More Discounted Non-residents licenses for Montana

[Gerald Martin]

There’s a lot of interesting data in that attachment @Ben Lamb posted on the first page. I think I am going to start a separate thread when I get some spare time to discuss it.

The approximately 186,500 elk hunters in Montana in 2021 seems to be unsustainable to me…

 

[406dn]

Nope. Nowhere near doubling the program.

It is a pretty small subset of people that would qualify once you read and apply the new verbiage very carefully.

Looks to me like a legislature just tweaking the verbiage carefully to apply to a few folks that they should have included when they first wrote the language.

It sounds to me like they are tweaking a program that should not exist.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

Wonder when 5th generation residents will get triple bonus points in the draws?

I’m sure someone feels like they want that, deserve that and would ask a legislator to carry a bill to make it into law.

I bet you $20 in the next 10 years a legislator introduces a bill that carves out a pool of MSG tags for MT Resident Natives.

 

[Labman]

It sounds to me like they are tweaking a program that should not exist.

1000%

 

[Deleted member 18333]

Yes, it is certainly confusing and concerning. The other statement which concerns me reflects a willingness to introduce a bill merely because " a constituent in my district who wants to" has solicited the legislative process for apparently a personal family favor. The result would be yet another significant change in hunting regulations and the exacerbation of the 17k license cap debacle. It would be different if Billings Rod & Gun Club or some other hunting group had agreed on the idea and approached the senator.

The nerve of a representative listening to the concern of a constituent! They should only listen to groups of constituents that have concerns. But only as long as those concerns align with my concerns, otherwise they are beholden to special interests.

 

[Ben Lamb]

The nerve of a representative listening to the concern of a constituent! They should only listen to groups of constituents that have concerns. But only as long as those concerns align with my concerns, otherwise they are beholden to special interests.

It's nice having another lobbyist on the board.

 

[Deleted member 18333]

It's nice having another lobbyist on the board.

That's low and uncalled for. Randy!!!

 

[nygc]

It sounds to me like they are tweaking a program that should not exist.

Attach a campaign donation to your email and you might be able to get that done!

Right now, McGilravey's Grandpa friend is way ahead and a likely winner.

Especially because the only opposition emails were from guys who clearly misunderstood the statutory changes and their effect. So the legislator will just think, "these guys likely would not be opposed if they really understood the statute".

 

[Nameless Range]

The nerve of a representative listening to the concern of a constituent! They should only listen to groups of constituents that have concerns.

Stopping at that is a sound heuristic to increase the likelihood of avoiding bad ideas.

 

[Deleted member 18333]

Stopping at that is a sound heuristic to increase the likelihood of avoiding bad ideas.

Very likely.

However, what would your email to this representative have been like if the person that approached him had a concern you agreed with? The problem with this legislation is the idea (or maybe not, seems to be a bit of confusion as to what it actually intends to do) not where it came from. If the rep and committee hear from enough other people that its a bad idea it will get dropped. I think that is how it is suppose to work.

 

[Deleted member 18333]

Stopping at that is a sound heuristic to increase the likelihood of avoiding bad ideas.

You sure you agree with this when they listen to UPOM or MOGA?

 

[Ben Lamb]

You sure you agree with this when they listen to UPOM or MOGA?

'Don't look at the fat ass losers or freaks, look at me!' - Best in Show

Hamilton Swan: Don't look at the fat ass losers or freaks, look at me!

clip.cafe

 

[Ben Lamb]

Very likely.

However, what would your email to this representative have been like if the person that approached him had a concern you agreed with? The problem with this legislation is the idea (or maybe not, seems to be a bit of confusion as to what it actually intends to do) not where it came from. If the rep and committee hear from enough other people that its a bad idea it will get dropped. I think that is how it is suppose to work.

More seriously,
Absolutely.

The legislature is supposed to be a marketplace of ideas. Ideally, the partisan malarkey stops long enough for duly elected officials to work with a wide variety of individuals and organizations to achieve the best outcomes for the broadest number of citizens. Informed debate, honest negotiations and working in good faith within the bounds of decorum are all standards that we should hold ourselves too.

The Senator is showing a willingness to work with folks. If, at the end of that effort, disagreement persists, then we can agree to disagree and let the best arguments win.

This all supposes that everyone operates under the same rules, which they don't, but it's the first week of the session, and we don't need a full fusillade into the 3rd floor just yet.

 

[Ben Lamb]

That number is insane. Montana residents should see that and have a lightbulb come on as to why their voice seems to be diminishing by the year.

We've added so much NR opportunity that it's shifting the balance further in the wrong direction.

 

[Treeshark]

Which direction in balance is the wrong one?

 

[4ohSick]

Which direction in balance is the wrong one?

The direction where wildlife management decisions are made by legislators rather than wildlife biologists.

It's not NR or R, the problem is the addition of tags without biological justification. If they were adding resident opportunity, we'd also be up in arms, but it's hard to add on top of infinite.

 

[Straight Arrow]

The nerve of a representative listening to the concern of a constituent! They should only listen to groups of constituents that have concerns. But only as long as those concerns align with my concerns, otherwise they are beholden to special interests.

Sarcasm exceeded only by irrational rhetoric.

 

[Ben Lamb]

The direction where wildlife management decisions are made by legislators rather than wildlife biologists.

It's not NR or R, the problem is the addition of tags without biological justification. If they were adding resident opportunity, we'd also be up in arms, but it's hard to add on top of infinite.

Yep. I love that MT offers a lot of NR opportunity, but we need to b cautious here, just as we need to fix the oversubscription of Resident hunting tags, etc.
Less pressure equals more harvest. More harvest equals better management outcomes aligned with actual population goals and not creating a land rush that pushes critters onto inaccessible land.

That's the balance. NR's are some of the best friends resident MT hunters can have. We just need to make sure there's the right mix of opportunity for the resource.

 

[Deleted member 18333]

Sarcasm exceeded only by irrational rhetoric.

Dripping with it.

But you and I both know that if this Senator had drafted legislation that the Come home to hunt and MT Native tags must be subtracted from the 17,000 NR cap, simply from one request from a constituent the reception of this legislation on HT would be wildly different and this Sen would have far more emails saying thank you from HT members.

I can even imagine a post on HT praising the power of just one person.

 

[TOGIE]

But you and I both know that if this Senator had drafted legislation that the Come home to hunt and MT Native tags must be subtracted from the 17,000 NR cap, simply from one request from a constituent the reception of this legislation on HT would be wildly different and this Sen would have far more emails saying thank you from HT members.

i dunno, i feel like the consistent things amongst people like Randy and many people on HT including the heavy hitters is that we're all sick of carve outs, special preference, and special allocation benefits to anyone, anyone at all.

just so happens such proposals 99% of the time involve outfitters in every state and former montana natives.