Elk archery bill

Correct my thinking if I am wrong here. Residents have one single archery season in the breaks. Nonresidents have a split season. One drawing on March 15. Total number off applicants for Unit XYZ is @ 1600. 160 N.R.'s for 10% of the first season. 160 N.R'.s for second season. Total of 320 N.R's for 20% of overall hunter numbers. In a nutshell N.R. applicant are 80-100% successful at drawing a breaks archery permit ensuring local outfitters stay booked up. I'm hoping I've got something wrong with the way I laid this scenario out.

I don't think that with current regulations nonresident numbers are high enough to justify splitting them into two seasons in order to help the quality of the hunt if that is the rationale being given. Residents make up the majority of hunters so that is a moot point IMO.

Im guessing if they want to split the NR season, it won't be long until they do it to the Resident season then they will do it to the rifle season too.

Gerald . . . . Good point.

I remember years ago when FWP started receiving a lot of complaints with the number of NR archery hunters in the Breaks hunting districts by residents. In an effort to get an idea of what was going on, FWP initiated the unlimited elk archery permits. Data showed that NR were well above 10% of the total permits issued in many of the Breaks hunting districts. There was also a couple/few outfitters locking up land in the Breaks area stating on their websites that they had exclusive hunting opportunities for anyone who drew an unlimited elk archery permit. Outfitters were going so far as to lock up land with the anticipation of knowing they were going to get clients that would come out and hunt the Breaks. When FWP passed the limited elk archery permits, this no longer "guaranteed" those landowners who outfit or Outfitters that "guaranteed" income to go around and secure places to archery hunt.
So, if this bill passes and their are going to be 20% (total) of NR, then you will likely see the proliferation of securing private land, thus less opportunity for residents to archery hunt these same lands. It will force those residents that have a relationship and opportunity to hunt private land to be displaced and ultimately contributing to the perception of "overcrowding" and in many cases actual overcrowding. Overcrowding does negatively impact the elk and deer in these hunting districts.
Once again, the almighty dollar rears it's ugly head. I agree with Oak that if something like this were to pass, it would a matter of time before they split the archery season for residents.

Initial thoughts, there are WAY too many lawyers involved in writing these things. They reference too many other documents and trying to make sense out of it all is confusing.

I do not get the 10% for each of the seasons I see up to 10% if the number is over the desired total in an area and 10% if under that objective. 1600 total 160 NR total

I'm ok with that but I don't like having separate seasons and I would not want a resident to be restricted from hunting so that NR can hunt. While there is undoubtedly a higher cost for tags residents still pay taxes to rn the state government and all that goes along with that, including FWP.

I do not like politicians making policy for managing wildlife and I'd like to see all laws not just those pertaining to FWP be in plain English that everyone can read and understand.

So you don't think nonresidents should get any limited buck deer, bull elk, moose, sheep, goat, or most antelope tags? That's not very nice.

Blackbart said:

Initial thoughts, there are WAY too many lawyers involved in writing these things. They reference too many other documents and trying to make sense out of it all is confusing.

I do not get the 10% for each of the seasons I see up to 10% if the number is over the desired total in an area and 10% if under that objective. 1600 total 160 NR total

I'm ok with that but I don't like having separate seasons and I would not want a resident to be restricted from hunting so that NR can hunt. While there is undoubtedly a higher cost for tags residents still pay taxes to rn the state government and all that goes along with that, including FWP.

I do not like politicians making policy for managing wildlife and I'd like to see all laws not just those pertaining to FWP be in plain English that everyone can read and understand.

Click to expand...

You'd be surprised how few lawyers work on writing legislative code. Essentially, it works like this:

1.) A group or constituent has an idea, and drafts the concept

2.) A legislator is approached, and asked if they would sponsor a bill.

3.) If yes, the concept is given to the Legislative Services Office, who drafts the bill. LSO staffers are well trained professionals who research current code and statute to find out how to put it all together and ensure that it makes sense from the statutory viewpoint.

4.) The bill goes to legal review, where a staff attorney makes sure the bill will not be in violation of current code or whether or not it may have constitutional issues. If so, a legal review is written, but it does not kill the effort.

5.) THe legislator picks up the finished bill and drops it in the hopper, introducing it.

6.) The bill gets referred to commitee, has a hearing and is voted up or down. If voted up, it goes to the floor for committee of the whole to consider.

7.) 2nd reading is where the bill becomes debatable on the floor. Generally, floor debates swing few votes, as caucus positions are taken and the real work of swinging votes is done by lobbyists and legislators.

8.) If the bill has an appropriation, it goes to the appropriation committee to look at the money. There is may die, or it may move on.

9.) IF kicked out of approps, it goes back for another second reading, more debate and then if it passes 2nd, it goes on to third, which is largely a procedural vote.

10.) If it passes third, it moves over to the other chamber, or on to the Governor's office for signage, veto, amendments or allowed to become law w/o Governor's signature.

It's really at stages 1 & 4 where lawyers get involved. Most code is written by experienced lobbyists and LSO. Some of it is written by agency staff, including lawyers, but that fits back in with stage 1.

Good discussion.

Yes, the 10% would be across the board for deer, elk, pronghorn, bear and lion. Not specific for the bifurcated season in section 1. After talking with FWP, it seems this would be about a wash in terms of available LE permits and licenses as some districts become under-subscribed by residents, and NR's would get those permits (leading to a reduction in NR use in some districts). Other districts would see a slight 1-2% increase in NR use.

Setting seasons in statute is a non-starter for most sportsmen's organizations. If MOGA (who has been pushing this bill), wants to have the discussion about bifurcated seasons during the season setting process, then we would support having that conversation (although positions would be different than supporting the discussion). We should not be setting seasons in statute as that becomes almost impossible to revoke when needed, and it denies the need of commission season setting authority.

On the 10%, personally, I may be able to go with it. I don't see it as a big deal in terms of residents losing opportunity, but again, I'm waiting on the actual numbers from licensing to see what it would do.

JMG said:

Bottom line . . . . I think it would be a disaster if the MT Legislature set a practice of passing bills in an attempt to manage MT's wildlife. They need to leave managing wildlife in the hands of the MT FWP Commission, who are much more qualified to make these types of decisions.

Click to expand...

This, no matter what it says.

I think the worse thing to happen in politics is LSO writing bills for legislators for 2 reasons:

1. If they had to write and research their own bills, they wouldn't be in such a hurry to introduce a metric shit ton of bills every session. Is there really that much stuff "wrong" that needs fixing? No, its just too easy to drop an idea off at LSO and then scamper off to get drunk at the bar.

2. The legislators are not educating themselves and likely don't even understand the language of the bill or what impacts it will have, what precedent it may set, etc.

Walk the halls of the Legislature, I wouldn't hire about 75% of them to mow my grass, yet they represent "the people" and we entrust them with legislation?

WOW!

BuzzH said:

I think the worse thing to happen in politics is LSO writing bills for legislators for 2 reasons:

1. If they had to write and research their own bills, they wouldn't be in such a hurry to introduce a metric shit ton of bills every session. Is there really that much stuff "wrong" that needs fixing? No, its just too easy to drop an idea off at LSO and then scamper off to get drunk at the bar.

2. The legislators are not educating themselves and likely don't even understand the language of the bill or what impacts it will have, what precedent it may set, etc.

Walk the halls of the Legislature, I wouldn't hire about 75% of them to mow my grass, yet they represent "the people" and we entrust them with legislation?

WOW!

Click to expand...

Our LSO staffers on the Natural Resources side are very good at what they do. You have to remember that they work for the Legislators, so all of the bills must be approved by the sponsor. That doesn't mean that the bill is good, it means it reflects the sponsors desires. These folks are as non-partisan and professional as they come.

Your #1 is good though. We're way down on wildlife bill this session, with only 70 introduced right now, and probably only another 15-20 to come as revenue bills. Most of our opposition testimony is based on the fact that you don't need laws to do what folks want to do. Part of that is a failure of the NGO's for not educating legislators on how wildlife management and the commission process works, and part of the crush of bills is from freshman legislators who think that they're in Helena to save the world. We have a good crop of freshman this session, with a few exceptions. For the most part though, they've been willing to listen and work with us and have been cordial, even when we disagree. 2017 is light years ahead of where we were in 2011.

Thanks Ben sounds like you have been hanging in the chambers for quite a while. I'd like to think our legislators understand what they are introducing but I guess with the range of topics no one is an expert on everything. I have other interests that are also in legislation right now so see the process written out helps with that too.

Glad to hear the 10% is for overall hunter numbers. I don't have a problem with giving N.R.'s 10%. I can't see the rationale behind the split season though. If it is aimed at reducing crowding, I don't see it doing that. If it is a step towards eventually splitting the resident season in two as well, I don't like it.