Montana Legislature - 2019

Ben Lamb

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 6, 2010
Messages
9,815
Location
Helena
Right now, they're suggestions that the Legislature would like to see enacted.

If FWP doesn't, then I think we can expect many of those suggestions to come back as bills next session.

Thanks for the kudos guys. This process only works well if people are willing to listen & try to find common ground. Otherwise it turns into a street brawl quickly. Like past sessions have been.
 

Straight Arrow

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 10, 2009
Messages
2,803
Location
Gallatin Gateway, MT
"Right now, they're suggestions that the Legislature would like to see enacted.
If FWP doesn't, then I think we can expect many of those suggestions to come back as bills next session."
That is true ... but as far as the likelihood of further decline in elk population and adverse impacts on hunting, the distinction has little importance.
 

Ben Lamb

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 6, 2010
Messages
9,815
Location
Helena
Yep. This is intimidation from the Legislature to FWP and I can't name a time that FWP has stood up to the Legislature.
FWP has been opposing a good number of them, to be clear. It also bears repeating that a lot of these bills or resolutions result from work upfront from the agency to reduce the egregiousness, even if the final product still sucks. This resolution, for example, could have easily been bills to enact these same things, rather than a "letter to Santa."

FWP worked hard to kill HB 161, they worked extensively on the PAL Act to make it a good bill and while I've been less than happy with some of their testimony on a few issues, I think their lobby team this session has done tremendous work to keep the session from going full-on attack mode.
 

Straight Arrow

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 10, 2009
Messages
2,803
Location
Gallatin Gateway, MT
FWP has been opposing a good number of them, to be clear. It also bears repeating that a lot of these bills or resolutions result from work upfront from the agency to reduce the egregiousness, even if the final product still sucks. This resolution, for example, could have easily been bills to enact these same things, rather than a "letter to Santa."

FWP worked hard to kill HB 161, they worked extensively on the PAL Act to make it a good bill and while I've been less than happy with some of their testimony on a few issues, I think their lobby team this session has done tremendous work to keep the session from going full-on attack mode.
Even though Rep Kerry White's HB 265 terrible conservation easement related bill was passed, it is important to point out the strong opposition, careful and thorough analysis, and well articulated information provided by FWP and, in particular, by Director Williams. In a sane and reasonable legislative world, without the partisan, lockstep-to-the-party, anti-governor caucus worship, that bill would have met a quick-table death.

'Don't know how you persevere, Ben Lamb, in such an environment, without going frustratingly nuts ... but, as others have also offered, kudos to you for being there and working, thinking, and expressing so diligently.
 

BuzzH

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 9, 2001
Messages
10,531
Location
Laramie, WY
My concern is that HR 18, a joint resolution being considered then passed by both chambers, will end up at FWP as an agency, then Fish & Game Commission as a board under legislative oversight, not as "ideas" for elk management as couched by Wylie Galt ... but as legislative MANDATES which require FWP policy changes and aggressive actions, in my opinion, not in the best interests of elk management.
I totally agree...look at the way the first couple shoulder seasons were supposed to be "experimental" with reporting prior to any expansion of the program.

The FWP brain trust quickly broke that off in the ass of not only elk, but the hunting public and expanded it to what 44 units? They lost the last shred of trust I'll ever have for that Agency...and it was pretty much the thinnest sliver of remaining trust I may have had.

There should be no expectations, other than what you mentioned, that everything in HR18 will be mandated by the MTFWP. That agency never loses any excuse they can to continue to treat big-game in Montana like a noxious weed.
 

Ben Lamb

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 6, 2010
Messages
9,815
Location
Helena
'Don't know how you persevere, Ben Lamb, in such an environment, without going frustratingly nuts ... but, as others have also offered, kudos to you for being there and working, thinking, and expressing so diligently.
I angry text Buzz with my feelings, and he calmly reassures me.

And a lot of bourbon & vodka.
 

Straight Arrow

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 10, 2009
Messages
2,803
Location
Gallatin Gateway, MT
" .... first couple shoulder seasons were supposed to be "experimental" with reporting prior to any expansion of the program." True, and never in any of the hearings or debates did the phrase "pilot program" get uttered. My take on the issue is that once Gov Bullock went on a helicopter ride with Galt and on the television news lauded the great idea of "shoulder seasons", it became a foregone conclusion that this "management" program would continue and grow. This is a sad era for elk and elk hunting, IMO.

Another example of the emphasis on slaughtering more elk was seen in the recent Senate Fish & Game Committee hearing on F&G Commission appointments when Sen. Lang suggested that the Commission get with the BLM to allow shoulder season hunting on the CMR Refuge. What became of the idea to hunt private to move elk to public? How could a member of the Senate F&G Committee miss that? (Silly, naive, rhetorical questions on my part!)
 

Ben Lamb

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 6, 2010
Messages
9,815
Location
Helena
It also takes a lot of Megadeth.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="
" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>
 

Schaaf

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 14, 2014
Messages
1,818
Location
Fort Peck, MT
" .... first couple shoulder seasons were supposed to be "experimental" with reporting prior to any expansion of the program." True, and never in any of the hearings or debates did the phrase "pilot program" get uttered. My take on the issue is that once Gov Bullock went on a helicopter ride with Galt and on the television news lauded the great idea of "shoulder seasons", it became a foregone conclusion that this "management" program would continue and grow. This is a sad era for elk and elk hunting, IMO.

Another example of the emphasis on slaughtering more elk was seen in the recent Senate Fish & Game Committee hearing on F&G Commission appointments when Sen. Lang suggested that the Commission get with the BLM to allow shoulder season hunting on the CMR Refuge. What became of the idea to hunt private to move elk to public? How could a member of the Senate F&G Committee miss that? (Silly, naive, rhetorical questions on my part!)
SA, was that from this week?
 
Top