Montana 2025 Legislative Session

[Forkyfinder]

Well, when your mother’s a Galt and your dad was a famous proponent of sale of public lands, that says something. Right now, though, I’m drafting a thank you email for her genuinely excellent testimony on HB 676.

On 270, my last read was that it had been amended to the point where there’s no discernible point to it—except for the huge “except” clause starting on line 18 in the last amended version.

Heres the clause @Jock Conyngham is referring to

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

When has Montanas "elk management" been anything but trying to kill as many elk for as long as possible?

Seems like a plan thats not going to work out for the average hunter when i look at our governors ideas, and whom he appointed director.

 

[Beignet]

Is the Missoula current gonna actually run an article that isn’t about a person this session? I mean that is a word salad about galt and actually doesn’t have any information on 270 in it

The Current could do a better job of mentioning it,* but I believe those Viewpoint articles are opinion pieces submitted to the publication, and not editorials written by the publication. The latter of which are typically well informed.

*For example, the NYT always puts “The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor.” at the bottom of opinion pieces submitted from outside the paper’s staff.

 

[Beignet]

It wont matter to a lot of people here apparently, but here's another article opinion piece about the problems with it. I cant decide if it’s hilarious or pathetic that the senator who brought this wasnt at all prompted to do so by problems in his district.

FIFY

 

[Ben Lamb]

A lot of stuff floating out there around SB 270 doesn't really interpret the bill correctly. Or they ignore the amendments that have been added to respond to the legitimate criticism it had early on.

The bill is here:

Bill Explorer

Explore, track, and stay informed on legislative bills in Montana with the Montana Legislature Bill Explorer application. Access detailed information, monitor bill progress, and engage with the legislative process easily from your desktop or mobile device.

bills.legmt.gov

In it's current form, here's what SB 270 does:

1.) It caps NR antlerless hunters to no more than 2 cow licenses if they have a big game combination, or 1 if they don't. The fiscal note shows this to be a reduction in NR licenses by around 550 NR elk B licenses, or roughly 10-15% of current NR antlerless opportunity. This is done in order to ensure that we don't end up in a similar situation to deer where there was significant oversubscription to antlerless licenses.

2.) Section 7 is specifically for those areas that are not over objective range, and provides legislative direction to the agency to scale their approach based on actual herd conditions and desired goals. Senator Loge added this to the original concept. In practice, what this would look like is moving back to a more restrictive approach to cow hunting on public lands in order to help keep elk on publicly accessible areas, rather than continue to add hunting pressure where elk are wanted. it also means that areas that have differing objectives (like HD's that have significant overlap due to elk movement) don't overshoot one district while being conservative in a next door district.

3.) It keeps the number of elk licenses the commission can issue the same. While this started out as an attempt to equalize management between deer and elk through commission rule, the concerns raised by organizations and hunters over too many elk tags being issued were listened too, and that piece was removed willingly by the sponsor and the organizations that supported the original form. I would again point to the fiscal note that shows that in it's current form, it would lead to a net reduction in antlerless licenses issued even to some residents. I am hoping that there is an amendment placed on the bill in the house that restores the language relative to page 3, lines 7-8.


As for the need of some folks to attack people instead of ideas, I'll just drop this here:

 

[Gerald Martin]

As for the need of some folks to attack people instead of ideas, I'll just drop this here:

[/QUOTE]


Great. Now I am looking for folks to be nasty to and tell them I’m going to eat them for breakfast….

 

[Forkyfinder]

Silly me. Giving lattitude to the commission and department has always been of great benefit for hunters and wildlife. Now you only need to convince 7 people that cow elk need exterminated and more tags need issued.

Does every bill in helena get crafted by special interest groups for a senator to go carry? Or just the worst ones?

 

[Gerald Martin]

Yes. Silly you. This will be the end of elk.

 

[Forkyfinder]

Yes. Silly you. This will be the end of elk.

Dipshit minded strategy of blasting all of em sure worked out in central montana.

The silly me was sarcasm - sorry if it was unclear. Id imagine its a common thought that legislators should legislate - not carry bills for lobbyist groups. The bill isnt even solving a problem for the legislators district.

 

[MTGomer]

 

[Gerald Martin]

View attachment 365346

Doesn’t the Legislature control how Habitat MT is allowed to spend the funds dedicated to tha account?

 

[Ben Lamb]

View attachment 365346

FY 2025 saw around $7.5 million spent from the account between conservation leases & easements. If the Land Board would support more Conservation Easements then that would have been higher.

 

[mtnkid85]

View attachment 365346

Its as if no one has bothered referring to this document titled... HABITAT MONTANA REPORT TO THE 69th MONTANA LEGISLATURE...

https://fwp.mt.gov/binaries/content/assets/fwp/aboutfwp/legislature/2025/habitat-mt-fy-23-24-report-reduced.pdf

 

[Ben Lamb]

Hearing on SB307 for today has been postponed. Fyi.

Keep after Senate Finance & Claims and ask them to table the bill.

 

[Forkyfinder]

A lot of stuff floating out there around SB 270 doesn't really interpret the bill correctly. Or they ignore the amendments that have been added to respond to the legitimate criticism it had early on.

The bill is here:

Bill Explorer

Explore, track, and stay informed on legislative bills in Montana with the Montana Legislature Bill Explorer application. Access detailed information, monitor bill progress, and engage with the legislative process easily from your desktop or mobile device.

bills.legmt.gov

In it's current form, here's what SB 270 does:

1.) It caps NR antlerless hunters to no more than 2 cow licenses if they have a big game combination, or 1 if they don't. The fiscal note shows this to be a reduction in NR licenses by around 550 NR elk B licenses, or roughly 10-15% of current NR antlerless opportunity. This is done in order to ensure that we don't end up in a similar situation to deer where there was significant oversubscription to antlerless licenses.

2.) Section 11 is specifically for those areas that are not over objective range, and provides legislative direction to the agency to scale their approach based on actual herd conditions and desired goals. Senator Loge added this to the original concept. In practice, what this would look like is moving back to a more restrictive approach to cow hunting on public lands in order to help keep elk on publicly accessible areas, rather than continue to add hunting pressure where elk are wanted. it also means that areas that have differing objectives (like HD's that have significant overlap due to elk movement) don't overshoot one district while being conservative in a next door district.

3.) It keeps the number of elk licenses the commission can issue the same. While this started out as an attempt to equalize management between deer and elk through commission rule, the concerns raised by organizations and hunters over too many elk tags being issued were listened too, and that piece was removed willingly by the sponsor and the organizations that supported the original form. I would again point to the fiscal note that shows that in it's current form, it would lead to a net reduction in antlerless licenses issued even to some residents. I am hoping that there is an amendment placed on the bill in the house that restores the language relative to page 3, lines 7-8.


As for the need of some folks to attack people instead of ideas, I'll just drop this here:

No mention of the relevant portion.

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

Wonder if this wording could have affected the outcome of a certain court ruling on elk populations and how some landowners wanted to handle them.

 

[Ben Lamb]

No mention of the relevant portion.

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

Wonder if this wording could have affected the outcome of a certain court ruling on elk populations and how some landowners wanted to handle them.

Sorry, not section 11, section 7.

You have to look at the entirety of the provision and not just cherry pick pieces of an entire section otherwise you miss a ton of relevant language:

17 (b) NO MORE THAN TWO Class A-9 antlerless elk B tag licenses during a license year, except that the department may develop a rule that describes variable license structures for antlerless elk based on management goals.

So that piece of statute clearly calls for no more than 2 antlerless licenses per person, so the notion that unlimited is still in the bill is factually incorrect.

And no, it wouldn't have affected the outcome of the lawsuit.

 

[Forkyfinder]

Sorry, not section 11, section 7.

You have to look at the entirety of the provision and not just cherry pick pieces of an entire section otherwise you miss a ton of relevant language:



So that piece of statute clearly calls for no more than 2 antlerless licenses per person, so the notion that unlimited is still in the bill is factually incorrect.

And no, it wouldn't have affected the outcome of the lawsuit.

No more than 2 "except" - what does that "exception" mean - if thats the case?

In every instance i can think of - "except" as the start of the second part of the sentence excludes the first part of sentence.

 

[Ben Lamb]

No more than 2 "except" - what does that "exception" mean - if thats the case?

It means the department has the authority to scale those three licenses (a tag & two cow licenses) based on desired herd objectives.

So it really just deals with the issues in the sponsors district, where he wants more uniformity in how licenses are issued between districts that are at or below objectives. Meaning that it gives them more direction to use less licenses rather than more.

 

[Forkyfinder]

It means the department has the authority to scale those three licenses (a tag & two cow licenses) based on desired herd objectives.

So it really just deals with the issues in the sponsors district, where he wants more uniformity in how licenses are issued between districts that are at or below objectives. Meaning that it gives them more direction to use less licenses rather than more.

To scale what exactly (other than quantity of tags per person)? How many b tags there are? They can already do that?

 

[Ben Lamb]

To scale what exactly (other than quantity of tags per person)? How many b tags there are? They can already do that?

They could take into account far more than just overall herd numbers and look at multi-district usage of elk based on migation patterns, etc so you don't over harvest elk in one EMU that is at or above OR, when those same elk utelize districts that are under OR.

The agency could do that, but a legislative directive is more meat on the bone in terms of having an outcome generated.

 

[Forkyfinder]

They could take into account far more than just overall herd numbers and look at multi-district usage of elk based on migation patterns, etc so you don't over harvest elk in one EMU that is at or above OR, when those same elk utelize districts that are under OR.

The agency could do that, but a legislative directive is more meat on the bone in terms of having an outcome generated.

Wheres the exception here?