MT Legislature - Week 6

[tjones]

This meat/antler packing legislation is ridiculous, no doubt. But am I the only one that finds it sad (ly humorous) that this dork of a bill seems to have people more upset than some potentially changing- life- as -we- know- it- in- Montana legislation. Really? Antlers and meat is a more upsetting topic than loss of stream access or all hunting licenses being taxed to fund mitigation of loss of livestock to wolves?? I hope for all of our sakes that I'm not the only one a little concerned....By the way, I do the no gut method on about everything except tasty little whitetail does that expire a couple hundred yards from my truck.

Do a bit of a search and you will see many more bills including HB 309 have been discussed plenty. The antler packing bill just happened to be the topic of the moment.

 

[wingman1]

My general MO is skin, quarter, hang meat off the ground and throw a hind quarter over the shoulder. Hike back to camp to camp for the night. My first concern is the meat. Horns and cape last everytime. It doesn't feel right any other way. It's a good bill if it can reduce wanton waste.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Any individual or organization keeping track or tally of who is really submitting all these ridiculous proposals - there are so many I can't keep track of who drank what the previous night up there in Helena. Someone in the know needs to establish a score board at the end of this session and post it for all of us. PS: Probably not a good idea to use cross hairs with their pictures like the Tea Party did.

MWF will have a tally at the end of the session. We do one most years. We don't do a scorecard like Montana Conservation Voters, or MSSA, or others, just a vote tally with our position on the bill.

 

[Big Fin]

Any individual or organization keeping track or tally of who is really submitting all these ridiculous proposals - there are so many I can't keep track of who drank what the previous night up there in Helena. Someone in the know needs to establish a score board at the end of this session and post it for all of us. PS: Probably not a good idea to use cross hairs with their pictures like the Tea Party did.

Yes, some are keeping track. And, will remind the public hunters who was putting the screws to them.

Here is the grand daddy of the week. Regulatory Takings. I am as big of a property rights defender as anyone, but this one is a joke. It would be a "laugh out loud" bill, if it were not for the fact that many legislators in Helena intend to vote for it.

It just got introduced today, and I still don't see a committee assignment. Senate Bill 344

This will would provide grounds for a takings claim whenever a state agency makes a decision that someone may claim has affected their property rights. I can think of thousands of decisions that will cause such claims to come forth.

This one happens to make specific reference to MT FWP and is pointed toward management decisions made by the department or by the Commission. Any fish and game management decision will become grounds for a takings claim. Smelling a familiar aroma here? I am.

Let's see. A MT tax code change causes the value of my CPA license to go to hell. Yup, takings.

A MT law is passed that restricts the use of medical marijuana, so those licensed growers of weed now have a takings claim. Don't laugh, that change to the med-mari statutes was just voted on in the House.

Hmmm. A MT law is passed that raises the gambling or drinking ages/limits. I own a bar and a casino. I better call my attorney and get a takings claim going.

I have been leasing my hunting rights in the Madison Valley. The wolves are smashing the elk herd. Resident hunters offer to go to permit only hunting in that area. Wait, that affects my ability to lease my hunting rights. Just wait until my attorney gets after them, I will have the state tied up in a takings claim, like they have never seen.

What a joke. An absolute joke. I don't care if you are a communist or a libertarian, it will take all of about one minute and you can cite five examples of things that are governed by a state agency that can be considered a takings claim by someone, somewhere, with an attorney who is in need of some billable hours.

Here is part of the preamble:

WHEREAS, the Montana Legislature is the proper branch of government to define property and establish policies and principles relating to property within the context of these state constitutional provisions and has jealously guarded the people's liberty interests and inalienable rights in property by broadly defining property in section 70-1-104, MCA; and

Sure, the legislature has provided such compelling evidence that they are "the proper branch of government to define property and establish policies and principles relating to property." If this session is any indicator, they shouldn't be trusted with defining anything.

I am sure the MT Supreme Court, and all those trained lawyers have no idea of what the definition of property is.

Only these enlightened despots (NOT), saving us from ourselves, can properly ascertain what the proper definition of property is.

Given how many new property rights this legislature wants to create and hand off to their buddies, and how little respect they have for public property rights, the legislature is the last group I want having anything to do with the final determination of property rights.

More preamble:

WHEREAS, the Legislature does not consent to the majority decisions of the sharply divided Montana Supreme Court in the cases of Kafka v. Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife & Parks, 348 Mont. 80, 201 P.3d 8 (2008), and Buhmann v. State of Montana, 348 Mont. 205, 201 P.3d 70 (2008), because those decisions failed to give effect to or eviscerated the foregoing provisions of Montana's Constitution and statutes; and

WHEREAS, the Legislature determines that those Montana Supreme Court decisions have needlessly and recklessly limited the people's vested rights and interests in private property and intends that those decisions may not define the state's policies with respect to private property nor express background principles of law relevant to private property, and therefore intends to reaffirm the plain language of the foregoing provisions of Montana's Constitution and statutes; and.....

These two cases, both upheld, and upheld, and upheld, deal with Montana passing an initiative to change laws governing penned-shooting operations. They have lost on every single legal issue, every time. So now we are going to use these cases as evidence that the MT Supreme Court "eviscerated the foregoing provisions of Montana's Constitution and statutes."

Spare me. Spare those of us who respect, promote, and protect private property rights from stupidity such as this.

Don't for a minute think that this is not going after hunters and the ability of FWP and the Commission to manage game. That is a big part of the push behind this bill.

Is someone really willing to sponsor this stuff? Really, who would?

Well, here is your answer. The Honorable Senator Jason Priest

If you are from the Red Lodge/Joliet area, you need to be on him like a rust on a pump handle. His email is [email protected]


Amateur Legal Day in Helena, when freshmen legislators start telling the Supreme Court how stupid they are and make self-proclaiming statements that the legislature is the proper branch of government to define property, and in doing so, calls out the entire judiciary branch.

Ah, what the hell good is a judiciary branch? Maybe we should just have one branch, the all mighty legislative branch, and get over the formalities and nuisance of this three branches of government that has served our country so well for the last 230 years.

 

[Ben Lamb]

They couldn't get it on a ballot in MT.

Maybe Earthjustice should testify in support.

 

[mdunc8]

Ben or anyone else, do you have Christy Clark and Dan Kennedy's email?

 

[Ben Lamb]

Rep. Dan Kennedy

Rep. Christy Clark

You can look up each legislator's web page here.

 

[mdunc8]

Thanks to you guys for lighting a fire under my rear. Four emails out the door already tonight. I'm in the groove, so I think I'll stay up a bit longer. Already got one half arsed reply from Mr. Priest. Still waiting for an actual answer to my question though.

 

[Sytes]

What is a takings claim?

 

[mdunc8]

This was Mr. Priest's response to my inquiry: "Should landowners or the public pay for public goods?"

 

[shoots-straight]

Another late night. I'm tired of this crap, but must keep moving. I'd rather pour a whole foundation, or frame an entire 1500 sq. ft house for free, than do this chit.I'm only sending letters out for the bills that will be heard in the next couple of days. Take em as the come up.

About 5 years ago, the voters of the Root voted that you couldn't build a new residence on less than 2 acres. It hurt my business a lot. Maybe I"m going to go to the legislature and have them carry a bill for me. I lost potential clients, it was a takings, and didn't do the same business as the years previous. If all these other special interest groups win, maybe I'll find a doofus to carry me a bill. At least it would tie up some legislative time. Maybe that could be a better strategy next session anyway. Throw in a bunch of BS bills and tie up the workings of the legislature.

Guys, start thinking of BS Bills for the session. We might be on to something here. Better to be pro active, than re-active, right?

 

[Lawnboy]

SS are you serious? no building unless you have 2 acres or more Man I thought Bozeman had regulations. I feel for you living in East Germany.

 

[WT_in_MT]

Big Fin- correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't SB 344 apply to any level of government, not just state agencies? So any subdivision request, zoning request, etc. decision that didn't fully allow what the requester wanted could be the basis for a claim. Aim for the moon and then sue! Yep, that will help my tax bill. So much for these freshmen legislators being concerned about taxed enough already.

 

[shoots-straight]

SS are you serious? no building unless you have 2 acres or more Man I thought Bozeman had regulations. I feel for you living in East Germany.

As a heart attack. That really hurt during the good time. The builders that had any type of subdivisions were the lucky ones. You just couldn't get the dirt to build. Now that the buildings dead, their approving subdivisions all over the Root. Tons of dirt but no building.:W:

Iam serious, we need to plug up the legislature with BS bills next time.

 

[Big Fin]

Another stupid bill, this time in the House FWP Committee. Being heard today, so email today, if you can.

HB 454 - AN ACT REQUIRING THAT AT LEAST 20% OF THE LANDS OR WATERS ACQUIRED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF FISH, WILDLIFE, AND PARKS BE MANAGED FOR MULTIPLE-USE PURPOSES.

(8) (a) If the department acquires lands or waters pursuant to this section, the department shall ensure that at least 20% of the lands or waters acquired are managed for multiple-use purposes.

(b) The department may adopt rules to administer the provisions of subsection (8)(a).

(c) For purposes of this section, "multiple-use purposes" includes, but is not limited to:

(i) livestock grazing;

(ii) farming;

(iii) haying;

(iv) fencing;

(v) timber harvesting;

(vi) snowmobiling;

(vii) off-highway vehicle use;

(viii) cycling; and

(ix) other similar outdoor recreational and land management activities. (Terminates June 30, 2013--sec. 8, Ch. 427, L. 2009.)

So, our hunter and angler dollars, used for the purchase of any property now must subsidize the parties above, who have not paid a penny toward the purchase of such.

Check out the sponsor. Pat Connell from Corvallis

Here is his email - [email protected]

Do I see a recurring theme here? Is this another case of a freshman legislator who promised simpler and smaller government introducing a bill that creates larger and more complex government, and in the process, provides a subsidy to his buddies?

This is the first of many this week. Brace yourself. The worst is yet to come.

Here is the link to the people who need to hear about this stuff. Email them, or if not, call the number below and ask that a message be passed to the committee or your legislator.

House Fish, Wildlife, and Parks Committee
Meets Tuesday, Thursday, 3 p.m., Room 152

Chair: Ted Washburn (R-Bozeman)
Vice Chair: Jeffrey Welborn (R-Dillon) (No email)
Vice Chair: Mike Phillips (D-Bozeman)
Carlie Boland (D-Great Falls)
Pat Connell (R-Darby)
Virginia Court (D-Billings)
Robyn Driscoll (D-Billings)
Kelly Flynn (R-Townsend)
Bill Harris (R-Mosby)
Douglas Kary (R-Billings)
Dan Kennedy (R-Laurel)
Austin Knudsen (R-Culbertson)
Cleve Loney (R-Great Falls)
Mike Miller (R-Helmville)
Jesse O'Hara (R-Great Falls)
Ken Peterson (R-Billings)
Jean Price (D-Great Falls)
Dan Skattum (R-Livingston)
Franke Wilmer (D-Bozeman)
Max Yates (R-Butte)
Staff: Hope Stockwell, 406-444-1640
Secretary: Cara Gold, 406-444-4832

 

[drahthaar]

Seems like this legislature wants to just treat FWP dollars, licenses and tag fees like a great big 'ol grab bag.

Not cool.

 

[onpoint]

after calling the MT lejaslatuv hotline with yet again another "oppose this *%$#" message, I am going fishing. Before I battle a non political ill wind- a question from a computer idiot....how do I start a new thread-post-whatever it's called.

 

[The Hedgehog]

This Pat Connell guy wants to make sure everybody can get thier meat out of the hills and therefore, if hunting on FWP acquired land, should be able to just drive up to it in that hayfield or clearcut, toss it on their ATV or snowmachine, and buzz through the herd of cattle, right up to the logging road. That way some of these unethical sportsmen won't be tempted to just pack out the head on the first trip.

 

[onpoint]

after calling the MT lejaslatuv hotline with yet again another "oppose this *%$#" message, I am going fishing. Before I battle a non political ill wind- a question from a computer idiot....how do I start a new thread-post-whatever it's called.

 

[mdunc8]

Find the forum you want and then click on the "New Thread" button at the top. You have to be logged in too.