Montana 2025 Legislative Session

[cgasner1]

I think youd have to ask Hinkle. Not jake. Not bha.

This isn’t Facebook hinkle won’t blast lies here

 

[DFS]

The less flexibility wildlife managers have the sooner we go to LE or rock bottom depending on how stubborn we are.

I think this bill prevents general districts from going to LE? Maybe I am reading that wrong.

 

[Gerald Martin]

I think this bill prevents general districts from going to LE? Maybe I am reading that wrong.

I don’t think HB-139 changes anything about LE districts or addresses the potential for general units going to LE. From what I understand it isn’t addressed.

 

[Elky Welky]

Thank you for the civics lesson, I hadn't actually read the bill yet. /s

Whether you had or not, this is an open forum and I don't want people reading along to be confused. But it is an open question of civics, you are right to point that out: how many sideboards should the legislature set vs the commission? Does anyone here trust the current commission to do right by them? It's checks and balances in action, but ultimately the legislature is responsible for granting authority to the department and commission. The argument that everything should be in the hands of the commission is just as flawed as the argument that everything should be in the hands of the legislature. It's a balancing act that's worth actually thinking about and not just jumping on a bandwagon.

Also, I've been pretty open about how I had only been on the board for a month when the muzzleloader idea came to us, and another board member (no longer with us) and I didn't know any better at the time. MT-BHA in that circumstance did what most would not: admitted fault, fell on the sword, and ultimately changed our position to oppose.

It continues to frustrate me how that gets thrown back in our face. We ultimately did the right thing, but years later it is still talked about as though we didn't change our position. Why should any group change their mind and do the right thing--ever--if this is how we continue to be treated? Is this how you all treat integrity? It takes far more courage to admit you are wrong than to double down.

 

[Drake4]

How would you know your membership is split? No one asked me my opinion, maybe I missed that survey.

Same.
Pathetic.

 

[Schaaf]

Whether you had or not, this is an open forum and I don't want people reading along to be confused. But it is an open question of civics, you are right to point that out: how many sideboards should the legislature set vs the commission? Does anyone here trust the current commission to do right by them? It's checks and balances in action, but ultimately the legislature is responsible for granting authority to the department and commission. The argument that everything should be in the hands of the commission is just as flawed as the argument that everything should be in the hands of the legislature. It's a balancing act that's worth actually thinking about and not just jumping on a bandwagon.

Also, I've been pretty open about how I had only been on the board for a month when the muzzleloader idea came to us, and another board member (no longer with us) and I didn't know any better at the time. MT-BHA in that circumstance did what most would not: admitted fault, fell on the sword, and ultimately changed our position to oppose.

It continues to frustrate me how that gets thrown back in our face. We ultimately did the right thing, but years later it is still talked about as though we didn't change our position. Why should any group change their mind and do the right thing--ever--if this is how we continue to be treated? Is this how you all treat integrity? It takes far more courage to admit you are wrong than to double down.

This was the first sentence in the response after that decision blew up in the board's face. "We strongly believe season setting authority should remain with the commission." Outside of a circular argument about how the legislature grants the authority to the commission, is that a position the current board no longer holds?

 

[Elky Welky]

This was the first sentence in the response after that decision blew up in the board's face. "We strongly believe season setting authority should remain with the commission." Outside of a circular argument about how the legislature grants the authority to the commission, is that a position the current board no longer holds?

The board is not taking a position on this bill.

 

[Gerald Martin]

Thinking on this thread it occurs to me that I have been thinking way too small about opportunity, tradition and culture.

Elk are currently about 40,000 over population objective in MT. I would love to start a new tradition of elk hunting with a rifle for six weeks during the rut. Think about what kind of opportunity that would bring for MT hunters. If any MT legislators are reading this please reach out to me.

Can we get a bill written up and passed through yet this session? We could take care of elk over population, provide opportunity and create new rut hunting traditions all with one piece of legislation.

I think a majority of MT hunters would love the opportunity to hunt rutting elk with a rifle.

 

[John B. Sullivan III]

Saying that Rep. Hinkle is in a difficult position to advocate for the wishes of a majority of MT hunters is ridiculous. He specifically stated the need for this bill came because we wrote a proposal that we intend to present to the commission.

A proposal that I would point out is still incomplete and not yet even in the official process for implementation.

HB-139 doesn’t need to be implemented in order to keep our proposal from being adopted by the commission. That can be accomplished by opposing the proposal as it’s being considered and discussed in the regional season setting meetings and at the commission meetings.

Setting HB-139 into statute according to its intended purpose of being a blocking mechanism against our proposal is a terrible idea. The bill does not accomplish anything beneficial for mule deer on its own merits. The very fact that it prohibits more than 20% of general units from closing before Nov 6 ensures that no general units will ever close early even if biologically necessary. FWP manages for the self- dispersal of hunters in general units. They know that if you close one area, hunters will concentrate in open areas and will overexploit those areas. Saying that HB-139 provides FWP adequate tools to protect mule deer is not realistic. When you have a department that uses blanket management for blanket regions a piecemeal approach only concentrates the same amount of hunters in smaller areas.
If HB-139 passes FWP will not implement the “potential tools” within HB-139 because they know it will be counterproductive to improving mule deer hunting. Thus nothing will change and the practical reality is that HB-139 cements into statute a five week general rifle rut hunt.

The fact the MT- BHA has already participated in setting seasons into statute with their support of Hinkle’s muzzloader bill a few years ago and their withdrawal of opposition from their earlier stance against HB-139 is clear evidence for me that the MT-BHA is a far cry from the organization that I supported years ago.

I let my membership lapse a couple years ago because I wanted to advocate as an individual for positions that I supported and not as just a member of a group. At that time, I saw their rhetoric and positions as being polarizing at least in perception even though I still vocally supported them and their mission. I can no longer do that anymore. As long as this current trajectory continues, I will no longer recommend the MT chapter of BHA as a group worthy of support. They have done good things in the past and I hope with a change of attitude and approach can do good things in the future, but it’s not happening now.

@Elkywelky, for full disclosure of MT-BHA’s position what is Rep. Hinkle supporting for BHA in return for withdrawal of BHA’s opposition?

I have no clue about deals with legislators but your inclusion of BHA into this slanderous post is undeserved and shameful. As one organization who cares deeply about protecting mule deer while still maintaining as much OTC hunting opportunity for Montana residents as is possible without harming the resource, MT BHA has helped steer ideas and efforts through the public process. All the ideas in our position came about from the input of concerned landowners, outfitters, and DIY hunters who are volunteering their time, money and energy with the goal of benefiting all Montanans and our wildlife resources.

You should be ashamed.

 

[DFS]

Thinking on this thread it occurs to me that I have been thinking way too small about opportunity, tradition and culture.

Elk are currently about 40,000 over population objective in MT. I would love to start a new tradition of elk hunting with a rifle for six weeks during the rut. Think about what kind of opportunity that would bring for MT hunters. If any MT legislators are reading this please reach out to me.

Can we get a bill written up and passed through yet this session? We could take care of elk over population, provide opportunity and create new rut hunting traditions all with one piece of legislation.

I think a majority of MT hunters would love the opportunity to hunt rutting elk with a rifle.

Don’t give them any ideas.

 

[cgasner1]

All the ideas in our position came about from the input of concerned landowners, outfitters, and DIY hunters who are volunteering their time, money and energy with the goal of benefiting all Montanans and our wildlife resources.

You should be ashamed.

Part of this sounds familiar. Maybe take it to Facebook next time? Ow wait that sounds familiar also

 

[Nameless Range]

Being on a lot of different boards, I know how hard it is to please everyone. Actually, how impossible. I also know that trying to do your best, whether being measured on something or pushing hard for an outcome, will piss some folks off. The chirping can be relentless even when there's 9 to 1 support for something. I've seen it on a smaller scale. It just comes with the territory of being a volunteer on a board, and I appreciate volunteers.

That said, I oppose this bill because it is unwise from the perspective of the long game to allow the legislature to continually encroach into territory best administered by those who don't meet once every two years, and to hamstring those that do, with a tenuous resource.

I think a person or a group could feel that way - oppose this bill - and if these proposals so many are afraid of ever made it to season setting, could vehemently oppose them. I don't see a contradiction there. That said, I am kind of weirded out by the power these ideas - concocted by a tiny subset of Montana hunters - have had. I don't know if there's more to the story - maybe the group has more pull than I thought - but my gut reaction is these proposals currently don't have a snowball's chance in Hell, and frankly shouldn't - because they are not what most or even a large portion of Montanans want. The whole concept needs a lot of PR and broader discussion before it should even be considered for primetime IMO. And the fact is that it isn’t. Which is why I don’t get why everyone so up in arms.

 

[John B. Sullivan III]

Part of this sounds familiar. Maybe take it to Facebook next time? Ow wait that sounds familiar also

A little levity seemed necessary...

 

[Gerald Martin]

I think a person or a group could feel that way - oppose this bill - and if these proposals so many are ever afraid of ever made it to season setting, could vehemently oppose them. I don't see a contradiction there. That said, I am kind of weirded out by the power these ideas - concocted by a tiny subset of Montana hunters - have had. I don't know if there's more to the story - maybe the group has more pull than I thought - but my gut reaction is these proposals currently don't have a snowball's chance in Hell, and frankly shouldn't - because they are not what most or even a large portion of Montanans want. The whole concept needs a lot of PR and broader discussion before it should even be considered for primetime IMO.

Well said, Brett. In regards to being weirded out by the reaction to our proposal you aren’t the only one. It’s taken me by surprise as well. I knew parts would e controversial, but I didn’t expect the opposition to look like it has.

It’s not because of the “powerful connections” of our group. I think it’s because our proposal says the unthinkable and asks the inconceivable by stating what everyone knows ( mule deer can’t sustain the current level of exploitation) and asks hunters to recognize that with actions that prioritize the thing we all love at the cost of some reduction and changes to how we can hunt them.

The power of the reaction is connected to the passion of the pursuit of deer and elk for hunters. I respect that. I’m just saddened by what seems to be the reality that hunters value their preferred hunting method more than they do the very resource that allows them the opportunity to hunt.

It’s the very mentality that if left unchanged will destroy the thing we love and the opportunity to continue to participate in the hunt of it

 

[cgasner1]

A little levity seemed necessary...

Maybe next time you can pool your money with msa and you guys can do a article just strictly about Ben?

 

[cgasner1]

Being on a lot of different boards, I know how hard it is to please everyone. Actually, how impossible. I also know that trying to do your best, whether being measured on something or pushing hard for an outcome, will piss some folks off. The chirping can be relentless even when there's 9 to 1 support for something. I've seen it on a smaller scale. It just comes with the territory of being a volunteer on a board, and I appreciate volunteers.

That said, I oppose this bill because it is unwise from the perspective of the long game to allow the legislature to continually encroach into territory best administered by those who don't meet once every two years, and to hamstring those that do, with a tenuous resource.

I think a person or a group could feel that way - oppose this bill - and if these proposals so many are afraid of ever made it to season setting, could vehemently oppose them. I don't see a contradiction there. That said, I am kind of weirded out by the power these ideas - concocted by a tiny subset of Montana hunters - have had. I don't know if there's more to the story - maybe the group has more pull than I thought - but my gut reaction is these proposals currently don't have a snowball's chance in Hell, and frankly shouldn't - because they are not what most or even a large portion of Montanans want. The whole concept needs a lot of PR and broader discussion before it should even be considered for primetime IMO. And the fact is that it isn’t. Which is why I don’t get why everyone so up in arms.

100% respect everything in this. At this point in the game it’s unbelievable how tied our proposal is to 139. It shouldn’t have anything to do with this. What people should be pist about is the 30+ groups “that are all dark money” in opposition to it and the fact the guy pushing it is just blatantly lies and makes up things that has no truth to it at all. Our proposal should be an after thought after thought once this bullshit bill is dead.

 

[Gerald Martin]

100% respect everything in this. At this point in the game it’s unbelievable how tied our proposal is to 139. It shouldn’t have anything to do with this. What people should be pist about is the 30+ groups “that are all dark money” in opposition to it and the fact the guy pushing it is just blatantly lies and makes up things that has no truth to it at all. Our proposal should be an after thought after thought once this bullshit bill is dead.

To that point the process of season setting that will be what determines whether our proposal is implemented hasn’t even begun yet. We haven’t even released the final version that addresses many of the common concerns that have been raised to us.

Everything in Hinkle’s bill could be presented as an alternative proposal and adapted by the commission just as likely as anything in our proposal. Or both could be rejected out of hand.

The Legislature is the very body that authorized the commission and is the body that confirms commission appointees. Yet we have a Representative essentially saying the body they authorized and appointed to make these decisions can’t be trusted and the decisions should be made by the Legislature.

@Nameless Range is exactly right when he says it’s not a double standard to oppose 139 and our proposal.

 

[cgasner1]

To that point the process of season setting that will be what determines whether our proposal is implemented hasn’t even begun yet. We haven’t even released the final version that addresses many of the common concerns that have been raised to us.

Everything in Hinkle’s bill could be presented as an alternative proposal and adapted by the commission just as likely as anything in our proposal. Or both could be rejected out of hand.

The Legislature is the very body that authorized the commission and is the body that confirms commission appointees. Yet we have a Representative essentially saying the body they authorized and appointed to make these decisions can’t be trusted and the decisions should be made by the Legislature.

@Nameless Range is exactly right when he says it’s not a double standard to oppose 139 and our proposal.

I don’t get it personally 9 guys can’t try and get a season changed but 1 legislator can push for an entire new added season? Then can push for this and it’s ok. What’s gonna happen next go when he wants to start baiting bears people gonna show up and oppose this type of thing then?

 

[bigsky2]

Being on a lot of different boards, I know how hard it is to please everyone. Actually, how impossible. I also know that trying to do your best, whether being measured on something or pushing hard for an outcome, will piss some folks off. The chirping can be relentless even when there's 9 to 1 support for something. I've seen it on a smaller scale. It just comes with the territory of being a volunteer on a board, and I appreciate volunteers.

I couldn’t agree with this more. What’s hard for me to wrap my head around is how the board is straying so far from the norm of how they would have viewed this issue during all my years of being a member. I haven’t agreed with BHA on everything but I could always count on them being on the same side of an issue as the biologists and wildlife managers.

 

[Gerald Martin]

Don’t give them any ideas.

Apparently, ideas are all it takes to trigger opposition legislation. It’s strategy…