SB 380 Reconsideration of Bill!

shoots-straight · Apr 21, 2013

mtmiller · Apr 21, 2013

Thanks for the heads up, but honestly I think you just pissed me off.

Emailed my Rep and attempted to not be pissed off.

howler · Apr 21, 2013

the way to reach them all is to copy all the e mail address's shoots listed copy them in the Bcc line and then send it to yourself this way all get the e mail with out having all the e mail address's listed. here is a SB 380 Fact sheet I got from the MBA , copy and paste guys, ,
SENATE BILL 380 FACT SHEET

SB 380 provides no new money

· Montana nonresident big game licenses are undersold for the third consecutive year, as a result anyone wanting a license can purchase one over the counter. Montana does not need to create additional licenses to satisfy demand.

o The downward sales trend is western-region wide and expected to continue.

· Because nonresident licenses are undersold and SB 380 creates a reduced price license, the net result is LOST, NOT NEW, REVENUE.

· FWP's fiscal note assumed higher nonresident license sales for 2013 than actually occurred; as a result revenue will be more negatively impacted than the fiscal note shows.

SB 380 reduces existing earmarked accounts

· The license earmarks in SB 380—which are for(1) acquiring access to inaccessible public land; and (2) supplementing the general license account—would significantly reduce the funding for the following earmarked programs that exist under current law:

o Block Management

o Habitat Montana

o Upland Game Bird Enhancement

SB 380 creates yet another reduced-price nonresident hunting license

· Cost of the proposed new "wilderness" nonresident Big Game Combination hunting license: $825

· Cost of the market-based, variable-priced Outfitter Sponsored Big Game Combination License prior to passage of I-161: Up to $1,500.

· Cost of today's post I-161 Nonresident Big Game Combo: $959.

· Cost of Nonresident Elk Only Combo: $809.

SB 380 creates a windfall that can't be spent

· FWP has struggled to expend $40,000 a year of funds currently earmarked for the purchase of access to inaccessible public land due to limited interest among private landowners in selling such access.

· The unspent balance currently in an account earmarked for the purchase of access to inaccessible public land: $372,400

· HB 380 needlessly earmarks $500,000 annually for the purchase of access to inaccessible public land.

SB 380 creates another nonresident hunting license that Montana doesn't need

· Number of "wilderness" hunting license created by SB 380: 1,200 this year and 1,500 through the 2017 hunting season.

· Number nonresident deer and elk license opportunities available in Montana: 28,000.

· Number of Montana hunting license types: more than 100

· Number of earmarked accounts: 24.

· Annual cost of all potential "discounted" licenses: more than $4.5 million.

Eric Albus · Apr 22, 2013

howler, why is the Dept. having so much trouble spending that money for easements, ect.? Anybody have any ideas why the landowners are so jaded? Why is Block Management losing so many people? Why do a lot of folks sign up for BM then bail out after a year or 2? Anyone have any ideas? Most of what I read here, and hear going on in Helena, is not looking for solutions to the problems, and I realize that our side is just as guilty as the opposition when it comes to this.

howler · Apr 22, 2013

good questions Eric, that is something to work on.

Straight Arrow · Apr 22, 2013

in Helena, is not looking for solutions to the problems

Sen Brenden & company is too busy pushing an anti-wildlife, anti-FWP, anti-sportsmen agenda due to a seemingly focused vendetta, for some unknown reason(s). MOGA appears to be still very angry and stuck with a vendetta against sportsmen and FWP because of elimination of Outfitter Sponsored Licenses, establishment of Breaks limited permits, and a litany of other self-serving gripes and money making schemes. MBA, individual sportsmen, and sportsmen organizations are desperately striving to maintain hard-fought-for access programs, funding for wildlife & habitat, the historical Montana hunting legacy, and the North American Wildlife Conservation Model. Ranchers and other landowners are caught up trying to make a living and partnering up with whoever provides the best incentives and whoever has the most credible line of BS. Most legislators merely obey the guidance (mandates) of their particular political party ... until they actually can sort out the truth from the chaff.

That's how I see it from my limited Montana hunter and wildlife advocate perspective. I urge all to continue to gather and share factual information and rational opinions good for wildlife and for hunting ..... and to pass the valid information and opinion on to the Legislature.

theat · Apr 22, 2013

Emails sent. I received several "Delivery Failure" notifications...I guess some of our illustrious reps either don't know how to empty their inbox's or just don't care about public opinion enough to check their email or have a working email account.

Ben Lamb · Apr 22, 2013

theat said:
Emails sent. I received several "Delivery Failure" notifications...I guess some of our illustrious reps either don't know how to empty their inbox's or just don't care about public opinion enough to check their email or have a working email account.

Or medicaid expansion is filling their inboxes. Huge organizing effort around getting the medicaid bill back to the floor and all Reps will be flooded with emails and phone calls.

Phones are your best bet right now: 406-444-4800

Ben Lamb · Apr 22, 2013

Eric Albus said:
howler, why is the Dept. having so much trouble spending that money for easements, ect.? Anybody have any ideas why the landowners are so jaded? Why is Block Management losing so many people? Why do a lot of folks sign up for BM then bail out after a year or 2? Anyone have any ideas? Most of what I read here, and hear going on in Helena, is not looking for solutions to the problems, and I realize that our side is just as guilty as the opposition when it comes to this.

Because the demand isn't there. The demand is there for Block Management despite politically motivated efforts to shut down hunting in Eastern MT. While there are a lot of landowners who are jaded with the way BM is currently run, there are equal, if not more, landowners who are happy with it.

Block Mgt is not a permanent access program. You sign up for 2-3 year contracts and if it doesn't fit for you, then you leave. I have friends who left BM because they couldn't get the harvest they wanted on whitetail, and they were sick of people showing up and asking to hunt on a reservation system. I know other folks who feel like they had to enroll in block because their neighbors are amenity owners and don't allow any hunting at all, and contribute to the over-abundance problems in certain valleys.

Most of what you read here is a response to a constant barrage of attacks on the North American Model, resident opportunity, scientific management of wildlife and bunch of folks who simply don't know or care about wildlife management.

Out of over 100 bills that dealt with wildlife, public land or access issues, how many were brought by hunters & anglers? How many bad bills were supported by folks who now complain that hunters and anglers always oppose their stuff?

I appreciate that you see it's a two way street Eric, but it's important for everyone to remember who picks these fights each session. If folks are serious about sitting down afterwards and not sniping or sending out nasty emails or getting into a pissing match about who the "real" or "true" sportsmen are and instead working together, then I'm all in.

Hell, MOGA and me are even working on a side project in the Gardiner against some ill founded ideas that would decimate wild sheep. I've been working with the Wool Growers to get a program set up through the Livestock Loss board to help mitigate bear depredations and increase the likelihood of grizz getting delisted.

Good legislation creates solid coalitions. Bad legislation divides people and puts egos on parade.

There are two study bills that MOGA members and Resident sportsmen need to be working together on: Pat Connel's Licensing study bill and Wendy Warburton's Landowner/FWP relations bill (which landowners tried to get hunters stripped out of). There's also a study bill on Public Land Management that could result in more legislation to try and eliminate Federal public lands.

Lots of opportunities in the interim for sportsmen and outfitters to sit down together and become a force for good. Who's going to step?

Pierre · Apr 22, 2013

Yes, good questions Eric. The Dept. can only pay appraised prices. If someone is looking for a financial windfall, it is probably not there. Short term easements are hard to justify as to identification, notification, and law enforcement.
Landowners are an independent lot and easements are complicated. They also have MOGA on the other side telling them that the FWP doesn't do anything right, lease to us.
I don't know for sure about BM. Some folks have been in for years.
Most of what you see here and in the legislature is sportsmen reacting to lousy legislation put forth by one side not working with the other. The bills have been so numerous and bad that all our time is used fighting them. We don't have 2 paid lobbyists like MOGA. MSA and MBA are all volunteer.
I promise, we will be more proactive in the next session. We will play offense.

RobG · Apr 22, 2013

Ben Lamb said:
Or medicaid expansion is filling their inboxes. Huge organizing effort around getting the medicaid bill back to the floor and all Reps will be flooded with emails and phone calls.

Phones are your best bet right now: 406-444-4800

To add a bit... I have learned if you call or use the online form the note will be printed out and handed to them. This gives them two piles, for and against, that they can gauge.

Phone messages are printed out on different colored pieces of paper than messages through the online messaging system. I have no idea if they value one method more than another (I don't like either method because they leave no paper trail for me. I might have even checked "support" for a bill I meant to oppose!)

On the other hand, they are so busy that they might not even get a chance to read your emails.

theat · Apr 22, 2013

I did get a couple of responses to my email. I found this one from Representative Flynn interesting as I had thought of him as being at least fairly open minded. In all fairness I did attach the Fact Sheet, that Howler posted above, to my email but the majority was in my own words. After this response we did exchange a couple of heated emails that I won't post as they probably make both of us look bad:W: I did end with an apology and expressed my respect for his work on certain bills such as SB 73 and his willingness to go against party line votes on bills such as SB 414 and 400. I also thanked him for taking the time to respond to my email as well as him respecting his conflict of interest in this bill.

Mr. Heater . . .

Your response looks like a stock response from some group. My name is Representative Flynn -- not some generic legislator.

Anyway, I am finding the credibility of several sportsman groups, particularly the Montana Sportsman Alliance, very low after watching for an entire two legislative sessions and trying to address what I thought was the main concern in Montana for sportsmen --- access. This group even touted that ACCESS was their number issue through most of the legislative session. Imagine my surprise when at the last hearing of the session, one of the representatives of this group stated that the main concern for sportsmen is HABITAT not ACCESS. Really? I'm not much impressed with this bill HB 380, but I'm less impressed with a VERY disingenuous statement like this one coming from supposedly a group that boasts of membership of the leaders of a number of sportsman groups.. Sportsmen have put forth NO answers for the problems with HABITAT or ACCESS in the past four years. Quite frankly they have knocked down some proposals that would have provided funds for the Block Management Program. As a landowner, I'm VERY DISAPPOINTED in their actions and I can see why many landowners all over the state are closing their gates to sportsmen like these.
I have worked for solutions the past four years at the legislature as a legislator and over my lifetime as a citizen working towards a balance between landowners, sportsmen, and outfitters. I did not vote on this bill in committee or on the floor because it definitely is a conflict of interest. However, I am disgusted at the lack of solutions coming from the sportsman community.

Sincerely yours . . . Rep. Flynn

mtmiller · Apr 22, 2013

Why isn't he impressed with a bill that provides for public library notification and exemption from county taxes?

ismith · Apr 22, 2013

mtmiller said:
Why isn't he impressed with a bill that provides for public library notification and exemption from county taxes?

Are you saying your impressed with it?

RobG · Apr 22, 2013

Normally I'd say it is bad form to post an email but I'm glad you did so I can see his perspective. I know Rep. Flynn did work with legit sportsmen (who can name themselves if they choose

) on 404 so I can understand his frustration. People like me just saw it as yet another attack on Habitat Montana, which many republicans notsocoincidentally hate.

Pierre · Apr 23, 2013

Both MWF and MSA found no support for 404 among our membership. We found Habitat Montana to be a sacred cow. So habitat became the #1 issue after all the threats to gut it. The tie to access is easy for most of us: HABITAT MONTANA provides a mechanism to obtain habitat including the only permanent access we get. Both conservation easements in perpetuity and fee title do this job. Short term easements, Block Mgmt, and leases only provide rented access and may not be great habitat.
To be clear, our memberships told us that Habitat Montana is the best thing we have (and the envy of other states) to provide both Habitat with permanent access. As long as Habitat Montana is whole, access becomes the focus. Not that difficult to understand.
Both Rep. Flynn and Sen. Petersen were notified in person of this lack of support for 404 shortly after the bill was drafted.

Ben Lamb · Apr 24, 2013

FYI: there were no less than four attempts to gut Habitat Montana this session. Flynn's bill, HB404, was the least egregious, and I trust that Kelly was trying to bring folks together but the mechanism chosen did not work.

I hope that during the interim there is a concerted effort by all sides to sit down and come up with a bill that everyone can support. Good legislation makes strong coalitions.

I don't know about you guys, but I'm damn tired of always fighting.

Straight Arrow · Apr 24, 2013

How about supporting existing good laws, codes, policy, and authority already established in order to strengthen wildlife, hunting, and access programs that really work? It seems every new law or proposal (drafted bill) results in divisiveness, contentious argument, and fighting over selfish interests in various perspectives (wildlife management, outfitting, hunting opportunity, public access, gun rights, property rights, or whatever your favorite "flavor".)

Eric Albus · Apr 24, 2013

What good is "habitat" if there is no MANAGEMENT ? ?

The Hedgehog · Apr 24, 2013

More tags for outfitters does what for the management of anything?

What are the problems with "access"?

What public lands are so poorly "managed?"

Does somebody demand a recount, again?

SB 380 Reconsideration of Bill!

Well-known member

Well-known member

Active member

Well-known member

Active member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Similar threads

Forum statistics

Share this page