Landowner Elk Tag Bill

[Ben Lamb]

There are amendments being drafted to extend the scope of who can receive the license. The amendment is being opposed by almost every sporting group I know of.

Call the number above in Rob's post and leave a message for the House Fish, WIldlife and Parks committee expressing your opposition to any amendment that loosens restrictions already in the bill (or whatever your position is).

Denowh's number is a lie. Flat & simple. It's what we expect from him.

 

[BuzzH]

Wow, shocked that there is already people looking to loosen the rules on who can receive the tags.

Getting closer and closer to the end game...fully transferable and saleable licenses.

One step at a time...they'll get there yet. Some will still support it to "increase access". Its no wonder the landowners, outfitters, and legislature gets their way...people sell their souls, and public wildlife resources, for a bit of access.

Unbelievable.

 

[Straight Arrow]

Please take a few minutes and call the House FWP Committee please tell the Montana Legislature to respect the hard work and compromise that went into HB 96 and oppose ANY amendments to HB 96. 406-444-4800 Thanks a bunch.

When I called the gal taking calls said, "Let me guess ... you oppose any amendments to HB 96, right?" Yes was my response, which was then elaborated upon based on the hearing information and improvements already made to the bill. Seems there a number of us opposing any amendments, so please call that number and let your voice be heard. Let's hammer the point home.

 

[The Hedgehog]

I called and opposed the bill period.

I'm surprised some on here aren't breathing fire, but I guess if you're going to get landowner tags supported in Montana, you'll have to have a Democrat roll it out, and the RMEF support it.

What a crock.

 

[mtmiller]

I called and opposed the bill period.

I'm surprised some on here aren't breathing fire, but I guess if you're going to get landowner tags supported in Montana, you'll have to have a Democrat roll it out, and the RMEF support it.

What a crock.

I hear ya brotha.

 

[Schaaf]

I've gathered up quite a few people that have called in and opposed. Hopefully they listen.

 

[Straight Arrow]

I called and opposed the bill period.

I hear ya too. However, my political instincts tell me it's gonna pass anyhow, so minimize the potential damage ... and save the fire and brimstone opposition for what is expected to soon come down the pike as some (as the Donald would say) really, really, really baad bills!

The climate in Helena with the leadership in the Republican caucus is pretty scary, imo.

 

[belly-deep]

I hear ya too. However, my political instincts tell me it's gonna pass anyhow, so minimize the potential damage ... and save the fire and brimstone opposition for what is expected to soon come down the pike as some (as the Donald would say) really, really, really baad bills!

The climate in Helena with the leadership in the Republican caucus is pretty scary, imo.

This was a D bill.

 

[belly-deep]

I called and opposed the bill period.

I'm surprised some on here aren't breathing fire, but I guess if you're going to get landowner tags supported in Montana, you'll have to have a Democrat roll it out, and the RMEF support it.

What a crock.

I called in and told them I oppose the whole thing too.

This is ripe for abuse.

 

[The Hedgehog]

This was a D bill.

Had it been R, and RMEF wasn't in favor of it (remember shoulder seasons), there would be a lot more opposition here.

 

[Straight Arrow]

This was a D bill.

Understood. Reference to leadership in the R caucus is in regard to anticipation of future bad bills.

 

[Nameless Range]

Called in. It's obvious where this bill is headed. Terrible idea.

 

[What Map]

I called and said the bill is ok IMO. But I opposed any amendments.
I'm hopeful I'm not too late.

 

[theat]

I made the call. Sounds like they have been getting lots opposition to the amendments and some to the original bill. I said I opposed the bill in its original form and vehemently opposed the amendments.

 

[The Hedgehog]

Do a simple search on this site for CWMU and read up on other state's versions of this in older threads. Granted, HB96 spells it differently, but it's essentially steering right down the same old pipe. The difference is most other states manage wildlife a little differently than MT , especially elk. There will be no way the FWP will be able to execute on this in any way that will benefit elk in MT, or the average hunter in the long term. It's certainly a terrible idea.

 

[onpoint]

R? D? I don't believe either has lead in the struggle for mediocrity when it comes to these particular issues. They all (and others) just don't get it. I fear a rough ride here in MT.
Sure would be more gratifying to make more phone calls and to send more emails thanking our friends in Helena, than the ritual we currently seem to practice every two years. It's getting old.
I used to look forward to retiring in a couple years and being able to more freely participate in our goofy political circus, not so sure anymore. 2020 maybe I'll just be glad to get a landowner voucher to "harvest" a female of the species.
Glad I was here 30 some years ago......

 

[TheTone]

I wish you guys luck with this. As has been said no matter the intent, landowner tags usually just lead you farther down a path you didn't want. The Idaho system started decently but has been tweaked so many times its not funny; from making the tags transferrable, reducing the acreage needed, adding more tags for those with more land, and going above the original tag allocation percentage; once they get a taste they just keeping wanting more and more and the average hunter does not gain a thing.

 

[Ben Lamb]

It's not a D or an R bill. It's a bill from the plpw council. That's why some groups support it as written, and were asking for a sunset.

The proposed amendment would change the support that exists to opposition.

Keep calling. It's making a difference.

 

[Big Fin]

A couple thoughts on this, and I am sure I'll get toasted, but here goes. One point is about the history of this program and another point is about amendments.


History:

We currently have on the books what was HB454, since 2002 (?). That is currently MCA 87-2-513. It allows for a tag to be issued in exchange for hunting access. As stated earlier, only one landowner, Swanz in Hunting Unit 411, uses the program.

We currently have a pool of landowner tags (up to 15%) in limited entry units. Qualifying landowners apply for that pool of tags in their own drawing. That has been on the books for a long, long, time. This bill will not change that.

[EDIT - WHAT I POSTED HERE IS INCORRECT. THE TAGS WILL BE NEW TAGS, NOT TAGS FROM THE EXISTING LANDOWNER POOL, see post 87 above] The tags under HB 454 come from the 15% landowner pool that already exists. The current bill being discussed, HB96, does not change that these tags come from the landowner pool. This bill adds no additional tags to the landowner pool. If passed as originally submitted, no additional landowner tags will be issued beyond what has been issued since the 15% landowner pool was started a long time ago.


So, I ask; if we already have a program that allocates 15% of tags to participating landowner, is it beneficial to get some access out of that landowner set aside program? Currently, we get no access from the 15% landowner pool; none, zero, zilch.


I support the HB96 as originally crafted on this premise. If we seem OK having a landowner pool of 15% in Montana, should we not try to get some access from those tags that are in the landowner 15% pool?

If the discussion is about getting rid of the landowner allocation of 15%, that is a completely different discussion unrelated to this bill. If the discussion is about getting a greater benefit from the tags allocated to that 15% landowner pool, then it seems this bill does that, so long as it is not amended for transferability.


Amendments:

Any amendment for transferability will kill this bill, as it should. This bill was not crafted with the intention of creating a Montana version of the Colorado RFW or Utah CWMU programs. Some have seen it as an opportunity to do so. I am sure that two groups who supported the original idea will oppose the bill if it gets amended to allow for transferability.

 

[Oak]

So, I ask; if we already have a program that allocates 15% of tags to participating landowner, is it beneficial to get some access out of that landowner set aside program? Currently, we get no access from the 15% landowner pool; none, zero, zilch.

Randy, can you explain to me what happens to the unutilized landowner set aside from the current pool? Do the tags go unused, or do they revert back to the public? Coming from a state where 20% of all limited licenses are offered to landowners first in the form of transferable vouchers, I can tell you I would be very hesitant to support any additional concessions for landowners. We didn't start out in Colorado where we are today.