HB 505 - Elk Need Your Help

[Nameless Range]

Here is a pretty comprehensive discussion about House Bill 505: https://helenair.com/news/state-and...cle_a5cfb228-d27d-5118-b2b8-d60d09e4228b.html

This quote is rather revealing:

“It’s an incentive approach because a landowner can’t get the 10 tags until the herd is at objective,” Galt said. “That means two options: either hunt the herd until it’s at objective or landowners could get together and raise the objective.” (Bold emphasis added).

Because landowners are the contingent that decides objective numbers. Jesus.

They aren’t even pretending to try anymore.

 

[JLS]

This quote is rather revealing:

“It’s an incentive approach because a landowner can’t get the 10 tags until the herd is at objective,” Galt said. “That means two options: either hunt the herd until it’s at objective or landowners could get together and raise the objective.” (Bold emphasis added).

I bet tolerance for elk goes up a lot when there is money tied it.

 

[Spartan_Eric]

Not to mention, some of the underpinnings of House Bill 505 are Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks’ preferred wildlife management approaches based on “science.” Given this example, I don’t think we want to defer to either the Montana Legislature or the Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks for wildlife management decisions – At this point I pick option number 3, whatever that may be!

 

[Sioux33]

I thought it was bad when MOGA refused sportsmen a seat at the table, but the FWP for Christ sakes?!?

If they're the ones that dreamed this up, I'm all ears to hear how they think block management's gonna survive. 7 million acres, years of success, and the best tool we have for hunter-landowner relations, but there's not a word mentioned on how this will impact it.

 

[Spartan_Eric]

I thought it was bad when MOGA refused sportsmen a seat at the table, but the FWP for Christ sakes?!?

If they're the ones that dreamed this up, I'm all ears to hear how they think block management's gonna survive. 7 million acres, years of success, and the best tool we have for hunter-landowner relations, but there's not a word mentioned on how this will impact it.

The word is "negatively" and then some.

 

[BuzzH]

I thought it was bad when MOGA refused sportsmen a seat at the table, but the FWP for Christ sakes?!?

If they're the ones that dreamed this up, I'm all ears to hear how they think block management's gonna survive. 7 million acres, years of success, and the best tool we have for hunter-landowner relations, but there's not a word mentioned on how this will impact it.

I've been trying to point this out with the FWP for years...nobody wanted to listen.

They've been in on this for a long, long time...or at the very least, have done exactly ZERO to push back against the landowners or legislature in any way.

There's a lot of house cleaning that needs to be done in Montana and the FWP is NOT exempt.

 

[OntarioHunter]

Here is a pretty comprehensive discussion about House Bill 505: https://helenair.com/news/state-and...cle_a5cfb228-d27d-5118-b2b8-d60d09e4228b.html

This quote is rather revealing:

“It’s an incentive approach because a landowner can’t get the 10 tags until the herd is at objective,” Galt said. “That means two options: either hunt the herd until it’s at objective or landowners could get together and raise the objective.” (Bold emphasis added).

Heh, heh, heh. Doesn't take a crystal ball to predict which option will be most popular. A proposal for FWP management by aristocrat landowners brazenly laid bare by none other than the bill's sponsor! Wowee!

 

[Luke_with_a_lab]

His property wouldn't presently qualify because Sulphur is over the FWP target population for elk. Have to be at target population to qualify. This is where I really struggle. Large land owners in the Elkhorns could qualify and thus completely crush what's been decades of work producing trophy elk.

Oh man, to even think about that literally makes me sick to my stomach.

 

[Luke_with_a_lab]

What are your guys thoughts on if they plan to "amend" the bill down like they did with SB 143. Is it possible the the 5 extra bonus points was ment to end up at an extra 1? or the 10 landowner tags could end up at 2 or 3? like @sacountry said how can they possibly give 10 elk tags to every qualifying landowner in unit 380. I saw on a thread there are 118 qualifying landowners. Thats many tags would be equate to 1,180 tags, or nearly the poplulation of the elkhorn herd. In one year the herd would be wiped out and the decades of work to have a trophy unit erased. Also in these units "at objective" how could there even possibly be any tags left to go to the people who simply apply for them?

 

[sacountry]

What are your guys thoughts on if they plan to "amend" the bill down like they did with SB 143. Is it possible the the 5 extra bonus points was ment to end up at an extra 1? or the 10 landowner tags could end up at 2 or 3? like @sacountry said how can they possibly give 10 elk tags to every qualifying landowner in unit 380. I saw on a thread there are 118 qualifying landowners. Thats many tags would be equate to 1,180 tags, or nearly the poplulation of the elkhorn herd. In one year the herd would be wiped out and the decades of work to have a trophy unit erased. Also in these units "at objective" how could there even possibly be any tags left to go to the people who simply apply for them?

I was wondering that same question about over flooding tags in those districts like the Elkhorns or the Breaks. Bearspaw would be another. These prized trophy districts would get mowed down, especially since there isn't link to weapons restrictions with these landowner tags. Specifically thinking of the Breaks that's heavily weapons restricted presently.

 

[Finnman]

I see Wylie Galt, the bill's sponsor, owns a 640,000 acre ranch near White Sulphur Springs. Guess we can connect the dots on this one.

That's Bill Galt. Wiley has a ranch by Martinsdale, I think.

 

[Wildabeest]

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.

 

[bigsky2]

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.

It's supposedly incentive for landowners to allow enough access to get populations down to objective, and then rewarding them with the landowner sponsored tags.

 

[Brad W]

Here is a pretty comprehensive discussion about House Bill 505: https://helenair.com/news/state-and...cle_a5cfb228-d27d-5118-b2b8-d60d09e4228b.html

This quote is rather revealing:

“It’s an incentive approach because a landowner can’t get the 10 tags until the herd is at objective,” Galt said. “That means two options: either hunt the herd until it’s at objective or landowners could get together and raise the objective.” (Bold emphasis added).

Just further proof of the real motivation behind stacking the FWP commission with four agricultural producers. We need to keep opposing that bill strongly too. If you look at landowner tag prices in NM it is easy to see these MT sponsored tags being worth serious money. Not to mention the fact that there is probably some room for gaming the system. It’s not clear to me how the system would work, but what would prevent someone with a huge ranch from doing a little subdivision. If a husband “sells” his wife 640 acres and she holds that in her name would that entitle them each to 10 tags? The economic incentives in a quality elk unit would be huge and once the Commission gets stuffed with ag producers these tags will become unit wide faster than you can blink.

 

[Gerald Martin]

Not to mention, some of the underpinnings of House Bill 505 are Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks’ preferred wildlife management approaches based on “science.” Given this example, I don’t think we want to defer to either the Montana Legislature or the Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks for wildlife management decisions – At this point I pick option number 3, whatever that may be!

May I suggest a 5 member board comprised of Hunttalk members?
I bet even random choices can bring more science into decisions than this.

 

[Ben Lamb]

What are your guys thoughts on if they plan to "amend" the bill down like they did with SB 143. Is it possible the the 5 extra bonus points was ment to end up at an extra 1? or the 10 landowner tags could end up at 2 or 3? like @sacountry said how can they possibly give 10 elk tags to every qualifying landowner in unit 380. I saw on a thread there are 118 qualifying landowners. Thats many tags would be equate to 1,180 tags, or nearly the poplulation of the elkhorn herd. In one year the herd would be wiped out and the decades of work to have a trophy unit erased. Also in these units "at objective" how could there even possibly be any tags left to go to the people who simply apply for them?

My thought would be that if they table this bill, and actually try to work with sportsmen & landowners, as was started last year with the elk council, then there can be honest, open & thoughtful dialog. To try and ram through something that has this many unworkable and unknowable parts, along with the massive wedge being driven between sportsmen & landowners - now from FWP - is unconscionable.

No amendments can make this work. The basic premise of handing landowners tags to profit off of is anathema to the North American Model. Recognizing impacts that landowners are having due to elk distribution, and being willing to be open to new ideas benefits sportsmen well, just as it does landowners.

The only path for this bill is tabling. Accept nothing less. No amendments, don't try to fix a bad bill.

 

[Nameless Range]

Safe travels to those driving. I-15 between Butte and Helena is a damn mess this morning as is Highway 69 south of Boulder.

 

[Big Fin]

@Ben Lamb is correct. Amending this bill does nothing. It needs to be tabled.

It is a fundamental shift in how Montana has done things for many decades, both in terms of handing so much control to one party (landowners) at the expense of other parties, and in terms of FWP coming forward with a bill that has had no input in from hunters.

There is always room for improving elk management in Montana. A better result would be to work through a citizens body, such as the Elk Management Working Group and have them come forward with ideas that would likely have a lot of support.

 

[Gerald Martin]

I think the paradigm of how we have looked at wildlife in MT needs to be changed.

Wildlife exists as a condition of the land. It is a natural resource just like water, dirt, and air.

If a landowner owns the bank of a river and irrigates his crops all summer with that water we would laugh him to scorn if he came back after spring runoff and demanded payment from the state because some of his low ground is too wet to plant crops and he lost revenue.

Yet some seem determined to restrict wildlife, profit from wildlife that survives and seek compensation for any damages that wildlife causes.

 

[longbow51]

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