Montana 2025 Legislative Session

[Beignet]

Not sure to me if this really affects bills related to this forum, other than the fact that it sounds like they are far behind and have a lot of work to do yet. My gut tells me that the further they are behind, the more time there is for an attempt at some bad idea quashed early in the session to be shoehorned in toward the end.

Chaos reigns in a divided Republican Senate

Democrats and a faction of Republicans wrested power from elected leadership in a late-night floor session.

montanafreepress.org

I’ll look at the glass as half full; it sure seems like the bad-for-public-land-and-wildlife faction has lost control of the Senate.

 

[bigsky2]

I think some bills haven’t been introduced on the floor because of this game playing that’s going on. For instance, SB 63 (the motion tracking devices bill) was passed in committee weeks ago and still hasn’t made it to the floor. I wouldn’t be surprised if it’s because of who the sponsor is.

 

[Mountain Mule]

I think some bills haven’t been introduced on the floor because of this game playing that’s going on. For instance, SB 63 (the motion tracking devices bill) was passed in committee weeks ago and still hasn’t made it to the floor. I wouldn’t be surprised if it’s because of who the sponsor is.

I see this bill as a vast improvement if I am interpreting it correctly. I still don't believe it goes far enough (48 hours would be ideal in my world). I took a walk through an elk zone I used to hunt and wanted to return to. Come to find the outfitter has put in over 5 cell cameras (what I found in one walk through) and a blind that is on the private/public boundary where he has cleared/limbed many trees on BLM for shooting lanes, in which he has cameras on all trails leading to this location... I just don't know how you compete with this or how this is even considered hunting/legal still. Things like this make me want to put the spot on blast just so it ruins his hunts more often...

 

[Forkyfinder]

I see this bill as a vast improvement if I am interpreting it correctly. I still don't believe it goes far enough (48 hours would be ideal in my world). I took a walk through an elk zone I used to hunt and wanted to return to. Come to find the outfitter has put in over 5 cell cameras (what I found in one walk through) and a blind that is on the private/public boundary where he has cleared/limbed many trees on BLM for shooting lanes, in which he has cameras on all trails leading to this location... I just don't know how you compete with this or how this is even considered hunting/legal still. Things like this make me want to put the spot on blast just so it ruins his hunts more often...

Its a free country

 

[Jock Conyngham]

Not sure to me if this really affects bills related to this forum, other than the fact that it sounds like they are far behind and have a lot of work to do yet. My gut tells me that the further they are behind, the more time there is for an attempt at some bad idea quashed early in the session to be shoehorned in toward the end.

Chaos reigns in a divided Republican Senate

Democrats and a faction of Republicans wrested power from elected leadership in a late-night floor session.

montanafreepress.org

I think you have nailed it. The last few sessions have seen a rush of the worst bills at the end or in the budget process, where there is less transparency and opportunity for public input.

 

[cgasner1]

I think you have nailed it. The last few sessions have seen a rush of the worst bills at the end or in the budget process, where there is less transparency and opportunity for public input.

Think we are already reaching that point

 

[DFS]

Think we are already reaching that point

I’ve heard BHA won’t oppose this bill either.

 

[cgasner1]

I’ve heard BHA won’t oppose this bill either.

This far into the session is anyone looking at what the groups they give money to are doing? The ones that i give my cash to have basically done everything I figured they would so far. If your group is coming up short maybe send them a letter also

This is about all I got to say

 

[Elky Welky]

I’ve heard BHA won’t oppose this bill either.

This is correct. As a board that represents the broader hunting community in Montana, not just a few voices on hunt talk, our membership and board are split. This means we will take no position. Currently, the majority of Montanans are supportive of our current season structure, which puts Rep Hinkle in the difficult position of advocating for the majority over the loud protestations of a minority. Very smart conservationists, including Andy McKean, are individually in support of the bill. Montana BHA's position is neither a support nor an oppose, and we're not in the business of jumping on a bandwagon.

Sometimes neutral means just that: neutral.

 

[Schaaf]

Very smart conservationists, including Andy McKean, are individually in support of the bill.

That would be a different stance than he conveyed in multiple conversations I had with him yesterday as well as his opposition testimony at the hearing.

The bigger issue with the bill and totally separate from when people believe a mule deer season should or should not end is setting seasons or sidebars on seasons in statute, which BHA is seemingly okay with considering past support of a muzzleloader season set in statute. That position is a disqualifying position of continued personal support.

 

[bigsky2]

This is correct. As a board that represents the broader hunting community in Montana, not just a few voices on hunt talk, our membership and board are split. This means we will take no position. Currently, the majority of Montanans are supportive of our current season structure, which puts Rep Hinkle in the difficult position of advocating for the majority over the loud protestations of a minority. Very smart conservationists, including Andy McKean, are individually in support of the bill. Montana BHA's position is neither a support nor an oppose, and we're not in the business of jumping on a bandwagon.

Sometimes neutral means just that: neutral.

How would you know your membership is split? No one asked me my opinion, maybe I missed that survey.

 

[Gerald Martin]

Saying that Rep. Hinkle is in a difficult position to advocate for the wishes of a majority of MT hunters is ridiculous. He specifically stated the need for this bill came because we wrote a proposal that we intend to present to the commission.

A proposal that I would point out is still incomplete and not yet even in the official process for implementation.

HB-139 doesn’t need to be implemented in order to keep our proposal from being adopted by the commission. That can be accomplished by opposing the proposal as it’s being considered and discussed in the regional season setting meetings and at the commission meetings.

Setting HB-139 into statute according to its intended purpose of being a blocking mechanism against our proposal is a terrible idea. The bill does not accomplish anything beneficial for mule deer on its own merits. The very fact that it prohibits more than 20% of general units from closing before Nov 6 ensures that no general units will ever close early even if biologically necessary. FWP manages for the self- dispersal of hunters in general units. They know that if you close one area, hunters will concentrate in open areas and will overexploit those areas. Saying that HB-139 provides FWP adequate tools to protect mule deer is not realistic. When you have a department that uses blanket management for blanket regions a piecemeal approach only concentrates the same amount of hunters in smaller areas.
If HB-139 passes FWP will not implement the “potential tools” within HB-139 because they know it will be counterproductive to improving mule deer hunting. Thus nothing will change and the practical reality is that HB-139 cements into statute a five week general rifle rut hunt.

The fact the MT- BHA has already participated in setting seasons into statute with their support of Hinkle’s muzzloader bill a few years ago and their withdrawal of opposition from their earlier stance against HB-139 is clear evidence for me that the MT-BHA is a far cry from the organization that I supported years ago.

I let my membership lapse a couple years ago because I wanted to advocate as an individual for positions that I supported and not as just a member of a group. At that time, I saw their rhetoric and positions as being polarizing at least in perception even though I still vocally supported them and their mission. I can no longer do that anymore. As long as this current trajectory continues, I will no longer recommend the MT chapter of BHA as a group worthy of support. They have done good things in the past and I hope with a change of attitude and approach can do good things in the future, but it’s not happening now.

@Elkywelky, for full disclosure of MT-BHA’s position what is Rep. Hinkle supporting for BHA in return for withdrawal of BHA’s opposition?

 

[Carnage2011]

I’ve heard BHA won’t oppose this bill either.

Montana BHA lost its backbone when Kevin left. Now they trade support/votes as necessary.

Setting seasons in statute is a terrible idea. The resource be damned…we’ve got politics to play!

 

[DFS]

Montana BHA lost its backbone when Kevin left. Now they trade support/votes as necessary.

Setting seasons in statute is a terrible idea. The resource be damned…we’ve got politics to play!

We’ve had a rut hunt forever. We will continue to have a rut hunt for the foreseeable future, I don’t see how any conservation group could not oppose taking flexibility from wildlife managers especially with the trajectory mule deer are heading.

 

[antlerradar]

We’ve had a rut hunt forever. We will continue to have a rut hunt for the foreseeable future, I don’t see how any conservation group could not oppose taking flexibility from wildlife managers especially with the trajectory mule deer are heading.

The less flexibility wildlife managers have the sooner we go to LE or rock bottom depending on how stubborn we are.

 

[Elky Welky]

That would be a different stance than he conveyed in multiple conversations I had with him yesterday as well as his opposition testimony at the hearing.

The bigger issue with the bill and totally separate from when people believe a mule deer season should or should not end is setting seasons or sidebars on seasons in statute, which BHA is seemingly okay with considering past support of a muzzleloader season set in statute. That position is a disqualifying position of continued personal support.

That is an open question (it's not open and shut, as you seem to believe here): what constitutes as stepping in and doing the commission's job? And what constitutes as the legislature doing their job and setting appropriate sideboards?

The legislature makes the rules every department must follow, and certainly sets the sideboards (nonresident license caps for example, and even the ability to set seasons is something given to the commission by the legislature, see 87-1-304 MCA) If you read this bill, it actually gives broad latitude to the commission to reduce tags in up to 20% of Montana for 2 years, and no limit on how many LE tags they issue in the last two weeks of the season. To many, this is a more reasonable approach than completely overhauling all of our seasons for the sake of one species.

Again, that's one argument we're seeing in favor, and is part of what forces us to be neutral. I'm not saying I agree.

@Elkywelky, for full disclosure of MT-BHA’s position what is Rep. Hinkle supporting for BHA in return for withdrawal of BHA’s opposition?

There is no quid-quo-pro with Rep Hinkle; I've had no conversation with him since I tried calling him when this bill was first introduced, and he didn't call me back. We take each bill as we see it and think about them on the merits.

 

[Schaaf]

That is an open question (it's not open and shut, as you seem to believe here): what constitutes as stepping in and doing the commission's job? And what constitutes as the legislature doing their job and setting appropriate sideboards?

The legislature makes the rules every department must follow, and certainly sets the sideboards (nonresident license caps for example, and even the ability to set seasons is something given to the commission by the legislature, see 87-1-304 MCA) If you read this bill, it actually gives broad latitude to the commission to reduce tags in up to 20% of Montana for 2 years, and no limit on how many LE tags they issue in the last two weeks of the season. To many, this is a more reasonable approach than completely overhauling all of our seasons for the sake of one species.

Again, that's one argument we're seeing in favor, and is part of what forces us to be neutral. I'm not saying I agree.

There is no quid-quo-pro with Rep Hinkle; I've had no conversation with him since I tried calling him when this bill was first introduced, and he didn't call me back. We take each bill as we see it and think about them on the merits.

Thank you for the civics lesson, I hadn't actually read the bill yet. /s

 

[Gerald Martin]

That is an open question (it's not open and shut, as you seem to believe here): what constitutes as stepping in and doing the commission's job? And what constitutes as the legislature doing their job and setting appropriate sideboards?

The legislature makes the rules every department must follow, and certainly sets the sideboards (nonresident license caps for example, and even the ability to set seasons is something given to the commission by the legislature, see 87-1-304 MCA) If you read this bill, it actually gives broad latitude to the commission to reduce tags in up to 20% of Montana for 2 years, and no limit on how many LE tags they issue in the last two weeks of the season. To many, this is a more reasonable approach than completely overhauling all of our seasons for the sake of one species.

Again, that's one argument we're seeing in favor, and is part of what forces us to be neutral. I'm not saying I agree.

There is no quid-quo-pro with Rep Hinkle; I've had no conversation with him since I tried calling him when this bill was first introduced, and he didn't call me back. We take each bill as we see it and think about them on the merits.

So you will go on record as a representative of BHA and confirm that BHA’s leadership has not had conversations with Rep Hinkle to withdraw opposition or support HB-139 in return for supporting or advancing legislation that BHA wants passed? I’m not asking about you personally. I want to know if MT BHA representatives or leadership is or has been involved in conversations with Rep Hinkle?

 

[Gerald Martin]

The legislature makes the rules every department must follow, and certainly sets the sideboards (nonresident license caps for example, and even the ability to set seasons is something given to the commission by the legislature, see 87-1-304 MCA) If you read this bill, it actually gives broad latitude to the commission to reduce tags in up to 20% of Montana for 2 years, and no limit on how many LE tags they issue in the last two weeks of the season. To many, this is a more reasonable approach than completely overhauling all of our seasons for the sake of

The commission currently has the authority to implement everything contained in HB-139. Why aren’t Rep Hinkle and proponents of HB-139 submitting these changes to the commission via the season setting process? If the ideas contained in HB-139 are so beneficial for mule deer and MT hunters why not run it through the proper channels?

Surely, the majority of Montana hunters that Rep. Hinkle finds himself in a difficult position of representing will be in support of passing these changes through the season setting process.

 

[Forkyfinder]

The commission currently has the authority to implement everything contained in HB-139. Why aren’t Rep Hinkle and proponents of HB-139 submitting these changes to the commission via the season setting process? If the ideas contained in HB-139 are so beneficial for mule deer and MT hunters why not run it through the proper channels?

I think youd have to ask Hinkle. Not jake. Not bha.