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

[Gevock]

Ben Lamb is correct, this bill must go to both chambers for final approval, so hit both the House and Senate members. And amendments cannot be offered on the floor to bills that have gone through a conference committee. It needs to be a NO vote on this bill.

 

[Ben Lamb]

We've got a couple hours before they come back, so light 'em up folks.

Vote no on HB 637.

The preference point issue means extremely difficult odds for anyone who isn't an outfitted client, and point creep will mean it will be even more difficult to pull a LE permit at all.

While there are good pieces in this bill, it should go back to conference and the preference point provision must be removed, as well as the welfare tags.

 

[Hunting Wife]

Done.

Really hoping this is the last time for a while that I spend my half hour writing emails instead of eating lunch.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Done.

Really hoping this is the last time for a while that I spend my half hour writing emails instead of eating lunch.

Three or four more days.

 

[----]

Can anyone help me out on the bonus point language? I'm not having any luck finding it anywhere in the amendments.

Also, am I reading the moose tag portion correctly, that FWP will issue you a new moose tag if you killed a moose that wasn't fit for consumption in the past?

 

[Ben Lamb]

Can anyone help me out on the bonus point language? I'm not having any luck finding it anywhere in the amendments.

Also, am I reading the moose tag portion correctly, that FWP will issue you a new moose tag if you killed a moose that wasn't fit for consumption in the past?

That is correct on the moose tag. Apparently some constituents of Sen. bob brown had a moose they couldn't eat, so they want another bite at the apple.

The amendment on points is here: https://leg.mt.gov/bills/2021/AmdPublicWeb/HB0637.003.007.pdf

It starts at the bottom of page 8.

 

[----]

That is correct on the moose tag. Apparently some constituents of Sen. bob brown had a moose they couldn't eat, so they want another bite at the apple.

The amendment on points is here: https://leg.mt.gov/bills/2021/AmdPublicWeb/HB0637.003.007.pdf

It starts at the bottom of page 8.

That's the language I thought was being discussed. Those are preference points, different than bonus points and unrelated to the limited entry draws.

 

[Ben Lamb]

That's the language I thought was being discussed. Those are preference points, different than bonus points and unrelated to the limited entry draws.

And the point creep that comes along with this means fewer and fewer DIY nonresidents pulling the B-10 or B-11. It's a tag grab, it's just using a little bit of lube.

 

[lifeisgoodsteve]

Emails sent.

 

[Big Fin]

Done.

 

[Beignet]

Am I correct in my interpretation of this Berglee requested amendment (007): It will effectively give all outfitted NR's a tag in unlimited numbers by allowing them to purchase two bonus points (assuming that 2 points continues to be a 100% draw), and also gives any outfitted NR's a "participation trophy" for 2021 by giving them tags for this season if they didn't draw? In effect, this could be much worse than SB 143 in terms of tags set-aside for deep pockets?

 

[golfer]

Will this be brought up in the house or senate next?

 

[Straight Arrow]

This reply from Sen. Pat Flowers:
"Thanks Dick. Yes, I spoke against this in our conference committee this morning on both content and process. Hope you and Donna are enjoying the Spring! I am about to!"

'Hope Pat Flowers can enjoy the spring. He has fought hard this session on behalf of wildlife and hunting. Sen. Flowers has earned our thanks.!

 

[Ben Lamb]

Am I correct in my interpretation of this Berglee requested amendment (007): It will effectively give all outfitted NR's a tag in unlimited numbers by allowing them to purchase two bonus points (assuming that 2 points continues to be a 100% draw), and also gives any outfitted NR's a "participation trophy" for 2021 by giving them tags for this season if they didn't draw? In effect, this could be much worse than SB 143 in terms of tags set-aside for deep pockets?

Sort of. Amendment 637-003-007 lifts the cap on non-resident B-10 & B-11 combo licenses for 2021, meaning there is an outfitter sponsored-unlimited license in 2021, and the extra preference point is added in perpetuity for outfitted clients. So it will increase tag theft by outfitters, while ensuring folks with far fewer points will not draw. Rather than the 50% chance for 1 pp now, you will lose that in the future and you will now be competing with the very special outfitter clients who get to double their chances of drawing, leaving many others out completely.

Will this be brought up in the house or senate next?

It will be up in the House & Senate for conference committee concurrence votes. So both houses, today. We need folks to vote no on the concurrence and send it back to committee or just kill the bill.

 

[sacountry]

I just called the switch 406-444-4800. Said no to HB 637 with the amendments from SB 143. The switch operator can only send the message to up to 5 of the 6 legislators sitting on the conference committee. I opted to not have it send to Rep Runningwolf since I know he's in opposition of it.

 

[TrumpkinTheDwarf]

I just called the switch 406-444-4800. Said no to HB 637 with the amendments from SB 143. The switch operator can only send the message to up to 5 of the 6 legislators sitting on the conference committee. I opted to not have it send to Rep Runningwolf since I know he's in opposition of it.

Same thing here.

 

[Wildabeest]

The fact that they are having to resort to back door tactics to get this passed after it failed in the fish and wildlife committee is testament to this being bad policy that ONLY benefits outfitters. Montana outfitters, you should be ashamed to be associated with this garbage!

 

[sacountry]

Special thanks to Kevin Farron of Backountry Hunters and Anglers that posted this on Facebook. Then hopped on to hunttalk to get the skinny. Atta boys all the way around.

 

[sacountry]

I've said it before.....I'll say it again....legislators should only be able to mess with land right issues/laws. Wildlife management should be the sole responsibility of the FWP who can introduce legislation through committee when/if necessary. I'm flabbergasted the way legislators are punting around the point system as if its a football to do their bidding. It's flat out stupid.

 

[Wildabeest]

Am I reading this right that it passed 4-2?