HB 505 - Elk Need Your Help

[Ben Lamb]

Emails sent; hope this is defeated, but if FWP supports it I am worried.

FWP had bills of theirs killed left & right for a long time. 16 years, to be precise.

If a legislator is saying "It's an agency bill, and that means it's got better legs to pass," what they are really telling you is that the Governor wants this bill. Agencies do not make decisions in a vaccuum, and the Governor plays an outsized role in what agencies can and cannot lobby on.

So, if the Governor wants this bill, FWP will be there today to support it.

This is the Governor's bill.

 

[brocksw]

FWP had bills of theirs killed left & right for a long time. 16 years, to be precise.

If a legislator is saying "It's an agency bill, and that means it's got better legs to pass," what they are really telling you is that the Governor wants this bill. Agencies do not make decisions in a vaccuum, and the Governor plays an outsized role in what agencies can and cannot lobby on.

So, if the Governor wants this bill, FWP will be there today to support it.

This is the Governor's bill.

When the pendulum swings hopefully a bill gets drafted that outlaws the sale/transfer of landowner tags?

 

[Gerald Martin]

The outfitter voices of Hunttalk have been conspicuously silent on this thread....

 

[Ben Lamb]

When the pendulum swings hopefully a bill gets drafted that outlaws the sale/transfer of landowner tags?

Until we can count to 26 in the Senate and 51 in the House, and have the votes the committees, the only way to affect positive change on a large scale will be ballot initiatives.

For the years I lobbied (2009 - 2019), the Legislature was hostile to FWP & resident hunters. There were some good moments, and good work was done (The HB 140 licensing bill, WHIP, saving Habitat MT, etc) but by and large, we were on defense. The onslaught of bills ebbed & flowed, and '19 was looking like it would be a change in how the session operated in terms of listening to sportsmen.

2021 reversed all of that, and has made it like it was in 2011. There have been 3 chairs of House FWP that have been above board and honest in how they dealt with us. Kelly Flynn, Jeff Welborn & Ross Fitzgerald (current). The Senate gave us John Brendan, Jennifer Fielder, and now We have Steve Hinebauch, who recently ran a bill that would have made closing off county roads legal, and it would have gutted the stream access law (It died in committee quickly). He's also come out and attacked groups who work the legislature, and said that Habitat Montana (MT's LWCF) is a bad program. He ven opposed the amendment on 143 because the increased funds would have gone to Habitat Montana.

The Legislature likes to take swipes at FWP. Some of it is deserved, but when the people who are writing the laws that an agency has to live by only hand you shit-sandwiches, you either get used to the taste, or you starve.

FWP apparently has gotten used to the taste.

 

[tjones]

The outfitter voices of Hunttalk have been conspicuously silent on this thread....

Same with RMEF on the topic. Disappointing as they continue to beat the woof dead horse and stay silent on something like this.

 

[Gerald Martin]

Same with RMEF on the topic. Disappointing as they continue to beat the woof dead horse and stay silent on something like this.

I have seen those non-native woofs in action. They decimate wildlife and leave barren blood stains on the ground every time they meet in chambers and pass bills like this.

At least I can buy a tag for the four legged variety and try to manage numbers.

 

[brocksw]

Same with RMEF on the topic. Disappointing as they continue to beat the woof dead horse and stay silent on something like this.

To me the entire session in MT should paint a crystal clear picture for hunters when it comes to conservation orgs...they need to stop all the partisan drivel about only supporting conservation orgs that only align with every single one of their personal stances(or the appearance of), especially on issues well outside the domain of hunting and conservation. It's time to wake up and get with the program.

 

[bigsky2]

Same with RMEF on the topic. Disappointing as they continue to beat the woof dead horse and stay silent on something like this.

The only legislator that replied to my e-mail about HB 505 said "I have been impressed by the leadership being provided on this issue by the Montana Wildlife Federation and Montana BHA. I have yet to hear from Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation. You might check with RMEF and urge them to take a position against this bill."

 

[tjones]

To me the entire session in MT should paint a crystal clear picture for hunters...they need to stop all the partisan drivel about only supporting conservation orgs that only align with every single one of their personal stances(or the appearance of) on issues well outside the domain of hunting and conservation. It's time to wake up and get with the program.

Ya most of us don't do anything but bitch about the session for 3 months every 2 years. I will try and get woke.

 

[brocksw]

Ya most of us don't do anything but bitch about the session for 3 months every 2 years. I will try and get woke.

Not sure how to interpret that???

I would agree in general hunters do more bitching then doing....but that's a 365 day a year thing...????

 

[sacountry]

The outfitter voices of Hunttalk have been conspicuously silent on this thread....

This part also bugs me. Essentially this bill creates revenue opportunities for outfitters which in turn finances more private land outfitting if the outfitter, or the landowner under advisement of the outfitter, is generating an authorized list of sold access rights to 10 wealthy non-resident, hunters to FWP. In a nutshell, an outfitter could gamble say $500k payable to a landowner on the bet they will be able to sell access rights (not the actual licenses, but certainly a guarantee of 10 hunters per season) to hunters based upon priority dates, size of bulls, etc. Private land outfitting in the Elkhorns and the Breaks would absolutely explode because of this new found revenue!

Without this bill, there is risk to the outfitter for buying leases on private land. That risk is critical the system of herd management IMHO. Individual profiting off a state natural resource to me is and will always be unconscionable.

 

[Irrelevant]

It's time to wake up and get with the program.

^That was a poor choice of words in this crowd.

 

[Schaaf]

I think he was more referring to the hunters off of HT.

 

[brocksw]

^That was a poor choice of words in this crowd.

I'm talking hunters in general. Not a specific demographic. Not a specific forum (although rokslide comes to mind). Just that all hunters should be participating and advocating.

 

[JLS]

Not a specific forum (although rokslide comes to mind).

Yes.

 

[brocksw]

Ya most of us don't do anything but bitch about the session for 3 months every 2 years. I will try and get woke.

My apologies. Not directed at you or anyone who is spending valuable personal time advocating for this stuff. Those of us who do the participating and advocating are in the minority...at least that's my perception.

 

[Ben Lamb]

My apologies. Not directed at you or anyone who is spending valuable personal time advocating for this stuff. Those of us who do the participating and advocating are in the minority...at least that's my perception.

Hunt Talk tends to outpunch in it's weight class for activism in conservation & wildlife management. I can think of several who have long & storied histories fighting for what's right, and if it weren't for guys like @Big Fin @tjones , @shoots-straight and so many others, we'd not have wolves delisted or have pushed back so effectively in the last 2 decades, and beyond.

But yes, overall it's easier to complain and let other's do the heavy lifting. If 10% of the hunters take 90% of the game, then it's 5% of the hunters who do 95% of the heavy lifting when it comes to advocating.

I'm loving the enthusiasm from folks. Let's keep our barrels pointed in the right direction & fire for effect.

 

[Spartan_Eric]

Does anyone know why they would only apply this to units “at objective” vs. “at or over objective”? That just doesn’t make any sense to me, and the pessimist in me thinks they really meant “at or over” and will later say “oops, you know what we meant so we’ll fix it via a technical correction” after all the debate is over.

I totally agree – a procedural sleight of hand or amendment in this direction would somehow make this bill even 100 times worse!

 

[Gerald Martin]

This administration to landowners....

 

[sacountry]

This administration to landowners....View attachment 176656

Cause you know darn well no one in her audience is from Montana!