Revise MT Tagging law

[Ben Long]

Do we really want the Legislature mucking with this kind of stuff? Isn't it the job of the FWP Commission?

 

[Oak]

Can't believe this thread is 20 posts long already. Keep hammering.

Hunters seem to pick some curious issues to be passionate about. Too bad they are rarely the issues that will really make a difference in protecting our heritage for future generations.

 

[WT_in_MT]

Do we really want the Legislature mucking with this kind of stuff? Isn't it the job of the FWP Commission?

Too late. Statute already dictates tagging requirements, to include immediacy.

 

[npaden]

Can't believe this thread is 20 posts long already. Keep hammering.

Hunters seem to pick some curious issues to be passionate about. Too bad they are rarely the issues that will really make a difference in protecting our heritage for future generations.

Yeah, like crossbows and lighted knocks!

 

[RobG]

This is pretty low hanging fruit Oak and it will be helpful to hunters to get it right. And it might actually pass. Feel free to share your passionate wisdom in this thread or elsewhere.

 

[RobG]

Essmann's draft is available: LC2034

If I read it correctly it just changes changes "immediately" to "prior to the person leaving or animal being removed from the kill site."

I'm leaning towards validating the tag as soon as the animal is determined to be dead (but not necessarily attaching the tag to the animal). It just isn't that hard and allowing an untagged animal on the ground is just inviting abuse. The penalty should be reasonable, however, unless the animal is removed from the kill site.

However, Essmann's bill doesn't address the problem of hauling out an animal in pieces.

I will give him a heads up about this thread now. Representaive Essmann's email is [email protected]

 

[RobG]

I just sent my opinion. I don't care much about the "immediately," but I would really like some certainty when transporting bags of meat.

9-Jan-2015
Dear Representative Essmann,

I am writing in regards to LC2034 “Clarify laws related to when and how to legally tag animals.” I assume this is in response to the hunter who got is his elk confiscated near Wilsall this fall. I agree with the intent of the bill: the word "immediately" makes the law hard to follow literally.

The bill appears to change “immediately” to “prior to the person leaving or the animal being removed from the kill site…” This is understandable, but it may go too far and doesn’t address issues that arise when removing an animal from the field in pieces.

In my opinion, a better approach would be to

1) Validate (notch) the tag as soon as the hunter has secured the animal and has determined that it is dead.

2) If the validated tag is not attached to the carcass, allow the tag to remain on the hunter’s person while the hunter is transporting all or part of the animal (at least in the field).

Regarding 1, while there are reasons not to immediately attach your tag to the animal (see item 2), there is no reason why a person can’t notch out his/her tag as soon as the animal is determined to be dead. The only reason NOT to do it would be to enable illegal activity. That said, punishment should fit the crime and forgetting to do this should carry a lesser fine than transporting an untagged animal.

Regarding 2, requiring the tag to be attached to the carcass doesn’t prevent any illegal activity and it creates dilemmas. For example, consider a cow elk shot in the backcountry. These are often “boned out” in the field. Then the meat is placed in bags and hauled back to a vehicle in several trips. There is no place on a cow that a tag can be attached to that will remain in place throughout the boning process. When finished boning, you would have to remove the tag from the carcass and then attach it to one of the bags of meat. That serves no purpose, and the tag could get damaged in the process of transferring it.

Furthermore, if the tag is attached to one bag of meat the hunter will not have the tag when he/she is transporting the other bags. This creates a law enforcement problem if the hunter is stopped by a game warden while transporting an untagged bag. Carrying the tag on your person would allow you to immediately show that you are properly licensed instead of having to return to wherever the tagged bag is located.

I hope you will consider this alternative approach that addresses the issue of transporting game in multiple pieces as well as making the law easy to follow. I have opened a discussion on Randy Newberg’s Hunt Talk bulletin board to discuss all ideas: http://onyourownadventures.com/hunttalk/showthread.php?t=261966

I also created a topic for each state's tagging requirements:

http://onyourownadventures.com/hunttalk/showthread.php?t=261970

 

[RobG]

The hearing for this (HB 279) is today at 3pm. The text of the bill is here: http://leg.mt.gov/bills/2015/billhtml/HB0279.htm

I suggested an amendment that would allow us to carry the validated tag on our person when transporting it in the field - currently the law requires it to be attached which is problematic when packing out an animal in pieces. Even FWP enforcement person Jim Kropp says everyone just carries it in their pocket. If you think allowing that is a good idea so some nutball warden doesn't take your elk you can send the House FWP committee a quick note. So far I've been met with silence so I doubt that the amendment will be considered unless some people comment.

To comment, go to http://leg.mt.gov/css/Sessions/64th/legwebmessage.asp and send a message to the House FWP committee.

This isn't going to change the world but it actually has a chance of getting through and might save a few people an unnecessary ticket.

 

[Straight Arrow]

Message submitted. Thanks, Rob.

 

[sra61]

I sent a message too.Thanks for the work.

 

[LopeHunter]

I just sent my opinion. I don't care much about the "immediately," but I would really like some certainty when transporting bags of meat.

Well-written. Allows honest hunters to be easily verified as innocent yet exposes poachers and other criminals as poachers and criminals. I know most wardens prefer easy to enforce rules, also.

 

[RobG]

Just an update - this bill is going to sail through - not a single vote against it in house or senate. This is an important issue, said no-one ever.

However, when I listened to the audio nobody even brought up the subject of allowing the tag in the pocket. It is disappointing to be totally ignored/dismissed on multiple attempts about a real issue, but pushing it was pretty low on my list of things that needed to be done so I didn't waste much time on it. Guess I'll stash my first piece of meat in the woods instead of putting it the truck when going to get more help....

 

[cowboy]

RobG:
Thanks for the update. So in simple terms - how does the final proposal read? I take it that packing out boneless meat in multiple trips was not addressed???

 

[Straight Arrow]

During a recent discussion with an FWP warden, who has earned my respect and trust, we talked about the multiple trip extraction process and specifically about putting the notched-out tag in pocket during the trips. I had described a six-trip moose extraction day I had experienced personally. He stated that the notched tag-in-pocket method is a good solution and something typically discussed during warden training and discussions. The critical concern is the completion of date-notching the tag once the animal is confirmed dead and then of securing the tag to the "largest" part of the meat once in a vehicle for transport. He indicated that during the time the animal was downed and the time all meat parts were in the vehicle, completed tag in the pocket was a good practice.

 

[Jim-MN-ELK]

I see the word is spreading but here's my UPDATE!
A raw deal for me has turned into a good deal for future MT hunters. Because of all the unwanted attention the FWP received over this case, Montana has re-written and recently passed a new law on tagging game animals. A copy of the new law is being mailed to me so I can post it word for word just yet, but from what I understand the word "immediately" has been removed. Ironically, the new rule sounds very similar to Minnesota's and Wyoming's laws which were written by someone with common sense. Montana's "immediately" rule had been in effect since the 1950s... really??? Glad I could help out!

In our quest to find justice, or any type of cooperation with the FWP regarding warden Drew Scotts bad judgment, our letters (all the way to Governor Bullock) did nothing other than provide us with "lip service". The result is, even if the wardens are wrong in their actions, they will circle the wagons and a cover up to some degree will take place... just like this case.

My brother and I still have a problem with the legality of how my elk was confiscated and the refusal of the FWP and Muddy Boot Productions to sit down for a viewing of the video taken of us that morning. Not to mention false, and or misleading statements to newspapers concerning our hunt. So, we are still busy...! In the mean time, if you are hunting in MT and see a warden / cameraman approaching you, I suggest you pull out a camera or better yet, an I-Phone and start filming/recording the situation to protect yourself.

I just want to add that my brother from Clyde Park is the one who first introduced this change by contacting one or two (or more) legislators, asking them to bring this to the 2015 session. From there the FWP pretty much took credit as stated in the Billings Gazette on Wednesday 2-4-15, page A9. As far as I know, this change was only set into motion due to the wide spread publicity on the confiscation of my elk. With that being said, I want to thank Mr. Essmann for being the primary sponsor of the bill. I have the House Bill 279 as introduced by Mr. Essmann (rather long but will post it here if someone wants to read it) and I should have a copy of the final wording in the next few days.

 

[BuzzH]

I never had a problem with the existing law, but glad you feel like you've "helped"..

 

[TheJason]

I am of the opinion that you are putting lipstick on a pig. The problem lies with the warden(s) who cannot use common sense, and the supervisors who do not mentor and hold their young wardens accountable to the use of common sense.

 

[BuzzH]

JLS,

I agree 100%...wouldn't hurt for NR hunters to read the regulations either.

 

[theat]

I never had a problem with the existing law, but glad you feel like you've "helped"..

I am of the opinion that you are putting lipstick on a pig. The problem lies with the warden(s) who cannot use common sense, and the supervisors who do not mentor and hold their young wardens accountable to the use of common sense.

I see this as a good thing. Clarification of this ambiguous law should result in less occurrences of a lack of "common sense" in its application by wardens. Most wardens are pretty good at making the right call, but obviously some need the intent of the law to be spelled out exactly to keep them from making a bad judgement call.

 

[tjones]

I never had a problem with the existing law, but glad you feel like you've "helped"..

This ^^^^

with 43 seasons under my belt. I learned to read and understand regs and also what is printed on the tag. I also understand "attach your tag immediately upon kill" doesn't mean make a cell phone call first.