RobG
Well-known member
Can someone with connections to MFW or RMEF ask them why they support this?
Landowner Elk Tag Bill
- Thread starter Schaaf
- Start date
I'll try to answer as best I can:
1.) A hunter would be someone selected through the random draw. I'm asking FWP for clarification on the point I may have misheard, as discussed last night. The Landowner would have no say in who the hunters were, unless the contract gave them right of refusal for personal reasons. Then, another random hunter would be drawn.
2.) As I understand it, the contract would spell out where, when and how hunters access the property. That would include timing, where on the ranch, etc. Each contract would be individually negotiated, and would then be up for public comment. I can't see groups like PLWA, MWF, MSA or most local rod & gun clubs standing by for contracts that would be detrimental and counter to the spirit of the bill. The scenario where someone runs the elk off the place seems like a lot of work for a license. It would require public oversight during the contract negotiation phase to ensure the public doesn't get the short end of the bargain, which is provided for.
3.) Personally, I would welcome the opportunity to turn out sportsmen if the Wilks Brothers asked for licenses or permits. I think we'd have some fun with that hearing, don't you? It would be a fantastic way to highlight the potential abuses that could occur under this (or any) program. But - just for a devil's advocate - what if the Wilks brothers offer 100 to 1? Random draw, 100 hunters in a managed setting for either cows or ES LE permits, for 1 license. Is that a good or bad deal? I'm as dead set against the Wilk's anti-public land agenda, and maybe we should use someone else, but for our purposes, let's just use them.
4.) The bill leaves a lot discretion to FWP as to how these contracts would be negotiated. That gives the public a lot of opportunity to influence how they would be implemented.
ShootsManyBullets
Well-known member
Put this turd of an idea in a bowl of water and flush it.
BuzzH
Well-known member
From experience, if the exact details are not laid out in the legislation...and any loophole is left, anything open to interpretation, there will 100% be abuses.
Frankly, I don't trust the FWP or the Landowners to live up to the spirit of this bill. Hunters have been bent over for decades from bad legislation, from landowners, from outfitters, and from the FWP. Years of abuse has lead to distrust.
As per usual, in a 20 minute discussion with people that actually buy elk licenses and hunt, and have 2 firing brain cells, the problems are exposed with this legislation.
It wont be fixed or changed if passed. Abuses will not be corrected. Want proof? How is it going repealing Barrett's bill that requires the FWP to manage within elk objectives?
Nothing changes in Montana...
Frankly, I don't trust the FWP or the Landowners to live up to the spirit of this bill. Hunters have been bent over for decades from bad legislation, from landowners, from outfitters, and from the FWP. Years of abuse has lead to distrust.
As per usual, in a 20 minute discussion with people that actually buy elk licenses and hunt, and have 2 firing brain cells, the problems are exposed with this legislation.
It wont be fixed or changed if passed. Abuses will not be corrected. Want proof? How is it going repealing Barrett's bill that requires the FWP to manage within elk objectives?
Nothing changes in Montana...
Last edited:
HighWildFree
Well-known member
Some of those good guy farmers and ranchers are the ones that pushed the hardest for this shoulder season. It wasn't out of state landowners. It was these multi-generational ranchers that always get put up on a pedestal. Back in the day ranchers could do no wrong and a lot of people still act this way. Yes ranchers need to make a living, but not at the expense of everyone else.
As you well know, allowing public comment is much different than allowing a public 'veto'. The discretion you mention is #4 allows them to ignore public comment if they choose to.
The agency would negotiate the contract. The commission would have to approve it.
Between those two steps is how sportsmen & women influence the decision.
That's the way is supposed to work. Its been a long time since things worked like they are supposed to.
So I was wrong:
The hunters who are eligible for this are pulled from the successful applicants, not the unsuccessful ones. My apologies for that confusion. I misheard what was said.
Did Paul Ellis take over TJ's account?
The hunters who are eligible for this are pulled from the successful applicants, not the unsuccessful ones. My apologies for that confusion. I misheard what was said.
Did Paul Ellis take over TJ's account?
Did Paul Ellis take over TJ's account?
I seem to have misplaced my rose colored glasses, do you have an extra pair?
I seem to have misplaced my rose colored glasses, do you have an extra pair?
Yes, I'l give them to you on the 30th when you come to Helena for the rally.
belly-deep
Active member
- Joined
- Oct 31, 2009
- Messages
- 3,459
I haven't seen much ability to influence the FWP when they make up their minds. I've been to the meetings. They don't listen.
teamhoyt
Well-known member
This is spot on! Also this is a ridiculous amount of bs and taxpayer time and money to "supervise" each individual contract. if this ever took off the Fwp. Rod and gun clubs would need full time staff to approve and provide oversight on all the contracts. This bill needs trashed! As buzz said, in 20 minutes there are more problems than I don't know what!
406Family
Member
Same.
If anyone is interested. Starts at 33 min.
http://montanalegislature.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?clip_id=20317&meta_id=166084
If time constraints, skip to 58 min for committee questions.
http://montanalegislature.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?clip_id=20317&meta_id=166084
If time constraints, skip to 58 min for committee questions.
The Hedgehog
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2000
- Messages
- 11,597
The details will be in the "contract", and there will be some "flexibility".
FWP cannot manage abuse by BMAs. This will be way, way worse.
Chuck Denowh's comments - Wow, what kind of paint does this guy sniff? "Less than 4% of landowners who have elk on their property don't allow public, non-paying elk hunting." Is that so?
Breadcrumbs for the peasants. Many will be happy with this access success story in the making.
FWP cannot manage abuse by BMAs. This will be way, way worse.
Chuck Denowh's comments - Wow, what kind of paint does this guy sniff? "Less than 4% of landowners who have elk on their property don't allow public, non-paying elk hunting." Is that so?
Breadcrumbs for the peasants. Many will be happy with this access success story in the making.
Straight Arrow
Well-known member
That is difficult to believe. There was a stab at it in the hearing, but that statement was not clarified or substantiated with explanation and definition. I suspect that "public, non-paying elk hunting" includes elk hunting by relatives, employees, close friends ... but not really "public" hunters in many, if not most cases which UPOM would cite.
If that percentage was in fact calculated by FWP, then it certainly warrants explanation and substantiation.
