Permit Bill up tomorrow - Heads UP

[Ben Lamb]

HB 417, the bill that would eliminate limited entry permits in herds over objective is up tomorrow at 3 PM in House Fish, Wildlife & Parks. It is imperative that folks sign up before NOON MST today to get in line to testify against or for this bill. There wasn't the showing during 143 that folks had thought, so if you have an opinion & you want to let the committee know, sign up here:

Home - Montana Legislature

MONTANA STATE LEGISLATURE MCA Search Bill/LC Search Meetings & Events Quick Links Bill Explorer Search for bills by subject and start tracking them. Find Your Legislator Find out who is representing your interests during the gathering of the Montana Legislature. State Statutes The Montana Code...

leg.mt.gov

Select HB 417 and follow the page through to get set up to testify. If you want to just submit testimony, you can do that on the same page.

Here's the link to the bill: http://laws.leg.mt.gov/legprd/LAW02...LTP_BILL_TYP_CD=HB&Z_ACTION=Find&P_SESS=20211

Remember the following:

1.) Dress Appropriately. These folks volunteer to be legislators and they deserve your respect even if you disagree. Wear a clean button down shirt, no hats, no sunglasses, no T-shirts.

2.) Be Respectful. You may end up on the receiving end of some one who isn't, but how you conduct yourself reflects on all hunter-conservationists.

3.) Be brief & don't repeat testimony. If there are a large number of people in line to testify, we want everyone to have a chance to say their peace. If the point you wanted to make was already made, give your name, location & say that you agree with so & so who just testified, and then politely ask the committee to table the bill (if you oppose it).

 

[Gevock]

MWF will be testifying against this, and putting out an action alert this morning. We're working to get some good voices to testify against this bill. I will put up the alert shortly.

 

[Ben Lamb]

MWF will be testifying against this, and putting out an action alert this morning. We're working to get some good voices to testify against this bill. I will put up the alert shortly.

Could you share that alert here so folks can use it as well?

Thanks!

 

[Gevock]

Could you share that alert here so folks can use it as well?

Thanks!

Planning on it. It's being drafted. This popped up for a hearing quickly!

 

[Ben Lamb]

Planning on it. It's being drafted. This popped up for a hearing quickly!

Thanks Nick!


Process point for folks: Bills are supposed to have a 48 hour notice for hearings. Given the limitations on remote testimony, this effeectively gives folks 24 hours to get signed up for the hearing. Things move fast in a state legislature, and it's vital to watch the bill tracker to see LC's move to bills, and when they get assigned a hearing.

With 150 bill drafts in the pipeline, things will get crazier as we move towards Transmittal, with the 48 hour rule being ignored if things get too western. When that happens, the fix is in, and leadership does not want controversy on a bill they know is controversial.

 

[tjones]

The wording on this bill is a bit tricky. The change comes in line 28.


I am not sure how many if any HDs for deer and antelope have "sustainable population number".

It also does not say for elk "population objectives" like what is in the EMP.

Its either poorly written or there is a whole lot I am missing. Or both


28. (8) The commission may not limit the number of permits available for a species in a hunting district where the population of that species exceeds the sustainable population number established pursuant to 87-1- 2 323."


Here is code 87-1-323

(1) Based on the habitat acreage that is determined pursuant to 87-1-322 , the commission shall determine the appropriate elk, deer, and antelope numbers that can be viably sustained. The department shall consider the specific concerns of private landowners when determining sustainable numbers pursuant to this section.
(2) Once the sustainable population numbers are determined as provided in subsection (1), the department shall implement, through existing wildlife management programs, necessary actions with the objective that the population of elk, deer, and antelope remains at or below the sustainable population. The programs may include but are not limited to:
(a) liberalized harvests;
(b) game damage hunts;
(c) landowner permits;  or
(d) animal relocation.
(3) The department shall:
(a) manage with the objective that populations of elk, deer, and antelope are at or below the sustainable population number by January 1, 2009;  and
(b) evaluate the elk, deer, and antelope populations on an annual basis and provide that information to the public.

 

[mtnkid85]

Thank you, I just signed up to testify.

 

[MTGomer]

I planned to testify on this one. I have a 3-5 appointment that cannot be rescheduled.

I nominate someone here on Hunttalk to take my spot

 

[Schaaf]

Highly doubtful I’ll be able to testify tomorrow but just fired an email off to the committee.

 

[Ben Lamb]

The wording on this bill is a bit tricky. The change comes in line 28.


I am not sure how many if any HDs for deer and antelope have "sustainable population number".

It also does not say for elk "population objectives" like what is in the EMP.

Its either poorly written or there is a whole lot I am missing. Or both


28. (8) The commission may not limit the number of permits available for a species in a hunting district where the population of that species exceeds the sustainable population number established pursuant to 87-1- 2 323."


Here is code 87-1-323

(1) Based on the habitat acreage that is determined pursuant to 87-1-322 , the commission shall determine the appropriate elk, deer, and antelope numbers that can be viably sustained. The department shall consider the specific concerns of private landowners when determining sustainable numbers pursuant to this section.
(2) Once the sustainable population numbers are determined as provided in subsection (1), the department shall implement, through existing wildlife management programs, necessary actions with the objective that the population of elk, deer, and antelope remains at or below the sustainable population. The programs may include but are not limited to:
(a) liberalized harvests;
(b) game damage hunts;
(c) landowner permits;  or
(d) animal relocation.
(3) The department shall:
(a) manage with the objective that populations of elk, deer, and antelope are at or below the sustainable population number by January 1, 2009;  and
(b) evaluate the elk, deer, and antelope populations on an annual basis and provide that information to the public.

My reading is that this leaves it pretty wide open as to what is sustainable and what isn't, plus given the attempts to stack the Commission, I can see this affecting the three species listed in 87-1-323.

If the commission decides there are too many pronghorn in 444, then no LE Permits & go blast away. They could decide that 270 has too many bucks eating apples so, no Le Permits anymore, and it's a general license buck.

Only elk have objectives, that is correct, but it leaves this up to the commission to decide when enough complaining about crop damage is worth blowing apart quality units.

 

[tjones]

My reading is that this leaves it pretty wide open as to what is sustainable and what isn't, plus given the attempts to stack the Commission, I can see this affecting the three species listed in 87-1-323.

If the commission decides there are too many pronghorn in 444, then no LE Permits & go blast away. They could decide that 270 has too many bucks eating apples so, no Le Permits anymore, and it's a general license buck.

Only elk have objectives, that is correct, but it leaves this up to the commission to decide when enough complaining about crop damage is worth blowing apart quality units.

So the commission will have to go through every single antelope, deer and elk unit and come up with a sustainable population number?

Some of the units never get surveyed so no one has a clue what the population even is.

 

[Ben Lamb]

So the commission will have to go through every single antelope, deer and elk unit and come up with a sustainable population number?

Some of the units never get surveyed so no one has a clue what the population even is.

Nope. They would likely get petitioned by landowners who are not happy with current numbers, and then they can make a decision.

 

[tjones]

So they want to hit a number that does not exist and set in statue to manage to.

What a F'n joke.

 

[Straight Arrow]

Highly doubtful I’ll be able to testify tomorrow but just fired an email off to the committee.

Likewise.

 

[Ben Lamb]

So they want to hit a number that does not exist and set in statue to manage to.

What a F'n joke.

It would include B tags under a quota or LE permit as well.

 

[JLS]

Highly doubtful I’ll be able to testify tomorrow but just fired an email off to the committee.

Do you have a link to the committee members? I'll fire off an email this evening.

 

[Schaaf]

Do you have a link to the committee members? I'll fire off an email this evening.

I’ve been using this. It allows you to select the specific bill and committee- type an email, label yourself as proponent or opponent. Just be sure to hit the no on testifying.

Have Your Say Montana - Montana State Legislature

leg.mt.gov

 

[MTGomer]

Do you have a link to the committee members? I'll fire off an email this evening.

I do. Send me an email and I’ll forward it to you.

[email protected]

 

[MTLabrador]

I won't be able to make it on Zoom, but I wrote in testimony as well. @Schaaf, I did talk to RMEF headquarters, and as Ben said, they currently don't have a government relations specialist and as such have not taken a stance on any bill.

 

[Gevock]

HB 417, sponsored by Rep. Josh Kassmier, R-Ft. Benton, would bar Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks from using special permits for bulls and bucks in hunting districts that are over the objective population for elk, deer, and antelope. This would lead to a slaughter of bull elk in the Missouri River Breaks for the rifle season, no special draws in the Bear Paw Mountains and changes in any district in the state with populations over the objectives. It would mainly affect elk.

Killing bull elk is not the solution to populations over the objective, and this bill is an effort to take away authority from professional biologists. In open country like the Missouri River Breaks, it would cause a big kill in bulls and lead to terrible bull-cow ratios. And it would end the regulation of archery permits out there to address the historic serious overcrowding.

This bad bill should die. It is going to the House Fish, Wildlife and Parks committee 3 p.m. Thursday, Feb. 18. Please contact committee members and tell them to vote NO on HB 417.

PLEASE WRITE YOUR OWN MESSAGE, but include these points:
Montana uses limited permits in specific areas for sound reasons, including the terrain, access to big game, and historic crowding to manage hunters. This is done in consultation with area biologists, landowners, and hunters to craft regulations. It is wrong to claim that killing bull elk will get at elk populations, and this bill is an attempt to open many districts to killing bull elk with a general license.

HB 417 will be heard tomorrow at 3 PM before the House Fish and Game Committee. Here are three things you can do to work to kill this bill.

1. Contact members of the House Fish, Wildlife and Parks committee HERE, and tell them to vote NO on HB 417.

• Fill out the form provided.
• Select Committees
• Select (H) Fish, Wildlife and Parks
• Select Bill Type (HB) and Bill Number HB 417
• Select Against
• Provide your message

PLEASE WRITE YOUR OWN MESSAGE, but the points that this bill will lead to a slaughter of bull elk in many districts, that is takes away management from biologists and it doesn’t consider overcrowding in certain areas.

2. Leave a message with the state switchboard at 406-444-4800.

3. Testify at the hearing on HB 417 at 3 p.m. Thursday, Feb. 18. YOU MUST REGISTER BY NOON TODAY, Feb. 17 to testify. To do that, go here and fill out the form for HB 417. For more information view HOW TO TESTIFY REMOTELY.


Nick Gevock
Conservation Director