Those who hunt in Montana-Bad news

C

calamari

Member
Calisdad forwareded this to me from Pheasants Forever. I hope he doesn't mind if I post it here.

Attention Pheasants Forever Supporters,
We need your help keeping Montana?s wildlife, hunting and fishing heritage intact. HB 403 was passed by the Montana House of Representatives on Tuesday and removed the authority for Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks (FWP) to spend $12.4 million on wildlife habitat programs across Montana.
The funding for these programs comes from YOUR hunting and fishing license sales. These programs provide access and habitat improvements on land that is open to the public. It is critical that you contact your elected officials and let them know you want full authorization for FWP to implement these successful programs. To see a detailed list of programs, please see the table at the end of this alert.
ACTION NEEDED: Please contact the members of the Senate Finance and Claims Committee and encourage them to oppose this bill. You can contact your representative by calling the Capitol switchboard at 406-444-4800 or through the link below.
Send a Message to Montana Legislators
Jones, Llew (R) ? Ch Phillips, Mike (D)
Keenan, Bob (R) ? VCh Ripley, Rick (R)
Keane, Jim (D) ? MVCh Rosendale, Matt (R)
Blasdel, Mark (R) Sesso, Jon (D)
Brenden, John (R) Smith, Cary (R)
Caferro, Mary (D) Taylor, Janna (R)
Hamlett, Bradley Maxon (D) Webb, Roger (R)
Hansen, Kristin (R) Windy Boy, Jonathan (D)
Howard, David (R) Wolken, Cynthia (D)
Moore, Eric (R)

FWP Program Biennial Request
Habitat Montana $10,668,000 (lands program for purchasing Conservation Easements and Wildlife Management Area lands)
Upland Game Bird Enhancement Program $849,000 (habitat enhancement for upland game birds, including Open Fields funding, using upland game bird license dollars)
Migratory Bird Program $845,000 (wetland conservation funding, derived from migratory bird license funds)
Big Horn Sheep Auction $460,000 (habitat enhancement/land acquisition for bighorn sheep)
Fishing Access Site Acquisition $345,000
 
I read this and thought about sharing it but it seems that more than a few on here believe that conservation is best served at the state level and if Montana thinks this is best for its hunters it must be.
 
Robert, you confuse me. Do you think that deleting the whole state Upland Game Bird Enhancement Program which in part provides money for the construction of shelter belts and in return opens even more land to public hunting, that closes the Open Fields Program which again adds land open to public hunting, that even just those programs being closed, forgetting about the other money being withheld, that this action is good because it's being done at the state level? I don't believe that's what you mean but that's what I think you said.
 
No, not at all. The game in Montana is public trust just like all game in America is and is as much mine as anyone else's. I am very strongly against this but Its a state issue and a lot have made it clear on my "upland stamp" thread that that is how management and conservation should be handled, at the state level.

Btw, I am working with a Mt buddy I met through this site to plan a trip out there in Oct.:cheers:
 
I support PF/ QF with my dollars and hopefully they represent my interest in the matter.

Between this and budget amendment sa838 it seems the (R)'s are beginning to attack our sport as well. I am not trying to start a political argument here, it's just an observation I've made.
 
Last edited:
The programs they propose to delete I understand are state programs not federal or Pheasant Forever projects. The money is state money not federal money and comes to a considerable extent from license sale especially from out of state hunters. Pheasants Forever that you hope will take care of your interests is asking for your help doing that.
 
calamari said:
The programs they propose to delete I understand are state programs not federal or Pheasant Forever projects. The money is state money not federal money and comes to a considerable extent from license sale especially from out of state hunters. Pheasants Forever that you hope will take care of your interests is asking for your help doing that.
Click to expand...

I understand all of that, I read the entire press release PF sent out. I'm not sure how much pull I would have with MT legislators since I've never spent a dime or stepped foot in the state but I will let my voice be heard.
 
LOL the feds need to keep ut of ever thing but national defense. this is not a good thing. th fed f up everything they have now clue what the are doing. thats a fact.Period.
 
jmac said:
LOL the feds need to keep ut of ever thing but national defense. this is not a good thing. th fed f up everything they have now clue what the are doing. thats a fact.Period.
Click to expand...

No said the feds should or do have anything to do with this Scott. This is MT's government attacking hunters interests in their state, no one else.
 
Maybe one of the bills author is trying to make it on the ticket as Cruz's vp.:D
 
Last edited:
Robert, maybe you've never set foot in the state or spent a dime there but you apparently plan to. If this goes into effect you'll have fewer places to hunt there and, as a result, be spending less of you're money on goods and services that can benefit the local economies. You know this but I thought jmac might benefit from how the state's legislature's action affects the states economy because I have no idea how what he posted has anything to do with the subject of the PF press release.
 
This thread is heading in the wrong direction. Pheasants forever is calling on us to make our voices heard on A vital habitat matter in Mt. Simple as that.
Nick
 
I spoke with a guy in Montana today (whom Cal also knows) who's a wildlife biologist and a freelance writer and heavily involved in all things hunting in that state. He assured me that this is nothing but a political dog-and-pony show. Even if the other legislative branch were to pass a companion bill (which it won't), there's zero chance the governor would sign it.

He said it's very good, however, that PF called attention to the matter. It lets those butt-clowns know that they can't pull their shenanigans completely under the radar.
 
ditchparrot19 said:
He assured me that this is nothing but a political dog-and-pony show. [/QUOTE

dp, I was hoping that was the case and Dave should know the bottom line. What was disturbing was the number of votes it got the two times it was voted on. First reading-59 yes and 41 no. Second reading 55 yes and 44 no. The constituency they were trying to impress is apparently no friend of hunters so the large number of votes for it is bad news.
I do feel better now however.
Thanks dp
Click to expand...
 
The bottom line is, MT FW&P is short of funds. NR Elk licenses have fallen off by more then 4,000 the last couple years. NR, big game combination licenses cost MT FW&P more then $4,000,000 lost revenue per year. Figure the other $ spent by the NR's would more then take care of the 12.4 million shortfall.

Hunting license sales in MT has in the past been the MT FW%P budget. Problem is, with the shortfall FW&P and many many citizens would like to use some state revenue to balance the shortfall.

The reason NR's are not buying out the Elk licenses in Western MT now days is because, special permits in the high elk population areas are VERY difficult to get. The NF and other public lands in Western MT the elk herds have been decimated by the introduction of the Canadian Grey Wolves.
Who introduced the Grey Wolves? The Federal Government, US Fish and Wildlife Service.
So, the Feds are responsible for this. The more the Feds are involved, the more problems for hunters.
 
"The implications of this study are as follows; using the current data available wolves are not having a significant effect on elk harvest in Montana"

This study is a little dated but is quite extensive. It does confirm elk applications are down almost 20%.: http://scholarworks.montana.edu/xmlui/bitstream/handle/1/1450/HazenS0512.pdf?sequence=1

Back to pheasant habitat- If I may make an analogy: As a tradesman I wouldn't seek out federal work but if times were tough (when aren't they?) I sure wouldn't turn it down. Are some of you saying they wouldn't want federal habitat restoration assistance regardless of the climate? If so, why?
 
In looking at the PF news release there are five programs covered by that Montana house bill.
Upland Game bird Enhancement, is paid for from the state license fee with no fed funds. I guess the intent was to take that money and use it to balance the general fund.
The Big Horn Sheep Auction, is paid for by auctioning off Big Horn Sheep tags and doesn't involve any federal or state money.
The Migratory Bird Program probably uses both state and federal duck stamp money which is what it's done since the Migratory Bird Act was enacted in the 1930s with great success. I don't see how the state is involved other that the state duck stamp money which is exactly what this program was intended to be funded by.
Fishing Access of $345,000?!! That's just being cheap for no good reason other than ignorance. Montana Assemblymen get $82.64/day in salary and $109.78 per diem for a total of $192.42 per day. They meet for 90 days every other year to pass a budget. That means the fishing access is roughly equivalent to the salary 20 of them get every other year and yet they attack the program.
The big bill is the 10 plus million dollars for conservation easements and wild life area lands. I don't know where that money comes from but the feds are probably involved in some way. It does nothing but benefit wild life but I understand that conservatives have an aversion to the public owning anymore land in a state where they already own so much that is only rivaled by a vampires feeling about garlic.
 
The wildlife produced on Mt's 1mil +- CRP acres surely doesn't hurt hunters and that's a fed program.
 
quail hound said:
The wildlife produced on Mt's 1mil +- CRP acres surely doesn't hurt hunters and that's a fed program.
Click to expand...

I couldn't agree more. Sometimes programs fight each other though like ethanol incentives being more profitable than CRP payments. It's amazing how the tax code affects wildlife. Sometimes people just hate the government.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top