Montana 2025 Legislative Session

Of particular interest was your exchange with the young legislator who pointed to the Commission as political appointees, seeming to assert that the legislature voted in by the people should therefore be responsible for wildlife management decisions. IMO, HB 139 represents that notion, which is one reason I expressed opposition.
I was hoping Gerald was going to say that the FWP Commisson doesn’t spend a week arguing who can use what toilet and therefore are more qualified to make decisions for season setting.
 
When you’ve got MWF, RMEF, MOGA, Stockgrowers, and dozens more signing on to a letter opposing, you might have a bad bill. View attachment 356762
View attachment 356763

We all know that these groups are a well connected pipeline designed to funnel that “monay!” (Eye roll emoji)

Crazy how Representative Hinkle tried to attach the groups united in opposition to his bill to support for our proposal to change the general season structure.

Opposition to a bad piece of legislation does not mean support for a citizens’ proposal.
 
Crazy how Representative Hinkle tried to attach the groups united in opposition to his bill to support for our proposal to change the general season structure.

Opposition to a bad piece of legislation does not mean support for a citizens’ proposal.
That’s what struck me watching this, Gerald. You guys did a great job on the proposal, and it certainly got folks talking. But it’s just that, a proposal. One with no legal bearing whatsoever. It doesn’t require this kind of legislative knee-jerk response.

It’s a big reach to claim that everyone wanting the legislature to back off of codifying every aspect of wildlife management is also 100% in support of the big changes you guys proposed.
 
Last edited:
But it’s just that, a proposal. One with no legal bearing whatsoever.
I appreciated Rep. Marler's question regarding the proposal:
"Just because your group comes together and makes a proposal to the commission, does that mean they are going to adopt it?"
Essentially getting at that there is a process for this kind of stuff.

When I jumped on to listen to the meeting, it was at the point where Gerald was answering questions about the mule deer proposal from his group and I was really confused why that was even brought up until I watched the meeting from the beginning. When Rep. Hinkle introduced his bill by first talking about that mule deer proposal from the group, it made a lot more sense. I'm not sure how this bill isn't tying the hands of the commission when it's taking away some of their tools. It sets a concerning precedent on what other tools the legislature could take away with some sideboards.
 
Not sure when the committee is planning executive action on the bill, but if you haven't sent in a polite and considerate comment to the whole committee, please consider doing so.

Please do not use disparaging remarks or try to be cute. It backfires.
 
I appreciated Rep. Marler's question regarding the proposal:
"Just because your group comes together and makes a proposal to the commission, does that mean they are going to adopt it?"
Essentially getting at that there is a process for this kind of stuff.

When I jumped on to listen to the meeting, it was at the point where Gerald was answering questions about the mule deer proposal from his group and I was really confused why that was even brought up until I watched the meeting from the beginning. When Rep. Hinkle introduced his bill by first talking about that mule deer proposal from the group, it made a lot more sense. I'm not sure how this bill isn't tying the hands of the commission when it's taking away some of their tools. It sets a concerning precedent on what other tools the legislature could take away with some sideboards.
Ironic - i wont pretend to be Nostradamus - but i suspected that were the case and included my suspicions in my correspondence to him and the committee.
 
When I jumped on to listen to the meeting, it was at the point where Gerald was answering questions about the mule deer proposal from his group and I was really confused why that was even brought up until I watched the meeting from the beginning.
I was surprised that Rep. Hinkle brought it up and that his bill was crafted in response.

When I’d read the bill’s text I was under the impression that the target was FWP’s restricting some district’s mule deer take to the first 3 (4?) weeks of rifle season.
 
We all know that these groups are a well connected pipeline designed to funnel that “monay!” (Eye roll emoji)

Crazy how Representative Hinkle tried to attach the groups united in opposition to his bill to support for our proposal to change the general season structure.

Opposition to a bad piece of legislation does not mean support for a citizens’ proposal.
Gerald and all involved as citizens of this great State, collecting great minds, developing a proposal, and exercising the right to be heard by our, "Representatives", Theodore Roosevelt's speech comes to mind.

“It is not the critic who counts: not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood, who strives valiantly, who errs and comes up short again and again, because there is no effort without error or shortcoming, but who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions, who spends himself in a worthy cause; who, at the best, knows, in the end, the triumph of high achievement, and who, at the worst, if he fails, at least he fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who knew neither victory nor defeat.”

Keep on, keeping on.
 
Back
Top