Making it easy to contact your rep....

[Horn Seeker]

Or whichever rep you want.... We really need to flood these guys with emails and phone calls. As stated so many times, especially let the rep from YOUR district know how you feel. Your vote matters to them more than someone out of district....

I received this email from the Montana Bowhunters Association last night. They give us legislative alerts with contact info about once every couple weeks, or if something comes up. I dont know how the format will copy into here, so bear with me for a bit.

We’ve passed the transmittal date for general bills, which resulted in a number of bills dropping off our watchlist. Many bills remain, and some bills can even be resurrected if legislators “reintroduce” them as appropriations or revenue bills. At this point, we’ll continue to focus on our active priority bills with scheduled hearings (listed below). The full watchlist is attached, which shows our stance and priority for each bill. If you have any questions, contact your local MBA representative for clarification and assistance. Additional legislative info is available at the LAWS site: http://leg.mt.gov/css/Default.asp

HB 361 Requiring the issuance of archery-only elk permits at 2007 levels
Position: Encourage member response
Sponsor: Ted Washburn
Status: Bill has been transmitted to the Senate and awaits a hearing.
The MBA supports permits in the Breaks, but maintains its position against permits in other areas. The bill is problematic in this aspect, as it does not discriminate between the Breaks and the 22 Other Districts. We’ve received broad-based input from across the state, and the responses to support or oppose are split. The Board feels it cannot take a definite position because there is no clear and overwhelming response for either side. The MBA Board encourages individual member response to legislators on this bill, guided by their personal stance on its effects.

If HB 361 passes, it will be an opportunity for the MBA to work with FWP and the Commission towards a more immediate solution to the current problems without an unnecessary loss of opportunity for resident bowhunters. If it does not pass, we will continue to monitor the effects of the permits and inform the Commission of the impacts to bowhunters, working towards an eventual compromise on this issue.

SB 184 Allow for bow and arrow bison hunt
Position: Support
Sponsor: Kendall Van Dyk
Status: Pending hearing in the House Fish, Wildlife, and Parks Committee.

HB 470 Increase hunting license fees to fund livestock loss reduction mitigation fund
Position: Oppose
Sponsor: Christy Clark
Status: Hearing scheduled 3/3/2011 @ 3:00 (H) Agriculture – Rm 472
Raises licenses fees $2 each. Fees must be placed in the livestock loss reduction and mitigation state special revenue account.

HJ 1 Resolution urging federal legislation removing wolf from Endangered Species list
Position: Support
Sponsor: Mike Milburn
Status: Hearing scheduled 3/3/2011 @ 3:00 (S) Fish and Game - Rm 422

HB 309 Clarify prohibition on recreational access to ditches
Position: Oppose
Sponsor: Jeffrey Wellborn
Status: Hearing scheduled 3/8/2011 @ 3:00 (S) Ag, Livestock and Irrigation - Rm 303

Although this is not strictly a bowhunting bill, it stands to radically alter sportsmen access to many tributaries currently accessible under the Montana Stream Access Law. The bill seeks to restrict access to main channels and tributaries used for irrigation purposes, which would impact many fishable and navigable streams across the state. It is imperative that sportsmen oppose this attempt to circumvent the Stream Access Law.

House Fish, Wildlife, and Parks
Meets Tuesday, Thursday, 3 p.m., Room 152
Ted Washburn (R-Bozeman), chair [email protected]
Jeffrey Welborn (R-Dillon), vice chair Call (406)444-4800
Carlie Boland (D-Great Falls) [email protected]
Pat Connell (R-Corvallis) [email protected]
Virginia Court (D-Billings) [email protected]
Robyn Driscoll (D-Billings) [email protected]
Kelly Flynn (R-Townsend) [email protected]
Bill Harris (R-Mosby) [email protected]
Douglas Kary (R-Billings) [email protected]
Dan Kennedy (R-Laurel) [email protected]
Austin Knudsen (R-Culbertson) [email protected]
Cleve Loney (R-Great Falls) [email protected]
Mike Miller (R-Helmville) [email protected]
Jesse O'Hara (R-Great Falls) [email protected]
Ken Peterson (R-Billings) [email protected]
Mike Phillips (D-Bozeman) [email protected]
Jean Price (D-Great Falls) [email protected]
Dan Skattum (R-Livingston) [email protected]
Franke Wilmer (D-Bozeman) [email protected]
Max Yates (R-Butte) [email protected]
Staff: Hope Stockwell, 406-444-1640

Copy and paste these emails for your testimony to Representatives:[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]

Senate Fish and Game
Meets Tuesday, Thursday, 3 p.m., Room 422
John Brenden (R-Scobey), chair Call (406)444-4800
Joe Balyeat (R-Bozeman), vice chair [email protected]
Debby Barrett (R-Dillon) [email protected]
Tom Facey (D-Missoula) [email protected]
Steve Gallus (D-Butte) [email protected]
Brad Hamlett (D-Cascade) [email protected]
Greg Hinkle (R-Thompson Falls) [email protected]
Larry Jent (D-Bozeman) [email protected]
Jim Shockley (R-Victor) Primary ph: (406) 642-3817
Art Wittich (R-Bozeman) [email protected]
Staff: Joe Kolman, 406-444-9280
Copy and paste these emails for your testimony to Senators: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]

To communicate with Legislators:

Remember – Be Respectful! You represent the MBA!

Email: Use the email addresses listed with each bill. Use the on-line message form or telephone instructions for legislators who don’t have email addresses listed.

Electronically:
On-Line Message Form: You may send a message using an online message form. If you are reading this memo electronically, simply hold down the CTRL button on your keyboard and click on the following link: http://leg.mt.gov/css/sessions/62nd/legwebmessage.asp. If you are reading this memo from a piece of paper, then type the above address onto the address line of your internet browser. Either way, you will be taken to the online message form.

By Telephone:
Call 406-444-4800 to leave a message for as many as five legislators or one legislative committee per call. Your message will be delivered directly to the legislators. The TTY (Telephone Device for the Deaf) number is 406-444-4462. The Session Information Desk is open from 7:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. Mondays through Fridays and from 8 a.m. to adjournment on Saturdays

If you are unsure of who your legislator is, click on the NRIS link below to find out who represents your district.
http://nris.mt.gov/gis/legislat/2011/

 

[Big Fin]

Good stuff, Ernie. In addition to that, here are the emails of the two Agriculture Committees. The tactic this session, as is many other sessions, is to funnel the worst stuff away from Fish and Game committees. This time, they seem to be using the Agriculture committees for their alternative route.

Here are the contacts and emails of the entire House Agriculture Committee:

Chair: Krayton Kerns (R-Laurel) - [email protected]
Vice Chair: Bob Wagner (R-Harrison) - [email protected]
Vice Chair: Tim Furey (D-Milltown) - [email protected]
Joanne Blyton (R-Joliet) - [email protected]
Christy Clark (R-Choteau) - [email protected]
Lila Evans (R-Browning) - [email protected]
Steve Fitzpatrick (R-Great Falls) - [email protected]
Alan Hale (R-Basin) - [email protected]
Brian Hoven (R-Great Falls) - [email protected]
David Howard (R-Park City) - [email protected]
Margaret MacDonald (D-Billings) - [email protected]
Edie McClafferty (D-Butte) - [email protected]
Jonathan McNiven (R-Huntley) - [email protected]
Pat Noonan (D-Ramsay) - [email protected]
Carolyn Pease-Lopez (D-Billings) - [email protected]
Lee Randall (R-Broadus) - [email protected]
Joe Read (R-Ronan) - [email protected]
Daniel Salomon (R-Ronan) - [email protected]
Sterling Small (R-Busby) - [email protected]
Frank Smith (D-Poplar) - [email protected]
Kathleen Williams (D-Bozeman) - [email protected]


And the Senate Agriculture Committee:

Chair: Donald Steinbeisser (R-Sidney) - [email protected]
Vice Chair: Taylor Brown (R-Huntley) - [email protected]
Vice Chair: Sharon Stewart-Peregoy (D-Crow Agency) - [email protected]
Gary Branae (D-Billings) - [email protected]
Bob Hawks (D-Bozeman) - [email protected]
Rowlie Hutton (R-Havre) - [email protected]
Cliff Larsen (D-Missoula) - [email protected]
Eric Moore (R-Miles City) - [email protected]
Terry Murphy (R-Cardwell) - [email protected]
Rick Ripley (R-Wolf Creek) - Primary ph: (406) 562-3502
Jonathan Windy Boy (D-Box Elder) - [email protected]
Staff: Sue O'Connell, 406-444-3597

Not sure why the legislature feels that hunting and fishing bills should go through the agriculture committees. I sure don't expect agriculture bills to go through the Fish and Game committees.

But, given the actions of the leadership in this legislature, nothing is a surprise.

 

[Horn Seeker]

Thanks! Yeah...screwy situation....

 

[Ben Lamb]

Here's the online directory of all 150 members

House and Senate Leadership

One other thing, consider sending your letters and emails to other folks. Those annoying email forwards you get about how the president really, really is a Kenyan? Reply to the list with your letter to your rep.

Send those letters to the editor of the daily and weekly papers in your area as well.

 

[onpoint]

home with the flu for the n'th day in a row....but gives me a chance to read lots of stuff on the internet. Screwy situation yeah, but if all the rabble rousing on this sight and in all of the Montana newspaper letters to editors is an indication of "public sentiment", maybe-just maybe- folks in this state are starting to have enough. Unless of course the right wing outcry of "liberal media bias" applies to the newspapers.....I know it don't apply on this sight. Thanks again for the sight Randy and thanks to all the guys "gettin into it".

 

[Horn Seeker]

Here are the easy Copy/Paste emails for the Ag Committees...

Senate:

[email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]

House:
[email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]


The trick is making it easy and quick. I keep several "draft" emails in my email folder. They already have these addresses in the To: line. I just have to change the subject line and compose a message. The message can be copied to the other drafts with different address lists.

 

[Horn Seeker]

I am bringing this up so you guys remember to copy and paste these emails into your address lines and send these folks your comments on the important bills. Ben is doing a good job of keeping us uptodate... Send out a few emails guys... it literally only takes 10 minutes to email the entire legislature and make your voice heard. They need to get a thousand emails opposing some of these bogus bills.

 

[howler]

f HB 361 passes, it will be an opportunity for the MBA to work with FWP and the Commission towards a more immediate solution to the current problems without an unnecessary loss of opportunity for resident bowhunters. If it does not pass, we will continue to monitor the effects of the permits and inform the Commission of the impacts to bowhunters, working towards an eventual compromise on this issue.
The trouble with this statement is that 361 takes it out of the FWP and its commissions hands, any action in those area's will have to be done thru the legisaltion

 

[tjones]

The MBA should have battled this one into the ground.

 

[Horn Seeker]

Not at sunset Steve.

And that statement was simply born from our legislative committee explaining how we would make this bill work for us regardless if it passed or not, sorta "looking at the bright side of things"...

TJ, its easy to say when its your opinion or you and your like minded fellers opinions. When you have a board made up of 20 different guys (and a gal or 2) with varying opinions that represent 850 other guys and gals with opinions across the spectrum. If the MBA was run by one person then the decision would have been easy....

 

[tjones]

Not quite sure what you are implying there seeker, but I know of NO groups run by one person. Having a BOD of 15 to 20 folks is not out of the ordinary. If you are suggesting our group is ran that way you are dead ass wrong. It doesn't take" like minded fellers" to see the writing on the wall.
I can't see where anyone that knows how the FWP Commission works and have also watched this legislative session would want the legislator setting season structure.

Listening to the committee and looking for the bright side,,,well you drank the Kool aid.

Giving in or rolling over is the easy part. Battling through it is the hard part. This has been my gripe with the MBA it always boils down to being afraid to lose opportunity. Even if all your members thought this bill was the fix all and the FWP Commission was dead wrong you should have never given in to a legislative fix. Battle the bill then fix it with the Commission is the right way, but then some MBA members might have missed out on opportunity this seaseon and we sure can't have that.

 

[shoots-straight]

With all due respect,Horn, I think if they had the right information, the consensus would have been different. Did they know this takes the process out of MTFW&P's hands? Did they know that this bill sets a bad precedent by letting the legislature dictate management of a dept? You don't put the Fox in, control of the hen house. This takes the powers delegated to the commission, in the hands of those less likely to what sportsman want. Who controls the legislature? Just saying.

 

[BuzzH]

I've noticed the same thing with the MBA, anything sponsored by anyone that increases archery opportunities is "good". Anything that limits them at all...automatically "bad".

I was an MBA member for a number of years...but frankly their disdain for rifle hunters and opportunity at all costs wore me out. They liked to talk about doing away with the last week of rifle season, shortening all rifle hunts...never once were they in favor of shortening up a single archery season or cutting back on archery permits at all. All I ever heard was that bowhunters dont have an impact on big-game...fuggin' joke.

 

[howler]

ah right your are Ernie, a bit of good news anyway

 

[Drake4]

I've noticed the same thing with the MBA, anything sponsored by anyone that increases archery opportunities is "good". Anything that limits them at all...automatically "bad".

Amen......

 

[Horn Seeker]

Wasnt implying that in the least TJ... just that, at least in our org, decisions aren't clear cut. Sure would be nice if they were. I can see how you read it that way, wasn't meant that way.

Buzz, I've been with the MBA a fairly short time, but not once in about 7-8 years have I heard ANY talk of limiting rifle hunters or hating rifle hunters at all... Maybe that was the case when you were associated with them?

We definitely ARE about conserving and increasing bowhunter opportunity. There may come a time when that actually MEANS cutting seasons or limiting gear?? I think the MBA will adapt to those needs and accept such measures, IF necessary. IF NECESSARY.

The membership and board changes constantly, so if you didn't like the organization 20 years ago, it could be a fairly different outfit by now. I only know the recent MBA. But what I do know of the old MBA, is the reason we have bow seasons in MT and the reason they are 5 weeks long and we have archery only areas with extended seasons and such, are because of the MBA, and for that I'm thankful.

MBA's not perfect, thats for sure, but who else is protecting bowhunter opportunities?? I'm very happy that other groups like MWF and Ravalli Sportsman are fighting for resources.... keep up the fight and we will keep the bow seasons intact as well as we can....

Buzz, just for my info, can you give a few examples of "anything sponsored by anyone that increases opportunity is good". Not questioning, just wondering what your examples are and why you evidently didn't think they were good...

Just to make it clear, I really enjoy reading all your guys thoughts on all these issues. Tj, SS, Buzz and all.... I hope to keep learning and developing and hopefully can offer something constructive for you guys to bite on also.

I've never been part of any group that didn't have disagreements within the group... like I said before, somewhere, the board made an honest attempt to hear member opinions on 361. We represent our members. If we are getting 4 or 5 guys screaming against 361, 4 or 5 guys for 361 and a few guys saying they have no oppinion and yet a few more that believe the MBA should NOT take a stance at all... Then what do we do? We chose to stay neutral.

By the way, the most recent development is we are supporting an effort to amend the bill to exclude the breaks...

 

[BuzzH]

Hornseeker,

I'll give you a bunch of examples...you asked.

I remember back in the mid-80s when the MBA lobbied hard to get 5 either sex b-tags for the Ovando area, Missoula/Bitterroot area. Also, at the same time, season extensions going into January on the river-bottoms as well. That wasnt enough though, so the MBA again had to start increasing the size of the areas where the multiple b-tags could be used. Pretty soon, the tags had to go to antlerless only because of the huge influx of people killing multiple bucks per season.

Flash forward and now there arent nearly the deer in the river bottoms that there was 10-15 years ago. Not all of it is strictly over-harvesting, but I've not seen a decrease in the number of tags being offered.

Thats what the MBA stands for? Opportunity over whats right for the resource?

Then, when deer populations were at their peak in the early 90's, they fought tooth and nail to not allow muzzleloader and shotgun seasons in the river bottoms. Why? Because they thought too many deer would be killed and it was taking away opportunity for bowhunting.

Another example is when they pushed opening elk hunting in unit 260 as well...why? Because a few bowhunters were seeing elk in the river bottom and they couldnt be happy unless they could push an arrow through one.

How about pushing to open up "archery only" sheep, moose, and goat early? Is that necessary when everyone with a tag has a season that runs from Sept. 15-end of November?

The MBA lives under the pirates code...take all you can and give nothing back.

 

[Horn Seeker]

If the MBA asks for 5 tags, did FWP have to give them to them if they thought it would be detrimental to the deer population? I think bowhunters numbers may have been low enough and deer numbers high enough to justify it at the time. It would then be up to FWP to cut back tags if deer numbers dropped.

You are right, when a guy sees that he can continue his season and harvest another buck, many times he's going to go for it. I just think the resource could bare it at that point in time. I didn't get to the valley till 98...and what I saw then, was a chit pot of deer that were barely getting hunted, be it by muzz, bow or shotgun. I hear things have gotten tuffer in the bottoms lately, but now I am in Billings and havent delved into why that is. I dont think MBA members/board members would condone having unacceptable impacts on the resource to have more hunting opportunities.

I did not live here or bowhunt then... so I dont have the answers. You have some pretty dang good rational views on wildlife mangt. in general... I am only "discussing" and yes, defending the MBA as I know it.

Because they thought too many deer would be killed and it was taking away opportunity for bowhunting.

In that case, yeah, we are here to promote bowhunting opportunity. If the MBA thought muzzleloaders and shotgunners were going to impact bowhunting opportunities, they would voice their opposition.

As for hunting elk in 260? I enjoyed stalking a few bulls in the cottonwoods down there, not seeing how that fits in? Just because elk were transients down there doesn't mean they shouldn't be hunted.

Is it "necessary" to have a 2 week bow season on the sheep? I dont know, but what does it hurt? Its only sheep too, not moose or goats. It gives bowhunters another opportunity. Its certainly not hurting the resource. Might a bowhunter end up tagging the biggest sheep in the unit before a rifle guy could get in? I guess that is a legit gripe for a rifle hunter. Is that what you are thinking?

Buzz, I've seen you "light" up a lot guys on the forums, and I dont want to go there with you. I am simply trying to discuss these issues. Not slamming your opinions, trying to hear them and find out where the MBA and other sportsman are not seeing eye to eye.

As a part of the MBA governing body, I sm trying to moderate the differences between the MBA and other sportsman and other sportsman groups.

Ernie

 

[BuzzH]

Hornseeker,

Again, where has the MBA been in the last 10 years while deer numbers have been dropping in the river bottom? I havent seen them ask the FWP to issue less than 5 antlerless deer permits in 260...or any of the other areas those tags are now good for. Apparently the resource couldnt "bare" it as deer and buck numbers have both tanked in the Ovando, Bitterroot, and Clark Fork river bottoms. Yet, care to guess how many b-tags you can still get in those areas?

Oh, I get it, as long as the FWP is going to issue tags then everything is good? Fight like hell to get the permits increased...but dont back off until theres only 5 deer left in the riverbottom.

I also dont agree that a few elk being present in an area necessarily warrants a season...again, MBA's mentality is, "Hey, theres 5 elk in the river bottom, lets get some hunting opportunity". The muzzleloader and shotgun guys wanted a few deer hunting opportunities when the populations had peaked and the MBA howled like a cat with its ass dipped in turpentine. Yet, the MBA finds no problem with hunting a very, very, very few elk that make their way through the river bottom?

As to you comment about the sheep...my question is why do sheep need another 2 weeks of being chased around by HUNTERS...any hunter? I guess 2.5 months isnt enough?

Thought of another one as well, the unlimited archery antelope tags and the season opening in August.

Name one thing that the MBA has recommended archery hunters give up, season wise or opportunity wise, in the the last 10 years...I'll not hold my breath while you find them.

I do commend you for being honest...that the MBA's mission is strictly "here to promote bowhunting opportunity". Thats for sure, and even whats best for the resource doesnt take a higher priority.

It would also be nice to hear, just one time, the MBA admit that archers have an impact on big-game in Montana....

 

[Horn Seeker]

Not slamming your opinions, trying to hear them and find out where the MBA and other sportsman are not seeing eye to eye.

As a part of the MBA governing body, I am trying to moderate the differences between the MBA and other sportsman and other sportsman groups.

And I'll remember your words over time... helping me accomplish the above quote... I dont think its possible to please everyone all the time, but being adaptable and working together is how we are all going to keep this big ball rolling in the right direction. You make good points, though I certainly think some of them are simply personal views.

The sheep example... what are bowhunters hurting with 2 weeks of early season? Is the state taking an unnecessary risk with this incredibly valuable resource? Or do you see us as just spoiled kids trying to get our hands down to the bottom of the cookie jar? I just dont see the point of NOT having 2 weeks of archery only any more than you dont see the point of having it....I guess thats what I mean by personal opinion. Biologically nothing is going on there....socially, something obviously is or you wouldn't feel this strongly about it.

As for the 260 whitetails or Ovando...I suppose FWP would think it helpful if we came to them and asked them to give out less tags or cut the season, but I'm surprised it has to come to that. Shouldn't be too surprised I guess though, because the sportsman pretty much had to go to the dept. and get them to limit elk hunting in 250....

I will convey your POV's to the board and just let them know some of the concerns non-members are having...for all I know, members are having the same concerns.

Ok, Archers have an impact on big-game in Montana! There! ;0) Certainly not a lie, but Im' not sure of what context you wanted it admitted in.... You know, 20 or 30 years ago I think it could be argued that archers really did have a negligible impact on big game in Montana.... but dam well cant say that now, not with 34,000 archery stamps sold a year...

Lastly I'll quote the MBA's mission statement:
"To unite the state's bowhunting sportsmen to work towards a common goal of preserving and promoting the sport of bowhunting in Montana"

There's certainly room in there for a lot of good things to happen. So any constructive criticism is welcome... I am listening and maybe we can please a few more people....still....never all people.