MT Legislature - Week 8

[Ben Lamb]

After taking the last few days off, the Legislators are back in Helena. They're tanned, rested and ready to get rolling.

Here's the highlights of the committee line-up for the next week:

House Ag

03-MAR-11 3:00 PM Room 472
HB470 - Increase hunting license fees to fund livestock loss reduction mitigation fund
Christy Clark


House FWP

03-MAR-11 3:00 PM Room 152
SB133 - Prohibit harassment of sportsmen who purchase hunting licenses - Debby Barrett

SB135 - Clarify use of dogs to track wounded game animals - Joe Balyeat


SB136 - Revise residency requirements for hunting - Joe Balyeat

Senate Ag

08-MAR-11- 3:00 PM Room 303
HB309 - Clarify prohibition on recreational access to ditches - Jeffery W Welborn

Senate F&G

03-MAR-11 4:00 PM Room 422

HB98 - Direct proceeds from sale of state parks; deposit in state parks spec. rev. fund


HB471 Generally revise fish, wildlife, and parks laws-wolves - Dan Kennedy

HJ1 - Resolution urging federal legislation removing wolf from Endangered Species list - Mike Milburn


State Admin

11-MAR-11 3:00 PM Room 335
HB134 Provide benefit and funding changes to game wardens/peace officers retirement - Carolyn Squires


HB 470 will increase your license cost to pay for livestock loss.

HB 309 is the anti-access bill. There will be a rally for access held at 2pm at the Old Supreme Court Chambers in the Capitol. We have a bus in Missoula that's coming over, if anyone wants to get a hold of those folks, shoot me a pm and I'll get you the contact info. They only have a few seats left.

Saddle up!

 

[mdunc8]

SB136 is pretty vague with its definition of "relative". Does that mean I can invite my fifth cousin, twice removed out to hunt with a discounted tag?

 

[Ben Lamb]

SB 136 would require a couple of different things, much in the same vein if not identical) to the Come Home to Hunt licenses, minus the NR cost.

So long as they have a HS Diploma or a Hunter Ed card from MT, previously held MT licenses, documentation of how the Resident is a relative, and a birth certificate.

It's the wildlife birther bill!

 

[RockyDog]

I have a question about HB309. Does the republican bill shut down only the right to walk below the highwater mark or could it shutdown the right to float the stream?

I am curious because before the stream access bill I saw wealthy landowners who owned property on both sides of a river try to stop people from floating through.

One more theoretical question, if HB309 passes and i buy some property on both sides of one of the rivers mentioned in the bill and then set up a toll booth for floaters who want to come through - how much would you be willing to pay to float through? Should i accept credit cards?

 

[drahthaar]

HB 470 just leaves me speechless. Seriously.

Has anyone seen any areas on the Flathead River directly affected by the stream access bill? Must be some, all those side channels and sloughs.

 

[Ben Lamb]

1.) The bill oversteps the Galt decision in that it defines a ditch in a more broad term than currently defined. It would create defacto ditches across MT. Mitchell Slough would be shut down to access due to the new definition, as would parts of Fleshman Creek in Park County, and many, many others. In fact, the way the bill is written, the Ruby River below the dam would be off limits. The bill defines a ditch as any waterbody that has water diverted in to it and eliminates your ability to fish.

2.) There are still a number of places where folks try to keep others from accessing their public property.

3.) A good wireless connection/ telephone line is the best way to set up a CC machine. Unless you have a wired toll booth, you would have to look for more expensive ways to process the cards.

4.) I'll give you $3.50.

 

[Ben Lamb]

HB 470 just leaves me speechless. Seriously.

Tell the committee

Not sure about the Flathead. If there is a diversion, it would be off limits until the diverted water returns to the main body. If a side channel has a diversion on it to increase flows for irrigation, then that side channel would be classified as a ditch, and would be off limits.

 

[tjones]

Like a bad cold they are back. We have a crew headed over on the 8th. Time to bear down for the last push.

 

[drahthaar]

Tell the committee

Done, thanks Ben.

 

[Big Fin]

Just sent the Headwaters email blast out on some of the worst bills. Hard to sort them by worst, as they all suck.

I am a far right of center guy, and I am very conservative socially, and fiscally. That being said, the Republicans in control of the Montana Legislature are going after hunters and anglers in a way never before seen.

They are so afraid of the Tea Party, that they run and hide to any little corner where they can find refuge from accountability and conservative principles. They are willing to do anything to keep their turf with the far right, and if that means thowing hunters and anglers to the curb, they are willing to do that.

Hard to imagine what they are thinking. I would guess they are mostly thinking about how to get re-elected by using hunter and angler money to fund some pet project for their pals.

This is Chicago-style political curruption, if ever I have seen it.

The fiscal note on HB 470 causes total losses to FWP in the amount of $86,844,300 over five years. All so some livestock producer can set up a fund to compensate for wolf losses.

Excuse me, but I didn't see to many hunters wanting wolves in the first place. Why would we be paying for it.

If the landowners groups have a half a brain, they will get out in front of that train wreck, as this will do more to damage livestock producer and hunter relations than anything I have ever seen.

To me, the mere introduction of this bill has done the damage. Whether it passes, or not, it shows how many feel about the position of responsiblity they have been provided, and how they will use that against hunters and anglers.

It is a reflection of the wayward thinking of some simple minds, drunk with power, who if you could convert their intelligence to eletricity, could not power the the dome light in my truck. A truly sad state of affairs here in Montana.

I know some of you guys who don't live in MT have to think we are losing our marbles and making up this insanity. I wish that was the case.

Here is the fiscal note to this bill. HB 470 Fiscal Note

This is too strange to make up.

Read what happens to FWP each year on the fiscal presentation on Page 1. And, see note 6, on page 2. It has been determined by USFWS that we will lose these matching funds. We are not making this up.

Someone put a fork in me, before I lose my mind. Might be too late for that.

 

[Lawnboy]

Did we the public have any idea as to how these whackos were going to vote once in office? Seems that they are sleeping with the ranchers and could care less about the general hunting and fishing public. Maybe they've obtained exclusive hunting rights on the ranches that they are trying to screw the public with.

I think this phrase says it best:

"We have learned by sad experience that it is the nature and disposition of almost all men, as soon as they get a little authority, as they suppose, they will immediately begin to exercise unrighteous dominion"

 

[Ben Lamb]

Well, we knew that certain folks were coming out to try and undermine the Commission (Archery elk tags for outfitters), were pissed about I-161 (a number of bills related to licensing, etc), and that land purchases by FWP were squarely in the "surveyors symbol."

We met with some livestock groups before the session and said that we'd be happy to advocate for general fund license dollars for wolf loss, but coming after hunter dollars was non-starter. Apparently, that didn't matter once the election happened, and some folks figured out how to get the keys to the treasury.

 

[Lawnboy]

I'm having second thoughts on my delusional idea of a victory with the tag situation. Sure they threw me a bone but I just as well have went to dinner with the devil from the sounds of it.

 

[drahthaar]

Could one of you guys give me a little bit of an idea what you guys write to the committees or legislators? You get 1200 words on that form. Do you write long messages? Or short sweet and to the point?

I am just curious. Do these committees get these and read them, then laugh at the minions? Or do they take emails seriously?

 

[onpoint]

Since the early 2000's, I've been watching and objecting to the MT GOP (especially the Gallatin Valley Bunch) party and their slant towards the rights of private individuals over the public when it comes to public resources. Some of the same players from then are still in Helena, unfortunately they have been able to ramp up their tactics with the fairly new assistance of the"tea partiers". I really hope the over the top lunacy they are dumping on us all now, along with things like this March 8 sportsmens access rally-which is just as important to hunters and other recreationalists as fishermen-will be things that get the attention of both these wing nut politicians and more importantly us. And, yes lawnboy, a lot of us knew the potential of these politicians.....just not enough of us. We have the power to change that next election if we want, armed with the knowledge and smarting from the wounds we're getting today.

 

[drahthaar]

Oh, and Ben, is the MWF opposed to SB 135?

 

[Ben Lamb]

Could one of you guys give me a little bit of an idea what you guys write to the committees or legislators? You get 1200 words on that form. Do you write long messages? Or short sweet and to the point?

I am just curious. Do these committees get these and read them, then laugh at the minions? Or do they take emails seriously?

It just depends. I can tell you that a well written, concise message gets a lot of play with legislators. Long tirades about how they are the anti-christ aren't much help. Sure, it makes you feel better, but your goal is to get a vote, not vent.

Committees all get copies of the emails to read. It goes in to the public record, and it can serve as a good backdrop for the Gov. if it is a bill that he decides to veto.

Treat it like a Letter to the Editor -150 words is ideal. Go longer if you want to, but remember that these folks are getting thousands of emails every week.

As for SB 135 - we don't have a position on it. There are too many other bills that really need work, and this one has FWP's blessing, IIRC.

 

[Big Fin]

Could one of you guys give me a little bit of an idea what you guys write to the committees or legislators? You get 1200 words on that form. Do you write long messages? Or short sweet and to the point?

I am just curious. Do these committees get these and read them, then laugh at the minions? Or do they take emails seriously?

Draht - Even if you write something so simple as to ask that they vote for/against Bill XYZ that is enough.

But, if you can add a sentence or two as to why you wnat them to vote that way, it helps.

And if they are your legislator, and if you voted for the, make sure they know that. They listen to people who can keep them in their position of power.

Be respectful, and to the point. Make sure and ask for their vote one way or the other, or they will not read it enough to understand what you want them to do.

Do not use the Big Fin approach, or you will be asked for a public apology. When they get something from me, they expect it will be to the point, so we kind of have an unwritten rule that when they communicate to me they can spare the formalities and I won't be offended, and I can spare the same with them when communicating their direction.

Takes the freshmen a while to understand that, but they quickly get over it. As the session progresses, the formalities get less and less.

They are people in a position of power, and their position deserves respect. Some deserve it and some don't. That position of power does not give them license to disregrad common sense and the requests of those who vote, whether they voted for said legislator or not.

 

[drahthaar]

OK, great thanks guys.

Fin---LOL, public apologies, LOL

 

[onpoint]

Another suggestion... state you are republican voter, if objecting to a republican sponsored bill. Likewise for the other party. If there were more bills to support, I would have used a support scenario....