BigGameHoundsmen.com

not color blind wrote:

dhostetler wrote:SB 397 passed 2nd Reading in the Senate 30 to 20

Nice. Now what/when is the next step in the process?

The bill passed 2nd reading today. During the 2nd reading a bill is debated on the Senate floor and amended. This bill was amended to take out bear baiting but leaving everything else intact. The next step is the bill goes into 3rd reading which is when a bill is voted straight up or down with out debate. If a bill passes 2nd reading it almost always passes 3rd reading. After 3rd reading the bill goes to the House FWP Committe, where it will face its biggest hurdle in passing.

The link below is a video of the Senate floor action today. To watch it click on the link after it loads click on SB 397

http://montanalegislature.granicus.com/ ... ip_id=2772

basko wrote:what do you mean things that idaho doesnt care about???

I was referring to the opponents arguments about all awful things that happen when you snare wolves and bait bears.

Looks like SB 397 passed its 3rd reading 28-0 today. Don't think there were any other amendments ( bear chase with hounds still in the mix).

When does it go to the FWP committe

The bill will be heard before the House FWP Committe Tue. the 9th at 3 PM. Below are the Committee Members with there e-mails.

This will be the toughest vote. If it gets through this Committee it will probably make it to the governors desk.

Name : JEFFREY WELBORN (R) HD 72 jeffwelborn@hotmail.com
Name : DOUG KARY (R) HD 48 dougkary.hd48@gmail.com
Name : FRANKE WILMER (D) HD 63 franke.wilmer@gmail.com
Name : CYDNIE ( CARLIE ) BOLAND (D) HD 23 ccboland35@gmail.com
Name : PAT CONNELL (R) HD 87 connell4HD87@yahoo.com
Name : VIRGINIA COURT (D) HD 52 vjchd52@yahoo.com
Name : ALAN DOANE (R) HD 38 alandoane@midrivers.com
Name : KELLY FLYNN (R) HD 68 hideaway1987@centurylink.net
Name : EDWARD GREEF (R) HD 90 edgreef@hotmail.com

Name : BRIAN HOVEN (R) HD 24 brian@hovenequipment.com
Name : TOM JACOBSON (D) HD 25 Rep.TJacobson@legmt.gov
Name : ED LIESER (D) HD 4 Rep.ELieser@legmt.gov
Name : JP POMNICHOWSKI (D) HD 66 pomnicho@montanadsl.net
Name : JEAN PRICE (D) HD 21 jl_price@bresnan.net
Name : RAY SHAW (R) HD 71 shaw@3rivers.net
Name : BRIDGET SMITH (D) HD 31 bridgetsmith777@yahoo.com
Name : GORDON VANCE (R) HD 67 vancehd67@gmail.com
Name : KIRK WAGONER (R) HD 77 kirk@kirkbwagoner.org
Name : WENDY WARBURTON (R) HD 34 wendywarburton@gmail.com
Name : TED WASHBURN (R) HD 69 tedwashburn007@gmail.com
Name : KERRY WHITE (R) HD 70 winwithwhite@gmail.com

dhostetler wrote:The bill will be heard before the House FWP Committe Tue. the 9th at 3 PM. Below are the Committee Members with there e-mails.

How did the hearing go?

The hearing didn't go great, the ratio of those testifying against/for was about 25:3. The last chance we have of getting this out of committee is today as tomorrow is the final vote!

Send every one of those Republican representatives a message supporting SB397. From the list posted previously of House FWP committee members, but to contact the whole committee at once follow this link;

http://leg.mt.gov/css/Sessions/63rd/legwebmessage.asp

it will take you to the online messenger, after you fill in your required info, select committee, select House FWP, write in "SB397", select FOR, write a brief letter in your words why you want them to vote FOR SB397, submit.

the message will go to everyone on the committee. The personal messages really do matter, be respectful in your request, and use spell check etc.

It was brought to me attention that this bill would eliminate lion quotas in subject areas. I had read the bill several times and had missed the following.

(i) the commission may not limit the number of licenses or permits available for use in a hunting district during a provisional season opened pursuant to subsection (1); and

So I would like everyone to be aware that if this bill passes we will see the following:

1. Bear with Hounds Season
2. Potential significant wolf population decline
3. A major lion population decline

I would say it would be easier to get lion numbers back than to get hound hunting rights back.jmo

I think this bill also does not discriminate between resident and non resident hunters in subject areas. This coupled with no quota on lions in subject areas will essentially open the doors all season long to hound hunters far and wide to come into these areas and hammer any lion they put up. Is this what we as houndsman want to be in support of. Leave the lions out of this and it is worth getting behind. I highly doubt the bear chase portion will survive till final signing. I don't know if the outside world needs to view us as being OK with killing lions like its 1920.

There is a provision in the bill to limit nonresident hound permits to 50, so that should keep the non residents from slaughtering to many lions however I know plenty of resident hound hunters that would go on a killing frenzy if tags were sold over counter. Most of Idaho has over the counter lion tags valid all winter but they also have a lot less lions than we do. The Committee will vote on the bill as soon as tomorrow and I figure there is extremely low chance that they will pass it. This is now the 2nd bill introduced to allow hounds for bears which I believe is good as it raises the issue for us. There might be more support in 2 years and we should work with Scott Boulanger the bill's sponser to introduce another better bill in the next session

look at the site on facebook called cause. These are the people we're fighting. I paraphrased the bill last night and thought the same as some. however fellas they already think were knuckle dragging drunken idiots soooo. Yes they used that language pretty sad how ignorant people really are. So if you look at it like this it mite ease the bite of letting more lions than we would like getting killed. So here goes.. right now we have a huge decline of deer elk and moose right? Wolf numbers are big as well as lion right? So if we get the wolf numbers down a bunch dont ya think the lion numbers will recover? I mean they were good before the wolf and during the wolf so wouldnt ya think they would be good again after their population was brought down and we had more deer,elk and moose. Not a huge fan for the bill but look at the positive side of it. I also have a question the for and against does that consist of only residents of mt. Not to politically savy or is it just emailed in votes from all the bunny huggers?

"the for and against does that consist of only residents of mt"

If I assume correctly, you are asking about my comment that the ratio in Helena testifying about the bill was 25:3? The testimony was in person, these people register when they go before the committee as either "for" or "against" the bill. They give their name and town of residence, on an honor system. There is no requirement to be from Montana to testify, but everyone there knows that an opinion from a Montanan carries a lot more weight than a non-resident. The anti's could theoretically be out of staters, but with the number of liberals in Helena they probably didn't even have to call in the radicals from Missoula to counter the bill.

There is no updated record of calls and emails available to the public, you have to ask the legislators on a case by case basis what the total support/opposition ratio was on a bill.

Why did the Montana State Houndsman Ass. appose the bill? When it would increase the Hound Hunting Opportunities in the state.

mostly they can't see the forest through the trees. their main opposition lies with the idea that the lion quotas will be removed and lions will be decimated. My point is that it will be much easier to get restrictions put back in place than it will to get bear hunting started. They are too focused on what "could be" and not on the big points of regaining hunter's rights.

Liberals abound in every circle.