Schaaf
Well-known member
And wolves for eating all the elk
"Outfitter Unaccountability Act" would remove sportspersons from Board
- Thread starter Gevock
- Start date
Big Shooter
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 15, 2008
- Messages
- 482
You may want to do a little more research sir. Outfitters are not responsible for all of those....and most of us are against some of them. Just saying.
MTLabrador
Well-known member
So MOGA is testifying against them, right?
D
Deleted member 28227
Guest
I didn't say outfitters were responsible for all of them. They are directly for 4 of the 7 and I haven't heard or seen much in the way of them fighting against the other three.
Given the Board of Outfitters in its current state has never done anything to seriously reprimand any operators, or at least not that I am aware, this bill seems to have little impact on what have turned out to be mostly ceremonial appointments. Wish I could say it was different and I have had some friends who have served on that Board, only to leave very frustrated. To those who have served on this Board, I appreciate their efforts to try bring change.
That said, this bill is way down my list of what is going on right now in this legislature. Yeah, I'd rather see no more MOGA bills introduced, but I can see a lot of bills that impact the self-guided hunter, both resident and non-resident, far more than this bill.
Just a function of allocating very scarce resources to a larger struggle in which we are completely outgunned.
@Randy Hodges has stated in post #14 on a much more important bill, a bill we killed four years ago. It deals with hounds for spring bear.
If you want to weigh in on a bill that has some impact, that will would be a better use of your time. Link to that thread here - https://laws.leg.mt.gov/legprd/LAW0...LTP_BILL_TYP_CD=HB&Z_ACTION=Find&P_SESS=20211
That said, this bill is way down my list of what is going on right now in this legislature. Yeah, I'd rather see no more MOGA bills introduced, but I can see a lot of bills that impact the self-guided hunter, both resident and non-resident, far more than this bill.
Just a function of allocating very scarce resources to a larger struggle in which we are completely outgunned.
@Randy Hodges has stated in post #14 on a much more important bill, a bill we killed four years ago. It deals with hounds for spring bear.
If you want to weigh in on a bill that has some impact, that will would be a better use of your time. Link to that thread here - https://laws.leg.mt.gov/legprd/LAW0...LTP_BILL_TYP_CD=HB&Z_ACTION=Find&P_SESS=20211
Last edited:
Sad though most realistic post of the bunch.
Hopefully the messages, phone, etc to our representatives exceeds the normal, "noise" and brings a bit of pause to the bills (plural) intent.
I couldn't open the link, FYI
Gevock
Well-known member
We will be opposing that bill. Montana has an annual black bear harvest of roughly 1,400 bears with ethical, fair chase seasons. It's not a management issue because of a need for increased harvest.
This. Plus the sponsor is someone who has been able to bridge divides and pull together good policy. He was the one who stood in support of the amendment on 143, and he has brought about some fantastic changes to how land is managed in MT through his budget work.
I'd rather give him the benefit of the doubt & reach out to him before trying to light him on fire.
Eric Albus
Well-known member
- Joined
- May 24, 2012
- Messages
- 1,674
Randy, the outfitters I know who have served on the board always asked for stricter penalties against fellow outfitters for violations, only to have the public members(often liberals) feel pity on the offending party. They would state "this is his livelihood, we can't take this from him" or "if we suspend his license how will he feed his family". I think having more outfitters on the board would be the best thing.
Similar threads
