Montana 2025 Legislative Session

[Forkyfinder]

The statute limits the number of cow licenses to no more than 2. You can hold up to 3 (your a tag and two cow licenses). The amendment restores that limit rather than allow for 4 cow licenses.

That is the hard line in the sand. By law, the agency cannot issue more than that.

The language in line 18 asks the agency to create a rule that will help guide how those 3 licenses are used. In testimony, the agency has said they view this as a request to draft a rule that has to go through a public process in which everyone gets to have input in how it is developed.

Senator Loge's intent here is to create a better practical application in areas like region 2 where various districts have intermingled populations but varying licensing prescriptions. For me, it makes sense to have a more regional and/or district level approach based on herd dynamics rather than just district boundaries. It can also pave the way for a more thoughtful approach to antlerless.management on public lands by bringing back the old a9 permits to reduce pressure, or have people make the decision to burn their a tag on a cow, rather than stack b tags.

Respectfully ben, you must not have a lot of time around kids.

A 5 year old wouldnt know what an a9 tag is. Neither would a lurker.

 

[Luke_with_a_lab]

Is it correct that HB 139 would allow still the commission to change "general units" into LE units? Or allow for general hunting until Nov 6, then the unit would go LE after Nov 6?

 

[cgasner1]

Respectfully ben, you must not have a lot of time around kids.

A 5 year old wouldnt know what an a9 tag is. Neither would a lurker.

Thread needed a meme

 

[El Jason]

Respectfully ben, you must not have a lot of time around kids.

He’s able to communicate with me?

 

[Forkyfinder]

He’s able to communicate with me?

I was mostly "kidding"

 

[Ben Lamb]

Respectfully ben, you must not have a lot of time around kids.

A 5 year old wouldnt know what an a9 tag is. Neither would a lurker.

The children I know have an outsized understanding of the licensing structure. Ymmv.

 

[Forkyfinder]

The children I know have an outsized understanding of the licensing structure. Ymmv.

With strong reductions in B licenses, im in. Would be a good change.

 

[Elky Welky]

It's not "neutral" when a board member and former chair @John B. Sullivan III is trashing those of us that worked on the proposal, half of whom are or were very active BHA members, on every post about the bill on facebook.

@John B. Sullivan III was representing his own views, not the views of the board. I'd think you'd know the difference, and that's probably part of my disappointment. Nuance is typically lost on you. So to lay it out it in simple terms: he was not bashing you. He was bashing MCS, it's leadership, and it's shady funding. He was giving very valid warnings about who you all are getting into bed with. He's been at this longer than most. He knows how it feels to get stabbed in the back. You'd be smart to listen to him. And his views are his own.

But when I ask why there is a change in opinion from the board about the legislature being involved in season setting dates from four years ago to now you claim it's a dirty jab.

That's because it is a dirty jab. This bill doesn't set the season dates. It sets sideboards but still give the commission broad latitude to set the dates. So our position hasn't changed whatsoever from what you quoted and it isn't the "gotcha" you think it is. I'm talking about the nuances of a bill happening right now, and you're still making noise about one thing MT-BHA did wrong and then had the integrity to admit was wrong--4 years ago--and you're even threatening to pull your life membership. It's beyond petty and immature (not to mention wholly irrelevant), and probably the main reason I find you so deeply disappointing. Particularly given all the other good MT-BHA's done before and since.

So after mulling on it for a night, I take pride in BHA somehow pissing some people off for NOT taking a position. That's gotta be a new accomplishment for us. Since when do people get so worked up when an an org steps back when its board is busy with many bills, can't decide how it wants to tackle one specific bill, and is leery to just jump on a bandwagon letter? The most prudent move is to be neutral, which does mean just that. MT-BHA isn't for the bill. MT-BHA isn't against the bill. How is this so hard to understand? Being "not with us" doesn't inherently mean "against us."

Folks here have so much misplaced rage. Be mad about mule deer all you want, but stop taking it out on a volunteer org that isn't solely mule deer focused, and has a far broader mission and is working on far more than just this. Maybe, to John's point earlier, you should all be mad at the commission for not getting a mule deer plan done 10+ years ago and forcing the legislature to feel like they need to step in since the commission has refused to do their part. That would be a productive use of your energy.

Also, people here should take a step back and realize there's a far bigger conservation community in this State, and hunt talk is only a small fraction of a slice of it. This isn't the only conversation, nor remotely the most important one. I'm on here anymore mostly to be transparent and provide updates, or check and see if there is anything we are missing. I know there are some good advocates here. But frankly, I'm not seeing much value in weighing in in the open anymore.

If people want to know about what MT-BHA is up to or why we are taking certain positions on bills, feel free to PM me. I'll happily respond there. But I'm exhausted by the same 10 people with nothing better to do, going in circles and slamming MT-BHA just to get likes on a forum.

 

[Forkyfinder]

The children I know have an outsized understanding of the licensing structure. Ymmv.

The statute limits the number of cow licenses to no more than 2. You can hold up to 3 (your a tag and two cow licenses). The amendment restores that limit rather than allow for 4 cow licenses.

That is the hard line in the sand. By law, the agency cannot issue more than that.

The language in line 18 asks the agency to create a rule that will help guide how those 3 licenses are used. In testimony, the agency has said they view this as a request to draft a rule that has to go through a public process in which everyone gets to have input in how it is developed.

Senator Loge's intent here is to create a better practical application in areas like region 2 where various districts have intermingled populations but varying licensing prescriptions. For me, it makes sense to have a more regional and/or district level approach based on herd dynamics rather than just district boundaries. It can also pave the way for a more thoughtful approach to antlerless.management on public lands by bringing back the old a9 permits to reduce pressure, or have people make the decision to burn their a tag on a cow, rather than stack b tags.

If the max of 3 tags remains, can you help me understand how/why that got struck? Wouldnt that remove protection for multiple A5 elk (bull) tags, like you can for A3 deer (buck) tags in cwd areas.

 

[Ben Lamb]

View attachment 361255

If the max of 3 tags remains, can you help me understand how/why that got struck? Wouldnt that remove protection for multiple A5 elk (bull) tags, like you can for A3 deer (buck) tags in cwd areas.

That section is replaced by the new language in section 1, sub 7. Still only 1 antlered license per hunter per year. And with the amendment, only up to 2 cows per year.

 

[shoots-straight]

Think we are already reaching that point

to be fair, MSA did testify against this bill in the House committee hearing.

 

[cgasner1]

to be fair, MSA did testify against this bill in the House committee hearing.

I’m not trying to be holier than thou. MSA can do what they feel they need to they answer to their members like every other group

 

[Forkyfinder]

Nice to meet you Jed.

Forkie is hinkle, hinkle is forkie!