Landowner Elk Tag Bill

[RobG]

Can someone with connections to MFW or RMEF ask them why they support this?

 

[Ben Lamb]

After watching the public get repeatedly f***ed on BMA and land swaps, my faith in the FWP being able to successfully execute this program is low. Very low.

I haven't had time to read through the bill, but maybe you can answer this for me:

What constitutes a "hunter" under the bill? Is it one hunter out in the field for one day? If that is the case, land owners will cram them into the crappiest part of the season, probably all on the same day, so that the odds of success are low and then have the rest of the season for their family to shoot all kinds of elk on the property. If they really want to get tricky with the program, which I believe someone somewhere will, they'll do a Wilks Bros on the property and chase everything off with an ATV the day before the public comes on.


IMO, the FWP needs to grow a set and tell the ranchers that if they want the elk off their property, they need to let the public on until the problem subsides. If they don't want to do that, then they can go pound sand. No more of these "creative" programs that just get abused.

I'll try to answer as best I can:

1.) A hunter would be someone selected through the random draw. I'm asking FWP for clarification on the point I may have misheard, as discussed last night. The Landowner would have no say in who the hunters were, unless the contract gave them right of refusal for personal reasons. Then, another random hunter would be drawn.

2.) As I understand it, the contract would spell out where, when and how hunters access the property. That would include timing, where on the ranch, etc. Each contract would be individually negotiated, and would then be up for public comment. I can't see groups like PLWA, MWF, MSA or most local rod & gun clubs standing by for contracts that would be detrimental and counter to the spirit of the bill. The scenario where someone runs the elk off the place seems like a lot of work for a license. It would require public oversight during the contract negotiation phase to ensure the public doesn't get the short end of the bargain, which is provided for.

3.) Personally, I would welcome the opportunity to turn out sportsmen if the Wilks Brothers asked for licenses or permits. I think we'd have some fun with that hearing, don't you? It would be a fantastic way to highlight the potential abuses that could occur under this (or any) program. But - just for a devil's advocate - what if the Wilks brothers offer 100 to 1? Random draw, 100 hunters in a managed setting for either cows or ES LE permits, for 1 license. Is that a good or bad deal? I'm as dead set against the Wilk's anti-public land agenda, and maybe we should use someone else, but for our purposes, let's just use them.

4.) The bill leaves a lot discretion to FWP as to how these contracts would be negotiated. That gives the public a lot of opportunity to influence how they would be implemented.

 

[ShootsManyBullets]

Put this turd of an idea in a bowl of water and flush it.

 

[BuzzH]

From experience, if the exact details are not laid out in the legislation...and any loophole is left, anything open to interpretation, there will 100% be abuses.

Frankly, I don't trust the FWP or the Landowners to live up to the spirit of this bill. Hunters have been bent over for decades from bad legislation, from landowners, from outfitters, and from the FWP. Years of abuse has lead to distrust.

As per usual, in a 20 minute discussion with people that actually buy elk licenses and hunt, and have 2 firing brain cells, the problems are exposed with this legislation.

It wont be fixed or changed if passed. Abuses will not be corrected. Want proof? How is it going repealing Barrett's bill that requires the FWP to manage within elk objectives?

Nothing changes in Montana...

 

[tjones]

4.) The bill leaves a lot discretion to FWP as to how these contracts would be negotiated. That gives the public a lot of opportunity to influence how they would be implemented.

The first sentence is not good and the second would never happen.

 

[HighWildFree]

This is very true. Most of MT is still rural. And rural areas elect farmers and ranchers to the legislature. And they need to go fight the "out-of-staters" from Bozeman/Kalispell/Missoula. Not really thinking about how Ag is key in this state and swings a ton of power. A lot of bills sponsored by the cattleman's assoc. wouldn't be terrible if used in a way that a lot of farmers and ranchers are envisioning, but they allow for abuse of wealthy landowners and outfitters. A lot of those farmers and ranchers are good guys and see this as having a little more control over trying to manager elk herds, its really going to open the door for abuse. Unfortunately FWP operates at the whim of the legislature and as much as I'd love them to grow a pair and tell people that if they want the herds thinned, they need to allow access. And as a meat hunter, I really couldn't care less if someone told me to shoot a cow. I'd love the bull, but I'll take the meat. The stacking hunters into a short time-frame or on only certain areas would be a concern. I know one of the Huterite colonies outside of Martinsdale tried to put some of their land in BM and outfit the best parts of it. FWP said no and they dropped from BM. That was the colony on the N. side of the highway. Now the colony on the S. side makes you pay something like $40 to hunt a speed goat. But I hear they have some trophy potential if you want to pay to play.

You know, propaganda and the words we use play a big key to some of these. Substitute Farmers and Ranchers for landowner in the conversations we're having. Farmers and ranchers can be trusted. Landowners.....not so much.

Some of those good guy farmers and ranchers are the ones that pushed the hardest for this shoulder season. It wasn't out of state landowners. It was these multi-generational ranchers that always get put up on a pedestal. Back in the day ranchers could do no wrong and a lot of people still act this way. Yes ranchers need to make a living, but not at the expense of everyone else.

 

[1_pointer]

I'll try to answer as best I can:

1.) A hunter would be someone selected through the random draw. I'm asking FWP for clarification on the point I may have misheard, as discussed last night. The Landowner would have no say in who the hunters were, unless the contract gave them right of refusal for personal reasons. Then, another random hunter would be drawn.

2.) As I understand it, the contract would spell out where, when and how hunters access the property. That would include timing, where on the ranch, etc. Each contract would be individually negotiated, and would then be up for public comment. I can't see groups like PLWA, MWF, MSA or most local rod & gun clubs standing by for contracts that would be detrimental and counter to the spirit of the bill. The scenario where someone runs the elk off the place seems like a lot of work for a license. It would require public oversight during the contract negotiation phase to ensure the public doesn't get the short end of the bargain, which is provided for.

3.) Personally, I would welcome the opportunity to turn out sportsmen if the Wilks Brothers asked for licenses or permits. I think we'd have some fun with that hearing, don't you? It would be a fantastic way to highlight the potential abuses that could occur under this (or any) program. But - just for a devil's advocate - what if the Wilks brothers offer 100 to 1? Random draw, 100 hunters in a managed setting for either cows or ES LE permits, for 1 license. Is that a good or bad deal? I'm as dead set against the Wilk's anti-public land agenda, and maybe we should use someone else, but for our purposes, let's just use them.

4.) The bill leaves a lot discretion to FWP as to how these contracts would be negotiated. That gives the public a lot of opportunity to influence how they would be implemented.

As you well know, allowing public comment is much different than allowing a public 'veto'. The discretion you mention is #4 allows them to ignore public comment if they choose to.

 

[Ben Lamb]

As you well know, allowing public comment is much different than allowing a public 'veto'. The discretion you mention is #4 allows them to ignore public comment if they choose to.

The agency would negotiate the contract. The commission would have to approve it.

Between those two steps is how sportsmen & women influence the decision.

 

[tjones]

The agency would negotiate the contract. The commission would have to approve it.

Between those two steps is how sportsmen & women influence the decision.

That's the way is supposed to work. Its been a long time since things worked like they are supposed to.

 

[Ben Lamb]

So I was wrong:

The hunters who are eligible for this are pulled from the successful applicants, not the unsuccessful ones. My apologies for that confusion. I misheard what was said.

That's the way is supposed to work. Its been a long time since things worked like they are supposed to.

Did Paul Ellis take over TJ's account?

 

[tjones]

Did Paul Ellis take over TJ's account?

I seem to have misplaced my rose colored glasses, do you have an extra pair?

 

[Ben Lamb]

I seem to have misplaced my rose colored glasses, do you have an extra pair?

Yes, I'l give them to you on the 30th when you come to Helena for the rally.

 

[belly-deep]

The agency would negotiate the contract. The commission would have to approve it.

Between those two steps is how sportsmen & women influence the decision.

I haven't seen much ability to influence the FWP when they make up their minds. I've been to the meetings. They don't listen.

 

[teamhoyt]

The first sentence is not good and the second would never happen.

This is spot on! Also this is a ridiculous amount of bs and taxpayer time and money to "supervise" each individual contract. if this ever took off the Fwp. Rod and gun clubs would need full time staff to approve and provide oversight on all the contracts. This bill needs trashed! As buzz said, in 20 minutes there are more problems than I don't know what!

 

[mtmiller]

Ben, I have heard chatter that there are amendments being proposed, one of which may make licenses or permits transferable. Any truth to this to the best of your knowledge? I couldn't find anything.

 

[406Family]

I'd rather stay on public land and forget about private than lose 20% of our elk tags to landowners...

Same.

 

[mtmiller]

If anyone is interested. Starts at 33 min.

http://montanalegislature.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?clip_id=20317&meta_id=166084

If time constraints, skip to 58 min for committee questions.

 

[The Hedgehog]

The details will be in the "contract", and there will be some "flexibility".

FWP cannot manage abuse by BMAs. This will be way, way worse.

Chuck Denowh's comments - Wow, what kind of paint does this guy sniff? "Less than 4% of landowners who have elk on their property don't allow public, non-paying elk hunting." Is that so?

Breadcrumbs for the peasants. Many will be happy with this access success story in the making.

 

[Straight Arrow]

Less than 4% of landowners who have elk on their property don't allow public, non-paying elk hunting.

That is difficult to believe. There was a stab at it in the hearing, but that statement was not clarified or substantiated with explanation and definition. I suspect that "public, non-paying elk hunting" includes elk hunting by relatives, employees, close friends ... but not really "public" hunters in many, if not most cases which UPOM would cite.

If that percentage was in fact calculated by FWP, then it certainly warrants explanation and substantiation.

 

[RobG]

Ben, I have heard chatter that there are amendments being proposed, one of which may make licenses or permits transferable. Any truth to this to the best of your knowledge? I couldn't find anything.

Here's an alert I got:

HB 96, sponsored by Rep. Zach Brown, D-Bozeman, was a bill that the Private Land/Public Wildlife Council advanced on a consensus decision to improve an existing FWP program that gives elk permits to landowners who allow public hunting. The permits are only good on the landowner’s own land, and cannot be transferred to anyone other than a family member or employee.

HB 96 would increase public hunting by establishing a random draw for public hunters who have successfully drawn permits to hunt either sex elk.

The Private Land/Public Wildlife Committee carefully wrote HB 96 to protect this important Montana value.

Now that promise is at risk....
A proposed amendment to HB96 will let landowners give the tags to anyone, opening the door for abuse, fraud, and under-the-table deals to buy and sell tags. I oppose ANY action that could lead to turning our public wildlife into a private commodity!!

Please take a few minutes and call the House FWP Committee please tell the Montana Legislature to respect the hard work and compromise that went into HB 96 and oppose ANY amendments to HB 96. 406-444-4800 Thanks a bunch.

Now back to work on access!