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

[VikingsGuy]

It's a rich-versus-not issue: giving certainty of draw success every year to the same wealthy, guided Non-Residents at the expense -- no pun intended -- of the rest of us Non-Residents. I don't see how any Montana legislator can back that with a straight face.

I go further - its about the current incumbents. Almost every discussion on tags, draws and access boils down to protecting the vested incumbents. Sometimes they have money, sometimes they don't, but frankly hunting organizations talk about wanting to bring more new folks to the table but in fact the industry and stakeholders spend lots of time making sure the incumbents get theirs first (and maybe only).

 

[MTelkHuntress]

All those "robo emails"

Thankfully Senator Flowers stood up to say that they were actually personal and concerns of the people.

 

[WIbiggame]

Basically all it does now is create an earlier draw for those that want to pay more for the tags. I'm fine with that.

Is the whole drawing moved up or is there a set number of tags set aside for a higher price like the special draw in WY?

 

[idahohuntr]

I don’t fully understand what they just passed. Missed the amendment. Can someone please summarize what is contained in this version for the slow kids?

Takes the 40% of the tags outfitters wanted, and makes them a general draw Dec 1-31 at a higher fee. But they are not guaranteed to outfitted clients...anybody can apply. The remaining 60% of tags stay in the normal draw at regular fees. It is most similar to WY special vs. regular IMO.

 

[Brad W]

From my understanding, the amendment creates an early draw that would be completed by Jan 15 with 40% of the total tags (those previously guaranteed outfitter tags). It will cost either $200 or $300 more and all of that increase will go to habitat montana.

 

[Gevock]

We're still working to understand the amendment, but in simple terms it appears to create a Wyoming-style two-tiered license draw system, with a higher fee for the early drawing. That would happen earlier.

 

[Ben Lamb]

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.

 

[JLS]

We're still working to understand the amendment, but in simple terms it appears to create a Wyoming-style two-tiered license draw system, with a higher fee for the early drawing. That would happen earlier.

Not really wild about this either. It’s better than what was proposed, but it still sucks.

 

[Ben Sellers]

If they wanted to move the draw up for the same $$$, I would support wholeheartedly but that’s not exactly where we’re headed. I feel that would be more of an infinitive for people to commit to Montana before the other states pull them away. It would help everyone plan more efficiently.

 

[Ben Lamb]

I don’t fully understand what they just passed. Missed the amendment. Can someone please summarize what is contained in this version for the slow kids?

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.

 

[ChaosOneZero]

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.

Is this the most recent/accurate list of committee members?

Fitzgerald, Ross (R) ‐ Chair
Duram, Neil (R) ‐ Vice Chair
Farris‐Olsen, Robert (D) ‐ Vice Chair Berglee, Seth (R)
Fielder, Paul (R)
France, Tom (D)
Hinkle, Jedediah (R)
Knudsen, Rhonda (R)
Loge, Denley (R)
Marler, Marilyn (D)
Mitchell, Braxton (R)
Novak, Sara (D)
Phalen, Bob (R)
Putnam, Brian (R)
Reksten, Linda (R)
Running Wolf, Tyson (D)
Seekins‐Crowe, Kerri (R)
Weatherwax, Marvin (D)

 

[Ben Lamb]

Not really wild about this either. It’s better than what was proposed, but it still sucks.

It is an imperfect solution, but my understanding was that there were not enough votes to kill it outright so the amendment was the best option out of what existed. Ellsworth is the President Pro Tempore (Senate Leadership, #3 position) which makes killing bills tougher.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Is this the most recent/accurate list of committee members?

Fitzgerald, Ross (R) ‐ Chair
Duram, Neil (R) ‐ Vice Chair
Farris‐Olsen, Robert (D) ‐ Vice Chair Berglee, Seth (R)
Fielder, Paul (R)
France, Tom (D)
Hinkle, Jedediah (R)
Knudsen, Rhonda (R)
Loge, Denley (R)
Marler, Marilyn (D)
Mitchell, Braxton (R)
Novak, Sara (D)
Phalen, Bob (R)
Putnam, Brian (R)
Reksten, Linda (R)
Running Wolf, Tyson (D)
Seekins‐Crowe, Kerri (R)
Weatherwax, Marvin (D)

Yes.

 

[MTGomer]

That’s an improvement

I missed it due to work. I am watching the xbow Bill.
Interesting discussion.

I pictured the full senate being larger.

Must be a lot of lawmakers attending remotely.

 

[Brad W]

Ben,
Can you explain how the process of re-amending the bill would take place. Would it need to go back to the Senate?

 

[Brad W]

I found it particularly ironic when Senator Hinebaugh stated that he came to Helena to reduce bureaucracy as he is pushing a bill that would increase it.

 

[Deleted member 40728]

They probably figure the hunters willing to fork over $5000+ to an outfitter will easily spend an additional $300 to have a better chance at getting a tag. I’m glad the additional money goes to funding montana wildlife and habitat but it still seems it is a small step in a direction to price a certain pool of people out in the future.
Im not saying the price itself is too high I’m only meaning I feel there is another agenda being had here that won’t show it’s ugly head until later down the road.

 

[Big Fin]

Not really wild about this either. It’s better than what was proposed, but it still sucks.

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.

 

[BlakeA]

Wow. Some of them truly feel that the DIY hunter is just an absolute low life POS. Ellsworth is a GEM. Also, the fence analogy....wtf?!?!

 

[Ben Lamb]

Ben,
Can you explain how the process of re-amending the bill would take place. Would it need to go back to the Senate?

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 in 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 consensus. 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.