HB 505 - Elk Need Your Help

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.
 
Luke_with_a_lab said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
MTHunter1321 said:
This argument against it comes off very uninformed.
Click to expand...
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.
 
MTHunter1321 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Ben Lamb said:
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.
Click to expand...
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).
 
Spartan_Eric said:
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).
Click to expand...

This is the plan. You don't have to change the law, when you control the administration thereof.
 
Luke_with_a_lab said:
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.
Click to expand...
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 😂
 
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 said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Carnage2011 said:
Anyone have an idea why? And is this a good thing or not?
Click to expand...

Schaaf said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Ben Lamb said:
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.
Click to expand...
You’re more optimistic than I.

I hope I’m wrong.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Ben Lamb
HB 383 - Community Conservation Fund - Hearing tomorrow
Replies
1
Views
779
Big Fin
Big Fin
S
New Mexico needs our help today!
Replies
13
Views
2K
BrentD
BrentD
COEngineer
CO Future Generations Act
2
Replies
36
Views
5K
squirrel
squirrel
Horn Seeker
Making it easy to contact your rep....
2
Replies
25
Views
5K
Horn Seeker
Horn Seeker
Big Fin
How your license money gets stolen
2
Replies
22
Views
4K
Ben Lamb
Ben Lamb

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
113,668
Messages
2,028,997
Members
36,276
Latest member
Eller fam

Share this page

Back
Top