HB 505 - Elk Need Your Help

[OntarioHunter]

According to them, this Bill was at the department’s request. Gianforte’s new FWP chairman testified in favor of it.
It seems like it came from the governor’s office.

Yeah, well obviously they would have to claim it was FWP's idea or it wouldn't get anywhere. Clearly there was no science in this proposal. Just about more $$$ and more B&C for the big boys with big money and big land. It's sick that's what's happening to hunting in Montana.

 

[Ben Lamb]

When I brought this up in my correspondence with legislators, I got a pointed response about how this is not in fact true, and the Gianforte Administration being behind this is a just a political rumor designed to lessen his credibility.

From a process perspective, this is disingenuous. Agency directors have traditionally had to get sign off from the 2nd floor (Gov's office) on bills that were going to be agency priorities. Natural Resource Policy Advisors and the Governor themselves would have to sign off on it.

The junque file that Laura Lundquist uncovered in her story of the history of this bill clearly shows that this was drafted by the Director's executive staff - not biologists or wildlife division management. If the director & his executive staff did not run this by the second floor, then that's a massive breach of protocol & approach to legislating. At the very least, the man the governor selected to run this agency has shown poor judgement in allowing this to go forward, and the 2nd floor has shown incompetence in vetting bills.

 

[OntarioHunter]

From a process perspective, this is disingenuous. Agency directors have traditionally had to get sign off from the 2nd floor (Gov's office) on bills that were going to be agency priorities. Natural Resource Policy Advisors and the Governor themselves would have to sign off on it.

The junque file that Laura Lundquist uncovered in her story of the history of this bill clearly shows that this was drafted by the Director's executive staff - not biologists or wildlife division management. If the director & his executive staff did not run this by the second floor, then that's a massive breach of protocol & approach to legislating. At the very least, the man the governor selected to run this agency has shown poor judgement in allowing this to go forward, and the 2nd floor has shown incompetence in vetting bills.

So the bottom line is this bill was shot from the hip with little regard to protocol ... or common sense. Gianforte just doesn't give a shit.

It's going to be a looong time till the next election!

Edit: Doing a bit of research I see that Hank Worsech was formerly executive director of Montana Board of Outfitters, leaving it to join FWP back in 2003. I'm beginning to connect the dots now. I can find nothing about his educational background.

 

[Ben Lamb]

It's going to be a looong time till the next election!

Elections have consequences.

But folks need to remember this: When the session gaveled in at the beginning of January, the clouds on the horizon were dark & damned foreboding. There's a lot of bad stuff that has passed or will pass soon, but because DIY hunters - resident & non-resident - hung together for once, you all were able to beat back the two largest tag grabs Montana has seen in a decade.

That was done under the duress of a pandemic, decreased public involvement & lack of adequate resources. That also means the next two years are vital in terms of maintaining engagement on elk management. Only because of the massive outcry to 143 & 505 did they stutter & fall. Politicians love to work in a vacuum. They don't like sunshine on their dealings, and as we've seen in some of the responses to members here, the amount of blame shifting & castigation for simply being involved and voicing your opinion is tremendous. They do that to dissuade you from further engagement. They want you to think that you're not smart enough, or well versed enough in the process to know what's going on.

There is real political power in the number of people who stood their ground on these two bills. Harnessing that power to move forward and effect positive change should be the focus after this session concludes. If that means an initiative, then that's the plan. If it means full on engagement on elk management planning, then let's ride.

But ultimately, what folks need to recognize is that this is your government. You have to engage in order to be heard, and you have to do it with courage & grace.

So the Governor can do what he feels is necessary. Our job as citizens is to hold those in power accountable, and push for what is right, not just what is easily achievable of politically convenient. There will always be someone in power that isn't doing the right thing. Rather than focus on election outcomes, focus on the policies and work to build that majority in the legislatures across the United States. If Montana can stand up against this, every state can.

Right now, advocates in NM, UT, NV, WY, OR, CA, CO, ID and all over are facing similar struggles, wins and losses. Montana is an easy poster child because the pretty girl always is. But this fight isn't about one governor or one legislative session - it's about a nation that is less inclined to conserve what is best for future generations and like our grandparents, we must rise to that challenge and take the mantle up again.

 

[BRI]

I believe it was complete arrogance on their part thinking "We have the majority and we have the votes so there's nothing they can do about it". I sure hope they heard us loud and clear and will listen in the future. But the pessimistic side in me doesn't believe they will.

 

[brocksw]

Thank you letters and "bad dog" letters have been sent from this NR.

 

[Ben Lamb]

I believe it was complete arrogance on their part thinking "We have the majority and we have the votes so there's nothing they can do about it". I sure hope they heard us loud and clear and will listen in the future. But the pessimistic side in me doesn't believe they will.

Then we say it again, but louder.

 

[Andrew Posewitz]

Here is my thank you to those brave souls:

From the bottom of my heart, thank you.

I am a 4th generation Montanan who wrote a letter to your office and testified in front of your committee opposing House Bill 505. Not to be overly dramatic, but I firmly believe that HB505 would have begun to erode 100+years of backbreaking hard work and tax payer expense that has restored Montana’s wildlife to our landscape for the benefit of all Montanans. Our founding fathers specifically rejected the notion of the “King’s Deer” and Montana has remained the national leader in upholding that tradition in spite of a number of attempts to undue our progress. HB505 sought to put us on a path of wildlife for the wealthy, while doing nothing to solve the elk management challenges.

I believe in addition to the historic, philosophic and moral arguments against HB505, defeating that bill has benefited the overwhelming majority of Montanans economically.

Your vote was the right thing to do and took courage. I am thankful for your courage and it is not lost on me that your courage is a rare commodity in today’s partisan climate. I know it is not over, but for today, I will breathe a little easier. Although I am not in your district, should you choose to run again, I will remember your courage and if there is anything I can do to help you, please don’t hesitate to ask.

With gratitude,

 

[TrumpkinTheDwarf]

Wow.... I tip my hat to all of you folks here. Mr. @Ben Lamb , you've been one hell of an inspiration in the middle of this storm. Thank you!

 

[brocksw]

Wow.... I tip my hat to all of you folks here. Mr. @Ben Lamb , you've been one hell of an inspiration in the middle of this storm. Thank you!

A huge thank you to @Ben Lamb !!!

 

[MT Bound]

Elections have consequences.

But folks need to remember this: When the session gaveled in at the beginning of January, the clouds on the horizon were dark & damned foreboding. There's a lot of bad stuff that has passed or will pass soon, but because DIY hunters - resident & non-resident - hung together for once, you all were able to beat back the two largest tag grabs Montana has seen in a decade.

That was done under the duress of a pandemic, decreased public involvement & lack of adequate resources. That also means the next two years are vital in terms of maintaining engagement on elk management. Only because of the massive outcry to 143 & 505 did they stutter & fall. Politicians love to work in a vacuum. They don't like sunshine on their dealings, and as we've seen in some of the responses to members here, the amount of blame shifting & castigation for simply being involved and voicing your opinion is tremendous. They do that to dissuade you from further engagement. They want you to think that you're not smart enough, or well versed enough in the process to know what's going on.

There is real political power in the number of people who stood their ground on these two bills. Harnessing that power to move forward and effect positive change should be the focus after this session concludes. If that means an initiative, then that's the plan. If it means full on engagement on elk management planning, then let's ride.

But ultimately, what folks need to recognize is that this is your government. You have to engage in order to be heard, and you have to do it with courage & grace.

So the Governor can do what he feels is necessary. Our job as citizens is to hold those in power accountable, and push for what is right, not just what is easily achievable of politically convenient. Ther ewill always be someone in power that isn't doing the right thing. Rather than focus on election outcomes, focus on the policies and work to build that majority in the legislatures across the United States. If Montana can stand up against this, every state can.

Right now, advocates in NM, UT, NV, WY, OR, CA, CO, ID and all over are facing similar struggles, wins and losses. Montana is an easy poster child because the pretty girl always is. But this fight isn't about one governor, or one legislative session - it's about a nation that is less inclined to conserve what is best for future generations, and like our grandparents, we must rise to that challenge, and take the mantle up again.

Well said Ben, your statements are very informative and very well spoken, thank you.

 

[JLS]

Read Ben’s explanation above. There is absolutely NO WAY the department would bring forth and ask for legislation without the governor’s office rubber stamping their approval on it. None. If GG didn’t know about and approve/support it you’d be looking at a new FWP director today.

 

[sacountry]

Elections have consequences.

But folks need to remember this: When the session gaveled in at the beginning of January, the clouds on the horizon were dark & damned foreboding. There's a lot of bad stuff that has passed or will pass soon, but because DIY hunters - resident & non-resident - hung together for once, you all were able to beat back the two largest tag grabs Montana has seen in a decade.

That was done under the duress of a pandemic, decreased public involvement & lack of adequate resources. That also means the next two years are vital in terms of maintaining engagement on elk management. Only because of the massive outcry to 143 & 505 did they stutter & fall. Politicians love to work in a vacuum. They don't like sunshine on their dealings, and as we've seen in some of the responses to members here, the amount of blame shifting & castigation for simply being involved and voicing your opinion is tremendous. They do that to dissuade you from further engagement. They want you to think that you're not smart enough, or well versed enough in the process to know what's going on.

There is real political power in the number of people who stood their ground on these two bills. Harnessing that power to move forward and effect positive change should be the focus after this session concludes. If that means an initiative, then that's the plan. If it means full on engagement on elk management planning, then let's ride.

But ultimately, what folks need to recognize is that this is your government. You have to engage in order to be heard, and you have to do it with courage & grace.

So the Governor can do what he feels is necessary. Our job as citizens is to hold those in power accountable, and push for what is right, not just what is easily achievable of politically convenient. There will always be someone in power that isn't doing the right thing. Rather than focus on election outcomes, focus on the policies and work to build that majority in the legislatures across the United States. If Montana can stand up against this, every state can.

Right now, advocates in NM, UT, NV, WY, OR, CA, CO, ID and all over are facing similar struggles, wins and losses. Montana is an easy poster child because the pretty girl always is. But this fight isn't about one governor or one legislative session - it's about a nation that is less inclined to conserve what is best for future generations and like our grandparents, we must rise to that challenge and take the mantle up again.

PAID for by Elk Unlimited Advocating for Elk and other ungulates for 2 days now.

 

[SAJ-99]

@Ben Lamb, do you think this is dead or will it come back up? The fact that the Vice Chair tabled that bill so quickly, i got the feeling he wanted to delay its death. Sort of a "Need to check with the boss" motion. I don't know if GG wants to burn political capital on this horrendous bill, but he may want to see what he can get away with.

I watched the whole meeting. It was interesting to see. The experienced members know the procedures. What the votes demonstrated was that 1) citizens need to read that stuff carefully 2) most of the bills are proposed to an extreme and then amended down to get more votes (SB360 down from 4 to 2 landowner reps was approved 14-4), and 3) elk have supporters in the state while the wolves apparently don't. The committee would have approved using nuclear arms on wolves along a party line vote had it been proposed.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Honest answer is I don't know if it will come back. That's why vigilance is crucial for the next 2-3 weeks and in the budgeting process, where bad ideas & dead bills come back to life.

The tabling process is to postpone or suspend the motion of the bill, which is a polite way to kill something, rather than allow the negative vote to stand. It's considered a decorum issue, and one that allows bills that have issues, but some merit to remain "alive" so that amendments & fixes can be made to it without having extra procedural votes to bring it back to life, or reintroduce it as a new bill.

But all of this session really underscores the immense disservice that term limits place on the legislative process. Bills are not vetted, and everybody has 40 different ideas on how to save the world, with all of them having been tried & died before. The interim process in Montana is partisan and broken as well. Wyoming does interim work extremely well and that should be the model for state legislatures moving forward - i.e. - the actual committee meets for the entire tenure of the session, rather than just the actual 90 days in the building. Additive to that is a constantly revolving cast of legislators in these committees, and you end up with well meaning legislators who have zero real world experience on how legislation will affect outcomes in terms of wildlife management.

Wyoming's committees meet all year long, which tends to sort the wheat from the chaff pretty quickly, or it has in the past. Long serving members don't feel the need to repeat every battle that may have occurred, and as a result, you see far fewer bills in WY on these issues than MT, where it's a cavalcade of partisan hackery masquerading as intelligent thought.

Wolves have a ton of supporters in MT, but they're not republicans like elk advocates, and the pro-wolf crowd can come across as unsympathetic. Plus, you'll never lose a vote in western MT districts by hating on the big bad wolf.

 

[YoungGun]

Montana is generally very "Pro Small Government", which is why are democrats are typically like California Republicans (You can't tell me Tester, Bullock, Schweitzer... would get the Democratic nod on either coast in this day and age). I think it is worth reminding each of our representatives to keep the small government focus, and keep political hands outside of wildlife management. Let the Biologists do their job- that's why we pay them. They know there are units that are over objective, now they need the air space to come up with creative ideas taking landowner concerns into account hand-in-hand with hunters concerns and herd objectives.

 

[JLS]

But all of this session really underscores the immense disservice that term limits place on the legislative process. Bills are not vetted, and everybody has 40 different ideas on how to save the world, with all of them having been tried & died before. The interim process in Montana is partisan and broken as well. Wyoming does interim work extremely well and that should be the model for state legislatures moving forward - i.e. - the actual committee meets for the entire tenure of the session, rather than just the actual 90 days in the building. Additive to that is a constantly revolving cast of legislators in these committees, and you end up with well meaning legislators who have zero real world experience on how legislation will affect outcomes in terms of wildlife management.

Everyone needs to read this several times. This directly contributes to/creates the constant animosity from the legislature towards FWP, and the disjointed and ineffective approach to accomplish anything meaningful towards better management.

 

[YoungGun]

Here is the reply I received from Rep. Loge:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I did vote yes, only because of the amendments and the fact that it would only be in place for a year before it could be reviewed. I felt we need to keep trying ideas as the populations keep growing and with this short time use would be worth the try. In no way do I favor racing for wildlife but I also respect the private property rights of the racing community. 'I have been on the PLPW for years and keep hearing concerns from the sportsman community too much negativity toward the landowners and have not seen any great alternatives that have been collaboratively work out with the ranchers so I hoped this would strengthen the incentive to have those friendly discussions. Thanks for your comments, Rep. Loge

--
Representative Denley M. Loge
House District 14
St. Regis, Mt
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I'm assuming the 'racing' is a typo for "ranching"

I do think that we as hunters will have to make some concessions to landowners, or this will quickly devolve into an all or nothing fight between our groups. Shoulder Hunts and BMA are not working as well as it could, and landowners are not compensated as much as they probably should be. Without transferring this burden to tax-payers, I see the need for a hunter supported program that could involve a "trespass and harvest fee" of sorts to the landowner's that would volunteer to be part of the program. My dad is not going to pay a landowner who has an elk walk through his property once in a blue moon any amount to go wander around their property- he can do that on our great public lands for free. However, the landowners in over objective-units who have the issues with their hayfields/haystacks and what not that can offer my dad a quick means to fill the freezer should also be able to benefit beyond having one less elk to feed. I don't think my dad would blink twice if he was asked to pay $100 harvest fee of a cow elk in a hayfield. I'm not saying that is the fair price, just simply using it as an example.

 

[sacountry]

Honest answer is I don't know if it will come back. That's why vigilance is crucial for the next 2-3 weeks and in the budgeting process, where bad ideas & dead bills come back to life.

The tabling process is to postpone or suspend the motion of the bill, which is a polite way to kill something, rather than allow the negative vote to stand. It's considered a decorum issue, and one that allows bills that have issues, but some merit to remain "alive" so that amendments & fixes can be made to it without having extra procedural votes to bring it back to life, or reintroduce it as a new bill.

But all of this session really underscores the immense disservice that term limits place on the legislative process. Bills are not vetted, and everybody has 40 different ideas on how to save the world, with all of them having been tried & died before. The interim process in Montana is partisan and broken as well. Wyoming does interim work extremely well and that should be the model for state legislatures moving forward - i.e. - the actual committee meets for the entire tenure of the session, rather than just the actual 90 days in the building. Additive to that is a constantly revolving cast of legislators in these committees, and you end up with well meaning legislators who have zero real world experience on how legislation will affect outcomes in terms of wildlife management.

Wyoming's committees meet all year long, which tends to sort the wheat from the chaff pretty quickly, or it has in the past. Long serving members don't feel the need to repeat every battle that may have occurred, and as a result, you see far fewer bills in WY on these issues than MT, where it's a cavalcade of partisan hackery masquerading as intelligent thought.

Wolves have a ton of supporters in MT, but they're not republicans like elk advocates, and the pro-wolf crowd can come across as unsympathetic. Plus, you'll never lose a vote in western MT districts by hating on the big bad wolf.

@Ben Lamb for years I have thought that Montana's population doesn't warrant the need for a bicameral system. I think it could be realistic to keep the legislative doors open year year around if we had few legislators under a unicameral system. Not a snowballs chance of that happening so it remains one simple man's opinion.

 

[SAJ-99]

Everyone needs to read this several times. This directly contributes to/creates the constant animosity from the legislature towards FWP, and the disjointed and ineffective approach to accomplish anything meaningful towards better management.

I don't think "better" is the goal. There was a lot of talk about the "elk problem" and how FWP solutions don't work. There was criticism of both the shoulder seasons and game damage hunts which was used to support this "creative solution". Nothing creative about it expect it didn't involve Montana hunters. They want less elk. I think there is a large number of people that would participate in game damage hunts, even meeting with landowners before the season to build a relationship. But that doesn't solve the problem of landowner A sheltering elk during the season and then the elk moving to landowner B's land in the spring. Apparently only $ solves that problem. Oh wait, they landowner can't be paid under this bill. Oh, ok.