Montana Legislature - 2019

[Straight Arrow]

To his credit, Rep. Tschida has already responded to my input by email. Although he did well in explaining his intent regarding increased emphasis on using wildlife biological science and good data in forming FWP related decisions, I don't think this HB 161 will accomplish that. Hopefully he will come up with a more viable proposal.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Alright folks,

HB 161 is up for a hearing on January 22nd. This bill would be a disaster for public participation in wildlife decision making, eliminating the ability of FWP to actually know what citizens are thinking, and create a blackhole of unaccountability in state government that would essentially hand wildlife management over to bureaucrats and landowners. While the sponsor's intent isn't to do this, just eliminate the Human Dimensions program at FWP, the way the bill is written, it would essentially make your participation in season setting invalid, it would crater habitat acquisitions is a n adjacent landowner doesn't like the agency and it could stop conservation easements like Horse Creek from going through, if a landowner objects.

Here's the low down from former deputy chief of enforcement, Mike Korn:

HB 161
HB 161 seeks eliminate a wide range of public input and involvement in wildlife management. As it stands, it would violate numerous Montana laws requiring comprehensive input, participation in and consideration of, the public in agency decision-making including such basic responsibilities as season-setting, and fisheries management. It also would impede ongoing projects addressing issues like landowner-sportsman relations, native species restoration and addressing illegal fisheries introductions. It would violate the Public Trust by reducing agency decision-making for publicly held resources down to a very limited, narrow group of criteria and perhaps most importantly- participants.
• The “social” and “scientific” elements of the department’s work and the management of the state’s wild resources have been inextricably bound since 1864 when the first wildlife laws were passed by the Territorial Legislature. (Rancher Granville Stuart’s bill to require fish to be taken by hook and line only.)
• HB 161 cuts the entire public process out of resource management, attempting to make it simply a formula-based function, with only certain individuals and interests outside the department allowed to affect decisions.
• Many of the popular and important projects and wildlife opportunities we take for granted would, under HB 161 not have been possible.
o The Elkhorns elk season (HD 380) was initiated by sportspeople and the FWP. It currently has the highest number of people putting in for tags of any elk district in the state (over 9,000 applicants for 135 tags).
o In HD 401, the rifle season for both mule and whitetail deer ends two weeks prior to the end of the deer season in the rest of the state. This limitation was advocated by local residents to eliminate harvest during the rut.
o In areas where elk are over population goals, the fundamental means of addressing this is to increase the take of cows from the population. In areas such as the Crazy Mountains, which are heavily outfitted and public access is minimal, the scientific management solution would dictate significant cow hunting while placing strict limitations on bull harvest.
o Illegal introductions of non-native fish species in Montana’s waterways Canyon Ferry and sites in Western Montana (Flathead Lake and numerous streams and lakes) raises both scientific challenges and social issues which must be considered in any management efforts.
• Public access for hunting, fishing and recreation is essentially and fundamentally a social issue. HB 161 would eliminate this as a consideration in the efforts of the department to manage fish and wildlife. This would go counter to Block Management statute, Habitat Montana’s enabling legislation and others.
• Social science in general and the Human Dimensions program in particular provides an important link to public opinion and hence, support of FWP programs. It provides insight into issues the public views as important and connects efforts by wildlife agencies nationally.
• The public involvement of wildlife management is critical for landowners, hunters, anglers and the general public. Wildlife is a public trust, managed for all both currently inhabiting the state and future generations. Eliminating the public trust from our management is counter to our constitution, and our way of successfully managing wildlife for the last 150 years.


Get your comments in to the committee chair, vice-chair & sponsor here: https://secure.everyaction.com/oK4V3uCEM0C97kaklEI9qw2?platform=hootsuite

 

[Schaaf]

Thanks Ben.

You don't think Tschida's bill is out of malice?

Just wondering how to word my email.

 

[MLaird]

I got a response from Rep. Tschida the other day. It makes no sense to me.

Here it is, "Be assured that the outcome of HB 161 will be more and better public input. The Human Dimensions Unit may be working to further a less than positive promotion of hunting, trapping, and angling."

?

 

[Straight Arrow]

Please request clarification from Rep. Tschida. "Human Dimensions Unit"? What / who is that???

 

[Ben Lamb]

I got a response from Rep. Tschida the other day. It makes no sense to me.

Here it is, "Be assured that the outcome of HB 161 will be more and better public input. The Human Dimensions Unit may be working to further a less than positive promotion of hunting, trapping, and angling."

?

representative Tschida is woefully misinformed about what the Human Dimensions program does. That's the part of the agency that actually talks to people about wildlife issues, and helps find ways to solve them that work for everyone. Just because they call you with a survey asking how you feel about wolves, doesn't mean they're advocating one way or another. I saw this same sentiment posted on Rep. Kerry Whites' Citizens for Balanced Use page a few months ago. I wonder if this bill and that sentiment are related?

Dick - Human Dimensions is this: https://my.usgs.gov/hd/node/1129

The hearing is Tuesday at 3 PM on the first floor of the capitol. If sportsmen want their voice to be heard in the future, it's time to show up and demand this bill be tabled. While there are amendments to the bill, we won't be able to see them until sometime Monday. That's hardly any time to digest and offer reasonable feedback on such a broad and sweeping bill.

 

[Ben Lamb]

It's been a pretty wild few weeks at the capitol. Lots of bills moving forward, and lots more to pop over the course of the next few weeks.

We have a hearing today on HB 161. Many of you have taken time to comment and call folks, and it's getting noticed. The sponsor has a massive rewrite of his bill that he'll drop on the committee hearing today, with no chance of prior public involvement or comment. I can't think of anything more indicative of this bill than a massive, 11th hour rewrite where nobody has been able to see those amendments. I suppose, when you're trying to eliminate the voice of the public from wildlife & state parks management, dropping in last minute changes with no vetting from the constituents you are looking to disenfranchise is just par for the course.

The hearing is today at 3 PM in room 172 of the Capitol. If you can make it, we need bodies in the room and we need folks to stand up and say that our public right of participation is more important than one legislator's biased position against a single position at FWP.

You can call 406-444-4800 and leave a message for the committee (House Fish, Wildlife and Parks)

Or you can use this form to send a message to the Chairman Bob Brown (R-Thompson Falls), Vice-Chair Zac Perry (D-Whitefish) and the bill sponsor, Majority Floor Leader Brad Tschida (R-Lolo): https://secure.everyaction.com/oK4V3uCEM0C97kaklEI9qw2?platform=hootsuite

This is a bad bill, let's kill it.


Other bills are having far less contentious hearings. HB 43 & 104 have moved from the house to the senate for example, and HB 5 which contains Habitat Montana spending authority, future fisheries, governor's tag money, etc had a great hearing and we're hopeful that it gets reported out of committee with a strong bi-partisan showing. A lot of language is dropping now on bills, so we're working double time to ensure that we catch everything during the day. 16 bills specific to fish and wildlife have been introduced, with 148 total bill draft requests. 6 bills have been introduced on state lands, with 38 requested.

It's your wildlife and lands they're making big decisions on. Get involved, and get after it.

 

[Nameless Range]

Thanks Ben.

 

[HSi-ESi]

Thanks for the heads up, emails sent in.

 

[RobG]

Where does one find the amended bill? I got asked a question about it today

 

[Ben Lamb]

Where does one find the amended bill? I got asked a question about it today

I spoke with the Chairman after the hearing and they will likely do executive action next week. Until then, the amendments are not online, but I have them digitally (attached). To my mind, the amendments do not address the issues that the almost entire hunting community of Montana raised last night, as well as almost every other conservation organization.View attachment HB016101-AHS.pdfView attachment HB016102-AHS.pdf

Reading the bill: In section 1, the prohibition to actually incorporating public comment still remains relative to the three excepted statutes, which relate to elk, deer & prnghorn, as well as large carnivores & when to open or close seasons. It still reads that that director, department and commission may only use "science and facts" when making decisions, which would still exclude the opinions and priorities of not only the hunting and angling community, but all Montanans.

The second amendment is window dressing and while the intent is great, the plain language of the bill would still preclude the agency & commission from acting upon the wishes of the people of Montana.

Furthermore, I believe that the first amendment would cause great concern to the landowner community as it does not specify any kind of "best available science" and the inclusion of the section that eliminates 1 position is incredibly petty and singles out 1 individual in FWP for termination because a politician did not like or understand a question or two that were asked, nor, to my knowledge, has that politician reached out to that employee to ask them why that survey was worded the way it was.

The hearing was good. There were approximately 36 people who testified against the bill. 2 people signed in as proponents: United Property Owners of Montana, and a name I couldn't read. Only Representative Kerry White spoke in favor of the bill.

 

[bigsky2]

Only Representative Kerry White spoke in favor of the bill.

Kerry White seems to be associated with a lot of bad legislation.

 

[What Map]

Ben, thanks for the timely update. I’ll send a second response after I digest the changes.

 

[RobG]

Thanks Ben. As you know, those amendments do nothing to solve the problems I pointed out. All natural resource decisions are social decisions, and most policies, from lead bullets to fish hatcheries to trophy hunting, are not the solutions scientific analysis would lead to.

I'm off to study some snow science so play nice!

 

[RobG]

Kerry White seems to be associated with a lot of bad legislation.

His reason, which he has been complaining about for years, is that the department admits that elk are managed using social considerations, not science. It infuriates me that he is twisting the fact that this is true mostly because his colleagues mandated that elk be managed for landowner tolerance.

rg

 

[Gerald Martin]

#mysocialtolerancenotyoursocialtolerance.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Here's the sign-in sheet from the meeting.

 

[kansasdad]

Ben, the supporter seems to be a "Linda Johnson", but I'm wondering why she is using my doctor-penmanship font in signing in??

 

[RobG]

Snow science study was successful.

Ben had a wonderful summary as the penultimate speaker. When groups ranging from Trap Free Montana to RMEF oppose the bill you know there are issues. Hopefully the committee will listen.

 

[noharleyyet]

I'd rather have Ben for a eulogy than a sentencing...the man is fluent in castigation.