell them to hunters. Sponsored tags are sold directly by FWP to the hunter, but they are subtracted from the landowner’s allocation. Thus, the landowner cannot mark up the price of the tag, but they can charge for access which is essentially the same end result.Could some explain to me the confusion about the transferable or sellable landowner tags?
Right it was an outright lie. "technically" yes the tag is not transferable under FWP. But the honest thing to say would've been "but the sponsorship fees will go upwards of $10,000 each". So whether or not the FWP is setting the infrastructure is irrelevant. Bottom line is a dollar figure is then attached to each tag.It is just semantics, but Randy was 100% right that folks like Kujala immediately used that confusion to try and discredit opponents.
I did point this out in my testimony, I was one of the last to remotely testify though so who knows if it was heard...That's what I thought...so why wasn't that explicitly pointed out?
First off...your comment about the “Montana beef boycott” wasn’t disturbing to me, it was actually comical and was almost embarrassed for you. Second...you are correct, some of us are calving right now...and you are also correct when you say that they wouldn’t approve of what’s going on in Helena.....but.....what they wouldn’t approve of is not what you think.Yeah, all that talk about tapioca flavoured nuts was pretty shocking.
What did you find "disturbing?" I didn't see anyone throwing out the vigilante password. I suspect you found my suggestion that hunters boycott Montana beef was disturbing. Beef prices have been in the toilet. Maybe the threat of a boycott, even some serious talk about it when ranchers are on the ropes, would get everyone's attention real fast. And getting everyone's attention is what is needed to quash this greedy grab at Montana's public resources. I suspect there are a helluva lot of ranchers who have no idea what's happening in Helena right now (it's calving season) and wouldn't approve if they did know.
Yeah I think they cut you off early.I did point this out in my testimony, I was one of the last to remotely testify though so who knows if it was heard...
And my damn dog who had been sitting nice and quite with me through the whole damn thing started barking right when my mic turned on... lol
Unfortunately there were a lot of things that were not covered by the opposition because the list of problems with this bill is nearly endless. I thought Gerald in particular did a nice job tying together his personal story with the numbers to illustrate how stupid the proposal was, but almost all of the opponents (sorry wolf man) were well spoken and highlighted serious concerns. I am new to this game so I don’t have the same depth of experience as many folks here, but to me the haste and lack of thought behind the bills coming through the MT legislature is pretty breathtaking. This hearing had a much different feeling than SB 143 and it was nice to see the opposition swamp the proponents.Right it was an outright lie. Semantics to say "technically" yes the tag is not transferable under FWP. But the honest thing to say would've been "but the sponsorship fees will go upwards of $10,000 each". So whether or not the FWP setting the infrastructure is irrelevant. Bottom line is a dollar figure is then attached to each tag.
Was hoping someone would clarify that in their testimony.
He was clearly testifying in opposition to the bill!And my damn dog who had been sitting nice and quite with me through the whole damn thing started barking right when my mic turned on... lol
I agree. This bill is garbage. Thank you Randy and every other person who took time out of their days to be there in person to voice their opposition today. While I’d like to say that after today I don’t see how this can make it out of committee, but I know I’d be a fool to think that...I definitely got the sense at the end that they are also playing the “negotiate it down” strategy on this bill. Submit it with completely ridiculous provisions, back off on them and then say “see we listened to the sportsmen”. Diverting attention away from the fact that the entire premise of the bill is the problem, not the specific terms.