BuzzH
Well-known member
I just received an interesting email from a Senator Wittich...seems someone here is being "blamed" for pointing out the obtuse thinking of the MT legislature.
Me, being me...decided I'd reply with some "straight talk" that was the subject line of the email in question.
My reply:
Senator Wittich,
Thank you for the letter, but I still have some major questions that need to be addressed to further understand your positions on SB 273 and also on SB 301. I should let it be known that I am a 3rd generation native Montanan, but have since moved to Laramie Wyoming. In the last 10 years I have supported the MTFWP financially through license purchases totalling nearly $10,000.
I will start with SB 273, I do not believe that ANY funding for brucellosis should be coming from Sportsmans dollars to test cattle...or elk. I've done exhaustive research regarding brucellosis and elk, there is not ONE documented case of an elk transmitting brucellosis to cattle that I am aware of. I would highly recommend a simple google search, which will result in countless pages of information and "straight talk" regarding brucellosis and transmittion between elk and cattle. Further, the publics wild ungulate populations were infected from cattle...not the other way around. I'm of the opinion that any testing being done to the publics wildlife should be paid for by cattle producers. Their cattle infected my wildlife and frankly if my neighbor to the south throws a rock through my window, I dont ask my neighbor to the north to pay for it. I see no justifiable reason for my license dollars to pay for a test that will do nothing to benefit the wildlife I pay for.
Next is SB 301. This legislation is no doubt an attack on public access via stripping the MTFWP of its commitment to support and enhance MT's wildlife, in particular its ability to purchase lands (habitat). You make the claim in your reply that there is a 2 year sunset clause in this bill. I ask you what happens when a critical piece of habitat becomes available over the next 2 years and the MTFWP, as well as the Sportsmen of the State, miss an opportunity to purchase those tracts? Our public wildlife can not afford to wait 2 years while critical habitat slips through our collective hands. Further, I feel you are not in touch with the access problems facing Montana outdoorsmen. Every year hunter numbers and participation in hunting is on the decline, and the primary reason given is lack of access, to both public and private lands. With the ever shrinking wildlife habitat throughout the United States, including Montana, it is not prudent to support legislation that would not allow the MTFWP to purchase lands. Again, Sportsmen fund the FWP through license sales and I dont know a single sportsmen in the state of Montana that would not like to see their license dollars purchase habitat.
In closing, I find the attack that the Montana Legislature has imposed on the MTFWP and the Resident, as well as Non-Resident Sportsmen of the State, to be reprehensible. It troubles me as a former Resident and also as a Non-Resident hunter, to believe that a delegation of Representatives from Montana are showing such a disregard for its hunting and fishing constituency. I wish you and your counter-parts good luck in future elections.
Sincerely,
Me, being me...decided I'd reply with some "straight talk" that was the subject line of the email in question.
My reply:
Senator Wittich,
Thank you for the letter, but I still have some major questions that need to be addressed to further understand your positions on SB 273 and also on SB 301. I should let it be known that I am a 3rd generation native Montanan, but have since moved to Laramie Wyoming. In the last 10 years I have supported the MTFWP financially through license purchases totalling nearly $10,000.
I will start with SB 273, I do not believe that ANY funding for brucellosis should be coming from Sportsmans dollars to test cattle...or elk. I've done exhaustive research regarding brucellosis and elk, there is not ONE documented case of an elk transmitting brucellosis to cattle that I am aware of. I would highly recommend a simple google search, which will result in countless pages of information and "straight talk" regarding brucellosis and transmittion between elk and cattle. Further, the publics wild ungulate populations were infected from cattle...not the other way around. I'm of the opinion that any testing being done to the publics wildlife should be paid for by cattle producers. Their cattle infected my wildlife and frankly if my neighbor to the south throws a rock through my window, I dont ask my neighbor to the north to pay for it. I see no justifiable reason for my license dollars to pay for a test that will do nothing to benefit the wildlife I pay for.
Next is SB 301. This legislation is no doubt an attack on public access via stripping the MTFWP of its commitment to support and enhance MT's wildlife, in particular its ability to purchase lands (habitat). You make the claim in your reply that there is a 2 year sunset clause in this bill. I ask you what happens when a critical piece of habitat becomes available over the next 2 years and the MTFWP, as well as the Sportsmen of the State, miss an opportunity to purchase those tracts? Our public wildlife can not afford to wait 2 years while critical habitat slips through our collective hands. Further, I feel you are not in touch with the access problems facing Montana outdoorsmen. Every year hunter numbers and participation in hunting is on the decline, and the primary reason given is lack of access, to both public and private lands. With the ever shrinking wildlife habitat throughout the United States, including Montana, it is not prudent to support legislation that would not allow the MTFWP to purchase lands. Again, Sportsmen fund the FWP through license sales and I dont know a single sportsmen in the state of Montana that would not like to see their license dollars purchase habitat.
In closing, I find the attack that the Montana Legislature has imposed on the MTFWP and the Resident, as well as Non-Resident Sportsmen of the State, to be reprehensible. It troubles me as a former Resident and also as a Non-Resident hunter, to believe that a delegation of Representatives from Montana are showing such a disregard for its hunting and fishing constituency. I wish you and your counter-parts good luck in future elections.
Sincerely,
