If You're Wanting to Come Hunt in Montana.....

[Deadfall]

Where does tge bill say this? I don't see it

 

[Deadfall]

Yes, a handful of greasy legislators recently amended HB 637.

HB 637, a catch-all bill full of problems already, was just amended to give unlimited big game combination licenses this year to outfitted hunters. It would also permanently give non-resident hunters using an outfitter an extra bonus point each year, giving them a leg up to draw big game licenses.

Public hunters made it clear this session that everybody should have an equal opportunity to hunt in Montana, and this provision is just another attempt to put outfitted clients at the front of the line.

Contact your legislator and tell them to vote NO on HB 637. This is a terrible bill with numerous problems that now once again favors wealthy hunters over others. Montanans rejected special treatment for outfitted hunters, and we spoke up this session to say we want to maintain that. Montanans welcome non-resident hunters, and believe everybody should get a fair chance to come hunt here.

Uh...hasn't the drawing already happen? So would everyone who wants to go with an outfitter that did not draw a tag just take someone else's this year? How would that work.

 

[Deadfall]

By recently amended, was that in like the last 30 minutes. Because I'm looking and can not find anything about outfitter tags, or extra preference points for using a outfitter.

Only thing I see is where it says you can only buy one preference point in a calender year. Section 5, 3a.

 

[MTSasquatch]

By recently amended, was that in like the last 30 minutes. Because I'm looking and can not find anything about outfitter tags, or extra preference points for using a outfitter.

Only thing I see is where it says you can only buy one preference point in a calender year. Section 5, 3a.

637 was discussed today at a reading. I would suspect the recently amended language has yet to be updated on the pdf we are all able to look at.

It was passed by the house about an hour ago. Majority Republicans in favor, democrats opposed. Not much time left to try and stop this nonsense. As with all of our bad legislation this year, we have to convince some republicans to vote against this turd. Don’t bother emailing or calling any rep who is a democrat. Focus on the republicans.

 

[MTSasquatch]

You can find legislators HERE, and go here to send them an email message telling them to vote NO on HB 637. Or you can call the capitol switchboard at 406-444-4800 and leave a message for legislators.

 

[Deadfall]

637 was discussed today at a reading. I would suspect the recently amended language has yet to be updated on the pdf we are all able to look at.

It was passed by the house about an hour ago. Majority Republicans in favor, democrats opposed. Not much time left to try and stop this nonsense. As with all of our bad legislation this year, we have to convince some republicans to vote against this turd. Don’t bother emailing or calling any rep who is a democrat. Focus on the republicans.

Ah. oh thank god...thought I was loosing my mind...lmao

 

[bsnedeker]

So I know I'm supposed to care about non residents in the interest of us all sticking together and whatnot but this bill will also let me hunt bears with hounds so...

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

 

[Schaaf]

So I know I'm supposed to care about non residents in the interest of us all sticking together and whatnot but this bill will also let me hunt bears with hounds so...

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

That was a totally separate bill but it’s right in line with extracting more and more from a finite resource.

 

[fatlander]

So I know I'm supposed to care about non residents in the interest of us all sticking together and whatnot but this bill will also let me hunt bears with hounds so...

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

You think the antis are bad now, wait until the bubbas post some videos of grizzlies in trees...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[finner]

You think the antis are bad now, wait until the bubbas post some videos of grizzlies in trees...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yeah they conveniently left that out of the conversation. Not to mention the impact on calving elk, etc. Even Idaho won't let houndsmen run bears in grizzly country. Apparently that's not going to be a problem in Montana.

 

[Erict]

Some of y'all might want to actually read HB 637 first (at the website, choose the "Current Bill Text"), or read it in web format HERE.

As of right now, the most recent version of the bill makes no mention at all of "unlimited big game combination licenses this year to outfitted hunters. It would also permanently give non-resident hunters using an outfitter an extra bonus point each year, giving them a leg up to draw big game licenses." I won't claim to know how the Montana legislature works but it would seem logical that if it was amended then the new version would be posted for the public to read.

Additionally, the bear part only mentions black bear - not grizzlies.

 

[finner]

Some of y'all might want to actually read HB 637 first (at the website, choose the "Current Bill Text").

As of right now, the most recent version of the bill makes no mention at all of "unlimited big game combination licenses this year to outfitted hunters. It would also permanently give non-resident hunters using an outfitter an extra bonus point each year, giving them a leg up to draw big game licenses." I won't claim to know how the Montana legislature works but it would seem logical that if it was amended then the new version would be posted for the public to read.

Additionally, the bear part only mentions black bear - not grizzlies.

Relieved to hear that you're on top of it.

 

[fatlander]

Some of y'all might want to actually read HB 637 first (at the website, choose the "Current Bill Text"), or read it in web format HERE.

As of right now, the most recent version of the bill makes no mention at all of "unlimited big game combination licenses this year to outfitted hunters. It would also permanently give non-resident hunters using an outfitter an extra bonus point each year, giving them a leg up to draw big game licenses." I won't claim to know how the Montana legislature works but it would seem logical that if it was amended then the new version would be posted for the public to read.

Additionally, the bear part only mentions black bear - not grizzlies.

It doesn’t say you can’t run (black) bear dogs in grizzly habitat, therefore grizzlies will end up in trees. Wait until the bubbas bust a few caps in ones that are fighting their dogs or even worse they bay up and stretch a cub. You can kiss hound and bear hunting good bye.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[MTSasquatch]

Some of y'all might want to actually read HB 637 first (at the website, choose the "Current Bill Text"), or read it in web format HERE.

As of right now, the most recent version of the bill makes no mention at all of "unlimited big game combination licenses this year to outfitted hunters. It would also permanently give non-resident hunters using an outfitter an extra bonus point each year, giving them a leg up to draw big game licenses." I won't claim to know how the Montana legislature works but it would seem logical that if it was amended then the new version would be posted for the public to read.

Additionally, the bear part only mentions black bear - not grizzlies.

The language was in an amendment, numbered 007, and the bill passed yesterday, so it's heading to the governor's desk.

It was clearly inserted at the last minute and pushed through the conference committee, and two floor votes in both chambers.

like I said previously, it likely never found its way to the version the public can read. Thats why the version you saw did not include those amendments. That’s what happens when legislation gets amended at the last minute.

 

[Erict]

So I called Montana Legislature this afternoon. HB637 has text and there are associated amendments. They told me in no uncertain terms that the most recent version of the bill can be found on the Montana Detailed HB637 Information page and the most recent amendment are HERE. (it appears to be version 8, and oddly there are no #3 or #4 listed).

Amendment 7 was not posted online earlier, but now that it is I see language related to NR deer/elk licenses/outfitters. Such language is NOT included in amendment 8. Montana legislative process does seem to be a bit wonky at times but I assume that the most recent amendment is the only "live" amendment - maybe I have it wrong. If adopted, I assume that the wording will need to be incorporated into the text of the bill before consideration by the governor.

 

[Erict]

I give up trying to figure out how Montana legislature conducts business, as this bill seems to have gone through quite a bit of back and forth on the NR/outfitter topic. The latest update of HB 637 is posted and the relevant section is below.

Although I am a NR hunter who has been hunting with the same outfitter for 6 years I opposed SB 143 and take exception to the wording of HB 637 as it stands. Say I have a 5 day hunt with an outfitter. I pay for the extra "outfitter" preference point and draw a license, then I don't shoot a buck during the outfitted hunt. Now I want to hunt BMA/public land for another week, spend money at motels, restaurants, etc. My license is not valid for that, but if I drew the same license using only "non-outfitter" preference points my license is good the entire season. Seems like a WTF moment to me.

I also see that if you skip a year applying for a license you lose all preference points - I think that is different than in the past - yes?

Here is the relevant subsection of the bill posted as of 4/29/21 at 8:20 PM EST, extracted from HERE. The red text is that which I highlighted.


Section 6. Section 87-2-115, MCA, is amended to read:


"87-2-115. Nonresident elk and deer license preference point system. (1) The department shall establish a preference point system to distribute Class B-10 nonresident big game combination licenses and Class B-11 nonresident deer combination licenses.


(2) Nonresidents applying to purchase a Class B-10 or Class B-11 license may purchase a preference point, upon payment of a nonrefundable $50 $100 fee, that gives an applicant who has more preference points priority to receive a Class B-10 or Class B-11 license over an applicant who has purchased fewer preference points.


(3) An applicant may:


(a) purchase only one preference point per license year except a nonresident hunting with an outfitter licensed pursuant to Title 37, chapter 47, part 3, and providing the documentation required in subsection (8), may purchase two preference points per license year. No applicant may accumulate more than three preference points total.; and


(b) purchase a preference point without applying for a Class B-10 or Class B-11 license. An applicant not applying for a Class B-10 or Class B-11 license may purchase a preference point only between July 1 and September 30 December 31 of that license year. The department shall delete an applicant's accumulated preference points if the applicant does not apply for a Class B-10 or Class B-11 license for 3 consecutive years.


(4) (a) Except as provided in subsection (3)(b), the department may not delete an applicant's accumulated preference points unless the applicant obtains the license applied for, in which case the The department shall delete the an applicant's accumulated preference points if the applicant:


(i) obtains a Class B-10 or Class B-11 license; or


(ii) does not apply for a Class B-10 or Class B-11 license in consecutive years.


(b) If an applicant is unsuccessful in drawing a Class B-10 or Class B-11 license, the department shall allow the applicant to keep and apply preference points to subsequent drawings if done in consecutive years.


(5) The department shall issue 75% of the Class B-10 and Class B-11 licenses made available for purchase pursuant to 87-2-505 and 87-2-510 by drawings in which the licenses are awarded to applicants in the order of which applicants have purchased the greatest number of preference points. If the number of licenses to be issued under this subsection exceeds the number of applicants who have purchased preference points, the remaining licenses must be added to the licenses issued pursuant to subsection (6).


(6) The department shall issue 25% of the Class B-10 and Class B-11 licenses made available for purchase pursuant to 87-2-505 and 87-2-510 by drawings in which the licenses are awarded to applicants who have not purchased any preference points. If the number of licenses to be issued under this subsection exceeds the number of applicants who have not purchased preference points, the remaining licenses must be added to the licenses issued pursuant to subsection (5).


(7) Up to five applicants may apply as a party under this section. The department shall use an average of the number of preference points accumulated by those applicants to determine their priority in receiving licenses issued pursuant to subsection (5). The department shall use any fraction that results from the calculation of an average when determining that priority calculate the average rounded to the third decimal place.


(8) A nonresident purchasing a second preference point pursuant to subsection (3)(a) shall provide written affirmation at the time of application indicating the name and license number of the outfitter with whom the person intends to hunt. If the nonresident obtains the license applied for with the preference points purchased pursuant to subsection (3)(a), the nonresident may only use the license when accompanied by an outfitter or the outfitter's designee licensed to provide guiding services.


(9) (a) Fees collected from a nonresident purchasing a second preference point pursuant to subsection (3)(a) must be allocated as follows:


(i) 25% to public access land agreements established pursuant to 87-1-295;


(ii) 25% to hunting access programs established pursuant to 87-1-265;


(iii) 25% to the future fisheries program established in 87-1-272 with a priority given to funding projects that provide public access through private property; and


(iv) 25% to the purchase of permanent easements through private property to access otherwise inaccessible lands. An easement funded by this subsection (9)(a)(iv) may be granted only across private land to public land that is leased by the landowner, public land for which there is no leaseholder, or public land for which the landowner has consent of the leaseholder.


(b) The department may expend up to 10% of the revenue allocated pursuant to subsection (9)(a) to pay administrative costs incurred by the department for the purposes outlined in subsection (9)(a), including but not limited to contracting and transaction costs incurred by the department or entities partnering with the department, and for providing support to the private land/public wildlife advisory committee for its review of public access land agreements pursuant to 87-1-295.


(c) At the end of each fiscal year, funds allocated pursuant to subsection (9)(a) that remain unobligated are available to the department for any purpose pursuant to 87-1-201(3)."

 

[cgasner1]

At this point we should defund fish and game and just have sheriffs and state police handle what the wardens do. To keep pushing bills like this without the public and Fwp opinion why are we wasting money having a Fwp agency


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[wind gypsy]

At this point we should defund fish and game and just have sheriffs and state police handle what the wardens do. To keep pushing bills like this without the public and Fwp opinion why are we wasting money having a Fwp agency

It's not the F&G's fault that MT elects these clowns who mandate continuously shittier game management via the legislature.

 

[mproberts]

I also see that if you skip a year applying for a license you lose all preference points - I think that is different than in the past - yes?

That's not how I read that, but who knows?! It sounds like they still don't zero out your preference points unless you skip 3 years.

I also read section 4 as an improvement to the current process where you could get a "released" license and still keep your preference points. It seems to do away with that.... but like before who knows.. I'm not an expert on interpreting legislation.

 

[Deadfall]

At this point we should defund fish and game and just have sheriffs and state police handle what the wardens do. To keep pushing bills like this without the public and Fwp opinion why are we wasting money having a Fwp agency


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Well noone is perfect, especially in a group. By and large this session has done some real good stuff.