Non-resident outfitter license (MT) Bill is up for hearing 2/2/2021 (SB 143)

[MTGomer]

The bill will be on 3rd reading tomorrow. No debate is allowed on 3rd reading, but if it fails there, then it's dead. It could be reconsidered if the sponsor makes a motion to do so within 24 hours (I think, I haven't read this sessions' rules). If the reconsideration motion passes, then the bill is placed on 3rd reading again, and voted up or down.

If it passes, it moves to the House of Representatives who go through the committee process. The bill should be assigned to the House Fish, Wildlife and Parks committee. There it can be amended in committee. Votes tend to fall on party lines in committee though.

If it passes committee, it will head to the floor of the House for 2nd & 3rd reading. Here again, on 2nd reading, it can be amended. 3rd is the same process as the House.

If the House does amend the bill, then the Senate will have to vote to accept or reject the amendments. If rejected, it goes to a conference committee, set by leadership of both Houses. The committee will work out a compromise in order to try and find concensus. If they do so, then they send the bill back to the Senate & House for a concurrence vote.

If all of that happens, and the bill passes, then the Governor can issue an amendatory veto, outright veto, sign the bill or allow the bill to become law without his signature.

I’m saving this as a note in my phone for future reference.

I haven’t heard it this clearly since Mr Stanicar’s government class and that’s been a while.

 

[HighCountryCommando]

So the B11 is $950-ish under the amended bill?

 

[Brad W]

The bill will be on 3rd reading tomorrow. No debate is allowed on 3rd reading, but if it fails there, then it's dead. It could be reconsidered if the sponsor makes a motion to do so within 24 hours (I think, I haven't read this sessions' rules). If the reconsideration motion passes, then the bill is placed on 3rd reading again, and voted up or down.

If it passes, it moves to the House of Representatives who go through the committee process. The bill should be assigned to the House Fish, Wildlife and Parks committee. There it can be amended in committee. Votes tend to fall on party lines in committee though.

If it passes committee, it will head to the floor of the House for 2nd & 3rd reading. Here again, on 2nd reading, it can be amended. 3rd is the same process as the House.

If the House does amend the bill, then the Senate will have to vote to accept or reject the amendments. If rejected, it goes to a conference committee, set by leadership of both Houses. The committee will work out a compromise in order to try and find concensus. If they do so, then they send the bill back to the Senate & House for a concurrence vote.

If all of that happens, and the bill passes, then the Governor can issue an amendatory veto, outright veto, sign the bill or allow the bill to become law without his signature.

Thank you Ben

 

[shurshot]

All these politicians be singing, "If you got the money honey, I got the time".

 

[Hunting Wife]

The amendment sets up an early draw of 40% of the B10 & B11 licenses, with commission authority to increase to 50%, with applications being submitted between December 1 & December 31, with a draw date of January 15th. If the early pool is over subscribed, everyone who doesn't draw is entered into the general pool.

This early draw carries a $300 application fee, with proceeds from that being deposited into Habitat Montana.

It also eliminates the increase of B11 licenses and keeps the landowner sponsored license, including the outfitting provision.

The rest of the bill is scuttled, and this is what it now becomes.

The sponsor will try to restore the bill to it's original form, so we'll need to light up House Fish once it's transfers over to the House & gets assigned. If there is a backroom deal, watch for the bill to be moved to a different committee like Natural Resources or something else as an attempt to make sure amendments stick, rather than through the appropriate committee.

Thank you for the summary. I was busy so too slow tuning in and just heard “amended” and caught the vote.

 

[The Hedgehog]

Not that this is relevant at all here:

 

[Gerald Martin]

Do I understand correctly that anyone who is willing to pay the extra $$$ can enter the early draw? Not just those contracted with an outfitter?

If so, and the money goes to fund access then I call that a win.

 

[Ben Lamb]

So the B11 is $950-ish under the amended bill?

For the early pool, yes. For the general pool or B10 turn ins, it would be the regular price, adjusted by the CPI.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Do I understand correctly that anyone who is willing to pay the extra $$$ can enter the early draw? Not just those contracted with an outfitter?

If so, and the money goes to fund access then I call that a win.

Yes. That is precisely what the amendment does.

 

[Gerald Martin]

Yes. That is precisely what the amendment does.

I can live with that if it passes.

 

[Dakotakid]

Do I understand correctly that anyone who is willing to pay the extra $$$ can enter the early draw? Not just those contracted with an outfitter?

If so, and the money goes to fund access then I call that a win.

My position also, what’s the downside? Except a portion is earlier and a higher fee? Which helps fund access.

 

[mtmiller]

I can live with that if it passes.

Much better than the alternative IMO. Now let's see what the future holds.

Greenhorns point is well taken as well. Sign me up for hauling more water.

 

[Deleted member 18333]

Been awhile since I applied in MT but with the earlier draw date for the higher priced license, could a guy apply in the "special" early draw, not get drawn, and then also apply in the "regular" for another bite at the apple?

 

[BuckeyeRifleman]

Does the amendment do away with the funky rules with regards to how the additional access money this generates would be utilized? I know when introduced about how it could only be used for easements on land that wasn't leased, etc.

If that's the case, I am sorta ok with paying a little extra if the money gets donated to access. That said, we still need to work just as hard to make our voices heard in the house.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Been awhile since I applied in MT but with the earlier draw date for the higher priced license, could a guy apply in the "special" early draw, not get drawn, and then also apply in the "regular" for another bite at the apple?

Yes. If you don't pull the early bird, you're in the general pool. These licenses are limited by statute, so no over subscription should happen, plus with the B10 turn ins on deer, there are roughly 10K B11 licenses out there, depending on who turns in what.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Does the amendment do away with the funky rules with regards to how the additional access money this generates would be utilized? I know when introduced about how it could only be used for easements on land that wasn't leased, etc.

If that's the case, I am sorta ok with paying a little extra if the money gets donated to access. That said, we still need to work just as hard to make our voices heard in the house.

Yes. Straight shot in the arm to Habitat Montana for projects like the Big Snowies WMA purchase, conservation easements & small purchases to increase access to landlocked public land.

 

[Bullbrl]

The sponsor has indicated he will seek to undo the changes in the House. Next step is the House FWP committee.

Give it a few days to make it over, then start hitting the committee with personalized, polite emails & phone calls.

I'm going to say this again and again until those sending emails will fully understand. It's been voiced 2 different times that the emails are annoying them...that's good but it's not going to move the needle.

I've been involved in dozens and dozens of these in Oregon in regards to fishing....Here's the short version: The only thing they care about are money and re-election. In your emails I would HIGHLY recommend that you state how those who vote for these bills, their names, will be remembered during the next election cycle. I161 told them how Montanans feel about this and a yes vote would not set very well with the voting public during the next elections....make that known in your emails. You need to start talking in a language that gets politicians attention.

 

[huntandfly]

My position also, what’s the downside? Except a portion is earlier and a higher fee? Which helps fund access.

It could be argued that a downside would be prioritizing a certain number of tags for folks who have the means to pay extra every year.

Obviously better than the original bill, and great that the money would go to habitat MT, but still not ideal I think.

 

[BuckeyeRifleman]

Yes. Straight shot in the arm to Habitat Montana for projects like the Big Snowies WMA purchase, conservation easements & small purchases to increase access to landlocked public land.

Well, dare I say it I might actually support this thing now. I hate to spend even more on tags, but I am happy to spend a little extra to ensure my son has even better access and opportunity someday. Sounds like a win for residents and non-residents alike.

Still need to keep the pressure on to ensure it doesn't get amended into something worse in the house.

 

[Dakotakid]

Based on the amendment, I encourage all sportsman to support it. The alternative is much less palatable.
No threats, just positive support for a compromise that everyone can live with even if not happy.