Montana 2025 Legislative Session

[Elky Welky]

HJ 24, the ill-conceived resolution to support Utah's war on public land, was killed today. 66-34. Thanks to all who spoke up!

 

[Elky Welky]

Even more good news! HB283, the bill to raise more money for wildlife that RMEF and WSF nonsensically opposed (see earlier in this thread today), which would allow lotteries or auctions for the statewide Moose and Sheep tags, has been resurrected and taken off the table and will be going to the Senate floor for a vote. This is the last step of the journey before going to the governor's desk, so please stay tuned for an action alert and to contact your senator and let them know you agree with raising more money for wildlife!

I don't get to say this often, but it was a good day at the legislature. 307 getting tabled, HJ 24 getting voted down, and HB283 advancing... We don't see good days like this very often.

I'm gonna go have a beer and will sleep a little better tonight. But we can't celebrate until the governor signs. Stay vigilant all!

 

[Schaaf]

Even more good news! HB283, the bill to raise more money for wildlife that RMEF and WSF nonsensically opposed (see earlier in this thread today), which would allow lotteries or auctions for the statewide Moose and Sheep tags, has been resurrected and taken off the table and will be going to the Senate floor for a vote. This is the last step of the journey before going to the governor's desk, so please stay tuned for an action alert and to contact your senator and let them know you agree with raising more money for wildlife!

I don't get to say this often, but it was a good day at the legislature. 307 getting tabled, HJ 24 getting voted down, and HB283 advancing... We don't see good days like this very often.

I'm gonna go have a beer and will sleep a little better tonight. But we can't celebrate until the governor signs. Stay vigilant all!

And another win: SJ 14 (Resolution to release Federal WSA's) was tabled in Committee.

 

[Goodfish]

Elk foundation working against hunters

Right before the last legislative session, an op-ed called out the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation for not showing up “to oppose the guaranteed tags for outfitters, the bulls for billionaires program, efforts to award transferable tags, attacks on conservation easements, or the theft of...

dailyinterlake.com

Interesting piece i saw on RMEF.

I didnt realize that RMEF was for liberalizing the war on elk (sb270). Did they support 519 to repeal 635 from last session?

Kind of makes me a bit sour to give them more of my money. Its true that we all cant run every organization we are members of - its also true not being a member of one org frees up more money for me to give to orgs who dont argue for the detriment of public land elk hunters.

Reminds me of when Don Thomas was fired by Ducks Unlimited for supporting public access after pressure from a major DU donor. Occasionally the money makes an organization lose their compass.

 

[cgasner1]

Sb 238 got pulled back off the table and is headed to the senate floor. With the amount of dislike ht has for crossbows this is a good bill to try and support. Mbha is trying to raise funds to help with modifying draw locks to keep cross bows out of archery season

 

[Nameless Range]

Elk foundation working against hunters

Right before the last legislative session, an op-ed called out the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation for not showing up “to oppose the guaranteed tags for outfitters, the bulls for billionaires program, efforts to award transferable tags, attacks on conservation easements, or the theft of...

dailyinterlake.com

Interesting piece i saw on RMEF.

I didnt realize that RMEF was for liberalizing the war on elk (sb270). Did they support 519 to repeal 635 from last session?

Kind of makes me a bit sour to give them more of my money. Its true that we all cant run every organization we are members of - its also true not being a member of one org frees up more money for me to give to orgs who dont argue for the detriment of public land elk hunters.

When I give money to the RMEF, I do chiefly view them as a land trust organization. They are great at that. In fact, hiking up from this old cabin, I shot a limit of blues last October on a section they bought in the mountains south of me and sent them another check on that day.



Conservation orgs are a tough nut to crack. I think when they become big and national, mission creep is more likely to kick in, and they all of a sudden have too broad of an undertaking to do it well. They are no longer local. I suppose the organizational structure to mitigate this issue is to have local chapters. It's almost a paradox of sorts. Often to be effective, particularly in the long run, conservation orgs need big money. To acquire big money, they need to get money from beyond the local. Once money is acquired from beyond the local, they aren't necessarily beholden to the givers, but they've broadened the contingent they represent. Their opposition to 283 was rent-seeking behavior, not based on principles, but on their ability to generate revenue. It's a dirty business full of deals with different devils, and if I detach myself from how pissed off it makes me, it's tough to answer the question of whether or not the deals were worth it. The hard truth is sometimes they are, but it's also true that sometimes groups debase themselves into oblivion in my mind. The RMEF has made terrible choices in the past (their support of the roadless area release act in 2011 comes to mind), but I think they learned from that and have done a lot of good work since. I hope similar redeeming behavior reveals itself.

 

[Forkyfinder]

When I give money to the RMEF, I do chiefly view them as a land trust organization. They are great at that. In fact, hiking up from this old cabin, I shot a limit of blues last October on a section they bought in the mountains south of me and sent them another check on that day.

View attachment 366478

Conservation orgs are a tough nut to crack. I think when they become big and national, mission creep is more likely to kick in, and they all of a sudden have too broad of an undertaking to do it well. They are no longer local. I suppose the organizational structure to mitigate this issue is to have local chapters. It's almost a paradox of sorts. Often to be effective, particularly in the long run, conservation orgs need big money. To acquire big money, they need to get money from beyond the local. Once money is acquired from beyond the local, they aren't necessarily beholden to the givers, but they've broadened the contingent they represent. Their opposition to 283 was rent-seeking behavior, not based on principles, but on their ability to generate revenue. It's a dirty business full of deals with different devils, and if I detach myself from how pissed off it makes me, it's tough to answer the question of whether or not the deals were worth it. The hard truth is sometimes they are, but it's also true that sometimes groups debase themselves into oblivion in my mind. The RMEF has made terrible choices in the past (their support of the roadless area release act in 2011 comes to mind), but I think they learned from that and have done a lot of good work since. I hope similar redeeming behavior reveals itself.

Well im going to do the responsible thing, write them and inform them of my distaste for that and not just bitch about it on the internet.

I hope some more folks do as well.

 

[Elky Welky]

Reminds me of when Don Thomas was fired by Ducks Unlimited for supporting public access after pressure from a major DU donor. Occasionally the money makes an organization lose their compass.

Like I said earlier, it’s incredibly sad. There are many great people involved with RMEF and I’m sure they don’t have any idea their lobbyist is out there trying to kill good bill.

When I give money to the RMEF, I do chiefly view them as a land trust organization. They are great at that. In fact, hiking up from this old cabin, I shot a limit of blues last October on a section they bought in the mountains south of me and sent them another check on that day.

View attachment 366478

Conservation orgs are a tough nut to crack. I think when they become big and national, mission creep is more likely to kick in, and they all of a sudden have too broad of an undertaking to do it well. They are no longer local. I suppose the organizational structure to mitigate this issue is to have local chapters. It's almost a paradox of sorts. Often to be effective, particularly in the long run, conservation orgs need big money. To acquire big money, they need to get money from beyond the local. Once money is acquired from beyond the local, they aren't necessarily beholden to the givers, but they've broadened the contingent they represent. Their opposition to 283 was rent-seeking behavior, not based on principles, but on their ability to generate revenue. It's a dirty business full of deals with different devils, and if I detach myself from how pissed off it makes me, it's tough to answer the question of whether or not the deals were worth it. The hard truth is sometimes they are, but it's also true that sometimes groups debase themselves into oblivion in my mind. The RMEF has made terrible choices in the past (their support of the roadless area release act in 2011 comes to mind), but I think they learned from that and have done a lot of good work since. I hope similar redeeming behavior reveals itself.

100%. I certainly don't blame the volunteers and the countless people that give to RMEF, nor would I predict most folks in the org know that their lobbyist in Montana did this. By and large RMEF has done amazing work since its inception. I'm not taking my RMEF license plate holder off the back of my truck or revoking my membership over this. My own very personal gripe with them is for doing an aspen restoration project not too far from my lifetime elk camp, and then telegraphing it far and wide at every banquet they did a few years ago. Our spot is nothing like it was due to significant overcrowding, but such is elk hunting on public land in Montana anywhere these days, and I think there are many other factors just as responsible. That's not really on RMEF for trying to do something good for habitat. And just because someone else saw we were ahead of them but still went and shot an elk out from under me and @MLaird last season, my cousin still killed a dandy bull.

And I did just that @Forkyfinder. I emailed their state leadership and let them know I am a member, I believe in the mission of RMEF, and I would like to understand why they directed their lobbyist to advocate against opportunities to raise more money for wildlife.

Perhaps the most concerning part about it now, however, is the lack of response.

 

[Forkyfinder]

Anyone know when HB907 hits the house?

 

[Elky Welky]

And I did just that @Forkyfinder. I emailed their state leadership and let them know I am a member, I believe in the mission of RMEF, and I would like to understand why they directed their lobbyist to advocate against opportunities to raise more money for wildlife.

Perhaps the most concerning part about it now, however, is the lack of response.

We spoke up, and they listened. I commend the Elk Foundation on their integrity here, even if they never emailed me back personally. I'm a little disappointed they aren't supporting a simple bill to raise more funds for wildlife, but as someone who understands the value of being neutral (for whatever reason), that also means they aren't opposed; which is important to note. I'm glad they corrected the record.

RMEF Works for Hunters, Wildlife and Conservation

Below is a Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation op-ed sent to several media outlets in response to editorial comments critical of our efforts. Immediately below the [...]

rmef.org

 

[Forkyfinder]

We spoke up, and they listened. I commend the Elk Foundation on their integrity here, even if they never emailed me back personally. I'm a little disappointed they aren't supporting a simple bill to raise more funds for wildlife, but as someone who understands the value of being neutral (for whatever reason), that also means they aren't opposed; which is important to note. I'm glad they corrected the record.

RMEF Works for Hunters, Wildlife and Conservation

Below is a Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation op-ed sent to several media outlets in response to editorial comments critical of our efforts. Immediately below the [...]

rmef.org

I actually dont like what they said at all - to be honest.

"RMEF is unapologetic in our belief that healthy elk populations should be based on science, maintained at biologically and socially sustainable levels with hunting as the primary management tool, and we support impactful programs designed to increase hunter access on both public and private lands. The Montana Fish, Wildlife Commission has the authority – by law – to set regulations and quotas for elk tags in specific areas where populations are under or over objective. Following the amendment process, which we supported, the proposed legislation limits the additional cow tags on PUBLIC and private lands to two. At the end of the “sausage-making,” RMEF supported SB 270 as an effective approach to management based on science and not politics."

This is simply factually incorrect. The limit of 2 elk licenses only applied to public lands.

 

[Carnage2011]

I actually dont like what they said at all - to be honest.

"RMEF is unapologetic in our belief that healthy elk populations should be based on science, maintained at biologically and socially sustainable levels with hunting as the primary management tool, and we support impactful programs designed to increase hunter access on both public and private lands. The Montana Fish, Wildlife Commission has the authority – by law – to set regulations and quotas for elk tags in specific areas where populations are under or over objective. Following the amendment process, which we supported, the proposed legislation limits the additional cow tags on PUBLIC and private lands to two. At the end of the “sausage-making,” RMEF supported SB 270 as an effective approach to management based on science and not politics."

This is simply factually incorrect. The limit of 2 elk licenses only applied to public lands.

Let’s take a unit like 411 for example. The population has been drastically over objective with the majority (90+%) being on private. Would you rather us give out unlimited cow tags on private land and try to get numbers within objective? Or are we so anti “rich landowner” that we’d rather see the unit end up as a general tag because of the population issues? That would effectively kill anything good on public land.

To be honest, I’d rather it be limited to 1 on public and 4,797,739,271 on private. We already shoot the shit out of everything on public in many of these over objectives units. There is a whole bunch of land that we will never get access to, and if everything we do revolves around public access, our hunting will get worse.

There is a place where we could have private land only tags and it could benefit the public and the private. In MT that is construed as a cardinal sin that caters to “rich landowners” and therefore we prefer to just give out more cow tags unit wide….which puts all the pressure on public.

 

[Forkyfinder]

Let’s take a unit like 411 for example. The population has been drastically over objective with the majority (90+%) being on private. Would you rather us give out unlimited cow tags on private land and try to get numbers within objective? Or are we so anti “rich landowner” that we’d rather see the unit end up as a general tag because of the population issues? That would effectively kill anything good on public land.

To be honest, I’d rather it be limited to 1 on public and 4,797,739,271 on private. We already shoot the shit out of everything on public in many of these over objectives units. There is a whole bunch of land that we will never get access to, and if everything we do revolves around public access, our hunting will get worse.

There is a place where we could have private land only tags and it could benefit the public and the private. In MT that is construed as a cardinal sin that caters to “rich landowners” and therefore we prefer to just give out more cow tags unit wide….which puts all the pressure on public.

So, by your logic, the elk in that unit would/should have been completely wiped out prior to our latest elk plan update? Additionally - theres nothing stopping FWP from limiting B/cow tags to private land only as is.

It works well when the example is a unit with private land, with a billionares ranch that could single handedly hold the entire unit objective. You could make the place have unlimited private land/transferable/cow/bull/thermals/rockets or whatever other stipulations. If that landowner wants more elk - theyve got them - in spite of what every other land owner/fwp want.

Wasnt there a big update in the latest elk management plan that included not counting the elk that live predominately on private land?

 

[8andcounting]

So, by your logic, the elk in that unit would/should have been completely wiped out prior to our latest elk plan update?

It works well when the example is a unit with private land, with a billionares ranch that could single handedly hold the entire unit objective. You could make the place have unlimited private land/transferable/cow/bull/thermals/rockets or whatever other stipulations. If that landowner wants more elk - theyve got them - in spite of what every other land owner/fwp want.

Wasnt there a big update in the latest elk management plan that included not counting the elk that live predominately on private land?

So filling an elk tag in 411 should be no problem on public then ? Is that what you’re saying ?

 

[Forkyfinder]

So filling an elk tag in 411 should be no problem on public then ? Is that what you’re saying ?

No. Not at all. What im saying - they (fwp) could have isssued "4,797,739,271" private land only, or valid anywhere, unlimited to individuals and theyd have still been over "objective" in that unit anyway.

 

[Carnage2011]

So, by your logic, the elk in that unit would/should have been completely wiped out prior to our latest elk plan update? Additionally - theres nothing stopping FWP from limiting B/cow tags to private land only as is.

It works well when the example is a unit with private land, with a billionares ranch that could single handedly hold the entire unit objective. You could make the place have unlimited private land/transferable/cow/bull/thermals/rockets or whatever other stipulations. If that landowner wants more elk - theyve got them - in spite of what every other land owner/fwp want.

Wasnt there a big update in the latest elk management plan that included not counting the elk that live predominately on private land?

I’m not sure where you pulled that one from. What I said is exactly the playbook that UPOM tries to argue. If we end up with 30 years of over objective elk in half the state, they could eventually win if they have the right audience. I also think you need to read the current EMP and the previous one.

Your second paragraph is literally half of the state right now.

Your third paragraph is false.

 

[Carnage2011]

No. Not at all. What im saying - they (fwp) could have isssued "4,797,739,271" private land only, or valid anywhere, unlimited to individuals and theyd have still been over "objective" in that unit anyway.

This is true. The point you missed is that it wouldn’t lower the population of public land elk.

 

[Forkyfinder]

This is true. The point you missed is that it wouldn’t lower the population of public land elk.

Interesting. Theres plenty of places where they are the same elk - and unit 411's elk dont define the rest of the states problems.

 

[Carnage2011]

Interesting. Theres plenty of places where they are the same elk - and unit 411's elk dont define the rest of the states problems.

I used 411 as an example. I could make the same case in 9 other units off the top of my head. That one was just an easy one because most people are familiar with the Wilks elk situation.

 

[Forkyfinder]

the playbook that UPOM tries to argue.

So you want to bolster their future lawsuits from people like UPOM?

Providing "lattitude" for the department to issue more tags where "over objective" is compulsion to do so, legally speaking, if the deparment must do "all it can" to manage for those population objectives.

There are public land elk, private land elk, and elk that utilize anything in between. Unlimited private land tags in the wrong district, where a lot of elk are both, is bad news for public land elk.