shoots-straight
Well-known member
That's what he counts on!. He has private lands. So the elk will be pushed to those lands. At least that's what I think he's hoping for.
Hb 285
- Thread starter drahthaar
- Start date
That's what he counts on!. He has private lands. So the elk will be pushed to those lands. At least that's what I think he's hoping for.
Today the Senate resurected SB303- NO NET INCREASE IN PUBLIC LANDS.
I think it comes back for a floor vote today. Email your Senator to let them know how you feel on this one. No bew fishing access sites, winter ranges, WMAs, you name it.
Good thing I am in Reno and not Helena, or the Sargeant at Arms would be physically removing my loud mouth from the Capitol complex.
I think it comes back for a floor vote today. Email your Senator to let them know how you feel on this one. No bew fishing access sites, winter ranges, WMAs, you name it.
Good thing I am in Reno and not Helena, or the Sargeant at Arms would be physically removing my loud mouth from the Capitol complex.
drahthaar
Active member
They'll have them surrounded.
Horn Seeker
New member
This is ridiculous, I still maybe dont understand it completely though...
Would you still have to PUT IN for a specific unit, it would just be an unlimited draw?
That would be really sad to see. Some of these trophy units would disappear in one fell-swoop. wow. I know where I'd be opening morning of 2012... but I'd probably be shoulder to shoulder with 1000 other guys... wow.
Would you still have to PUT IN for a specific unit, it would just be an unlimited draw?
That would be really sad to see. Some of these trophy units would disappear in one fell-swoop. wow. I know where I'd be opening morning of 2012... but I'd probably be shoulder to shoulder with 1000 other guys... wow.
Yes. And that would be the only district you'd be able to archery elk hunt that year.
It also sets the season in statute as brow-tined bull or antlerless. This must be some of that "biological" management.
Another thing to keep in mind. Dis placed hunters. As the elk decline here in the west, and the LE areas with no wolves become un limited where do you think they all will be headed? There will be a more 13- 4- 7- 15- plates headed east then ever before.
BRI
Well-known member
The way I read the bill, it doesn't apply to the elkhorns.
"In a hunting district where, during the archery-only season, elk hunting is by drawing only or the use of a general elk license is limited to the taking of an antlerless elk, the department shall issue an unlimited number of either-sex elk permits for use in the archery-only season."
So in the elkhorns elk hunting during archery season is not by drawing only (can hunt cows and spikes) and the general elk license is not limited to taking of anterless elk (spikes too). The way I read it, this bill would not apply then to the elkhorns.
Where am I wrong?
"In a hunting district where, during the archery-only season, elk hunting is by drawing only or the use of a general elk license is limited to the taking of an antlerless elk, the department shall issue an unlimited number of either-sex elk permits for use in the archery-only season."
So in the elkhorns elk hunting during archery season is not by drawing only (can hunt cows and spikes) and the general elk license is not limited to taking of anterless elk (spikes too). The way I read it, this bill would not apply then to the elkhorns.
Where am I wrong?
(4) In a hunting district where, during the archery-only season, elk hunting is by drawing only or the use
1 of a general elk license is limited to the taking of an antlerless elk, the department shall issue an unlimited number
2 of either-sex elk permits for use in the archery-only season. By receiving that permit, the applicant:
3 (A) is restricted to hunting either-sex elk only in that hunting district during that archery-only season; AND
4 (B) MAY HUNT ONLY BROW-TINED OR ANTLERLESS ELK WITH THAT PERMIT.
It's subsection B that opens up the elkhorns, as I read it.
1 of a general elk license is limited to the taking of an antlerless elk, the department shall issue an unlimited number
2 of either-sex elk permits for use in the archery-only season. By receiving that permit, the applicant:
3 (A) is restricted to hunting either-sex elk only in that hunting district during that archery-only season; AND
4 (B) MAY HUNT ONLY BROW-TINED OR ANTLERLESS ELK WITH THAT PERMIT.
It's subsection B that opens up the elkhorns, as I read it.
BRI
Well-known member
In order for subsection B to be applicable, #4 has to be applicable first, correct? I guess the way I interpret it, 4 doesn't apply since archery elk hunting is not by drawing only (anyone with a general tag can archery hunt for cows and spikes).
As I understand, the MBA opposes this and likely will testify.
As I understand, the MBA opposes this and likely will testify.
Drake4
Well-known member
I think I am agreeing with Bri after I re-read this. Elk hunting isn't by drawing only in the Elkhorns, like he said.
Ben, I think what you pointed out is stating what the hunter CAN hunt after he receives one of these permits. But, I don't think the Elkhorns would qualify the way the bill is written.
HD 310 would though? That would not be good..
jore07
New member
What I don't understand is why any of this is contested in this manner. We have commissions and agencies that do this day in and day out and know what is best for the conservation of our wildlife and lands.
Why does government think that they know better? I'm to dumb to understand apparently.
Another question is how can a bill be sponsored by someone who it would directly help?
Again my lack of intelligence isn’t helping.
Why does government think that they know better? I'm to dumb to understand apparently.
Another question is how can a bill be sponsored by someone who it would directly help?
Again my lack of intelligence isn’t helping.
I very well could be wrong on this, but what I read is that if it's a permit draw, then it's unlimited. 380 has a permit draw for either sex:
General Elk License.
• Sep 04 - Oct 17 – Spike Bull or Antlerless Elk. Archery Only Season. Any
elk having antlers which do not branch. If branched,
branch must be less than four inches long measured
from the main antler beam.
• Oct 23 - Nov 28 – Spike Bull Elk. Any elk having antlers which do not
branch. If branched, branch must be less than four
inches long measured from the main antler beam.
– Spike Bull or Antlerless Elk. Only youth ages 11-15 and
hunters with a PTHFV.
Elk Permit. Drawing only. Apply by June 1.
380-20: 110 permits.
• Sep 04 - Oct 17 – Either-sex Elk. Archery Only Season.
• Oct 23 - Nov 28 – Either-sex Elk.
Elk B License. Drawing only. Apply by June 1.
380-80: 550 licenses.
• Sep 04 - Oct 17 – Antlerless Elk. Archery Only Season.
• Oct 23 - Nov 28 – Antlerless Elk.
380-81: 150 licenses. Only valid south portion of HD.
• Sep 04 - Oct 17 – Antlerless Elk. Archery Only Season.
• Oct 23 - Nov 28 – Antlerless Elk.
380-82: 200 licenses. Only valid north portion of HD.
• Sep 04 - Oct 17 – Antlerless Elk. Archery Only Season.
• Oct 23 - Nov 28 – Antlerless Elk.
I'm still reading it that it would open up all permit areas to unlimited bull permits where they have permits, and that it would make all HD's browtine or antlerless only.
General Elk License.
• Sep 04 - Oct 17 – Spike Bull or Antlerless Elk. Archery Only Season. Any
elk having antlers which do not branch. If branched,
branch must be less than four inches long measured
from the main antler beam.
• Oct 23 - Nov 28 – Spike Bull Elk. Any elk having antlers which do not
branch. If branched, branch must be less than four
inches long measured from the main antler beam.
– Spike Bull or Antlerless Elk. Only youth ages 11-15 and
hunters with a PTHFV.
Elk Permit. Drawing only. Apply by June 1.
380-20: 110 permits.
• Sep 04 - Oct 17 – Either-sex Elk. Archery Only Season.
• Oct 23 - Nov 28 – Either-sex Elk.
Elk B License. Drawing only. Apply by June 1.
380-80: 550 licenses.
• Sep 04 - Oct 17 – Antlerless Elk. Archery Only Season.
• Oct 23 - Nov 28 – Antlerless Elk.
380-81: 150 licenses. Only valid south portion of HD.
• Sep 04 - Oct 17 – Antlerless Elk. Archery Only Season.
• Oct 23 - Nov 28 – Antlerless Elk.
380-82: 200 licenses. Only valid north portion of HD.
• Sep 04 - Oct 17 – Antlerless Elk. Archery Only Season.
• Oct 23 - Nov 28 – Antlerless Elk.
I'm still reading it that it would open up all permit areas to unlimited bull permits where they have permits, and that it would make all HD's browtine or antlerless only.
Drake4
Well-known member
Yep..I can see your point as well. The wording that makes it confusing for me is:
"..where elk hunting is by drawing only or the use of a general elk license is limited to the taking of an antlerless elk."
And that wouldn't apply to the Elkhorns, because it is not drawing only, or limited to antlerless elk.
Regardless, it is a horsesh&% bill either way.
"..where elk hunting is by drawing only or the use of a general elk license is limited to the taking of an antlerless elk."
And that wouldn't apply to the Elkhorns, because it is not drawing only, or limited to antlerless elk.
Regardless, it is a horsesh&% bill either way.
BRI
Well-known member
Ben - I sure see what you are saying and you certainly know the process better than I do. I got this comment from another source, who consistently deals with the session, and I'm curious your thoughts.
"Since it is not a revenue bill, nor an appropriations bill, it needed to pass out of the full House and transmitted to the Senate by last Thursday. According to this link, it never got voted on in the full House. So I don’t understand how it can be scheduled for 2nd reading when transmittal was last week……..so unless they referred as a revenue or appropriations bill, it is very likely dead"
"Since it is not a revenue bill, nor an appropriations bill, it needed to pass out of the full House and transmitted to the Senate by last Thursday. According to this link, it never got voted on in the full House. So I don’t understand how it can be scheduled for 2nd reading when transmittal was last week……..so unless they referred as a revenue or appropriations bill, it is very likely dead"
Horn Seeker
New member
Yes BRI, you are correct, the MBA opposes this and will testify if someone can make it. If not, certainly written testimony.
Right now, the only legislation the MBA Supports are:
HJ 1
SJ 13
SB 184
SB 157
HB 554
HB 482
HB 335
This does not mean we Oppose all the others, Some are opposed, but some we have a neutral stance on and are "watching and listening".
Right now, the only legislation the MBA Supports are:
HJ 1
SJ 13
SB 184
SB 157
HB 554
HB 482
HB 335
This does not mean we Oppose all the others, Some are opposed, but some we have a neutral stance on and are "watching and listening".
Drake4
Well-known member
So in your opinion, what are the odds that this bill passes and goes into effect? Can the gov. veto it?
Would it be possible to introduce a bill that leaves all hunting/fishing regulation related material to FWP, so congress/senate wouldn't even have an opportunity to screw with things?
Not saying FWP is perfect, but it would be a hell of a lot better than what we are doing now.
Would it be possible to introduce a bill that leaves all hunting/fishing regulation related material to FWP, so congress/senate wouldn't even have an opportunity to screw with things?
Not saying FWP is perfect, but it would be a hell of a lot better than what we are doing now.
Given the tenor of the legislature and the overall belief that FWP is acting inappropriately by the legislature's definition, I'd say that the vote would come down somewhere around party lines, which means it passes. If it goes to the Senate, then maybe we have a shot.
Right now, honestly, everything is up in the air. We're going to have more legislation introduced because they will call it a revenue bill, plus whatever they come up with during the budget talks.
If you want the Gov to veto a bill, then CC his office w/ every email you send to legislators. He needs back up from hunters and anglers when he breaks out the red pen. Having a stack of emails opposing bad legislation is a great way to provide that backup.
Right now, honestly, everything is up in the air. We're going to have more legislation introduced because they will call it a revenue bill, plus whatever they come up with during the budget talks.
If you want the Gov to veto a bill, then CC his office w/ every email you send to legislators. He needs back up from hunters and anglers when he breaks out the red pen. Having a stack of emails opposing bad legislation is a great way to provide that backup.
Horn Seeker
New member
Jore,
It does seem like the commission and FWP should have complete control over such issues, as they are an agency/committee that is Paid to take care of such things. This process allows those that dont agree with FWP and the Commission to over-ride them. There are times I am very frustrated with the commission, but for the most part I'm very impressed with their decisions. But I am to the point where I dont believe the legislature should be used to do a dam thing concerning game laws and hunting issues.
Something like SB 184 is a little different. I am not sure of the technicalities of it, but it reads that it "allows FWP/Commission" to set archery gear as legal for taking bison. I dont think it mandates them to do that? I think there is some reg that does not allow archery gear for bison and its not a commission/fwp reg? I'll see if I can find out. Anyhow, that is a bill that the MBA recruited Van Dyke to sponsor... Thanks Kendall.
Ernie
It does seem like the commission and FWP should have complete control over such issues, as they are an agency/committee that is Paid to take care of such things. This process allows those that dont agree with FWP and the Commission to over-ride them. There are times I am very frustrated with the commission, but for the most part I'm very impressed with their decisions. But I am to the point where I dont believe the legislature should be used to do a dam thing concerning game laws and hunting issues.
Something like SB 184 is a little different. I am not sure of the technicalities of it, but it reads that it "allows FWP/Commission" to set archery gear as legal for taking bison. I dont think it mandates them to do that? I think there is some reg that does not allow archery gear for bison and its not a commission/fwp reg? I'll see if I can find out. Anyhow, that is a bill that the MBA recruited Van Dyke to sponsor... Thanks Kendall.
Ernie
