HB 505 - Elk Need Your Help

[Big Fin]

So, as a non resident, what are my avenues for helping you all in this particular battle? I get the feeling they won't take kindly to a non resident emailing them about internal decision making.

I wish I knew an effective way. As a non-resident, subject to the "up to 10%" cap, if residents start stacking up 5 bonus points for shooting cows in February, you non-residents are never gonna hit the 10% cap. Will just be too many residents with squared points at the 10-15-20-25 point level. Unless, you want to drive out for a cow elk extermination effort each season and keep pace with the 'Tanny boys.

 

[Nameless Range]

As I read it section 2 of this bill allows the holder of a Class-A5 (resident OTC either-sex) or equivalent NR tag holder to indicate at the time of purchase he will use the tag on private land in an over objective to shoot a cow.
In return, he will can receive a total of 6 bonus points that can be used to apply for special permits in any district he chooses for following years.

Montana squares bonus points. If you have access to private land and exercise this option for five years you will have 900 chances to draw a permit of your choice. 5x6=30. 30x30=900

If you aren’t connected and have private access, in five years you will have 25 chances to draw a permit.

I am sure a lot of guys may read this and think, "Well, if it does come to pass, I'll just have to keep killing bulls off my general tag in units that allow it."

The other aspects of this bill combined with the already occurring natural trajectory of public land hunting in Montana should make folks think twice. Someday, sooner than later, nearly all the bull tags in Montana could be permit-based. As LE permits become more commonplace, think of how what Gerald wrote above would mean for that.

 

[bigsky2]

It seems like most people are sending e-mails, but I've heard before that phone calls are more meaningful than e-mails. You can call the capitol switchboard at 406-444-4800 and leave a message for the entire committee.

 

[Gerald Martin]

Something else is the enforcement angle. I don’t see where section 2 transforms an either sex tag into a private land cow only tag. All a hunter needs to do is indicate he will hunt on private.
What’s to keep him from checking the box and shooting a bull on public? How would FWP enforce it?

Also, not all areas over objective allow for antlerless harvest on a general tag. Some require an additional permit.

Many of the current qualifying “at objective” units are in the western part of the state under general regulation and open to all tag holders. There is no reason for adding tags if maintaining objective is the goal.

Block Management properties are going to be the obvious “go to” areas for those who don’t have access to leased or land that restricts access. Elk on available areas are going to get hammered even harder. Survivors will find refuge on private property not open to Joe Public.

One other fact of this bill is that as it is written, prospective holders of the landowner sponsored licenses will be limited to deeded land. Ten NR’s on a 640 acre piece isn’t going to work.
Expect an amendment allowing the tags to be used unit wide to follow shortly after.

 

[Brad W]

Randy, Nick, Ben,
I will be testifying remotely again tomorrow against this bill. Based on your recent posts it is clear that I have misinterpreted some of the language of the bill or failed to distinguish the legal subtleties between sponsored and transferable tags. Having said that what do you think are the most salient points to highlight?
In my written testimony I focused on the privatization of wildlife on private ground, the wording that would allow those tags to be used unit wide and thereby increase pressure on public ground, and the creation of a second bonus point track that would effectively allow residents and wealthy non-residents to rapidly buy their way to the top of the point ladder without any real requirement to hunt or harvest a cow. It is not hard for me to see landowners or outfitters “selling” these sponsored tags to wealthy hunters who express an “intent” to hunt cows and then never even need to show up to collect their extra 5 bonus points. This would grossly disenfranchise the rest of the resident and non-resident hunting community.

On another note, is it fair to point out that the sponsor of this bill and his family may also be the greatest beneficiaries. Shouldn’t that be a major red flag to any other representative with a shred of integrity?

 

[Brad W]

Something else is the enforcement angle. I don’t see where section 2 transforms an either sex tag into a private land cow only tag. All a hunter needs to do is indicate he will hunt on private.
What’s to keep him from checking the box and shooting a bull on public? How would FWP enforce it?

Also, not all areas over objective allow for antlerless harvest on a general tag. Some require an additional permit.

Many of the current qualifying “at objective” units are in the western part of the state under general regulation and open to all tag holders. There is no reason for adding tags if maintaining objective is the goal.

Block Management properties are going to be the obvious “go to” areas for those who don’t have access to leased or land that restricts access. Elk on available areas are going to get hammered even harder. Survivors will find refuge on private property not open to Joe Public.

One other fact of this bill is that as it is written, prospective holders of the landowner sponsored licenses will be limited to deeded land. Ten NR’s on a 640 acre piece isn’t going to work.
Expect an amendment allowing the tags to be used unit wide to follow shortly after.

They won’t need to amend the bill to make the the tags unit wide because the bill gives the FW Commission the ability to do that...the same commission they are also trying to stuff with a veto proof majority of agricultural producers. As you point out it is not hard to connect the dots. Talk about legislated self-interest.

 

[Nameless Range]

My testimony will not be to get into the minutia of this huge change in how we manage elk, rather I reject the idea that we would be changing how we manage elk in a huge way and will have done so without any public input being sought from hunters the same as we do with season setting processes.

The many questions and potential negative outcomes tells me that FWP has not done its homework in requesting this bill.

This is the balance I am having a tough time striking. There is so much bad in this bill, with so many consequences that would be detrimental, that it is hard not to get into the minutia of the bill. No doubt, even though it is their damn jobs, the members of the committee will be pushing hunters to "get on with it" when it comes to listening to their testimony. I'm shooting for testimony that lasts a little over a minute.

 

[Ben Lamb]

@Brad W I don't think you should comment on the sponsor's ranching & outfitting background. That kind of stuff generally gets the good points ignored and let's opposition focus on your "personal attacks." Regardless of what people may think, Representative Galt is the duly elected Speaker of the House, and deserves respect. It's a rough job, and adding more grief onto those shoulders is a good way to get an inverse reaction.

Keep it clean & above board, but do highlight that this is the wrong approach to how wildlife management should be done, and that it sets the stage for future privatization of wildlife, while ignoring the real issues at play: Elk distribution, indiscriminate pressure on elk, and refuges of private land that negate any impact that shoulder seasons were supposed to have.

Remember: We were told that shoulder seasons would be the cure for over-objective elk. How many years later and we're still over objective? We were told that access would be forthcoming, and that nobody would charge for shoulder season hunts, when in reality, that's what's happening across MT.

As for testimony: In person is the most effective. Then over zoom, then phone calls, then emails. Legislators get thousands of emails a day on a variety of issues. Those little stacks of notes handed to them are the phone calls, and they can do a quick survey of one color card versus another.

Be polite, be professional and be succinct. The desire to go down the rabbit hole of minutia is strong, but resist. There will be a lot of other folks in line to testify, so be cognizant of their time, and let them make some points as well.

From my perspective, here are the topline themes to return too over and over:
1.) This cuts out the largest segment of FWP's customer base - the hunter - from the discussion. Pushing a major rewrite of hunting law in MT during a pandemic session of the legislature is a sure-fire way to cause controversy, rather than get folks in a room and talk through issues, like the MT Elk Council & rewriting the EMP does. That's a better place to have these discussions, rather than the frenetic pace of a legislature. We need calm, cool heads, not amped up rhetoric.

2.) This bill, while well intentioned, does nothing to change the issues on the ground that hunters & landowners are dealing with: Elk distribution. When large herds of elk are inaccessible to public hunting, either through hunt club leases, non-traditional landowners, etc, then adding more cow hunting pressure only exacerbates that issue. While new incentives for landowners to allow hunting on properties that have unnatural concentrations is welcome, handing that same recourse over to one group to control is anti-democratic and ignores Montana's over 100 year history of wildlife management.

3.) Point creep: This bill would ensure that only a very select few would ever draw an Elkhorns, Breaks, Rocky Mtn Front, Bearpaws, etc tag. It would make elk hunting in MT even more exclusionary than it is now. This is a major slap in the face to kids who are just now starting to build points, and those who are sitting on points, plus it could make pulling NR Limited Entry Permits even more difficult, causing more heartache for public land outfitters, etc.

4.)Sportsmen-Landowner relations are always a live wire. Bills like this are extra current through that wire. We don't need the extra controversy, we need leaders to step up and engage both communities in an honest discussion about the issues at hand, and solutions that everyone can agree too.

You've got less than 3 hours to sign up if you want to testify remotely. Showing up in person will have outsized impact on this bill.

 

[Brad W]

@Brad W I don't think you should comment on the sponsor's ranching & outfitting background. That kind of stuff generally gets the good points ignored and let's opposition focus on your "personal attacks." Regardless of what people may think, Representative Galt is the duly elected Speaker of the House, and deserves respect. It's a rough job, and adding more grief onto those shoulders is a good way to get an inverse reaction.

Keep it clean & above board, but do highlight that this is the wrong approach to how wildlife management should be done, and that it sets the stage for future privatization of wildlife, while ignoring the real issues at play: Elk distribution, indiscriminate pressure on elk, and refuges of private land that negate any impact that shoulder seasons were supposed to have.

Remember: We were told that shoulder seasons would be the cure for over-objective elk. How many years later and we're still over objective? We were told that access would be forthcoming, and that nobody would charge for shoulder season hunts, when in reality, that's what's happening across MT.

As for testimony: In person is the most effective. Then over zoom, then phone calls, then emails. Legislators get thousands of emails a day on a variety of issues. Those little stacks of notes handed to them are the phone calls, and they can do a quick survey of one color card versus another.

Be polite, be professional and be succinct. The desire to go down the rabbit hole of minutia is strong, but resist. There will be a lot of other folks in line to testify, so be cognizant of their time, and let them make some points as well.

From my perspective, here are the topline themes to return too over and over:
1.) This cuts out the largest segment of FWP's customer base - the hunter - from the discussion. Pushing a major rewrite of hunting law in MT during a pandemic session of the legislature is a sure-fire way to cause controversy, rather than get folks in a room and talk through issues, like the MT Elk Council & rewriting the EMP does. That's a better place to have these discussions, rather than the frenetic pace of a legislature. We need calm, cool heads, not amped up rhetoric.

2.) This bill, while well intentioned, does nothing to change the issues on the ground that hunters & landowners are dealing with: Elk distribution. When large herds of elk are inaccessible to public hunting, either through hunt club leases, non-traditional landowners, etc, then adding more cow hunting pressure only exacerbates that issue. While new incentives for landowners to allow hunting on properties that have unnatural concentrations is welcome, handing that same recourse over to one group to control is anti-democratic and ignores Montana's over 100 year history of wildlife management.

3.) Point creep: This bill would ensure that only a very select few would ever draw an Elkhorns, Breaks, Rocky Mtn Front, Bearpaws, etc tag. It would make elk hunting in MT even more exclusionary than it is now. This is a major slap in the face to kids who are just now starting to build points, and those who are sitting on points, plus it could make pulling NR Limited Entry Permits even more difficult, causing more heartache for public land outfitters, etc.

4.)Sportsmen-Landowner relations are always a live wire. Bills like this are extra current through that wire. We don't need the extra controversy, we need leaders to step up and engage both communities in an honest discussion about the issues at hand, and solutions that everyone can agree too.

You've got less than 3 hours to sign up if you want to testify remotely. Showing up in person will have outsized impact on this bill.

Thank you Ben. I signed up on Saturday. The comment about Galt is clearly counterproductive but frankly I don’t believe a person’s position brings with it any inherent respect. A leader earns that respect through the actions they take and the example they set.

 

[Sytes]

Any travelers or interested travelers from Lincoln/Flathead County or along the Seeley / Avon route... I'm leaving today @ 2pm for Helena.

Staying @ Marriott Delta. I'll drop off - p/u from whatever hotel you choose.

Returning home from the Capitol once done.

Any other bills to oppose/support while there? Looks like this is set for 3pm?

 

[Ben Lamb]

Thank you Ben. I signed up on Saturday. The comment about Galt is clearly counterproductive but frankly I don’t believe a person’s position brings with it any inherent respect. A leader earns that respect through the actions they take and the example they set.

I get that, and agree to a large extent, but remember that these legislators are largely volunteers who are doing heavy work for long hours and very little pay, far away from home. We often times ascribe interests & motivations that don't always pan out, so 90% of the respect given is to ensure that you maintain that high-ground (Like Obi-Wan!).

You will be representing the hunting community to these legislators; leave an impression to be proud of. Good hunting!

 

[Luke_with_a_lab]

Do you need to register if you are testifying in person?

 

[Ben Lamb]

Do you need to register if you are testifying in person?

Not online, but you will need to sign in when you get to the room. Sign your name, where you are from and whether you support or oppose the bill. Very straight forward.

SOmebody get a photo of the sign-in sheet as well. You'll be able to see what the oppo to support looks like for the testimony count.

 

[Brad W]

I get that, and agree to a large extent, but remember that these legislators are largely volunteers who are doing heavy work for long hours and very little pay, far away from home. We often times ascribe interests & motivations that don't always pan out, so 90% of the respect given is to ensure that you maintain that high-ground (Like Obi-Wan!).

You will be representing the hunting community to these legislators; leave an impression to be proud of. Good hunting!

That is fair enough. Your experience in politics gives you a clearer perspective on these issues and the realities of the Montana legislature than my lack there of.

 

[4ohSick]

I get that, and agree to a large extent, but remember that these legislators are largely volunteers who are doing heavy work for long hours and very little pay, far away from home. We often times ascribe interests & motivations that don't always pan out, so 90% of the respect given is to ensure that you maintain that high-ground (Like Obi-Wan!).

You will be representing the hunting community to these legislators; leave an impression to be proud of. Good hunting!

Tongue-in-cheek response, but their legislative pay comes from a bunch of self-serving bills to drive up the price of bulls on their land. Years of that makes up for a busy couple months in Helena.

 

[Luke_with_a_lab]

Not online, but you will need to sign in when you get to the room. Sign your name, where you are from and whether you support or oppose the bill. Very straight forward.

SOmebody get a photo of the sign-in sheet as well. You'll be able to see what the oppo to support looks like for the testimony count.

Sounds good, I can try to take a picture. Is the room large enough everyone will be able to watch the hearing or just come in and testify then have to leave? Or if I get there early enough can I grab a seat in the room?

 

[Ben Lamb]

Sounds good, I can try to take a picture. Is the room large enough everyone will be able to watch the hearing or just come in and testify then have to leave? Or if I get there early enough can I grab a seat in the room?

It will depend on the amount of folks who show up to testify. Normally, if it's at capacity, they will ask for proponents to be in the room first, then opponents. There TV's in the hallway that you can watch the hearing, or if the chair is thinking ahead, there may be an overflow room or it could be moved to the Old Supreme Court Chambers which has a gallery above.

Regardless, if it's packed - expect 2 minutes at most for testimony, so don't hog the podium & give everyone a chance to get their $.02 in.

@4ohSick: The urge is strong, but resist. Opposition will do their best to paint sportsmen & women as self-centered, uncaring, thuggish & rude. Kindness costs us nothing, and the rewards are far better.

 

[Hunter&Huntress]

Huntress here -
As a mom of three and a teacher, I won't be able to attend. However, I assigned my Outdoors Literacy class to send an email to each of the committee members. They may not be old enough to vote, but they are certainly old enough to hunt and be affected by the outcome of this bill. We have had so many discussions in this class about the bills that have barraged this year and even talked with BHA about what has been going on.

Randy, thank you so much for all the work you do to make Montana hunting what it should be.

 

[Gerald Martin]

@Ben Lamb ,do you think my plan to burn effigies on the front lawn of the Capitol would be interpreted as disrespectful and be counterproductive?

I am going to be so let down if you say yes.

 

[Ben Lamb]

@Ben Lamb ,do you think my plan to burn effigies on the front lawn of the Capitol would be interpreted as disrespectful and be counterproductive?

I am going to be so let down if you say yes.

Gerald, this isn't 1776, but I like your spirit.

No effigies, no tri-cornered hats. Wear a clean shirt, brush your teeth & comb your hair. Be kind, pleasant & don't let them rattle your cage.

Bacon pants acceptable. But, it will attract a lower class of carnivore than you're used too attracting. There hasn't been free lunch, so lobbyists & freshman legislators will hound you like a pack of Canadian super-woofs.