HB 96 - Landowner Elk Tags Hikjacked

Ben Lamb · Feb 2, 2017

Time to kill the bill.

The House Fish, Wildlife and Parks committee tonight added an amendment on to HB 96 which would significantly alter the terms and conditions that came out of the Private Land/Public Wildlife Council by allowing landowners to designate who receives the limited entry permits or license to anyone they choose. The amendment tries to reign in the pay-to-play scenarios that we are fairly certain will happen by saying the landowner cannot receive payment. Unfortuntely, even this draft will lead to loss of opportunity and would make Montana's elk licenses a trade-able commodity.

Earlier draft amendments would have not had such sideboards, and then some sideboards were gradually added when resistance to amendments became stiff. Unfortunately, the no votes we had thought were secured did not come through, and the amendment was added 9-8. Last week, 16 sporting groups from across Montana sent a letter expressing our displeasure with the attempts to turn a consensus bill out of PLPW in to a vehicle to introduce a ranching for wildlife style program. While many groups had swallowed hard to support the bill, this amendment turns that support to opposition.

It is now time to kill HB 96

Please take some time to contact the Legislature and let the House Floor know that HB 96 as amended has broken the faith with Montana Sportsmen, and that we respectfully request that House members vote no on HB 96. You can call the Legislative phone line at 406-444-4800 or you can search for your house member here

Action alerts from various organizations will come forward tomorrow, but time is of the essence.

The amended version will be online tomorrow, as of now, it is not posted.

Schaaf · Feb 2, 2017

Had a feeling that was where this was headed. This is damn near a full time job.

Big Fin · Feb 2, 2017

These continual amendments to ideas that were formed from multiple meetings of disparate interests are why people and organizations are so hesitant to try work toward progress. Once it gets to Helena, all bets are off.

Ben Lamb · Feb 2, 2017

It is unfortunate that the committee did not take our position seriously.

Here is the letter sent last week:

Representative Kelly Flynn Chairman,
House Fish, Wildlife and Parks Committee
Montana State Legislature

1/25/2017

Chairman Flynn and members of the House Fish, Wildlife and Parks Committee,

It has come to our attention that amendments to HB 96, Revise free elk license/permit for landowner providing free public elk hunting by Representative Zach Brown (D-Bozeman) are being drafted to include a broader definition of who would able to qualify for the free license or permit. Our organizations want to be very clear that we do not support this effort or any effort to provide licenses or permits to anyone other than those currently defined in the bill: the landowner, immediate family or full time employee. We furthermore do not support efforts to allow those licenses or permits to be used outside of the property of the landowner who participates in the program, commonly referred to as the 454 program.

The Private Land/ Public Wildlife Committee, in a consensus decision, advanced the current draft legislation as a good-faith effort to increase incentives for landowners who allow free public hunting and provide habitat for elk and other wildlife. The existing 454 program has not been utilized often by landowners for a variety of reasons. This revision seeks to change that, and allow for a wider variety of hunting opportunity for the public and the landowners who allow the public to enjoy their property. Our organizations remain concerned about specifics within the bill, but we also understand the need for better relationships between the hunting and landowner community. As such, our support of this bill already represents a departure from a strong stand against allowing increased landowner licenses or permits. We appreciate the work that the PLPW committee has done to assuage those concerns while reaffirming the public trust. We also appreciate the concern that the Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks has shown in explaining how the contracting process would work.

Our concern about the possibility for abuse of this program aside, we believe that the bill, as written, provides enough certainty for us to support implementation on a trial basis. Landowners who provide quality habitat and allow the public to access their land should be adequately rewarded for their generosity. We believe that HB 96, along with other efforts to increase both payments to block management cooperators and increase the funding for Block Management achieve these goals without creating an incentive to turn our wildlife in to a commodity that could be sold like livestock or wheat.

We urge the Committee to refuse any amendment, respect the consensus decision put forward by the Private Land/Public Wildlife council and pass HB 96 as written.

Sincerely,

Montana Wildlife Federation
Montana Backcountry Hunters & Anglers
Gallatin Wildlife Association
Flathead Wildlife Incorporated
Hellgate Hunters & Anglers
Anaconda Sportsmen
Russell Country Sportsmen
Central Montana Outdoors
Laurel Rod & Gun Club
Montana Sportsmens Alliance
Park County Rod & Gun Club
Montana Bowhunters Association
Ravalli County Fish and Wildlife Association
Public Lands/Water Access Association
Bear Paw Bowmen
Helena Hunters and Anglers

CC: Governor Steve Bullock
Senate Fish & Game Committee

teamhoyt · Feb 2, 2017

So mad right now! With the phone ringing off the hooks last week over the original amendment you would think they would get the message!

Instead they do exactly what everyone was afraid of in the first place and the ink wasn't even dry on the last amendment. Apparently the commission needs an overhaul

onpoint · Feb 2, 2017

Some factions seem to be feeling empowered and emboldened......

katqanna · Feb 2, 2017

They cannot legally keep landowners from receiving payments - if the landowners want to receive payments for access, technically not for the elk.

When this issue came up with the selling of elk shoulder season and those ads in the paper I was finding and sending to FWP and the Commission, Hagener (carboning Bullock, Volesky, McDonald, Aasheim and Randy Arnold), he stated:

Fish, Wildlife and Parks (FWP) has received a number of emails concerning an advertisement in local newspapers for elk hunts on private land during a particular shoulder season. The opportunity offered includes a fee. Other than the time when they occur and the restrictions to private land, shoulder seasons are no different than elk season during archery and general rifle seasons. Just as landowners can, if they choose to charge for access then, they can charge for access during a shoulder season. Fortunately, charging for access during shoulder seasons is the exception, rather than the rule.

Shoulder seasons are intended as another tool for private land owners to help manage elk numbers in hunting districts where they are over population objective. Even though FWP has repeatedly said that everyone, including landowners, is going to have to be part of the solution, and have encouraged landowners to allow access, some may still choose to charge for access.

To respond specifically to the question asked by some on the legality of this landowner’s offering:

No, it is not illegal for a landowner to rent a cabin and/or charge an access fee to hunt on his property. That is no different than a landowner renting his property for grazing or harvesting a crop. FWP does not condone access fees, but they are not prohibited by law and are not something FWP can regulate.

Gerald Martin · Feb 2, 2017

Big difference in letting landowners receive payment for access and letting them sell/transfer tags. They own the land, it is their right to charge what they see fit for access to hunt on their property. It it not within their right to receive extra tags to kill the state's wildlife and profit from the sale of those.

Schaaf · Feb 2, 2017

When can we expect a vote on this on the floor?

The Hedgehog · Feb 3, 2017

eff'd up idea from the get go, with or without amendments. I recommend a lessons learned session.

Ben Lamb · Feb 3, 2017

Floor vote could be as soon as Monday. The amended bill still hasn't posted yet.

Sportsmen organizations were honest in our advocacy. We all had reservations, but wanted to support the PLPW. Since that option is gone, we need to kill the bill.

No lesson to be learned here. We lost a key vote and the committee didn't believe us when we said that no amendments was the only way we would support it moving forward. Honor the work of the interim, or don't. It was the committee's choice.

BuzzH · Feb 3, 2017

The bottom line is, that if there was a single shred of elk management on public lands, there wouldn't be a need to be cutting deals with landowners for access to what little remains of elk hunting in Montana.

The question I would be asking is what the hell is going to be left once hunters pound the last place elk have even a sporting chance (private land)???

Once they're all shot off private, its game over in Montana for elk.

The mission of killing elk down to less than 100K is just about complete....a few more access bills and it will be done.

Then the lesson will be learned...maybe.

The Hedgehog · Feb 3, 2017

Ben, What about this am I just not getting? Why support this PLPW team's terrible ideas? Serious question.

teamhoyt · Feb 3, 2017

Just called again on this bill requesting it be killed. It's super easy to do. Let's light up the phones today!

Ben Lamb · Feb 3, 2017

Greenhorn said:
Ben, What about this am I just not getting? Why support this PLPW team's terrible ideas? Serious question.

I don't know how it works for other groups, but for MWF bill positions are decided by the Legislative Committee, which includes several board members and recommendations from staff & lobbyists. There was a lot of concern expressed by the leg committee regarding potential for abuse. After long discussions with FWP about how the contracts would be put in place, we agreed to support, with the understanding that the bill is not perfect by any means, but we had confidence in the ability of FWP to manage the contracts, and that there was enough public participation in how the contracts would move forward to challenge and stop bad contracts.

We also attempted to get amendments for a sunset so that the program would have to be re-evaluated, but those didn't go far.Ultimately, since we knew bad amendments were coming, MWF opted to support the bill as written, while still noting our concerns, and worked with the groups in the letter above to send a clear message to the committee that no amendments would be acceptable to us.

PLPW has done good work in the past, and since this concept came out on a consensus vote, and the fact that there are some stellar individuals on this PLPW, we again felt that supporting their work was warranted.

As of today, that work was thrown out the window in favor of "Ranching for Wildlife" lite. It is unfortunate that the committee did not listen to sportsmen and now we work to kill the bill.

I want to be very clear that there were no disingenuous actions on either the part of the amendment sponsor, the committee or the organizations who worked on this. Everybody involved has been honest in their advocacy, however wrong we believe they are. We also have a lot of committee members who never have dealt with transferable licenses and do not see the pitfalls that this amendment provides, and we further have some members who believe that we are not reading the bill correctly.

Allowing a landowner to select any member of the public to give his license or permit too is a deal breaker. It will spur unethical behavior in terms of providing cash payments for the license or permit, regardless of what the intent of the amendment sponsor is, and it will lead to further erosion of the 454 program. The language regarding landowners recieving compensation for the license or permit is far too lenient and does not include, we believe, several ways to get around the no-fee requirement so that cash for tags will still occur. By limiting the bill to only immediate family and full time employees, we had a high level of confidence that the bill would be used sparingly, and would help increase access to private land (of which Montana is 70%).

As I said, sporting groups swallowed hard to support the bill, support the council, and support the modest expansion of a program that had not been utilized much up to 2017.

Kill the bill. Call and write, please.

Be nice.

The Hedgehog · Feb 3, 2017

Thanks for the details, and that's great "lessons learned" recap. I'll call in again, with the same input I had the first time.

RobG · Feb 3, 2017

Everyone could see this change of scope coming, if not now then later. To me, this is NOT about the landowner being able to make money with wildlife on their property. I absolutely believe the landowner has the right to charge for access and lease his/her land, but the legislature should not provide further financial incentives to lock out the public during the most valuable times. Think about it - the people who are already allowing the public on will be tempted to keep them out during prime times by these selling these permits. It is a disincentive to give the public access during prime time. The criteria on endorsing these bills needs to be examined keeping in mind how these things will change over time.

Block Management seems like the only thing that encourages public access without unintended negative consequences. Any other program better be rock solid before we start with new programs.

And I would like to thank the people who pushed for the amendment as they made brought to the forefront the problem with this program before it got entrenched. It should be opposed in any form.

HSi-ESi · Feb 3, 2017

Just called in to voice my opposition.

katqanna · Feb 3, 2017

I called to get a hard copy of the amendment HB009601.AHS, proposed by Rep. Kelly Flynn, the Chair of the Committee. The Secretary said that it was not available until later, after they pass it out of Committee. It might be brought up at the House Floor Session today, beginning at 1:00pm. It is currently not on the agenda.

Flynn said 1. The landowner tag could designate anybody, 2. Landowner can't receive any compensation, 3. Landowner would have to name his designees, he was setting this up to be an additional program to address some of the concerns that this was double dipping for Block Management. Then suggested they add a sunset - conceptual amendment, so Kerry White suggested a sunset of June 2019, which also passed the Committee.

Rep. Zach Brown, the sponsor, and Rep. Loge, both on the PL/PW, said they didn't want anything amended, wanted to honor the compromise originally created.

Audio, click on Executive Action under the player.

Ben Lamb · Feb 3, 2017

Amendment attached.

View attachment HB009601-4.pdf

HB 96 - Landowner Elk Tags Hikjacked

Well-known member

Well-known member

Administrator

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Similar threads

Forum statistics

Share this page