Montana HB 907

[Carnage2011]

907 will actually amplify that. The discrepancy between LO odds whether NR or R non landowners is because they qualify for LO preference and has no connection to 635.

907 will give extra bonus points to wealthy individuals just because they own property….

I see what you did there…

 

[Forkyfinder]

907 will actually amplify that. The discrepancy between LO odds whether NR or R non landowners is because they qualify for LO preference and has no connection to 635.

907 will give extra bonus points to wealthy individuals just because they own property….

Right on cue. Deflect.

 

[Gerald Martin]

Okay. Why does 635 award NR LOs an extra BP and R LOs nothing? Thats relevant enough for you to either deflect or ignore im sure.

I’m fine with awarding R LO’s an extra bonus point if enrolled in BM. That doesn’t require a repeal of 635 to do that.

Run that on its own merits in a separate bill and I will testify in favor of it.

 

[Gerald Martin]

Right on cue. Deflect.

That was in the pipeline before you posted.

 

[Forkyfinder]

I’m fine with awarding R LO’s an extra bonus point if enrolled in BM. That doesn’t require a repeal of 635 to do that.

Run that on its own merits in a separate bill and I will testify in favor of it.

How about a bonus point for EHAs? Under legislation you helped pass - NR LOs get a gen tag, game a permit via a BS bulls for billionare 454 program, and then have improved odds of even skipping that level of access?

That was a great precident. I hope 907 can pass and 635 will be repealed so that EHA (454) participants arent doubly rewarded and/or R LO dont ask for the same.

Under 907 - an EHA doesnt get you an extra BP for NR or R LO.

 

[Elky Welky]

Not one resident hunting group supports 635 at this point. The only people opposing HB 907 are the lobbyists hired by the wealthiest nonresidents (and Gerald).

FIFY Forky.

 

[bigsky2]

If youre a NR DIY guy ive got no idea why youd be for 635.

Under 635:

2500 acre NR LO skip preference points and can "hunt their own property" including leased public land. Note that a majority of ranches for sale in MT over 2500 acres lease some public land. However - this is plainly not enforceable in any fashion and notably no means of verification of that was included in 635 originally. The NR LO using this program directly take from the tags allocated to you as a NR up to 2550 elk gen tags.

Under 907:

No way around PP and getting a license except enrolling in block management with an option to purchase an extra bonus point (that has significant value if theyre applying for a LO permit in their district). The landowners enrolling in this do not directly count against the cap of NR.

Although as R, i dont want more NR tags (no offense) if we are to award above the cap a NR enrolled in BMA is one i dont mind rewarding above the cap.

Ultimately - theres two ways to improve crowding, reduce hunters or grow huntable acreage. 635 over sells a reducing hunters at the expense of NR diy opportunity and 907 (repeal and replace) focuses on adding huntable acreage.

BHA is a vocal critic of tags that circumvent the cap (as they should be), yet they support it in this case. Makes no sense to me.

 

[Forkyfinder]

That’s an enforcement issue, not a bill issue. I think that could be solved through the department.

Notably - any enforcement mechanism (different type of permit at the very least) was left out of the legislation. It would have been simple to include and wasnt.

 

[Forkyfinder]

BHA is a vocal critic of tags that circumvent the cap (as they should be), yet they support it in this case. Makes no sense to me.

Sure.

Ultimately - theres two ways to improve crowding, reduce hunters or grow huntable acreage. 635 over sells reducing hunters at the expense of NR diy opportunity and 907 (repeal and replace) focuses on adding huntable acreage.

Here - basic math.

27 million acres of public land + 7 million acres of BMA. 34 million acres of huntable land. 300k hunters. About 100 acres per hunter.

Almost every BMA is more than 100 acres.

 

[bigsky2]

Sure.

Ultimately - theres two ways to improve crowding, reduce hunters or grow huntable acreage. 635 over sells reducing hunters at the expense of NR diy opportunity and 907 (repeal and replace) focuses on adding huntable acreage.

Here - basic math.

27 million acres of public land + 7 million acres of BMA. 34 million acres of huntable land. 300k hunters. About 100 acres per hunter.

Almost every BMA is more than 100 acres.

I just don’t see a lot of NR landowners enrolling their land in BM.

 

[Forkyfinder]

I just don’t see a lot of NR landowners enrolling their land in BM.

If not a single extra one does because of it, there is still benefits of 635 being repealed.

EHAs being granted an extra BP is a joke that you can thank the 635 architects for.

Why enroll in BMA, at all, when a 454 gets you the same benefits?

 

[Forkyfinder]

Boy - when a chair from a New Mexico wildlife org calls and begs you to not eplus Montana - i think that says a lot.

 

[Elky Welky]

I think the most difficult thing about these hearings is there isn't an opportunity to object. You can watch a lobbyist lie through their teeth and all you can do is watch and hope the overwhelming testimony in support and careful dismantling of some rather absurd arguments from the last hearing (boldly restated by opponents to 907 today: that these landowners deserve guarantees, and that voluntary programs somehow "force" people to enter their land into access programs).

I was happy to see some lifetime ranchers and proud veterans stand up for real Montana values, and not buy all the disingenuous bs people keep pushing to somehow justify handouts for the rich.

I will say the guy who testified before Gerald made the first good point I've seen in opposition, and that is that it could privilege NR landowners over resident landowners in the permit draws. The benefits of 907 appealing 635 still outweigh this point, but it was a good one that didn't rely on some kind of false notion that giving away our wildlife to the king will make him smile upon us.

 

[MTelkHuntress]

If anyone wants to listen in on the hearing.

Senate Fish and Game

Senate Fish and Game - Video

sg001-harmony.sliq.net

 

[Forkyfinder]

I think the most difficult thing about these hearings is there isn't an opportunity to object. You can watch a lobbyist lie through their teeth and all you can do is watch and hope the overwhelming testimony in support and careful dismantling of some rather absurd arguments from the last hearing (boldly restated by opponents to 907 today: that these landowners deserve guarantees, and that voluntary programs somehow "force" people to enter their land into access programs).

I was happy to see some lifetime ranchers and proud veterans stand up for real Montana values, and not buy all the disingenuous bs people keep pushing to somehow justify handouts for the rich.

I will say the guy who testified before Gerald made the first good point I've seen in opposition, and that is that it could privilege NR landowners over resident landowners in the permit draws. The benefits of 907 appealing 635 still outweigh this point, but it was a good one that didn't rely on some kind of false notion that giving away our wildlife to the king will make him smile upon us.

I heard today that was amended?

 

[Elky Welky]

I heard today that was amended?

They didn't present it with an amendment, which they would need to do.

Ah, they did raise a couple of amendments that make a ton of sense, like making it apply to residents and NRs, which is truly fair.

 

[Gerald Martin]

No amendments presented. Unless something is introduced on the floor if this gets through committee, all of my objections to why 907 won’t accomplish its claims remain.

 

[cgasner1]

They didn't present it with an amendment, which they would need to do.

Ah, they did raise a couple of amendments that make a ton of sense, like making it apply to residents and NRs, which is truly fair.

I caught at the end of it they changed it to I believe just land owner

 

[Gerald Martin]

No formal amendments were presented. At the very end the bill sponsor mentioned there might be amendments if it makes it through committee.

@Labman, was that you that testified asking for the R LO inclusion? If so, you did well.

 

[Forkyfinder]

Is it common for legislators to call people that they dont represent and get their feedback on legislation?

I guess i expected them to be interacting with their constituents - not people with a lot of money out of state.