Montana 2025 Legislative Session

[Gerald Martin]

Someone must have one picked out they want

 

[cgasner1]

View attachment 361942

I’m packing my stuff right now to go start squatting

 

[Gerald Martin]

I’m supportive of mandatory reporting. Not sure if I like that it includes providing one bonus point to all hunters who report.

That’s going to make draw odds even more diluted.

 

[bigsky2]

I’m supportive of mandatory reporting. Not sure if I like that it includes providing one bonus point to all hunters who report.

That’s going to make draw odds even more diluted.

Agreed, but overall I think its a good bill.

 

[Gerald Martin]

I’m packing my stuff right now to go start squatting

If you’re not first you’re last, Ricky Bobby.

 

[Forkyfinder]

I’m supportive of mandatory reporting. Not sure if I like that it includes providing one bonus point to all hunters who report.

That’s going to make draw odds even more diluted.

Wait - so youre telling me we shouldnt be trading worse draw odds for nothing? What about the talk "building a bridge" or "providing an incentive" for folks consuming the resource to do the right thing?

At least its just a deer/elk point, i guess. At a minimum - it should be an extra point for sale not for free. Id prefer they not let people who fail to complete it not apply for a permit.

 

[cgasner1]

Wait - so youre telling me we shouldnt be trading worse draw odds for nothing? What about the talk "building a bridge" or "providing an incentive" for folks consuming the resource to do the right thing?

At least its just a deer/elk point, i guess. At a minimum - it should be an extra point for sale not for free. Id prefer they not let people who fail to complete it not apply for a permit.

So here is the deal I’ve had a couple people message me asking wtf you’re even talking about. 635 went down when I had my head in the sand and I have absolutely no idea what it’s about. So explain this to me like I’m 5 and sell me on why it’s a bad idea. You sell me on it and I’ll send some text today to try and help your cause

 

[Gerald Martin]

Wait - so youre telling me we shouldnt be trading worse draw odds for nothing? What about the talk "building a bridge" or "providing an incentive" for folks consuming the resource to do the right thing?

At least its just a deer/elk point, i guess. At a minimum - it should be an extra point for sale not for free. Id prefer they not let people who fail to
complete it not apply for a permit.

Snarkiness aside, I guess “for nothing” is subject to interpretation.


Something tells me that the joust is more important than the point on this issue so take my response in like manner.

 

[Forkyfinder]

Snarkiness aside, I guess “for nothing” is subject to interpretation.


Something tells me that the joust is more important than the point on this issue so take my response in like manner.

Ya know the worst part about the internet? Snark gots a lot of context missing!

The joust was meant in good fun, as all have been, @Gerald Martin probably the worst part about the internet is my snarks not always perceived the way its meant.

I appreciate all that you do and have done for wildlife, even when i vehemently disagree.

 

[Forkyfinder]

So here is the deal I’ve had a couple people message me asking wtf you’re even talking about. 635 went down when I had my head in the sand and I have absolutely no idea what it’s about. So explain this to me like I’m 5 and sell me on why it’s a bad idea. You sell me on it and I’ll send some text today to try and help your cause

I'll try to make a short summary of why, in a concise non-rant. Gonna take me a minute since this fires me up a bit.

 

[cgasner1]

I'll try to make a short summary of why, in a concise non-rant. Gonna take me a minute since this fires me up a bit.

Like I’m 5

 

[Gerald Martin]

Ya know the worst part about the internet? Snark gots a lot of context missing!

The joust was meant in good fun, as all have been, @Gerald Martin probably the worst part about the internet is my snarks not always perceived the way its meant.

I appreciate all that you do and have done for wildlife, even when i vehemently disagree.

Snarks I understand. It’s why I replied in kind…

 

[Nameless Range]

SB 307 - take money from marijuana tax revenue currently dedicated to Habitat Montana, as well as state parks,non-game wildlife, and recreation (over 30 million over the next two years) , and instead direct it to varied goals and initiatives of a marijuana tax accountability council.

Montana SB307 | 2025 | Regular Session

Summary (2025-02-24) Reallocate Montana marijuana tax revenue [(S) Hearing (S) Business, Labor and Economic Affairs]

legiscan.com

 

[Forkyfinder]

Like I’m 5

Im obviously pretty opinionated on this topic. Ill try to keep it concise with sarcasm limited and facts plentiful.

For starters - lets disect the "good" it was supposed to do. Proponents sold it as a bill to reduce crowding on public land. About 200 ish NR landowners are elgible of the 60k+ NR tags sold. If the accounting there is adding up to reduce pressure, you are no CPA and stay away from my taxes. see below

A Closer Look at HB 635: What do Montana Hunters Get Out of This?

Backcountry Hunters & Anglers is the voice for our wild public lands, waters and wildlife.

www.backcountryhunters.org

Its also supposed to "provide incentive" for NR landowners providing habitat for elk. I suppose some of this would make sense - but my issue is that nothing is promised or traded with strings. Its the mere "hope" that this gets some elk on the mountain or improved access to the elk that do exist - in exchange for something valuable enough to be marketed as a selling point of multi million dollar ranches. Proponents claim that "no one buys" the land just for an elk tag, and i suppose if dramatically increased odds for a permit wasnt included, id agree. More on that later. . .

I think this sums up the things it didnt accomplish. But id also like to point out that Montana Citizens Elk Management Coalition (MCEMC) was united in opposition. When no one on a citizen group who was involved with the elk management plan cant find a reason to be behind it - and they are united against it - it is loud justification to me.

Montana sportsmen groups oppose HB 635

Montanans have long fought to make sure that hunting is available for all, equitably, and not just reserved for the wealthy and well-connected.

www.livingstonenterprise.com

Now on to the harm done in a part 2 post and 3

 

[Forkyfinder]

Theres a lot wrong with those draw odds, at least if you value the permits not being kings deer. Considering that its much easier to draw as a NR landowner than a R, thats problematic to me. For me, maybe this simply about values i have in regards to our high value species/tags especially.

If i were a NR, who had bought points, i would feel that my points were worse devalued at least 15%

 

[Gulf of America]

Dude it's not even lunch time and you're at 18%?! Living on the edge, brother.

 

[cgasner1]

View attachment 361985View attachment 361986View attachment 361987View attachment 361988

Theres a lot wrong with those draw odds, at least if you value the permits not being kings deer. Considering that its much easier to draw as a NR landowner than a R, thats problematic to me. For me, maybe this simply about values i have in regards to our high value species/tags especially.

If i were a NR, who had bought points, i would feel that my points were worse devalued at least 15%

Also if you were a nr that just bought points you have paid any property taxes. You probably haven’t visited the state other than hunting season and even then had a truck bed full of mountain houses to get deep.

Not to derail you continue

 

[bigsky2]

Im obviously pretty opinionated on this topic. Ill try to keep it concise with sarcasm limited and facts plentiful.

For starters - lets disect the "good" it was supposed to do. Proponents sold it as a bill to reduce crowding on public land. About 200 ish NR landowners are elgible of the 60k+ NR tags sold. If the accounting there is adding up to reduce pressure, you are no CPA and stay away from my taxes. see below

A Closer Look at HB 635: What do Montana Hunters Get Out of This?

Backcountry Hunters & Anglers is the voice for our wild public lands, waters and wildlife.

www.backcountryhunters.org

Its also supposed to "provide incentive" for NR landowners providing habitat for elk. I suppose some of this would make sense - but my issue is that nothing is promised or traded with strings. Its the mere "hope" that this gets some elk on the mountain or improved access to the elk that do exist - in exchange for something valuable enough to be marketed as a selling point of multi million dollar ranches. Proponents claim that "no one buys" the land just for an elk tag, and i suppose if dramatically increased odds for a permit wasnt included, id agree. More on that later. . .

I think this sums up the things it didnt accomplish. But id also like to point out that Montana Citizens Elk Management Coalition (MCEMC) was united in opposition. When no one on a citizen group who was involved with the elk management plan cant find a reason to be behind it - and they are united against it - it is loud justification to me.

Montana sportsmen groups oppose HB 635

Montanans have long fought to make sure that hunting is available for all, equitably, and not just reserved for the wealthy and well-connected.

www.livingstonenterprise.com

Now on to the harm done in a part 2 post and 3

Pretty sure HB 635 was part of the MCEMC's legislative package last session. https://www.montanaelk.org/media/xdso647sc2lgyxsbbus5oa64mmm6z8

 

[Forkyfinder]

As far as more harm done.

1. What is the enforcement mechanism for anyone to prove they did or did hunt on their own land? Seems like - and hear me out here - its probably worth the risk to hunt beyond it if you are worth 10 million plus.
2. More and more of the traditional land owners are growing broke. A major reason is the market value of their property increasing in value is the recreational value. Pretty big incentive if you can cut to the front of the line on permits.
3. Its a very dangerous slippery slope. Think if the acreages limits changed, or were a tag per each 2500 acres, or species were added, etc. This is probably the single biggest issue i have with it.

Lastly - i want to point out that more people seem to take advantage of this than damage hunts (less than 50 ish, apparently).

 

[cgasner1]

As far as more harm done.

1. What is the enforcement mechanism for anyone to prove they did or did hunt on their own land? Seems like - and hear me out here - its probably worth the risk to hunt beyond it if you are worth 10 million plus.

By that logic what’s to stop them from just hunting the ranch without any tag? Being worth 10 million won’t stop you from loosing rights in 48 states

2. More and more of the traditional land owners are growing broke. A major reason is the market value of their property increasing in value is the recreational value. Pretty big incentive if you can cut to the front of the line on permits.

Everyone’s land is increased I haven’t met any ranchers that have gone broke. Couple that retired

3. Its a very dangerous slippery slope. Think if the acreages limits changed, or were a tag per each 2500 acres, or species were added, etc. This is probably the single biggest issue i have with it.

These tags are all out of a currently available pool of tags so I don’t see that happening

Lastly - i want to point out that more people seem to take advantage of this than damage hunts (less than 50 ish, apparently).

I also think the nr lop numbers will be reduced by next year