Walkalot
Active member
- Joined
- Oct 28, 2020
- Messages
- 254
Just guessing but does it mean the land owner have to go through an outfitter as well as the hunter?
HB 505 - Elk Need Your Help
- Thread starter Big Fin
- Start date
brocksw
Well-known member
Email I just sent in as a NR's one last desperate hail mary before the vote:
Committee Members,
I believe I speak for all sportsmen when I say it's very disappointing to see amendments released an hour before the committee will vote on one of the most contentious issues in MT's Elk Management History.
Additionally, I'd like to urge all of you to recognize this amendments will not be enough and this bill needs to be tabled. There is nothing written in "Title 37, Chapter 47" (https://leg.mt.gov/bills/mca/title_0370/chapter_0470/parts_index.html ) that will provide any type of honest or efficient oversight. There will be nothing preventing landowners/guides/outfitters/ranchers from implementing special pricing or alternate pricing for a new category of sponsored tag. This is monetization of wildlife, make no mistake about it.
Second, the bonus points amendments do not show any improvement. It will still unfavorably effect MT's predictable bonus point system, putting those connected with landowners in a position to accumulate points far faster than the residents of MT and Non-Residents who are not. It is also an honor system that will be easily abused and in favor of a guide/client relationship. Perspective clients will be able to buy cow tags and simply have a Landowner sign off that they were there hunting on private land and be awarded a 3rd Bonus point, all without even stepping foot in Montana. This will essentially allow outfitters who own land to stack the bonus points in their clients favor so they can turn around and charge a premium for a special permit bull tag to that same individual who may not have even had intentions of hunting that year.
Let the people of Montana work together to get this right. The submitted amendments are not making this bill any better. The citizens elk council was tasked with redrafting the Elk Management Plan and they have invested hundreds of hours with stakeholders from across Montana that share in the same resource.
The answer is not more nonsensical legislation from biased stakeholders in the legislature. In the words of Theodore Roosevelt,"Do not let selfish men or greedy interests skin your state of its beauty, its riches, or its romance." Be on the right side of history today. Vote no on HB 505.
Thank you
Committee Members,
I believe I speak for all sportsmen when I say it's very disappointing to see amendments released an hour before the committee will vote on one of the most contentious issues in MT's Elk Management History.
Additionally, I'd like to urge all of you to recognize this amendments will not be enough and this bill needs to be tabled. There is nothing written in "Title 37, Chapter 47" (https://leg.mt.gov/bills/mca/title_0370/chapter_0470/parts_index.html ) that will provide any type of honest or efficient oversight. There will be nothing preventing landowners/guides/outfitters/ranchers from implementing special pricing or alternate pricing for a new category of sponsored tag. This is monetization of wildlife, make no mistake about it.
Second, the bonus points amendments do not show any improvement. It will still unfavorably effect MT's predictable bonus point system, putting those connected with landowners in a position to accumulate points far faster than the residents of MT and Non-Residents who are not. It is also an honor system that will be easily abused and in favor of a guide/client relationship. Perspective clients will be able to buy cow tags and simply have a Landowner sign off that they were there hunting on private land and be awarded a 3rd Bonus point, all without even stepping foot in Montana. This will essentially allow outfitters who own land to stack the bonus points in their clients favor so they can turn around and charge a premium for a special permit bull tag to that same individual who may not have even had intentions of hunting that year.
Let the people of Montana work together to get this right. The submitted amendments are not making this bill any better. The citizens elk council was tasked with redrafting the Elk Management Plan and they have invested hundreds of hours with stakeholders from across Montana that share in the same resource.
The answer is not more nonsensical legislation from biased stakeholders in the legislature. In the words of Theodore Roosevelt,"Do not let selfish men or greedy interests skin your state of its beauty, its riches, or its romance." Be on the right side of history today. Vote no on HB 505.
Thank you
Luke_with_a_lab
Well-known member
sacountry
Well-known member
I fired off a last minute text
Gerald Martin
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2009
- Messages
- 8,643
Amendments also allow FWP to issue extra deer, elk, bighorn ewe, bison tags to an individual as they see fit.
MThuntr
Well-known member
I missed that part! What a load ofAmendments also allow FWP to issue extra deer, elk, bighorn ewe, bison tags to an individual as they see fit.
brocksw
Well-known member
Where do you see this?Amendments also allow FWP to issue extra deer, elk, bighorn ewe, bison tags to an individual as they see fit.
MThuntr
Well-known member
Knight.54
Well-known member
Thanks brocksw...I tend to get so mad about this shit I can’t stay focused enough to write something like that.
And being a nr I know I don’t have much of a voice.
All of this is just disheartening to me.
And being a nr I know I don’t have much of a voice.
All of this is just disheartening to me.
brocksw
Well-known member
But if that was new/altered language it would be in red wouldn't it?
Below is a link to the original language in the MT century code
MThuntr
Well-known member
That explains why I missed it before.But if that was new/altered language it would be in red wouldn't it?
Below is a link to the original language in the MT century code
sacountry
Well-known member
Recess after 45 minutes of work??? Life is rough.
I'm on a Zoom call and streaming multiple videos simultaneously puts too heavy of a load on the gerbils that power the Century Link internet south of town.
Any vote taken yet?
Any vote taken yet?
sacountry
Well-known member
Nope
sacountry
Well-known member
C-Link is down to like 1 gerbil so I think you might be overstating things when you suggest "gerbils" plural.
MTHunter1321
Well-known member
Did they really just table the FWP commission bill increasing ag producers to 4??
sacountry
Well-known member
No they trimmed it from 4 ag producers to 2 and then tabled it.
MTHunter1321
Well-known member
Which means? If it’s tabled, it’s not going to floor correct?
SAJ-99
Well-known member
Not yet
