HB 505 - Elk Need Your Help

[Trial153]

Is it RMEF place to work against a significant portion of it's membership?
I am sure most of it's members are not Montana residents, from a percentage standpoint.

 

[Gerald Martin]

Truth hurts, pal.

Just my way of goading you to get your butt back out here and help us kill these elk vermin back into “sustainable capacity”.

May be some self interest laying not so far below the conscious level. Some of your relationships might come in handy to “ get connected” so we can play this bonus points scam efficiently.

To paraphrase the great general Mattis.
“Be polite. Be professional. But, always have a plan to kill every elk you meet.

 

[Drake4]

I wouldn't confuse working behind the scenes to be "silence." Just sayin'.

Hopefully they get a bit "louder" then. I received an email back from (2) committee members just yesterday, both saying they have heard nothing from RMEF.

Well done Gerald, Randy and others. You guys were impressive.
MOGA...not surprising. Just adds to their shitty reputation.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Just my way of goading you to get your butt back out here and help us kill these elk vermin back into “sustainable capacity”.

May be some self interest laying not so far below the conscious level. Some of your relationships might come in handy to “ get connected” so we can play this bonus points scam efficiently.

To paraphrase the great general Mattis.
“Be polite. Be professional. But, always have a plan to kill every elk bill you meet.

FIFY

I was planning on putting in for a B10, but I'm on the fence now. Not sure I want to be part of the slaughter, especially since I can just stack points and wait for a better outcome.

 

[brocksw]

It could be any of them, but hunters have to coalesce around one. You will notice there are not 15 different outfitter organizations testifying - just MOGA. A national organization would be fighting 100 battles at any one time and might not have the ability to have a physical presence in a specific state to build those relationships cited as being important. I guess my point is, there are logistical issues as well.

Sounds like we need hunters to stop arguing about the partisan drivel and start joining organizations so we have the membership and manpower to do the work.

 

[Ben Lamb]

HI Guys,

I don't hop on here too much but I was at the capital yesterday talking to many of you and also testifying against the bill. I was shocked to learn that FWP actually crafted the particulars of the bill and that Governor Gianforte asked Wylie Gault to carry the bill, against his own wishes too.

We all need to start inundating the Governor with emails and calling him out for this type of legislation on social media, I've already started on both of those fronts. The Gov stacked the F&G commission with 4 of 7 landowners by law this legislative session already so I fear he will get the landowner tags one way or another, but if we can spread the word and apply political pressure he might have to start reconsidering this whole idea. You guys are the less than 1% of hunters that understand the workings and implications of what we are against, time to start calling out the boss man and hopefully make him rethink his extreme agenda!

This is a great point. Punching Hank or Rep. Galt does not put the blame squarely where it belongs for this bill. It's not a Galt bill or an FWP Bill.

HB 505 is Governor Gianforte's elk management strategy. That was laid bare last night, and rather than arguing about what RMEF is or isn't doing, or trying to beat up Hank or the Sponsor, let's direct the lightning where it actually belongs: Greg Gianforte.

 

[hank4elk]

Sad.

 

[MTLivin]

This is a great point. Punching Hank or Rep. Galt does not put the blame squarely where it belongs for this bill. It's not a Galt bill or an FWP Bill.

HB 505 is Governor Gianforte's elk management strategy. That was laid bare last night, and rather than arguing about what RMEF is or isn't doing, or trying to beat up Hank or the Sponsor, let's direct the lightning where it actually belongs: Greg Gianforte.

Hey Ben, looks like you have a pretty good following on here, would you or another highly respected active member of this forum be able to start a new thread that calls out the Governor so people actually see this for what it is? Facts tend to be drown out of a forum when they are introduced 15 pages in.

BTW, my name is Greg Scheeler, nice to meet some of you guys yesterday. Keep up the good fight

 

[sacountry]

For those looking to hit the phones today/tonight, here's a link to contact info for the reps on the FWP committee.

https://meic.org/our-work/legislature/legislators/house-fish-wildlife-parks/

 

[Wind Gypsy]

Man.. how nice it would be to have Fox and Knokey instead of GG.

 

[MTHunter1321]

Does anyone know how long it typically takes for the committee to take an action on this bill?

 

[Ben Lamb]

Does anyone know how long it typically takes for the committee to take an action on this bill?

It could be as soon as tomorrow. They have to pass this bill by the first of April, so they have time to wait. Given how the hearing went, if it squirts out tomorrow, expect it to pass the House with no consideration of opposition, as the fix is in and political muscle is being applied by the Gov's office, FWP and the Speaker.

Hopefully someone hears from the chairman soon.

 

[tjones]

That was laid bare last night, and rather than arguing about what RMEF is or isn't doing, or trying to beat up Hank or the Sponsor, let's direct the lightning where it actually belongs: Greg Gianforte.

I'm starting with the staffer that took notes when this abortion was hatched and working my way up from there. Spare no fury. FWP and the Capital.

 

[Ben Lamb]

I'm starting with the staffer that took notes when this abortion was hatched and working my way up from there. Spare no fury. FWP and the Capital.

See the 39 second mark. Please.

 

[Sioux33]

This is a great point. Punching Hank or Rep. Galt does not put the blame squarely where it belongs for this bill. It's not a Galt bill or an FWP Bill.

HB 505 is Governor Gianforte's elk management strategy. That was laid bare last night, and rather than arguing about what RMEF is or isn't doing, or trying to beat up Hank or the Sponsor, let's direct the lightning where it actually belongs: Greg Gianforte.

What's the most effective way to do that, Ben? If we call or email his office, I don't see him giving a damn. Do we ask BHA or MWF to start a public campaign or something? Seems the only way we could get his attention is if he starts getting called out in the public eye directly.

 

[Ben Lamb]

What's the most effective way to do that, Ben? If we call or email his office, I don't see him giving a damn. Do we ask BHA or MWF to start a public campaign or something? Seems the only way we could get his attention is if he starts getting called out in the public eye directly.

Social media, letters to the editor and calling 10-20 friends who may not know about this, but love to hunt. That's your first line of defense right now. The power of people still reigns supreme.

Sending a letter or call to the Gov is good, but keep it positive and don't attack:

1.) Remind him that his agency is in the middle of rewriting the Elk Management Plan, and that effort has a large amount of buyin from stakeholders, and is a ground-up approach that doesn't disenfranchise anyone.

2.) The Gov has indicated that Customer Service is important to him, and customers have spoken loudly about attempts to privatize elk management, and it's the average sportsman and woman that pays for FWP's operation.

3.) If the Governor wants to solve the elk management issue, then he needs everyone to come together, and not try to pick winners and losers. Montanans have done amazing things when their leaders bring us together, rather than try to pull us apart. HB 505 would place an irreversible wedge between hunters, landowners & outfitters.

 

[MTGomer]

No statement is a statement. No government relations manager is a choice. Not having a representative at yesterday‘s hearing is a choice. Not making a daily social media post about this is a choice. Not sending out a blast to membership with information about the bill, and contact information for the committee that will be hearing it is a choice.

Choosing to work behind the scenes is a choice.

RMEF is a large organization. They have power and influence they can wield. How they wield it is a choice.

I have a hard time looking past the fact bills like this would have a lot less chance of passing if RMEF made different choices.

They do great habitat and access work though.

 

[shoots-straight]

Just my way of goading you to get your butt back out here and help us kill these elk vermin back into a landowner tolerated level of acceptance.

May be some self interest laying not so far below the conscious level. Some of your relationships might come in handy to “ get connected” so we can play this bonus points scam efficiently.

To paraphrase the great general Mattis.
“Be polite. Be professional. But, always have a plan to kill every elk you meet.

Just thought I'd fix your statement to make it more factual.

 

[HighCountryCommando]

@Gerald Martin

Your testimony was golden! I've worked in government for a long time and humanizing your address and using specific data from your hunt to highlight the bill's effect in your unit is exactly how you make your point and change minds. Personalizing your message is the only effective way to gain empathy for your position, and you need empathy more than you need to be right. Contrary to what most folks believe, its not the data or the strength of the argument that changes minds. For politicians data in is usually just data out, unless you can put a human face to it. Until hunters can get a lobby, I think you have provided the best template for how to address bills hunters oppose. If Montana hunters could organize to the extent that a single representative hunter (one each from every unit in Montana) provided that kind of personalized testimony, you couldn't be more effective in changing political minds. Doesn't mean you always will, but you've maximized your ability to to so.

• Provide a handout (no more than 2 pages front and back, a single page if possible)
  • Pictures of people and places
  • Tables and graphs summarizing your data and science
• Start by personalize your message with a hunting story
• Address specifics (data and science) as to how the bill effects hunting in your district
• Close with painting the picture of how bill specifics would have impacted your hunting story and will affect the future of hunting in that unit

 

[sacountry]

No statement is a statement. No government relations manager is a choice. Not having a representative at yesterday‘s hearing is a choice. Not making a daily social media post about this is a choice. Not sending out a blast to membership with information about the bill, and contact information for the committee that will be hearing it is a choice.

Choosing to work behind the scenes is a choice.

RMEF is a large organization. They have power and influence they can wield. How they wield it is a choice.

I have a hard time looking past the fact bills like this would have a lot less chance of passing if RMEF made different choices.

They do great habitat and access work though.

I wouldn't confuse working behind the scenes to be "silence." Just sayin'.

Randy, I echo the sentiments of others that we're grateful you are actively involved with RMEF. I think someone needs to point out to them that if this bill passes, RMEF's behind the scenes approach could really bite them in the keister. Optically, it won't look good and people will question RMEF's effectiveness and judgement. Far better to be seen and fail on a bill of this magnitude, then not be seen and fail.