HB 505 - Elk Need Your Help

[Ben Lamb]

Careful...it actually could get worse. Can you imagine if old Greg had selected Mac Minard for that position?

In the end, Hank isn't the boss.

Governor Gianforte is.

This is his agency, and his bill.

 

[Brad W]

In the end, Hank isn't the boss.

Governor Gianforte is.

This is his agency, and his bill.

Hank clearly isn’t a politician. It was weird and refreshing to see him actually give a straight up answer to a question that was pretty damning to his cause. “No” pretty much said it all. He probably needs to sit down with Mac Minard to get some lessons on evasion. I thought Mac’s chat with Randy on the podcast was a pretty impressive display of politicking.

 

[brocksw]

Could some explain to me the confusion about the transferable or sellable landowner tags?

 

[Brad W]

Randy explained it well earlier in the thread. Here is the basic difference:
Transferable tag: The state gives the tags to the landowner to sell or transfer
Sponsored tag: The landowner sponsors a hunter to buy a tag from the state.

The end result is basically the same in this case. It is my understanding that there is nothing stopping a landowner from charging a sponsorship fee

 

[Hunting Wife]

Could some explain to me the confusion about the transferable or sellable landowner tags?

The non-resident Hunter still purchases the tag from FWP. The landowner does not control the tag sale. The Hunter does have to have a landowner to sponsor them before they can purchase the tag however, and that “sponsorship” will almost certainly come with a dollar figure attached.

So the tag itself is not transferable, and the landowner will be selling their “sponsorship”, rather than the tag. Or that’s how I understand it.

 

[Wildabeest]

Could some explain to me the confusion about the transferable or sellable landowner tags?

It’s all semantics. Technically, transferable tags are issued to the landowner who can then sell them to hunters. Sponsored tags are sold directly by FWP to the hunter, but they are subtracted from the landowner’s allocation. Thus, the landowner cannot mark up the price of the tag, but they can charge for access which is essentially the same end result.

 

[brocksw]

That's what I thought...so why wasn't that explicitly pointed out?

 

[Brad W]

My understanding from Randy is that “transferable tags” suggest that the landowner has an ownership claim to wildlife on their property whereas “sponsored tags” just give landowners a preference.

 

[Brad W]

It is just semantics, but Randy was 100% right that folks like Kujala immediately used that confusion to try and discredit opponents.

 

[brocksw]

It is just semantics, but Randy was 100% right that folks like Kujala immediately used that confusion to try and discredit opponents.

Right it was an outright lie. "technically" yes the tag is not transferable under FWP. But the honest thing to say would've been "but the sponsorship fees will go upwards of $10,000 each". So whether or not the FWP is setting the infrastructure is irrelevant. Bottom line is a dollar figure is then attached to each tag.

Was hoping someone would clarify that in their testimony.

 

[mtnkid85]

That's what I thought...so why wasn't that explicitly pointed out?

I did point this out in my testimony, I was one of the last to remotely testify though so who knows if it was heard...
And my damn dog who had been sitting nice and quite with me through the whole damn thing started barking right when my mic turned on... lol

 

[Luke_with_a_lab]

I was there today and was amazed at the what seemed to be comradery between a handful of the committe members and most all of the proponents. I guess deals really are done behind closed doors.

 

[Big Shooter]

Yeah, all that talk about tapioca flavoured nuts was pretty shocking.

What did you find "disturbing?" I didn't see anyone throwing out the vigilante password. I suspect you found my suggestion that hunters boycott Montana beef was disturbing. Beef prices have been in the toilet. Maybe the threat of a boycott, even some serious talk about it when ranchers are on the ropes, would get everyone's attention real fast. And getting everyone's attention is what is needed to quash this greedy grab at Montana's public resources. I suspect there are a helluva lot of ranchers who have no idea what's happening in Helena right now (it's calving season) and wouldn't approve if they did know.

First off...your comment about the “Montana beef boycott” wasn’t disturbing to me, it was actually comical and was almost embarrassed for you. Second...you are correct, some of us are calving right now...and you are also correct when you say that they wouldn’t approve of what’s going on in Helena.....but.....what they wouldn’t approve of is not what you think.

 

[brocksw]

I did point this out in my testimony, I was one of the last to remotely testify though so who knows if it was heard...
And my damn dog who had been sitting nice and quite with me through the whole damn thing started barking right when my mic turned on... lol

Yeah I think they cut you off early.

 

[Brad W]

Right it was an outright lie. Semantics to say "technically" yes the tag is not transferable under FWP. But the honest thing to say would've been "but the sponsorship fees will go upwards of $10,000 each". So whether or not the FWP setting the infrastructure is irrelevant. Bottom line is a dollar figure is then attached to each tag.

Was hoping someone would clarify that in their testimony.

Unfortunately there were a lot of things that were not covered by the opposition because the list of problems with this bill is nearly endless. I thought Gerald in particular did a nice job tying together his personal story with the numbers to illustrate how stupid the proposal was, but almost all of the opponents (sorry wolf man) were well spoken and highlighted serious concerns. I am new to this game so I don’t have the same depth of experience as many folks here, but to me the haste and lack of thought behind the bills coming through the MT legislature is pretty breathtaking. This hearing had a much different feeling than SB 143 and it was nice to see the opposition swamp the proponents.

 

[Wildabeest]

And my damn dog who had been sitting nice and quite with me through the whole damn thing started barking right when my mic turned on... lol

He was clearly testifying in opposition to the bill!

 

[Wildabeest]

I definitely got the sense at the end that they are also playing the “negotiate it down” strategy on this bill. Submit it with completely ridiculous provisions, back off on them and then say “see we listened to the sportsmen”. Diverting attention away from the fact that the entire premise of the bill is the problem, not the specific terms.

 

[tjones]

I don’t see anything in the bill and it surely isn’t covered in the EMP that mandates FWP to do annual elk counts. Without annual accurate elk counts in all at or above objective units how does FWP manage this bill?
What keeps FWP from killing these elk to below objective and hitting the brakes too late?

I watched it here in the Bitterroot from 2003-2008. Vore told us time and time again we could keep pounding either sex elk and we weren’t even killing the recruitment.

That worked right up till all 4 units in the Bitterroot were shot down below objective. A couple took 10 years to come back and one still hasn’t.
Budget dictates flights and we all know how FWP’s budget is tight.

 

[MTHunter1321]

I definitely got the sense at the end that they are also playing the “negotiate it down” strategy on this bill. Submit it with completely ridiculous provisions, back off on them and then say “see we listened to the sportsmen”. Diverting attention away from the fact that the entire premise of the bill is the problem, not the specific terms.

I agree. This bill is garbage. Thank you Randy and every other person who took time out of their days to be there in person to voice their opposition today. While I’d like to say that after today I don’t see how this can make it out of committee, but I know I’d be a fool to think that...

 

[Big Fin]

Thanks to so many who took a day off work and a day away from family, including many Hunt Talkers, to make an important impression. I think the testimony provided was effective in the bigger picture of where things are going this session.

The explanations given were very predictable and do nothing to address the concerns opponents raised. It was a worthwhile investment of time and effort toward the longer term goals.

Again, thanks to all who took the time. As much as the online testimony is helpful, in person testimony is far more effective.