SixPoint
Well-known member
I was hoping Gerald was going to say that the FWP Commisson doesn’t spend a week arguing who can use what toilet and therefore are more qualified to make decisions for season setting.
Montana 2025 Legislative Session
- Thread starter Nameless Range
- Start date
mtnkid85
Well-known member
Gerald, well done on standing up to the heat. You did a good job of responding.
The commission is appointed by the governor and as such their actions directly reflect on our highest elected official within the state, who should be held accountable by the electorate for his appointees work.
The commission is appointed by the governor and as such their actions directly reflect on our highest elected official within the state, who should be held accountable by the electorate for his appointees work.
Gerald Martin
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2009
- Messages
- 9,616
We all know that these groups are a well connected pipeline designed to funnel that “monay!” (Eye roll emoji)
Crazy how Representative Hinkle tried to attach the groups united in opposition to his bill to support for our proposal to change the general season structure.
Opposition to a bad piece of legislation does not mean support for a citizens’ proposal.
That’s what struck me watching this, Gerald. You guys did a great job on the proposal, and it certainly got folks talking. But it’s just that, a proposal. One with no legal bearing whatsoever. It doesn’t require this kind of legislative knee-jerk response.
It’s a big reach to claim that everyone wanting the legislature to back off of codifying every aspect of wildlife management is also 100% in support of the big changes you guys proposed.
Last edited:
MTelkHuntress
Well-known member
I appreciated Rep. Marler's question regarding the proposal:
"Just because your group comes together and makes a proposal to the commission, does that mean they are going to adopt it?"
Essentially getting at that there is a process for this kind of stuff.
When I jumped on to listen to the meeting, it was at the point where Gerald was answering questions about the mule deer proposal from his group and I was really confused why that was even brought up until I watched the meeting from the beginning. When Rep. Hinkle introduced his bill by first talking about that mule deer proposal from the group, it made a lot more sense. I'm not sure how this bill isn't tying the hands of the commission when it's taking away some of their tools. It sets a concerning precedent on what other tools the legislature could take away with some sideboards.
Not sure when the committee is planning executive action on the bill, but if you haven't sent in a polite and considerate comment to the whole committee, please consider doing so.
Please do not use disparaging remarks or try to be cute. It backfires.
Please do not use disparaging remarks or try to be cute. It backfires.
Forkyfinder
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2023
- Messages
- 5,916
Ironic - i wont pretend to be Nostradamus - but i suspected that were the case and included my suspicions in my correspondence to him and the committee.
I was surprised that Rep. Hinkle brought it up and that his bill was crafted in response.
When I’d read the bill’s text I was under the impression that the target was FWP’s restricting some district’s mule deer take to the first 3 (4?) weeks of rifle season.
Gerald and all involved as citizens of this great State, collecting great minds, developing a proposal, and exercising the right to be heard by our, "Representatives", Theodore Roosevelt's speech comes to mind.
“It is not the critic who counts: not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood, who strives valiantly, who errs and comes up short again and again, because there is no effort without error or shortcoming, but who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions, who spends himself in a worthy cause; who, at the best, knows, in the end, the triumph of high achievement, and who, at the worst, if he fails, at least he fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who knew neither victory nor defeat.”
Keep on, keeping on.
Point Creep
Well-known member
I was unable to listen today but watched the entire recording tonight. Thank you @bigsky2 @Schaaf and especially @Gerald Martin “Mr. Martin” for your service.
antlerradar
Well-known member
This, Some legislator doesn't like that the district he hunts goes LE, the quota on lions or sheep and just about everything else involved with wildlife management, they just put their preferences in the Montana Code.
Hunting Wife
Well-known member
These days I feel like our representatives forget that they don’t work for the party, they work for us, the constituents.
Meetings and Hunters Ed didn’t give me time to tune in for the testimony. Is there a recording somewhere that will be available for a bit?
Gerald Martin
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2009
- Messages
- 9,616
Video link.
SAJ-99
Well-known member
They know they work for the party and if you disagree on something, they just think they know better than you. They are protecting you, or your kids, or Montana values and traditions. Not all of them, of course, but a LOT. I think this attachment to the past is why a lot of changes seem harder than they should be. Like mandatory reporting...
Hunting Wife
Well-known member
Thank you!
Video link.
Politics 101 - When you have a bad idea and you bring it forth as a bill, you better find a "boogey man" to serve as the bad guy.
That is exactly what Hinkle has done. He has a very bad bill, everyone around him knows it, but like most elected officials, he's not willing to withdraw his bad idea, rather he will defend it to the end. @Gerald Martin and the rest of you who came up with some proposals, including one of Hinkle's party members, @Eric Albus, are now the boogey man who he has to paint as the bad guys this bill is protecting us from.
The other reality of politics is that each person, no matter their position, only has a finite amount of political capital, whether within their constituents, within their party, or within their committees. For Hinkle to burn so much of his political, on the first bill of the session, against such a large and diverse group of opponents, is interesting.
As @Ben Lamb says, please email, call, or use the legislature portal to comment against this bill. If enough of those Reps, especially his Republican committee members, hear it from the home folks, he'll be burning a lot more of his finite capital to get the votes he would need.
Remember, polite, professional, and informed communications get attention from elected officials. Nothing worries them more than having to vote against a well-informed and motivated constituent.
Gerald Martin
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2009
- Messages
- 9,616
[QUOTE
Remember, polite, professional, and informed communications get attention from elected officials. Nothing worries them more than having to vote against a well-informed and motivated constituent.
[/QUOTE]
Perhaps the last representative who asked me if it isn’t preferable to have elected representatives who are accountable to their constituency making decisions rather than “bureaucrats” had a point.
If you are one of those elected representatives supporting an unpopular bill intended to block portions of a citizen proposal that isn’t even finalized or submitted into the decision making process ,it might be good political instinct to consider that intentional disregard of the of the will of the groups who signed the letter of opposition to HB-139 is probably a clear signal to everyone interested in wildlife management issues that you are more interested in exerting political power than solving problems.
In a way it’s refreshing to see who is interested in good faith public debate and discourse in policy discussions and who is not.
Remember, polite, professional, and informed communications get attention from elected officials. Nothing worries them more than having to vote against a well-informed and motivated constituent.
[/QUOTE]
Perhaps the last representative who asked me if it isn’t preferable to have elected representatives who are accountable to their constituency making decisions rather than “bureaucrats” had a point.
If you are one of those elected representatives supporting an unpopular bill intended to block portions of a citizen proposal that isn’t even finalized or submitted into the decision making process ,it might be good political instinct to consider that intentional disregard of the of the will of the groups who signed the letter of opposition to HB-139 is probably a clear signal to everyone interested in wildlife management issues that you are more interested in exerting political power than solving problems.
In a way it’s refreshing to see who is interested in good faith public debate and discourse in policy discussions and who is not.
Forkyfinder
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2023
- Messages
- 5,916
Shout out to meateater/ryan callaghan for showing up.
He wasn’t the only Meateater to speak up. Much appreciated.
Gerald Martin
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2009
- Messages
- 9,616
One question I have about the conversation yesterday is Representative Hinkle referenced that almost 3/4 of the total applicants to the FWP Mule Deer CAC were members of one organization and that organization had testified in opposition to HB-139.
He said he wasn’t going to name that organization because they were in the room, but the implication I took from that was there was a coordinated attempt to steer the CAC in a pre-determined direction.
The only organization that I can think that fit his description would be the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation. That’s about the only organization with enough members in MT to encapsulate 3/4 of folks who might be engaged in wildlife management issues to the extent they might volunteer to serve on the advisory council. If so, that might be a wake up call for the other 25% of us who aren’t members of the Elk Foundation to join up.
He said he wasn’t going to name that organization because they were in the room, but the implication I took from that was there was a coordinated attempt to steer the CAC in a pre-determined direction.
The only organization that I can think that fit his description would be the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation. That’s about the only organization with enough members in MT to encapsulate 3/4 of folks who might be engaged in wildlife management issues to the extent they might volunteer to serve on the advisory council. If so, that might be a wake up call for the other 25% of us who aren’t members of the Elk Foundation to join up.
Similar threads
