More Discounted Non-residents licenses for Montana
- Thread starter Big Fin
- Start date
shoots-straight
Well-known member
Any additional tags given out frees up more tags for the Outfitters clients to use. They will support. The resource is a non issue for most of them.
shoots-straight
Well-known member
Randy thanks for the heads up. This didn't make my notification list.
Straight Arrow
Well-known member
Following is the response I received from Sen McGillvray. I do appreciate his prompt and forthright reply.
I urge others to reach out to him with concerns and express opposition to this bill.
Thanks for your input. I understand your point of view as I am also a lifelong Montana hunter. This bill comes from a constituent in my district who wants to have his grandkids come home and hunt. Keep in mind, all have to have been born in MT to take advantage of this bill.
I encourage you to let your views known to the rest of the committee.
Again, I appreciate your input.
Sen. Tom McGillvray
Senate District 23-Billings MT
I urge others to reach out to him with concerns and express opposition to this bill.
Thanks for your input. I understand your point of view as I am also a lifelong Montana hunter. This bill comes from a constituent in my district who wants to have his grandkids come home and hunt. Keep in mind, all have to have been born in MT to take advantage of this bill.
I encourage you to let your views known to the rest of the committee.
Again, I appreciate your input.
Sen. Tom McGillvray
Senate District 23-Billings MT
I’m confused. Wouldn’t gramps’ lil’uns already be covered by one of the other overly generous Native or Come Home to Hunt tags?
Don't marry that Montana born person yet.
Looks to me like Randy read the statutory text wrong and none of us double checked him.
I think the grandchild piece is the significant change in 82-2-514(a), not the spouse. A grandchild originally born in MT qualifies now if grandparent is still a resident. The only new grandkids that qualify are the ones who had parents that left MT, but grandparents remained in MT.
The spouse change is very minimal. Seems to mostly cover the situation where you and your spouse are both MT born. Her parents or grandparents stayed in MT so she still has the resident qualifying relative. But YOUR parents/grandparents had since left MT so you lost your qualifying resident relative. With this new verbiage, you would now qualify through your spouse.
The spouse change is very minimal. Seems to mostly cover the situation where you and your spouse are both MT born. Her parents or grandparents stayed in MT so she still has the resident qualifying relative. But YOUR parents/grandparents had since left MT so you lost your qualifying resident relative. With this new verbiage, you would now qualify through your spouse.
Is there another state in this Nation where the physical location of your mother at the time of your birth plays a role in your ability to purchase a guaranteed NR hunting license? Who dreams of this nonsense? What about the MT resident on Active Duty who has a child overseas or at a military base in another state? That scenario hasn’t impacted a legislator yet, so when can we expect to see that change? How about a bill to do away with all the nonsense.
@Labman
That wasn't me, but - I'm not aware of any other state that does this. First it was the Come Home to Hunt bill from former Legislator Joe Balyeat, then it was expansions in that program. Then the Native MT hunt to build off of that.
It's just the nature of the legislature to have mission creep without a 360 degree view of what's happening overall. The reasoning that there are some kind of prescriptions to keep this small fail when we overlay the fact that when we stack 10-20 programs like this, we end up with a crush of new NR opportunity outside of the quotas.
That wasn't me, but - I'm not aware of any other state that does this. First it was the Come Home to Hunt bill from former Legislator Joe Balyeat, then it was expansions in that program. Then the Native MT hunt to build off of that.
It's just the nature of the legislature to have mission creep without a 360 degree view of what's happening overall. The reasoning that there are some kind of prescriptions to keep this small fail when we overlay the fact that when we stack 10-20 programs like this, we end up with a crush of new NR opportunity outside of the quotas.
Gerald Martin
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2009
- Messages
- 8,324
What about my children who have never lived anywhere other than Montana, yet have Idaho birth certificates because our closest hospital was in Idaho? So they qualify for Montana native tags if they choose to move away or are the out of luck because the first 24 hours of their lives were spent in a neighboring state?
Gerald Martin
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2009
- Messages
- 8,324
Yes, according to my understanding of current statute.
Your kids would use the evidence of both parent's residence under bullet point 2. Rather than the Idaho birth certificate.
They qualify only if YOU (parent) or some other qualifying res remains in Montana on the year they want to hunt.
Attachments
Straight Arrow
Well-known member
Yes, it is certainly confusing and concerning. The other statement which concerns me reflects a willingness to introduce a bill merely because " a constituent in my district who wants to" has solicited the legislative process for apparently a personal family favor. The result would be yet another significant change in hunting regulations and the exacerbation of the 17k license cap debacle. It would be different if Billings Rod & Gun Club or some other hunting group had agreed on the idea and approached the senator.
Again, I urge you to reach out with messages in opposition.
SAJ-99
Well-known member
Only in Montana do the wishes of a single person who wants his grandkids to be able to get cheap tags get allowed to tie up time in a legislative session.
Nope. Nowhere near doubling the program.
It is a pretty small subset of people that would qualify once you read and apply the new verbiage very carefully.
Looks to me like a legislature just tweaking the verbiage carefully to apply to a few folks that they should have included when they first wrote the language.
Straight Arrow
Well-known member
Question: How many "pretty small" subsets added in addition to the generally agreed upon cap of 17,000 licenses are acceptable to you?
Again, Nope. Both spouses need to be MT born. And then one of the spouses needs to still have a qualifying relative remaining in Montana.
Gerald Martin
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2009
- Messages
- 8,324
Wonder when 5th generation residents will get triple bonus points in the draws?
I’m sure someone feels like they want that, deserve that and would ask a legislator to carry a bill to make it into law.
I’m sure someone feels like they want that, deserve that and would ask a legislator to carry a bill to make it into law.
Montana decides that.
I'm just encouraging you all to read and understand the language before firing off emails to your legislators.
Your legislator will take your emails more seriously if they don't have to start out their reply by pointing out your misunderstanding of the verbiage.
Straight Arrow
Well-known member
That's not true. The super majority in the Legislature will decide, if this goes forward. And they tend to support their tribal members.
Agreed ... but I did not misunderstand the "verbiage" and my argument had to do with additions to the 17k cap, not the minutia of the "verbiage".
Furthermore, I do not "fire off" emails to legislators or anyone else. As experienced, seasoned, knowledgeable lobbyist, Mr. Lamb, will tell you, write emails which are polite, tactful, and thought-out.
So I urge you, nygc, to do so in apparent support of this bill. Question: Are you the "constituent"?
Last edited:
