hey Sweetnectar & Belly Deep

[onpoint]

Hopefully you guys will read this, (or any others who feel this stuff is about party politics and not genuine concern for the public fish and wildlife resource) as you are two of my fellow - whether we agree or not - Montana hunters who have been in the mix of MT legislature threads but seem to think that folks like me are mainly all about political affiliation. Well, a Democrat sponsored bill is one of those bad for public resource concerns, and regardless of political affiliation. I'll be calling to oppose this one, just as I have regarding a slug of GOP sponsored bills. SB 356, sponsored by Bradley Hamlett (D) seeks to change the water right objection process. Who cares? Well in the past, oufits like Trout Unlimited and MFWP have objected to water right adjudication in the interest of being "spokesmen" for fisheries interests in the water right process. Hamlett's bill seeks to let only those with ownership interest in a water right decree be eligible to take part in an objection. That leaves those concerned with water for fisheries, speaking for the public water resource out of the process. A bill bad for hunters and fishermen is bad regardless of politics. I hope outdoorsmen/women can wrap their minds around the fact that what's threatening the stuff we live for transcends politics.

 

[Big Fin]

Dumb bill. No one has the corner on stupid ideas in Helena. They abound.

Made a ton of calls today. Can't believe the stuff that is still coming out of the woodwork. How the hell do this many new bills get brought forward after transmittal date? I am sure there is an explanation, but I do not know what it is.

This week looks to have some bad stuff. It is now about prioritizing where to spend my ammo. The ones ranking lower in this session would have been headliners in previous sessions.

No matter which side introduces the bill, or which side we are from, we need to hammer any of them when they do things that are stupid, such as this. And increasing the NR tag quota for wilderness areas (aren't public land plenty crowded as it is?), and making preparations for elk to be the next animal to be turned over to Department of Livestock, and .................

Idgits, damn idgits in Helena.

 

[Horn Seeker]

Idgits.....

 

[belly-deep]

Good post Onpoint, i'm going to fire off an email to Helena shortly. For the record, I'll always respect guys like you and Buzz and SS, who are willing to take a side on an issue and follow their heart, over guys that may agree with me but can't or won't articulate why. Healthy debate is good.

 

[onpoint]

Good post Onpoint, i'm going to fire off an email to Helena shortly. For the record, I'll always respect guys like you and Buzz and SS, who are willing to take a side on an issue and follow their heart, over guys that may agree with me but can't or won't articulate why. Healthy debate is good.

Belly-Deep...respect and agreement back at ya

 

[sweetnectar]

So if I understand things correctly the People of the State of Montana own the waters first and foremost as spelled out in the state's constitution so this bill would go against the states constitution because any resident or group from Montana should be able to object because the constitution gives ownership of the waters to the people of Montana. Now this genius wants to say you have to have an ownership interest (probably meaning a water right) to object? Wow!

 

[onpoint]

So if I understand things correctly the People of the State of Montana own the waters first and foremost as spelled out in the state's constitution so this bill would go against the states constitution because any resident or group from Montana should be able to object because the constitution gives ownership of the waters to the people of Montana. Now this genius wants to say you have to have an ownership interest (probably meaning a water right) to object? Wow!

That's the way I read the bills text. Thanks for replying.