Luke_with_a_lab
Well-known member
I wish one of these lawmakers would grow a pair and introduce another bill to allow corner hopping....alas, it will probably never happen...
Montana Legislative Topics - 2021 Legislative Session
- Thread starter Big Fin
- Start date
Straight Arrow
Well-known member
Alas, this particular majority of lawmakers is more likely to say, "I wish someone would grow a pair and introduce a bill that would prohibit hunting of public sections which are included in checkerboard array with private sections."
Yep, you are a realist too. But let's remain committed to keep lobbying for it anyhow.
LC1913 - add two more commission members, "At least one member must be experienced in the breeding and management of domestic livestock"
Gianforte was already going to get to hand pick 3 commission members during his term, might as well let him pick 5.
Gianforte was already going to get to hand pick 3 commission members during his term, might as well let him pick 5.
Gevock
Well-known member
Here's a couple articles about some of the bills.
billingsgazette.com
billingsgazette.com
Montana lawmakers considering several wolf management bills
A decade after Montana resumed state management of wolves, including hunting and trapping seasons, management and legislation continues to be controversial.
Bill would expand Fish and Wildlife Commission from 5 to 7
The governor-appointed and Senate-confirmed commission is the oversight board for Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks. It is one of the highest profile nonelected bodies in the state.
Gevock
Well-known member
SB 115, requiring state land board approval for Habitat MT conservation easements, is up today. Consider this and weigh in:
PLEASE WRITE YOUR OWN MESSAGE, but hit these points:
Habitat Montana benefits working farmers and ranchers with working capital to expand their operations, and they have private property rights to do what they want with their land.
This program improves relations between hunters and landowners, opens up access for hunters, and benefits wildlife management.
Habitat Montana is working better than it ever has, and there’s no need to add a layer of government bureaucracy to complete good projects that have taken years to work out.
Please vote NO on SB 115 and support Montana’s landowners and hunters.
Call and leave a message for the Senate Fish and Game Committee at 406-444-4800.
Contact the Senate Fish and Game Committee HERE.
PLEASE WRITE YOUR OWN MESSAGE, but hit these points:
Habitat Montana benefits working farmers and ranchers with working capital to expand their operations, and they have private property rights to do what they want with their land.
This program improves relations between hunters and landowners, opens up access for hunters, and benefits wildlife management.
Habitat Montana is working better than it ever has, and there’s no need to add a layer of government bureaucracy to complete good projects that have taken years to work out.
Please vote NO on SB 115 and support Montana’s landowners and hunters.
Call and leave a message for the Senate Fish and Game Committee at 406-444-4800.
Contact the Senate Fish and Game Committee HERE.
- Fill out the form provided.
- Select Committees
- Select (S) Fish and Game
- Select Bill Type (SB) and Bill Number 115
- Select Against
- Provide your message
Gerald Martin
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2009
- Messages
- 8,643
Don
Done. Thanks for making it easy. Links and steps like you outlined are incredibly helpful to make our voices heard.
Carnage2011
Well-known member
I don’t think it’s a bad thing to have 7 commissioners. We have 7 regions in the state and they can each be represented equally that way.
Gianforte isn’t going to be there forever. If it allows us to have better voices for the wildlife within a unit then I’m all for it.
I agree, it makes a lot of sense from that stand point.
Having livestock producers on the commission isn't bad either. Heck, John Lane was probably one of the better sportsman advocates on the commission and he's a multi-generational rancher from the Devil's Kitchen area.
Frankly, if you could put two livestock producers on the commish at any one time, and get rid of the continual barrage of legislative
Term limits have ensured that every freshman legislator whose village sends them to Helena will show up with 75 ideas to save the world, and 74.5 of them have been tried before.
You will never erase the business of legislatively bashing FWP in MT
Wishful thinking, I know.....
Straight Arrow
Well-known member
'Still think it would be better if ... rather than the legislature meeting ninety days every two years ... they would convene two days every ninety years! 
SAJ-99
Well-known member
Agree. Is the problem the freshman legislators are greeted by an army of lobbyist that will explain where the bathroom is and how the process works and probably buy them a beer after the first day?
That is how the process was explained to me by a termed out legislator. Fish and wildlife, and even hunters, don't have the same clout in lobbying. This member also explained that there a lack of functioning brains cells for a lot of the group. The member and I disagreed on a lot, but it was funny to hear him explain the debacle that is the Montana legislature. Surprising that anything gets done.
The problem that Montana is facing in relation to lobbyists & the balance of power is that term limits have placed a significant amount of institutional memory in the hands of people who profit from conflict & seek not the best policy for all, but the best policy for those who pay them. Long-time agency personnel & Legislative staff are often disregarded, or were during my tenure in the capitol, because they were all viewed as out of touch bureaucrats who only wanted more gov't.
It's easy to make grand generalizations here, but essentially, yeah - legislators show up, get wined & dined and hit the meat & cheese circuit to get free food & booze, then lobbyists ply their trade.
The conservation community has some top notch advocates who work the session, but as a group, there is no interim work that gets done, unless there is a specific bill or program they want to work on. The funding for dedicated, full-time Gov't Relations professionals does not exist, except for Montana Trout Unlimited & MT Wilderness Assn. MWF has staff that focuses on a ton of program areas, and the legislature is a part of the overall work plan, but no full-time, just GR person. BHA has a staff of 1 for the MT Chapter, and no time to do a lot of that work. Other groups don't engage at all during the interim.
The other thing working against hunters is that our groups don't play the pay-to-play game. They don't people out & lavish meals on them, and they don't go around giving gifts to legislators, take them hunting, etc.
There are a lot of solid contract lobbyists that work the session, and do it ethically & effectively. There are a lot of sleazebags who do as well. Ultimately, you win by developing strong relationships with legislators so you can work with them quickly & efficiently, rather than buy their votes with whiskey and shitty steaks.
SAJ-99
Well-known member
Good stuff. Thanks. 115 drives me crazy because those that complain about the inefficiency of government and the need to make it smaller is trying to may a current process that works well more inefficient and bureaucratic.
On 115, this summary was in the Billings Gazette article (Note: a Ducks Unlimited representative was quoted in the article arguing against 115).
"Other organizations including the Montana Wildlife Federation, Montana Trout Unlimited, Back Country Hunters and Anglers and The Trust for Public Land also came in as opponents to the bill Thursday. The legislation did not see anyone testify in support."
We will see what happens, but I suspect it will go through anyway.
I do think BHA had a representative testify remotely yesterday. I believe she was the caller from Whitefish or in that area.
It's a good bill to highlight. The chair for that committee is a neighbor to the Stensons, and was part of the effort to not approve their easement. Not sure why, but he really doesn't like being close to conserved ground for some reason. Nice that they gave him the chairmanship for Senate Fish & Game, but if you look at the past 2 chairs, it's about par for the course.
115 is more retribution against a democrat governor than anything else. It's also how some want to try and kill Habitat Montana. If you look at the LC's, there's another to do away entirely with Habitat Montana's ability to purchase land. If you combine those two bills, then it puts politicians squarely in charge of conservation easements, and it means no more WMA's or even small acquisitions for unlocking landlocked public land.
115 is gov't overreach, for sure but at it's core, it's about undermining Habitat Montana and removing the most effective conservation tool Montana has.
As soon as she finished testifying Hinebauch said something like, “Thank you, although I do not appreciate the threats.”
I wasn’t sure what comments were threats.
Similar threads
