HB 505 - Elk Need Your Help

[Luke_with_a_lab]

If this does pass and properties in "AT OBJECTIVE" units get their 10 tags and even a 1/3 or 1/4 of the tags get filled wont that bring the unit well under objective in just one year? It makes me sick to think about the elkhorns getting ravaged. This bill just makes no sense, the elkhorns are managed just fine. I dont understand why they would just come in and ruin the trophy quality and elk herd that is and has been at objective for quite some time.

Just to clarify; the 10 landowner tags will be in addition to the tags given in the drawing? In the elkhorns they give 135 tags or whatever, so there will be 135 given in addition to 1,118 landowner sponsered ? It seems insaine, any bull that would step foot on private could very likely get nuked.

 

[MTHunter1321]

If this does pass and properties in "AT OBJECTIVE" units get their 10 tags and even a 1/3 or 1/4 of the tags get filled wont that bring the unit well under objective in just one year? It makes me sick to think about the elkhorns getting ravaged. This bill just makes no sense, the elkhorns are managed just fine. I dont understand why they would just come in and ruin the trophy quality and elk herd that is and has been at objective for quite some time.

Just to clarify; the 10 landowner tags will be in addition to the tags given in the drawing? In the elkhorns they give 135 tags or whatever, so there will be 135 given in addition to 1,118 landowner sponsered ? It seems insaine, any bull that would step foot on private could very likely get nuked.

No, they mentioned that in order to receive a landowner sponsored tag the individual would still need to draw the required permit, if a permit was needed for that unit. So not every landowner in the elkhorns is going to be sponsoring 10 non residents and every single person can go hunt. The non residents would still need to draw either sex permit or a B tag.

I am 100% not for this bill; but we as hunters need to be more educated in our arguments against it. This argument against it comes off very uninformed.

 

[Luke_with_a_lab]

This argument against it comes off very uninformed.

Good lord man, you need to relax, thats why i was asking the question. Making statements like that will discourage people from posting and becoming invloved, not everyone is able to keep up to date with every detail of every bill. I thought asking questions is point of this forum, to become informed.

 

[Ben Lamb]

No, they mentioned that in order to receive a landowner sponsored tag the individual would still need to draw the required permit, if a permit was needed for that unit. So not every landowner in the elkhorns is going to be sponsoring 10 non residents and every single person can go hunt. The non residents would still need to draw either sex permit or a B tag.

I am 100% not for this bill; but we as hunters need to be more educated in our arguments against it. This argument against it comes off very uninformed.

Agreed, but let's be honest here: This bill sets up an opportunity for the less than honest to move fast & loose with how this can be implemented, because the language is overly broad and ambiguous. It also means that extra pressure on the commission, which now has 1 pro-public land elk hunter advocate on it (Byorth), to increase permits in LE areas, remove the LE permit altogether (think breaks), or increase herd objectives so that over-objective areas can now be called "at objective" in order to get at these licenses.

As for the Elkhorns - between the motorized & mechanized crowd wanting increased access to the only unit of the USFS system managed exclusively for wildlife, increased push for sheep grazing in there, eating away of winter habitat for those elk in the lowlands because of housing developments and now, all of the pressure to whack a pile of elk, it's time folks considered whether or not the Elkhorns should get some kind of Federal designation to protect those wildlife values.

 

[Spartan_Eric]

Agreed, but let's be honest here: This bill sets up an opportunity for the less than honest to move fast & loose with how this can be implemented, because the language is overly broad and ambiguous. It also means that extra pressure on the commission, which now has 1 pro-public land elk hunter advocate on it (Byorth), to increase permits in LE areas, remove the LE permit altogether (think breaks), or increase herd objectives so that over-objective areas can now be called "at objective" in order to get at these licenses.

As for the Elkhorns - between the motorized & mechanized crowd wanting increased access to the only unit of the USFS system managed exclusively for wildlife, increased push for sheep grazing in there, eating away of winter habitat for those elk in the lowlands because of housing developments and now, all of the pressure to whack a pile of elk, it's time folks considered whether or not the Elkhorns should get some kind of Federal designation to protect those wildlife values.

That is my biggest fear - once the Fish and Wildlife Commission is stacked with agricultural landowners and other select individuals, they could decide to change the bull elk limited draw hunting districts to general hunting districts on the fly (much like House Bill 417 proposed to do).

 

[Ben Lamb]

That is my biggest fear - once the Fish and Wildlife Commission is stacked with agricultural landowners and other select individuals, they could decide to change the bull elk limited draw hunting districts to general hunting districts on the fly (much like House Bill 417 proposed to do).

This is the plan. You don't have to change the law, when you control the administration thereof.

 

[MTHunter1321]

Good lord man, you need to relax, thats why i was asking the question. Making statements like that will discourage people from posting and becoming invloved, not everyone is able to keep up to date with every detail of every bill. I thought asking questions is point of this forum, to become informed.

It is, and I apologize for coming across like that. It’s frustrating to see a bunch of comments like that, primarily on Facebook pages I’ve seen, that just seem to make the public land hunter argument less credible. It just boiled over this morning and I lashed out on your post.
We need to focus today speaking our opposition to the committee. Hopefully by the end of today we all can relax a little, but I won’t hold my breath

 

[Big Fin]

The bill is being heard today. I hope MT folks on this thread have copied and pasted the emails in Post #1 and given their comments on the bill.

 

[sacountry]

The bill is being heard today. I hope MT folks on this thread have copied and pasted the emails in Post #1 and given their comments on the bill.

Any idea what time and whether or not it will streamed?

 

[Schaaf]

My brother got a response from his Representative from Glendive that said..

“The only thing I wonder is why should our area be concerned about 505 when we don’t have elk in our area. It doesn’t concern us at all.”

Which is not true, but I think it is worth repeating that for a lot of these legislators, they have no clue about what they’re voting on and you should be willing to explain those issues in the simplest terms.

 

[Schaaf]

Any idea what time and whether or not it will streamed?

You can stream live on the MT Public Affairs Network.

 

[MTHunter1321]

Any idea what time and whether or not it will streamed?

3:00. Looks like it’ll be streamed, similar to last week. Does anyone know if they take action on bills before or after they hear the new bills on their agenda today?

 

[MTHunter1321]

My brother got a response from his Representative from Glendive that said..

“The only thing I wonder is why should our area be concerned about 505 when we don’t have elk in our area. It doesn’t concern us at all.”

Which is not true, but I think it is worth repeating that for a lot of these legislators, they have no clue about what they’re voting on and you should be willing to explain those issues in the simplest terms.

Wow. Yeah hunters don’t travel at all to hunt. Only hunt where you live!
If that comment doesn’t increase people’s blood pressure and give them incentive to keep up the pressure against this bill then I don’t know what will.

 

[Dakota79]

3:00. Looks like it’ll be streamed, similar to last week. Does anyone know if they take action on bills before or after they hear the new bills on their agenda today?

You can stream live on the MT Public Affairs Network.

Is it room 172?

 

[Schaaf]

Is it room 172?

Should be

 

[brocksw]

Should be

John Sullivan just informed me that he heard they will not be taking 505 up today and instead they will take executive action on Thursday.

 

[Carnage2011]

John Sullivan just informed me that he heard they will not be taking 505 up today and instead they will take executive action on Thursday.

Anyone have an idea why? And is this a good thing or not?

 

[Schaaf]

Anyone have an idea why? And is this a good thing or not?

If that's true, then it could be one of three things.

1. They don't have the votes
2. They are waiting for additional amendments
3. They are hoping the uproar dies down and they can pass it with less backlash

I'd lean on #3.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Anyone have an idea why? And is this a good thing or not?

If that's true, then it could be one of three things.

1. They don't have the votes
2. They are waiting for additional amendments
3. They are hoping the uproar dies down and they can pass it with less backlash

I'd lean on #3.

Likely #2 or maybe #1. I have it as even money on the vote count. Not sure on 2 of them which way it goes.

A lot of folks have let them know that the uproar only dies down once the bill is dead.

 

[Schaaf]

Likely #2 or maybe #1. I have it as even money on the vote count. Not sure on 2 of them which way it goes.

A lot of folks have let them know that the uproar only dies down once the bill is dead.

You’re more optimistic than I.

I hope I’m wrong.