HB 505 - Elk Need Your Help

[ShootsManyBullets]

Agreed and this was my point in post #374 on Page 19. I remember emailing the commissioners afterwards asking how they could adopt this based on the overwhelming opposition from the public comment period. The response was they approved it based solely on FWP's recommendation to approve. That was the turning point for me in my belief that FWP's wildlife management leadership does not care one bit about us as hunters. We're the constant in the equation and will buy tags no matter how bad it gets.

Nailed it. FWP does NOT serve the people or the wildlife.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Nailed it. FWP The politically appointed leadership of FWP does NOT serve the people or the wildlife.

FIFY

FWP employees do. Some in Helena seem to have forgotten their history. Good story about what's happening at HQ:

Anti-wildlife bills and agency changes could damage Montana's wildlife populations

The anti-wildlife nature of several bills has prompted more than 48 wildlife professionals of Montana to raise their voice in opposition. If passed, the bills, along with agency changes, would diminish Montana’s reputation for science-based wildlife management.

missoulacurrent.com

 

[Spartan_Eric]

FIFY

FWP employees do. Some in Helena seem to have forgotten their history. Good story about what's happening at HQ:

Anti-wildlife bills and agency changes could damage Montana's wildlife populations

The anti-wildlife nature of several bills has prompted more than 48 wildlife professionals of Montana to raise their voice in opposition. If passed, the bills, along with agency changes, would diminish Montana’s reputation for science-based wildlife management.

missoulacurrent.com

Kudos to them for standing up for “fair chase” principles! During this legislative session it appears to be a race to the bottom in this regard.

 

[SAJ-99]

FIFY

FWP employees do. Some in Helena seem to have forgotten their history. Good story about what's happening at HQ:

Anti-wildlife bills and agency changes could damage Montana's wildlife populations

The anti-wildlife nature of several bills has prompted more than 48 wildlife professionals of Montana to raise their voice in opposition. If passed, the bills, along with agency changes, would diminish Montana’s reputation for science-based wildlife management.

missoulacurrent.com

Sounds like people are being silenced. Not very encouraging, but I'm not exactly shocked.

 

[Carnage2011]

Looks like a bunch of new amendments have been added. Still a terrible bill.

 

[sacountry]

The house is about to adjourn from the floor. Not sure how much lag time there is between the closing of the floor and the opening of the committee meetings. Might start before 3:00 today, just a heads up.

 

[Walkalot]

What are the amendments

 

[Schaaf]

Here are your amendments

Very courteous of them to upload the amendments one hour before the meeting where they will vote.

 

[brocksw]

Basically whats below and knocking it down from 5 bonus points to 1 is the meat and potatoes of it.

 

[Nameless Range]

I read it as 3 bonus points

 

[brocksw]

I read it as 3 bonus points

View attachment 177637

So if they can verify they shot the cow hunted on private, that's when they are eligible for the 3rd bonus point?

 

[Nameless Range]

So if they can verify they shot the cow on private, that's when they are eligible for the 3rd bonus point?

Just says "hunted", doesn't say successfully. So as I read it. 1 just like everyone else, 1 to "indicate" or not apply for a permit, and 1 after the season based on personal "verification."

 

[MThuntr]

Am I reading this right?

New amendments are:

5 per applicant of the 640 acres of contiguous acres BUT there is room for another 5 more on a different 640 acres.
3 bonus points (1 option to buy for getting a license ahead of the drawing, 1 for just participating in the transfer program, 1 after the fact for hunting on private land)
Half Priced tag for the landowner to "sponsor"
Landowner may not charge a fee or offer services or assistance...does this mean they can't charge for getting an applicant a permit or that they cannot offer outfitting services?

 

[brocksw]

Am I reading this right?

New amendments are:

5 per applicant of the 640 acres of contiguous acres BUT there is room for another 5 more on a different 640 acres.
3 bonus points (1 option to buy for getting a license ahead of the drawing, 1 for just participating in the transfer program, 1 after the fact for hunting on private land)
Half Priced tag for the landowner to "sponsor"

I read it as 1 sponsorship/applicant per 640 acres up to 5

"To be eligible, a landowner may not accept monetary consideration from the license applicant for the sponsorship or for providing any services or assistance to the applicant except as provided in Title 37, chapter 47, and this title."

Anyone have a good link to Title 37, Chapter 47? I would assume it refers to standard guiding regs of some kind? Purely speculation though...

 

[Nameless Range]

Am I reading this right?

New amendments are:

5 per applicant of the 640 acres of contiguous acres BUT there is room for another 5 more on a different 640 acres.
3 bonus points (1 option to buy for getting a license ahead of the drawing, 1 for just participating in the transfer program, 1 after the fact for hunting on private land)
Half Priced tag for the landowner to "sponsor"

I think it is up to 5 sponsored tags, and they would only get 5 if they owned 5 x 640 acres.

Also this: . To be eligible, a landowner 24 may not accept monetary consideration from the license applicant for the sponsorship or for providing any 25 services or assistance to the applicant except as provided in Title 37, chapter 47, and this title.

 

[MThuntr]

I read it as 1 sponsorship/applicant per 640 acres up to 5

"To be eligible, a landowner may not accept monetary consideration from the license applicant for the sponsorship or for providing any services or assistance to the applicant except as provided in Title 37, chapter 47, and this title."

Anyone have a good link to Title 37, Chapter 47? I would assume it refers to standard guiding regs of some kind? Purely speculation though...

I think it is up to 5 sponsored tags, and they would only get 5 if they owned 5 x 640 acres.

Also this: . To be eligible, a landowner 24 may not accept monetary consideration from the license applicant for the sponsorship or for providing any 25 services or assistance to the applicant except as provided in Title 37, chapter 47, and this title.

Thanks I got that backwards and started editing while you guys replied.

Landowner may not charge a fee for sponsorship or offer services or assistance...does this mean that they cannot offer outfitting services or offer like lodging?

 

[Walkalot]

So basically it has nothing to do with elk tolerance or objectives. Just a ploy to build points for high paying clients in LE units. They will pay the fee once they draw. $$$$

 

[brocksw]

Title 37, Chapter 47

CHAPTER 47. OUTFITTERS AND GUIDES - Table of Contents, Title 37, MCA

leg.mt.gov

 

[brocksw]

I'm skimming through the outfitters and guides regs as fast as possible and I don't see a damn thing that seems at all relevant to the language in this bill in terms of how it would enforce 505 language.

 

[Spartan_Eric]

By striking out “for a general elk license” here, I see this as a way for the Fish and Wildlife Commission to potentially open this up to bull elk limited draw hunting districts. Hopefully, I am wrong.