Montana elk hunting is about to take a dive

[Schaaf]

Anyone make it to the hearing? Was planning on it but got held up.
Was there much opposition?

Lots of opposition at the capitol today. Watch the hearing, it should be up on the website tomorrow.

 

[Deadfall]

Lots of opposition at the capitol today. Watch the hearing, it should be up on the website tomorrow.

Sweet

 

[Deadfall]

Lots of opposition at the capitol today. Watch the hearing, it should be up on the website tomorrow.

Yeah I caught part of it online. Will watch the whole later. Galt sure is something else.

 

[Deadfall]

The grizzly bills have me curious.

 

[Legend]

I watche'd the whole thing. If you like Montana hunting you need to be worried. It was clear that Director Hank is doing whatever the Money tells him to. When Hank was asked if ANY hunting organization supported this bill he had to answer truthully.... I don't believe so.

 

[Legend]

When opponents pointed to the "North American Model of Wildlife Conservation." Hank said "It's just a model and we don't need to follow it."

In case you are familiar here it is in summary:

1. Wildlife is a public resource. In the Unites States, wildlife is considered a public resource, independent of the land or water where wildlife may live. Government at various levels have a role in managing that resource on behalf of all citizens and to ensure the long-term sustainability of wildlife populations.
2. Markets for game are eliminated Before wildlife protection laws were enacted, commercial operations decimated populations of many species. Making it illegal to buy and sell meat and parts of game and nongame species removed a huge threat to the survival of those species. A market in furbearers continues as a highly regulated activity, often to manage invasive wildlife.
3. Allocation of wildlife by law. Wildlife is a public resource managed by government. As a result, access to wildlife for hunting is through legal mechanisms such as set hunting seasons, bag limits, license requirements, etc.
4. Wildlife can only be killed for a legitimate purpose. Wildlife is a shared resource that must not be wasted. The law prohibits killing wildlife for frivolous reasons.
5. Wildlife species are considered an international resource. Some species, such as migratory birds, cross national boundaries. Treaties such as the Migratory Bird Treaty and CITES recognize a shared responsibility to manage these species across national boundaries.
6. Science is the proper tool for discharge of wildlife policy. In order to manage wildlife as a shared resource fairly, objectively, and knowledgeably, decisions must be based on sound science such as annual waterfowl population surveys and the work of professional wildlife biologists.
7. The democracy of hunting. In keeping with democratic principles, government allocates access to wildlife without regard for wealth, prestige, or land ownership.

 

[Deadfall]

When opponents pointed to the "North American Model of Wildlife Conservation." Hank said "It's just a model and we don't need to follow it."

In case you are familiar here it is in summary:

1. Wildlife is a public resource. In the Unites States, wildlife is considered a public resource, independent of the land or water where wildlife may live. Government at various levels have a role in managing that resource on behalf of all citizens and to ensure the long-term sustainability of wildlife populations.
2. Markets for game are eliminated Before wildlife protection laws were enacted, commercial operations decimated populations of many species. Making it illegal to buy and sell meat and parts of game and nongame species removed a huge threat to the survival of those species. A market in furbearers continues as a highly regulated activity, often to manage invasive wildlife.
3. Allocation of wildlife by law. Wildlife is a public resource managed by government. As a result, access to wildlife for hunting is through legal mechanisms such as set hunting seasons, bag limits, license requirements, etc.
4. Wildlife can only be killed for a legitimate purpose. Wildlife is a shared resource that must not be wasted. The law prohibits killing wildlife for frivolous reasons.
5. Wildlife species are considered an international resource. Some species, such as migratory birds, cross national boundaries. Treaties such as the Migratory Bird Treaty and CITES recognize a shared responsibility to manage these species across national boundaries.
6. Science is the proper tool for discharge of wildlife policy. In order to manage wildlife as a shared resource fairly, objectively, and knowledgeably, decisions must be based on sound science such as annual waterfowl population surveys and the work of professional wildlife biologists.
7. The democracy of hunting. In keeping with democratic principles, government allocates access to wildlife without regard for wealth, prestige, or land ownership.

At the end I think it was Duram who asked if landowners were mentioned in the model. The response could have been alittle better, but I think got the idea across through.

 

[finner]

Yeah that was a weak response. Good showing at the hearing though. It’s time to turn up the heat — this will pass through committee unless the more reasonable R’s hear from a lot of Montanans.

 

[tdhanses]

Hard to believe it would ever be good to support the unregulated and uncapped sale of landowner tags. 1 way ticket to european model of hunting where it's only a white collar activity.

With the direction WY is headed I get what trial is saying, before long it will be a rich mans sport, resident or not. What’s crazy is this isn’t something anyone wants in MT but some landowners and outfitters.

 

[MTSasquatch]

I emailed the committee a few days ago and will call RMEF tomorrow. Anyone who hunts elk in the western US should do the same, regardless if you are a MT resident or not. Otherwise, expect this to happen here and elsewhere.

 

[TBO_Jason]

I've contributed to a lengthy thread about proposed anti-NR legislation in WY, but just picking up on this.

I'm a NR to MT. I haven't hunted there yet, but I plan(ned) to see the big sky in the future. I'm in a group of four, and we've hunted public ground in western states, DIY, for many years. Instead of a wealthy landowner, or on overpriced guide with access to his land, our money goes to the local gun/tackle shop, taxidermist, processor, restaurant, waitress, etc. Oh, and we tip well.

For those who are in the know, am I too late to the game to give my voice? At this point, what is the best way for me to contribute? I have my thoughts on the matter as I understand it, but is there something specific that I should say in my letter/email/call?

Thanks, JT

 

[Legend]

I've contributed to a lengthy thread about proposed anti-NR legislation in WY, but just picking up on this.

I'm a NR to MT. I haven't hunted there yet, but I plan(ned) to see the big sky in the future. I'm in a group of four, and we've hunted public ground in western states, DIY, for many years. Instead of a wealthy landowner, or on overpriced guide with access to his land, our money goes to the local gun/tackle shop, taxidermist, processor, restaurant, waitress, etc. Oh, and we tip well.

For those who are in the know, am I too late to the game to give my voice? At this point, what is the best way for me to contribute? I have my thoughts on the matter as I understand it, but is there something specific that I should say in my letter/email/call?

Thanks, JT

Not too late at all. All they have done so far was listen. Now they will likely have some discussion on amendments (changes) to the bill. Then in the next week or so they will vote to pass it out of committee or to table it.

If you like elk hunting DIY you need to get involved, light up the phones and send the emails (I am telling you RMEF is key so hit them up).

The BHA emails system above sent over 700 emails to the committee. We need 70,000 people to let Montana know elk are not owned by landowners.

 

[Legend]

I've contributed to a lengthy thread about proposed anti-NR legislation in WY, but just picking up on this.

I'm a NR to MT. I haven't hunted there yet, but I plan(ned) to see the big sky in the future. I'm in a group of four, and we've hunted public ground in western states, DIY, for many years. Instead of a wealthy landowner, or on overpriced guide with access to his land, our money goes to the local gun/tackle shop, taxidermist, processor, restaurant, waitress, etc. Oh, and we tip well.

For those who are in the know, am I too late to the game to give my voice? At this point, what is the best way for me to contribute? I have my thoughts on the matter as I understand it, but is there something specific that I should say in my letter/email/call?

Thanks, JT

As for specifics...the bill sponsors said this is all about too many elk and we need to lower elk populations, thus this bill. This is a BS excuse as the bill provides a general elk license (typically a branch bull tag in most units). I plan to point this out. I also plan to point out that the average Montana or non resident DIY hunter can't afford (or wisely chooses not) to buy access.

Oh and if you were foolish enough to buy bonus points in Montana that was a mistake. This bill allows people to get 6 points per year.

 

[GKWMontana]

Legend if you can think of anyone else to contact please advise. I can tell everyone that when I called RMEF today he hadn't heard from very many people. I emailed the committee and my local representative and I would strongly encourage everyone to do so. I will try and reach out to Duram on the committee this week. I know him pretty well and he is a stand up guy who will vote for constituents. Please feel free to PM.

 

[Mountian_ghost]

this sounds bad

Sent from my SM-N975U using Tapatalk

 

[finner]

Call these reps


Fielder: (406) 210-5943

Hinkle: 406 992-0703

Berglee: 406 690-9329

Fitzgerald: 406 467-2032
406 788-1443

Putnam: 406 233-9463

Duram: 406 471-2356

Reksten: 406 471-8359
406 883-4454

Loge: 406 649-2368
406 544-5220

 

[TBO_Jason]

Gentlemen, thanks for the info and how to touch the pressure points. I'll be one of the 70k.

 

[MTSasquatch]

I heard back from Tom France (D), who sits on the house Fish, Wildlife, and Parks committee. He said it’s clear that nearly all Democrats are in opposition of this and other related bills. He noted that since republicans control so much of the legislature that we need to convince them (republicans) the bill needs to die, otherwise they will live on.

He also mentioned he has heard nothing from RMEF. He urged me and the rest of us to get RMEF to take a position on this bill opposing it. I plan on calling RMEF first thing in the morning.

He also thanked the Montana Wildlife Federation for fighting this bill and the other bills that stand to take away DIY hunting rights. I became a member and donated. I suggest you all do the same

 

[Deadfall]

I've been talking to resident hunters specifically about this bill and 143 before it. It is impressive to see how many residents are completely beat down and defeated feeling in and around the Helena area. Trying to convince guys their voice can make a difference has been tough.

I also have a hard time trusting or believing the foundations/federation/conservation groups. Been looking for one to join. Im just skeptical of their motives. Used to belong to RMEF. Not any more.
Any suggestions would be great thanks

 

[S.Clancy]

As for specifics...the bill sponsors said this is all about too many elk and we need to lower elk populations, thus this bill. This is a BS excuse as the bill provides a general elk license (typically a branch bull tag in most units). I plan to point this out. I also plan to point out that the average Montana or non resident DIY hunter can't afford (or wisely chooses not) to buy access.

Oh and if you were foolish enough to buy bonus points in Montana that was a mistake. This bill allows people to get 6 points per year.

You should point out that this bill provides landowner sponsored tags to eligible landowners that are in units WITHIN THE POPULATION OBJECTIVE. If the unit is over or under objective, the landowner does not meet the qualifications per the bill, Section 2. If this is all about population, that makes 0 sense.

What does make sense is Wylie Galt and his family own the 71 Ranch in one of the most over objective units in the state, largely due to 4-5 very large landowners allowing no unpaid access. If he had written the bill to include over objective areas, he and his family would have been receiving 10s of thousands of dollars of compensation considering they had an extra 10 bull tags. He's not stupid, so he didn't write the bill in the way that made the most sense, cause most people can say 1+1=2.

There is no doubt in my kind that he plans to personally benefit from this bill, it will just be the typical political fashion, through the backdoor.