HB 505 - Elk Need Your Help

[OntarioHunter]

Good grief. The Board of Outfitters is a regulatory state run board. It has NOTHING to do with MOGA.

And your point is? Have you had a look at SB275? Another bomb. Remaking the Board of Outfitters so outfitters will be policing themselves. Oh goody! Stacking the FWP board wasn't enough. There will be dozens of foxes in the henhouse. Hank is hammering away for big landowner outfitters any way he can ... and he is hammering on the Montana resident DYI hunters and fishermen. Brace yourself for revocation of the stream access laws. He'll find a way.

 

[Walkalot]

Ya Gianforte was not involved

Tobacco Smoke Enema Kit
(1750s – 1810s).

The tobacco enema was used to infuse tobacco smoke into a patient's rectum for various medical purposes, but primarily the resuscitation of drowning victims.

A rectal tube inserted into the anus was connected to a fumigator and bellows that forced the smoke into the rectum. The warmth of the smoke was thought to promote respiration.

Doubts about the credibility of tobacco enemas led to the popular phrase "blowing smoke up your ass."

As you are most likely aware, this odd tool is still heavily used by all levels of government today!

 

[OntarioHunter]

Ya Gianforte was not involved

Tobacco Smoke Enema Kit
(1750s – 1810s).

The tobacco enema was used to infuse tobacco smoke into a patient's rectum for various medical purposes, but primarily the resuscitation of drowning victims.

A rectal tube inserted into the anus was connected to a fumigator and bellows that forced the smoke into the rectum. The warmth of the smoke was thought to promote respiration.

Doubts about the credibility of tobacco enemas led to the popular phrase "blowing smoke up your ass."

As you are most likely aware, this odd tool is still heavily used by all levels of government today!
View attachment 177762

Thanks for that fascinating bit of history! I'm sure if the victim ... er ... patient wasn't actually drowned, he woke up rather rapidly! "What the HELL do you think you're doing?"

 

[Brad W]

We've not really delved into the outward facing machinations of legislators, so I'll use Rep. Logey's words to hopefully shed some light on this:

When legislators broke for recess, what they were doing is deciding the final vote on bills for executive action. Knowing that there were 2 strong no votes from the majority already, there needed to be a decision made on who would be the last vote to table the bill. They selected Mitchell, mostly because he's disposable to them as it is after his big media attention grab on his Antifa resolution. He also, as a freshman, can claim other motivations, etc rather than simply say "this is a chitty bill and my folks back home really don't support it."

Votes are generally managed outcomes in committees. This bill, by virtue of who the sponsor is, and the agency's request that it pass, had to be handled a bit more delicately in order to save face when it dies. That saving of face also comes with the condition that some legislators will respond to post-vote inquiries with a standard response, such as Rep. Logey's admonition that hunters aren't bringing solutions (which is what others have said - it's a repeated refrain on anyone who opposes a bad bill).

What we saw last night in committee was largely theater. Legislators will deny this, but the reality is they decided who was going to vote no or yes in the GOP caucus. Th Dem caucus was clearly against the bill, so only three people needed to vote no. With the two from the Flathead already there, it made sense to give the last no vote to Mitchell as opposed Logey (Chairman of another committee) or others who would be in leadership.

Thank you for pulling back the curtain. It is helpful to understand how the system actually works vs the lipstick they put on it.

 

[Eric Albus]

And your point is? Have you had a look at SB275? Another bomb. Remaking the Board of Outfitters so outfitters will be policing themselves. Oh goody! Stacking the FWP board wasn't enough. There will be dozens of foxes in the henhouse. Hank is hammering away for big landowner outfitters any way he can ... and he is hammering on the Montana resident DYI hunters and fishermen. Brace yourself for revocation of the stream access laws. He'll find a way.

Overhauling the BoO isn’t a bad plan. The outfitters I have known on the board asked for harsher penalties against other outfitters than the public members were willing to levy against them. The public members were generally bleeding hearts, who’d tell the outfitter members “this is their livelihood” “how will they make ends meet if we take their license”. Good outfitters generally want to see the bad ones out of business.

My best guess in 505 is that it was expected to be amended and bargained down. I can’t imagine anyone thinking 10 bull elk off 640 acres would fly.

It’s easy to cast disparities at someone whilst hiding behind and anonymous internet moniker.

 

[WIbiggame]

My best guess in 505 is that it was expected to be amended and bargained down. I can’t imagine anyone thinking 10 bull elk off 640 acres would fly.

So why wouldn't everyone involved take the time and sit down and work on bill that doesn't need to be amended and bargained down? This has been the rhetoric on 505 and 143. Seems like if the powers involved trying to push theses bills would've taken a breath and not made big shoot for the moon goals you probably could've gotten what you wanted?

Now the sour taste has been firmly embedded in the mouths of your opposition and moving forward with anything else is going to be met with the same intensity as 143 and 505 got thus hurting your cause even more?

 

[OntarioHunter]

So why wouldn't everyone involved take the time and sit down and work on bill that doesn't need to be amended and bargained down? This has been the rhetoric on 505 and 143. Seems like if the powers involved trying to push theses bills would've taken a breath and not made big shoot for the moon goals you probably could've gotten what you wanted?

Now the sour taste has been firmly embedded in the mouths of your opposition and moving forward with anything else is going to be met with the same intensity as 143 and 505 got thus hurting your cause even more?

I agree.

Overhauling the BoO isn’t a bad plan. The outfitters I have known on the board asked for harsher penalties against other outfitters than the public members were willing to levy against them. The public members were generally bleeding hearts, who’d tell the outfitter members “this is their livelihood” “how will they make ends meet if we take their license”. Good outfitters generally want to see the bad ones out of business.

My best guess in 505 is that it was expected to be amended and bargained down. I can’t imagine anyone thinking 10 bull elk off 640 acres would fly.

It’s easy to cast disparities at someone whilst hiding behind and anonymous internet moniker.

Well, Hank went to bat for this POS bill and claimed it came from his office. What's not to disparage? Looking at his personal history I see he moved to Montana 29 years ago after retiring as an admin paper pusher in the Marine corps. Let's see ... 29 years ago would be 1992. Sometime shortly thereafter he becomes director of the Outfitters Board, presumably during the administration of GOP Marc Racicot (1993-2001). Interesting that both Racicot and Worschek served in military court system (though unlikely they were associated as Racicot was discharged from Army in 1973 and if Worschek retired from USMC in 1992 after 20 yrs he started service the year before Racicot left). Hank is moved from Outfitter Board to the FWP licences dept in 2003 during Judy Martz administration (GOP 2001-2005) where he is stuck for 17 years during successive Democrat administrations, briefly retires before he is called back for director's job by this GOP administration. As far as I can determine Worschek has no post secondary education and no experience being either a rancher or an outfitter or a businessman. I find it interesting that he would support a bill that would specifically remove the window of opportunity to get into politics without qualification that the Board of Outfitters provided for him. SB275 mandates that four out of five members of the board must be outfitters and the remaining one must be a businessperson. Ordinary sportsmen like Hank would be excluded. Okay ....

 

[Walkalot]

Okay so we have learned that house bill 505 was a scheme to sell LE trophy bull hunts. Some landowners dont mind an elk problem and others want them gone. Fwp manages elk to land owner tolerance which is then used a a political weapon. Once again the public land not even addressed, left for the wolves. Anyone have good ideas, thoughts on how everyone wins including the elk.

 

[Eric Albus]

So why wouldn't everyone involved take the time and sit down and work on bill that doesn't need to be amended and bargained down? This has been the rhetoric on 505 and 143. Seems like if the powers involved trying to push theses bills would've taken a breath and not made big shoot for the moon goals you probably could've gotten what you wanted?

Now the sour taste has been firmly embedded in the mouths of your opposition and moving forward with anything else is going to be met with the same intensity as 143 and 505 got thus hurting your cause even more?

I can't argue with you one ounce of this. It should have been done. I kinda think the powers that be might be eyes wide open now.

 

[Eric Albus]

I agree.

Well, Hank went to bat for this POS bill and claimed it came from his office. What's not to disparage? Looking at his personal history I see he moved to Montana 29 years ago after retiring as an admin paper pusher in the Marine corps. Let's see ... 29 years ago would be 1992. Sometime shortly thereafter he becomes director of the Outfitters Board, presumably during the administration of GOP Marc Racicot (1993-2001). Interesting that both Racicot and Gorsech served in military court system (though unlikely they were associated as Racicot was discharged from Army in 1973 and if Gorsech retired from USMC in 1992 after 20 yrs he started service the year before Racicot left). Hank is moved from Outfitter Board to the FWP licences dept in 2003 during Judy Martz administration (GOP 2001-2005) where he is stuck for 17 years during successive Democrat administrations, briefly retires before he is called back for director's job by this GOP administration. As far as I can determine Gorsech has no post secondary education and no experience being either a rancher or an outfitter or a businessman. I find it interesting that he would support a bill that would specifically remove the window of opportunity to get into politics without qualification that the Board of Outfitters provided for him. SB275 mandates that four out of five members of the board must be outfitters and the remaining one must be a businessperson. Ordinary sportsmen like Hank would be excluded. Okay ....

Once again you display an astounding lack of understanding.

Hank's last name is Worschek, not Gorsech. Hank was not asked by the current administration to throw his name in the ring for Directorship. He was badgered and coerced by a couple of private citizens and he acquiesced, reluctantly throwing application into the fray. I don't know Hank very well, but know the folks who coerced him.

Why Hank was chosen over other names for directorship I have not a clue, and won't even guess. He is known and respected by a lot of people on both sides, so I say hang tough and see what he can accomplish. He may surprise you.

 

[Schaaf]

@Eric Albus let him yell at the clouds

 

[Eric Albus]

@Eric Albus let him yell at the clouds

@Eric Albus let him yell at the clouds

I can't help myself. I know I should, but there is just something about ignorance, I feel a need to enlighten. Ignorance can be fixed, stupidity can't, I figure I will soon know the difference here and be able to make better informed decisions about enlightenment.

 

[OntarioHunter]

Once again you display an astounding lack of understanding.

Hank's last name is Worschek, not Gorsech. Hank was not asked by the current administration to throw his name in the ring for Directorship. He was badgered and coerced by a couple of private citizens and he acquiesced, reluctantly throwing application into the fray. I don't know Hank very well, but know the folks who coerced him.

Why Hank was chosen over other names for directorship I have not a clue, and won't even guess. He is known and respected by a lot of people on both sides, so I say hang tough and see what he can accomplish. He may surprise you.

Sometimes I'm surprised if I can get my own name right. Names and numbers have always been a handicap. I will correct spelling. At least I got his first name right. Thanks.

My thoughts on anyone who introduces overblown bullshit partisan elitist bills at the expense of public resource with the intention of getting them passed in a watered down version: Purposeful deception. How do you trust someone like that? And it ain't just one bill. He's already had three swings at bat. Struck out. He's had his chance ... or rather chances. I'm a bit leery about giving him more. I think anyone with half a brain could have predicted the outrage these bills would produce in any form. Maybe one might have slid by watered down. But a whole bunch?

 

[BourbonSnowCone]

I can't argue with you one ounce of this. It should have been done. I kinda think the powers that be might be eyes wide open now.

I think the biggest thing this thread has proven is that if DIY guys, landowners and outfitters think this is a fiasco then the only people left to blame is politicians and those appointed by them. I don’t envy them or their positions but they could make a much better effort with bills like this. GG has at least one more session in two years and I doubt the makeup of the legislature will look much different. Seems as though the commercialization crowd tried to do too much too soon. Let’s hope they don’t learn their lesson.

 

[Hunting Wife]

I just had the following show up my inbox.

I just got word that Wylie Galt and FWP will try to blast HB 505 back out of committee. If you haven’t done so, it would be a good idea to email local Representatives Braxton Mitchell (Columbia Falls), Linda Reksten (Polson) and Brian Putnam (Kalispell) to hold the line.

Anyone else hearing anything?

I suppose more emails and calls are in order...

 

[shoots-straight]

I just had the following show up my inbox.


Anyone else hearing anything?

I suppose more emails and calls are in order...

We are hearing that this is going to get blasted out of committee on to the floor. Be advised.

 

[BourbonSnowCone]

We are hearing that this is going to get blasted out of committee on to the floor. Be advised.

Wouldn’t be surprised. Legislators (and those drawn to political office) apparently have a really hard time being told no. Even when it’s by other legislators. ie I-161.

 

[Luke_with_a_lab]

So will the committee have to vote on it again?

 

[shoots-straight]

So will the committee have to vote on it again?

No, a blast gets it on the floor to be debated there.

 

[shoots-straight]

Folks, we're going to need 17 R's to side with us on the House floor. All hands on deck on this bill again. Contact your local reps to vote against this bad bill. Do not let this foot squeak through the doorway.