Montana 2025 Legislative Session

[Forkyfinder]

Apparently, ideas are all it takes to trigger opposition legislation. It’s strategy…
View attachment 361130

Must be an mcs idea dark money and all

 

[John B. Sullivan III]

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

Noted... cgasner1 is not into levity

 

[DFS]

Apparently, ideas are all it takes to trigger opposition legislation. It’s strategy…
View attachment 361130

Not if it puts the boot to the throat of wildlife or makes things easier.

 

[Gerald Martin]

Not if it puts the boot to the throat of wildlife or makes things easier.

#Opportunity#ModernHeritageMericaSeason

 

[Elky Welky]

Can someone point to where in HB-139 it actually sets the general season into statute or takes away the commission’s authority to set seasons?

Reading it with a fine toothed comb, again, and I don’t see any language that says the commission can’t move the season around. All I’m seeing is that it doesn’t allow them to close the hunting of mule deer bucks during the general rifle season, nor close the season before Nov. 6. It says nothing about when the commission actually sets the season.

Is everyone panicking over nothing here?

 

[DFS]

Can someone point to where in HB-139 it actually sets the general season into statute or takes away the commission’s authority to set seasons?

Reading it with a fine toothed comb, again, and I don’t see any language that says the commission can’t move the season around. All I’m seeing is that it doesn’t allow them to close the hunting of mule deer bucks during the general rifle season, nor close the season before Nov. 6. It says nothing about when the commission actually sets the season.

Is everyone panicking over nothing here?

I’m not panicking Montana has done it for 70 years or more. It does show how people put their wants before and have no regard to the resource and it will lead to LE and less opportunity. Eventually…. It will get real bad before it gets better.

 

[Forkyfinder]

I’m not panicking Montana has done it for 70 years or more. It does show how people put their wants before and have no regard to the resource and it will lead to LE and less opportunity. Eventually…. It will get real bad before it gets better.

Obviously, I am against the bill. But november 6th is quite aways from peak rut.

To be honest - seems like its mostly crafted to kill the proposal based on dates but doesnt actually limit the comission a lot. Seems like it was crafted just to kill the proposal - and that solely.

 

[DFS]

Obviously, I am against the bill. But november 6th is quite aways from peak rut.

To be honest - seems like its mostly crafted to kill the proposal based on dates but doesnt actually limit the comission a lot. Seems like it was crafted just to kill the proposal.

It’s an unnecessary bill that puts side boards on the commission and wildlife managers.

 

[Forkyfinder]

It’s an unnecessary bill that puts side boards on the commission and wildlife managers.

No shit.

 

[Schaaf]

Obviously, I am against the bill. But november 6th is quite aways from peak rut.

To be honest - seems like it’s mostly crafted to kill the proposal based on dates but doesnt actually limit the comission a lot. Seems like it was crafted just to kill the proposal.

Yep. Then next session a line item change of Nov. 6 to Nov. 14 and then in 2029 a line item change from Nov. 14 to the Sunday after Thanksgiving.

Letting the legislature wade in is playing with fire and it’s why up to this point every conservation group has strongly opposed the interference.

 

[John B. Sullivan III]

Obviously, I am against the bill. But november 6th is quite aways from peak rut.

To be honest - seems like its mostly crafted to kill the proposal based on dates but doesnt actually limit the comission a lot. Seems like it was crafted just to kill the proposal.

Below is the current language in the law not affected by HB 139:

Fixing of seasons and bag and possession limits. (1) Subject to the provisions of 87-5302 and subsections (7) through (9) (10) of this section, the commission may:

• fix seasons, bag limits, possession limits, and season limits;
• open or close or shorten or lengthen seasons on any species of game, bird, fish, or fur-bearing animal as defined by 87-2-101;
• The commission may declare a closed season on any species of game, fish, game birds, or fur bearing animals threatened with undue depletion from any cause.

(There a lot more bullet points under the section above - I quickly pulled the most relevant to this discussion)

HB 139 would preserve the opportunity most resident Montana hunters want (per 2023 FWP survey result) while allowing the commission leeway to manage appropriately.

Montana hunters have been asking the commission to do something about mule deer for well over a decade. In some areas we have surpassed FWPs own restrictive management triggers and they still have done nothing. We still offer unlimited NR youth mule deer doe tags (we tried to change that last session but it was killed in committee). If anything, HB139 does not go far enough to force the department to act for mule.

 

[Gerald Martin]

Can someone point to where in HB-139 it actually sets the general season into statute or takes away the commission’s authority to set seasons?

Reading it with a fine toothed comb, again, and I don’t see any language that says the commission can’t move the season around. All I’m seeing is that it doesn’t allow them to close the hunting of mule deer bucks during the general rifle season, nor close the season before Nov. 6. It says nothing about when the commission actually sets the season.

Is everyone panicking over nothing here?

From HB-139. Page 3, Line 25-28 “ The commission may not close the hunting of mule deer bucks during general hunting season: in more than 20% of hunting districts in the state in a given season; for more than two years within a 6 year period in any one hunting district; or…(continued on pg 4) in any hunting district prior to November 6.

This subsection does not apply to any district restriction on mule deer buck hunting that was in place prior to December 1 2024”


I guess nothing in HB-139 defines what the general season actually is. Perhaps the commission should circumvent the whole thing by using its authority to define general hunting season as the last weekend of December…. That would satisfy the language of HB-139 and it could be state wide. LE districts would remain unchanged and would allow for rut hunts.

Maybe then our proposal wouldn’t seem so extreme….

#shedgodwasrightafterall

 

[mukbowhunt]

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.

I see what you did.

 

[Gerald Martin]

Or the commission could elect to end general hunting season on Nov.6 across the whole state and still be in harmony with the language of HB-139. I’d be upset with all the opportunity that HB-139 takes away from MT hunters that our proposal would have preserved but I guess the Legislature knows best….

 

[Elky Welky]

Yep. Then next session a line item change of Nov. 6 to Nov. 14 and then in 2029 a line item change from Nov. 14 to the Sunday after Thanksgiving.

Letting the legislature wade in is playing with fire and it’s why up to this point every conservation group has strongly opposed the interference.

I guess my point was more in response to your earlier unnecessary and dirty jab about how MT-BHA took responsibility for the muzzy season and maintained that the legislature shouldn't set seasons. This bill doesn't set the seasons, notwithstanding Gerald's sarcasm.

Again @Gerald Martin the bill doesn't take away general season setting authority. It sets sideboards, gives them direction, but also allows them to set the general season all the way up to Nov 6 without problem. It could actually work with your plan. To Sullivan's point above, if the commission has refused to make any of the changes everyone has been asking for for over 15 years, then at some point shouldn't the legislature step in?

 

[Schaaf]

I guess my point was more in response to your earlier unnecessary and dirty jab about how MT-BHA took responsibility for the muzzy season and maintained that the legislature shouldn't set seasons.

Took responsibility for the decision? Yes.

Learned from the decision about why the outrage was there in the first place? Apparently not.

I’ll be sure to send an email off to membership and have my life member status withdrawn.

 

[Gerald Martin]

@John B. Sullivan III , what portion of HB-139 directs FWP to implement any of the restrictions proponents of HB-139 say can be implemented?

What portion of HB-139 cannot already be adopted as commission rule under the authority it currently has?

Representative Hinkle specifically stated that HB-139 was drafted in response to our proposal draft to ensure that Montana hunters can continue to hunt mule deer in the rut, so to portray this as a necessary bill because of the commission’s lack of action to address hunter’s concerns doesn’t resonate with me.

 

[Elky Welky]

Took responsibility for the decision? Yes.

Learned from the decision about why the outrage was there in the first place? Apparently not.

I’ll be sure to send an email off to membership and have my life member status withdrawn.

Actually we did, which is why we are more careful to either support or oppose bills and really try to think through our positions, and if we can't agree, we remain neutral and let people advocate as they see fit.

But neutral means just that: neutral. I don't know how else to say it and would refer you to Nameless Range's post above. I am trying to have a critical and intelligent conversation here on the merits, which doesn't seem possible at the moment. Frankly, I'm pretty disappointed in your attitude and approach right now @schaff. I don't know why, but I always expect better from you, and I really should stop.

It's clear battle lines have been drawn, and many are past trying to tease out the nuance. Today was an exhausting day for me in court and checking in intermittently on HT, trying once again to stand up for the many great volunteers in an org I've given years of my time to, and which has done significantly more good than bad. I'm also pretty disappointed in RMEF and TU for many reasons, but I'm not going to stop my memberships over it.

I'm logging off for the night before I write things I can't take back.

 

[Rie Bread]

 

[Schaaf]

Actually we did, which is why we are more careful to either support or oppose bills and really try to think through our positions, and if we can't agree, we remain neutral and let people advocate as they see fit.
But neutral means just that: neutral. I don't know how else to say it and would refer you to Nameless Range's post above. I am trying to have a critical and intelligent conversation here on the merits, which doesn't seem possible at the moment. Frankly, I'm pretty disappointed in your attitude and approach right now @schaff. I don't know why, but I always expect better from you, and I really should stop.

It's clear battle lines have been drawn, and many are past trying to tease out the nuance. Today was an exhausting day for me in court and checking in intermittently on HT, trying once again to stand up for the many great volunteers in an org I've given years of my time to, and which has done significantly more good than bad. I'm also pretty disappointed in RMEF and TU for many reasons, but I'm not going to stop my memberships over it.

I'm logging off for the night before I write things I can't take back.

That's because I'm sick of the side stepping and behind the scenes bs. 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. He can claim what we came up with as backed by big money, that we were hand selected, or that we're just pawns for an organization that none of us are a part of without even an acknowledgment of being out of line. 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.

Like you, I've traveled all over this state testifying on behalf of BHA and spent my time on the board in the past, either my beliefs have changed or the boards priorities have. I feel confident in saying it's the latter.