Bill with no sporting reps, three landowners on Commission one vote from passage
- Thread starter Gevock
- Start date
Schaaf
Well-known member
Well, he also predicted “no one would ever stoop low enough to charge for a shoulder season.”
Yet here we are.
Walkalot
Active member
- Joined
- Oct 28, 2020
- Messages
- 254
So eric albus, basically u guys threw a bunch of bs bills down the pike but this is the one u guys really want. If u get this one, you will do what u want anyway. Thats why alot of thought didnt go into many of the bs ones.
Big Shooter
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 15, 2008
- Messages
- 481
And where at on that bill do you see MOGA’s name printed? I must have missed it.
4ohSick
Well-known member
Elk are not ranchers' resource. They are all the public's resource, and those making management should represent the public. Wealthy landowners should have the same proportion of representation as every citizen interested in wildlife - if we round up they can have one commission slot.
OntarioHunter
Well-known member
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2020
- Messages
- 5,868
That kid could be an executive for Fox News Network.
brocksw
Well-known member
No, but the public's resource eats on the ranchers/farmers land. I'm not saying that means they deserve 4 out of 7 seats but I think it's unreasonable to leave them entirely out of the discussion or basically do that with 1 out of 7 (rounding up as you say). Sportsmen can't always just shove policy down a ranchers throat in the name of more elk when that rancher might be greatly affected(I'm not sure how much hay or alf alfa a herd of elk will eat in 1 season). Just like we don't like the rancher/outfitter shoving policy down our throat when it's a public resource, not just their resource.
It goes both ways. 143 is a perverted distortion of the NA Model. But so too would sportsmen doing something similar to ranchers/outfitters for their own best interest and completely ignoring the interest the rancher has.
4ohSick
Well-known member
I mean the argument here is that allowing public access is an incredibly effective way of getting elk off your land. But point taken, it would certainly be ideal if both sides of the issue would negotiate in good faith. However, the current crop of legislation isn't promising.
brocksw
Well-known member
I think there's some obvious agreements and differences of opinions on both sides that prevent some good work from being done. There's also some behind the scenes partisan drivel that prevents even more work from getting done.
Big Shooter
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 15, 2008
- Messages
- 481
You both are spot on! We need opinions from BOTH sides.....actually from three sides as the landowner should be included.
Eric Albus
Well-known member
- Joined
- May 24, 2012
- Messages
- 1,579
Big Shooter, surely you jest, input from landowners? Up to this point we've had a commission(with the exception of a couple individuals) who have wanted to shove an agenda down landowners throats and use punitive measures to force access. Maybe, just maybe a new commission will be willing to work with landowners and provide an incentive for access.
Nemont
Well-known member
Eric,
Had a good visit with your dad here in the office this morning, he is always good for some insight. We agreed on many more things in regards to hunting issues than we disagreed on.
Here is my issue: one always needs to attempt to look over the horizon on what is coming next. Whether the make up of the commission is 4 landowners or not there are going to be issues when ever the music stops and everyone rushes for a seat on the commission.
Would everyone be happy with a Commissioner from the APR? They are big land owners, what about one from the Mars Corporation place or Turner Enterprises, Inc, or from The Nature Conservancy? What would stop a new person in the Governor's office from appointing commissioners representing one or more of these organizations as landowners? By making this law we, the general public, lose some ability to influence whom serves on said commission.
There is no doubt that landowners absolutely are critical and need their voice to be heard and have influence on decisions made by the commission.
This bill seems like swatting flies with an axe.
Nemont
Had a good visit with your dad here in the office this morning, he is always good for some insight. We agreed on many more things in regards to hunting issues than we disagreed on.
Here is my issue: one always needs to attempt to look over the horizon on what is coming next. Whether the make up of the commission is 4 landowners or not there are going to be issues when ever the music stops and everyone rushes for a seat on the commission.
Would everyone be happy with a Commissioner from the APR? They are big land owners, what about one from the Mars Corporation place or Turner Enterprises, Inc, or from The Nature Conservancy? What would stop a new person in the Governor's office from appointing commissioners representing one or more of these organizations as landowners? By making this law we, the general public, lose some ability to influence whom serves on said commission.
There is no doubt that landowners absolutely are critical and need their voice to be heard and have influence on decisions made by the commission.
This bill seems like swatting flies with an axe.
Nemont
antlerradar
Well-known member
How about we just put up the best person that will take the job form each region regardless of there background.
Irrelevant
Well-known member
I think one party just voted against that.
Gevock
Well-known member
Montana hunters, anglers and wildlife enthusiasts would have their voices shut out under a bill coming to the Senate Fish and Game Committee.
SB 306, sponsored by Sen. Mike Lang, R-Malta, would require that four of the seven Fish and Wildlife Commissioners be landowners engaged in agricultural production. Already under state law, one of the current five commissioners must be a landowner, and agricultural groups always have their voices heard in fish and wildlife management issues to strike a balance.
This bill makes it clear that sportsmen and sportswomen’s concerns will be shut out in key decisions on wildlife management. The bill will be heard soon, and it’s time for Montana hunters and anglers to let the committee know that we need a proper balance on the Fish and Wildlife Commission.
PLEASE WRITE YOUR OWN MESSAGE. But hit these key points:
The Fish and Wildlife Commission is the trustee for our public resources, and must consider everyone – including agricultural producers. Montana FWP spends $30 million per year on programs that benefit landowners, and the agency works well to reduce game damage while also increasing public access for public hunters. The Commission already has one landowner, and our agricultural groups are always at the table to strike a balance on key wildlife management issues.
You can email the committee members and tell them to vote NO on SB 306.
Or you can call the Capitol switchboard at 444-4800 and leave a message for committee members to oppose SB 306.
SB 306, sponsored by Sen. Mike Lang, R-Malta, would require that four of the seven Fish and Wildlife Commissioners be landowners engaged in agricultural production. Already under state law, one of the current five commissioners must be a landowner, and agricultural groups always have their voices heard in fish and wildlife management issues to strike a balance.
This bill makes it clear that sportsmen and sportswomen’s concerns will be shut out in key decisions on wildlife management. The bill will be heard soon, and it’s time for Montana hunters and anglers to let the committee know that we need a proper balance on the Fish and Wildlife Commission.
PLEASE WRITE YOUR OWN MESSAGE. But hit these key points:
The Fish and Wildlife Commission is the trustee for our public resources, and must consider everyone – including agricultural producers. Montana FWP spends $30 million per year on programs that benefit landowners, and the agency works well to reduce game damage while also increasing public access for public hunters. The Commission already has one landowner, and our agricultural groups are always at the table to strike a balance on key wildlife management issues.
You can email the committee members and tell them to vote NO on SB 306.
- Fill out the form provided.
- Select Committees
- Select (S) Fish and Game
- Select Bill Type (SB) and Bill Number SB 306
- Select Against
- Provide your message
Or you can call the Capitol switchboard at 444-4800 and leave a message for committee members to oppose SB 306.
Walkalot
Active member
- Joined
- Oct 28, 2020
- Messages
- 254
When this being addressed?
Walkalot
Active member
- Joined
- Oct 28, 2020
- Messages
- 254
Mr. Galt u should not be on the board or have anything to do with it.
Walkalot
Active member
- Joined
- Oct 28, 2020
- Messages
- 254
This bill should be prority number 1. The rest are distractions to a point. I guess unless they went through. Really give landowners 10 tags sellable with the public hunting. How long until the quality very poor.
Eric Albus
Well-known member
- Joined
- May 24, 2012
- Messages
- 1,579
Nemont, you make a valid point. This is perhaps something that will be regretted at a later date if it goes to 7 members. I like the idea of each Region having a rep., as only ppl living in their region have a firm grasp on the problems in that area. Being a little worried about a Dem. Gov. appointing APR or Turner Enterprises on commission is something worthy of thought. Just put a Dem Gov back in office and we could see just what he brings up. There are unintended consequences to every action.
At the outset I like the idea of 4 landowners on commission. There are to many in the MWF camp trying to force access and push punitive measures on the people who are housing and feeding "our wildlife". Landowners need an incentive to allow access, not be "forced to open up", but need to "want to".
walk, you are correct, if landowners with 640 could sell bull tags the quality would be gone in about 2 weeks. The plus to that is nobody would want to pay to shoot a spike after the good bulls are in the freezer, so unintended consequences may open up land to the public.
My opinion is this, we can't legislate our way out of the conundrum, and FWP has heretofore refused to work with landowners to get out of the conundrum. How about after the season a few concerned sportsmen and this commission sit down and come up with solutions that are not pitting landowners against sportsmen against outfitters against husbands and wives??
Randy has already called me and we both agree that going about it the same old way is insanity, which is doing the same thing over and over expecting a different result.
Both sides must give, as neither side is 100% right, the opposition must remember and realize that it is the landowners who hold the key to this thing. Like it or not, they are the ones feeding and housing "our wildlife" 365 days a year, burden or privilege is for each landowner to decide. The landowner must incentivized and worked with if we(sportsmen) are going to get anywhere.
At the outset I like the idea of 4 landowners on commission. There are to many in the MWF camp trying to force access and push punitive measures on the people who are housing and feeding "our wildlife". Landowners need an incentive to allow access, not be "forced to open up", but need to "want to".
walk, you are correct, if landowners with 640 could sell bull tags the quality would be gone in about 2 weeks. The plus to that is nobody would want to pay to shoot a spike after the good bulls are in the freezer, so unintended consequences may open up land to the public.
My opinion is this, we can't legislate our way out of the conundrum, and FWP has heretofore refused to work with landowners to get out of the conundrum. How about after the season a few concerned sportsmen and this commission sit down and come up with solutions that are not pitting landowners against sportsmen against outfitters against husbands and wives??
Randy has already called me and we both agree that going about it the same old way is insanity, which is doing the same thing over and over expecting a different result.
Both sides must give, as neither side is 100% right, the opposition must remember and realize that it is the landowners who hold the key to this thing. Like it or not, they are the ones feeding and housing "our wildlife" 365 days a year, burden or privilege is for each landowner to decide. The landowner must incentivized and worked with if we(sportsmen) are going to get anywhere.
