HB 505 - Elk Need Your Help

[Eric Albus]

So the bottom line is this bill was shot from the hip with little regard to protocol ... or common sense. Gianforte just doesn't give a shit.

It's going to be a looong time till the next election!

Edit: Doing a bit of research I see that Hank Worsech was formerly executive director of Montana Board of Outfitters, leaving it to join FWP back in 2003. I'm beginning to connect the dots now. I can find nothing about his educational background.

Good grief. The Board of Outfitters is a regulatory state run board. It has NOTHING to do with MOGA.

 

[sacountry]

Here is the reply I received from Rep. Loge:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I did vote yes, only because of the amendments and the fact that it would only be in place for a year before it could be reviewed. I felt we need to keep trying ideas as the populations keep growing and with this short time use would be worth the try. In no way do I favor racing for wildlife but I also respect the private property rights of the racing community. 'I have been on the PLPW for years and keep hearing concerns from the sportsman community too much negativity toward the landowners and have not seen any great alternatives that have been collaboratively work out with the ranchers so I hoped this would strengthen the incentive to have those friendly discussions. Thanks for your comments, Rep. Loge

--
Representative Denley M. Loge
House District 14
St. Regis, Mt
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I'm assuming the 'racing' is a typo for "ranching"

I do think that we as hunters will have to make some concessions to landowners, or this will quickly devolve into an all or nothing fight between our groups. Shoulder Hunts and BMA are not working as well as it could, and landowners are not compensated as much as they probably should be. Without transferring this burden to tax-payers, I see the need for a hunter supported program that could involve a "trespass and harvest fee" of sorts to the landowner's that would volunteer to be part of the program. My dad is not going to pay a landowner who has an elk walk through his property once in a blue moon any amount to go wander around their property- he can do that on our great public lands for free. However, the landowners in over objective-units who have the issues with their hayfields/haystacks and what not that can offer my dad a quick means to fill the freezer should also be able to benefit beyond having one less elk to feed. I don't think my dad would blink twice if he was asked to pay $100 harvest fee of a cow elk in a hayfield. I'm not saying that is the fair price, just simply using it as an example.

I think it was @Gerald Martin that might have pointed out earlier in this thread. You have several different types of landowners out there. Rep Loge needs to understand that there are ranchers with wildlife damage issues but hate hunters (no access, but may outfit), you have ranchers with wildlife damage that hate elk more than hunters (allow hunting with permission or join the BMA), and you have a significantly growing number of landowners who like having wild pets on their land (giving all hunters the bird, sorry I hate it when it does that). You can no longer lump those three factions in to "landowners" because they all have different needs/wants.

As sportsmen and women, I think we need to see these three groups as they are. Firm up the BMA program for those landowners that welcome hunters. Improve our offering to those who do outfit or otherwise allow a select few on to their land. For that last group of wild pet lovin' California types, welp they don't call it Bozangeles for nothing. It's happening and I don't know how to best deal with this type of landowner.

 

[lifeisgoodsteve]

Here is the reply I received from Rep. Loge:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I did vote yes, only because of the amendments and the fact that it would only be in place for a year before it could be reviewed. I felt we need to keep trying ideas as the populations keep growing and with this short time use would be worth the try. In no way do I favor racing for wildlife but I also respect the private property rights of the racing community. 'I have been on the PLPW for years and keep hearing concerns from the sportsman community too much negativity toward the landowners and have not seen any great alternatives that have been collaboratively work out with the ranchers so I hoped this would strengthen the incentive to have those friendly discussions. Thanks for your comments, Rep. Loge

--
Representative Denley M. Loge
House District 14
St. Regis, Mt
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Combine the powerful mobilization efforts that have been shown with some pro-active organization and it could be quite encouraging.

Passive will be painful, but pro-active looks powerful with the folks who're fired up.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Representative Logey is a landowner who has land in block management. He's a good man, and one who often times sides with the public land hunter.

I would suggest that folks talk with him with open minds. He's proven himself to be open to honest discourse.

 

[TheJason]

Here is the reply I received from Rep. Loge:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I did vote yes, only because of the amendments and the fact that it would only be in place for a year before it could be reviewed. I felt we need to keep trying ideas as the populations keep growing and with this short time use would be worth the try. In no way do I favor racing for wildlife but I also respect the private property rights of the racing community. 'I have been on the PLPW for years and keep hearing concerns from the sportsman community too much negativity toward the landowners and have not seen any great alternatives that have been collaboratively work out with the ranchers so I hoped this would strengthen the incentive to have those friendly discussions. Thanks for your comments, Rep. Loge

--
Representative Denley M. Loge
House District 14
St. Regis, Mt
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I'm assuming the 'racing' is a typo for "ranching"

I do think that we as hunters will have to make some concessions to landowners, or this will quickly devolve into an all or nothing fight between our groups. Shoulder Hunts and BMA are not working as well as it could, and landowners are not compensated as much as they probably should be. Without transferring this burden to tax-payers, I see the need for a hunter supported program that could involve a "trespass and harvest fee" of sorts to the landowner's that would volunteer to be part of the program. My dad is not going to pay a landowner who has an elk walk through his property once in a blue moon any amount to go wander around their property- he can do that on our great public lands for free. However, the landowners in over objective-units who have the issues with their hayfields/haystacks and what not that can offer my dad a quick means to fill the freezer should also be able to benefit beyond having one less elk to feed. I don't think my dad would blink twice if he was asked to pay $100 harvest fee of a cow elk in a hayfield. I'm not saying that is the fair price, just simply using it as an example.

A one year flash in the pan approach is stupid. You need a mutually acceptable path forward they you will stick to for several years and then evaluate. You can have a couple of pilot regions/districts and run several different models. But you HAVE to be consistent and follow it so you can look at trends. You can’t make any meaningful evaluation off one year.

 

[tjones]

Here is the reply I received from Rep. Loge:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I did vote yes, only because of the amendments and the fact that it would only be in place for a year before it could be reviewed. I felt we need to keep trying ideas as the populations keep growing and with this short time use would be worth the try. In no way do I favor racing for wildlife but I also respect the private property rights of the racing community. 'I have been on the PLPW for years and keep hearing concerns from the sportsman community too much negativity toward the landowners and have not seen any great alternatives that have been collaboratively work out with the ranchers so I hoped this would strengthen the incentive to have those friendly discussions. Thanks for your comments, Rep. Loge

--
Representative Denley M. Loge
House District 14
St. Regis, Mt
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I'm assuming the 'racing' is a typo for "ranching"

I do think that we as hunters will have to make some concessions to landowners, or this will quickly devolve into an all or nothing fight between our groups. Shoulder Hunts and BMA are not working as well as it could, and landowners are not compensated as much as they probably should be. Without transferring this burden to tax-payers, I see the need for a hunter supported program that could involve a "trespass and harvest fee" of sorts to the landowner's that would volunteer to be part of the program. My dad is not going to pay a landowner who has an elk walk through his property once in a blue moon any amount to go wander around their property- he can do that on our great public lands for free. However, the landowners in over objective-units who have the issues with their hayfields/haystacks and what not that can offer my dad a quick means to fill the freezer should also be able to benefit beyond having one less elk to feed. I don't think my dad would blink twice if he was asked to pay $100 harvest fee of a cow elk in a hayfield. I'm not saying that is the fair price, just simply using it as an example.

Shoulder seasons were supposed to be short term and reviewed too .

 

[TheJason]

Shoulder seasons were supposed to be short term and reviewed too .

And, as I recall they were constantly changing too, no?

The EMP was also never followed as written, so it’s impossible to say which portions of that could or would have been effective.

 

[Ben Lamb]

A one year flash in the pan approach is stupid. You need a mutually acceptable path forward they you will stick to for several years and then evaluate. You can have a couple of pilot regions/districts and run several different models. But you HAVE to be consistent and follow it so you can look at trends. You can’t make any meaningful evaluation off one year.

We've not really delved into the outward facing machinations of legislators, so I'll use Rep. Logey's words to hopefully shed some light on this:

When legislators broke for recess, what they were doing is deciding the final vote on bills for executive action. Knowing that there were 2 strong no votes from the majority already, there needed to be a decision made on who would be the last vote to table the bill. They selected Mitchell, mostly because he's disposable to them as it is after his big media attention grab on his Antifa resolution. He also, as a freshman, can claim other motivations, etc rather than simply say "this is a chitty bill and my folks back home really don't support it."

Votes are generally managed outcomes in committees. This bill, by virtue of who the sponsor is, and the agency's request that it pass, had to be handled a bit more delicately in order to save face when it dies. That saving of face also comes with the condition that some legislators will respond to post-vote inquiries with a standard response, such as Rep. Logey's admonition that hunters aren't bringing solutions (which is what others have said - it's a repeated refrain on anyone who opposes a bad bill).

What we saw last night in committee was largely theater. Legislators will deny this, but the reality is they decided who was going to vote no or yes in the GOP caucus. Th Dem caucus was clearly against the bill, so only three people needed to vote no. With the two from the Flathead already there, it made sense to give the last no vote to Mitchell as opposed Logey (Chairman of another committee) or others who would be in leadership.

 

[YoungGun]

I think it was @Gerald Martin that might have pointed out earlier in this thread. You have several different types of landowners out there. Rep Loge needs to understand that there are ranchers with wildlife damage issues but hate hunters (no access, but may outfit), you have ranchers with wildlife damage that hate elk more than hunters (allow hunting with permission or join the BMA), and you have a significantly growing number of landowners who like having wild pets on their land (giving all hunters the bird, sorry I hate it when it does that). You can no longer lump those three factions in to "landowners" because they all have different needs/wants.

As sportsmen and women, I think we need to see these three groups as they are. Firm up the BMA program for those landowners that welcome hunters. Improve our offering to those who do outfit or otherwise allow a select few on to their land. For that last group of wild pet lovin' California types, welp they don't call it Bozangeles for nothing. It's happening and I don't know how to best deal with this type of landowner.

Well stated and very true- I need to remind myself that not all "landowners" fall into the category my mind goes to, which is that of the common rancher who is more-so adversely impacted in the bottom-line by ungulates than those who's property is for recreational purposes, like the "Bozangeles" crowd, or those who's property draws in the animals in quantities during the standard hunting season that allows them to outfit it or lease it. BMA has real merits, but I think the payouts aren't what they could be, and my point was that at sportsmen, we have had our biggest successes by putting our efforts and hard earned dollars behind issues. BMA, or a program like it, will most likely require the same to continually incentivize those landowners.

To JLS's point that 1 year is not enough time- I couldn't agree more. Again, politicians should be sitting back and letting the Biologists do their jobs. It's concerning to me if the reports that FWP employees are being silenced is true. Wildlife should not be a partisan politics issue- it should be science based. Science takes time, and a quick-political-fix is not going to take us to our preferred destination.

I do appreciate Rep. Loge sharing his insight into why he voted the way he did, and it's refreshing to hear that he has property enrolled in BMA- putting his money where his mouth is.

 

[TheJason]

Thanks @Ben Lamb. Political strategy is not in my wheel house.

If the legislature wanted to take a meaningful role in this, and not manage wildlife via legislation, they would pass a bill directing FWP to undertake a 3-4 year project to address elk issues. The legislature would provide the sideboards for crafting the management alternatives and provide funding for FWP to go through a proper scoping and vetting process and then implement the alternatives.

This issue has been brewing for decades, and obviously the status quo is not working or we wouldn’t have shit like this get proposed. It’s not just an FWP issue, as @Gerald Martin has pointed out it’s also a neighbor issue.

I don’t know what the management answer is, but it won’t be solved by shitty bills like this.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Thanks @Ben Lamb. Political strategy is not in my wheel house.

If the legislature wanted to take a meaningful role in this, and not manage wildlife via legislation, they would pass a bill directing FWP to undertake a 3-4 year project to address elk issues. The legislature would provide the sideboards for crafting the management alternatives and provide funding for FWP to go through a proper scoping and vetting process and then implement the alternatives.

We did last session. In the budget for DFWP, we were able to turn the grizzly bear management specialist FTE they were requesting into a deer/elk planner position to start the new EMP rewrite, which is a 3-4 year process as we all know, with significant public involvement opportunities at the department and commission level. FWP already has the authority to develop these plans, which they have done for generations now.

So those tools were put in place last session, with a planner hired during the interim who is working with the Citizens Elk Council, which has 800 hours or so of work under their belt already.

That's the answer to the question "what's your solution." Wildlife advocates saw this trainwreck coming and convinced the agency & legislature to do something substantial in 2019, but that doesn't produce quick solutions, which many in the House demand.

If the legislature wanted to be involved in this process more, then a study bill from the committee to ensure that FWP keeps the Environmental Quality Council appraised of activities, and to ensure that lengthy discussion happens on possible legislative outcomes is done in a public fashion would be their best bet.

They have a week to write that study bill & until April 8th to get it passed out of the first house.

 

[mtmuley]

My trust in any elected official is at an all time low. Eventually, Montana is screwed. mtmuley

 

[SAJ-99]

When legislators broke for recess, what they were doing is deciding the final vote on bills for executive action. Knowing that there were 2 strong no votes from the majority already, there needed to be a decision made on who would be the last vote to table the bill. They selected Mitchell, mostly because he's disposable to them as it is after his big media attention grab on his Antifa resolution. He also, as a freshman, can claim other motivations, etc rather than simply say "this is a chitty bill and my folks back home really don't support it."

Are you saying the vote was already decided before walking in the room from recess? I wouldn't question that except for Fitzgerald's slight reaction when Reksten voted 'No'. I have sat in on lots of meetings and learned to glean a lot from the reaction people have, even if subtle. Either Fitzgerald didn't know that her vote was 'No', or he should get an Oscar (or at least a vote from me).

 

[Ben Lamb]

Are you saying the vote was already decided before walking in the room from recess? I wouldn't question that except for Fitzgerald's slight reaction when Reksten voted 'No'. I have sat in on lots of meetings and learned to glean a lot from the reaction people have, even if subtle. Either Fitzgerald didn't know that her vote was 'No', or he should get an Oscar (or at least a vote from me).

90% of the time, yes. I didn't see the Chair's reaction, but body language is a weapon in a committee room. Reading it is an art and should be done in person to catch follow up glances or fist bumps post meeting, etc.

 

[SAJ-99]

90% of the time, yes. I didn't see the Chair's reaction, but body language is a weapon in a committee room. Reading it is an art and should be done in person to catch follow up glances or fist bumps post meeting, etc.

Yeah, he had a mask on so I couldn't read his face. All I heard was a slight "Oh..hm". A fist bump after the meeting would have definitely been a give away. LOL

 

[Ben Lamb]

Yeah, he had a mask on so I couldn't read his face. All I heard was a slight "Oh..hm". A fist bump after the meeting would have definitely been a give away. LOL

the best lobbyists have figured out where the cameras can't see, and that's where they sit. Easier to give signals and text members of the committee with statements, questions, etc.

There's a lot of activity on the edges & in the shadows. And that's why we need dedicated lobbyists in the building all day, every day.

 

[sacountry]

There's that "L" word again. Sportsmen and women need an active voice in Helena.

 

[Ben Lamb]

There's that "L" word again. Sportsmen and women need an active voice in Helena.

In a normal year, we do. Montana TU has full time lobby presence (but usually is working on fish, water quality & stream access), MWF usually has a contract lobbyist as well as staff working the session the whole time. BHA has a contract lobbyist part-time, Bowhunters have a lobbyist who is a volunteer, and starting in 2015, RMEF would give their lobbyist the ability to help if he could, since he lived in Helena.

There is the MT Sporting Coalition, which is most of the hunting & angling groups - but their focus is closely matched to Habitat MT.

But, with COVID, there has been a big drop in that presence.

We've discussed previously the need for a fulltime wildlife/hunting lobby presence during the interim as well as the session - the bones exist to put the flesh on this, but the funding remains elusive.

 

[TheJason]

If the legislature wanted to be involved in this process more, then a study bill from the committee to ensure that FWP keeps the Environmental Quality Council appraised of activities, and to ensure that lengthy discussion happens on possible legislative outcomes is done in a public fashion would be their best bet.

Yes. They could also instruct FWP to accelerate the process and they could instruct them to offer alternatives within certain parameters. They could also instruct FWP to take a pilot area and follow the EMP verbatim during the scoping process for the new plan. There are lots of alternatives.

 

[sacountry]

In a normal year, we do. Montana TU has full time lobby presence (but usually is working on fish, water quality & stream access), MWF usually has a contract lobbyist as well as staff working the session the whole time. BHA has a contract lobbyist part-time, Bowhunters have a lobbyist who is a volunteer, and starting in 2015, RMEF would give their lobbyist the ability to help if he could, since he lived in Helena.

There is the MT Sporting Coalition, which is most of the hunting & angling groups - but their focus is closely matched to Habitat MT.

But, with COVID, there has been a big drop in that presence.

We've discussed previously the need for a fulltime wildlife/hunting lobby presence during the interim as well as the session - the bones exist to put the flesh on this, but the funding remains elusive.

MWF is doing good work and I appreciate their active presence on this forum. I just can't help but feel we need a more offensive/proactive approach so that we can get some good, equitable, legislation put forth.