I only lurk on Hunttalk, mostly because my internet time is limited and every time I do come here three or four hours magically disappear. My name has come up, though, and I believe in accountability and dialogue, so after a friend made me aware of this thread I decided to post. Apologies in advance for its length.
By way of my bona fides I have spent my life hunting and fishing and my career in conservation and conservation science. I have an odd name, so you can find out anything you care to through google. 99% of my family’s meat diet is wild. I have testified numerous times in Helena and, for that matter, DC.
@COEngineer, 15 years of my career were as a remote employee with ERDC’s Environmental Lab as a PI in dam removal, river restoration, and fish passage. My work earned several major awards there. My co-author on the piece, Adam Shaw, is highly regarded as a sportsman, a lawyer, a father, and former chair of Hellgate Hunters and Anglers, which he helped make into one of the state’s powerhouses (full disclosure: my son is now board chair). That piece was written with the help and input of two well-known statewide leaders in the hook and bullet conservation space. My point is that you might argue with our positions, but the fact is that we have plenty of time in the trenches.
One comment asked for bill numbers—an excellent question that most readers don’t care about. To answer that I’m going to post an excerpt from a guest opinion piece written by the Butte Skyline Sportsmen’s Association. You will note some bill overlap and redundancy, which I believe was an intentional tactic to distract and wear down hunters volunteering their time to research bills and comment. You may have read Steve Bannon’s memorable line from his playbook: flood the zone with shit.
Here is the quote: “The Butte Skyline Sportsmen’s Association respectfully disagrees with many of these claims. From our perspective, the 2021 legislative session was one of the most demanding and frustrating we’ve experienced. During the 2021 session, Republican-sponsored legislation attempted to or did: commercially privatize our public elk to the benefit of some private landowners and wealthy nonresident hunters (HB 505, SB 143); increase nonresident big game hunting licenses (HB 637); reduce the public's ability to purchase land for our interests (HB 677); reduce the public's ability to comment on environmental reviews by allowing financial charge for our comments (HB 695); require hunters to financially compensate some private landowners for crop damage resulting from elk, even if hunters had no legal access to harvest those elk (HB 697); reduce the public's opportunity to pursue mature bull elk by removing long-established limited entry permits (HB 417); remove voter-approved conservation funding generated by taxes on marijuana (HB 670); complicate the public's ability to acquire private land conservation easements by adding layers of government hurdles (SB 115); remove administration of sportsmen-purchased Wildlife Management Areas and Fishing Access Sites from our Fish and Wildlife Commission (SB 153); secure a perpetual voting majority for some private landowners on the Fish and Wildlife Commission (SB 306); remove the public's ability to legally challenge disputed public rights-of-ways to public lands (SB 354); spend large amounts of sportsmen's funds on pheasant raise and release efforts that have long been proven ineffective (HB 637); remove hunter’s ability to donate to the Habitat Montana Program (amendments to SB 208); prevent sportsmen-supported Andrew McKean from serving on the Fish and Wildlife Commission (SR 61); remove sportsmen representation on the Board of Outfitters (SB 275); and overturn voter-approved Initiative 161, which made clear that the majority of Montanans don't support outfitter-guaranteed hunting license allocation (SB 143). Throughout the session, Montana sportsmen overwhelmingly commented to the Senate Fish and Game committee on bills that were not in our best interest that were moved out of committee on 7-4 party-line votes, with Republicans voting against Montana sportsmen interests. Republican avoidance of Montana sportsmen input was clearly demonstrated when sportsmen-opposed elk management legislation, that increased nonresident elk licenses, was amended into HB 637 and voted out of committee in the final hours of the session without soliciting public comment.”
Many of you are aware of the underhanded techniques that were used to frustrate resident sportsmen in the last session and in commission hearings, such as changing bills as people were literally driving to the meeting to comment (a violation of the open meeting clause of the state constitution, which mandates a two-week posting period) or sneaking bills defeated in committee through hard work into the final clean-up bill to cut off any opportunity for public input. Some of you may not know that these continue in efforts to divide or sideline sportsmen and organizations in the response to the UPOM lawsuit, future fish and game changes, and commission work.
There are intelligent people who say that Gianforte has seen the light. He certainly delivered a kumbayah message at Elk Camp in Helena this week, which I attended. He led off by noting the great acquisition in the Big Snowys, but neglected to mention it was funded by Habitat Montana, which his current budget cut off entirely from the ~40% of marijuana tax revenues that voters overwhelming approved in CI-190 by referendum. He did allocate funds from other sources to Habitat Montana, but nowhere near the level the voters wanted. And, for those who still insist he is reaching out to resident hunters and anglers, I suggest they look into the backgrounds of his last two appointments to the commission—or, for that matter, the background of his lieutenant governor and her family. Or, you might read Brett French’s 1/21 article in the
Billings Gazette documenting that although the legislature passed a cap on non-resident big game combo licenses to 17K a year many years ago, in 2021 FWP sold more than 66,000 non-resident licenses.
Many of the comments criticized Adam and me for coming down on RMEF. They may not have read the piece or missed the part where we praised the importance of RMEF’s land acquisition work, but noted it had turned its back on public land hunters and other initiatives that severely impact resident hunters. I took time more than once to call RMEF during the bloodbath of the 2021 legislative session to ask what the organization was doing—until I just couldn’t stand to hear the “we are monitoring the situation closely” pablum. As one comment above said, RMEF could simply state that they are now only interested in land acquisition. I would respect that and renew my membership. The fact that they represent themselves as more than a land acquisition outfit and do indeed get into policy work when they choose is where we take issue. It makes their absence on matters of protecting public trust wildlife, the North American Model, and resident sportsman glaringly apparent.
I hope this clarifies rather than inflames this thread, but have at it, boys. I’m single parenting my six year old this weekend (war movies, pizza, and beer!) and leave on a trip late Sunday, but I promise to get back to this thread if anyone wants to engage in serious conversation. More than anything, I would just ask elk hunters (well, all hunters and anglers) to track what is happening. This legislative session is going to be a bloodbath; the rumor is that Worsech bragged about that to a meeting of the Montana Petroleum Association (though I haven’t been able to corroborate that). It’s tedious work, but track what elected and appointed officials do and ignore what they say. Don’t trust either party. Get involved. Support those individuals and organizations who are protecting your interests—and don’t take what we still have here for granted. Others want it.
missoulacurrent.com
