Lobbyists: who is behind proposals matters.

[Pierre]

Log into Facebook

Log into Facebook to start sharing and connecting with your friends, family, and people you know.

www.facebook.com

 

[Forkyfinder]

Log into Facebook

Log into Facebook to start sharing and connecting with your friends, family, and people you know.

www.facebook.com

Can you debate the merits of the proposal? In totality i am for it as i think there has to be compromise.

I dont think theres a lot of "dark money" behind it. What sense is there in degrading the character of the VOLUNTEERS who participated in it?

Even if there were money behind it - would that be some kind of unique item in terms of wildlife or the legislature?

 

[BuzzH]

Can you debate the merits of the proposal? In totality i am for it as i think there has to be compromise.

I dont think theres a lot of "dark money" behind it. What sense is there in degrading the character of the VOLUNTEERS who participated in it?

Even if there were money behind it - would that be some kind of unique item in terms of wildlife or the legislature?

Here's something to consider.

The reason wildlife and hunters find themselves behind the 8-ball and in the shit politically is because they "compromised".

We use that word wayyyyyyy too often, time for someone else to compromise something rather than my opportunity, my wildlife, and my public lands being compromised into oblivion.

Another thing to keep in mind, if you "compromise" 4 times you're left with 6 1/4% of what you started with.

 

[Gerald Martin]

Log into Facebook

Log into Facebook to start sharing and connecting with your friends, family, and people you know.

www.facebook.com

Where’s the MT Sportsman’s Alliance PAC’s proposal or efforts to do anything to help MT’s improvement of mule deer management?

 

[Schaaf]

I offered to sit down over a beer or cup of coffee with one of the board members that wrote that op ed 9 days ago to talk about the mule deer proposal to go over the pros and cons and never heard back. Must be easier to throw people under the bus online than engage.

Damned if you do, damned if you don’t.

 

[rogerthat]

Sportsman. Doing what we do best! Fighting each other

In before the lock

 

[Elktrack]

Here's something to consider.

The reason wildlife and hunters find themselves behind the 8-ball and in the shit politically is because they "compromised".

We use that word wayyyyyyy too often, time for someone else to compromise something rather than my opportunity, my wildlife, and my public lands being compromised into oblivion.

Another thing to keep in mind, if you "compromise" 4 times you're left with 6 1/4% of what you started with.

Buzz, this is the point I was making about that wolf proposal that we got tangled up over. We “compromise “ all the time. I’m not bringing it up to revisit the whole thing, I understand you didn’t like the proposal. I was accused of wanting to jam it in people’s faces when I suggested that we ought not to compromise so much. Compromising always seems to lead to solutions that are kinda good but never great and certainly never seem to be outstanding solutions to the problems. We cater to everyone else hoping that in the end we still have a remnant of what it is we want.
I agree with you on this.

 

[BuzzH]

Buzz, this is the point I was making about that wolf proposal that we got tangled up over. We “compromise “ all the time. I’m not bringing it up to revisit the whole thing, I understand you didn’t like the proposal. I was accused of wanting to jam it in people’s faces when I suggested that we ought not to compromise so much. Compromising always seems to lead to solutions that are kinda good but never great and certainly never seem to be outstanding solutions to the problems. We cater to everyone else hoping that in the end we still have a remnant of what it is we want.
I agree with you on this.

Not even close to the same thing, nice lame attempt though.

 

[cgasner1]

Log into Facebook

Log into Facebook to start sharing and connecting with your friends, family, and people you know.

www.facebook.com

All I got to say is any time any place if your group wants to have a civilized conversation with concerned citizens. Our group has a open door policy to any organization that would want to talk

 

[Elktrack]

Not even close to the same thing, nice lame attempt though.

You’re right. Compromising on management methods because not everyone “feels good” about it despite its effectiveness it is totally different kind of compromise.
Good talk.

 

[Forkyfinder]

Here's something to consider.

The reason wildlife and hunters find themselves behind the 8-ball and in the shit politically is because they "compromised".

We use that word wayyyyyyy too often, time for someone else to compromise something rather than my opportunity, my wildlife, and my public lands being compromised into oblivion.

Another thing to keep in mind, if you "compromise" 4 times you're left with 6 1/4% of what you started with.

Okay - fair point.

Theres not a thing that the proposal sacrifices that i dont feel is warranted at this point. "Who" is behind it - isnt really an effective means to debate a proposal's merits.

 

[BuzzH]

Okay - fair point.

Theres not a thing that the proposal sacrifices that i dont feel is warranted at this point. "Who" is behind it - isnt really an effective means to debate a proposal's merits.

Can't agree....if the shoe fits.

 

[Forkyfinder]

Log into Facebook

Log into Facebook to start sharing and connecting with your friends, family, and people you know.

www.facebook.com

Can you speak to this, @Ben Lamb ?

"Montana Conservation Society is pushing a controversial proposal that would drastically reduce resident hunting opportunities. They’re also introducing a bill that would make land exchanges easier for large landowners, and another that would allow landowners and outfitters to sell not one but three cow elk hunts per hunter each year."

 

[cgasner1]

Can you speak to this, @Ben Lamb ?

"Montana Conservation Society is pushing a controversial proposal that would drastically reduce resident hunting opportunities. They’re also introducing a bill that would make land exchanges easier for large landowners, and another that would allow landowners and outfitters to sell not one but three cow elk hunts per hunter each year."

How many can you currently shoot under the shoulder season isn’t it 3? So if you or I can shoot 3 why wouldn’t a outfitter be able to do that?

 

[Forkyfinder]

How many can you currently shoot under the shoulder season isn’t it 3? So if you or I can shoot 3 why wouldn’t a outfitter be able to do that?

Specifics of it all matter a lot. Would have to know where/when/how/etc it applies...

 

[cgasner1]

Specifics of it all matter a lot. Would have to know where/when/how/etc it applies...

Not for talking points to get people pist off it doesn’t

 

[Elky Welky]

I can understand why anyone who volunteered their time to work together on any solution to any problem would be upset to learn that the money behind their effort potentially came from a less-than-ideal source. It's the same kind of allegations BHA faced during the oil lobby's smear campaign, because of some of the donors to the national org at the time and because of the personal politics of the CEO.

I've said it before (https://www.hunttalk.com/threads/stop-blaming-conservation-orgs.324344/) and I'll say it again: don't blame the volunteers. People who take their personal time to fight for an issue aren't at fault. They can be misguided or misled at times (myself included!), but we are all here for the same reasons: we care about hunting, the species, and the places that we hunt. The policies from these volunteers should be debated on their merits, because they aren't tainted by money.

But anyone who is being paid should most certainly be questioned, because unlike volunteers like @Gerald Martin and @cgasner1, money can influence motives. That's what I read this article to be saying, if in so many more words--it is worth it to pay attention to where the money comes from and try to understand people's motives. Doesn't mean you can't work together, just be smart.

So now for my completely shameless plug: the Montana Chapter of BHA is entirely led by volunteers, and all policy positions are decided based upon board votes, guided by surveys of dues-paying members. We pay a lobbyist to advocate for those positions, based on funds raised by our volunteers. It is entirely grassroots, and no big money or shady org controls us. And we have positions open on our board and I would love to see some of the passionate advocates of HT volunteer to join our work. https://www.backcountryhunters.org/mtbha_open_board_positions

 

[Nameless Range]

I agree with MSA on plenty of things, but there’s years worth of their communication style being pretty terrible. Gossipy, ad hominem, preaching to the choir without a hint of desiring persuasion, trying to get jabs in on the unrelated… at times, their social media has appeared emotionally apoplectic. Who funds something is certainly context at times, but it’s not an argument in and of itself.

They really need to rethink how they come across, and I know they have or have had members who feel the same.

Maybe I don’t know a damn thing about persuading people, but I respect when orgs stick to the facts and make the case. Much easier to tear down than to build.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Can you speak to this, @Ben Lamb ?

"Montana Conservation Society is pushing a controversial proposal that would drastically reduce resident hunting opportunities. They’re also introducing a bill that would make land exchanges easier for large landowners, and another that would allow landowners and outfitters to sell not one but three cow elk hunts per hunter each year."

1.) We did look at ways to improve land swaps in terms of valuation relative to the wildlife conditions on both state and private but it become pretty convoluted quickly so we abandoned that idea. The hope was that the we could ensure that values traded on both sides included wildlife habitat and not just noxious weeds and water improvements (both critical). There are some constitutional issues that we ran into regarding how the MT State Constitution envisioned swaps so we are not bringing a bill forward at all. We have been asking DNRC if there was a way to bring conservation groups such as MTBHA, PLWA, MWF and landowners together ahead of a swap so that the controversy could be worked out before a landowner invests upwards of $50,000 into appraisals, survey's and eliminate the surprise factor from the public side when a swap pops up. That conversation is ongoing. In our estimation, those efforts should be limited to 501 (C)(3) organizations and so MCS would be cut out of the effort since we're a 501 (C)(4).

2.) The elk bill would equalize the elk management statutes with deer based off of SB 281 from last session (which MSA supported if I remember correctly). Currently under state law a hunter may possess no more than 3 elk licenses. The bill would give the commission the authority to set those licenses for residents, while providing for NR's to receive 1 antlerless license if they do not hold a B10 or elk combo, and the current two they can purchase now if they hold the B10 or elk combination. So it would likely cause a net reduction in NR antlerless licenses as we saw SB 281 do in 2024 while giving residents more opportunity across the state. We're also exploring mechanisms that would provide direction on allocation around objective ranges so that districts that are at or below OR wouldn't be unduly impacted with excess licenses, and where places where there are an over-abundance of elk could see more than 3 licenses.

As for the proposal: MCS has expended my and Rob's time to the proposal. I'm paying for their blog out my pocket with no reimbursement sought (There goes $35!). The guys have been the driver of that proposal - not me and not Rob. We are serving as facilitators and helping provide information and context related to the decisions they make. MCS as an organization does not have a position on the proposal other than wanting to help bring landowners, hunters and outfitters together to find common ground. Internally, our board has some concerns about it, but to their credit - they're letting some sausage get made before trying to take a position.

Lastly - And I will do this once:

I do not claim to be a resident of MT. I live in Michigan. We moved there in 2020 to be closer to my wife's family so she can help take care of and provide support for family members who need some help. That chore was falling to my father-in-law and one of his brothers. My wife spent the last 4 years working daily to take care of her elderly grandmother and provide some relief to people who were working their asses off to take care of other people. My FIL is 71 and deserves time to go catch perch and bass and hunt deer. I am incredibly proud of my wife for making this call, and the decision for me to move to be with her was no sacrifice at all. Anyone who has a problem with that can kiss my fat hairy ass. My family comes first - always. I work remotely, and now, I get to spend 4 months away from my family to work at the legislature for a group of individuals I am honored to work with while having my character assaulted by people who haven't bothered to reach out for clarification.

If the thought that someone who has worked on wildlife issues in the west since 2002, and MT specific issues since 2007 isn't worthy of continuing that work because he is supporting his family and living in a different state, then perhaps that explains why so many people are now former staffers of these organizations on the left, rather than current.

 

[cgasner1]

1.) We did look at ways to improve land swaps in terms of valuation relative to the wildlife conditions on both state and private but it become pretty convoluted quickly so we abandoned that idea. The hope was that the we could ensure that values traded on both sides included wildlife habitat and not just noxious weeds and water improvements (both critical). There are some constitutional issues that we ran into regarding how the MT State Constitution envisioned swaps so we are not bringing a bill forward at all. We have been asking DNRC if there was a way to bring conservation groups such as MTBHA, PLWA, MWF and landowners together ahead of a swap so that the controversy could be worked out before a landowner invests upwards of $50,000 into appraisals, survey's and eliminate the surprise factor from the public side when a swap pops up. That conversation is ongoing. In our estimation, those efforts should be limited to 501 (C)(3) organizations and so MCS would be cut out of the effort since we're a 501 (C)(4).

2.) The elk bill would equalize the elk management statutes with deer based off of SB 281 from last session (which MSA supported if I remember correctly). Currently under state law a hunter may possess no more than 3 elk licenses. The bill would give the commission the authority to set those licenses for residents, while providing for NR's to receive 1 antlerless license if they do not hold a B10 or elk combo, and the current two they can purchase now if they hold the B10 or elk combination. So it would likely cause a net reduction in NR antlerless licenses as we saw SB 281 do in 2024 while giving residents more opportunity across the state. We're also exploring mechanisms that would provide direction on allocation around objective ranges so that districts that are at or below OR wouldn't be unduly impacted with excess licenses, and where places where there are an over-abundance of elk could see more than 3 licenses.

As for the proposal: MCS has expended my and Rob's time to the proposal. I'm paying for their blog out my pocket with no reimbursement sought (There goes $35!). The guys have been the driver of that proposal - not me and not Rob. We are serving as facilitators and helping provide information and context related to the decisions they make. MCS as an organization does not have a position on the proposal other than wanting to help bring landowners, hunters and outfitters together to find common ground. Internally, our board has some concerns about it, but to their credit - they're letting some sausage get made before trying to take a position.

Lastly - And I will do this once:

I do not claim to be a resident of MT. I live in Michigan. We moved there in 2020 to be closer to my wife's family so she can help take care of and provide support for family members who need some help. That chore was falling to my father-in-law and one of his brothers. My wife spent the last 4 years working daily to take care of her elderly grandmother and provide some relief to people who were working their asses off to take care of other people. My FIL is 71 and deserves time to go catch perch and bass and hunt deer. I am incredibly proud of my wife for making this call, and the decision for me to move to be with her was no sacrifice at all. Anyone who has a problem with that can kiss my fat hairy ass. My family comes first - always. I work remotely, and now, I get to spend 4 months away from my family to work at the legislature for a group of individuals I am honored to work with while having my character assaulted by people who haven't bothered to reach out for clarification.

If the thought that someone who has worked on wildlife issues in the west since 2002, and MT specific issues since 2007 isn't worthy of continuing that work because he is supporting his family and living in a different state, then perhaps that explains why so many people are now former staffers of these organizations on the left, rather than current.

I’ll give you this Ben I haven’t seen you duck out on anything. You could have just avoided this thread instead of facing it like this. Thank you for your help with the goals that the concerned citizens are trying to reach.