Gerald Martin
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2009
- Messages
- 8,302
Brett, your data compilation is going to assist me greatly with my testimony. Thanks for your hard work.
HB 505 - Elk Need Your Help
- Thread starter Big Fin
- Start date
For those of you testifying or providing commentary, please make sure your testimony is based on what this bill actually says. I am seeing some information being put out there that is different than what is written in this bill. Bill text here - https://leg.mt.gov/bills/2021/billpdf/HB0505.pdf
Some are claiming that these are transferrable landowner tags. They are not transferable landowner tags. These are landowner sponsored tags, sold by FWP, something far different than transferrable landowner tags.
The bill says, "The department shall offer for sale,......"
In that respect, these tags are similar to the landowner sponsored deer tags we have. This bill would allow the Department of FWP to allow use of these tags beyond just deeded lands, unlike the landowner sponsored deer tags that are restricted to the landowner's deeded lands.
I bring this up, as I wouldn't want testimony to try make the point that these are transferable, when the easy and embarrassing rebuttal would be, "Can you show me where in this bill these tags are listed as transferrable?"
Some seem to be of the opinion that this bill applies to units that are "at, or above, objective." That is not what the bill states. These tags are for lands in units that are "at objective," not on lands over objective or above objective. Thus, many of the units in Central and Eastern Montana will not qualify, as those units are over objective.
The bill says, ..."within a hunting district where the sustainable population number for elk, as calculated pursuant to 87-1-323, is at objective as determined by the department's most recent elk survey count."
I'm not saying this as any support for the bill, rather to make sure that those of us who oppose the bill make comments that are to the points this bill actually addresses. When comments are made that are a stretch beyond what the bill actually says, it diminishes credibility and makes it easy to discount any opposition as being purposefully misinformed.
Some are claiming that these are transferrable landowner tags. They are not transferable landowner tags. These are landowner sponsored tags, sold by FWP, something far different than transferrable landowner tags.
The bill says, "The department shall offer for sale,......"
In that respect, these tags are similar to the landowner sponsored deer tags we have. This bill would allow the Department of FWP to allow use of these tags beyond just deeded lands, unlike the landowner sponsored deer tags that are restricted to the landowner's deeded lands.
I bring this up, as I wouldn't want testimony to try make the point that these are transferable, when the easy and embarrassing rebuttal would be, "Can you show me where in this bill these tags are listed as transferrable?"
Some seem to be of the opinion that this bill applies to units that are "at, or above, objective." That is not what the bill states. These tags are for lands in units that are "at objective," not on lands over objective or above objective. Thus, many of the units in Central and Eastern Montana will not qualify, as those units are over objective.
The bill says, ..."within a hunting district where the sustainable population number for elk, as calculated pursuant to 87-1-323, is at objective as determined by the department's most recent elk survey count."
I'm not saying this as any support for the bill, rather to make sure that those of us who oppose the bill make comments that are to the points this bill actually addresses. When comments are made that are a stretch beyond what the bill actually says, it diminishes credibility and makes it easy to discount any opposition as being purposefully misinformed.
Gerald Martin
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2009
- Messages
- 8,302
Sorry. I was getting you and Nameless Range confused. Thanks for writing.
Gerald Martin
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2009
- Messages
- 8,302
Can someone clarify what a class A-5 elk tag is?
Gerald Martin
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2009
- Messages
- 8,302
The added bonus points for those who agree to only hunt cows are good for units above objective as well aren’t they?
Yes.
Nameless Range
Well-known member
This is good clarification and a distinction I had not thought about. I will be careful to use the right terminology in my testimony. Not to belabor the point, but what is the functional difference between landowner sponsored tags and transferable landowner tags? This is as I understand it and would like to know if I am wrong.
Landowner Sponsored Tags:
Under this bill, when a district is at Objective, every landowner owning over 640 contiguous acres would get to sponsor 10 hunters. Sponsored hunters would buy their tags from FWP, but sponsoring landowners could still set a price for sponsorship above and beyond the cost of the tag. These are not transferable insofar as the tags themselves were never the property of the landowner.
Transferable Landowner Tags:
In the case of transferable landowner tags, a landowner is allocated X amount of tags by a fish and game agency that they are then free to sell, maybe set the price on, etc.
Maybe my assumptions are wrong. I am not overly familiar with landowner sponsored or transferable landowner tags, but are the end results functionally the same? Sponsored tags just having a state fish and game agency as a middle man?
Last edited:
Nameless Range
Well-known member
I think it is worth pointing out that though those units will not qualify right now, they very well could someday, as objective status is not fixed. That status can change from year to year, so looking at what this bill will do to those units when they are at objective is fair and responsible.
Last edited:
Gerald Martin
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2009
- Messages
- 8,302
All it would take is for the biologist to be instructed to raise "objective" numbers and then units would magically be in compliance and landowners would qualify.
I am looking to present my experiences in unit 700. A unit with a stated objective of 200-300 elk. It had 1237 counted elk in 2020. Currently, 1,655 permits or licenses are issued to hunt elk in unit 700. There are 176 qualifying landowners on this bill. If it passes and elk were at the upper end of "objective" of 300, there could be an additional 1760 tags issued.
That could mean that 3,415 tags would be issued to hunt 300 elk.
I guess I have to have some sympathy for landowners. There are 1237 elk distributed across 1,783,068 acres. Those elk are so dense in that district that I'm amazed there's a blade of grass standing after that grazing onslaught.
peterk1234
Well-known member
- Joined
- Oct 9, 2019
- Messages
- 484
My wife and I will be retiring to Montana in six months. I am from Massachusetts. I thought our regulations were crazy. I can't even figure out the existing Montana regulations, never mind all this crap that the legislature is trying to push through. I know nothing about what is going on, but as a total newbie I can tell you that the optics are horrible. It appears to me that hunting/wildlife management in Montana is being monetized. It is very disappointing. The loser is obvious, and it it not the non-resident or the local hunter. Those two are just innocent casualties. The real loser in all of this is the wildlife. The people sponsoring these bills should be embarrassed.
I think the argument can be made that they might end up with the same end result, especially if the Department decides to allow those tags to be used on all lands in the district, rather than just the deeded lands. That surely makes these sponsored tags far more valuable and with that value comes the interest some might have in paying a landowner for his "sponsorship."
So yes, the landowner sponsored does have the state agency as the middle man to the transaction. And sponsored tags are perceived to be a step further away from an actual property right that some attributed to transferrable landowner tags, in that the state is allowing landowners to sponsor people to help in the activity of managing the public's game, something that could surely be used to the financial benefit for the sponsor.
My point is that there is a distinction and to intermix those concepts is likely to make for an easy defense of comments based on treating them as the same.
I agree. And I would like to know how the Department is required to count the animals and arrive at the objectives. What is the process for counting? How often counted? Count elk on inaccessible private lands or only on accessible lands, as is "supposed" to happen under the EMP?
Right now, UPOM opposes the bill, as it doesn't include units "over objective," which applies to many units in areas of their core support. I wouldn't be surprised if an amendment ends up being pushed on this bill to make it apply to units "at, or over, objective," as a way to satisfy UPOM.
If one accepts the questionable rationale that using "at objective" will provide incentives for more access to get units down to objective or will lower resistance to having higher objectives, an amendment to include units that are "over objective" eliminates any of that incentive, if such actually would work as incentive (I doubt it).
If these units currently over objective magically became "at objective," how do limited entry permits get allocated? Right now, it just applies to these new B-13 general tags, not limited entry permits which are common to hunt bulls in most of these central/eastern units that are over objective. Would these B-13 tag holders get preference above resident hunters who have to go through a draw to get a limited entry permit?
It has been my understanding that this bill was requested by FWP, so I suspect they will be there to explain or answer questions that arise. Regardless of their answers, it is my opinion this is not the route to take for managing elk across the diverse landscapes upon which elk exist in Montana. We appointed an Elk Management Plan Citizens Group to work on these issues. Not sure why FWP wouldn't wait to see what this group comes up with before requesting poorly thought out legislative solutions that have not been through the public comment process.
My testimony will not be to get into the minutia of this huge change in how we manage elk, rather I reject the idea that we would be changing how we manage elk in a huge way and will have done so without any public input being sought from hunters the same as we do with season setting processes.
The many questions and potential negative outcomes tells me that FWP has not done its homework in requesting this bill.
sacountry
Well-known member
Thanks Randy. Admittedly I was confused, thinking the landowners were going to sell the tags. I also thought the bill contradicted it's intent to be available only in over populated districts.....now I see that the land would have to be in districts that are specifically AT population. So now I'm even more confused as to the goal of the bill.
Pucky Freak
Well-known member
18 emails sent
I'd like to announce HB 2084: "The Montana legislature will now and henceforth forever more convene for 2 days every 90 years."
I'd like to announce HB 2084: "The Montana legislature will now and henceforth forever more convene for 2 days every 90 years."
Spartan_Eric
Active member
I sent in more comments to the Montana House of Representatives regarding House Bill 505 (along with Senate Bill 111, Senate Bill 306, etc.). I did receive an e-mail back from one House Member indicating his support to vote against House Bill 505; however, he said that he wished RMEF would become involved in the political discourse regarding House Bill 505. Consequently, I also sent a follow-up e-mail to RMEF in this regard.
However, maybe if House Bill 505 is truly more of Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks’ brainchild (yikes!), then I could definitely understand the lack of any RMEF involvement?
However, maybe if House Bill 505 is truly more of Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks’ brainchild (yikes!), then I could definitely understand the lack of any RMEF involvement?
Gerald Martin
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2009
- Messages
- 8,302
As I read it section 2 of this bill allows the holder of a Class-A5 (resident OTC either-sex) or equivalent NR tag holder to indicate at the time of purchase he will use the tag on private land in an over objective to shoot a cow.
In return, he will can receive a total of 6 bonus points that can be used to apply for special permits in any district he chooses for following years.
Montana squares bonus points. If you have access to private land and exercise this option for five years you will have 900 chances to draw a permit of your choice. 5x6=30. 30x30=900
If you aren’t connected and have private access, in five years you will have 25 chances to draw a permit.
In return, he will can receive a total of 6 bonus points that can be used to apply for special permits in any district he chooses for following years.
Montana squares bonus points. If you have access to private land and exercise this option for five years you will have 900 chances to draw a permit of your choice. 5x6=30. 30x30=900
If you aren’t connected and have private access, in five years you will have 25 chances to draw a permit.
Bugle 'Em In
Well-known member
Simple but GREAT visual Gerald. It almost feels like the "haves" (vs. have nots) are irritated that we'll even have 25 chances in five years.
This bill is terrible from so many angles.
This bill is terrible from so many angles.
Nameless Range
Well-known member
You upload public testimony and supporting documents and/or sign up to testify via zoom here:
leg.mt.gov
I am uploading supporting documents but plan on testifying in person. Hopefully that works.
- Montana State Legislature
I am uploading supporting documents but plan on testifying in person. Hopefully that works.
TrumpkinTheDwarf
Well-known member
So, as a non resident, what are my avenues for helping you all in this particular battle? I get the feeling they won't take kindly to a non resident emailing them about internal decision making.
