SB 287

[MThuntr]

From Montana Wildlife Federation:

SB 287 undermines the state’s ability to manage wildlife as a public resource. It would fundamentally alter the financial capacity of the Montana Fish, Wildlife, and Parks Department while eroding the public support for conservation and wildlife management in Montana. In addition, it opens the door to the return of game farming and the potential for privatizing our public wildlife.

LAWS Detailed Bill Information Page

I'm not good at interpreting the legalese so maybe some can help read between the lines in the bill

 

[Carnage2011]

From Montana Wildlife Federation:

SB 287 undermines the state’s ability to manage wildlife as a public resource. It would fundamentally alter the financial capacity of the Montana Fish, Wildlife, and Parks Department while eroding the public support for conservation and wildlife management in Montana. In addition, it opens the door to the return of game farming and the potential for privatizing our public wildlife.

LAWS Detailed Bill Information Page

I'm not good at interpreting the legalese so maybe some can help read between the lines in the bill

I can't seem to piece this one together. Can @Ben Lamb help us out here??

 

[Jock Conyngham]

That’s largely above my pay grade, but “takings” claims are routinely used to attack or claim public trust resources on private land.

 

[Nunyacreek]

From what I read this bill expands the scope of what can be considered property subject to takings compensation and provides a more direct method of redress (lowers the bar to litigation) through An award of attorneys fees. I’ll let
Others speculate on what licenses, authorizations, and intangible
Rights are actually at issue here. But these things do not arise in a vacuum.

 

[Jock Conyngham]

I can't seem to piece this one together. Can @Ben Lamb help us out here??

Carnage, if you’re going to comment you may need to do it without Ben’s input, since MWF expects this to come up for a vote tomorrow. Just like last session, the worst bills are coming right at the end in a great tsunami of horseshit—and kudos to MWF, Ben, and others for alerting us to them at a frantic time. I won’t speak for Ben, but everyone I know working the capital right now is drowning.

Ben is more knowledgeable than I, but I think the MWF points about financial burdens for FWP refer to all the litigation that will result from an expanded definition and applications for “takings”.

 

[Carnage2011]

Carnage, if you’re going to comment you may need to do it without Ben’s input, since MWF expects this to come up for a vote tomorrow. Just like last session, the worst bills are coming right at the end in a great tsunami of horseshit—and kudos to MWF and Ben for alerting us to them at a frantic time. I won’t speak for Ben, but everyone I know working the capital right now is drowning.

Ben is more knowledgeable than I, but I think the MWF points about financial burdens for FWP refer to all the litigation that will result from an expanded definition and applications for “takings”.

I just need to know what the bill does. I can't decipher it.....so I'm not going to comment unless I know what this bill does. I was hoping Ben could clarify what this bill actually says.

 

[Ben Lamb]

I just need to know what the bill does. I can't decipher it.....so I'm not going to comment unless I know what this bill does. I was hoping Ben could clarify what this bill actually says.

I'll have a longer post tonight, but essentially this could negatively impact water rights resulting in takings lawsuits when FWP makes a call for mainstream flows to protect fisheries, make intangible property fall under the regulatory take ngs statute meaning, etc

The sponsor & primary proponent are trying to unring the Kafka decision which essentially said that game farmers were not eligible for takings awards due to I-143.

Amendments have been added that lessen the impact but it's still a bad bill.

Effectively, this could severely hamper management decisions on elk, deer and grizzly bear management, and it could negatively impact grizzly bear delisting of every action taken by the agency is litigated as a takings.

This kind of bill would bankrupt the agency & lead to a Texas style management of wildlife on private land.

 

[MTLivin]

Ben, Im using some of your summary to write my opposition to SB 287 to my senator, Marta Bertoglio. I read through the bill and couldn't make heads or tails of it without a law degree, so I really appreciate your insight!

I think this was their plan for 2023, start out slow and overwhelm the public toward the end of the session in hopes we'd all be checked out by then or unable to articulate a timely defense.

 

[Beignet]

Just like last session, the worst bills are coming right at the end in a great tsunami of horseshit

It’s always a bit overwhelming how they pull that, isn’t it?

 

[Ben Lamb]

Ben, Im using some of your summary to write my opposition to SB 287 to my senator, Marta Bertoglio. I read through the bill and couldn't make heads or tails of it without a law degree, so I really appreciate your insight!

I think this was their plan for 2023, start out slow and overwhelm the public toward the end of the session in hopes we'd all be checked out by then or unable to articulate a timely defense.

it's not the end of the session. It's just half time.

Gird your loins and keep in the fight.

 

[Ben Lamb]

The attached letter has been delivered to the entirety of the senate floor. It was signed by RMEF, Boone & Crockett, Ducks Unlimited, Delta Waterfowl, Wild Sheep Foundation, Mule Deer Foundation, TRCP, Pheasants Forever and Quail Forever.

The bill, as amended, would still make any call on water rights for Instream flow subject to litigation. It would also increase the amount of litigation over actions such as creating limited entry permits, eliminating bull harvest in favor of cow harvest and it could even set up a situation where the sheer number of lawsuits would bankrupt FWP by costing millions in legal fees to defend a ton of scurilous lawsuits.

This threat is as real as the stream access bill. We need to light the senate floor up on this as well.

 

[Beignet]

That’s a great letter and includes signatures from a few groups that aren’t typically publicly vocal. Thank you for posting it up.

 

[Beignet]

Looks like SB 287 is #11 on the Senate Agenda for today.

https://laws.leg.mt.gov/reports/rwservlet?legprdext&report=LAW0625R.rdf&p_branch=SENATE&p_agenda_no=1&p_date=MAR.%2001,%202023&p_session_id=20231&paramform=no

 

[Beignet]

Looks like SB 287 is #11 on the Senate Agenda for today.

https://laws.leg.mt.gov/reports/rwservlet?legprdext&report=LAW0625R.rdf&p_branch=SENATE&p_agenda_no=1&p_date=MAR.%2001,%202023&p_session_id=20231&paramform=no

For anyone trying to time their day to tune in, SB 287 has been moved to the bottom of the board.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Another letter showed up today from one of the preeminent private property rights lawyers in Montana, Hertha Lund, opposing SB 287.

Keep the pressure up. We need this bill dead, dead, dead.

 

[Ben Lamb]

SB 287 died today on second reading. 23-27

 

[Ben Lamb]

So everyone knows,

MWF worked this hard in the building. Northern Plains Resource Council did some incredible heavy lifting as well. MEIC provided a ton of technical support and led the charge in committee as well.

 

[Jock Conyngham]

That’s the only good news in days. Thank you for your work.

 

[MThuntr]

LAWS Vote Tabulation Information Page

Take note of those that voted. Thank the Nays and scold the Yeas.

 

[MTLivin]

Great work gentlemen! I’m amazed at the level of engagement we’re seeing from our fellow sportsmen at this session. Thank you to everyone involved!