Hb 361
- Thread starter Ben Lamb
- Start date
Rat Fink
Member
Great news. It feels good when something you comment on to the legislature finally goes your way.
Senators Wittich, Walker, Windy Boy, Buttrey, Lake, Priest and Sonju all switched votes.
here is the vote count. Please send each of them a thank you for their vote!
here is the vote count. Please send each of them a thank you for their vote!
Lawnboy
Well-known member
Well you boys won the war of the legislature overriding the commission. Besides that battle the premise of limiting the tags in 20+ districts is a load of crap. I'm taking your word on that the commission will hopefully see the fallacy in doing this and make a change in the next year or two. I'll wait that long but if nothing changes with this commission or the next new one I'll be sending emails in favor of the legislature next time. I know we hashed this out earlier and the majority of you aren't affected because you don't hunt these districts but some of us do and they have limited our opportunity without any real justification. Fingers crossed that they (commission) got a good scare and will pull their heads out and think before making these social decisions.
For the record I support the fact that the commission shouldn't be over ruled by the legislature but as we've seen this year I think the both the commission and the legislature have people in them that need to go.
For the record I support the fact that the commission shouldn't be over ruled by the legislature but as we've seen this year I think the both the commission and the legislature have people in them that need to go.
Our group already emailed the Commissioners this afternoon, telling them that we need to get this problem fixed. If they do not get the message of that, further action needs to be taken.
No one I know of wanted the limited tags in these units outside the Breaks. Not saying some guys in the Eastern part did not want it, but I did not hear that. I would be interested to hear from the guys out East, such as Horn Seeker, and some of the MBA members, as to what they wanted.
I heard the opinion at all the meetings, that it was wanted in the Breaks units. Outside those areas, that it seemed like a dead issue.
I hope that the Commission sees the backlash of the "One size fits all" approach and considers the need for correction.
No one I know of wanted the limited tags in these units outside the Breaks. Not saying some guys in the Eastern part did not want it, but I did not hear that. I would be interested to hear from the guys out East, such as Horn Seeker, and some of the MBA members, as to what they wanted.
I heard the opinion at all the meetings, that it was wanted in the Breaks units. Outside those areas, that it seemed like a dead issue.
I hope that the Commission sees the backlash of the "One size fits all" approach and considers the need for correction.
If anyone else wants to contact the Commission, here is the page with all the contact information.
http://fwp.mt.gov/doingBusiness/insideFwp/commission/
http://fwp.mt.gov/doingBusiness/insideFwp/commission/
Drake4
Well-known member
Just thought I would post a reply I received from a senator I thanked for opposing this bill. At least it makes you feel like you are making a difference.
"You are most welcome, Matt.
Bad bills containing bad policy must be killed.
Your e-mails do make a difference - - - keep them coming."
"You are most welcome, Matt.
Bad bills containing bad policy must be killed.
Your e-mails do make a difference - - - keep them coming."
Big Fin,
There are a few guys that I know that wanted the permits outside the breaks, but most of them were hunting public land/forest service in Southeast Montana and the Snowies. I think they should evaluate each of 20+ districts individually. Just my 2 cents
There are a few guys that I know that wanted the permits outside the breaks, but most of them were hunting public land/forest service in Southeast Montana and the Snowies. I think they should evaluate each of 20+ districts individually. Just my 2 cents
Agreed. And through the tentative process, FWP should do this.
Lawnboy
Well-known member
Will do! Going to need to rally the troops out in central and eastern montana. I'm curious how they are going to evalute and by what methods get REAL facts to the issues of animal densities and hunter overcrowding in each unit.
shoots-straight
Well-known member
One fight at a time. We still have a long road ahead of us.
onpoint
Well-known member
+1...
A quick and dirty tally off the LAWS website indicates that (+/- my error in comprehension of status and/or tallying) of bills listed On Fish & Wildlife......
52 dead (hopefully for good)
14 on Guvs desk or headed there (none seem too awfully harmful)
and....
38 still functionally alive
Not there yet but we are having a definite impact on the outcome.
onpoint
Well-known member
I haven't even addressed those bills on this site...a whole 'nuther crappy story there. Been making phone calls on that front too.
MEPA...an American legislative classic sponsored by Republican George Darrow in 1971. A lot of what MT is today can be tied to that bill...so let's ruin it. This crap all sux and is getting very old......
Last edited:
onpoint
Well-known member
And HB 159, HB 387, HB 607, SB 255, SB 348, SB 348, SB 390, SB 414.....................
SB 237, the test and slaughter bill, looks to probably be on it's way to the Guv - will be interesting to see how he treats it.....
SB 237, the test and slaughter bill, looks to probably be on it's way to the Guv - will be interesting to see how he treats it.....
onpoint
Well-known member
I was gonna' edit out the extra SB 348 in my above post, but seeing as how they like to try to resurrect bills after they are "dead", maybe I'll just leave it as it may need killin' twice.
Similar threads
