Montana 2025 Legislative Session

[BourbonSnowCone]

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.

Maybe just oppose on the principle of season setting should be left to the F&W Commission and not to whatever hair-brained idea one of the Dinkle brothers has this week. Heard one of them hit a deer with his truck one time and thought it was neat so we may put a hitting-deer-with-my-truck season in statute soon.

 

[MTelkHuntress]

Heard one of them hit a deer with his truck one time and thought it was neat so we may put a hitting-deer-with-my-truck season in statute soon.

I had to post the gif. This comment just reminded me so much of this scene.

 

[Forkyfinder]

Maybe just oppose on the principle of season setting should be left to the F&W Commission and not to whatever hair-brained idea one of the Dinkle brothers has this week. Heard one of them hit a deer with his truck one time and thought it was neat so we may put a hitting-deer-with-my-truck season in statute soon.

It was sure quiet around here when SB 270 was brought up. Looks like that *checks notes* encroaches on commission authority/responsibility but didnt seem to get much heat here.

Id have figured there'd have been people opposed "in principle" to that too. Seems inconsistent to me.

 

[MTGomer]

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.

I thought they had a supermajority?

 

[Deleted member 16864]

I thought they had a supermajority?

 

[Forkyfinder]

It was sure quiet around here when SB 270 was brought up. Looks like that *checks notes* encroaches on commission authority/responsibility but didnt seem to get much heat here.

Id have figured there'd have been people opposed "in principle" to that too. Seems inconsistent to me.

To the top. Looking forward to hearing more about all this "principle" from folks who seem to think they know the definition.

 

[sapperJ24]

I thought they had a supermajority?

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

 

[Beignet]

I thought they had a supermajority?

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

What Sapper said. Plus, they’re still the majority party, but don’t have a 2/3 supermajority this session.

 

[Forkyfinder]

To the top. Looking forward to hearing more about all this "principle" from folks who seem to think they know the definition.

Elk slaughter bill step to end public hunting

Montana is at a crossroads in our management of wildlife. We will either maintain our decades-long tradition in which everyone has equal opportunity to enjoy our public wildlife, or we hand control to a handful of wealthy landowners and outfitters to pick who gets to hunt.

dailyinterlake.com

 

[Ben Lamb]

To the top. Looking forward to hearing more about all this "principle" from folks who seem to think they know the definition.

SB 270 is permissive and asks the agency to develop a rule that would scale how they issue elk B licenses based on objective range and desired management outcomes. It does not force the agency into instituting a system but provides the flexibility in which to use the science to set up a management matrix. It also limits NR's to no more than 2 licenses, and only 1 if they don't have a combo license. Furthermore, the bill has a floor amendment that will be considered today that eliminates the increase in elk b licenses and keeps it at 2. The amendment was drafted yesterday after discussions with several senators and the sponsor, as well as other organizations who had expressed concern about the increase. We are very much in support of this amendment, btw.

HB 139 mandates that the agency must allow hunting deer during a specific timeframe. It removes the flexibility needed by the agency to manage wildlife for many reasons other than simply hunting. The inflexibility of the 20% closure means that in places like the Breaks where the herd is well below objective, they may not be able to shut a season down if other areas soak up that 20% closure rate. The bill also mandates season structure and sets Nov 6 the in statute as a date that the agency cannot reduce a hunting season (prior to) meaning that November hunting of mule deer is set in statute. regardless of what the actual mule deer population says it needs in terms of management. The bill forces a top down management prescription that does not allow for any of the realities of wildlife management because the intent is to cement mule deer hunting in November, which is also in the title of the bill.

With deer populations heading downward still in much of regions 4,6,7, the bill removes any chance for reduced opportunity of meaningful status due to disease concerns or winter kill. Locking in an inflexible hunting season means we'll be shooting the last buck out of a misguided sense that wildlife is an inexhaustible resource that exists solely for our pleasure.

HB 139 is opposed by 30 organizations across the spectrum of stakeholders, including the Montana Chapter of the Wildlife Society - the actual wildlife managers of Montana, the Mule Deer Foundation and many other conservation, outfitting and landowner organizations.

 

[Forkyfinder]

SB 270 is permissive and asks the agency to develop a rule that would scale how they issue elk B licenses based on objective range and desired management outcomes. It does not force the agency into instituting a system but provides the flexibility in which to use the science to set up a management matrix. It also limits NR's to no more than 2 licenses, and only 1 if they don't have a combo license. Furthermore, the bill has a floor amendment that will be considered today that eliminates the increase in elk b licenses and keeps it at 2. The amendment was drafted yesterday after discussions with several senators and the sponsor, as well as other organizations who had expressed concern about the increase. We are very much in support of this amendment, btw.

HB 139 mandates that the agency must allow hunting deer during a specific timeframe. It removes the flexibility needed by the agency to manage wildlife for many reasons other than simply hunting. The inflexibility of the 20% closure means that in places like the Breaks where the herd is well below objective, they may not be able to shut a season down if other areas soak up that 20% closure rate. The bill also mandates season structure and sets Nov 6 the in statute as a date that the agency cannot reduce a hunting season (prior to) meaning that November hunting of mule deer is set in statute. regardless of what the actual mule deer population says it needs in terms of management. The bill forces a top down management prescription that does not allow for any of the realities of wildlife management because the intent is to

With deer populations heading downward still in much of regions 4,6,7, the bill removes any chance for reduced opportunity of meaningful status due to disease concerns or winter kill. Locking in an inflexible hunting season means we'll be out shooting the last buck out of a misguided sense that wildlife is an inexhaustible resource that exists solely for our pleasure.

HB 139 is opposed by 30 organizations across the spectrum of stakeholders, including the Montana Chapter of the Wildlife Society - the actual wildlife managers of Montana, the Mule Deer Foundation and many other conservation, outfitting and landowner organizations

Im opposed to 139 - and 270. It is legislative interference on both fronts. I wasnt really referencing 139, just that i see it strange and rather inconsistent to be against one but not the other.

I appreciate the amendment- but killing it would be much better. It seems to me with the serious population decline in the breaks - our department has every tool already to manage elk provided landowners are willing to use the multitude of solutions we offer in montana. Which are more plentiful, diverse, and generous than most states.

By the way - I do not trust the department - based on the myriad of feedback employees have shared here and elsewhere and the recent media scandals. I dont think thats a unique belief, either. To me - this gives too much lattitude and seems to imply the limit to two actually doesnt do shit and there are still unlimited licences:

"Except that the department may develop a rule that describes variable license structures for antlerless elk based on management goals"

 

[cgasner1]

Elk slaughter bill step to end public hunting

Montana is at a crossroads in our management of wildlife. We will either maintain our decades-long tradition in which everyone has equal opportunity to enjoy our public wildlife, or we hand control to a handful of wealthy landowners and outfitters to pick who gets to hunt.

dailyinterlake.com

This is gonna be long winded have ramblings and poor grammar.

I’m in no way defending @Ben Lamb he is a big boy and can handle his own business on that bill. I’m personally getting sick of all the politics when these articles start by discussing dark money and groups instead of the merits of what’s trying to be done or not done. Most of you know in part of a group that 2 weeks ago had the same accusations made against us. That article has some stuff in it that isn’t true.

Our group has 9 members most of which have sat on a board or been apart of a cac prior to this group. Awhile back they had a mule deer cac and a couple guys in our group ended up in that cac and a bunch of people cried it was a set up. I’m really starting to think that maybe it’s just because these are the people showing up? Galt is trying to get this pushed thru maybe because he shows up? I’ve never met the man and couldn’t pick him out of a line up. I do know the issues he is facing isn’t just a Montana issue Wyoming was debating on killing elk from a helicopter. I’ve met @antlerradar. I’ve stood in his home and looked at his horns he landed on that cac because he shows up. Is he next to be attacked because he owns some land? I currently live in the house I do because we had to move my old neighbor was about to end up with a pistol in his face so we moved. I’d bet it doesn’t matter what state you live in or how big your yard is you can have a bad neighbor.

We are only half way thru this mess of a session it would be nice to see some people start calling bullshit and asking for facts. Let those chips land where they may. I personally don’t care if Ben ends up on the wrong side of something call him on it. Do the same to a conservative group if you give them money and definitely do it to your elected representatives. Let’s try and do this on some actual facts because the more articles I read that I can quickly see have some bullshit at the top pushes me in the other direction real quick personally

 

[Forkyfinder]

This is gonna be long winded have ramblings and poor grammar.

I’m in no way defending @Ben Lamb he is a big boy and can handle his own business on that bill. I’m personally getting sick of all the politics when these articles start by discussing dark money and groups instead of the merits of what’s trying to be done or not done. Most of you know in part of a group that 2 weeks ago had the same accusations made against us. That article has some stuff in it that isn’t true.

Our group has 9 members most of which have sat on a board or been apart of a cac prior to this group. Awhile back they had a mule deer cac and a couple guys in our group ended up in that cac and a bunch of people cried it was a set up. I’m really starting to think that maybe it’s just because these are the people showing up? Galt is trying to get this pushed thru maybe because he shows up? I’ve never met the man and couldn’t pick him out of a line up. I do know the issues he is facing isn’t just a Montana issue Wyoming was debating on killing elk from a helicopter. I’ve met @antlerradar. I’ve stood in his home and looked at his horns he landed on that cac because he shows up. Is he next to be attacked because he owns some land? I currently live in the house I do because we had to move my old neighbor was about to end up with a pistol in his face so we moved. I’d bet it doesn’t matter what state you live in or how big your yard is you can have a band neighbor.

We are only half way thru this mess of a session it would be nice to see some people start calling bullshit and asking for facts. Let those chips land where they may. I personally don’t care if Ben ends up on the wrong side of something call him on it. Do the same to a conservative group if you give them money and definitely do it to your elected representatives. Let’s try and do this on some actual facts because the more articles I read that I can quickly see have some bullshit at the top pushes me in the other direction real quick personally

Thats exactly what i am attempting to do. Calls balls and strikes. As you know, ive done plenty myself to be in support of the proposal and against HB139.

To be clear - the article, and every other article written, seems to reference MCS and implies/questions their funding. I wouldnt give two squirts of shit if vlad putin was funding them and like any other org - if they do something good for wildlife, im all about it. When/if they dont - ill show up and call them out on it. Count on it from me either damn way. The part of the article thats relevant to me:

"SB 270 represents the next step in destroying the public trust doctrine for our wildlife, in which it’s held by the state for all citizens, and making us a system in which people buy access. It would end decades of cooperation that made Montana successful in managing our elk for everyone. "

It seems to not matter to enough folks here - and im suprised by that. I'll show up for what i feel is best, and contrary to most, i am open minded enough to change how i consider things. Ive yet to have my mind changed because i feel theres a major lack of a compelling argument. I want everyone, including those who just lurk here, to also see the lack of compelling argument.

Edit: i also like @Ben Lamb a lot. He's taught me a lot here and in PMs. Bens done a lot for Montana wildlife over the years. But i dont feel like anyones support of anything is beyond critique.

 

[cgasner1]

Thats exactly what i am attempting to do. Calls balls and strikes. As you know, ive done plenty myself to be in support of the proposal and against HB139.

To be clear - the article, and every other article written, seems to reference MCS and implies/questions their funding. I wouldnt give two squirts of shit if vlad putin was funding them and like any other org - if they do something good for wildlife, im all about it. When/if they dont - ill show up and call them out on it. Count on it from me either damn way. The part of the article thats relevant to me:

"SB 270 represents the next step in destroying the public trust doctrine for our wildlife, in which it’s held by the state for all citizens, and making us a system in which people buy access. It would end decades of cooperation that made Montana successful in managing our elk for everyone. "

It seems to not matter to enough folks here - and im suprised by that. I'll show up for what i feel is best, and contrary to most, i am open minded enough to change how i consider things. Ive yet to have my mind changed because i feel theres a major lack of a compelling argument. I want everyone, including those who just lurk here, to also see the lack of argument.

I’ve never hunted the area and have no idea the problems being faced. I do have a buddy that hunted galts couple years ago they used the ranch sxs with tracks. The dude kills elk every year and they came home with zero elk. As we discussed earlier I feel like people think they will be heading to a petting zoo to kill and load an elk whole in the truck with a tractor.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Im opposed to 139 - and 270. It is legislative interference on both fronts. I wasnt really referencing 139, just that i see it strange and rather inconsistent to be against one but not the other.

I appreciate the amendment- but killing it would be much better. It seems to me with the serious population in the breaks - our department has every tool already to manage elk provided landowners are willing to use the multitude of solutions we offer in montana. Which are more plentiful, diverse, and generous than most states.

By the way - I do not trust the department - based on the myriad of feedback employees have shared here and elsewhere and the recent media scandals. I dont think thats a unique belief, either. To me - this gives too much lattitude and seems to imply the limit to two actually doesnt do shit and there are still unlimited licences:

"Except that the department may develop a rule that describes variable license structures for antlerless elk based on management goals"

The current statute limits people to no more than 3 licenses. The amendment returns the bill to that statute. The idea that there are still unlimited tags ignores the plain language of the bill. The language you cite is designed to ensure that areas where there is a need to increase elk populations don't fall victim to blanket applications of hunting prescriptions that can denied herds unintentionally.

 

[Forkyfinder]

The current statute limits people to no more than 3 licenses. The amendment returns the bill to that statute. The idea that there are still unlimited tags ignores the plain language of the bill. The language you cite is designed to ensure that areas where there is a need to increase elk populations don't fall victim to blanket applications of hunting prescriptions that can denied herds unintentionally.

How? "Except" seems to imply exception to the limitation, no?

If thats the intent, language implying that more clearly would be good.

 

[Ben Lamb]

How? "Except" seems to imply exception to the limitation, no?

If thats the intent, language implying that more clearly would be good.

It does not imply an exception. It says that that the agency has the discretion to implement the rule.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Thats exactly what i am attempting to do. Calls balls and strikes. As you know, ive done plenty myself to be in support of the proposal and against HB139.

To be clear - the article, and every other article written, seems to reference MCS and implies/questions their funding. I wouldnt give two squirts of shit if vlad putin was funding them and like any other org - if they do something good for wildlife, im all about it. When/if they dont - ill show up and call them out on it. Count on it from me either damn way. The part of the article thats relevant to me:

"SB 270 represents the next step in destroying the public trust doctrine for our wildlife, in which it’s held by the state for all citizens, and making us a system in which people buy access. It would end decades of cooperation that made Montana successful in managing our elk for everyone. "

It seems to not matter to enough folks here - and im suprised by that. I'll show up for what i feel is best, and contrary to most, i am open minded enough to change how i consider things. Ive yet to have my mind changed because i feel theres a major lack of a compelling argument. I want everyone, including those who just lurk here, to also see the lack of compelling argument.

Edit: i also like @Ben Lamb a lot. He's taught me a lot here and in PMs. Bens done a lot for Montana wildlife over the years. But i dont feel like anyones support of anything is beyond critique.

I appreciate this. I'm happy to defend the work we do and I'm happy to take constructive criticism.

Sb270 gets a major alteration today, if the amendment is successful. That is due directly to individuals and organizations who had legitimate concerns and approached by the legislature and myself with a proposed solution.

We need to do better in building bridges rather than trying to burn them.

 

[Forkyfinder]

I appreciate this. I'm happy to defend the work we do and I'm happy to take constructive criticism.

Sb270 gets a major alteration today, if the amendment is successful. That is due directly to individuals and organizations who had legitimate concerns and approached by the legislature and myself with a proposed solution.

We need to do better in building bridges rather than trying to burn them.

Okay ben. Get your crayons out and explain it like im 5. I cant get behind how this doesnt provide safe gaurds for over done numbers of cow elk tags.

This state has had a habit of murdering the cow elk on public and the herds growing on private. I need to see more about "private land only" or something to feel confident about it based on history of elk management in the state.

 

[Ben Lamb]

View attachment 361200

Okay ben. Get your crayons out and explain it like im 5. I cant get behind how this doesnt provide safe gaurds for over done numbers of cow elk tags.

This state has had a habit of murdering the cow elk on public and the herds growing on private. I need to see more about "private land only" or something to feel confident about it based on history of elk management in the state.

The statute limits the number of cow licenses to no more than 2. You can hold up to 3 (your a tag and two cow licenses). The amendment restores that limit rather than allow for 4 cow licenses.

That is the hard line in the sand. By law, the agency cannot issue more than that.

The language in line 18 asks the agency to create a rule that will help guide how those 3 licenses are used. In testimony, the agency has said they view this as a request to draft a rule that has to go through a public process in which everyone gets to have input in how it is developed.

Senator Loge's intent here is to create a better practical application in areas like region 2 where various districts have intermingled populations but varying licensing prescriptions. For me, it makes sense to have a more regional and/or district level approach based on herd dynamics rather than just district boundaries. It can also pave the way for a more thoughtful approach to antlerless.management on public lands by bringing back the old a9 permits to reduce pressure, or have people make the decision to burn their a tag on a cow, rather than stack b tags.