Gastro Gnome - Eat Better Wherever

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.
 
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.
 
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.
This, Some legislator doesn't like that the district he hunts goes LE, the quota on lions or sheep and just about everything else involved with wildlife management, they just put their preferences in the Montana Code.
 
Reality check for expectations of some legislators: While interviewing legislative candidates for a wildlife group, I asked one incumbent legislator why he voted for a particularly harmful bill. His Response: "Lookit with all the bills that come through I don't have time to read them......I just vote however the PARTY tells me to."
These days I feel like our representatives forget that they don’t work for the party, they work for us, the constituents.

Meetings and Hunters Ed didn’t give me time to tune in for the testimony. Is there a recording somewhere that will be available for a bit?
 
These days I feel like our representatives forget that they don’t work for the party, they work for us, the constituents.

Meetings and Hunters Ed didn’t give me time to tune in for the testimony. Is there a recording somewhere that will be available for a bit?


Video link.
 
These days I feel like our representatives forget that they don’t work for the party, they work for us, the constituents.
They know they work for the party and if you disagree on something, they just think they know better than you. They are protecting you, or your kids, or Montana values and traditions. Not all of them, of course, but a LOT. I think this attachment to the past is why a lot of changes seem harder than they should be. Like mandatory reporting... 🤷‍♂️
 
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.
Politics 101 - When you have a bad idea and you bring it forth as a bill, you better find a "boogey man" to serve as the bad guy.

That is exactly what Hinkle has done. He has a very bad bill, everyone around him knows it, but like most elected officials, he's not willing to withdraw his bad idea, rather he will defend it to the end. @Gerald Martin and the rest of you who came up with some proposals, including one of Hinkle's party members, @Eric Albus, are now the boogey man who he has to paint as the bad guys this bill is protecting us from.

The other reality of politics is that each person, no matter their position, only has a finite amount of political capital, whether within their constituents, within their party, or within their committees. For Hinkle to burn so much of his political, on the first bill of the session, against such a large and diverse group of opponents, is interesting.

As @Ben Lamb says, please email, call, or use the legislature portal to comment against this bill. If enough of those Reps, especially his Republican committee members, hear it from the home folks, he'll be burning a lot more of his finite capital to get the votes he would need.

Remember, polite, professional, and informed communications get attention from elected officials. Nothing worries them more than having to vote against a well-informed and motivated constituent.
 
[QUOTE

Remember, polite, professional, and informed communications get attention from elected officials. Nothing worries them more than having to vote against a well-informed and motivated constituent.
[/QUOTE]

Perhaps the last representative who asked me if it isn’t preferable to have elected representatives who are accountable to their constituency making decisions rather than “bureaucrats” had a point.

If you are one of those elected representatives supporting an unpopular bill intended to block portions of a citizen proposal that isn’t even finalized or submitted into the decision making process ,it might be good political instinct to consider that intentional disregard of the of the will of the groups who signed the letter of opposition to HB-139 is probably a clear signal to everyone interested in wildlife management issues that you are more interested in exerting political power than solving problems.

In a way it’s refreshing to see who is interested in good faith public debate and discourse in policy discussions and who is not.
 

Forum statistics

Threads
114,313
Messages
2,052,432
Members
36,550
Latest member
Emptyfrzrdeertzr
Back
Top