Black bear hunting with in Montana-- HB 144

[Ben Lamb]

The bill is classified as a Revenue bill. That means transmittal date is April 5th. They have to get the bill out of committee this week in order for it to go through the Senate Floor.

It's time for folks to step up and stand against this kind of horrible wildlife policy.

 

[RobG]

The bill is classified as a Revenue bill. That means transmittal date is April 5th. They have to get the bill out of committee this week in order for it to go through the Senate Floor.

It's time for folks to step up and stand against this kind of horrible wildlife policy.

Clearly a revenue bill

The link to comment to the Senate F&G committee on SB 397 is here: http://leg.mt.gov/css/Sessions/63rd/legwebmessage.asp (you can select the whole committee).

 

[Ben Lamb]

If it costs or generates over $50,000 in revenue for the state, then it meets the description for a revenue bill.

This bill, on top of Senator Barrett's HB 42 from a few years ago, will do more the rid Montana of all her wildlife than any wolf, lion or bear.

 

[Deleted member 16864]

Guys, its "stalk", not "stock".

 

[Western_Hunter]

Holy smokes. It seems like half the houndsmen on here that support bear hunting with hounds have a stick up their butt. IDK whether they just love their dogs so much that they want more animals to hunt or if they actually care about the hunting in Montana? Geeze leave bear hunting how it is in Montana. No bait, and no hounds. That's what makes it so great.

 

[RUT JUNKEY]

Im not for or against this issue at all, Im wondering why running cats with dogs is a non issue though? Is it because the season on cats is well after everything else goes out? Thats the only thing that would make sense to me. On another note. . .about 10 years ago during the rut I had a doe jump the fence at a full run about 50yds to my left, I got ready and swung into position thinking it was going to be one of the bruisers I had been seeing. What came through the fence next was a rag tag group of dogs, no collars, matted fur, nasty looking. I don't tolerate this sort of behavior, so, my first shot from the Ruger Field Carbine in .44 mag hit in front of the lead dog, 3 stopped and turned inside out trying to get out of there, the second shot hit the only dog continuing the chase right through the boiler room, it was coon hound. I'm a huge dog person, but, if my dogs were chasing deer and didn't have tags or a collar, well . . . My point is that this dog had been trained to chase coons, yet, he was also chasing deer too.

 

[RobG]

Just a heads up... The senate version SB 397 (Here) is the one moving forward.

HB144 is probably dead.

FWIW, at the hearing "They are doing it in Idaho without problems" was a major theme. I looked into this and for the most part hound hunting and bait aren't allowed in the areas where grizzlies are common. The trigger for allowing this type of hunting is also nonsensical and Idaho has nothing similar.

I'm more worried about the bait provisions in the bill - it would be allowed Sep 1 through June 1 (for wolves anyway) and you even could use roadkill deer, elk, or moose so there would be all these boobytraps laying around the woods waiting for bowhunters and hikers to stumble across.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Baiting has been amended out of the bill. It will pass 3rd reading today and head to the House.
\
The bill still contains provisions which will trigger lawsuits which have a high likelihood of succeeding in eliminating state management of wolves, and it still eliminates the Commission from making informed decisions regarding large carnivore management as well as habitat considerations, over harvest by humans, etc.

This is a horrible bill.

 

[RobG]

Baiting has been amended out of the bill. It will pass 3rd reading today and head to the House.
\
The bill still contains provisions which will trigger lawsuits which have a high likelihood of succeeding in eliminating state management of wolves, and it still eliminates the Commission from making informed decisions regarding large carnivore management as well as habitat considerations, over harvest by humans, etc.

This is a horrible bill.

I got to be honest, the threat of lawsuits isn't very compelling.

Section 3 still says you can use road kill bait for wolves... And with the strikeouts I don't see any restrictions on where this bait can be placed, but I might be misreading it.

Looks like it still triggers bear management based on FWP's elk management.

 

[Ben Lamb]

It should be compelling for a few reasons:

Any time you change state statute on a recently delisted species, you put your status in review. If it is found to be a substantial enough change of status so that the future viability of the species is put in jeopardy, it makes it easier to get that species relisted.

Secondly, the bill places a population cap of 200 wolves before any hunting season could be ended. Under that scenario, MT will fall below the mandates 15 breeding pair (approx 250 wolves is necessary to maintain 125 breeding pair).

Thirdly, the bill ignores the fact that the genetic connectivity argument has not been settled in court, and if a judge finds that MT's alteration of the plan does not account for the genetic connectivity issue, then we end up back in court, with a high likelihood of losing management.

Lastly: It's concerning enough for the lawyers at FWP that they have made it crystal clear that this bill would jeopardize wolf status.

I'm fine if folks want to sue, the key is being able to win those lawsuits. Under SB 397, the state of MT loses.

 

[RobG]

It should be compelling for a few reasons:

Any time you change state statute on a recently delisted species, you put your status in review. If it is found to be a substantial enough change of status so that the future viability of the species is put in jeopardy, it makes it easier to get that species relisted.

Secondly, the bill places a population cap of 200 wolves before any hunting season could be ended. Under that scenario, MT will fall below the mandates 15 breeding pair (approx 250 wolves is necessary to maintain 125 breeding pair).

Thirdly, the bill ignores the fact that the genetic connectivity argument has not been settled in court, and if a judge finds that MT's alteration of the plan does not account for the genetic connectivity issue, then we end up back in court, with a high likelihood of losing management.

Lastly: It's concerning enough for the lawyers at FWP that they have made it crystal clear that this bill would jeopardize wolf status.

I'm fine if folks want to sue, the key is being able to win those lawsuits. Under SB 397, the state of MT loses.

That's all fine, but the legislators were looking at that and saying, "Idaho is doing it, why can't we?" I expect the legislators believe a more likely result of a lawsuit would just be the elimination of the offending practice, at best a temporary setback. Not compelling, at least to them.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Except that's not how it works, regardless of what the Senate thinks.

 

[brymoore]

FWIW, at the hearing "They are doing it in Idaho without problems" was a major theme. I looked into this and for the most part hound hunting and bait aren't allowed in the areas where grizzlies are common. The trigger for allowing this type of hunting is also nonsensical and Idaho has nothing similar.

I'm more worried about the bait provisions in the bill - it would be allowed Sep 1 through June 1 (for wolves anyway) and you even could use roadkill deer, elk, or moose so there would be all these boobytraps laying around the woods waiting for bowhunters and hikers to stumble across.

I'll give you my views as an Idaho hunter. The few houndmen I've run across are usually driving backroads with their dogs. They drive around until the dogs start barking on scent. I've only once had a houndsmen run hounds in the same area that I was hunting. I was glassing for elk and changed to glassing the draw they were hunting to see if elk were pushed out - they weren't. Houndsmen haven't effected any of my hunting.

Baiting is another story. I live in an area with heavy baiting. I would conservatively bet there are over 20 bait sites within a few miles of my house. Spot and stalk is hard because the bears are habitiated to eating at baits within a few days of season starting. As with every type of hunting, the farther away from the roads you get, the hunting gets better. If I want to S&S bear, I need to hike back away from potential bait sights.

I won't fight against baiting in Idaho as I'm clealy a minority on the issue but I sure would try to stop it if I were in MT.

 

[bow-n-head]

I really hate to see hunters fight, but I have called out "hunters" before. Let me guess.....you are some of the same people who begrudge me for shooting a compound bow in archery season. If you want to limit yourself that's fine, don't split hunters. We are loosing the battle. When I can no longer afford to hunt in my back yard I am not going to support hunting at all. So as you can see we are all passionate about our sport, if we are gonna keep it we need to get along.

 

[Deleted member 16864]

I really hate to see hunters fight, but I have called out "hunters" before. Let me guess.....you are some of the same people who begrudge me for shooting a compound bow in archery season. If you want to limit yourself that's fine, don't split hunters. We are loosing the battle. When I can no longer afford to hunt in my back yard I am not going to support hunting at all. So as you can see we are all passionate about our sport, if we are gonna keep it we need to get along.

You guessed wrong, most people that enjoy this forum are avid compound bow hunters. Most of us enjoy the hunting opportunities that are available to us right now, and do not see the need to allow a long-range-muzzleloaders only season, crossbows during archery season, special mountain goat tags for seniors, or bear baiting and chasing.

 

[Straight Arrow]

You guessed wrong, most people that enjoy this forum are avid compound bow hunters. Most of us enjoy the hunting opportunities that are available to us right now, and do not see the need to allow a long-range-muzzleloaders only season, crossbows during archery season, special mountain goat tags for seniors, or bear baiting and chasing.

Amen, spot-on, and there you go ... most of Montana's hunters who are expressing themselves to the legislature individually or as an organization, are saying the same thing.

 

[RobG]

I really hate to see hunters fight, but I have called out "hunters" before. Let me guess.....you are some of the same people who begrudge me for shooting a compound bow in archery season. If you want to limit yourself that's fine, don't split hunters. We are loosing the battle. When I can no longer afford to hunt in my back yard I am not going to support hunting at all. So as you can see we are all passionate about our sport, if we are gonna keep it we need to get along.

This isn't going to split hunters in any meaningful way, especially since the infrastructure is not currently in place. In fact, hounds and bait are just going to help mobilize the anti-hunters so it is a step in the wrong direction. The comments about Idaho above are interesting - a few years ago there was a ballot initiative to ban baiting there. Considering Idaho is the most conservative state in the U.S. it is a pretty remarkable accomplishment to get that on the ballot. It failed of course, but as a result in Idaho if you are for banning bait then you are in bed with the animal rights folks. We don't want to be in that conundrum.

The biggest problem I have is baiting in grizzly country, which is pretty much overlaps wolf country. Even though bait was amended out for bears, it is still allowed for wolves Sept 1 - June 30th (and I expect you can "accidentally" hunt over wolf bait. Road kill can even be used for bait and that sets up a pretty dangerous booby trap for hunters and hikers. Grizzly bears will claim a dead animal within a few hours around here.

The bill, while supposedly justified because Idaho is doing it, differs from Idaho in some key areas - in Idaho the Commission will set the trapping areas instead of it being based on what the elk regulations are. Also, bait and hounds are prohibited in many districts that have grizzly bears.

The bill <SB 297> is going to be heard tomorrow. Is anyone from Bozeman going up to catch a ride with?

 

[Wapiti Warrior]

I let them know AGAIN I am against this bill for many reasons...

John

 

[Oak]

FWIW, at the hearing "They are doing it in Idaho without problems" was a major theme.

Just read this thread for the first time, and the above quote caught my eye. It's a good reason for getting involved in the politics of other western states, not just the one in which you reside. For example, maybe someday supporters of landowner tags in MT will be in front of your legislature and saying, "They are doing it in Colorado without problems."

 

[bow-n-head]

Yea well i suck with words ya all missed my point. Have you never been accused of shooting a "bow gun" by a traditionalist. They want you not to be able to use a compound bow. You are just lucky that today they aren't after it......today.......what about tomorrow.