Lobbyists: who is behind proposals matters.

[Ben Lamb]

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.

Proud as #*^@#* of you guys. It's an honor to be a servant to all of you on that working group.

 

[Forkyfinder]

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.

Thanks, @Ben Lamb

 

[Gerald Martin]

Jake, I agree with most of your post. However that Facebook post that @Pierre linked in his first post, specifically categorized our proposal as limiting Montanans hunting and being pushed by the Montana Conservation Society in a clear attempt to smear both the Montana Conservation Society and the proposal.

Posts like that undermine any credibility that I previously gave to the PAC making that post.
No doubt money influences folks. However, just like any profession, folks who make a living from their work deserve a wage. The unnamed lobbyist smeared in their post was just fine lobbying for money when it was for groups on their board. I guess that means that PAC’s motives and the groups on their board automatically have suspect motives?

Or perhaps there are legitimate differences of policy that we can vigorously disagree on and take different positions of support or opposition on specific bills and still respect the folks who both support and sometimes oppose us?

My limited time engaged on conservation issues have shown me there’s a lot of folks who can disagree on the issues and still work together when they agree. There’s also been a few who I have seen go scorched earth and make immediate personal attacks when someone disagrees with them.

I suppose it’s human nature but it doesn’t serve either the groups who do that or the individuals who operate that way well and it definitely doesn’t help to advance good conservation policy.

To be clear, this isn’t directed at you personally. I appreciate the experience I’ve had with you and BHA to disagree on issues and positions at times and still be civil and respectful. I’ve also appreciated working with you on issues of mutual support.

 

[BuzzH]

Jake, I agree with most of your post. However that Facebook post that @Pierre linked in his first post, specifically categorized our proposal as limiting Montanans hunting and being pushed by the Montana Conservation Society in a clear attempt to smear both the Montana Conservation Society and the proposal.

Posts like that undermine any credibility that I previously gave to the PAC making that post.
No doubt money influences folks. However, just like any profession, folks who make a living from their work deserve a wage. The unnamed lobbyist smeared in their post was just fine lobbying for money when it was for groups on their board. I guess that means that PAC’s motives and the groups on their board automatically have suspect motives?

Or perhaps there are legitimate differences of policy that we can vigorously disagree on and take different positions of support or opposition on specific bills and still respect the folks who both support and sometimes oppose us?

My limited time engaged on conservation issues have shown me there’s a lot of folks who can disagree on the issues and still work together when they agree. There’s also been a few who I have seen go scorched earth and make immediate personal attacks when someone disagrees with them.

I suppose it’s human nature but it doesn’t serve either the groups who do that or the individuals who operate that way well and it definitely doesn’t help to advance good conservation policy.

To be clear, this isn’t directed at you personally. I appreciate the experience I’ve had with you and BHA to disagree on issues and positions at times and still be civil and respectful. I’ve also appreciated working with you on issues of mutual support.

My opinion is to trust but verify on everything.

I'm all about trying to work together on things you can.

But, I think this " lets all sit on the same side of the table" is being played way too much lately.

There are hard lines in the sand that both sides should accept. I'm fine with working together in the places in between.

But, I would still caution, as someone that's been around a while, there's a danger in always playing too nice in the sandbox. Too much compromising is not a good thing. The other side starts rolling you.

I've seen a softening of various positions on important issues, and positions, by hunter advocacy groups over funding and who/where it comes from. I'm not comfortable with that. Like it or not funding comes with strings attached and that's what I read as the point the OP was making.

 

[Pierre]

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?

 

[Pierre]

Once agaIn, it was not about any bill or proposals. No disrespect meant to any volunteer group. It is a warning about commercial lobbyist agendas. We have been taught not to trust these folks by their past actions. Lots of dishonesty. They are passing themselves off as part of the conservation community. We beg to differ. Ask other state sportsmen groups. These commercial interests have done more to purposely divide the conservation community than I ever remember.
One mite also ask why they didn’t involve state biologists? Game mgmt doesn’t need to be legislated by anyone! That is offered up by folks pushing commercialization and padding pockets. They have big bucks involved. They are also very secretive about their funding…a very legitimate question. They also misrepresent themselves to our legislators.
So the warning is valid! Most of us have been around a long time. There is much we remember and we don’t want legitimate groups being lied to and sent down a path of failure.

 

[cgasner1]

Once agaIn, it was not about any bill or proposals. No disrespect meant to any volunteer group. It is a warning about commercial lobbyist agendas. We have been taught not to trust these folks by their past actions. Lots of dishonesty. They are passing themselves off as part of the conservation community. We beg to differ. Ask other state sportsmen groups. These commercial interests have done more to purposely divide the conservation community than I ever remember.
One mite also ask why they didn’t involve state biologists? Game mgmt doesn’t need to be legislated by anyone! That is offered up by folks pushing commercialization and padding pockets. They have big bucks involved. They are also very secretive about their funding…a very legitimate question. They also misrepresent themselves to our legislators.
So the warning is valid! Most of us have been around a long time. There is much we remember and we don’t want legitimate groups being lied to and sent down a path of failure.

So here is the deal if you care to go back and watch a couple weeks ago I testified against hb 139. I have never done anything of this nature in my life you can tell since I didn’t even know how to address the people I was talking to. 139 is an attempt to shut our proposal down. The reason for that is the lobbyist you don’t like is helping us say what you want but with my limited knowledge we would have never made the progress we have. As far as the biologist we have talked to some. They won’t be named due to knee jerk reactions of people. A person should be able to give us a honest feedback on this without a repercussion. After it was looked it we got told what we already knew from the numbers we had. Once again if you’d like to have a adult conversation our group is open to it.

 

[Carnage2011]

For someone to try and attack Ben’s motives because he doesn’t currently live in MT is insane. I don’t know if there is anyone that’s spent more time standing up for sportsmen in the legislature than him. Hopefully the MSA gets called out over that BS and actually does something productive for once. It’s weird, you never hear shit out of them unless they are bitching about someone/something.

 

[Pierre]

For someone to try and attack Ben’s motives because he doesn’t currently live in MT is insane. I don’t know if there is anyone that’s spent more time standing up for sportsmen in the legislature than him. Hopefully the MSA gets called out over that BS and actually does something productive for once. It’s weird, you never hear shit out of them unless they are bitching about someone/something.

No one is judged on anything but past verifiable history. The warning stands. Ignore it or not, your call.

 

[cgasner1]

No one is judged on anything but past verifiable history. The warning stands. Ignore it or not, your call.

Awhile back a group that I donate money to didn’t show support to something I thought they should. It had absolutely nothing to do with any of this.I was discussing it with your favorite lobbyist and he told me not to keep score. “They do a lot of good work just because they missed on this one you should continue the support” you may wanna consider taking that advice also and hope your members follow suit. The fact that all the attacks we have taken on as a group have been personal and directed towards us and not actually at the proposal says all I need it to.