I-193 to exempt MT Landowners from elk/deer/bear regs

@ item 7 in the full text. Granted, I may not be understanding the full meaning of this initiative. The language is very vague and confusing to me as it doesn’t clearly specify what the commission is not allowed to prohibit.
Other parts of this document specifically say the commission is authorized to set permit areas. 🤷‍♂️
View attachment 304492
Thank you.
 
Thanks for posting that, Steve. In addition to written statements, it can be helpful to participate in the zoom meeting (tomorrow at 10!; it’s likely not a coincidence this is being rushed) to offer some rebuttal and assess the proponents. To do so, you have to sign up by 5 today here:


For some background, here is Andrew McKean’s hot-off-the-press piece:
https://www.outdoorlife.com/conservation/montana-ballot-initiative-land-big-game/
 
Thanks for posting that, Steve. In addition to written statements, it can be helpful to participate in the zoom meeting (tomorrow at 10!; it’s likely not a coincidence this is being rushed) to offer some rebuttal and assess the proponents. To do so, you have to sign up by 5 today here:


For some background, here is Andrew McKean’s hot-off-the-press piece:
https://www.outdoorlife.com/conservation/montana-ballot-initiative-land-big-game/
So the original intent of this proposal was to diminish tribal sovereignty? For frig’s sake.
 
So the original intent of this proposal was to diminish tribal sovereignty? For frig’s sake.

No kidding. Even if the law passes by ballot initiative it would be challenged by the tribes in the MT Supreme Court and the state would lose.

The argument that non-tribal members only found out they couldn’t hunt big game after purchasing land is a matter of due diligence, not unfair laws.

My crystal ball prediction is that tribes will eliminate all hunting by non-tribal members if it stays on the ballot.
 
Gerald, I spoke to a CSKT lawyer yesterday, and he shared the tribes’ written testimony to the EQC. Both confirm that passage of this initiative would likely reopen the federal litigation on fish and game jurisdiction that led to the joint agreement 30 years ago, and that would likely occur throughout Montana Indian country, not just the Flathead rez.

One of the immediate consequences could be that the CSKT would exercise their right to close the southern half of Flathead Lake to non-tribal member angling as well as duck hunting. How do you think those landowners, anglers, and duck hunters would react?
 
Can someone give us a Democracy for Dummies real quick?

Where does the ballot initiative go from here?

Curious to see who would be collecting signatures for this.
 
Can someone give us a Democracy for Dummies real quick?

Where does the ballot initiative go from here?

Curious to see who would be collecting signatures for this.
I went to the can while the process was being reviewed, but IIRC signature gathering can begin on the proposal as written in its currently dramatically vague form.

The proponent says he alone will be driving around to gather signatures and is working without outside support (I have to doubt that, because the rule of thumb is you better have $1M to have a reasonable shot at seeing an initiative through, and all the property rights legislators voted for this proposal.

He must get signatures respresenting at least 5% of the voters from 34 individual districts (1/3 of the total) to make it to the ballot.

The EQC tied 8-8 on recommending advancement to ballot. Since there was no majority, all documentation must note that the EQC does not support placement on the ballot.

John Harrison, CSKT attorney, stated that he believed the tribes would reopen federal litigation if the ballot is approved by MT voters.
 
Vote breakout from the Flathead Beacon article.

" The eight Republican members of the committee agreed, framing it as a private property rights issue and revealed no compunctions about supporting it.

“I’ll be a yes. One reason is I’m a big private property guy,” said Sen. Steve Hinebauch, R-Wibaux. “The other reason: I always hate the threat that somebody is going to sue us. Let ‘em sue us.”

Because all five Democratic legislators and the three citizen members of the council voted in opposition, the EQC vote will be recorded as opposing the measure. "

 
All I can say is wow. Are the people pushing this really that desperate. Most of the stuff like this could not get through a friendly legislature and a Governor that is all on board with this crap. Do the backers really think they are going to get 50+ percent of voters to pull the lever for this. I predict that this will back fire. First this initiative is going down in flames and it will not be that close. The vote will then be used to beat down any legislator that proposes any similar legislation. Maybe I am wrong, but I don't think so.
It won’t even garner enough signatures to gain the ballot…my prediction. Carry on
 
My only concern with this is if someone is trying to shock us first before they show the actual hand of what they want
I think you nailed it. Start with something unrealistic and work your way into the end goal under the disguise of it being a compromise.
 
Gerald, I spoke to a CSKT lawyer yesterday, and he shared the tribes’ written testimony to the EQC. Both confirm that passage of this initiative would likely reopen the federal litigation on fish and game jurisdiction that led to the joint agreement 30 years ago, and that would likely occur throughout Montana Indian country, not just the Flathead rez.

One of the immediate consequences could be that the CSKT would exercise their right to close the southern half of Flathead Lake to non-tribal member angling as well as duck hunting. How do you think those landowners, anglers, and duck hunters would react?

I wouldn’t expect anything less. Mess with a sovereign nation’s right to govern their territory and it would make sense they would withdraw from shared use agreements with MT.

This initiative is flawed and a really bad idea from the get go.

Like @Eric Albus said, I can’t imagine it getting enough signatures to get on the ballot.

The fact that elected Republicans support this is another indication of just how out of touch they are with the interests of MT residents.
 
Martz held a State trifecta. Would be curious her thoughts of modern demise of Montana values. It's a current polarized political environment. - both parties to blame.
My favorite times have been under Schweitzer.
 
Politics and common sense don't go together..... people that attempt this crap should be penalized.
 
Guaranteed; the public land hunters will get shafted if this passes in favor of the private land owners looking for high-dollar clients.
 
Don't underestimate these kind of folks. I've seen them set up a table out front of a Wally World in a college town to get signature and if asked say something like, "oh it's a law to protect landowner rights." I don't remember to specific issue I witnessed, but 1/2 of the people just signed it and from what I saw 3/4 were likely not state residents.
 
I thought the SCOTUS decision in Montana v. United States settled this concern: non-tribal member, on non-tribal fee land (that they own/have owner permission), within a reservation - subject only to state game regulations. Tribes could only regulate non-tribal members on tribal lands.

Reading comments here, it appears the state and CSKT have an agreement to limit non-tribal hunters to tribal jurisdiction for their reservation...and this petitioner doesn't like that agreement...which begs the question if this is just a red herring, because any idiot could have clearly limited the petition language to fee lands within the exterior bounds of a federally recognized tribal reservation.
 
GOHUNT Insider

Forum statistics

Threads
110,386
Messages
1,918,038
Members
34,727
Latest member
Clifford Radcliffe
Back
Top