A risk thats worth taking. Every time.
It is hunting w/o a valid license (citable offense) and loss of eligibility.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
A risk thats worth taking. Every time.
Sounds great. Lets charge that weird couple from Iowa who probably helped craft this thing.It is hunting w/o a valid license (citable offense) and loss of eligibility.
They didn't get that through 635. They got that through the Landowner Preference Permit Pool that has been around since 1976 that doesn't require you to hunt your own private land and has also been addressed this session with SB 235 which passed the Senate recently 50-0. So I think it's fair to say a few people cared.Sounds great. Lets charge that weird couple from Iowa who probably helped craft this thing.
They hunted on land they didnt own twice, put it on tv, and not a single person seemed to care![]()
Nothing wrong with a landowner getting a tag to hunt their own land. Most states do that, and I know one state that the tags are free for the landowner.What are the benefits and what were the costs? Who benefits and how?
Answer those questions - and unless you can afford a rich guys ranch to get a gimme elk permit in a LE unit i think youll find out.
Sounds great. Lets charge that weird couple from Iowa who probably helped craft this thing.
They hunted on land they didnt own twice, put it on tv, and not a single person seemed to care![]()
Good bridges to good places.Couple of very good bills up tomorrow:
HB 763 - expands the Block Management Program to allow for access corridors. FWP used to do this but eliminated the rule recently. @Elky Welky & CO at MTBHA are bringing this forward. I'm excited for this one as I think it will help increase access to landlocked public land like PAL but is a bit looser than PAL in terms of who can use it. It's up in House FWP.
SB 441 - This is the Landowner Access Enforcement Network. It would provide for a network of BMA's that can exclude people convicted of criminal and Fish & Wildlife infractions from accessing multiple BMA's. It has a 3 strikes and your own provision, with scaled timeouts for your first (current season) and second strike (up to 3 years), then permanent expulsion for your third. It's from the PLPW folks and is trying to get landowners re-engaged with Block Management in order to bring back some of the producers who left due to poor hunter behavior. It's up in Senate Fish & Game.
I got that feeling by questioning from the Committee Members. 100% of the comments were in favor. So much for "representing their constituents."And now it’s been tabled.
HB 763 (the bill @Ben Lamb talked about two posts up) passed out of committee easily.
So not all bad news.
I’m sad to hear that. I don’t know a hunter in Montana that doesn’t want to see mandatory reporting implemented. Did the department just say they thought it’d cost too much or give the same tired line about how effective they think their phone surveys are?And now it’s been tabled.
HB 763 (the bill @Ben Lamb talked about two posts up) passed out of committee easily.
So not all bad news.
Honestly, I don't think there was one question that asked about the cost to implement. In my opinion, there was definitely some institutional bias in the informational witness answers. But I agree with @Big Fin, even though there were no opponents, I didn't have a good feeling about it after the hearing ended.I’m sad to hear that. I don’t know a hunter in Montana that doesn’t want to see mandatory reporting implemented. Did the department just say they thought it’d cost too much or give the same tired line about how effective they think their phone surveys are?
In other news, very happy start to HB763, one of the two bills we have been working to advance this session. We’ve been working on some materials for those interested, but here’s a good start: https://www.backcountryhunters.org/montana_hb_763_accessing_public_lands_through_block_management
There was a "carrot vs stick" approach issue mentioned. I wonder if the fine was too much punitive damage. I can see that - as much as it annoys the shit outta me - but all the sniveling and what not.I’m sad to hear that. I don’t know a hunter in Montana that doesn’t want to see mandatory reporting implemented. Did the department just say they thought it’d cost too much or give the same tired line about how effective they think their phone surveys are?
In other news, very happy start to HB763, one of the two bills we have been working to advance this session. We’ve been working on some materials for those interested, but here’s a good start: https://www.backcountryhunters.org/montana_hb_763_accessing_public_lands_through_block_management