Schaaf
Well-known member
Is there a vote count on the bill? How well received was Tom’s amendment?
Sorry, grocery shopping and house wife stuff.
Sorry, grocery shopping and house wife stuff.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Demand for tags exceeds supply. I’d argue that legislators have a responsibility to reap the benefit of that if it can done in a way that respects the resource. The amended bill seems like a decent compromise for outfitters and their clients, all thinks considered.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.
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.
That it allows money to buy exclusivity, which is antithetical to the North American model. Other than that, it’s great.My position also, what’s the downside? Except a portion is earlier and a higher fee? Which helps fund access.
Demand for tags exceeds supply. I’d argue that legislators have a responsibility to reap the benefit of that if it can done in a way that respects the resource. The amended bill seems like a decent compromise for outfitters and their clients, all thinks considered.
I don’t disagree with most of this, but wildly cheering this on as if it’s a great deal, as some are, is akin to thanking the arsonist for only burning half of your house instead of all of it.We all wish the bill could have been killed. But, one must look at the massive imbalance in those elected seats when it comes to our issues. Given the complexity of legislative process and reality of how the votes are aligned, to end up with something like this should be looked at as a major victory.
Thanks to some true leaders for their work behind the scenes, both individuals and organizations.
They’re crazy not to with all the FOIA requests these days.I wonder if some of these people even email. You can't tell me Denley Loge in the House reads or writes emails daily...
Also... What is up with not everybody using a @mtleg.gov email address? Is that normal? Are they not required to use state emails?
Almost sounds like they just recommended a $300 Bonus Point fee. Not exactly the same but not exactly different either. Bit surprised that this is getting the love it is. I suppose compared to the prior version it is a smaller chit sandwich to eat.I don’t disagree with most of this, but wildly cheering this on as if it’s a great deal, as some are, is akin to thanking the arsonist for only burning half of your house instead of all of it.
I’m assuming your comment was directed at me. Reading the political winds, this isn’t done and it wouldn’t surprise me one bit if the outfitter welfare resurfaces.My cheering this is based solely on reading the political winds. This is a far better result than what was proposed. If you want to stand against the tide, then your welcome to be on your own.
That too harsh, more of a freeloaderWow. Some of them truly feel that the DIY hunter is just an absolute low life POS.
In my experience, this is the step where participatory democracy goes to die. If leaders in the House and Senate want something to pass but get too much heat from the public, they pass different versions and then "fix it" in conference committee. By this point the average citizen has lost track and things "just get done".If rejected, it goes to a conference committee, set by leadership of both Houses.
Just think of the multiples for the MT economy if they all had to use an outfitter instead of spending $5,000 on an out of state trip to Vegas or San DiegoNot that this is relevant at all here:
View attachment 174198
In the meantime, a resident could always give $750 to RMEF or BHA in lieu of higher tag price and have a little more confidence in how that money would be spent to improve wildlife.Greenhorns point is well taken as well. Sign me up for hauling more water.
I am not disagreeing with you, but if MT is anything like other states, 90% of these folks are in safe districts where just having the R or the D next to their name (depending on the district) gets them a win. The real threat (being used by AOC progressives and the Trumpist GOPers alike) is in people supporting a primary fight. Find a viable candidate from the same party as the incumbent, but who shares your view on an important topic and help them oppose the incumbent in the next primary - that is the only real leverage voters have against the heavily gerrymandered political landscape of 2021.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.