Montana Legislature - 2019

[Ben Lamb]

I compensate for those nightmares (worse-the realities...) by chasin' fish like that on an iconic river like that - one which I used to watch Curt Gowdy on American Sportsman and dream of someday "doing that". Today I live "that", gotta' give back..............................
Lemme' know how many doubles of Makers Mark it takes to make you feel better, betcha' I feel better after fishin' than you do after drinkin'

Save your cash for more trips to Helena. 102 bill draft requests as of this morning. Many of them are antagonistic to wildlife and programs designed to keep species like sage grouse from getting listed under the ESA.

 

[onpoint]

As long as a majority of Montanans keep electing a majority of Republican malcontents (there are a few decent GOP legislators - I think 4....) who are hellbent on screwing up anything to do with our great outdoorsmen's/women's resources those sportsmen/women can expect to expect more of the biannual bullshit.

"Same as it ever was"..............................

 

[Ben Lamb]

133 bill draft requests.

This session is shaping up to be a barn-burner. We'll be fighting against a number of issues that we've either covered in the past, or are a result of actions taken by the DOI related to Sage Grouse management.

Looking through the bill titles, I'm seeing trespass issues coming up front &center as well. I expect an Idaho-style bill to come forward, and there's a number of bills related to defunding wolf management in favor of selling fewer tags, paying for black bear depredation, and a host of yet to be determined bills under the generally revise titles. These generally revise bills can be almost anything given their titles.

We'll likely see a concentrated effort to eliminate Habitat Montana altogether, with the majority seeking compromise to only hamstring MT's most successful conservation program 50%.

We may not hit the level of bills that we did in 2011, but it's looking like it will be a similar session in terms of attacks on FWP, conservation & wildlife management.

Eat lots of ham over the holidays. We'll need the energy.

 

[Ben Lamb]

139 Bill draft requests, with 8 introduced already.


Saddle up, buckaroos. It's going to be a rough ride over the next 4 months.

We're looking at everything from adding crossbows to the archery season to eliminating conservation programs entirely.

 

[MLaird]

So Ben, what's the best way to communicate with the legislators on these committees once it all starts? I found on the legislature/committee tab on the mt.gov website, is there one email address to send an email to the whole committee? Or do I just go to each individual legislator and copy their email address and group them? Just want to be prepared to correspond with them as bills are being introduced/considered.

Thanks!

 

[Ben Lamb]

Best way is to call them. Each legislator has a phone number and email listed. The main committees that sportsmen watch are the House & Senate Fish & Game committees & the Natural Resources Committees (public lands, state trust lands, etc). I'll try and pull together some links and post here for folks who want to contact legislators. I have a few meetings today, but should be free in the evening to get on it.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Today is day 1 of the MT Legislature. We're off the races early this session with the first committee hearing for House Fish, Wildlife and Parks scheduled for Thursday.

Two bills are on the docket

HB 43: This is a repeat of the bill from last session to increase the use of the 454 program. This bill got hijacked last session to give away tags without any real sideboards.

HB104: This bill would give block management cooperators free conservation & base licenses as well as a free AIS pass. This is an agency bill.

If you want to contact the committee, you can send your email to the contacts listed on the committee page (by clicking through the individual legislator page, or send them to the chair and vice-chairs. Or call the Legislative call line at (406) 444-4800 and leave a message for the House Fish, Wildlife and Parks committee.

 

[Sytes]

Thanks Ben.

Curious,

...and finding a better funding mixture for Aquatic Invasive Species rather than just putting it on the backs of Anglers.

Does a resident and non resident boat fee not float? If anyone wants to place a boat in MT Waters, have a daily, weekly or yearly boat decal - any boat... If it requires state inspection, charge 'em. Rack up unknowns with Jonny on the spot boat decal at the inspection stations?
I imagine it's been tossed around though... Meh.

Anyhow, I appreciate your posts.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Charles,

There is a strong liklihood that a boat stamp of some kind comes in to play. Folks are also dickering over having hydropower pay for part of this as well.

Putting this just on recreationists is short-sighted, IMP. Irrigators, hydro, power consumers, etc, all have a stake in maintaining water quality, and since they do, they should look to foot some of the bill as well.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Majority Floor Leader Brad Tschida (R-Missoula) has an interesting bill to eliminate public involvement in elk issues related to landowner tolerance.

https://leg.mt.gov/bills/2019/billpdf/LC1997.pdf

 

[JohnCushman]

No worries

I'm a contract lobbyist who works for a variety of conservation organizations.

And a sexeh biotch

 

[Gerald Martin]

Majority Floor Leader Brad Tschida (R-Missoula) has an interesting bill to eliminate public involvement in elk issues related to landowner tolerance.

https://leg.mt.gov/bills/2019/billpdf/LC1997.pdf

I love the conflicting language stating that science and biology must be the only considerations for setting elk numbers at the beginning and then later on saying that the setting of population objectives must take into consideration affected private landowners.

I am a private landowner in NW Montana. We don't have enough elk in our area and I think the only appropriate way to augment populations is to let populations grow in the rest of the state till the overflow makes it to us.

 

[What Map]

Ben, thanks for the updates. We appreciate them.

 

[shoots-straight]

I love the conflicting language stating that science and biology must be the only considerations for setting elk numbers at the beginning and then later on saying that the setting of population objectives must take into consideration affected private landowners.

I am a private landowner in NW Montana. We don't have enough elk in our area and I think the only appropriate way to augment populations is to let populations grow in the rest of the state till the overflow makes it to us.

That's the old "Wanting your cake and eating it too" Bill.

 

[Ben Lamb]

I love the conflicting language stating that science and biology must be the only considerations for setting elk numbers at the beginning and then later on saying that the setting of population objectives must take into consideration affected private landowners.

I am a private landowner in NW Montana. We don't have enough elk in our area and I think the only appropriate way to augment populations is to let populations grow in the rest of the state till the overflow makes it to us.

Nothing says "The session is in" like trying to eliminate the public from public wildlife.

First committee hearing is Thursday. HB 104 & HB43 are up. Get your comments in if you want too.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Our first truly bad bill has been introduced. HB 161 by Majority Floor Leader Brad Tschida is likely to be assigned to a committee today.

The bill would essentially eliminate public involvement in wildlife decision making. It's a poorly written bill, that undermines the public trust, and tries to take wildlife away from the citizens and hand it over to the government and a select group of people. If you'd like to politely ask Representative Tschida to not go forward with this bill, you can contact him here: https://leg.mt.gov/legislator-information/roster/individual/20191/16525

 

[Sytes]

Thanks Ben. Input sent.

Our first truly bad bill has been introduced. HB 161 by Majority Floor Leader Brad Tschida is likely to be assigned to a committee today.

The bill would essentially eliminate public involvement in wildlife decision making. It's a poorly written bill, that undermines the public trust, and tries to take wildlife away from the citizens and hand it over to the government and a select group of people. If you'd like to politely ask Representative Tschida to not go forward with this bill, you can contact him here: https://leg.mt.gov/legislator-information/roster/individual/20191/16525

 

[Ben Lamb]

Thanks Buddy!

 

[Straight Arrow]

Sent my request that Rep. Tschida pull his bill which purports to take the "public" out of public wildlife decisions entrusted by the public citizens of Montana to the state, yet include a select group of those owning land (presumably large tracts of habitat). This bill is a blatant affront to those citizens, organizations, and stakeholders who have studied and monitored public wildlife management decisions and programs for decades, and whose "attitudes and opinions" have historically been important to the process, support, and legacy of wildlife management.

 

[MLaird]

I just sent my input...glad I looked over it before I sent it, the form defaults to "For" a bill and I almost missed it.